Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nug (talk | contribs) at 21:18, 9 June 2009 (→Neo-Nazism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

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

Additional notes:

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

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

Chris Garrett

Chris Garrett - This seems to be more like advertisement for a business than it does a legitimate entry // — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poormanspantheon (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the notification; given the lack of reliable sources in the article and the dubious claims to notability, I have proposed the article for deletion. The article was previously proposed for deletion but survived. The search term "Chris Garrett" gets many hits on Google News but it is unclear whether any of these lead to reliable and significant coverage of this topic. I would send it to WP:AFD but I haven't got time to trawl through the sources.  Skomorokh  06:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Currently at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Chris Garrett. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Defamatory material at Qaboos bin Said al Said

I am having trouble removing poorly sourced and highly defamatory and harmful material at Qaboos bin Said al Said, the king of Oman. Please see the edit history of the article. The defamatory material is based on a source which does not directly support the claim and the source is talking on the strength of three unnamed persons. The talk page is also full of discussion on the defamatory material and it too may require cleanup. (I have not participated in the talk.)Civilizededucation (talk) 05:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I've cut down the material in question and added a comment on the talk page.Martinlc (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Martinlc, I apreciate the fast response and support. I am still somewhat concerned about keeping the link because it indulges itself in a baseless allegation. The talk page also contains such links.Civilizededucation (talk) 11:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

My intention was to limit the influence of material from a marginal source as evidence of fact in the main article WP:UNDUE, but the existence of the source cannot be denied.Martinlc (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(Although I have some mild reservations) I think we may regard this as resolved.Civilizededucation (talk) 14:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to remove the Talk discussion of the topic, but don't know what the procedure is.Martinlc (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything that needs deleting. Rd232 14:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The section on Sexuality which retails unsourced or poorly sourced rumours: it seems inconsistent to remove then from the entry but keep them on the Talk page?Martinlc (talk) 14:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It's normal to keep things like that on the talk page, as part of a discussion archive. Exceptions are sometimes made, but only rarely. Anyone else want to have a look? Rd232 20:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(deintenting) The guidelines regarding Talk pages are here.Civilizededucation (talk) 07:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Juggalo

There is a claim on the Juggalo page by ICP founder/Psychopathic records exec that a few third party people are fans of his music. Here is the actual sentence, "In his book Behind the Paint, Joseph Bruce claims that British band Chumbawamba, rock bands Foo Fighters and Slipknot, guitarist Slash, and John Cafiero have identified themselves as Juggalos." Well the book, Behind the Paint is a self-published book (by his record company, Psychopathic Records) and it shouldn't be used as a primary source on the claims because it goes against the self-published sourcing rules. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:SELFPUB#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves I believe that it violates both rules one and two for self-published sources and is therefore not an acceptable primary source. The rules are as follows, 1. the material is not unduly self-serving;2. it does not involve claims about third parties. Could somebody please weigh in on the issue. I would like to see secondary sources for each claim or a disclaimer at the end of the sentence stating that these claims have not been independently verified. The editors on the page accuse me of being on a "crusade to belittle the article" which is ludicrous. I apologize if this is improperly formatted or hard to follow. Thanks 72.66.109.24 (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• The material is not self-serving in any way. There's nothing wrong with the source at all. Behind the Paint is not "self-published" by any definition provided by Misplaced Pages. Please stop. You do not own the article, and you do not get to edit the article to fit your own POV. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 15:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC))

I'm sorry, Behind the Paint fits the definition of self-published very well. It was published by the author's company, he paid to get his book published. I don't know where pov comes into this because I would be quite happy to have it in the article with corroborating sources. If any reliable sources back up his claim than I have no issue with self-serving claims. The material itself could very well be true, I just want to see proper sourcing in claims related to third parties. Thanks. 72.66.109.24 (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Once again, the material is in no way self-serving. Bruce doesn't profit from any of the cited individuals being Juggalos. That's ludicrous. Secondly, there's no difference between Behind the Paint and any other music biography in terms of reliability. "Self-published" would only apply to material written by non-notable individuals and published out of their own house. Psychopathic Records is a popular independent music label. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC))

Unless I'm missing something, Juggalo isn't a biography of a living person. Exploding Boy (talk) 02:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That's true, but the third party claims being made are in direct reference to living people. I was sent here from the talk page, is there a better place for this? 72.66.109.24 (talk) 10:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is really a question of Reliable sources: WP:RS, but Ibaranoff is corrext that WP:SPS does not apply to books like this.Martinlc (talk) 10:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

How is this not a self-published source. The guy published it himself. From the page, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable." The book was published by "Psychopathic Records" which the author just happens to be one of the owners/founders of. How does that not fit the situation? 72.66.109.24 (talk) 10:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't fit the situation here because the purpose of the policy WP:SPS is to exclude from encyclopedic content material that is the product of a single individual. Any fool can write a blog, and many do. The policy recognises that when looking for verifiable information from reliable sources, those sources must also have some credibility. There is no simple way to assess whether any given SPS statement is valid or not: it may be the result of careful thought over many years, or it may have written as a spoof or fiction in seconds. Publishing a book, even by a company someone owns, is a more complex and serious undertaking: it has involved more people, more checking, and entails some corporate risk (for a company to publish a book whose contents are worthless would damage its reputation). The policy therefore allows the use of this type of source as more intrinsically likely to be reliable than SPS. This is a separate question to how much weight the statements it contains should be given; obviously they will have a certain bias. But that is not an SPS issue and to discount it as a source is wrong.Martinlc (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• I actually believe this is a clear-cut case of a self-published source with self-serving material that involves claims about third parties. Let's make sure this is clear. The author is Joseph Bruce, who is a member of the rap group Insane Clown Posse in which he performs under the name "Violent J". He wrote a book which was published by Psychopathic Records, a record label of which he is one of the founders. Psychopathic Records' most prominent recording artist is the Insane Clown Posse. The book claims that various famous people are fans of the Insane Clown Posse. It is in both the author's interest and the publisher's interest to promote the idea that respected musicians are fans of the Insane Clown Posse, because that brings more respectability to the group. Psychopathic Records has no particular reputation as a book publisher that I can find; in fact, I looked at their online store, and ICP: Behind the Paint is the only book they have for sale. Hence, I would not support including the claims that Chumbawamba, Foo Fighters, etc. are fans of ICP unless that can be sourced to independent reliable sources. I generally agree with the points made above by User:72.66.109.24. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much Metropolitan90. You said it better than I could. I've been saying it so much for the past week that I have a hard to properly articulating/summarizing the situation in one go. What you've said above is exactly how I feel about the situation. I think this is a clear cut case and I would respectfully ask Martinlc to read Metropolitan90's statement. I'll have more of a reply soon, work is interfering with my personal life and that includes disputes on wikipedia. Thanks. 72.66.109.24 (talk) 12:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

perhaps a hypothetical example would clarify my position. Brown publishes a book in which she describes her expedition climbing Mount Everest; she describes various sightings of rare bird species in the book. If the book was published by herself through a vanity press, Misplaced Pages would say that this information cannot be used to demonstrate the distribution of these species if controversial. If the book was published by a university press (who presumably would undetrake some form of checking and review of the content), then Misplaced Pages would allow it to be used (note that this would Primary Source and its used would be limited). My point is that SPS as a policy is intended as a shorthand to rule out information of unknown reliability. In terms of specifics, the issue appears to be quite narrow - do these other artists identify themselves as fans? If they don't, and there are no independent sources saying they do, we are left with various formulations of "X says that Y is a fan of my work". In which case the neatest solution, accepting the book as Not SPS but not independent, is to re-word the text to read "X in his autobiography says that Y, W and Z are fans of his work" which is true as a statement even in X is wrong in saying this.Martinlc (talk) 13:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey Martin, I see what you are trying to say and I've also seen the changes you made to the page. I, for one, am okay with the changes. I've always been open to a compromise and am fine with dropping the issue as long as the text stays how it is. However, as Metropolitan90 outlined above, I still believe this to be a very clear cut case of a self-published source that is self-serving and makes claims about third parties. The reason that your hypothetical example above doesn't directly compare to the situation is that the Juggalo quote involves third parties who fall under the BLP rules. The BLP rules are far more strict than the normal sourcing rules and for good reason. Misplaced Pages could hypothetically be sued for libel because of the "he said, she said" nature third party claims. It really breaks down to just being self-serving gossip about another person. That being said, I don't think[REDACTED] would be sued over this information but I think it's necessary to keep the disclaimer I added to the end of the sentence. I am fine with that but other editors would like to remove that and claim it as fact. So, really, I believe that the quote is a clear violation of BLP rules and should be immediately removed, but since I don't have that power, the disclaimer is fine. 72.66.109.24 (talk) 01:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You claim that you are open to the compromise offered, which already appears on the page. Yet you've repeatedly tried to add a disclaimer even though more than one editor has told you that the current text, which states who said that the individuals listed are Juggalos, and where he said it, is fine. This is why I do not believe your claims of good faith. You say one thing, but your edits reflect a completely different viewpoint. I wonder if you are just a fan of one of the individuals mentioned, and don't want to believe that they are Juggalos. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC))

• As previously established, "Juggalos" are not merely fans of Insane Clown Posse, as the group members refer to themselves as juggalos. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC))

That is so far from being "previously established" that it strains my belief that you are editing in good faith. 72.66.109.24 (talk) 01:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

As opposed to the anonymous editor whose only apparent goal is to ridicule an article that he does not like and has made no attempt to collaborate or cooperate with other editors, and has refused all valid compromises? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

So weird. How am I trying to ridicule the article? I've been trying to collaborate and compromise throughout this entire process. You make zero sense. 72.66.109.24 (talk) 02:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you have been responding to every post by editors who do not agree with your opinions by telling them that they "make zero sense" proves otherwise. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

Yeah, it's because I don't assume good faith with you anymore. I've tried to work with you for weeks. You're not trying to improve the article, find better sourcing or have a constructive conversation. You're a detriment to the conversation and you really don't make any sense. That's just how it is. 72.66.109.24 (talk) 11:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Except that I've been a respected editor on here for a long time, and you've essentially been trolling these pages for about a week, and have made your presence incredibly difficult to avoid by reverting any edit that you personally do not agree with. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

Except that you've been blocked for editor warring, 3rr violations and contentious editing. I have been respectful,using the talk and leaving edit summaries. Not so much from you. All I've been looking for is proper sourcing and trying to compromise and find consensus. You seem to have true ownership issues. Thanks. 72.66.109.24 (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing you've said has any basis in reality. What you've been doing is repeatedly reverting to your own favored version and telling anyone who doesn't agree with your edits that their statements make zero sense. I have had several articles featured, and you are a troll. Don't play the blame game here. Your edits have been more contentious than any edit I have ever made. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

I don't know what User:72.66.109.24 has posted elsewhere, nor does it matter to me in this particular case. But 72.66.109.24 is correct about the use of the quote under discussion. The fact that the band members call themselves juggalos is not really relevant to the quote under discussion. Even if the band members would not be described as "fans" of themselves, they certainly are supporters of the music and subculture surrounding Insane Clown Posse, since they themselves promulgate that music and subculture. The question is whether the say-so of one of the group members is sufficient to identify other people as supporters of the ICP music and subculture. According to Misplaced Pages policy, it isn't. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

72.66.109.24's claims that the material is self-serving are nonsense. If you were a recording artist, what would you gain by claiming that the members of Slipknot are fans or supporters of yours, or share a similar belief as you? Bruce could have claimed that Pearl Jam were fans of his, being that he is a fan of that band, but he didn't. I removed the disputed text because I am tired of this editor's persistent edit-warring and harassment, and I wish to focus on other projects. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC))

Pot meet Kettle. Plus your argument probably makes less than zero sense. I really don't understand why you won't listen to anyone else. 72.66.109.24 (talk) 11:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't go away mad, just go away. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC))

SELF-PUBLISHED, PRIMARY SOURCES SHOULD NOT BE USED WHEN MAKING REFERENCE TO LIVING PEOPLE. This is black and white, people. JBsupreme (talk) 06:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Except that this book doesn't fit the distinction, as it's a biography by a notable individual. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC))

I see you have left the IP several vandalism warnings, mind sharing the diffs of the vandalizing edits? Also, Ibaranoff, you know better than to be calling someone editing in good-faith a troll, like you did above. This seems like a very clear-cut issue, if a better source cannot be found the claim needs to be removed. The allegation this IP is harassing you seems unwarranted as well. Landon1980 (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Good faith cannot be assumed when the editor repeatedly responds to other editors who disagree with him by telling them that they "make zero sense", that they "won't listen to anyone", and clearly seems to have an agenda. The editor has shown to be more interested in ridiculing the article than for editing in good faith. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC))

This si definitely a SPS, and the information must be removed unless another source can be found. Those arguing that it's not a SPS because a major label published it are POV-pushing. The author is partial owner of the publishing source, therefore, the book is self-published. it's not too hard to understand, people... Wikiwikikid (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Alan Harvey

Is quite likely despicable, but I would hope that WP:BLP still applies. He is currently repeatedly tagged as "racist" albeit there seems remarkably little in the way of RS cites to make that tag currently apt. (actually, there is remarkably little in the way of current RS cites in that article) What criteria are required to label a person as "racist" on WP? Is a current reliable source required? Or is the holding of "right wing" views sufficient? Collect (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Technically, he isn't tagged as being racist but as being a topic of the racism debate. Looking at the template, I don't think it belongs on any articles similiar to Harvey's because of the BLP concerns. You did good in removing it. I can think of very few situations where we can label a person as racist (perhaps if he claims so himself and this is documented by reliable sources). We can document that people are alledgedly racist but templates assert facts that couldn't be reasonably contradicted. I don't think that racism template should be used in any biographies, which thankfully it appears not to. ThemFromSpace 14:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I take ThemFromSpace's point that no one else is included under this category so it would be wrong to add someone else. I note however that many biographies show the category "racism", e.g., David Duke. So while we are here, I wonder if we could resolve whether that would be allowed in this case.

According to the article (and its links) Alan Harvey has been active in the far right, racist British National Front, the National Party (UK, 1976), the Herstigte Nasionale Party, and the Conservative Party (South Africa). He was editor of the South African Patriot in Exile, that advocated "British and European Imperialism" and "Separate Development" while opposing "multi-cultural societies". He is currently chairman of the Swinton club that advocates "the re-establishment of civilized European rule throughout the African continent," and was condemned for by the British High Commission in South Africa for spreading "hate literature". The Four Deuces (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You need reliable sources for making charges in BLPs. And the fact is that the categorization of people as "racist" is not to be undertaken without exceedingly good basis. Therefore I would consider any such tag on a person to require striong consensus as well as non-questioned sources. Thanks. Collect (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I put the template there and I offer apologies if it was incorrectly put. What I was looking for was some sort of general template category for 'white supremacy'. I saw there was one called 'White Nationalism' but it seemed specifically American whereas the 'Racism' one included white supremacy and apartheid. It seems to me that the subject holds views on race and dominance but I accept that does not automatically indicate that the subject is a 'racist'. Is there a 'racialism' or some other more appropriate category instead perhaps? --JHumphries (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

William Oefelein

William Oefelein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - William Oefelein was not fired by NASA. He was not dismissed by NASA. He is retired from military service, and his status should read, "retired". Stating that he was fired or dismissed is defamation and libelous. Reference statements from NASA and Oefelein's own press release dated May 2007, which addressed the libelous remarks created by the media. Misplaced Pages is now informed of this libelous statement, which continues to appear in their article titled "William Oefelein." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.182.233 (talk • contribs) 21:52, May 31, 2009 (UTC)

removed "dismissed" from the astronaut infobox; the sources given merely said "reassigned to the Navy". Rd232 20:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

William Oefelein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - William Oefelein's article continues to state that he was "fired" or "dismissed." This statement is false. William Oefelein was not fired by NASA. He was not dismissed by NASA. He is retired from military service, and his status should read, "retired". Stating that he was fired or dismissed is defamation and libelous. Reference statements from NASA and Oefelein's own press release dated May 2007, which addressed the libelous remarks created by the media. Misplaced Pages has been informed, and it would appear that Misplaced Pages's article titled "William Oefelein" continues to be intentionally, maliciously or at least negligently false and defamatory.

Please point out any statements from NASA that you think contradict the article. I searched through NASA's press release archive and could find no release on this subject. I saw Oefelein's press release from his attorney (you?) but that cannot be taken as a reliable source. Mangojuice 04:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Carrie Prejean

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

There was a previous report on this article, but there was no resolution and it was archived. Currently, there is a debate on whether or not to include a quote made by Perez Hilton where he called Prejean a "dumb bitch" after she answered a question of his about gay marriage in the 2009 Miss USA pageant. The argument for inclusion boils down to the quote being the main reason for much of Prejean's media exposure. The argument against is that the quote is a clear personal attack and it violates WP:BLP. It should also be noted that the incident itself with the full quote has its own article titled Miss USA 2009 controversy. I personally think the quote should be included, but I'm certainly not 100% on it, so I thought I'd bring this back here for some more input. There is an RfC in place as well. Of note, InaMaka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is insisting on characterizing Hilton's comments as "hate filled" (or some variation) and as "misogynist" in discussions on the talk page. This also seems to be a WP:BLP violation to me, though as I understand it some latitude is given for talk page posts. InaMaka is making the talk page a toxic environment, though the fact that I disagree with them may be coloring my interpretation. Outside opinions are most welcome and needed, and any uninvolved, neutral administrators would be welcome as well. AniMate 03:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Why not just say something along the lines of "Hilton insulted Prejean", to avoid both the polemical quote as well as the offtopic commentary on the commenter? Declarative language is our friend. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

AniMate wrote on the talk page, "I've left the note as neutral as possible" -- but AniMate has written in this BLPN notice, "InaMaka is making the talk page a toxic environment."

That's not, "as neutral as possible."

Search the talk page for the word, "misogynist", and you'll find InaMaka referring to Hilton's "misogynist comments." AniMate accuses InaMaka of writing that Hilton is misogynist. InaMaka replies that s/he had written that Hilton's "COMMENTS are ... misogynist."

AniMate goes on accusing InaMaka of "Describing as ... misogynist," even though InaMaka hadn't done that -- and had pointed that out!

AniMate is part of a disruptive tag team that campaigns to drive off productive editors, that try to edit the Carrie Prejean article or its talk page, that do not share the tag team's POV.

Caden, who wrote this was hounded and quit Misplaced Pages. Members of the tag team, including AniMate, were a big part of making that happen.

Just before Caden said, "adios", he complained that AniMate had written that Caden, "goes on to threaten to kick Keltie's ass."

What Caden had really written, was, "If all else fails, you can send him my way and I'll kick his ass for free. Joking."

AniMate's sneaky removal of the word "joking" was egregious, and turned a joke into a simple threat.

The tag team's multiple attempts to hound and drive off InaMaka, another good editor, have been less successful. They've made several attempts to shift the focus from the debate to me, personally, too.)

Understand, too, that that's all it is, a debate. It doesn't take long to figure out that the tag team has zero interest in consensus-building.

There's a war going on all over the talk page. It's been here on the BLP Noticeboard, on the edit warring noticeboard, and now on the Requests for comment/Biographies.

There's been a book written on the talk page, debating whether it's worthy of inclusion -- in several different places in the article at once -- that an openly homosexual gossip blogger called Miss Prejean a "dumb bitch."

Seriously, what must be the mentality of the people that have fought so incredibly hard for this inclusion?

Can you imagine?

The mob seems to win everything, via tendentious editing. Even though consensus is not in numbers, and Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, the tag team lines up on the talk page on every issue, and then claims consensus.

They brazenly violate WP:Own.

They often offer no real analysis for their conclusions, or just write something nonsensical.

What happened was:

An openly homosexual gossip blogger, who was serving as a judge at the Miss USA pageant, asked Miss California USA if she thought laws in 46 states should be modified so that same-sex marriage would be recognized/valid.

She said, "... I do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman."

Same sex advocates vilified Miss Prejean. She replied, "On April 19, I chose to answer a question during the 2009 Miss USA pageant in an honest and personal manner that expressed my views of the long-established definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. Yet my comments defending traditional marriage have led to intimidation tactics that seek to undermine my reputation and somehow silence me and my beliefs, as if opinion is only a one-way street."

The Miss California USA co-directors stated, "we do not condone the subsequent inappropriate and unbecoming attacks against Carrie, and we believe that at no time should anyone -- especially a 21-year-old beauty queen -- be subjected to this type of scrutiny, regardless of what her beliefs are."

Even one of the gay-activist, Miss California USA co-directors stated, "many people felt she was vilified and targeted. I don’t think she deserves that."

In the media ...

The Miss California USA organization leaked, and then the Miss California USA co-directors -- both gay activists -- confirmed that Miss California USA had had a boob job.

Risqué modeling application photo(s) of her, in which she appeared scantily clad -- but that were explicitly not intended for publication -- were leaked.

On Misplaced Pages:

Instantly, Miss California USA Carrie Prejean -- who had at that time been a redirect -- became allegedly notable enough for her own attack page.

Editors that were previously interested in Anal_sex, LGBT_slang, Gay_bathhouse, and Same-sex_marriage decended on the new attack page to try to do to Miss Prejean exactly what some in the gay/liberal media had done to her.

What was published in the media, was copied into the 'encyclopedia' article.

The boob job, the so-called "controversy" (over an answer that represented the majority), the photos, the fact that the openly gay blogger called Prejean a "dumb bitch" -- it's all there, and then some.

Most -- the majority -- of the real estate in this article is filled with content that just serves to make Carrie Prejean look bad, and the worthiness of inclusion of most of it is being debated.

Seriously, how many models and beauty pageant contestants have had boob jobs?

The Miss California USA co-directors, both of which were gay activists, suggested she'd entered the pageant under false pretenses.

The Miss USA contract reportedly contains a clause asking participants whether they have ever been photographed nude or partially nude.

The Donald looked at the photos, said they were "fine", and that was the end of it. It's his pageant. He owns it.

All of this has been declared worthy of inclusion by the same-sex marriage activist tag team, and they have fought tooth and nail for the inclusion of every detail that serves to tarnish Miss Prejean's reputation. -- Rico 05:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to touch half of that, but there's one thing I don't understand. Why do people think that using Hilton's accurate quote makes Prejean look bad? Maybe it's just me, but I think it's the other way around. That Hilton's crude language makes himself look bad. --Cube lurker (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with that...it is only somewhat in jest that I would suggest removing the quote as a BLP violation about the source of the quote, Hilton. Really, it says more about Hilton than about Prejean, so on editorial grounds seems to be superfluous, per WP:WEIGHT or even in a stretch WP:COATRACK (I mentioned not quoting it above the WP:TLDR above). That said, it's not really a BLP violation if in can be meticulously sourced. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I didn't read all that above, but this isn't a BLP issue. NPA applies to editors, not content. It's a quote. A sourced quote. So, argue about the relevance of it, but don't call it a BLP issue. لennavecia 17:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Neither did I but I agree it's not a BLP issue, but rather WP:UNDUE and related guidelines. – ukexpat (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Most of the following cut from my talk page: Speaking on the matter of undue, the controversy is very much relevant, and if anyone removed that section it would take the next out of context. The whole article could do with a good copy-edit, as the prose is not impressive and there is some redundancy, but the information contained within the article is relevant and very much a part of her notability. The neutrality of the article can surely be discussed, but I don't think (at least from the version that currently exists) that it's to a point that it becomes a BLP concern. She made the comment. The fallout from it is presented, including both criticism and support. لennavecia 18:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Susan Boyle

I am entangled in a nascent revert war on this article. I have removed some material per Misplaced Pages:BLP#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy. The media has mentioned that she was assessed under the Mental Health Act 1983, I have removed mention of this as I regard is as an unwarranted invasion of her privacy but was reverted. I have reverted again but feel that an assessment by editors here used to operating this policy will be useful.

Some expert knowledge is relevant here. I have worked as an Approved Social Worker assessing people under the Mental Health Act. Sometimes we assess people and decide that they are not suffering from a mental disorder or at least not of one of a nature or degree that justifies depriving them of their liberty. In Boyle's case, the professionals involved have decided not to detain her under the MHA. However, readers are likely to read things into her having been assessed. The inclusion of such material is therefore likely to be detrimentla to how they view her.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The New York Times is reporting that Piers says she voluntarily entered hospital suffering from exhaustion. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Stay away from the tabloids and gossip web sites, but if nominally reliable newspapers are verifiably reporting on this, I see nothing untowards about citing what's happening to her. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the content. The matter is germane to the nature of her sudden and stressful rise to fame and is clearly notable and relevant. It is also sourced from a reputable source that does not sensationalize or speculate on the matter. There is no reason to censor something that is a matter of widespread public knowledge and discussion. --Escape Orbit 17:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I see that someone has taken out much of your edit - correctly IMV. The section of WP:BLP to which I have referred above and in my edit summaries opens:

Misplaced Pages articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Misplaced Pages editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. It is not Misplaced Pages's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.

Statements about an individual's supposed mental health are a prime example of what this is intended to cover. Add to that that people can be assessed under the mental health act with the professionals deciding that there is nothing seriously wrong with them and a reference to such an assessment runs into a real risk of being libellous. (Remember true statements can be libellous.)--Peter cohen (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe my addition was "sensationalist" or "titillating". It accurately reflected what the BBC were saying and was being widely reported. However, I now notice that the cite I used on the BBC website has since been itself edited to remove references to the Mental Health Act. --Escape Orbit 21:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This must be written with great care, but is becoming wholly verifiable. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The best thing is to pick a couple of non-tabloid British newspapers, which understand the nuances of the Mental Health Act, and repeat what they say without elaboration. SlimVirgin 20:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's true that non-tabloid UK sources are more likely to be the safest for context and language. These will show up sooner rather than later. Straight quotes also come to mind. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the blp policy quote it cannot be said that the[REDACTED] article is likely to hurt Susan Boyle when this story is currently widely reported in the press. The bit about[REDACTED] blp's that hurt the subject is referring to material not widely published or material published in the past and subsequently forgotten about, where the resurgence of that material is likely to be damaging to the individual, and this is where[REDACTED] becomes the primary source spreading the information. None of this applies here. Of course we must be careful and use non-tabloid sources but right now this material is appropriate for this article. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 19:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Reports from the non-tabloid press have now surfaced (Telegraph article and Guardian article), but it seems there are some editors still uncomfortable with including it. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Marcus Epstein

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

User:Thegoodlocust has recently removed a negative paragraph from our article on Marcus Epstein, with the edit summary "BLP violation using biased source based on a biased source - I could find no substantiating news source for this claim and his criminal record doesn't show this event". I reverted, due to Epstein seemingly pleading guilty, according to the court documents scanned in the source for said paragraph. A Google News search returns a few more sources covering the case, and a regular search provides others. However, due to my own relative inexperience in BLP-related articles, I would like more BLP-experienced users to review my edit, the article and the content in question, such as whether the source is reliable, whether the court document scans are genuine, and so on. Thanks. Dreaded Walrus 17:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been mulling over this addition for a day, and I think that it should be removed pending coverage in a reliable secondary source. (I may be mistaken in thinking that Daily Kos, Center for Independent Media's The Washington Independent, and Talking Points Memo are not considered relaible sources. They are all blogs so I assume they aren't). For articles in general but especially for BLPs, we don't include assertions that are solely based on primary sources. Including crimes that haven't been reported in reliable secondary sources is against the principles of the BLP policy. That said, this crime does appear to be relevant to the subject's political activism and I'm surprised that it hasn't been picked up by a mainstream news source. I suspect it will be and we could restore the material when that happens.   Will Beback  talk  19:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Few newspapers give much coverage to misdemeanors at all. The apparent plea bargain means he will not face any jail time (the plea was two years ago, and appears to have stipulated that at the end of two years without problems that it would be dismissed). Not really very newsworthy at all. Which explains why the main people yelling are quite possibly with partisan interests. Collect (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright guys, done. Thanks for the input. Care to keep it on your watchlist for future additions? Dreaded Walrus 19:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Whatever interest there is stems from the confluence of Epstein's professional relationships with Buchanan & Tancredo and their critique of the Sotomayor nomination. (The partisan debating point being that those who level the charge of racism have/had a racist in their employ.) Billbrock (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably so, but even Tancredo's comments haven't made it into the mainstream press, so maybe this is a tempest in a teapot.

Some anons have been busy re-adding the material. I've been reverting under the BLP exemption to 3RR and have asked for semi-protection.   Will Beback  talk 

Talking Points Memo should be considered a reliable source, as it's staffed by professional journalists and editors. Bay Buchanan confirms the story. Certainly it is appropriate to err on the side of caution. Billbrock (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If TPM is considered a reliable source then that changes everything. Has it been considered reliable before, in other articles? I don't see any sign that Brian Beutler has a reputation as a journalist outside of blogs.   Will Beback  talk  02:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably an intern. TPM is edited by Josh Marshall, who linked to Beutler's story from the main page. Billbrock (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

TPM is widely considered to be a reliable source - they won a Polk award last year for their attorney general-gate coverage. Combined with official court documents, an official employer response and news-worthiness, I think the hate crime information should be put back in ASAP. --TheSJoe (talk) 02:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Have to agree with User:Billbrock. As the news industry is rapidly changing, as newspapers are dying left and right, we have to be dynamic about what we classify as WP:RS. TPM is not simply an opinion blog -- it has real verified reporting, an investigative unit and has won the prestigious journalism George Polk Award for Legal Reporting. Other fellow Polk winners that year? NY Times, Wall Street Journal, McClatchy Newspapers, The Washington Post, ABC News and The Chicago Tribune . While this means we should take a greater look at WP:RS, this type of change happens from the bottom up (like most things in Misplaced Pages) and this should be the start of respecting TPM's status on the media landscape. -- Fuzheado | Talk 02:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Standards certainly change over time. It'd be nice if there was a history of considering TPM as a reliable source before using it for a negative assertion about a relatively minor figure.   Will Beback  talk  03:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

By that definition, there will be no more new sources, ever. And again, it's not just TPM. It's official court documents and it's on-the-record statements from his employers. I also don't consider a speechwriter to an influential house member and one of the most visible pundits in our country (Pat Buchanan) to be a minor player, especially in light of their steadfast opposition to the Supreme Court nominee on grounds of racism. --TheSJoe (talk) 05:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The siubject is due to be sentenced in a little over a week, so there's a good chance that there will be more coverage then.   Will Beback  talk  05:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

One difference between TPM & traditional media: TPM is upfront about its political biases. But if Fox, the NY Times etc. are not upfront yet are similarly biased, who's more reliable? Just warning that that TPM aspires to fairness, but not to NPOV. Billbrock (talk) 02:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Also covered in the conservative blog Little Green Footballs, with additional details.

• As the administrator who placed the protection, I want to make clear that any administrator following this discussion is free to remove the protection at any time, if the discussion seems headed that way, and I will not object. --causa sui 02:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The material has now been reported in the Denver Post (or at least on its blog). "Tancredo PAC chief part of nominee tiff". That qualifies as a reliable source. If there's no objection to using that source I think this is no longer a BLP issue.   Will Beback  talk  08:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. This was nicely handled throughout: thank you. Billbrock (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Boyd K. Packer

• Boyd K. Packer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Subject is a religious leader. The debate is over how much of a "controversial" quote to include in the article. No secondary source is provided that says that the quote is notable or controversial so it's personal opinion on both sides at the moment. The latest diffs in the dispute from the two main editors:
• last revert by User:Duke53
• previous revert by User:Trödel

Could some people weigh in and/or suggest appropriate action until consensus is reached? --FyzixFighter (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Same stuff reinserted, different context using an evangelical wiki on Mormonism as a secondary source. Acceptable or not? --FyzixFighter (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

No wiki can be RS. Collect (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Travis Lane Stork

Travis Lane Stork should be renamed to "Travis Stork". Ronald Mckay (talk) 22:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ching Hai

I would like to report constant edits in violation of WLB by 59.167.40.111. This user has consistently casts a negative light on subject claiming lack of 3rd party source over a period of time. He/She has removed entire Biblography section, deleted entire wiki text over the years and added many totally wrong information that I need to keep correcting. The final straw is putting a new Cult section which I believe is total violation of living bio because the claim is personal opinion without any proof and is thus defamatory. I have no wish to enter into a reversion war and thus I hope for neutral party evaluation on this matter.Truthexplorer (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The article has suffered from significant issues regarding reliable sources and has been until recently a worship page for followers of Ching Hai with far too much un-encyclopaedic and non-noteworthy content including the aforementioned bibliography of self published material. I have not been able to find ANY 3rd party references casting a favourable light on the subject but plenty of articles from newspapers etc varyingly critical of the person and her enterprises, hence the expanding criticism section containing cited examples. The objection here is by someone who obviously has a positive bias towards the subject and although the article needs more work in particular in relation to better quality references, I believe it is heading in the right direction. I welcome some independent assessment. 59.167.40.111 (talk) 10:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The objection is that your edits are a violation of Living Bio policy. If your logic is good and reference quoted is 100% reliable and verifiable then please add "Cult" section to all notables he has listed such as Dalai Lama etc. This is where the objection lies. State facts not opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthexplorer (talk • contribs) 16:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I have made some amendments. To clarify, negative comments about subjects of BLP articles are allowed if overall the article is balanced, and the comments are notable and reported in third-party Reliable Sources. If there is a particular objection to the word Cult, that is a content issue.Martinlc (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Katherine Freese

Hope this is the right place and way to do this, but I was wondering if the image on Katherine Frees should be removed. Galoubet (talk) 06:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you please elucidate your concern? The edit history and file data indicates that the subject produced and added this picture herself, which would seem to obviate any BLP concerns; it might be a COI issue, but she does seem to be notable, and the picture is charmingly informal (to my taste, anyway), so I'd be inclined to think say it's fine unless/until there's a better one available. Maybe the infobox could use some expansion, though.--Arxiloxos (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This is newland for me, hence my concern, but if the subject added this picture herself, there is of course no problem with the BLP. And yes, the infobox could use some expansion, but who does this generally? The best person to do this, is (in my opinion) the author, but wat is the procedure to get to her? Galoubet (talk) 08:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually while someone adding an image of themselves is IMHO fine provided they aren't removing existing images without discussion, adding stuff to the infobox is a BLP and COI issue. Generally speaking, we should only add such details if they appear in a reliable secondary source. Self published (primary) sources are occasionally acceptable (See WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source and WP:BLP#People who are relatively unknown) but should be avoided as much as possible except as a backup supporting ref to a secondary source IMHO. In any case, there needs to be a source, e.g. a website and not just the person adding it to wikipedia. While it may seem true that if the person adds it to[REDACTED] one of our key concerns, that of the person's privacy is no longer so relevant it's worth remembering that if we choose to accept it now, that means we should always accept it even if the person later takes down the site if we have an archive. Nil Einne (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Try emailing her.--chaser (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

William Oefelein

William Oefelein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - William Oefelein's article continues to state that he was "fired" or "dismissed." This statement is false. William Oefelein was not fired by NASA. He was not dismissed by NASA. He is retired from military service, and his status should read, "retired". Stating that he was fired or dismissed is defamation and libelous. Reference statements from NASA and Oefelein's own press release dated May 2007, which addressed the libelous remarks created by the media. Misplaced Pages has been informed, and it would appear that Misplaced Pages's article titled "William Oefelein" continues to be intentionally, maliciously or at least negligently false and defamatory.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.182.233 (talk • contribs) 09:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I was about to come here and comment on this article. Without judging which side is correct, this article has been going back and forth between variations of fired and retired. This includes a couple of named accounts as well as the IP who started the section. I'm at work and I don't have the opportunity at the moment to do the research to give an opinion on who's right. However the article could benefit from an experienced user or two taking a look at the dispute.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: "He is retired from military service, and his status should read, 'retired'." The "status" field in the Astronaut infobox refers to the person's status as an Astronaut, so Oefelein's retirement from the US Navy is not relevant. As to whether he retired, resigned, was dismissed or fired from the NASA Astronaut Corps, I'll stop back and provide some references. Rillian (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

NASA Fires Astronaut Oefelein, Fired astronaut in love triangle shows up with new girlfriend, Second astronaut fired in NASA love triangle, NASA requested a reassignment. Rillian (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

James Allen (journalist)

This page has been vandalised on many occasions in recent years by malicious people. Recently a paragraph was added which alleged that Mr Allen's' website is infected with a virus which sends child pornography links to the FBI (see edit history)

Page protection should be applied here.

Pmorley505 (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the offending material again. It could probably do with a few more people keeping an eye on it. Pages only tend to be protected when they are being repeatedly vandalised over a short space of time, which doesn't seem to be the case here. --RicDod (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Juan Chastang

• Juan Chastang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Lots of potentially libelous material, could someone quickly eyeball it. Thanks. // Drawn Some (talk) 21:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the worst, but the rets needs sorucing.Martinlc (talk) 11:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ashton Lundeby

• Ashton Lundeby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 67.54.253.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I came across this article when patrolling prods. The prod rationale by an IP raises a red flag about potentially harmful information about this user. Can someone look into this, please? MuZemike 00:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Richard Pimentel

Richard Pimentel's story is very interesting and inspiring, and he has even been the subject of a movie, but the article needs a lot of help. It is currently based almost entirely on his own business website, with no in-line reliable sources to speak of, and it's written in a very un-Wikipedian tone. I've added a general link to an interesting New York Post profile of him, but much more is needed. Thanks.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

General question about userspace

If we have a BLP article that is then deleted, how long can a version of that article live in user-space for Re-editing/adjustment? As far as I can determine this was AFD'd and that decision was confirmed by DR. Obviously someone can become notable in the future - but can a BLP article sit forever in userspace? --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

If the problem is a G10 BLP violation, it should be nuked immedately. If it's promotional or otherwise unacceptable, it should go away, but perhaps through MfD, as this is currently nominated. However, if it's just a not-quite-notable person, and meets WP:V but not WP:N, then I'd see no reason for an artifical timeline for removal. Jclemens (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Leona Lewis

• Leona Lewis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is it proper to detail how much a person is thought to be worth? I seem to recall a parameter (personal fortune) being added and removed from the Infobox template some time ago, presumably because calculations are speculative and imprecise. There is a summary dispute on Leona Lewis in any case. (diff) The reference provided appears to be solid enough. The Times blogger credits as his source Current TV and indeed the entertainment channel appears to have conducted its own survey, alongside such other illuminating studies as "The 20 Sexiest Ugly People". Is this good enough? The same information has been inserted across a number of different pages by editor Daytona2. Dynablaster (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone able to answer the question -- is it proper to detail how much a person is thought to be worth? Dynablaster (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Belinda Neal

This article has serious WP:UNDUE issues, the "Controversial incidents" section is 50% of the article. There is also a related OTRS ticket, otrs:2009052910016029. BJ 21:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have altered the incidents text to make it NPOV and removed speculation.Martinlc (talk) 07:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Robert Young (author)

• Robert Young (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Robert Young (author) page is undergoing a dispute between Honest Research and MastCell over the content in the "Nutritional Microscopy" paragraph in the Robert Young (author) article. MastCell has argued that the content is "fringe" and Honest Research has argued that the statements against live blood analysis and alkaline diets that MastCell is including do not have to do with Robert Young directly and should not be on his page but should be included on the live blood analysis page and the alkaline diet page; unless they specifically say something about Robert Young's claims about live blood analysis or alkaline diets. The statments that do include Young have been included. The issues is with the ones that don't include Young. This dispute is not heated. It is simply two different opinions on how the format should be. I would petition a wise person who is unbiased to come in and mediate and inform both Honest Research and MastCell how the article should address these concerns and why. Respectfully, Honest Research (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Geir Høgsnes

Not really a BLP anymore, but thats kind of what the dispute is about. This person was found dead earlier today. This has been confirmed by Verdens Gang, a Norwegian newspaper. 98.207.253.209 (talk · contribs) keeps removing this information citing that the family does not want the information to come out, and that it is ethically unacceptable. Your opinion? Rettetast (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I just read the cited page in (slightly garbled) Google translation, and based on that, I guess the details of his death might turn out to be a bit icky (though not necessarily in any way that reflects badly on him). However, I don't see anything wrong with Alansohn's version here (which on further review of the history appears to be the same as Rettetast's previous version), straightforwardly stating the simple facts. What's more, it seems to me important that a reliable source needs to be included for the statement that he's dead. In other words, not only does reporting his death not violate WP:BLP, but it may actually violate WP:BLP to report that he's dead without including a reliable source for that report. I assume that the best source is this Verdens Gang article, so it ought to be cited. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Fiona Graham and Sayuki articles

There are currently two Misplaced Pages articles, Fiona Graham and Sayuki, related to the same person. Fiona Graham is an Australian anthopologist who became the first western Geisha in Japan, taking the name "Sayuki". The Fiona Graham article has existed since 2005, but a separate article titled Sayuki was created recently by a new editor, User:FiG8, who from the choice of user name and editing style, possibly has close connections with, or actually is, the subject herself. As "Sayuki" appears to be the name that the subject of these articles currently goes by, I boldly merged the content from Fiona Graham into the Sayuki article, leaving Fiona Graham as a redirect. User:FiG8 has subsequently (twice) reverted the redirect at Fiona Graham, and has repeatedly removed any references to Sayuki's real name (Fiona Graham) from the Sayuki article, saying that Geishas' real names should not be revealed. That might be true in the case of a regular geisha, but in this case, Sayuki's former name has been published in all of the news reports and interviews about her (sourced in the article), and as she had notability (e.g. publishing books as Fiona Graham) before becoming a geisha, I feel it is essential that her real name also be mentioned in the article.
This risks degenerating into an edit war, so I wonder if some other editors could have a look and make sure this all conforms to BLP standards. I would have no problem with the material all being merged into Fiona Graham, but either way, I don't see that continuing two parallel articles about the same person is an acceptable option. --DAJF (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that there should only be one article about this person, and that there is no problem with publishing her real name with her geisha name (as she has been identified by both names in at least one reliable source). However, my inclination would be to have the one article under Fiona Graham, with Sayuki as the redirect, since she had published under her real name before becoming a geisha. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Martin Frankel‎

I don't have the time to source this guy, I know the story that is told is essentially true (I did a graudate research paper on his frauds). The problem is that essentially nothing is cited. Right now, I don't know if/when I will be able to work on it, but this article needs help desperately. Probably needs to have over half the article deleted (if not the whole thing) due to BLP concerns. As I wrote a paper on him, I feel that somebody less familiar with Frankel should take a look and make that judgement. This guy is notable. When he was on the lamb, he was called the "Billion Dollar Man" because the early estimates of his fraud placed his schemes at over a billion dollars.---I'm Spartacus! 16:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Beganlocal

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

The user Beganlocal appears to be a SPA intent on inserting ethnicity/religious affiliations into the lead section of articles (example ). He has also created a new category which seems unnecessary. It appears that his previous attempts at inserting the contentious material on May 26th were all reverted, so I am bringing it to your attention as (in my opinion) the additions are not being made in good faith. ponyo (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This editor needs to read WP:MOSBIO where it notes ethnicity should not be included in the lead sentence unless it is the reason the person is notable. --Tom (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The editor actually quotes WP:MOSBIO in the edit history of previous changes , so although I'd like to assume good faith, I can't help but believe that the edits will continue regardless of policy. ponyo (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's not if "it is the reason the person is notable" but if it is relevant to the person's being notable. (Eg Martin Frankel above was known because of the frauds he committed, but his Jewish identity was relevent in the perpetuation of those frauds as he explicitly used racial stereotypes about Jews to garner trust, "Of course, I know about money, I'm Jewish aren't I?")---I'm Spartacus! 17:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Marc Dreier Page Edit War by a paid PR Agency

There is presently an edit war in progress. a pr Agency representing Paul Traub, the co-chair of the Bankruptcy unit in Dreier's firm is reverting all sourced contributions including court documents and notes.

The Saylor company has been retained and is being paid to revert the edits on the Dreier page in the Traub, Bonacquist and Fox section, retaining only a promotonal advertisement for his present digs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Saylorcompany

When she was admonished she created her own screen name: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:W_Cwir_at_Saylor and continued to revert edits related to his history and backstory with Dreier, regarding an ongoing and current case. Mr. Traub is protecting his reputation from further damage, but that is for Who's Who among American Lawyers and Martindale-Hubbell.

This is an objective page, not a biased one with an agenda. She has been warned she is biased, and the vandaliam must cease. I have advised her I will gladly start a Paul Traub page which will not be abridged as this is; he is now a public figure appearing in all media venues. Please ban her because of lack of objectivity. She is being enriched by her endeavor to protect Mr. Traub from the Court of Public Opinion.

Furtive admirer (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• It appears to be that you're not exactly objective with regards to Mr. Traub as well -- conflict-of-interest and non-neutral point-of-view issues can arise even if one isn't paid. Also, both you and W_Cwir appear to be running afoul of the three-revert rule. For myself, I don't think that the level of detail you are entering is appropriate for the Dreier article, since the article is about Dreier and not Traub. I've made a couple of entries on the talk page, and removed the Traub edits until discussion can take place (which were immediatedly reverted by Furtive admirer). -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 20:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Page protected and PR person blocked (by different admins). Sounds like the point is now moot. Toddst1 (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Same PR person on behalf of Mr. Traub here again (same account, new signature), unblocked by a forgiving editor, and now knowing better than to engage in an edit war again. Sadly, this matter is not over -- the material has moved to http://en.wikipedia.org/Paul_R._Traub. Weronix (talk) 01:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Searching for a consensus discussion

Folks, can anyone point me to the discussion or discussions where the consensus was that WP:BLP applies to the recently dead? I have searched for it high and low but to no avail. I know it exists because I remember reading it. Any help is appreciated. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I found this, not sure if this is the 'consensus' you're looking for though...ponyo (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you thinking about the recent discussion of poor Rachel Corrie? I took from that discussion a sense that some editors believe BLP should apply to the newly dead, but it wasn't clear how long it would apply (maybe 6 months or so) and many other editors disagreed. And it's not clear (to me, anyway) how much it ultimately matters--WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, etc. all apply either way.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that such concerns should apply to all articles about people, living or dead. I don't know why one would include poorly sourced speculatoin about, say, Shakespeare, just because he's been dead a long time, for instance. I know that the legal issues are different (dead people don't threaten to sue, and their heirs are much less likely to prevails) but as a matter of internal[REDACTED] standards, I don't know why we should lower the bar when someone dies. As to interpreted policy as it now stands, i think arxiloxos take on that discussion is correct; no clear consensus that i could see (from memory).Bali ultimate (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but neither of those discussions were the ones I was thinking of. I think the rationale for BLP applying for a period (IMHO it should be short, say 3 months) after death is the effect that BLP violations may have on friends and family. It is clearly not a legal issue as you cannot defame the dead and no one else has locus standi to sue with respect thereto. Why yes I am a lawyer, what gave it away?! – ukexpat (talk) 21:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Most discussion will have been at Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons, I think. Try this search. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Mike Murphy (sports radio personality)

Can I get some help at Mike Murphy (sports radio personality)? User:Oldy75 has been adding poorly-sourced content about Murphy's "feuds" with other sports personalities, along with other questionable edits. See , . Frankly, I don't even know if Murphy deserves an article, but I thought I might as well bring the issues to your attention. Thanks! Zagalejo^^^ 21:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed the "Feuds" section. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks... although he'll probably be back eventually. Zagalejo^^^ 05:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Justus Weiner

In the article on Justus Weiner user:skywalker is inserting extreme prejudicial statements about the subject such as "Weiner said he was an associate in White & Case but he is not listed in that firm's directory." (the directory is for current employees of course). Mashkin (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It's at AfD. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It is still a violation of BLP. Mashkin (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Erin Burnett

This article seems imbalanced, with an oversized Controversy section and a Quotes section that contributes to the imbalance even after this rather mean-spirited chunk was removed. Could someone please take a look? Thanks, CliffC (talk) 04:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed most of it. Neutral does not mean 50% criticism. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The Jefferson siblings

See Archie Jefferson, Betty Jefferson and Mose Jefferson. Are their positions notable enough to have articles on them? As of now, the vast majority of the articles are accusations of crime. I've already db-blp tagge the Archie article, but I'm not sure if the lot should go. Their brother, the former Congressman, should stay, but the criminal accusations should be toned down due to WP:WEIGHT. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Not a question of notability, but perhaps consideration should be given to consolidating the articles into one article, with redirects from the current titles. The indictments and trials mostly share the same body of legal arguments. They probably gain some sensationalism from the close connection with the former Congressman, but he faces his own trial, not the one(s) involving certain family members and associates in New Orleans; thus collapsing their judicial proceedings into the article on him alone would be to depart from the subject there and to lengthen an article which already has a lot in it. But a selfstanding article on the other indictments and trials, yes, that's worth considering and, IMHO, a way to save space overall and bring everything together. Put the (Virginia) case involving William J. Jefferson into his article; put the (Louisiana) cases into a consolidated separate article. Rammer (talk) 01:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

New Kadampa Tradition

New Kadampa Tradition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Yonteng has made repeated ad hom.s today (6th June) on this article's Talk page, including some highly defamatory statements regarding various individuals connected to the article's subject (not other editors). this editor was warned and asked not to do this, but responded with more. see here:

the editor's been involved in ongoing disputes on this article (including, i should say for transparency, with myself), but this is really unaceptable behaviour now, in my opinion - would appreciate some Admin. input. thank you. Atisha's cook (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I just removed another violation at , for which Yonteng admits no 3RS yet exists for the claims he is making about Jim Belither (JB). Emptymountains (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

And, he just put it back, replacing the initials "JB" with "X": . Emptymountains (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

And, he's added more, using the initials "JB" again: . Emptymountains (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

David Copperfield (illusionist)

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

Some extra eyes and advice on the ongoing acrimony and conflict on this article over sourcing, questionable negative/trivial content and COI/disruptive editing and disagreements. The latest disagreements are discussed beginning here Talk:David Copperfield (illusionist)#Americanchronicle.com and TMZ.com (again) sources removed. Thanks. Flowanda | Talk 06:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that Flowanda is the chief "disagreer". Nothing that is being added to or removed from the article is contentious, but Flowanda's pursuit of my every move is becoming irksome in the extreme. ► RATEL ◄ 06:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Alas -- you are the only "agreer" -- the TMZ.com issue was raised before, and it was quite clear that no one supported your iterated use of it. Use of RS is required even for "non contentious" material, and the use of sites which violate copyright ("magictelevisioncom" etc.) is contrary to WP policies, guidelines and more. And use of PA is not a valid system of argumeent, ever. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what consensus is: TMZ is not a reliable source for negative or unflattering content in a BLP and shouldn't be cited even for neutral content. Moreover, TMZ text cited to support neutral text on en.Misplaced Pages may have negative or unflattering content: Citing such text to lead readers to that kind of content is also a violation of BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Which was my precise position. Collect (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: the Oprah/Copperfield transcript carried at magictelevision.org is essentially a convenience link. That transcript, which is no longer available from Oprah's site, is not copyrighted AFAIK. It's been at magictelevision.org for years. It's even included at dmoz, which gives you some idea of its longevity. ► RATEL ◄ 14:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Now adding info to the talk page with a link to a page that doesn't support the claims. Flowanda | Talk 09:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: I redacted that as a BLP vio. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Directory pages do not make anything lose its copyright status. Collect (talk) 10:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Carly Fiorina

• Carly Fiorina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A month ago, opinion apparently sourced to CNBC was added into the Carly Fiorina article by User:86.151.43.30. (The opinion was actually published by Condé Nast Portfolio, since defunct). The content relevant to Fiorina was essentially a photo caption. Condé Nast indicated it compiled the list through a survey of business school professors, but no further information was provided as to who any of those professors were, or what methodology was used to compile the results. wp:blp is clear that we should stick to the facts, but the photo caption was all about opinion, in addition to being poorly sourced. After the discussion a month ago on the matter, the content was left out of the article and User:86.151.43.30 went on his way. Yesterday, a new editor to the article, User:Benignprank, began reinserting the material, and has since reverted to enforce the inclusion of the content. Would really appreciate additional help, especially more eyes watching the article. user:J aka justen (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

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

initial inclusion

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

reinclusion

first revert to reinclude

second revert to reinclude

Update: The article was just semi-protected by Tom harrison. Unfortunately, User:Jgm decided to reinsert the material anyway, with an edit summary that included: "add link to article on source so readers can gauge import." The simple fact we're including it adds credence to the "import" of the source. I think wp:blp is clear: stick to the facts (and, perhaps, include notable opinion when it can be impeccably sourced and clearly named). It's about as clear a poorly-sourced, controversial statement as you can get, and adding a link to it doesn't make it any better sourced or less controversial. user:J aka justen (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I just removed the reinserted content and posted {{BLP removal}} to the talk page along with specific relevant sections of wp:blp and wp:rs. Unfortunately, this would be my fourth revert today, so I included (in my edit summary) the section of wp:3rr that exempts reverting the insertion of material proscribed by wp:blp. user:J aka justen (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I've full protected and watchlisted the page. Tom Harrison 16:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your keeping an eye on things there. user:J aka justen (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Denny Rehberg

• Denny Rehberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

sockpuppet management 71.225.223.62 constant reversion to hide congressman's actions and words against minorities72.160.27.31 (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection seems necessary here until we can sort this out. Will request momentarily at wp:rfpp. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Claudia Lawrence

• Claudia Lawrence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

12:38, 7 June 2009 -- 90.194.37.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added this to Claudia Lawrence.

12:56, 7 June 2009 -- I reverted: diff

16:22, 7 June 2009 -- Same IP has now added the "growing speculation that Miss Lawrence worked secretly..." line a second time, with the edit summary "Added factual information obtained from a trusted source and indexed a reference. The Thai user at 58.8.9.* please refrain from removing *FACTUAL* information." diff This time a reference has been included -- Sky News reference.

Maybe someone else would like to look at this and perhaps watchlist it. Thanks. 58.8.9.187 (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed the unnecessary detail that also seemed quite awkward out of context. This is a wp:blp1e, which can be particularly difficult to address in terms of our guidelines for biographies of living people. I will keep it on my watchlist, but if you notice something further that needs to be rewritten or removed (including anything that I may have missed already), please address it further here. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This is most definitely a wp:blp1e since she is not known for anything other than her disappearance. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Giovanni Di Stefano

• Giovanni Di Stefano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

See Talk:Giovanni_Di_Stefano#European_Commission_Of_Human_Rights_appeal, an editor is saying that we can't cite a certain document because it's not clear enough for WP:BLP if it's the same person. However, seeing this evidence I find that it's clear that it's the same person way beyond reasonable doubt. Comments are welcome. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It does appear quite clear that the subject of the source and the subject of our article are one and the same. You might also consider wp:rs/n, as the folks there might be more experienced in determining that this is indeed a completely reliable source, for this article, for our purposes. user:J aka justen (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The ref is about a John di Stefano who does not get mentioned in the article. How is that fulfilling blp on an article which the subject clearly objects to (ie one of the sensitive blps). There is no dispute about whether the ref is reliable (it is reliable) so no need for wp:rs/n, the dispute is about the fact that the reference refers to an individual who is not called Giovanni di Stefano. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 20:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

If you are saying the source is not relevant to the context it is to be used in, then I think it certainly would be a question of the reliability of the source (again, in this context, which wp:rs does address). Nevertheless, I was simply offering an additional potential avenue where you could raise your concerns and potentially get other relevant opinions specific to the sourcing issue, as it does appear that a consensus is forming on the talk page for that article that supports using the source. user:J aka justen (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Without resolving the issue of whether they are one and the same it is very difficult to see how we can add it, and blp demands more than just a consensus of a small number of editors re blp in a case like this; but actually I am not sure there is consensus. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 23:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Strange as it may seem there are no BLP issues about adding well cited material to an article. We have also long since established that they are the same person and indeed use sources that mention that fact such as this one. Now stop wasteing people's time with claims you cannot credibly pretend are true.Geni 12:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment.

I have requested a comment here Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Biographies regarding the infobox on the Ma Anand Sheela WP:BLP article. I have noticed that answers to these requests are not very regular, and I feel that I issued this request in the wrong place. As my question is specifically about BLP policy I would ask to have the comment from here.. here is my request... Talk:Ma_Anand_Sheela#Appropriateness_of_Infobox_Criminal....(Off2riorob (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

Comment: There is already an ongoing Request for comment, at the article's talk page. It has been open for over two weeks. Consensus is that the infobox usage is appropriate. Cirt (talk) 01:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Russell Means

Hi. Could somebody take a look at the comment on the talk page of this article in the section titled "What separates Russell Means from moderate AIM members". Should this comment be removed from the talk page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yworo (talk • contribs) 23:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Refusing to allow things to be mentioned on the talk page makes it impossible even to discuss whether they should be mentioned in the article. It should be avoided except in extreme cases. In my opinion this is not quite an extreme case, but it's getting close, and I've added a comment to that effect on the talk page. (For people's convenience, the link is Talk:Russell Means#What separates Russell Means from moderate AIM members.) Looie496 (talk) 04:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Cherwell.org - Student news and reviews at Oxford University

Is http://www.cherwell.org/ considered an acceptable source for making biographical claims about living people? I'm uncomfortable with it since it is a student website. It isn't subjected to the same editorial rigour that a professional news site is subjected to and the people who write for it aren't subjected to the same sanctions (i.e. possible dismissal etc). I would welcome some impartial opinions, so thanks to anyone who takes the time to respond. Betty Logan (talk) 02:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It's always nice when asking questions like this to be more specific about what article you're talking about and what claims. Leaving out such information may lead to concerns about trying to game the system. Looie496 (talk) 03:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well it's either a trustworthy source or it's not, isn't it? But the issue in question is the Pescetarianism article. All people listed as pescetarian have a citation to validate the claim. Remembering back to my uni days there was absolutely nothing to stop me making untruthful claims about people and publishing them on the student website. As long as you don't call them a paedophile or a rapist or something liellous it is likely to go unchallenged. Betty Logan (talk) 10:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Jovan Vraniškovski

The civil name of this person is Jovan. He was baptized as Zoran, but when he was tonsured a monk, he changed his civil name too, and now in every civil and church document he has only one name: Jovan Vraniškovski. Here are some references that prove this:

• Document from the Court of R. Macedonia,
• Document from the European Court of Human Rights,
• US State Dept. 2008 Human Rights Report on Macedonia.

Referring to him as Zoran is not only incorrect, but has most often the sole purpose to discredit him.

The page was correctly set at the beginning, but it was later moved with an explanation which is incorrect (and, of course, cannot be proven).

Kpant (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Jon_Peters

The article for Jon_Peters seems worrying, on a brief reading. It's pretty much only criticism and attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.19.36 (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Was it ever! Minor trim of the worst stuff now done. Collect (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm Hooper

I have a dispute at Malcolm Hooper, i love to get comments from people that know more then me about BLP. The two versions are .

User:RobinHood70 says the "chronic fatigue syndrome activist" parts are libelous or potentially libellous bc they are from the Guardian that says Hooper is in a group of "activists" and has "vendetta" against Simon Wessely. Rob says his concerns make a 3RR OK.

My views, the article is totally from an article in the Guardian, RS, . The "vendetta" is Guardian word. Guardian says Hooper is "infuriated" and says his "salvo" is personal bc Wessely did not "acknowledge" him and Hooper was angry and Hooper defied "protocol" and bc Hooper fought with Wessely about another illness, Gulf War Ilness. And it says the deabate, is a "battlefield" and Hooper's writing is a "cry of rage." The Guardian says there is a "vendetta" by a group of patient activists and a "vendetta" by people that attacked Wessely, one from those people is Hooper.

The article has the word "activist," it does never say "advocate" is not advocate a lawyer?? Hooper is not a lawyer and the article is obvious, Hooper is activist. Hooper is notable for his activism about GWI and CFS, I do not think activist is a bad word, I have friend that is AIDS activist and I am proud to know them.

I think we can change word vendetta or activist when you say it is necessary, i do not think the section should be censored and i am concerned on the implying legal threats. Thx, RetroS1mone talk 21:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

As can be seen in the Vendetta section on the talk page for that article, the word "vendetta" is never used directly in reference to Malcolm Hooper, only to "a group of patients". It's that part that I'm concerned could be construed as libellous if Malcolm Hooper were to look at it. It's unlikely based on just the one word, I'll be the first to admit, but BLP certainly advocates a "better safe than sorry" approach.

It was clearly explained on the talk page (same as above) when I deleted the section that the removal was only temporary and that I believed it had merit and should be reinserted after a consensus was reached as to the wording. Despite the ongoing consensus discussion and BLP guildines, RetroS1mone took independent action to revert it.

I've also tried to explain to RetroS1mone that there is no legal threat of any kind here, particularly since I'm not Malcolm Hooper (nor was the name even on my radar until a week or so ago). However, as I explained when I reverted the section, BLP guidelines dictated that I take pre-emptive action until we could come up with a better wording.

Finally, as for the "activist" wording, I don't really consider that libellous, though it might be construed as a negative bias, and there are no sources that support referring to him as an activist at this time. That has also been discussed and the reasoning explained on the talk page. Again, consensus is being worked towards. --Rob (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Rob says "the word "vendetta" is never used directly in reference to Malcolm Hooper, only to "a group of patients" but the article says vendetta two times, the second time they are talking about the authors of critique against Wessely. Hooper is the one author of a critique they are naming in article. Vendetta is a personal thing against a person, Guardian article says it is Hooper is motivated by personal history w/ Wessely with Gulf War debate and is angry w/ Wessely bc W. did not name him. They do not talk about, any other person that has personal history w/ W. I am ok, can we say "Guardian reports about Hooper's personal conflict w/ Wessely" or like that, but "vendetta" is a very simple way, and it is the word the Guardian has. RetroS1mone talk 22:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I think RetroS1mone has hit on the heart of our disagreement here. My interpretation of the article is that the vendetta is by the group of patients, as previously mentioned, but that those with the vendetta delivered Hooper's work to the journalist, not that Hooper himself was grouped into that vendetta. Hooper clearly has strong views, as presented in the remainder of the article, but that's about as far as I think we can go. I would say that the words "personal conflict" are less negative, but since the article continues on to quote Hooper as disclaiming "no personal animosity whatsoever directed at Dr Wessely" in his paper, we need to be careful even there. Certainly the rest of the article makes it sound like that's basically a disclaimer to avoid a lawsuit, and for all I know it is, but that's entirely the point of BLP: "take particular care" and "use high quality references". --Rob (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course, the other concern here is the use of neutral, unbiased wording on a BLP. Is "vendetta" really a neutral, unbiased word? --Rob (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

A couple of issues. The Guardian article doesn't say Hooper is angry with Wessely because Wesseley didn't name him. It's simply not there. Also, the article doesn't state Hooper wrote the paper that included the words "no personal animosity whatsoever directed at Dr Wessely". Here I can find on the internet, "In the frontispiece to the 1996 manuscript "Denigration by Design", it was clearly stated that no personal animosity whatsoever was directed at Dr. Wessley." And here it states Eileen Marshall and Margaret Williams wrote Denigration by Design. Hooper didn't write it.

I found, Concerns About The Forthcoming UK Chief Medical Officer's Report On Myalagic Encephalomyelitis (ME) And Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS)... that appears to be the "devastating critique on the internet". This is further supported by Concepts Of Accountability ? by Hooper. If Concerns... is the proper critique (and I don't know for sure that it is) than the Guardian has its facts wrong on the date. The more I read the Guardian article, the more I realize how poorly it's written Ward20 (talk) 04:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right, Ward20, I've struck out those portions of my commentary (as best I could, anyway) so as not to cause confusion for any future readers. I found the entire article quite confusing though, especially with the frequent lack of names and vague references to things. Besides which, the article is 7 years old...is it even relevant to Hooper's and Wessely's current positions? Still, a third-party comment on this would be nice, if we can get it. --Rob (talk) 05:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Peter Bogdanovich

I've just removed several lengthy, mostly unsourced sections from this article, which were devoted to making highly derogatory comments about the director's work and career. This leaves a large hole in the article, and I don't know anything near enough about the subject to repair the damage. If no one better suited than me fills the gaps within a week or so, I'll try to add a short neutral section. But it would be better if someone more familiar with the subject could take a stab at it. And there's still probably stuff in the article that should be toned down or balanced off with more favorable views. Since we're talking about the merits of his work, which I doubt was universally panned (although the Cybill Shepherd singing movie might be an exception to that). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Bonnie Erbe

Bonnie Erbe is a journalist. The article had a number of assertions about her views that were sourced solely to her blogs. An editor claiming to be the subject, User:Bigspringswillson, has been editing the article in an unconstructive manner (deleting sourced material and adding unsourced assertions) and hasn't responded to requests to discuss it on her user talk page or the article talk page. Since so much of the article was unsourced or poorly sourced, I deleted most of it. Another editor, perhaps just trying to reset the article, reverted it back to the version that bothered the subject. I'd like to stub it and protect it for a week or so, and try to get the subject/user to discuss her problems are with it. Thoughts?   Will Beback  talk  01:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I just reverted and I would agree with stubifying and protecting. There's a clear COI here. Enigma 01:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I User:Bigspringswillson am Bonnie Erbe. Someone keeps linking to some of my webposts but distorting what I wrote in the rest of the posts. Someone also keeps linking me to an out of date and erroneous page on fairus.org.

I want the following posted to my bio and want it locked in this manner or deleted as distorting my views and therefor libelous. I also want a phone contact for Enigmaman and an answer from Misplaced Pages as to why this person is able to control what is published about me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Bigspringswillson (talk • contribs)

• Replying below-

Collapsed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Bonnie Erbé This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Noticeboard" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (June 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this message) Bonnie Erbé is an nonpartisan, award-winning American journalist and television host based in the Washington, D.C. area who has covered national politics for decades. She writes a weekly column for Scripps Howard Newspapers, a daily blog for USNews.com where she is a contributing editor and is working on a novel about religious symbolism in Washington, D.C. She focuses in her journalism issues affecting women, families and communities of color, environment, religion and animal compassion. She has won more than 20 awards for her journalistic accomplishments. Most recently, she was honored for her "pioneering: contributions to women's media by creating PBS' To the Contrary with Bonnie Erbé and keeping it a vital part of PBS' program offerings for 18 seasons. http://www.womensmediacenter.com/press_releases/051909.html She won the 2008 Conference Board's Work Life Leadership Council Media Award for coverage of work-life issues. http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS223429+26-Feb-2008+PRN20080226 She also won the 2008 Council on Contemporary Families Media Award for Outstanding Coverage of Family Issues http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org Prior to that, she has won more than 15 (total) Clarion Awards from Women in Communications, Gracie Awards from American Women in Radio & TV and EMMA awards from the National Women's Political Caucus and formerly from Radcliffe College. Personal Erbé was born in New York City, but moved to Washington D.C. after graduation from college to cover politics. She graduated from Barnard College in 1974, Columbia University with an M.S. in Journalism in 1975 and a J.D. Georgetown University Law Center in 1987. She was on law revue at Georgetown and graduated cum laude. http://www.shns.com/index.php?title=results&type=column&wire=SH&query=B1/BONNIE_ERBE Professional career Bonnie Erbé is host and Executive-In-Charge of the PBS program, To the Contrary. She is also a contributing editor at U.S. News and World Report, where she writes for the Thomas Jefferson Street blog. Earlier, she covered the Supreme Court and Justice Department for NBC Radio, the Congress for UPI Radio and worked as an NBC TV National Correspondent covering breaking news out of the network's Atlanta Bureau. Views Ms. Erbé is non partisan and toes no party line. She is not an affiliated Democrat or Republican, nor is she uniformly progressive or conservative. Ms. Erbé finds partisan politics tiresome and believes she represents the majority of Americans who think for themselves and do not subscribe to any partisan or ideological prescribed way of thinking. She believes the only people who think that way are either angling for political appointments or trying to impose their moral beliefs on the nation's laws. She is, however, passionate about women's advancement in the U.S. and worldwide, about preserving green spaces and an environment that can support the human race and animal species for millenia to come, and animal compassion. References External links To the Contrary with Bonnie Erbé website Erbé's blog at USNews.com Scripps Howard News Service website {{US-journalist-stub}} {{DEFAULTSORT:Erbe, Bonnie}} ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]

I've stubbified the article with the consent of user:ADM. I'm in contact with User:Bigspringswillson and have explained a bit of how WP works. I expect there are sufficient sources to to properly add more material on the subject, and her own official biography or resume are probably sufficient for her awards and achievements, so long as they aren't extraordinary claims. There are many newspaper articles about her show, notable as an all-female current events panel program, and some about a dispute she had with a regular panelist. If we find secondary sources describing her views, or an intereview in which she discusses them clearly, then we might add something about that, but I think in this case we should avoid summarizing them ourselves.   Will Beback  talk  05:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Jared_Jackson

Jared_Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - unnotable? unsourced; defamatory!? // Kay Dekker (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I apologise if I haven't got the process quite right, this is the first time I've used the BLP board.

Firstly, I doubt the person concerned is actually notable, in the WP sense, but on the other hand I can't be sure whether that doubt is due to him actually being unnotable, or because the material presented just makes him appear that way. I found the page, BTW, by link following from Rick_Wakeman, about whom I do know something :)

Secondly, there are only two sources cited, neither of which evidently relates directly to the person: the first is to a "Prevention Education Foundation" web site, and the second to a WP mention of a Debra_Barr, whom the article asserts (without evidence) that she is the person's sister - there is also no mention of the person at Debra_Barr, by the way.

Thirdly - particularly see the section on Drug Addiction - the article doesn't portray the person in any good way. Who knows - if it's true, the person may be quite proud of it - but if that were my bio, I might feel disturbed or distressed by much of the material.

I've had the article templated for sources and suchlike for the past couple of weeks, but, though people have been editing it, the causes of my concern really haven't been addressed at all.

I honestly don't know the right way forward. At times I think it's a good candidate for Speedy Deletion; other times, I keep hoping that a good article could be made from it, but I know that I'm not the right person to do that. I'd really like some advice, please, because I'm about at the end of my rope with respect to this article. Kay Dekker (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

If you haven't already done so, you may want to read over the applicable sections of WP:NOTABLE. At a glance, it looks like the article would fit those requirements, but I do stress that I only gave it a quick look. There seem to be sources and references within the article. Perhaps the best course would be to add a {{notability}} tag to it and see where that goes.

Oh, I should add that a lot more citations are definitely called for in a BLP article, but it's good to draw attention to that fact with the notability template and give other editors a chance to respond. I'm not an expert on Wiki guidelines, but I don't think it would qualify for speedy deletion. --Rob (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Corinne Alphen and Ken Wahl

• Corinne Alphen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and * Ken Wahl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by
• KenWahlFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user has been making edits specific to these two people who are now divorced; user has removed a valid statement with reference (on Corinne Alphen) and has repeatedly replaced it with contradicting text and a link to a file on google docs or more recently, one on a personal hosted site. I've exchanged a couple of messages, here and here but I don't think I'm getting through. I asked a third editor to check this and she also reverted one of the edits and suggested I bring it up here. I'm just a vandalism reverter, so if someone in the know can handle this, it'd be good, thanks :) -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Neo-Nazism

• Neo-Nazism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by
• PasswordUsername (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I deleted some defamatory and potentially libelous material about an Estonian government official inserted into the article Neo-Nazism here as it appears to be based upon hearsay by a dubious character. However PasswordUsername has reverted me twice, here and here. I've mentioned in the edit comments the potential WP:BLP issue but he has responded by saying BLP does not apply. --Martintg (talk) 08:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

BLP requires that sources should be of the highest quality per Misplaced Pages:BLP#Sources, if in doubt it is better to remove material from main space and continue discussion about that source on talk page, as outline by Arbitration committee - Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2#Biographies_of_living_persons ("In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." This means, among other things, that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached."). Also burden of evidence lay on editor's, who restores such info, shoulders. M.K. (talk) 09:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The Southern Poverty Law Center seems like the highest-quality source on reporting alleged ties to neo-Nazism–this is a legally-oriented group specializing in cases of racist and neo-Nazi extremism and hate crimes. For clarification, this is what Martintg is bringing into question right here. PasswordUsername (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not the Southern Poverty Law Center making the claim, but saying a Estonian newspaper said this person Cobb identified the person in question as a neo-Nazi. This is highly dubious hearsay. --Martintg (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

While it may possible the info is removable because it is too detailed for such a large topic (WP:UNDUE), just what is the problem with reporting hearsay as hearsay, once it is discussed by a reliable source? With attribution and neutral wording, it reports verifiable info, not the truth - the former we strive for, the latter is not our concern (WP:V). Dahn (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps because BLP has a higher standard regarding potentially libelous material? As the policy states "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." --Martintg (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Friends of the Western Buddhist Order

Friends of the Western Buddhist Order (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Arrived at through a request for a WP:Third opinion, could someone with more knowledge of BLP have a look at the article for violations wrt the ex-leader, Sangharakshita? Especially this section. Thanks. // Bigger digger (talk) 09:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Max Blumenthal

Compare these two versions? http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard?action=edit&section=new

The final section of this entry appears to just be a personal attack on Blumenthal, added after a recent video he posted online of young Israelis. It isn't sourced and I think it should be removed.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gideonprewett (talk • contribs) 13:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

COuld you repost the link correctly? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, still getting used to this!
This page compares two versions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Max_Blumenthal&diff=295312236&oldid=293452914

Gideonprewett (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Paul R. Traub

Paul R. Traub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was created by Furtive admirer (talk · contribs) on 6 June. It uses this site as a source, as well as court documents, and was entirely written by Furtive admirer. Less than 3 days later, the article was given a prominent link on the same site. His writing style and the one on petters-fraud.com are practically identical. The article, in my opinion, is original research, and is not even close to neutral.

I am concerned that Furtive admirer (talk · contribs) runs petters-fraud.com, or at least has a conflict of interest. In this discussion, initially regarding an employee of Mr Traub whitewashing the article, Furtive sees himself as "superman", believing in "truth, justice, and the american way". He's quite adamant about 'outing' the alleged crimes commited by several people, leading to to believe he's not exactly neutral himself, even though he may have no link to the people involved. I'm very close to removing the page from mainspace, or possibly deleting it, unless/until it can be scrutinised for BLP problems.

Can someone provide me with a second opinion here?

Thanks, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Rich Mullins (musician)

The references on this article, as well as much of its contents, seem off the wall. Can someone give me a second opinion? Stifle (talk) 15:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ow. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh oh. The listed sources seem either wholly worthless or have aught to do with the topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of removing one of them. Off the wall barely describes it. Drmies (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm removing all negative uncited material, and anything that I should be able to verify but can't. There's not going to be much left in a few minutes... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Drat. I tagged it for CSD A7, but forgot to tell Twinkle not to actually delete it. Should I bother restoring it?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Defamatory material at Asaram Bapu

• Truth10000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps inserting defamatory material, not verified by sources provided (one reference given is "For more details please watch videos on youtube."). See for the latest one; earlier edits are , , , , , , , , , , . Just before that, multiple IPs were active inserting the same material, see , . Also, Truth10000, in their edit summaries, accuse WP editors (myself and User:TheRingess) of being PR people for Asaram Bapu, which is like so totally not true since I haven't gotten a dime yet. Your attention is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Indef blocked by Mentifisto, who beat me to it. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Mentifisto...they are faaaaaaast! Thanks to both of you. Now, what do I do about the next batch of IPs inserting the same thing? ;) Drmies (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution