Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RomanHistorian (talk | contribs) at 02:17, 19 October 2010 (→Insane Clown Posse). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

Additional notes:

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

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

Details of Lester Coleman's imprisonment

Hi! At Talk:Lester_Coleman#Inmate_Locator we are discussing whether to use Lester Coleman's Federal Bureau of Prisons inmate locator profile, which lists his name, age (not his date of birth), race, federal prison number, and official release date: BOP link - This is a primary source

He is the only Lester Coleman listed, and the database covers all federal inmates since 1982. The entry certainly refers to the Lester Coleman we are discussing.

• This page states: "Please note: It is possible that a record may exist for an individual who was in BOP custody but never served a sentence of incarceration (e.g., a person was detained pre-trial but criminal charges were dismissed, held as a material witness, held for civil contempt)." - So every type of person who entered the federal civilian prison system is covered.

We know he was imprisoned in the federal system based off of a New York Times article ( New York Times article), and the article gave out what his sentence is - it does not say what his prison ID is, and I haven't found his prison ID or any other release date in any secondary source

I argued for including this information since it supplements details about his incarceration already known from the New York Times article, based off of Misplaced Pages:BLP#Misuse_of_primary_sources - The other poster argued that I need a secondary source anyway.

Any comments? WhisperToMe (talk) 07:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The NY Times article says he was released in 1997. The Rumor Mill and other unreliable sources say he was imprisoned in 1999 and sentenced to 8 months for writing bad checks. If WhisperToMe wants to use this information in the article, he needs to find reliable sources that show that the rumors are true and that the 2000 conviction was notable enough to be included in this biography of a living person. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes we need some more details, adding this - Lester Coleman served time in the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) system. Coleman, BOP#47321-019, was released on December 7, 2000. - makes no sense, why was he held? was he charged? was he guilty of anything? without any details the additions asks more questions than it answers. I know Lester claims he was held without charge around this time and alleged miss treatment, and was released without charge after months. But those details would all need reliably citing. Off2riorob (talk) 08:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The questions on why was he charged, why was he held, etc. are answered in the NYT article.

As a matter of fact, before the sentence about him being held by the BOP, there is...

"On September 11, 1997, Coleman stated to a New York Federal court that "...he lied when he claimed that a secret drug sting enabled terrorists to evade airport security in the bombing..." In a plea agreement, Coleman was sentenced to time served, which was five months, and six months' home confinement under electronic monitoring."

The sentence about his BOP confinement came after that. Even if he served home confinement only and never set foot in an actual BOP prison facility, he was still under BOP supervision.

I don't see the NY Times saying he was released in 1997. What the NYT specifically says is:

"Mr. Coleman faced up to five years' imprisonment and a $250,000 fine on each of the five counts to which he pleaded guilty yesterday. In a plea agreement, however, the Government agreed to a sentence of time served, which was five months, and six months' home confinement under electronic monitoring, according to court documents." - So he pled guilty on September 11, 1997, and was given the sentence above.

I did not consider any articles for Rumor Mill in anything that I proposed or did.

Also to my knowledge each person has the same BOP number for life; I don't think the number changes if someone receives a new conviction.

However the conviction date may not be relevant, if it has to do with a new conviction not covered in reliable sources.

WhisperToMe (talk) 09:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, just found a source that is about more Lester Coleman charges!

"COLEMAN SOUGHT IN PROBATION VIOLATION, TALK-SHOW HOST NOT ALLOWED TO LEAVE KY." Lexington Herald-Leader. August 24, 2002. C1 City&Region.

I may have to do a resource request to get the full article

WhisperToMe (talk) 09:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are also other stories on the Lexington Herald on the 2000 "check fraud" conviction. It is however totally unrelated to the 1997 conviction on perjury in the Pan Am 103 civil trial. (Coleman and his supporters naturally claim that all of this is part of a Government conspiracy to silence him.) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 09:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The BOP record does not list all of his convictions - it just lists his ID# and his last release date. I think he has the same ID number for all of the instances of supervision under the Bureau of Prisons. AFAIK the BOP number is relevant to both his 1997 perjury conviction and his 2000 check fraud conviction. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Also:

"CONSPIRACY THEORIES: Outlandish claims can hit close to home." Atlanta Journal-Constitution. April 30, 2000. C5.

Some text inside: "... of the theory's primary author a man by the name of Lester Knox Coleman ... Coleman has since been convicted of federal charges of perjury and state ... "

May need a resource request on that too.

WhisperToMe (talk) 09:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• It looks like you've worked through the original issue, but just to come full circle, I think that the BOP register is a reliable source for the information it contains, but in an of itself, we can't be sure that the this information 1. applies to this person and 2.relates to a particular charge. I think the gaps need to be filled w/ other reliable sourcing, and it seems that you're on track to do so. Xymmax _{So let it be done} 13:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I think we can be sure that it applies to this person as it's the only Lester Knox Coleman listed, but 2. is a valid point. I'm waiting for a resource request to be completed so I can get additional info. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Alright, I found an article on the Lexington Herald-Leader.
      • "EX-FEDERAL AGENT SENTENCED FOR CHECK FRAUD TERM IS PROBATED BUT DEFENDANT ALSO FACES U.S. PERJURY CONVICTION." Lexington Herald-Leader. April 11, 2000. - This says that his perjury conviction was still in effect, and "He will be transferred to federal custody because he is wanted for parole violations" - This also answers the question of why he was released in 2000.
    • WhisperToMe (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Nooruddeen Durkee

Could any editor help with the article, on pointing out places which perhaps doesn't suit Tone of Misplaced Pages Biographies of living persons. The article has been cleaned up already.

Tagged the page with {{refimproveBLP}}. Seriously unsourced sects on the BLP page, needs major cleanup. Semiprotected the page. -- Cirt (talk) 21:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Steven T. Murray

• Steven T. Murray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Osobooks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I added a fact to this article, cited to the New York Times Magazine . Another user removed the item, with the edit note “removed erroneous speculation from New York Times” . I re-added the item , and the same user removed it again , this time signing the edit note “STM”, impliedly claiming to be the subject of the article. How should I proceed? Mathew5000 (talk) 05:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• This sounds like an issue for WP:COIN rather than here. Just as a side note, if a source is challenged, then the best thing to do is to find confirmation in another source. Even the New York Times Magazine gets something wrong, and if it is relevent information, it tends to get covered by multiple sources. I have no statement one way or the other if the NYTM sourcs is wrong or not, but one way to say that it isn't is to find confirmation elsewhere. --Jayron32 06:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure it would be nice if there were a second source for confirmation, but suppose none can be found. Then all we have is on one hand, the reputation of the New York Times, and on the other hand a single editor who claims (without citation) that the source is wrong. Mathew5000 (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

My opinion: If a user was trying to insert unsourced information into a BLP with an edit summary of "it's true", it would likely be removed and, ultimately, a talk page discussion could ensue as to whether the info should be included. The same is true here; an editor should not be able to remove reliably sourced material from an article by simply stating "not true". They need to be directed to the talk page where they can explain what aspects of the information are incorrect and how they know it's incorrect. They should not remove the New York Times sourced information wholesale without discussion to determine the validity of their claims. Jezebel'sPonyo 19:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Warned the user, and issued the user info about conflict of interest. Both users should engage in discussion, at the article's talk page, and pursue WP:Dispute resolution, rather than back-and-forth edit-warring. -- Cirt (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Lester Coleman request for comment

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Biographies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Despite it being posted on the BLP noticeboard, it has not attracted a lot of attention. Anyway there is proposed content at User:WhisperToMe/Coleman, relating to Lester Coleman, and there is a dispute over whether it is compliant with WP:BLP. One poster argues that it is "worthless conspiracy content" and another poster argues that it is not "worthless conspiracy content." The previous discussion is titled Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Lester_Coleman. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob said: "Basically, its a BLP not a he said she said and they thought POV write up. Keep it simple and keep it clean and clear, less in this case is more, your content belongs on some op ed titillation article not here on wikipedia, the lowering of standards in such a way allows the lowering of standards all across the project and although you are interested in this sort of thing, it should not be allowed on this project."

Off2riorob, the only part that is (for now) a "he said she said" is where Michael Hurley said Coleman worked one job while an attorney said he worked another. Aside from this, I have found no reliable sources or primary sources from Coleman which contradict anything that other people say. The outcome of the court case, the statements of the alias, the Lebanese wife, etc. have not been challenged by other sources.

As for the one thing that is a "he said she said." While WP:BLP prohibits "gossip," I don't see anywhere that states that BLP prohibits describing unclear legal conflicts and personality conflicts. Removing the conflict between Hurley and Coleman removes an essential element of Coleman's subject. We have to go in a he said she said routine and neutrally discuss the court case and its outcomes. See Misplaced Pages:BLP#Public_figures which says "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I notified the only other participant in the previous noticeboard thread that there is an RFC now here WhisperToMe (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the material is usable, although I would beef it up with some of the other sources dug up lately. One thing puzzles me: If "Coleman was never called as a witness in the Pan Am trial, and he never submitted any affidavits, declarations, or dispositions," how could he be charged with perjury? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a good question. I'll have to do some more digging and see how the perjury case came up. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I found the answer. According to http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/1997/09/12/1997-09-12_con_man_admits_flight_103_pe.html , his sworn statements were repeated on international news programs. It also says "His affidavit was used by Pan Am in its defense against a civil suit brought by the families of the bombing victims. " - So it seems like Pan Am ended up using it after all. The article that said he wasn't called was from 1992. The one from 1997 said he was called. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Are there any other viewpoints about this matter? If the RFC closes without further discussion, I'll presume that the content is ready to be added. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I still object to the additions you wanted to make, for the same reasons. Off2riorob (talk) 12:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

If you want you can try to make a new argument, further clarifying your existing arguments and directly addressing the content that is currently in my subpage, and/or responding to Petri Krohn and others. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW especially since another user has stated his belief that the material is usable, if you want to make your opposition clear, you will have to pick at least one of the three options above. Otherwise it's not further discussion. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• There have been no edits to the page itself since 28 September 2010. However, users are encourage to engage in discussion at the article's talk page, instead of engaging in disruptive editing, and if needed, seek out WP:Dispute resolution processes, instead of back-and-forth edit-warring. -- Cirt (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the newest version of the text I find it well sourced and high quality. It should be integrated into the article.

There is still one important BLP violation that must be addressed. The article as well as the proposed text now says that Coleman was sentenced for perjury in 1997. Reliable sources however state that the conviction was overturned by a court of appeal in 1999. Here are the two references:

• Marcello Mega (June 13 1999). "Court clears Lockerbie claim agent". The Sunday Times. Archived from the original on 8.7.1999. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= and |archivedate= (help)
• "Lockerbieattentatet avslöjat av agent". NEXUS Nya Tider (in Swedish). 2 (6). 1999.

The first one is printed in the Scotland section of The Sunday Times. The second one is a reprint of the Times story in the Swedish language edition of Nexus magazine. The issue is complicated by the fact that according to the Times story the court placed reporting restrictions that prevented the US media from covering the story. Although one could question the poor quality archive of the Times article and the reliability of Nexus I think there is every reason to believe that the reporting is correct. In these circumstances we cannot have the conviction claim without the acquittal. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I added the information acquittal reporting as soon as I confirmed that the article was there. I said that it was reported as such, because with no other newspaper articles saying that it was overturned, I'm not certain whether Mega's statements are correct. I also started Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Humanities#How_to_find_a_record_of_a_sealed_conviction to get some more detail about how to find more information about this.

At that thread the response was "A Google search for the author of that story, Marcello Mega, indicates that he has something of a fondness for fringe theories concerning the Lockerbie incident, as in this story." - I asked for further help on how to check the validity of Mega's statements.

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The validity of Mega's statements is irrelevant. The information was published in The Sunday Times – on of the most reliable of sources – and we do not have other sources to contradict it. The only problem here is that The Times is updating their web site and the archive for the years 1985–2010 has gone off-line. (The scanned archive for 1785–1985 is working.) I would very much like to confirm the existence of the article from the on-line archive, but the fact that it is not usable does not allow us to make a more incriminating claim. (Its only a Javascript glitch, you need to refresh the search page before making a new search. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC))

As for Mega, we know that he has written for the The Sunday Times, there is even an sundaytimes.co.uk email address published on the web. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, perhaps I could contact him

While newspapers can be "reliable sources" they are not infallible. If a piece of information is not widely reported, one has to be careful about how it is presented. Without any further research all we can say is that the newspaper reported that this was the case. See Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Newspaper_article_about_overturn_of_a_conviction - The user who responded said "It would be totally unacceptable to leave such information out of the article, but on the other hand if it was not widely reported that's suspicious. Without further research we can't do more than alert readers to the problem."

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I found an article on the Lexington Herald-Leader.

"EX-FEDERAL AGENT SENTENCED FOR CHECK FRAUD TERM IS PROBATED BUT DEFENDANT ALSO FACES U.S. PERJURY CONVICTION." Lexington Herald-Leader. April 11, 2000. - This says that his perjury conviction was still in effect, and "He will be transferred to federal custody because he is wanted for parole violations" - This also answers the question of why he was released in 2000.

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

As the ruling that overturned the perjury conviction was sealed, nobody is supposed to know if it was still in effect. This list posting from May14, 2000 gives some light on the situation: FBI VS KEY LOCKERBIE WITNESS -- NEW DAY IN COURT. The issue facing Coleman was not perjury, but that by talking about Lockerbie while pleading the fraudulent check case in Kentucky earlier in 2000, he had broken a gag order placed by the District Court. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is another posting that makes reference to the overruling ANOTHER TURN FOR LES COLEMAN. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Coleman entered a guilty plea. In the USA usually people who plea bargain don't appeal their convictions later. If a conviction gets overturned, one has to have appealed first.

Based on what I have encountered so far, the idea that there was ever an overturning and that there was a sealing of the verdict is in question.

The Lexington Herald article states in the title that his perjury conviction was the issue

"Rumor Mill News" by itself isn't an RS, but I decided to look at it anyway to see if it reveals anything that I could find in reliable sources. It talks about Coleman making some statements in defense of his Pan Am testimony after he was indicted on state charges in Kentucky. Where did he directly make those statements?

WhisperToMe (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is another source that repeats the claim of a sealed ruling overturning the conviction:

• Carlton Meyer (February 19, 2007). "The Lockerbie Cover-up (Part II - The Lie Unravels)". Sanders Research Associates. {{cite web}}: Check |archiveurl= value (help)

It is not self published by Meyer on his web site, so I would argue that it is reliable per WP:RS.

A quote:

This case demonstrates how the major media is easily silenced in the western world. The truth is can be found in fragments of articles from reputable news organizations.

The same seems to apply to anything related to Lester Coleman. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

When I clicked the link from Carlton Meyer, it states "No input file specified." WhisperToMe (talk) 01:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

http://www.sandersresearch.com/index.html says "SRA publications and reports are available only to clients." does this mean that content is not publicly visible? WhisperToMe (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess accessing the content requires a subscription – if it is still available. In 2007 the subscription seems to have been free. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Newspaper_article_about_overturn_of_a_conviction has an inquiry from a user about the supposed overturning. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Request to restore Lex Coleman

As this issue is now on the notice board this is the perfect time to make a formal request. The article on Coleman's university and journalism career was located at Lex Coleman and was deleted in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lex Coleman. It has later turned out that the deletion discussion was a sock circus worthy of Sesame Street or the Muppet Awards – with at least three socket masters directing the show. (As for the number of intelligence services, I have no idea.) The content is now at User:Off2riorob/Lex Coleman. It should be moved to Lex Coleman in preparation for a merge and redirected. In fact I already merged the sourced content in March 2009 and it is available in the Lester Coleman version history. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• Did Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lex Coleman get a DRV? WhisperToMe (talk) 07:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

  No. The sockpuppet is still editing under a new name and I do not think there is any need to make more fuzz about this. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Ram Sharan Sharma

• Ram Sharan Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mghori (talk · contribs)

Mghori is adding potentially libelous statements in a BLP. His additions are OR and he seems to have an extreme pro-hindu agenda and is claiming conspiracies all over. I have tried to engage him in the talk pages of the articles involved. But he continues to edit war and push his POV. In other articles, he is removing referenced criticism sections claiming that they dont include the subject's response.

I have already exceeded the 3rr reverting him. I am claiming the libel reversion excuse, but can someone take a look and warn him /block him (He has left threatening edit summaries as well)--Sodabottle (talk) 07:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

All my contributions are related court judgement or reference to incidents not with any original research. My point is same standard shall be maintained when some criticism part. When it is refer to mere statements some individual but to have replies from the person concerned when person is living. Sodabottle is either motivated or ignorant but is certainly threatening me with blocks etc. Request Sodabottle shall be suitable warned.Mghori (talk) 08:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Using the court judgement to say Sharma was motivated in helping muslims is Original research - did the court explicitly say sharma was motivated in helping muslims. No!!. The judgement was not about sharma at all. It is interesting how you have two standards for living persons. You remove referenced criticism from Elst's article saying it has to have replies from the subject, But add unreferenced criticism - your own - to Sharma's article. 3RR warning is a standard warning message. and your respond with a "no more editing will be tolerated" threat. If someone does not agree with your edits, you have to talk it out in the discussion page, arrive at a consensus and then only add the material back. That is[REDACTED] policy. In this case, i am clearly pointing out how you are violating[REDACTED] policy in the talk page. Instead of listening, you are editwarring using threatening edit summaries--Sodabottle (talk) 08:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The edit here is OR, badly sources (just someone's post to rediff.com), in the lead although not discussed in the article, and in short, a clear BLP violation. Mghori, don't do this again. I note that most of your edits appear to be denigrating BLPs, in particular calling them Marxist without adding reliable sources. Dougweller (talk) 09:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I want to clear the subject and my intention. Sharma is noted historian in India enjoying all kinds of position in Indian government. He has written many statements and in many books that there is no temple existed in Ayodhya and Ayodhya not considered hindu holy place before 19th century. This statement he made specifically to Lucknow high court. But based on Archealogical findings (See Ayodhy Archealogy page on wiki itself, there i have no edits) court decided there was temple existed and it was demolished to make Mosque. So it is very clear to any body the motivation of Sharma, he is now proved wrong by archealogists as well by court.

Now my references are to book by Arun shourie equally famous journalist (original work) and Koenraad Elst a Flemish Historian who actively replies to all his critics (Unlike sharma who shields from Media) about Sharma's statement I repeat statement (incident) not any comments or opinion ! My other 2 references are to one Wiki article (Where I have no edits) and Rediff article. Dougweller ! This is not posting. This is a link to court judgement copy. Dougweller, Sodabottle - Please withdraw your warning. Mghori (talk) 10:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• No court can determine anything about the interpretation of archaeological findings, and there was no link to the court judgement, only something someone wrote that may or may not have been accurate and certainly was not complete. I've removed part of your edit, if you continue to make libelous statements like that you will be blocked. Dougweller (talk) 13:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  • That didn't stop Purushottam Nagesh Oak bringing a PIL suit about the Taj Mahal. Welcome to the world of two opposed schools of Indian history, and one of the many fronts on which that battle is fought. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
• You can't draw conclusions about motivation and include them in articles here. That is original research. Even with sources, the bar for inclusion of information in a BLP is higher than it is for other articles and I suggest you read WP:BLP carefully before thinking about adding potentially negative information in one. Note also that libeling a person here (that is on WP:ANI, is not a good idea either. You might want to consider redacting some of the terms you've used above. --RegentsPark (talk) 11:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I would add that the OR is also silly. Even if someone was wrong about certain things, that doesn't in itself tell us they had sinister motivations. Plenty of people make good faith errors all the time including right here on wikipedia. BTW for those confused by some aspects of the above discussion, this discussion was original at WP:ANI but was moved here by another editor. Nil Einne (talk) 12:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
• I agree that the material was improper, and exactly what our BLP standards were intended to prevent. But I notice that most of the long section of the article consists of unsourced praise, and their wording suggests to me that they were copied from book jackets or publishers blurbs. Even the quotations from sourced reviews are given at undue length--we normally quote much less--generally in editing academic bios I quote a key phrase only. If the material is not online, I'll add a sentence or two--but in the footnote, not the main text. NPOV and RS applies to BLP, for positive as well as negative statements. DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I never said court interpreted but court given a judgement based on Archealogical findings. Dougweller please correct your self. I will try and rephrase the edit next when i get time.Mghori (talk) 03:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't got what everyone is saying. It is not only about phrasing. It is also about original research. Find a source that directly criticises Sharma and use it say "source X criticises Sharma such and such" and add it to the criticism section (not the lead). If you add the same material in other words, it is still OR.--Sodabottle (talk) 03:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not know which langauge shall I use but I am at loss of words to communicate that an incident and court judgement cannot be OR. They r to be considered matter of fact. I do not know how to get Admistrator rights but people who have like SOdabottle and Dougweller certainly do not have any knowldge about encyclopedia. They do not deserve them at all. Mghori (talk) 07:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attacks. This sort of behaviour is not acceptable in wikipedia.--Sodabottle (talk) 07:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Sodabottle Please be objective. Do not keep threatening me like blocking and warning. It is u first threatened my blocks and warning. I have been objective till now. Mghori (talk) 08:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

First you add libelous statements in a BLP, then you edit war, issue threats in edit summaries, libel the subject in the ANI thread and you insult other editors. And you are talking about being objective? Jeez!--Sodabottle (talk) 08:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Warned users involved. Full protected the page for one week. Involved users, please engage in discussion, at the article's talk page. Further disruptive editing may result in blocks. -- Cirt (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Karl Henry

Vandalism, needs to be locked. English Premier League footballer. Needs urgent locking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryankonkolewski (talk • contribs) 14:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for three days. Favonian (talk) 14:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism and BLP disruption issues continued; semiprotected the page again. -- Cirt (talk) 21:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Aravind L Iyer

Aravind L Iyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There have been repeated attempts to provide personal details such as date and place of birth which are not verifiable in any reliable public resource for this biography of a living person. This has the potential for identity theft. Further other unsupported and irrelevant claims are being made in the article regarding purported user names and on line ids of the individual whose biography is provided in the article.

It does appear that there is improper behavior from some contributors on this article. An administrator should be along to look at the page history and take any necessary action. However, I notice that you proposed the deletion of the article on the grounds that it was an unreferenced BLP. I have contested this, because the article is referenced. Although the references come from the subject's employer's website, they are not technically "self published" in all cases, because there is editorial oversight of the website independent of Mr. Iyer. As the NIH is a well-respected academic institution, and the facts cited are not controversial (Mr. Iyer's CV can be readily verified by looking up the individual articles), the "unreferenced" claim doesn't fly. It would be preferable to have additional independent references, but the article doesn't require deletion. If you still believe that deletion is necessary, please use the WP:AFD process. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotected the page. If unsourced changes continue, the users can be blocked, if behavior pattern is still an issue with particular users in question in edit history at the article page. -- Cirt (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Eren Derdiyok

There is a low-speed edit war going on as to whether Eren Derdiyok is a Turk or a Kurd. Reliable sourcing would be good, or else we'll have to remove the ethnicity altogether. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Ethnicity should not be included in the lead sentence unless it is the reason for the person's notability, and I don't see that here. Discusion of ethnicity would be more appropriate for an early life type section, with proper sources of course. --Threeafterthree (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotected the page. Users and/or IPs making unsourced changes to BLP pages could be blocked, if this behavior pattern continues at the page. -- Cirt (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

chrissie maher

Paragraph 4 of this Biography is written all wrong ...I dont even think it should be even in a Biography can anyone help? Martinos155 (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This was already brought up not long ago on this noticeboard; the text currently in place is the result of that previous discussion. As mentioned on the article's talk page, the paragraph in question briefly discusses sourced, notable case where the BLP subject was accused of spreading rumors at the organization she founded; those accusations were upheld by a legal tribunal that found they were grounds for a case of constructive dismissal. The issue was reported in the mainstream press. The current wording is as minimal as possible while being factual and neutral. To not mention this case would result in an imbalanced article. While I acknowledge that it seems a borderline case under WP:UNDUE, I think that the article will be less balanced if it is omitted, and any undue emphasis can be corrected by expanding the article. I've already made a stab at doing so using readily-available Internet sources. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotected the page during this discussion. -- Cirt (talk) 21:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Dominika Stará

Dominika Stará (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This could be posted also on Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard or somewhere else, I'm not sure. A single purpose account, MichalMajkl (talk · contribs) keeps reposting , , , unreferenced and promotional content in this BLP article. After various attempts to resolve the problem , , , , I'm forced to ask for help here. I don't want to delete or destroy the article (the person in question seems to be notable per Misplaced Pages requirements), but this kind of editing/adding content is in my opinion unacceptable. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 20:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Removed the unsourced info from the BLP page. Blocked the user. -- Cirt (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The user edits in the same manner from various IP's. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 03:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotected the page due to the concerns about BLP disruption from IPs. -- Cirt (talk) 21:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

After the block expired, MichalMajkl (talk · contribs) reverted again without an explanation. MichalMajkl removed the only reliable source and restored the previous unreferenced and promotional version. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Cleaned up the page again after the repeated BLP violations. Blocked the user for longer block this time, one week. -- Cirt (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Victor C. X. Wang (closed)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Victor_C._X._Wang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This might be better posted on Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Cxw888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to have written an article about himself. While I originally listed the article as not conforming with notable persons guidelines, an admin seems to believe that it does. While there are references listed at the bottom of the article, non of the information contained in it appears to be cited at all and the references seem to be scholarly works that would not contain information regarding the individual. The same IP addresses appear to be removing the issue and deletion reports. Overall, the article appears to be less of a[REDACTED] article and more of personally written biography. What can be done?

First, I detected no BLP issues here. Nothing negative or harmful is said. Second, Someone (probably the subject) has removed your PROD notices which is acceptable. It indicates that they disagree with you. Please note that you should not replace a PROD notice once removed . Now, if you are concerned that the references are bogus, please bring forth your evidence. If you really think the article should go you could take it to AFD. JodyB _talk 18:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I have listed this at AfD; see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Victor C. X. Wang. Jody is right that PRODs can't be replaced when removed, but it made sense for User:Digitizednomad to bring this wider attention. Chick Bowen 00:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The subject of the article Cxw888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps removing the AfD banner from the article and replacing it with complaints. I've given him a few warnings on his talk page; would an admin please keep an eye on this and take necessary action if he keeps vandalizing the page? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The page has been semiprotected. The user was already blocked once for disruptive editing, further behavior pattern again would result in a longer block. -- Cirt (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, after I posted here, the user got sufficiently out of hand that I took it to AN3 for that block; hopefully when it expires, he'll bother to read some of the advice and instructions sent his way beforehand...! Thanks for checking. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome! The "thank you" is most appreciated! ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Now that the block has expired, Cxw888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) went right back to making his tendentious edits. At least it looks like he's trying to add references. (Given that he claims to write textbooks, I sure hope he just isn't trying hard on Misplaced Pages, because so far his comprehension, research, and citation skills fail to impress me.) I give up; I'm hoping that the AfD for this article passes to end this. I've requested that the page be salted if the AfD passes. I've also added a fairly lengthy {{Multiple issues}} in hopes that it will catch his attention and at least direct his efforts more productively. The page is still iffy where BLP is concerned, but considering any reputational damage would be purely self-inflicted at this point... *shrug* It's up to the admin types if they'd like to play whack-a-mole with this fellow or just wait out the AfD. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Penny Pritzker and other Pritzker family articles

• ProfessorSkill22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A new editor has begun by making potentially controversial but also potentially valid and useful edits to articles about Ms. Pritzker, her family and their business holdings. In some cases, they appear to paint her in a more negative light vis-à-vis other Pritzkers with whom she has been in disputes. ProfessorSkill22's only edits to date have been on this topic but he appears to be a skilled editor familiar with our content requirements. I don't have time to review the references used and then give these articles the attention they need.

Ms. Pritzker is a member of one of America's wealthiest families and a key backer of Barrack Obama's campaigns. As a result, her article in the past has attracted some drive-by whacko edits but these new edits don't fall into that category.

I'd appreciate one or more experienced editors making sure these article changes are appropriate both in terms of referencing as well as overall article neutrality. Thanks, --A. B. 17:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Note that most of these edits are months old but still largely in effect.For example, here are ProfessorSkill22's changes to the Penny Pritzker article and here are the subsequent changes. I think the concern is more one of overall neutrality (especially in the dispute between Pritzkers) in this case. See some older discussions at Talk:Penny Pritzker. --A. B. 18:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not an expert on her life, but given the first of the examples you point to I will WP:AGF. Thanks for the heads up. An expert might still want to look more closely.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Removed the blatantly unsourced info. Semiprotected the page. -- Cirt (talk) 21:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Vassula Ryden

Vassula Ryden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Arkatakor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I would like to report a conflict of interest (COI) user who has recently begun editing a BLP titled “Vassula Ryden”.

The user edits under the name MLPIO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and began edits approximately 2 months ago. In the process, MLPIO has violated numerous Misplaced Pages policies, which I highlight below. Before that, I would like to provide some background information on this user, which I think will make clear why I am approaching you directly, as opposed to initially going to discussion, as suggested by Misplaced Pages guidelines.

Introduction to MLPIO

“MLPIO” is short for Maria Laura Pio. She is the most well-known critic of Vassula Ryden for the last 15 years. In light of Misplaced Pages’s ‘neutral point of view’ stance, the following facts raise valid concerns regarding the ability of this user to make unbiased edits and constructive contributions to this BLP (Vassula Ryden).

1) In 2001, Maria Laura Pio created a critical website on Vassula Ryden and True Life in God, which she actively maintains and administers:

‘A Critical Website on Vassula Ryden and “True Life in God”’ http://www.infovassula.ch/

Note text at the bottom of main page: “Administered by Maria Laura Pio – maria31x@yahoo.com – Switzerland”. This demonstrates that she is responsible for the content of the website.

2) On this website, MLPIO gives a negative testimony on her personal experience of reading True Life in God (books published by Vassula Ryden) and, towards the end, states that: “After several years of these events, certain circumstances made me realize that I could not silence what I had experienced. This is the reason why this site has been created”.

http://www.infovassula.ch/tlighome.html#TESTIMONY1

3) Maria Laura Pio consistently posts negative comments about Vassula Ryden and True Life in God on innumerable websites and forums maintained by individuals/groups and directs people to her personal website.

4) I scanned two handwritten letters, which I consider provide relevant insight regarding MLPIO’s state of mind and emotional disposition. Originally deeply interested in and supportive of Vassula’s work (first letter), she suddenly inversed her support and initiated a fierce opposition to Vassula/True Life in God via the creation of her ‘anti-Vassula/TLIG’ website. She posted on her website some extracts of a personal letter she had received from the Episcopal Conference of Switzerland (ECS), the publication of which – never the intention of the ECS – caused them deep offence. A brief summary of this aforementioned letter:

“I have addressed Mrs. Marta Laura Pio a letter in a personal capacity which was not at all designated for publication. Moreover, I have criticized her for the fact she has published the few lines which I had personally addressed to her, telling her that normally only sects act in that way!”

If there is an email address I can send the aforementioned scanned letters to, please let me know. I feel they help provide valuable insight into the state of mind of this user. The 2nd letter is signed by Fr Agnell Rickenmann, General Secretary of the ECS.

Summary of MLPIO’s edits:

In her Vassula Ryden Misplaced Pages edits, MLPIO has violated Misplaced Pages’s policies regarding editing entries on BLP's by frequently using poor citations in her reference information. In fact, several of her references are not only poorly referenced but actually link to her own personal critical website that she holds against Vassula Ryden/True Life in God, which I mentioned earlier.

Here is a diff that highlights the changes MLPIO has done to the Vassula Ryden entry, though I will highlight some of them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Vassula_Ryden&action=historysubmit&diff=376907965&oldid=375602352

1) In an inserted paragraph, MLPIO mentions “an ex-member of Mrs Ryden’s association”. The “ex member” mentioned in the aforementioned text is none other then herself. Thus, she has effectively performed two violations:

A) Mentioning herself in the article - this is a violation as she does not represent any institution / clergy / or publication entity whatsoever.

B) Inserting poorly sourced material in an attempt to back up her aforementioned point that speaks about herself in the article. Furthermore, credibility goes out the window if you follow the reference footnote attached since it directs you to MLPIO’s personal critical website:

http://www.infovassula.ch/tligchurchposition.htm#Swiss

2) MLPIO added another paragraph and again used a single reference to her website – the reference links as follows:

http://www.infovassula.ch/tligchurchposition.htm

3) There are several positive and negative documents that have been published by the Catholic Church regarding Vassula Ryden. In an effort to maintain neutrality during my edits, I have made it a point to mention all of them, by doing what is standard in Misplaced Pages:

A) Quote the highlights of all positive and negative documents;

B) Include a citation and referenced link to a complete version of each document to enable the reader to examine them in their full context, should he/she wish to do so.

However, although a reference and highlights of a negative document with a link to the full version was previously mentioned, MLPIO for her part made an edit in order to include this document in its ENTIRETY. The modification is the last quoted italicized paragraph that can be found in the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Vassula_Ryden#Dialogue_between_Vassula_and_the_CDF

In the guidelines for creating entries, Misplaced Pages states: “Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints;”

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Criticism_and_praise

Thus, quoting a negative document in FULL for an entry that is supposed to be a BLP, creates major (and in this case intentional) distortion.

As mentioned before, there are positive documents regarding Vassula Ryden written by respected clergy. Example's are the “Nihil Obstat” and the “Imprimatur” that was granted on 28.11.2005 by Bishop Felix Toppo S.J. and Archbishop Ramon C. Arguelles respectively to Vassula’s work and “True Life in God”. Both are mentioned in the entry but are not quoted in their entirety and again, nor should they be as this is a BLP.

4) In her edits, MLPIO disregards and does not conform to the established style of the article. An example of this would be naming several of her references in all caps in order to make them stand out, or making multiple references to her same critical website. MLPio has employed phrases or words like “many critics” and “certainly” – “weasel words”, according to Misplaced Pages, that may introduce bias.

Conclusion:

I would like to conclude by stating the following:

I am aware that in light of her violations regarding the insertion of poorly referenced material in a BLP, Misplaced Pages states that such content "must be removed immediately and without discussion." I have intentionally refrained from doing so. The reasons being are:

1) This would result in an “edit war” between me and MLPIO which I want to avoid.

2) I feel the first step is to send you this report and wait for your response before taking action.

I am hopeful that after your review, her account will be disabled.

I look forward to your decision.

Arkatakor (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The article is absolutely shocking, one of the worst I've ever seen on wikipedia, it needs a complete rewrite. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

@ Cameron Scott

Are you a moderator? The purpose of my report was to highlight a COI user editing this entry - Regarding your comment about the entry needing a complete re-write, in the past 6 months this entry has gone from:

• 4 very minor and incomplete sections,
• 0 subsections
• 3 poor non 3rd party sources

TO:

• 8 sections most with huge amounts of content
• 10 subsections
• 40+ 3rd party sources / references based on books written by respected researchers and theologians

Thus this entry has already been completely re-written and was doing fine until MLPIO stepped in (again see diff in my original report). I am not concerned about its current state but rather what can be done to prevent it from being distorted by MLPIO in the future. As I mentioned in my report,[REDACTED] guidelines state that poorly inserted references or material for BLP's "must be removed immediately and without discussion". Thus I am fully entitled to undo MLPIO's changes but have intentionally refrained from doing so to avoid an edit war with this user. Please keep me posted as to what action will be taken against MLPIO.

Arkatakor (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC).

That person last edited at the start of august so the COI report is completely stale. The article in its current state is absolutely dire - it breaches our guidelines on Neutrality, most of the sources are either Self-published or simply not reliable, it breaches the MOS in many many ways (for example, it uses the subject's first name, we use surnames - that's only a minor problem, one of many), it's full of original research and novel sythesis (bringing together of sources to make a new conclusion). It needs a complete rewrite. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, if anyone has a conflict of interest it appears to be you, this edit by you about a deleted picture of Vassula Ryden notes that The person in the picture gave me permission to use that image; In fact she chose it. - which suggests that you are either working for or at the beheast of Ryden. Moreover, you then note that A group of us are working very hard on this page but you seem to be the only editor working seriously on that page, which suggests that maybe this is a role or shared account? --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

To dismiss that MLPIO is a COI entirely on the basis of the date of her last edit seems to indicate to me that you have not checked MLPIO's openly critical website, not to mention all the references / material she inserted in the entry which link to that critical website, which is far from a viable source. I have said before, I have refrained from making edits because I know she will make counter edits or tweaks to distort anything that does not fit her critical view. This is another reason she has not been editing recently.

In fact you contradict yourself about her not being a COI user because thankfully, your latest edit addressed one of the COI items with MLPIO I had listed in my initial report which was that of her including an entire negative document in the entry in order to distort things. You removed that entire quoted negative document and summarized it in a single sentence which was also the solution I was proposing. For this I am grateful.

Now kindly look into her other edits, notably the ones which have references 40-43 attached to them - to use your distasteful annotation, the references for sources 40-43 are also "absolute shite".

I have also asked you twice if you are a moderator and you have not responded to that query; I am new to this system and am still figuring out the ropes so bear with me on this. Again I would appreciate if you could respond to this query.

Regarding your mention of me being a COI user, I am merely a person who has been working on this project on a voluntary basis. Regarding my statement, yes at one point I did contact Vassula to tell her I was working on this entry and ask her for permission to use her picture. And she chose it for me. In working through this project I have consulted other people while editing the articles, that’s why I said “we”. No, my account is not a shared account.

As for your other edits I would like to have a serious discussion about these; kindly indicate to me which is the best avenue of communication for this as they would be too lengthy to list here.

Arkatakor (talk) 10:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

In answer to your questions, we don't have moderators, we have administators, no I'm not an administrator. However, just so you are clear about this, Administrators have no special power over articles, they can't control content and have to follow the same guidelines and policies as the rest of us. As for discussing my recent edits, the article talkpage is the best place. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

BLP violation at Stanley Pons,

I came across a BLP violation at Stanley Pons, but I'm under a discretionary sanction banning me from cold fusion topics at the moment. I raised this with the banning administrator,, but he's not active immediately. Without permission, I can't fix that article, which has a blatant BLP violation not supported in balance by the sources cited, which have been cherry-picked and synthesized to say what they don't say; I detail some of the issues in my request to the admin, giving an article, Martin Fleischmann, covering the exact same issues, but much more neutrally, and if there are questions, I can answer them on my Talk page. Otherwise, I'm filing this report and letting it go for now.

The problem text is:

• After the claims were determined to be unreproducible, the scientific community determined that the pair had engaged in fraudulent, sloppy and unethical work, incomplete, unreproducible, and inaccurate results, and erroneous interpretations.
• The sources support some scientists making the claim, not that the community "determined" this, and the sources also fault the claimants as well as possibly Pons and Fleischmann.
• The "determined to be unreproducible" is also misleading, but that goes into the overall conflict on cold fusion, so.... my suggestion is to more accurately report what is in the reliable sources, with the balance, not cherry-picked.

Thanks. --Abd (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Has been fixed now but I'm not sure that the earlier version is great either. In this case we should be particularly careful about the "fraud" claim. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• - Well, I fixed it and a user came along and replaced the excessive criticism. I have removed it again. Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Full protected for one week. Advised the two users edit-warring over it to discuss on the talk page, instead. -- Cirt (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

And this was the response I got to one of the posts to one of those users' talk pages. Interesting. -- Cirt (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Your administration in this case is totally unnecessary and excessive. What is interesting? What edit warring? Off2riorob (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: User Off2riorob (talk · contribs) has been warned before about overstepping BLP in order to gratuitously engage in disruptive editing on Misplaced Pages. -- Cirt (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Your administration in this case is totally unnecessary and excessive. What is interesting? What edit warring? Also , actually I didn't just delete your comment from my talkpage I moved it to your talkpage and responded, see here http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Cirt#Stanley_Pons - Off2riorob (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

And now Off2riorob (talk · contribs) is instead choosing to repeat himself in this thread, verbatim. My, that is not really quite helpful at all. -- Cirt (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what the issue is here and User Cirt's position, but it is not my editing. Off2riorob (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree the protection doesn't really seem to have been necessary here. There was basically one revert and there hasn't been any significant problems in recent times Nil Einne (talk) 07:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

How Misplaced Pages works (almost)

1. User A inserts BLP violation.
2. User B removes violation.
3. User A restores BLP violation.
4. User A then tells administrator: "Shame on me! I have edit warred. Please protect the article for a month."

Well. in reality this is not exactly what happened, but almost.

The BLP violation was first inserted by an IP in this edit. The edit basically says that Pons is hoaxer.

Off2riorob responded to this request, but instead of removing the violation tweaked another part of the sentence. I then fully removed the violation and reverted the content to its pre-violation form. My version was endorsed by JoshuaZ above. Today Off2riorob restored the violation in this edit.

The reason I did not keep any of Off2riorob's tweaks which truncated the criticism is because I believe the extensive wording gives a more positive impression of Pons. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Your edit appeared to add these descriptions of the living person as sloppy, and unethical work, and erroneous interpretations (of the data) - these additions are excessive and add nothing of added value except to additionally critisise the subject. I added nothing and as I saw, removed the blp vios. Off2riorob (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

No, at first you totally missed the violation and and in your revert you restored it. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Another little comment here, a ref named and unethical work, really Petri? you think this is suitable for a BLP? mark nutley (talk) 22:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I would be surprised indeed to see rob make a BLP violation, are you certain here Petri? Looking at the diff it would appear Robs revert was at least more NPOV, i mean your revert had a ref called sloppy for gods sake mark nutley (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Should we discus the issue here or on the talk page? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Hang on, look at what you reverted in here, ref names sloppy > and unethical work Those that failed to reproduce the claim attacked the pair for fraudulent really? you think this is ok for a BLP? what were you thinking Petri? mark nutley (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I definitely think it is the right thing to say. It is extensively sourced and it has stood there for at least 1.5 without any BLP complaints. (I will give further analysis of the versions later.) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is a summary of the version history (New text in bold):

1. Those that failed to reproduce the claim attacked the pair for fraudulent, sloppy and unethical work, incomplete unreproducible and inaccurate results, erroneous interpretations, as Fleischmann predicted they would do. (17 February 2009)
2. Those that failed to reproduce the claim attacked the pair for fraudulent, sloppy and unethical work, incomplete, unreproducible, and inaccurate results, and erroneous interpretations. (13 September 2010)
3. After the claims were determined to be unreproducible, the scientific community determined that the pair had engaged in fraudulent, sloppy and unethical work, incomplete, unreproducible, and inaccurate results, and erroneous interpretations. (26 September 2010 – BLP violation by IP)
4. After the claims were found to be unreproducible, the scientific community determined the claims were incomplete, unreproducible, and inaccurate. (7 October 2010 – Off2riorob's tweaks)
5. Those that failed to reproduce the claim attacked the pair for fraudulent, sloppy and unethical work, incomplete, unreproducible, and inaccurate results, and erroneous interpretations. (8 October 2010 – my full revert – 6. reverted by Off2riorob)

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

To the extent that the references are immediately verifiable online, they support Krohn's interpretation here. Off2riorob's edit, with the edit comment "excessively critical" as the sole reason for the edit, doesn't withstand scrutiny. It's not an explanation; it's basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Using the same footnote numbers as Krohn's restored version8 October 2010 as quoted above, let's see what the sources say. I will add emphasis to words that support the text in the article.

5: "Critics of cold fusion have lambasted this research as either fraudulent or sloppy, while proponents have charged that critics are close-minded and dogmatic."

5: "Those who could not reproduce the experiments often described the work of Fleischmann and Pons and of Jones as unethical, and sloppy."

6: "In the second meeting, however, Koonin and Lewis turned the tables on the chemists by drawing a humorously oblique contrast between the 'good science' of physicists and the sloppy, even fraudulent efforts of the chemists Pons and Fleischmann."

7: (quoting Park 2000, 122–123) "...What began as wishful interpretations of sloppy and incomplete experiments had evolved into deliberate obfusication and suppression of data"

5: "Many different parties on all sides of this dispute violated ethical norms."

8: "Entirely discredited, the notion of cold fusion today denotes an infamous episode of sloppy science that chemists, especially, would prefer to forget."

So... the sentence is perhaps slightly inaccurate in its phrasing, but it's far from "excessively critical." If anything, its brevity lessens the degree of criticism heaped upon the subject. An more-accurate version of the sentence based on the references I could immediately check would be "Critics of Pons and Fleischmann's work, including those who tried—and failed—to reproduce it, have called the cold-fusion experiment "fraudulent", "sloppy", and "incomplete". Both sides of the dispute have been accused of violating ethical norms."

I think Rob overstepped the bounds of proper BLP work when he deleted this sentence. It needed revision and tweaking, yes, but it was absolutely not "excessively critical." I have to question whether or not Rob bothered to review the citations before making the decision. Since he does not explain his reasoning in the edit summary, nor in the talk page, it's not possible to know his reasoning; I am having difficulty coming up with a defensible good-faith explanation for this one. Rob is very experienced and does yeoman work for BLP, but no one is above explaining their actions and justifying them under the rules. WP:BLP is clear that critical material is permitted, even necessary for neutral coverage, where it is properly supported. This is such a case. While we have to defend BLPs against all sorts of improprieties, we have to be very careful not to confuse neutrality with a complete lack of criticism, no matter how well-founded. I fear that is happening too often lately. We need to improve BLPs and help people understand what they did that was improper, rather than merely curtly censoring that which we find objectionable. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

A phrase like "fraudulent, sloppy and unethical work, incomplete, unreproducible, and inaccurate results, and erroneous interpretations" does strike me as somewhat excessive. The reader will think editors here skimmed the literature and added every unflattering adjective ever published they could find (perish the thought!). Cutting this string of seven adjectives down to three does not make for a "lack of criticism", but seems sensible BLP editing. One might argue that "unethical" should have been one of the three adjectives we retained, but Off2riorob's edits went in the right direction. --JN466 02:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I already agree that the phrasing was not up to snuff, and could stand work. I think Rob's version inappropriately minimizes the criticism—it was literally worldwide news at the time, and Pons' entire claim to fame rests largely on the furor that this work created when it was discovered just how poor their science really was. What you're describing isn't a BLP violation, it's a potential WP:UNDUE violation. To me, it's the phrasing, not the actual facts (or words!) that create the potential for undue emphasis in this case. But most of all, making these sweeping edits without explaining them on the talk page is not productive and not good etiquette. Making them without even explaining one's reasoning clearly in the edit summary...? Do that, and you shouldn't be surprised if people get upset. It winds up looking arbitrary and capricious. I'm not saying it was. I'm saying it would look that way. At the very least, it's counterproductive if we're looking to educate people on the BLP rules and encourage constructive, good-faith edits. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I do read it as a BLP violation. "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." Stringing seven adjectives together like that does not comply with that. You can have a good-faith discussion about which adjectives to retain, but BLP does ask us to pare the article back first whenever there is any doubt, and discuss later what to reintroduce. --JN466 03:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but there's the rub: "and discuss later what to reintroduce." There's a distinct lack of discussion going on in this case, at least from the person that did the paring. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The edit only just happened a few hours ago. This board is the right place to discuss it, and as far as I can see, this is exactly what is happening. --JN466 04:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

You are both barking the wrong tree. After the IP inserted the BLP violation (hoaxer) in version 3. it really does matter how Rob tweaked the rest of the sentence, as he did noting to the violation itself. The real issue should be version 6. i.e. the same as 4. above, where Rob edit warred to re-introduce the violation. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

If I missed a bit of something that also required deleting then you could have removed it with a explanatory edit sumary or explained to me that I had missed a bit, that is a side issue to my two removals. I was only dealing with what I saw as worthy of trimming as undue and you replaced it, claims of fraud when there have been no legal charges are excessive and I removed it again as I am imo required to do. I made two edits, two removals of content I still say is excessive, that is not warring, not by a long margin. Off2riorob (talk) 11:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Undue violations concerning living people are very likely going to be BLP violations. Not necessarily terrible violations but violations. I do believe however the article talk page would be a better place for discussing how to word the sentence but since it's happenning perhaps no point confusing matters. In terms of the wide issue, I don't know if it's helpful to try and assign who should have done what. Clearly both parties thought their version was suitable in accordance to policy but weren't achieving consensus. Some discussion was needed. Who should have initiated it is IMHO largely a moot point. As I remarked elsewhere, from my POV although I'm not an admin it doesn't seem to me what was going on here was really that bad. Discussion earlier may have been ideal but it's not like there were multiple reverts and we have no way of knowing what would have happened if the article hadn't been protected so it's pointless to try and argue there wasn't going to be any discussion. However what's done is done and I also don't see any point unprotecting the article until some edits are needed. Nil Einne (talk) 07:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, not a massive blp violation as I said in the edit summary, trim, comments a bit excessive and excessively critical - just because it has been there for a amount of time does not make any difference at all how long its been there. Also just because it is possible to find a lot of critical expressions in cites does not mean we need to include a long list of them, what I left was plenty to get the point across, I also left all the citations in place for people to investigate further while imo not removing and content of any value apart from repeating the same criticisms. I saw the excessive name calling as just a way of saying, his work was rubbish, really rubbish, terrible false rubbish and ow yes, did I tell you how rubbish and wrong his work was? well yes it is really rubbish. Off2riorob (talk) 08:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This is how it was when I made my edit

After the claims were determined to be unreproducible, the scientific community determined that the pair had engaged in fraudulent, sloppy and unethical work, incomplete, unreproducible, and inaccurate results, and erroneous interpretations

I found it excessive and especially had blp worries as regards the fraudulent claim and also the erroneous claims and I trimmed it leaving the basic message

After the claims were found to be unreproducible, the scientific community determined the claims were incomplete, unreproducible, and inaccurate

User Petri K then replaced the fraud accusation and the list of critisisms and claimed he had sorted it ..User:JoshuaZ then commented that he had reservations about the content and that " In this case we should be particularly careful about the "fraud" claim"... When I saw it replaced I simply removed it again, and would have been available for discussion. If there is disputable content with blp issues it is correct to remove it on sight, anyone wanting to keep the fraud claim could have opened dialog with me, personally I see little need for dialog in this case, it appears clear to me, no part of the detail has been lost and our content is a bit more reflective of a middle of the road position, imo closer to NPOV and more compliant in regard to BLP. Also for user:cirt refering to these two edits of mine as gratuitously engaging in disruptive editing on Misplaced Pages - Is a bigger blp violation than the fraud claim in the article. Off2riorob (talk) 09:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This is totally irrelevant. we are not discussing your edit on 7 October 2010 (number 4 on my list above), but the fact that you edit warred to reintroduce your version of the BLP violation. The violation is originally in the edit by the IP editor (number 3.) that claims that the "scientific community determined" Pons to be a hoaxer. This is not supported by science, even less by the sources used, as demonstrated by Macwhiz above. Whatever you did to the sentence afterwards is of little importance; in my opinion your edits only collaborated to the damage, at least as much as they made it more difficult to recover the original stable and sourced version.

On the issue of cold fusion: While it is difficult for cold fusion supporters to introduce reliable sources for their point-of-view that cold fusion exists, it is a non sequitur to claim that science has proven cold fusion to not exists. In fact, there are no reliable scientific sources to support such a claim. Cold fusion is fringe science, mainstream science does not need to say anything on the subject. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 12:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Reply to pertri k claims my comments are irrelevant and his yet again undue accusations that I was warring - There is no such thing as a stable version. As for the pons is a hoaxer, Thats fine, we can simply replace that it is only a claim. It is not even a big issue, the scientific community claims it was a hoax, easy to correct and hardly an excessive difference. Off2riorob (talk) 12:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it correct to say that we only disagree on one issue .. You support this portrayal of the living person .. After the claims were determined to be unreproducible, the scientific community determined that the pair had engaged in fraudulent, sloppy and unethical work, incomplete, unreproducible, and inaccurate results, and erroneous interpretations - and I think it is excessive and undue and have trimmed it twice. Just as a disclaimer, I have no opinions about cold fusion or fringe science at all, I just don't care, my two edits were just to remove what I saw as undue and excessive listing of negative terms that could be removed without losing the point and I went there in response to a BLP thread asking for assistance. Off2riorob (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Rob, I think part of the problem is that you're concentrating mainly on that latter half of the sentence, but the initial BLP complaint was actually about the initial part: "the scientific community determined". That statement isn't supported by the references, so that part of the statement needs to be changed. Krohn's version of that part of the sentence is more accurate and better keeping with BLP. I agree with you that piling the bare words into one sentence isn't good; it doesn't supply enough context to be balanced. However, most of those terms are used consistently and repeatedly in reliable sources to describe the subject, so it's reasonable to include them in some fashion. My preference would be to expand this a bit and use short quotations to provide context for these claims. I'm not saying "turn it into an attack page," but these guys are infamous for this very reason, and glossing over the degree and volume of criticism they received wouldn't be NPOV. I think the concern here is that BLP/N was asked to review one thing, and the editors of that page perceive that we ignored their concern and went our own way, inadvertently making the article less accurate as a result. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem about someone edit requesting that revert. I missed that part, but my two edits were both made in good faith and are no excuse to attack me and misrepresent me as warring. As for the other issue, the list of , well basically attack type list of critical comments, is imo undue and a few other users here have opined the same thing. This the claims were incomplete, unreproducible, and inaccurate that I left is to the uninvolved eye, total criticism of the work, I just removed the undue excessive additions that were closer to insults and slurs and left the rejection of their work' Off2riorob (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• I agree. Petri Krohn's concern seems to have been, disregarding for the moment the question of the adjectives, the change from "Those that failed to reproduce the claim attacked the pair" to "After the claims were determined to be unreproducible, the scientific community determined that the pair ..." --JN466 14:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• - I have left an edit request to address this issue on the talkpage here - Off2riorob (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

edit request was objected to by user Petri Krohn. - Off2riorob (talk) 22:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Source wording

• It may help editors to look at what the Oxford University Press (ref. 5, Adil E. Shamoo, David B. Resnik (2003). Oxford University Press US (ed.). Responsible Conduct of Research (2, illustrated ed.). ISBN 0195148460.) book actually says about this case. It is considerably more nuanced, and I believe it is within the bounds of Fair_use#Fair_use_under_United_States_law to reproduce the following brief excerpts here, in a non-profit educational project, in aid of scholarship and research:

Rae Waters

Two newly created sections, "Controversy" and "Political positions," were added by agents of opposing, current campaigns. They are poorly sourced - the "Controversy" section in particular has a single source, the local GOP site instead of a reputable news or scholarly organization - and the "Political positions" is simply a spinjob intended to damager Rae. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.133.93 (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Welcomed the users. Cleaned up the page a bit. Semi-protected it. -- Cirt (talk) 23:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! The "political positions" section remains opinion-based; Rae is not "one of the most liberal members" by a long shot. This information was inserted because she represents a moderate, leans-conservative district. It's simply a hatchet job.

Thanks again for your prompt response! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.133.93

I tried to fix it a bit more and also warned the user. -- Cirt (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Dae Gak

It is noted on Dae Gak's page that he received disciplinary action from the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology however the context of this unclear and I do not believe that it belongs in the article without a better citation. I have posted the discussion of this on Dae Gak's talk page. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks much. --UhOhFeeling (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotected it during this period of discussion. -- Cirt (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that posting on these things never actually accomplishes anything. Am I doing something wrong?--UhOhFeeling (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The assertion is sourced to a State of Kentucky web site that lets you search for licensing disciplinary actions. The link doesn't take you to the subject's information; it takes you to the search form. Being a search engine, it seems to me it violates WP:ELNO #9. Further, the results only tell you that a disciplinary action was taken; it does not say what action, why it was taken, or when it was taken. You have to pay to get documents from the state for that. As such, it's not possible to tell if the claim is notable or relevant. I'm being charitable and assuming the looser restrictions of WP:WELLKNOWN could apply, rather than WP:NPF; in either case, the current sourcing is inadequate. If the source stated clearly the details of the disciplinary action, it's possible it could be a statement worthy of inclusion, but definitely not a sure thing. I've removed the statement as a BLP violation until appropriate consensus is reached. Jikaku (talk · contribs) has started an RfC about this on the article's talk page. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

David Bruce McMahan

The page David Bruce McMahan which was created today references reports of some rather serious claims about the subject. According to one of the sources used a similar page had been deleted from Misplaced Pages some time in the past. I know nothing about that issue but figured I should point out what's going on to others before things get too crazy. As for my involvement, I just cleaned up the references a little. I haven't yet taken the time to verify the claims beyond skimming some of the references (which do appear to support the controversial claims). Because of the nature of the claims and serious BLP issues obviously we need to proceed carefully. SQGibbon (talk) 22:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

This issue is now at WP:ANI. -- Cirt (talk) 03:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Paul Watson

• Paul Watson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• BQZip01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I believe that the intent seen here (in the edit summary), and here (on the talk page), is to attack the character of the subject. My opinion is that it is not helpful in improving a high visibility article on a controversial person. Request preventative guidance on BLP to avoid violations and/or drama. signed Dynamic IP currently editing as: 68.28.104.238 (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotected the article during this period of discussion. -- Cirt (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

How does that make sense? The only editors that have edited the page in relation to the discussion are all autoconfirmed. The IP was looking for guidance on how to proceed with the discussion, not a technical measure that has no effect on the involved users for the most part. --Terrillja _talk 19:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

There has been chronic disruption at the page in the past per the logs, a small bit of recent vandalism, and also recent disruption back-and-forth from registered accounts, though that is okay now. Can't hurt to have a mid-level of protection on a WP:BLP page during an ongoing discussion at BLPN. -- Cirt (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I'm OK with this. The focus is on avoiding BLP issues on the article page, not my access to it. Additionally I am unable to notify BQ on his talk page of this discussion. 68.28.104.230 (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The IP's point was that the BLP violations aren't on the article, they are on the talkpage, such as the link above where BQZip refers to the subject of the article as an idiot., before he went off about meatpuppetry and such. --Terrillja _talk 19:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Understood. The prot was not due to the substance of the report by the IP itself, but as a corollary to the existence of it. -- Cirt (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Update: I have notified BQZip01 (talk · contribs) about this thread. -- Cirt (talk) 19:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, thanks for the notification. I appreciate it.

I didn't "go off about meatpuppetry and such". I made a single comment that a sudden influx of IPs seemed suspicious. I also explicitly stated it wasn't conclusive. I stand by it, but that doesn't mean it is anything other than a coincidence either.

As for Terillja's claims, he is taking my comments WAY out line. I made a general comment that if ANYONE makes a comment that is demonstrably false, it isn't a "self-serving" comment, but rather self-disservice. The person can be an idiot that posts such information, but that is their responsibility, no ours. This opinion applies to ANYONE who makes claims that are demonstrably false, not just Mr. Watson.

Now even if I DID say something about him specifically, it would be clearly commentary about the subject by a Wikipedian, not something claimed as factual/slander (Wikipedians can have opinions). I'm sure I've done plenty of idiotic things.

I also see no effort to get rid of WP:IDIOT, though I'm pretty sure that refers to living people.

In any case, I see no BLP violation(s).

To the meat of the discussion (pun intended...oh, just smile a little people :-) ), there has never been an WP:SPS violation involved, so it is a red herring in the first place. I didn't add the contentious information in the first place (the material being claimed as an SPS violation).

Lastly, the basics of how to rewrite this have already been agreed upon by multiple users and all that remains is the exact way we're going to do it. — BQZip01 —  21:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

...and here's a little evidence that my comments about meatpuppetry/harassment have some merit: — BQZip01 —  23:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

And yet another IP had joined the discussion...— BQZip01 —  15:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Request this "discussion" be closed. Nearly 10 days and not a peep from anyone. Moreover, I request that the talk page be semi-protected as well. 5 IPs "suddenly" showing up and accusing me of impropriety with exactly ZERO evidence to back up said claims does not help a discussion in any way. FWIW, this is a recurring pattern of behavior with the same user that is the subject of indef semi-protection on my talk page; i.e., this is intentional harassment by IPs (whom I believe are actually the same user...please note the numerous IPs from Virginia...again). — BQZip01 —  14:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Chris Marr

Chris Marr

Chris Marr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This article has been repeatedly edited to include a Criticism and Controversy section. This section references just one link . This reference does not include all the quotes used in the section and does not support all claims used in the section. The combined effect of undocumented claims in the section is distinctly negative, and editors may be attempting to influence Chris Marr's current re-election campaign. Revision history shows multiple attempts to prevent neutral coverage of the incident and to eliminate expanded coverage of Chris Marr's life. Examples below: Removal of expanded biography and political information, reinstatement of biased section Removal of attempt at more neutral, accurate reporting of source information

I am reinstating Bonne's more neutral reporting of source material as well as expanded coverage of chris marr's biography and political views until this issue is addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wxfst (talk • contribs)

Welcomed the user that made this complaint. Semiprotected the page during BLPN discussion. -- Cirt (talk) 22:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Matt Pinfield

216.221.84.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made this edit to Soul Asylum and then this edit to Matt Pinfield. The Soul Asylum edit was quickly reverted but the edit to Matt Pinfield was not reverted for over a week. I reverted and put a simple vandalism warning up but shouldn't a more stronger warning be added. I'm not sure what is appropriate in this situation. XinJeisan (talk) 00:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

If this is not the proper forum to bring this issue to please let me know where I should. Thanks XinJeisan (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, this is a good enough place as any. Your note was fine, if it was to continue then further Administrative action would be required. I don't think he will come back under that IP I have watch -listed the BLP/. I personally think adding the death of a living person can be upsetting to the subjects and his family and should be acted on strongly.Off2riorob (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Spearmint Rhino

• Spearmint Rhino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article currently has assertions about a man who started a strip club business. Another editor (who was recently blocked for creating an attack page on the man) pointed out that the article frequently gives unreferenced notes about the name of someone who started a business. This needs to be fixed, and I'm too slow with writing to do so myself. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• I have removed the blatant BLP violations and various other unsourced stuff. mark nutley (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Ironically, your "massive BLP violations", from Max Clifford's involvement to the governmental licensing questions, are in fact verifiable:
    • Nicola Formby (2002-08-03). "So what's wrong with lap-dancing?". London Evening Standard.
    • Keith Dovkants (2002-06-02). "Lap dancing: behind the scenes". London Evening Standard.
    • Jennifer Kabat (2000-05-10). "G-strings at dawn for strippers". London Evening Standard.
    • "TV review". The Stage. 2006-07-03.
    • Christopher Hope (2008-11-25). "Peter Stringfellow says lap dancing clubs are no more erotic than a disco". The Daily Telegraph.
  • Indeed, the edit that added the less promotional part of the content explicitly told us where this information came from.

    The real problem, as can be seen by comparing the aforecited sources with the content that you edited, is that the article was casting Spearmint Rhino as some sort of hero of the entire affair, when what sources there are on this generally don't make such a judgement. But given the nature of the organization and the fact that it does verifiably employ PR companies, I am not surprised that a single-purpose account named after the organization's owner added the puffery (although it seems exceedingly unlikely that that account is in fact M. Gray himself, and I'm thinking of a username block).

    Magog the Ogre, John Gray's name is amply verifiable. Start with page 158 of ISBN 9780415283458 (which, aside from showing in its own citations how many more sources there are on this, shows us exactly how impoverished our article is). Uncle G (talk) 14:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Alan Dubin

• Alan Dubin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• MMNJ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I recently noticed that the user MMNJ added some information to the article Alan Dubin that seemed like it could potentially be vandalism (the edit is here.) I looked into some of the user's recent edits on that article and found another that could be construed as vandalism (here), but I figured I'd just undo the edit and that would be that. The user returned the edit, so I left him a message on his talk page saying info on BLPs need to be sourced, at which point I noticed I've had interaction with this user on this article before (although it's been over a year, apparently.) The user ignored my message and has returned the edit again. I don't know if it's vandalism or not, so I didn't want to treat it as such (although I can't find any sources for it), and given my previous interactions with this user on this article, I'd rather if someone else could handle this issue. Thanks. Rnb (talk) 23:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Done, and tomorrow i`m posting at SPI as this guy has socks all over that article mark nutley (talk) 00:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Rnb (talk) 00:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Done: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/MMNJ. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Bob Geldof

There is a dispute between myself and another editor User:Rodhullandemu about whether it's appropiate to include a brief (reliably sourced) mention of his sister's death in the article. Opinions? Exxolon (talk) 00:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It is breaking news, it ought to be left out until bob makes a statement about it really mark (talk) 08:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what Rodhullandemu said. This doesn't really relate that much to Geldof himself and doesn't seem necessary to put in there. Kansan (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Acey Aquino

Would someone have a look at whatever is going on at Acey Aquino, an unsourced biography of a 16 year old Filipina actress that is been stubbed by User:Pleasedeleteaceyaquino. I'm unable to verify that this person has appeared in the films and tv programmes listed and I wonder if it's a hoax. Note that the two external links are broken or non-existent. Thanks, Jon 217.43.240.23 (talk) 19:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Well she exists, i`m looking for sources and have found a few, so not a hoax mark (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Then again maybe not, all the sources seem to be wiki clones. I can`t find anything about this person at all mark (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yelena Dembo again

I've got IP-hopping vandals continuing to make unsourced defamatory allegations against her, such that I've semi-protected both the page and the talk page. Additional ideas welcome, but mostly just posting this for notice. Jclemens (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Rinat Akhmetov

Rinat Akhmetov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I've just fully protected this article after coming across a dispute between IPs and established editors over the inclusion or otherwise of material which claims the subject is connected to organised crime. I'd appreciate more eyes on it to figure out of the claims belong in the article and whether the protection is necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I added a bit of the disputed information and requested the help on this article. 1 piece was from a previous established editor who was being reverted, my additions to the lead and the "organized crime" section were supported by news, journal, and government reports. All of these references were being reverted and called "libel". I guess it would be helpful to get a fresh set of eyes on the article to clear this up. Thanks. --Львівське (talk) 00:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Nobody seems to want to discuss this, can an admin please undo this lock down? HJ Mitchell seems to have ignored the issue, basic wiki-etiquette, and rewarded the vandals, which is just ass-backwards by admin standards. Little help?--Львівське (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

David Miscavige

I removed an entire WP:COATRACK paragraph about Tom Cruise and Mark Rathbun that didn't mention Miscavige once. Article may still need a look over. --JN466 03:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It deals directly with the subject of the article. It is direct context for issues pertaining to all three individuals. -- Cirt (talk) 03:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Cirt has reverted the edit, reintroducing the paragraph. --JN466 03:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph reads:

• The nature of what was discussed in the confessional sessions by Cruise was not revealed. Rathbun ceased the filming of Cruise in 2002, because he felt it was unethical. Rathbun left the organization in 2004, and since then has given counselling to former members of Scientology. In a post on his blog, Rathbun wrote a statement addressed to Cruise, "Wake up, Tom. It is not too late. Though, time is getting very, very short." As of May 9, 2010, representatives for Cruise had not yet responded to the statements made by Rathbun. --JN466 03:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Update: I have now removed the paragraph myself. Removed the entire paragraph, save for one sentence. See diff link. Noted as well, at Talk:David Miscavige, as we appear to be having identical simultaneous threads in both locations. Perhaps this can be marked as resolved, as there is now no objection to the material removed by Jayen466 (talk · contribs) from the article page. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 03:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• While we're here, it would be useful for outside eyes to look through the article to make sure it's fully BLP-compliant. Miscavige is probably not one of our most popular BLP subjects, but we should still take care that we have a decent article on him. --JN466 04:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

So ... any comment on my agreement, and specifically this edit in attempt to go along with sentiment expressed by Jayen466 and remove the paragraph he had questioned? -- Cirt (talk) 04:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This article did indeed exist in a poor state of quality in the past. Over time, I had put forth a bit of effort, to improve the overall quality of the page. Admin John Carter (talk · contribs) stated of those efforts after I posted a query to the talk page of the article for input on additional WP:RS sources to utilize in the article, "The RS I know of are already used in the article. Good job on working to improve the article." ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 11:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Update: I removed yet more sourced info still, from that same subsection raised above in the initial complaint by Jayen466 (talk · contribs), see diff link. Also, after that, I did some additional research in secondary sources, and added a bit more info to the article, standardized references present in the article did some copyediting, formatted paragraphs, and added some additional material which reflects positively on the subject of the BLP article, see diff link. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 13:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• It looks to have improved quite a bit since this was originally posted but I'm not the one to ask for a full review of any article ;) so it would be nice if someone with more experience on that gave it a once or twice over to see what they thought. James (T C) 04:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Jamesofur (talk · contribs), for your comment about my recent efforts to improve the quality of the article. Most appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 04:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Update: And now some critics offsite view my work on the article as too positive, see forums.whyweprotest.net and forum.exscn.net. Sigh, oh well, guess I can't please everybody. :P Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 09:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• haha that is rich indeed, considering between your work at The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power and WP:ARBSCI. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment about my Featured Article-contributions to Misplaced Pages. It is most appreciated. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• I think it all has to go, I see an allegation about a Living person that is near impossible to substantate one way or the other thus i think its a BLP to include it. I think these two paragraphs would be more appropriate at Rathburns article that he made these allegations against Miscavage. Right now these allegations are not even mentioned at his. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 13:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Rathbun was for many years the second-in-command of Scientology, directly under David Miscavige. Per WP:WELLKNOWN, If the Vice President of the United States made similar statements, subsequently reported in multiple secondary sources, about the President of the United States, it would most certainly be mentioned in both articles. -- Cirt (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Its not the allegations that bother me, its the undue wight in BLP both sets of allegations seem to be given more weight than arguably is due. I am not arguing it be removed but substantially Trimmed. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright. I trimmed down the size of the sect. I removed a chunk of sourced info from the paragraphs. It is now significantly smaller in size. See diff link. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanx that looks alot better :-) The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. Thank you for being diligent about checking back in this thread, and responding to me. I appreciate that. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 00:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• I've done some work on the article; a number of things were mentioned twice in different places, but I think it is not in too bad shape now. Thanks. --JN466 23:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Jayen466 (talk · contribs), for acknowledging my efforts to improve the quality of the BLP page. Much appreciated. -- Cirt (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I do appreciate your efforts, both here and elsewhere; it's good to see these articles becoming more mature and balanced. It reflects well on Misplaced Pages if we can have a decent, BLP-compliant article on someone like Miscavige. Let's hope we can manage the same for global warming sceptics ... if you have time and inclination, perhaps you could keep an eye on the Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley BLP talk page. Different topic, but similarly hard to write neutrally. Cheers, --JN466 02:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It is most appreciated that you have said I have contributed to making these articles more mature and balanced. Thank you for acknowledging my efforts. -- Cirt (talk) 04:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Greydon Square

Is there a problem with including Eddie Collin's (aka Greydon Square's) role in the gun scare at Mesa Community College? It was very notable in the East Valley, with a campus (attempt at a) lock-down and people worried of a school shooting. Then, the aftermath resulting in a review of school security and played an important role in the debate over arming the school police at one of the largest community colleges in the United States. But yet, every time something about legal issues is added, it ends up removed again, typically by ip's in DC in the past, but now it varies though they typically have few, if any, other edits. The time before last it seemed to be removed because of the sources, so I added it back with updated sources, and corrected the errors in the information, but it was removed again, this time without explanation. 70.166.206.135 (talk) 04:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotected the page during this period of report at BLPN. -- Cirt (talk) 04:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Query: Have you tried to engage in discussion with those that removed it, via posting to their user talk pages? And also to the article's talk page? -- Cirt (talk) 04:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Gurudom?

Somehow I surfed to "Bob Greene (fitness guru)". I'm surprised to see somebody referred to in all seriousness here as a "guru": my impression was that the denotation of "guru" was a person of extraordinary wisdom, and the connotation was a fraud (often from south Asia) of extraordinary wealth gained from his credulous followers. The former looks like unencyclopedic puffery, the latter like a "BLP violation" (at least until the particular person is indicted and convicted of something). However, I hesitate to rename the article partly because I don't know how best to rename it and partly because I suspect that, while I wasn't looking, "XYZ guru" may have come to mean "somebody who sounds off on XYZ on TV talk shows" (rather as "legendary" has come to mean "at least moderately well known"). Comments? -- Hoary (talk) 10:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Moved it to just "Bob Greene (fitness)", removing the "guru" part, from the page title. Tagged page with {{refimproveBLP}}, as it could use sourcing improvements. -- Cirt (talk) 10:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Well done! Incidentally, I saw that the disambig page referred to him as a "fitness expert". We don't normally call a speaker/writer on, say, architecture an "architecture expert" -- it would seem to confer the Misplaced Pages Seal of Approval (for what that's worth) on somebody whose writings might later be shown up as hollow or anyway not all that good. (And something tells me that vapid pseudo-expertise might be more widespread in utterances on "fitness" than in those on architecture.) So I took out the mention of expertise. I wonder how much more there is of similar puffery in this great encyclopedia. -- Hoary (talk) 11:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Hoary (talk · contribs), I appreciate your kind words about my efforts in response to this issue at BLPN. -- Cirt (talk) 11:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Sandra Lee (cook)

I just removed some very petty negative remarks from this article. I have a feeling they will soon be put back however. I don't think everything that is sourced needs to be said, especially in such a short article about such a minor person. There is also a "Critical reviews" section with only one review, which is quoted at length and is very negative. If only one review could be found I think that shows how minor the person really is. Of course things have sources but still the effect is to make it look like a hit piece. Wolfview (talk) 13:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected the page. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Wolfview (talk) 14:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue itself appears to be a content dispute. Suggest engaging in discussion on the article's talk page. If that does not resolve the matter, recommend pursuing WP:Dispute resolution, perhaps in the form of WP:Third opinion or WP:Request for comment - either of which could then take place at the article's talk page in a new subsection. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 14:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk page discussions are going on.Wolfview (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I've expanded the section to be more balanced. Sandra Lee isn't "minor" by any stretch of the imagination; she's a very well-known television cooking celebrity. As for the article being critical of Lee, the fact is that criticism of Lee's cooking slightly outweighs the praise for it in reliable sources. Per WP:WELLKNOWN, our article has to reflect that in order to be neutral. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Harold Lewis

Harold Lewis - Another one caught up in the climate change minefield. Recently created article but I just removed the claim this guy who appears to have done quite a lot in his life became famous because of a letter. Mention of the letter may belong, but I couldn't work out how to include it. I'm guessing this is going to get a wave of action over the current days. Edit: I wonder if the whole article should be deleted and we start again. Basically the entire thing appears to have been a copyvio. Nil Einne (talk) 18:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

"Caught up in" may misrepresent his position, as in July 2009 he was a signatory to a letter opposing what it called "climate alarmism" and claiming that the Earth had been cooling for ten years, though his name doesn't seem to have made the mainstream press. (Boston Globe opinion column). His biographical details, including his birth year of 1923, are given here, with a link to this interview. The recent letter confirms his opposition to current climate science, but in a rather different style to that shown in the interview – he presumably would meet notability standards, but we should think of waiting for better sources than the current rash of blogs, including at least one newsblog (from a columnist with a poor reputation for science reporting) exploiting his name to oppose mainstream climate change science. . . dave souza, talk 19:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh I'm not denying he has involved himself. It doesn't however mean he would want to be memorised on[REDACTED] primarily as someone who opposed climate change. Nil Einne (talk) 12:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected the page during this ongoing cleanup. -- Cirt (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Ryan Leaf‎

There's an alligation from Sports Illustrated that Leaf did something, but it's just an alligation, on one story. I keep reverting citing WP:BLP, but I keep getting reverted back. Can some one chime in please. Secret 22:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Now of course the mainstream media (mostly blogs) is using the one source as a story. So it's still an BLP violation Secret 22:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed the sentence, as BLP policy says to do when the material is negative and poorly cited. A dozen poor citations (repeating an allegation) do not add up to one good citation. Wolfview (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Well you got reverted, I reverted back, i need more eyes, I'll think he's willing to violate 3RR for that material anyways. Secret 02:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Full-protected it. Users should discuss on talk page, and possibly engage in WP:Dispute resolution, perhaps such as WP:RFC. -- Cirt (talk) 06:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting it, Leaf is a target of a bunch of BLP violations, being considered one of the worst football players ever to play in the league, it needs to be watchlisted by all you guys. Secret 01:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Need some advice on Kevin Hart (poet)

So much ado about one poet/theologian...There's a lot of background; let me try to sum up:

1. A long time ago, the article was NPOV, in a negative sense.
2. Involved parties (either Hart himself, but more likely his associates and graduate students) began editing the article to "fix" the problems, along with filing OTRS (which were handled by User:Ironholds).
3. Ironholds, because of the OTRS and edit warring, eventually made the declaration found at Talk:Kevin Hart#Attention, all editors--a "neutral" version was restored, 1RR was imposed, NPOV editing strictly required. User:NuclearWarfare was the admin who agreed to watch over the article.
4. Myself and others argued that the "neutral" version was just as NPOV as before, except in the opposite direction (being a praise of Hart with no negative criticism, which did not seem to match the sources we had).
5. I volunteered to clean everything up as best as I could, which I did in my userspace; after it was completed, Ironholds approved replacing the puffery with what seemed to be a truly neutral version. We had a few weeks of stability.
6. Suddenly, a group of entirely "new" users, User:Max kovacs, User:Librarianguy, and User:Luxetveritas7 appeared ), and made massive changes to the article--removing about 40% of what was there, then more than doubling the article size after that, leaving us with another significantly NPOV (this time, puffery) piece. These users have never edited any other article, and were immediately making changes that showed significant sophistication and familiarity with the subject. These changes must have been prepared ahead of time, because there were instances of many thousands of characters of additions,vincluding sources, to the article being made within minutes of an account being created.
7. At first I started reverting those edits, but then recalled 1RR, and pulled back.
8. Over the past few weeks, I've been slowly making incremental changes (shortening quotes, re-inserting removed sources, removing unreliable sources, etc.). Each time I made changes I documented my logic in edit summaries and more fully on the article talk page.
9. Today/yesterday, again, another new user arrived (User:Phainein), making the same massive POV edits.
10. At no time in this process has any of the "new" editors ever made any comments on the article's talk page, nor have they responded to any requests made on their own talk page.

I don't know what to do next. Its frustrating to make incremental, fully explained changes to an article, then have a group of non-collaborators suddenly add another dozen sentences which need work. In addition, User:NuclearWarfare has just temporarily relinquished use of his admin tools, so I can't ask for help from that side. I'm looking for help, suggestions, etc.

Regarding the other 4 editors....I don't know if they're the same person. Based on the way they at times edit each other's work, I'm inclined to believe that they are actually more than one human being. However, it seems abundantly clear to me that they're all working together closely. I'm further inclined to believe that they are closely related to the subject (they've called him "Professor Hart", and one recently mentioned in an edit summary that they "heard" he's changing citizenship soon). If I had to guess, I'd say these are his graduate students, or possibly close colleagues. I have no idea if an SPI and/or Checkuser is appropriate in this issue, and welcome other people's opinions on that, too. I also don't know if Page Protection is appropriate either. I'm too close to the matter, such that I can't stomach asking for protection now while the page is, in my opinion, such a mess, and with almost no hope of the other editors joining a conversation on talk anyway, but I also don't want to make the obviously biased step of reverting to one of my preferred versions (even one of the more recent ones that's still NPOV but at least a little better) and then asking for protection.

Advice? Help? Other eyes? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

update: the newest editor (Phainean) is now engaging in discussion. Of course, I'm still open to more input. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

• Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Volunteers are invited to take part in a discussion of how to rewrite the section on Lord Monckton's climate science activism.

See Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley#Drafting a section on climate science activism. An earlier section on the same page, "Principles for a re-write", discusses the concerns that need to be addressed.

Please note that the climate change arbitration, which is about to conclude today, contains several remedies relevant to this article. In particular:

All users are reminded that as stated in the verifiability policy and reliable source guideline, blogs and self-published sources in any media may be used as references only in very limited circumstances, typically articles about the blog or source itself. Neither blogs nor self-published sources may be used as sources of material about living people unless the material has been published by the article's subject (in which case special rules apply).

and

Editors and administrators are reminded of the stringent requirements of the biography of living persons policy, particularly the importance of proper sourcing, disinterested and neutral tone, and ensuring that information added is specific to the subject of the article and given the correct weighting within the article. Edit-warring, poor-quality sourcing, unsourced negative or controversial information, inclusion within the article of material more appropriate for a different article, and unbalanced coverage within the article, are unacceptable. Similarly, material about living people placed into other articles should be held to the same high standards of sourcing, tone, relevance and balance.

The article is fully protected until 29 November 2010 due to earlier disputes which have been handled by arbcom by a combination of guidance and topic bans. --TS 14:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Buddhist sex abuse cases

Buddhist sex abuse cases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - After reverting an addition of a name of a living person to this article based on doubtful reasoning and subsequently the name being re-added, I am concerned about the basis of the whole article. There is an assumption that someone who is alleged to have had sex with a "novice" or "student" or "disciple" (without unambiguous definitions of these terms) is fair game to be listed in this article as a "sex abuse case". Some of the names listed have had no legal proceedings taken against them, others have been reported as having reached out of court settlements without the case being proven. There are obvious issues with the name of the article, the selection criteria for names being added and confusion about how well such cases need to be sourced. Fæ (talk) 15:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

G10'ed; thanks for bringing this here. Problems with this article are not limited to the inclusion of names--it is inherently POV to presume that Misplaced Pages editors can decide what is or is not an abusive relationship. In the case of analogues (e.g., Roman Catholic priest abuse) there have been clear criminal and civil cases. Skimming through the article, I saw nothing of the sort. If there's going to be an article on this topic, let us start again carefully. Jclemens (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello both of you, I was also involved there, and if you could restore the talk page, you'd see that I had suggested to changed the POV of the page entirely. (I did not create the page). The POV should be neutral, for example, limit itself to relaying information that these are budhdist masters who think that it is ok to sleep with their students. The reader can then decide if that is ok or not. ALL INFORMATION CITED should be referable to published books on major pushishing houses (which my info was). What do you think, would it be ok then, to simply report that these teachers have sexual conduct with their students, and admit to it, not calling it abuse or anything of the sort? 82.143.250.221 (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

If some reliable secondary source has written about the topic then WP could have an article on it. Just collecting information about people who are Buddhist, religious teachers, involved in a sexual relationship, and the other person in the relationship is one of their students would be considered original research. Wolfview (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The Nydahl, Eido Roshi, Brad Warner and Dainin Kataghiri cases were all sourced with major newspaper colums or published books. 87.61.175.179 (talk) 00:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said I did not start the Page, but I think the information is worthwhile. I propose an article called: Buddhist Teacher/Student Romances or something along those lines. Then go into these sections:

- What did Buddha say? - What is the tradition within the particular orders (Zen/Tibetan/Etc.) - Document what different teachers say about it. - (For example, Ole Nydahl acknowledged that he sleeps with students but adds that its ok.) - This way the article will be purely neutral and documentary. It should aim to document the controversies and let readers decide for themselves. 87.61.175.179 (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like you might have the makings of a sourced article on Buddhist teachers who violate the religion's own teachings on sex. That's hardly sex abuse, and the funny thing about religions is that people are essentially allowed to make up the rules as they go--if they differ too much from another sect, no big deal, they'll just be catalogued as a different sub-sect. Jclemens (talk) 07:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok then. Is there any possibility of you emailing me the content of the now deleted page at coreheim |a| gmail.com and creating such an article for me? I'll re-write it in the manner stated, and you can see if approve of it or not. 82.143.250.221 (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

as I said, I was not the original author of the article, that was user:ripoche. I would not use the word abuse in an article such as this. 82.143.250.221 (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Subject of article prefers a different romanization

Hi,

there is an ongoing discussion over at Talk:Ganhuyag Chuluun Hutagt. A user who says he is the subject of the article says he prefers a slightly different romanization and a somewhat non-standard order of his names. He also gave some evidence about what rendering of his name Mr. Ganhuyag prefers. I have moved the article to the name that the user wanted for now, but I wonder if there is some guideline for cases like this, and if not, if there should be. Yaan (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

If no one objects and there's a redirect from the "more standard" Romanization, I don't see why it would be a big deal. Jclemens (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I would think that would be normal practice, to refer to someone by the name they use. Wolfview (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Right, with redirect(s) from a legal name to a preferred, common, or professional name as appropriate. C.f. Gordon Sumner Jclemens (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, our practice is to use the name by which they are commonly known, if there is such a name, regardless of the subject's preferences. Among other things, we use Western name order unless the subject is otherwise known under a different order.--Orange Mike | Talk 19:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The "commonly known" version is ambivalent both in english and in Mongolian (iow. both version appear similarly often). The subject now seems to have entered the discussion himself (probably alarmed by staff/friends who mistook Misplaced Pages for an advertizing avenue) claiming that he prefers the unusual version himself. Such a preference does indeed seem to exist (reflected eg. in the subject's blog). I had renamed the article to the standard form as of WP:MON, but if the evidence for self-perference and/or commonality satisfies the more general common practise, I won't object to the non-standard form. The COI issues need to be dealt with seperately. --Latebird (talk) 09:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the Mongolian naming guidelines to support your claim we use the 'Western' name order in fact quite the opposite. It's definitely not a[REDACTED] wide policy for all people. While for Japanese (and I think Hungarian) it is the norm to use the given name family name in English sources for whatever strange reason, a practice we therefore follow and reflect in the MOS. It's not usually the norm for many Chinese not living in countries which follow that order, and this includes Chinese in places like HK, Malaysia and Singapore with significant English speaking populations so[REDACTED] follows that norm, which is again reflected in the MOS. The same for Koreans and Vietnamese. (The norms BTW are mostly explained in the article you linked to although it doesn't tell us what the MOS says of course). Nil Einne (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree that English name order does not seem very relevant here, in fact the Mongolian government has been, in the past, somewhat unsure about what part of a Mongolian name constitutes a "family" itself. Probably one of Mr. Ganhuyag's older passports had "Ganhuyag" as family name, while his current one most likely has "Chuluun". Yaan (talk) 11:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it is best to consider the subject's preferred spelling a Nom de plume. There are no western style family names in Mongolia, and he is creatively deploying the normally purely symbolical clan name (historical of self-styled) in its place. Actually, the chosen form most closely resembles the Russian tradition with first name, patronym, and familyname. --Latebird (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Steve Rider

Just some advice, please. Anonymous IP editor User:131.251.236.218 recently added a large swath of defamatory material to the Steve Rider article (diff). Although they then rapidly removed the material I am concerned that it still remains in the article's history. What would be the best way to handle this? Leave it be? Just a warning? Sysop to delete from the history? Just looking for some input from those with more experience. Thanks! Pyrope 18:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleted the revisions. Semi-protected the page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 06:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes

Currently has an interesting issue. Does which deals with a living person (Rummel) reach a level of synthesis regarding him entailing WP:BLP concerns? The edit at issue is:

Linking communist ideology to mass killings became a recurring theme in Cold War anti-communists propaganda. Some scholars, most notably R. J. Rummel have expressed similar views. with the edit summary Cold War anti-communists propaganda.

Does this assert that R.J. Rummel (alive, as I understand it) purveys "anti-communist propaganda" (which I take to be a pejorative claim)? Is this "contentious"? Is placing the claim one which requires a specific RS source? Does the second sentence stand on its own and not complete a SYNTHesis regarding Rummel? Would BLP require a specific source stating the "similar views" bit? Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If Rummel does in fact deal with the topic, that could probably be phrased better, but not a big deal. On the other hand, anything with an ASIN without an ISBN is somewhat suspect as a reliable source. Saying Rummel says the same thing as anti-communists do isn't a major BLP issue per se, but still needs to be cited. Jclemens (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

And the implicit claim that only anti-communist propagandists linked communist regimes to mass killings? Collect (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how that follows in the text. The edit summary, yes, but that's a summary. Jclemens (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe Collect means this anti-communists propaganda. Some scholars, most notably R. J. Rummel have expressed similar views it obviously implies rummel puts out anti-communists propaganda mark (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Not to people who actually can parse that logically it doesn't. All it says is that some scholars, including Rummel, "have expressed similar views". Big deal. Feminists and fundamentalists express similar views on human trafficking. Jclemens (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Scott Crookes

• Scott Crookes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This is an article about an individual which appears to have been written by his mates(?) on his rugby team. The article is very obviously a hoax and should have been CSD'ed. The article is now at AFD but I believe it should be speedily deleted as per WP:SNOW. Could an admin have a look at this and maybe close the discussion and delete the article early? GainLine ♠ _♥ 19:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleted clear BLP violations in the interim. Collect (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

And deleted the article. -- zzuuzz 19:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Salted it. -- Cirt (talk) 06:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Dodgy redirect to Peter Mandelson

I found this redirect at Rfd. In brief: Darth Mandelson redirects to Peter Mandelson, the British politician. It's not getting the swift attention that it should, so I brought it here. To be headmasterly about it - some people might think it's funny, but it's really not appropriate. I would appreciate some admin action to delete the page.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Redirects are not articles, they are purely search aids. As such they are value free - see WP:RNEUTRAL. The question of BLP applies to the underlying target since, by their nature, redirects as such cannot be sourced. If such nicknames are in the target then it is essential that they are reliably sourced. If such sourcing is inadequate then the term should be removed and the redirect with them. If the sourcing meets BLP standards then both the term in the target and the redirect remain. In this case I can find no reliable sources, and the nickname does not appear in the target, so the redirect should be deleted in due course. This redirect has been around for over 5 months, and the RFD ends in two days when it will undoubtedly be deleted, so there is no merit in short-circuiting the process, that allows time for others to find sources. I would add that the status of the subject has a bearing. We rightly treat marginally notable people differently from, for example, front-line politicians who court publicity. In the case of Mandelson, he has cheerfully embraced the nicknames 'Prince of Darkness' and 'The Dark Lord' (see here for example). In my view 'Darth Mandelson', though puerile, is no worse than either of those. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, WP:RNEUTRAL allows non-neutral redirects if they are likely search terms. Darth Mandelson is clearly not, nor would "prince of darkness" be. It's nothing like, for example Milk snatcher, which redirects to Margaret Thatcher's time as education secretary. Think of the fits that would be caused by a redirect to George W. Bush from chimp (a very well attested epithet). It's not up to us to speculate how thick someone's skin happens to be. How long it's been in place is neither here nor there. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 23:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that it is not a likely search term, and that it should be deleted, because it is not sourced in the target. That doesn't justify speedy deletion which is where I take issue. Actually, 'milk snatcher' is whole load more offensive and damaging, FWIW. The 'chimp' attribution is rightly not a redirect both because there is a different prime use for this term and, also, since it does not appear in the target. 'Prince of Darkness' is not a redirect because it is a disambiguated term (it has also been applied, in reliable sources, to Mike Jackson amongst others), otherwise it would be fine. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Although POV, "milk snatcher" is not infrequently used as a shorthand in academic accounts of British social policy for that particular episode (it was a very common chant). It's a good example of when a redirect may not be neutral, as it's a plausible search. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree; and it makes my point, that offensive redirects are, when properly sourced, in order. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Silvio Pollio

Having looked at this article in response to a request for protection, I have grave doubts about whether it ought to exist. It seems to be primarily an attack piece. Looie496 (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

With regards to Looie496 posting this discussion here:

I am not the creator of the article in question, and have no conflict of interest or stake in the article. I chose a random article from[REDACTED] to learn about editing and contributing to Misplaced Pages, citing, etc. I also read the[REDACTED] articles on verifiability and blp.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Verifiability

The request for protection arose from myself and multiple users warning an editor about vandalism, and having to revert multiple changes, page blanking, and destruction of references.

A simple google search brought up the information and references for the article on Silvio Polio from major Canadian Newspapers and film festivals. I feel the article meets both those guidelines as the information posted is from legitimate news sources, and would be valuable to the community and any interested in filmmaking, festivals, crime, fundraising, etc., and of particular interest to the Hollywood and filmmaking community at large.

The article is balanced as it includes the subject's artistic creations, collaborations with other actors referenced on wikipedia, and his recent film festival appearances, the fact that the subject produced a film, etc.

The fact that the article subject has funded a movie in the past via the proceeds of crime, and his movies are related to crime and film making makes it relevant. The assault charge, and all crimes referenced in the article is verified by major media news sources, and obviously relevant to both public interest and the subject's film making.

In closing,[REDACTED] contains encyclopaedic information, both good and bad. Would you suggest articles about Osama Bin Laden, or perhaps more relevant in this case Al Capone be deleted or not exist because it contains mostly information that would read like an attack piece?? Unfortunately their contribution to the public record and history has not been a positive one. That does not mean it should be deleted.

The article is fair, referenced and cited, and meets all[REDACTED] Verifiability and Biographies of living persons criteria in my opinion. Bluebadger1 (talk) 19:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Note - perhaps this could be appropriately discussed on the talk page for the article in question, as other editors have stated opinions as well, and this would be helpful for others who have helped to stop vandalism to the page. Bluebadger1 (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Update @ Talk:Silvio_Pollio user:Momo san has banned/blocked some socking master sock for vandalism etc. "User:Bluebadge iza hater is a sockpuppet to User:Jose Carlton." Suggested watching User:Mrsilvio and 24.84.160.17 as that was the first account and first ip to page blank and vandalize. Might be socks too? Bluebadger1 (talk) 06:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected the page. Tagged it with {{RefimproveBLP}}. Agree with the assessment, there are some issues, could use some cleanup. Could also use some discussion from engaged users, at the article's talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 11:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned on your talk page: I was wondering why you added the refimproveBLP tag to the page. 3 different major canadian newspapers, plus a couple smaller locals are referenced. Meets wp:v wouldn't you say? I even found the court and govt. documents via google search, but thought I read somewhere those should not be used? However: Policy shortcut: WP:WELLKNOWN clearly states = "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. So I don't see anything contentious about the article currently. So could the refimprove BLP tag be removed? I think marking a verified article with something that says "potentially libellous" and needs improvement discredits the work being done by the editors. ;) Or could you clarify for me what would need to be improved? Cleanup??? It is pretty lean, well referenced, and all the extraneous, not referenced/cited awards and self-promotion (against blp self published) was removed. Thanks. Bluebadger1 (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the refs could stand to be formatted properly. More refs could be added from other secondary sources, to make sure we are giving this the proper context, breadth, and scope. -- Cirt (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

See additional talk at Talk:Silvio_Pollio. User:Mrsilvio has claimed to be Mr. Pollio himself. Feels[REDACTED] is a place for his personally written biography. I suspect the person in question is running multiple accounts, but he stated he was present when the "changes" were made to the account. (vandalism his employee did to the page, edit warring, banned for socking also) Talk:Silvio_Pollio Advised Conflict of interest guidelines, BLP Self Publishing, and other info provided by multiple users. Suggest IP check/monitoring ] for socking? His stated "employee" Jose Carlton was banned for sock puppetry and user name violations. User also advised of conflict of interest at Talk:Silvio_Pollio. Will advise about WP:V as well.Bluebadger1 (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

AFD discussion semi-protected

• Emily Schooley (AfD discussion)
• EmilySchooley (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)

There's a limit when it comes to AFD discussion, and this discussion has just gone beyond it, with a succession of legal threats and BLP violations from single-purpose accounts registered just today. I've semi-protected the AFD discussion and am about to look into redacting some of the more egregious irrelevant commentary. BLP regulars are invited to give some sensible, policy-based, opinions about the article and the sources, in the discussion. Uncle G (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with the admin action above. Also, semi-protected the page. -- Cirt (talk) 11:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I also invite BLP regulars to participate in the related AFD discussions of Frozen North Productions (AfD discussion) and Flip's Twisted World (AfD discussion) as well, because at the moment most of the opinions in those two AFD discussions have been given by partisans in the external dispute. More non-partisan participation is needed. Uncle G (talk) 13:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

AJede(Kaloosh)

This was (possibly accidentally) mis-placed biographical content purported to be about one "Gerald William Makokola Nkhoma Junior", written by Keokemashoeshoe (talk · contribs).

I've blanked it. Uncle G (talk) 01:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Sarah Linda

Sarah Linda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is this relevant for a Misplaced Pages insertion - is this just not pure advertising - there is nothing notable about this person —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.183.166 (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It is referenced somewhat, seems fair and certainly not to extravagant. This seems to apply from wp:blp

"Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if—

it is not unduly self-serving;

it does not involve claims about third parties;

it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

the article is not based primarily on such sources."

Therefore, I would let it stand. Bluebadger1 (talk) 02:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Eyes needed

TJ Lavin is currently in critical condition due to a BMX accident. Although he may not be the most notable individual, he has some pop culture notability and his article is being hit by several IPs at the moment, some of which are intent on prematurely reporting his death. As I'm logging out for the night I'm hoping that a few BLP-minded individuals could pop this article on to their watchlist to make sure info added is sourced. --Jezebel'sPonyo 04:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

will do Bluebadger1 (talk) 06:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected the page. Tagged it with {{refimproveBLP}}. Tagged with {{Current}}. -- Cirt (talk) 11:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all! --Jezebel'sPonyo 14:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Shereen Ratnagar

Shereen Ratnagar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The subject of this biographical entry is a senior university professor, now retired from a premier institution in Delhi, India (Jawaharlal Nehru University). Being a much-published archaeologist, she was invited to act as an expert witness in the court case concerning the destruction of the Babri mosque in Ayodhya, a highly sensitive and public case that has exposed deeply polarised national politics and opinion in India (Ayodhya debate). This biographical entry appears to have been written by detractors opposed to Ratnagar's views, who are attempting to use Misplaced Pages to attack her in public. The entry contains no attempt to profile her professional contributions as a scholar or to provide any biographical information about her life, work and achievements in the fields of history and archaeology. It contains sarcastic, derogatory language, and almost all references are merely to newspaper articles written in the context of the court case, usually in highly-charged emotional language.// DomLaguna (talk) 04:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected the page. Tagged it with {{refimproveBLP}}. Removed some unsourced controversial info. -- Cirt (talk) 11:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Not the first time an article on someone involved with that controversy has appeared here. We probably should keep an eye out for people involved Nil Einne (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The Great ANC Race of 8C03

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/The Great ANC Race of 8C03

Could someone please check over this draft article; there are BLP concerns, so I'd like others opinions. Feel free to edit it, of course, and if acceptable just move it to a live article. Thanks v much.  Chzz  ►  07:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. The article itself about the "great anc race" is somewhat misleading, and not a notable instance on its own. It might be assumed the article was created to raise the issue of the use of "dumb ni@@er". However, the incident being on youtube, and in the papers makes it somewhat historical and newsworthy, but for that issue alone, and perhaps related specifically to the biographies of the "politicians" at hand - But the whole "great race" thing is hyperbolic. Is it worth an article? I don't know. Is there evidence to support the info about the racial slurs? Absolutely if there is a youtube video of someone making a racial slur. That would be pretty incontestable and unequivocal evidence if not edited, altered, or taken out of context. A good quote I read here earlier today was " A dozen poor citations (repeating an allegation) do not add up to one good citation." but it can't be libelous if true... So I would call it a good citation.Bluebadger1 (talk) 08:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The proposed article is total rubbish and belongs on a blog. Whether intended or not, its only interest is to highlight that someone was caught in a youtube video saying something nasty. Johnuniq (talk) 09:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is not even close to policy compliant, the creator has this on their userpage , which has already been discussed and resolved as I can see. Off2riorob (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Dc archivist is the wiki personality of a freelance reporter covering the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area. This account is managed by one entity. Please understand that research is conducted by several persons and then edited and published to Misplaced Pages by one person. Dc archivist..

Jim Devine

Jim Devine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I am concerned about several things in this article, not least of which is WP:UNDUE but in this note I am focussed more narrowly on the subject of what may be innappropriate synthesis. We say "Devine claimed to have heard 'nothing' about a possible prosecution despite it being widely reported over a number of months that his case had been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions and that he was 'astonished and devastated' by the impending prosecution." But the source linked after that sentence, which is here does not contain the word 'nothing' nor the words 'astonished and devastated'.

My concern is that, above and beyond the charges outlined in the article, which are up to a court of law, someone is POV pushing to convict him of giving contradictory statements to the press. This could be false, i.e. things are sometimes reported out of order, etc. Or it could be true and nevertheless inappropriate synthesis. In order to include a skeptical report on him claiming to not know something, even though he must have, we need to have some third party reliable source commenting on that issue - we can't just make it up ourselves.

As far as WP:UNDUE, this looks to me like a fairly tricky case. As a member of the UK parliament, there are no grounds for deletion in my view under BLP1E. Nevertheless, it is also quite likely that the only material press coverage of some otherwise obscure parliamentarians will be from a scandal like this. And it is, in fact, a legitimate scandal of legitimate public interest. Our best hope, then, may be to work hard to flesh out the biography with as much other information as possible. But that's a longer job that will take several of us rolling up our sleeves, so for today, I am just calling attention to the narrow issue which I outlined above.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Tagged top of page with {{RefimproveBLP}}. Semi-protected the page during this BLP report process. Others may wish to also consider trimming/moving some poorly-sourced-content to the article's talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 10:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The Daily Mail source does contain 'astonished and devastated' but it's in one of non-searchable images in the article here. Having said that, using the Daily Mail as a source for quotes for the BLP of a British Labour politician seems like an inherently bad idea. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with you about the Daily Mail. But, as you can see below, this was also reported in The Herald, and it is also in the BBC, the Daily Telegraph, The Independent and many more reputable and reliable sources. RolandR (talk) 11:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep, and that's probably the case for many of the other 11,000+ Daily Mail citations too. Oh well, baby steps. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

This seems more a case of sloppy citing, rather than a grievous BLP violation. Devine himself does not appear to have claimed to have "heard nothing" about a possible prosecution. Rather, that statement was made by another MP accused alongside Devine, Elliot Morley. Devine did, however, say that he was "astonished and devastated". There seems nothing here that cannot be corrected by simple editing of the article. RolandR (talk) 10:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The infamous Jeffrey Sachs

Jeffrey Sachs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The introduction of his page;"Sachs became infamous for implementing economic shock therapy throughout the developing world and in Eastern Europe, and subsequently for his work on the challenges of economic development, environmental sustainability, poverty alleviation, debt cancellation, and globalization." http://en.wikipedia.org/Jeffrey_Sachs seems way too opinionated and should be revised thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.113.181 (talk) 01:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

"infamous" in the lede is not good, but Sachs is a very controversial figure. Before his image makeover as Friend of Bono, he was one of the faces of shock therapy - and thus earning a very poor reputation amongst social and economic researchers of the Eastern European transition from communism. Basically, his reforms are generally judged to have caused lots of unnecessary poverty. There's lots of sourced criticism about Sachs. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The ip is right. "Controversial"... well, ok (though it depends on who, among social and economic researchers in Eastern Europe you ask). "Infamous" - no.radek (talk) 03:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not recommending the use of the word infamous, just pointing out that the article in general is not odd for containing a certain amount of criticism of Sachs' activities. Anders Aslund and neo-liberal economists like him aside, Washington Consensus shock therapy policies did not get a good press wherever they were implemented. Sachs was one of the WC's most prominent exponents. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that's fine, some (well sourced) criticisms most certainly belongs in the article, and in a very general way should be mentioned in the lead (as in "controversial"). I rewrote it so it's hopefully non-POV and respects BLP standards but at the same time makes the reader aware that there is some controversy. I think we're in agreement here.radek (talk) 06:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

My first edit summary was a little misleading - it gave the impression I supported the lede as it was. Sorry. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

"Chicago Area Controversies" in Oom Yung Doe article

The article about Oom Yung Doe (a martial arts school) includes the accurate fact that in 1989, a Chicago news station ran a series of reports including very serious accusations against the school. Some of the more tangible claims were that members of the school engaged in "violence, threats, and coercion against students of Oom Yung Doe, violence against students and instructors of competing schools, blatant financial fraud, and murder." No criminal charges connected to most of these claims were ever filed, and certainly no truth to any of the accusations was ever demonstrated (only charges related to the financial-fraud accusations were filed, but that case never went to trial, and years later some instructors were found guilty in a separate tax-fraud-related trial -- those events are described separately in the article, and I believe those parts should stay). I actually wrote most of the section describing this news report, but now that I've read more of the BLP policy I believe that it's effectively gossip and doesn't belong in the article (in the absence of some sort of reliably-sourced demonstration that there was anything at all behind the accusations of violence and murder).

I asked about this on BLP/N some weeks ago, but it was in a previously-resolved issue near the top of the page and I think it slipped through the cracks (no one responded). I'm affiliated with the school, and I want to be careful about creating the appearance of COI by removing reliably-sourced information, but I now believe that by BLP policy the "Chicago Area Controversies" section should be removed. Can some other editors weigh in on validity of removing this section?

Thanks. Subverdor (talk) 04:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• - Removed, it is covered in a section above anyways, apart from the extreme accusations that didn't come to anything at all. I don't think we need all those . templates really. If the school is talking about when trainings it gives then we can accept those simple claims about itself, anything about others should not be primary cited though, as per ..WP:SPS. I also removed this comment as uncited and it seemed clear and covered without it. Off2riorob (talk) 11:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think we need all those either. I objected to them some time back, but they had enough support that I didn't feel like fighting about it (and they don't really degrade the article; they just make it funny-looking in spots). I think the issue is that some editors are uncomfortable using the school's internal sources for anything, even fairly innocuous information, because the school's internal sources include some claims about the training (and the founder of the school) that are extremely hard to believe.

The other section you removed can easily be cited; all of the information there is already contained in cited statements somewhere else in the article. I also think it's fine to remove, though, for exactly that reason :-). Subverdor (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

John Eleuthère du Pont

Hi, the head of security at the du Pont estate, whoever that was at the time of Schultz's murder, gets pov treatment in the current Misplaced Pages version. I don't know if he is still living. Thanks for yoour attention. Rich (talk) 05:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I have had a bit of a look and he only gets a couple of mentions and is not named. Could you be a bit more specific .. do you mean the comment that the security agent did nothing and could have saved him? that is from here .. http://www.mainlinetoday.com/Main-Line-Today/February-2007/In-Memory-of-a-Murder/

Copied from the mainlinetoday article Then there’s the involvement of Patrick Goodale, an ex-Marine, du Pont security consultant and prosecution eyewitness, who stood armed beside du Pont as he fired three shots. The defense said he fueled du Pont’s paranoia. (Now living in Virginia, Goodale declined comment.) Former estate employee Charles King Sr. still blames Goodale.

The article was mostly expanded by a single purpose account with some claim of contact to the subject as his first edit summary was Dr. John duPont requested that I change his place of birth and the accounts name was behalfJohndupont.. the article could use a copy edit and a look at the quality and formatting the references but I didn't see any major issue, if you could provide a little more detail of your issues with the content, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 10:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Pictures in infoboxes

An editor keeps adding/re-adding pictures of living people to an infobox on the Maghrebi Jews page. However, there are no sources indicating that these people are actually "Maghrebi Jews", an unusual term that exists primarily on Misplaced Pages and its mirrors, though it is also found in some books. These people do not designate themselves as "Maghrebi Jews", nor do reliable sources designate them as such. In fact, as far as I can tell, most of them were not even born in the Maghreb. This seems an obvious BLP violation to me, but I was interested in other views. Jayjg 18:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Likely not a BLP violation if the the individuals were not actually identified as specific people. Individuals appear to be named (serves me right for not looking at the direct page instead of a diff). Assuredly the names ought be removed unless there is specific sourcing for the ascription of "Maghrebi" to each person. OTOH, I find such use of pictures in infoboxes to be generally useless at best. Collect (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as you've noted, the people are all actually identified by name, with links to their Misplaced Pages articles. Jayjg 18:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree and IMHO this is the same as lists and categories (which are mentioned in BLP) and stuff. We should use care in identifying people as X ethnic group and really in a case like this where this isn't any possibility of explaination of the applicability of the term to the specific person we should rely on self identification. At the very least without a source in the Maghrebi Jews article nor any discussion in the article on the person, they can be removed on sight. BTW even without a name in the article, particularly if the person is either fairly famous or easily identifiable from the image page (which they surely would be if they are notable) it would seem a BLP violation even if not as severe. To use an example, putting a picture of a living person in the paedophile article even without naming the person would be a very serious issue. Nil Einne (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Jim Swire

This article is a bit of a mess - among other things, it seems to be more about the Lockerbie bombing than about Swire, although the reason we have the article is his involvement with it after his daughter was killed by it. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Natalie Babbitt attends shit college?

Could somebody please read-over, review and rewrite some of the key statements in Mrs. Babbitt's page? There are quite a few points worth contesting.

Vandalism. Has been reverted. Jarkeld (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Insane Clown Posse

User:Dylan Flaherty is trying to add a bit about the albums of the band Insane Clown Posse being an evangelized metaphor for Christianity, even though multiple sources, and the members of the band itself explicitly state that their lyrics are not overtly religious, and that they are not very religious themselves.

Dylan is basing his edits on a recent article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/oct/09/insane-clown-posse-christians-god

Statements made by the author of the article are contradicted by member Violent J on his Twitter account: http://twitter.com/bigviolentj/status/27571693759

The themes of the band's lyrics are discussed here: Dark Carnival (Insane Clown Posse), which is sourced to the band's biography, multiple interviews with the band, and the band's website. The only source to explicitly mention an interpretation of Christian content within the band's work is the Guardian article, which is contradicted by the writers of the lyrics quoted out of context.

The BLP issue here is that while the material here has a source, it is contentious, and it relates to the religious views of a living person who has directly contradicted the claims made by Dylan.

Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisdomtenacityfocus (talk • contribs) 04:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a content dispute to me. If RS'es differ on a matter, list all the RS viewpoints and let the reader come to their own conclusion. Jclemens (talk) 05:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

At this time, any mention of the Guardian article has been expunged. I have tried to discuss this with the ICP fans, and have changed the wording to be more clear and accurate, but there has been no sign of cooperation. I am certainly willing to include any denials by the band, but the claim itself is entirely notable. The real BLP issue is that this reliably-sourced statement is being censored. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Such disputed weakly claimed content is better removed. If the simple claims are denied by the band and you have a single op ed guardian article, there is no excuse to keep it. Off2riorob (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

As explained on the article discussion page, none of what you said has any basis in reality. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add that Dylan has a history of edit warring on religious articles. He got himself formally reported for edit warring 4 or 5 different times in the brief 6 weeks he has been on Misplaced Pages. In addition I have noticed probably 5 or 10 other disputes with other editors (to say nothing for those I haven't noticed) where he was accused by others of being destructive and edit warring. He outright violated 3RR several days ago and got Gospel of John locked as a result. This is quite typical of his behavior actually, and he has caused trouble with many other people, as well as with myself. He is a serial reverter who simply disrupts articles he doesn't like and has no desire to compromise. He goes into different kinds of articles and simply reverts wholesale. Sometimes (like here apparently) his reverts shake a hornet's nest and cause trouble or outright edit warring. His definition of "mainstream" is whatever position he happens to hold and is quite unwilling to accept the views of other editors. Given his history and his destructive tendencies, I suggest taking his suggested edits with a grain of salt and not allowing his changes unless others agree, as his history is one of outright destructiveness. I am glad that, yet again, another set of editors has created yet another paper trail noting his disruptive behavior. Consider reporting him for edit warring, as he has a long history of overtly doing so and his long paper trail would assist tremendously in yet another formal edit warring accusation against him.RomanHistorian (talk) 02:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

David Wu

David Wu is a U.S. politician. According to this news report, in 1976 Wu's then girlfriend broke up with him; later, Wu was questioned by Stanford campus police after the ex-girlfriend said he tried to force her to have sex with him. No action was taken; no formal complaint was laid. Now, the article has a level-3 heading Allegations of Sexual Abuse, followed by text making it sound as if something happened in 2004 (what happened was that a newspaper wrote about the 1976 incident, although that is not apparent in the current article). Am I being overly sensitive, or is this a BLP UNDUE problem? Johnuniq (talk) 06:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe the article makes "it sound as if something happened in 2004". The article reads "Three weeks prior to the 2004 elections, The Oregonian published an article reporting that Wu had been accused of sexually assaulting an ex-girlfriend while attending Stanford." In the paragraph prior to this sentence, the article makes it clear that Wu attended "Stanford University in 1977", not 2004. Furthermore, how is the newspaper writing about the incident "not apparent"? The fact that "The Oregonian published an article reporting" the incident is stated very explicitly. (Lenschulwitz (talk) 07:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC))

Chong Sik-yu

The Chong Sik-yu article for four years has claimed this person is a Chinese political activist, without any ref. Removing what I consider contentious material left no content, except his name. I would appreciate some advice. Superp (talk) 09:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

My usual response to such things is to delete them with an edit summary of "long-standing unsourced BLP, I will restore this on request if anyone is willing to source it". Either do that, or source it yourself. Leaving articles with nothing more than "X is a person" isn't so good.--Scott Mac 13:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, in this case I deleted it under A7. Even before your stubbing, there's no assertion of notability. Being a "contact person" for a dissonant group - and an unsourced claim of a radio interview doesn't cut it. She may be notable, but there's no evidence in the article.--Scott Mac 13:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Premakeerthi de Alwis

Premakeerthi de Alwis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - See the talk page. The subject was killed in 1989 but one editor wishes to add a possible explanation for the murder, accusing a living person. Please comment on the sourcing and whether this should be included. Also, if inappropriate, should the intended text be kept on the talk page? // Bigger digger (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

This was previously listed, but didn't quite make sense (moved by Bigger digger (talk) 12:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC) ):

Dear friend, this issue is actual and few of persons who want to avoid this issue. The user User:Ramya20 only contribute to Misplaced Pages delete this issue . I have a doubt on this user sock puppet of Hudson samarasinhe . This issue is promoting by Wife of premakeerthi who Nirmala De alwis on her book ‘’Premakeethini’’ which publish on 2010. Author is User:Bigger digger is mention that this book cannot find out in Google searching . It is correct because it takes few more month on appear ISBN web sites . But no one can refuse this issue. There is already published on a blog translation Misplaced Pages we have a possibility to translate context of articles. I request to assist solve this problem to administrator in Misplaced Pages .--Wipeouting (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation tag for criminal?

We have several articles on individuals named Russell Williams; the Russell Williams who was a Colonel in the Canadian Air Force has today pleaded guilty to all charges (murders, kidnappings, sexual assaults, etc). The court hearing isn't finished yet - they're going through a... "finding of fact", I guess it might be called? And then there'll be the victim-impact statements and the sentencing... anyway, it'll be safer to leave the category tags for "Canadian sex offenders" and "Canadian serial killers" off until he's actually sentenced.

But what I'm also concerned about is the article name. At the time he was arrested, and at the time he committed these crimes, he was a Colonel in the RCAF, and thus the article was named Russell Williams (Colonel). But the RCAF has stated that he will be stripped of all rank, kicked out of the Forces, etc., as soon as the conviction goes through... which means he will no longer be a Colonel.

But should we have Russell Williams (murderer)? Russell Williams (killer)? DS (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

(Former Col RFAF, Convicted of....) ??? Bluebadger1 (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of a disambiguation is to help the reader tell apart. Thus it should be the most pertinent label that people might use. If I speak of Russell Williams and you say "which one?", and I say "Oh, the one that ...xyz", then the xyz is what we should use (unless it breaches BLP). Having said that, we should err on the side of not using negative differentials unless it indisputable that the negative is the pertinent fact. We should also keep them as short as possible - so no, not "former colonel"

In this case, there's nothing wrong with using "colonel", even if he isn't technically. If that designation is going to help the reader use it - we don't have to respect USAF technicalities in a title (the article will inform the reader as to that). However, I can see the argument for moving the title on the grounds that he's better know for his crimes than his rank.--Scott Mac 19:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The article was moved at 15:23 earlier today, to David Russell Williams. –xeno 20:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

And although the page now no longer needs disambiguation, here is some links for review: articles (not including redirects) with (criminal), (murderer), (serial killer), as disambiguation –xeno 20:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but the thing is, no one calls him that. We should go with the most commonly used name, yes? "Al Capone" instead of "Alfonse", for instance? DS (talk) 20:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought that a title without a (disambiguation) is preferred when possible, but there doesn't appear to be much relevant guidance at Misplaced Pages:Article titles#Deciding an article title. –xeno 20:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

From Misplaced Pages:NCP#Disambiguating: "If disambiguation can be achieved more naturally by using different name forms (as described previously on this page), then this is done. See, for example, George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush. However, if no other disambiguation technique comes naturally, then tags in parentheses are the usual technique.". Seems to support the David Russell Williams, no? –xeno 20:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that with Xeno's move is the best option overall. IMHO much better to use his accurate full name, even if not the most common way he's adressed, then to trip all overselves trying to agree on a flawed paranthetical. (And I say flawed because every choice I've heard has a pro-con. So whichever we chose is flawed in it's own way.)--Cube lurker (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

On a related note: Is "convicted criminal" or similar tag an appropriate category to add (once proven and convicted of course, verifiable etc. ? I noted for example Al Capone has some similar category tags. Bluebadger1 (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Keith Olbermann catch phrases

I am Currently hashing out sourcing at Keith Olbermann catch phrases which the editor is trying to save from deletion so far the Author has found Sourcing to Verify he uses "Catch phrases" as every anchor man/Tv Personality does. However currently all the quotes are so poorly sourced and off Color I am unsure if its BLP risk to include them.The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Vashi, Victor. Red Primer for Children and Diplomats (1st ed.). Viewpoint Books. ASIN: B0007EEE3I.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution
• Misplaced Pages BLP policy
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment