Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
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. Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Additional notes: Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases. For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead. Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

The Awareness Center and Its Executive Director

Resolved

 – Questionable footnote removed, in-text attribution for most inflammatory claim, additional reliable sources cited, more descriptive and non-negative material in lead

Unresolved

 – still looking into this Off2riorob (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• The Awareness Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Vpolin (talk · contribs)  · Chaim B (talk · contribs)  · ShabbosQueen (talk · contribs)  · Sanhedrain (talk · contribs)  · RobertKel (talk · contribs)  · Rabbix (talk · contribs)  · ChayaK (talk · contribs)  · Ruth Celeste (talk · contribs)  · Rabbi ex (talk · contribs)  · Webtow (talk · contribs)  · JewishSurvivors (talk · contribs)  · DinaTamar (talk · contribs)
• SunAlsoRises (talk · contribs)
• revert of wholesale copying of non-free content into Wikipedia
• difference between revision as of 2009-10-07T16:55:29 by David in DC and the later reversion to it

Further information: [[:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 15#The Awareness Center|Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 15 § The Awareness Center]], [[:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 18#Links to the The Awareness Center in articles on individuals accused of sexual abuse|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 18 § Links to the The Awareness Center in articles on individuals accused of sexual abuse]], and [[:Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 45#The Awareness Center|Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 45 § The Awareness Center]]

There is a long-standing complaint here that the article is an entirely one-sided presentation of a person's work, sourced entirely to detractors. Unfortunately, the people who are trying to balance it don't seem to know how to write free content prose of their own (see the first edit given above), or how to revert properly (see the second edit given above), or use just one account, or … . Perhaps people looking at this noticeboard who know how to edit Wikipedia can assist. Uncle G (talk) 10:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I was invited here by a note on my user page. I've worked on the article over the years, although my description in the note on my page overstates my role.

The article started out as hagiography. It's now more balanced. Please look through my edits over the last several years and you'll see the evolution. The executive director's WP page was blanked, and that was correct. The requests to blank this page have been rightly rejected. TAC is notable. Most of the reliable sources note criticisms of the Center and its executive director. The laudatory stuff is mostly found on TAC's own pages. TAC's pages are chock full of copyright violations. Reliable sources that speak well of TAC should be added, if they can be found. The executive director's inclusion among twenty contestants for a grant is not notable, unless it leads to more. Being one outta 20 in an obscure popularity contest is not notable. But if she wins, and it's in a reliable source, it belongs in the lede and the article.

As a long-time observer and participant, I can comfortably say this page attracts kooks of every stripe. Generally, the help of experienced editors and the attention span of the kooks conspire to help create a slightly better page. Then it starts up again. Rinse. Lather. Repeat. There is an ongoing problem with SPA's on both sides of the debates, and a fair amount of editing by someone who doesn't always sign posts and whose user name is uncomfortably close to that of the executive director. David in DC (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a note, as regards the note on your talkpage .. the major contributor to the article. Off2riorob (talk) 13:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Holy poop. I had no idea. The article had stood for some time before I first came to it. I guess the edits pile up. I probably should have marked more of my edits as minor. Nonetheles, thanks for the correction.David in DC (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

As one of the SPA's ... David is basically right about the history of the page. It looked like it was created by TAC and for years (as you can see in the talk archives) there were ongoing complaints about it being a hagiography (I think the word was "whitewash") of the organization. I have not seen a lot of "kooks" among those with a negative view of TAC, but there's no question David has stood in the middle and policed. Now that a verifiable source has finally printed what those who knew, already knew, the page has taken a more negative slant. This is also true because reliable sources have also become more and more critical as the real story came out. Anyways, David has been a good cop and it's no surprise he's one of the top contributors, erasing the stuff that Wikipedia shouldn't print (I didn't know you can't put a link to a youtube video unless the copyright is verified...). Oh, and by the way, it looks to me like Chaim B is a VPolin sock puppet. The complaints are exactly the same. SunAlsoRises (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• - The issue as I see it is, if you create a balanced article containing balanced content about a living person they usually do not come alleging libel and long term repeatedly attempting to balance up content about themselves. A person is usually not all evil and imo some energy should be looked at the content the user is attempting to add to balance up her representation here at wikipedia and look to add some of it sourced to somewhere. If this can't be done and no not negative content can be found thwen thoughts should be considered as to the fact that she is being unfairly portrayed through the limited negative content that we have cited and included about her and through BLP consideration should be considered to the removal or rewriting of the content we do have to remove some of the negative weight. Off2riorob (talk) 13:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• TAC have been emailing OTRS about this forever, the problem is that they hate us quoting critics like David Saperstein, but it would be hard to give a balanced picture without doing so. Including the sourced and highly public (Oprah being as close as you get to shouting from the rooftops) comment from Saperstein will always have them hating the article. Guy (Help!) 13:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Actually the Saperstein quote is pretty new. For years, the Oprah interview and anything related to it was unmentionable here, because while it was known to hundreds of people and was kind of obvious (her face was undisguised), it was only published in a verifiable source six months ago. A month ago, when it was Polin herself doing the complaining, rather than (my unverified assertion here) her sock puppet, Arakunem (talk · contribs) looked around and said the following on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard: "This is one of the strangest cases I've come across on this board. Digging for balanced information, I find almost universal criticism of this center and its founder; the undue-weight clause would seem to apply to the positive side of the discussion. Right now it seems about as balanced as the sources would suggest."

  Off2riorob, people do not usually come alleging libel, but people also do not usually claim on national TV that they were forced to participate in child sacrifice in Jewish synagogues, or create web sites using little more than anonymous rumors to slander Jewish figures. For her to cry "libel" is a bit rich, and she's never denied that any of this is true. On the discussion board, she contested the creation date of the organization (we eventually used the date from her own brochures) and whether or not an Executive Director is paid (which is true). She's crying libel while contesting none of the facts, none of the quotes, none of the context. See the problem? Her organization isn't notable because she gets quoted by a reporter here and there, but because of her notoriety. SunAlsoRises (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

  Well, you yourself are a single purpose account with regards to the organization since 2007 you are here only adding this stuff , and I think you have declared a COI somewhere as regards this organization, is that the case, I can't see it now in the history but I just had a quick look. As for her notoriety as you call it, I imagine that is local notoriety you speak of because outside of localized interested parties she is not a bit notoriousness and she is not individually wikipedia notable either. Off2riorob (talk) 13:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

  I could write the content in a npov way that would stop the subject complaining, the article is heavily weighted as an attack. A wikipedia good article is not one that is constantly complained about or one that is constantly disrupted by people trying to balance it up. A simple npov write is what the article needs, keeping a majority of the content, removing the simple insulting critical content and taking the undue weight out of the rest. Off2riorob (talk) 14:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

  Are there other independant sources for the devil baby eating claims apart from the jewish star? It on youtube which I just watched, from 89, did it take 21 years for the claim that it is her to only appear in the jewish star? could even be a different person, has she accepted that it is her? Is the claim that it is her in another reliable citation? Off2riorob (talk) 13:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

  Other independent source: Kelley, Kitty (2010). Oprah: A Biography. New York: Crown Archetype. p. 202. We get the New York Times quote from the Kitty Kelly book. I'll go try to get the NYT article directly over the next couple of days.

But Rob, please re-read Arkenum's conclusion after starting where you are and looking for the positive sources. He was innocent of any knowledge about this ahead of time. He concluded that, if anything, WP:WEIGHT might require giving less prominence to the positive stuff. That would be the wrong thing to do, but it does delineate the scope of the problem.

It may be true that people rarely come screaming libel, repeatedly, about a good article, but occasional a person does. I also agree that no one is all bad or all good (with the possible exception of whoever invented "elevator music).

Guy knows better than anyone how often and how shrilly the complaints come on this one. OTRS is very pro-active with BLP issues. If OTRS is getting many complainrs and the article has not been overhauled, that tells you something. Please do not move forward with your proposed wholesale re-write without generating consensus here or on the talk page. David in DC (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The NYT article is not available online, so far as I can see. I won't get to a bricks-and-mortar library in the next few days but if someone else could find it to back up Kitty Kelley (or rebut her), that'd be nice. But I did find another reliable source (The Jewish Voice and Opinion) quoting two mildly prominent Jews, by name, averring that Rachel is Vicki. I've inserted it. into the article. David in DC (talk) 02:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I will have a look, sounds like two more involved people with no evidence commenting their opinion.... so I take it that she does not accept that it is her in the video? Has she denied it, or commented on the accusations in any way? if she has then that needs to be included in the article. Off2riorob (talk) 14:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• - Actually this accusation is not confirmed it appears to be the opinion of a Rabbi that is unconfirmed by anyone and has been republished in what appear to by other involved opinionated sources. I am looking for a denial from Polin, if anyone has a cite that would be helpful. We really need to make this totally clear in the article. Off2riorob (talk) 15:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If you can find a denial by the executive director, you'll be the first. It's not in any reliable source I've ever seen. And I've looked. There's what looks like a report of an admission. But it's on a site that WP has an agreement for free use of photos, and a consensus that its not a reliable source for BLP's. Luke Ford. David in DC (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Some would say, false accusations are unworthy of denial as it gives them weight, better ignore. This issue is in need of a write, there is no confirmation at all that it is her, I have seen only opinionated, involved claims, can I have a link to the alleged admission, either here or via my email, thanks. In the article it is written as if fact, which as I investigate it is clearly not it is opinion of a Rabbi and some others only. It says this in the article "Before founding The Awareness Center, Polin appeared on the Oprah Winfrey Show, under a pseudonym" fully presented as if indisputable fact... but its not fact is it, its opinion of a couple of involved Jewish people. Off2riorob (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It's in three reliable sources, reported as fact. The Jewish Star, The Jewish Opinion and Voice, and The Catalyst. There's been some discussion about The Jewish Star on the talk page. Please review it. The consensus was that The Jewish Star IS a reliable source. I've never heard ANYONE suggest the Catalyst is not a reliable source. The Jewish Voice and Opinion hasn't been discussed. I believe it's a reliable source. I take BLP very seriously and policed the article for years keeping the V is R material out. The Jewish Star and the Catalyst articles changed that. If there's a policy-based reason that The Jewish Voice and Opinion is not a reliable source, I'm open to hearing about it. But that would just strike one out of 3 sources.

I've suggested another place you can find it reported as fact, but concede that this one isn't a reliable source. You've asked for it anyway. Google the executive director's name and that of Luke Ford in a single query. I'm not sure why you want to see it. It proves nothing and cannot be relied on. But the other three can. Arkeneum was right, this is an odd case. All of the reliable sources are negative. The Awareness Center is notable. Its article reflects the weight of the reliable sources. Guy explains above why the complaints will just keep on coming. We must rely on only reliable sources. But here we do. There's no heckler's veto on WP, even if the heckler is a living person who does not like her press coverage. If the press coverage is there, and it's reliable, and it's relevant to the article (indeed it's what makes The Awareness Center notable in the first place,) it is wiki-kosher and should stay. David in DC (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Its clearly opinion and needs attributing , it is just a claim, thats all and the article needs to represent that. There is no actual confirmation in any way that it is Polin, is there? Users here that are opinionated are just as much if not more hecklers as you refer to the living notable subject of one of our BLP article. The jewish star is you could say the enemy of this person and the fact that they and some Rabbi claim it is her does not make it fact, no , not at all. Off2riorob (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. Did the "Rachel" who appeared pseudonymously on Oprah wear a mask? If not, how could she reasonably have expected her true identity to remain secret?Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I will give you the youtube link and I have watched it multiple times and I have trolled through all the pictures of her I can find and there is no way I would say for certain that the two are the same person. I will email you the link.Off2riorob (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a New York Times article about that Oprah episode here. Also, Vicki Polin is mentioned in this article (in the Forward): "Some advocates for sexual abuse victims contend that anonymous blogging is necessary not only to shield accusers from potential harassment, but also to help them through the process of healing. 'One of the things most healing to any victim of a serious crime is to talk about it,' said Vicki Polin, founder of The Awareness Center Inc., a volunteer organization that maintains a Web site on sexual abuse in the Jewish community. 'When people start blogging, they realize they’re not alone,' she said. But some Jewish bloggers expressed disdain toward those who remain anonymous.". So, it's definitely a volunteer organzation, and I've put that into the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

In this Wikipedia article, I've removed one of the three footnotes supporting the statement that it was Polin on Oprah. The removed source merely said: "According Rabbi Tzvi Kilstein, a former resident of Teaneck who now resides in Boca Raton; Arutz Sheva Radio personality Tovia Singer; and an inordinate number of blogs, Ms. Polin has claimed that, in 1989, she was a guest on the Oprah Winfrey program using the pseudonym 'Rachel'.". In other words, the source merely reported what some people said rather than reporting that what they said was true.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

An editor has restored the defective footnote that I had removed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Ralph Drollinger

Ralph Drollinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Capitol Weekly article is a singular source lacking substantiating, documented sources. It is based on heresay. The Capitol Weekly article that is quoted in my biography is a single source that lacks substantiating quotations. It is based on heresay. I should add that Capitol Weekly is a tabloid, it is not a newspaper. The Grace Community Church website reference that is noted in my bio contains no reference to this matter. It is therefore a false reference to substantiate what is being proffered. comment added by RK Drollinger (talk • contribs) 16:58, 9 November 2010

I made a small edit for wiki weight I don't think a minor issue with a local ministry should be given too much weight in the life story of a respected person. Off2riorob (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Capitol Weekly is California's version of Roll Call. Calling it a tabloid is disingenuous. Whether the source is heresay or not is irrelevant, as it is clearly written in the Capitol Weekly article, and they have not retracted it. The Grace Community Church reference is supported by the newspaper article. OCNative (talk) 09:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

My bio inaccurately states that I have left Capitol Ministries. The Capitol Weekly article that is referenced does not state that I have left Capitol Ministries. I remain the President and Founder see capmin.org for substantiation. Further, it should also be added that I teach the Members Bible Study in the United States Capitol (see kkla.com/FrankPastore show/Ralph Drollinger Bio. November 8, 2010)

The bio now correctly states that 16 of the 22 chapters left Capitol Ministries but that Drollinger remains the leader of Capitol Ministries. OCNative (talk) 09:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Drollinger seems to have at least two sockpuppets, User:Rkdrkdrkd and User:SACPI, as well as identical whiny edits from IP User:66.124.63.234. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RK Drollinger. OCNative (talk) 18:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Charlie Crist

• Charlie Crist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Are rumours of homosexuality which have been denied by Crist properly in this article? [1] is the current paragraph, which is sourced to Salon.com and to local and national papers stating the denial. How strong should allegations or rumours of homosexuality be before they are placed in a BLP? Collect (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see here multiple reliable sources making allegations, based on seperate information. All that I see is one source, a polemic filmaker, making a claim in 'Outrage-- and multiple sources refer to him. I'm inclined to think then that it's not worth mentioning on Crist page-- the allegation doesn't pass my bar of sourcing. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Kindly weigh in then - one editor appears quite set on this sort of stuff being used. Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Debate on this is ongoing - more opinions would be welcome. Trebor (talk) 15:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This BLP topic has come up before in various forms. In July 2008 the LGBT category was discussed. In May 2009, the film Outrage was discussed, with WP:WELLKNOWN quoted as the relevant guideline. User Collect brought this up last September with no conclusive results. To me, it looked like editors not wishing to have any mention of homosexual allegations quoted parts of WP:BLP which were shown to be irrelevant or wholly addressed by WP:WELLKNOWN. This month's noticeboard entry on the topic can do little to overturn that guideline's assertion: "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." Binksternet (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Its not very notable and it is not like its continued to be reported or that there are other claims he is a gay from other locations independent of this, its a scurrilous rumor that has failed to persist and we should not be part of assisting its perpetuation by adding it to a BLP article in Wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 20:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It's notable by every measure on Wikipedia. It does not have to continue to be reported—that is not a requirement here. The Outrage allegation is quite enough! Regarding claims from other sources: anybody not seeing other claims has blinders on. There is Max Linn, a 25-year friend of Crist and a political opponent who said Crist discussed being bisexual with him on two occasions. Linn said this in October 2006.[2][3] Earlier in January 2005, Tampa area NOW chapter founder Lee Drury De Cesare, then a 72-year-old fire breathing reporter and columnist, asked Crist "I have heard that you were gay, sir, and I wanted to know if that was true" to which Crist replied "I'm not."[4] After Bob Norman outed Crist in October 2006, he followed up with another report in February 2008, saying that Crist used to hang out with a gay circle of acquaintances in a Tampa bar called the Green Iguana. After that, Norman was one of the people interviewed by Kirby Dick, footage used in the film Outrage. In England in July 2008, The Telegraph framed Crist's upcoming marriage as one which followed his "being dogged for years by homosexuality rumours." The rumor mill has been churning, breaking over at times into mainstream news, but you are somehow not noticing. Binksternet (talk) 03:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

"It's notable by every measure on Wikipedia". If every measure on Wikipedia is based on the narrow confines of political discourse in the USA, possibly. Much of the rest of the developed world considers the sexual preferences of politicians as perhaps occasionally interesting, but hardly 'notable' unless there is a clear discrepancy between public statements and private behaviour. I know nothing about Charlie Crist, and unless he his voting record or public statements suggest any hypocrisy, I don't want to know either. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a supermarket tabloid. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Andy. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Andy, your comment shows that you have not researched anything of the topic. Hypocrisy is the central theme here. Crist would never have been targeted by people wishing to 'out' him if he was not perceived by them as hypocritical on the subject of laws controlling what gays cannot do. The director and producers of Outrage have been firm in their avowal that the closeted gay politicians in their film are only featured as such because of the anti-gay measures they have all endorsed, promoted, or even sponsored, or the gay-friendly measures they voted against. Crist at one time was more anti-gay than he is now, and reporters responded to that hypocrisy. Binksternet (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Has there ever been a content WP:RFC at Talk:Charlie Crist about this issue? If not, that is the next step to resolve this conflict. -- Cirt (talk) 12:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

There was such a request one month ago, beginning October 12 at Talk:Charlie Crist#Allegations of homosexuality, which attracted no comment at all. Off2riorob shut it down after nine days. Binksternet (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thats right, I would suggest that was because people that are uninvolved in the subject matter see it for what it is, an attempt to slur a living person without any basis in facts at all and not something worthy of propagating through wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Rob, I could not give a flying fig about Crist. The only problem I have with this information is that it is encyclopedia-worthy but is fought by those such as yourself who simply do not like it. Not liking a notable fact is not a reason for keeping it out of Wikipedia, per WP:WELLKNOWN. You do not have the support of Wikipedia guidelines. Binksternet (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Its not well known and neither is it a continued and developed perpetuated claim either, its scurrilous gossip, and needs to be thrown were it is worth, the rubbish BLP bin. Off2riorob (talk) 15:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Nobody here is required to disprove your assertion that the allegations are a "continued and developed perpetuated claim"—there is no such requirement on Wikipedia. One single notable source is enough, a level of sourcing we have long since passed. You are making up reasons to keep this information out, when reasons for keeping it in are found in WP guidelines. Binksternet (talk) 16:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

(Undent) My only comment right now is that Wikipedia should not allow crud into a BLP whenever it is Wikipedia's opinion that the crud is indicative or suggestive of hypocrisy. For example, a gay politician might well support DADT and oppose gay marriage for policy reasons that are completely unrelated to his own personal sexual preferences or orientation. We should follow the sources without using our own hypocrisy litmus test. With one caveat: if the source itself is using this kind of litmus test, then the source needs to explain why it thinks the politician is letting his personal sexual preference affect his policy decisions; otherwise, the source is just an opinion piece that deserves less coverage by Wikipedia than a straight (no pun intended) news story would deserve.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Rent the DVD Outrage and you will see the hypocrisy test applied by filmmaker Kirby Dick. I have no such personal test as you imply; I am only going by reliable sources who do. Binksternet (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Crist would probably take any position that would get him more votes, completely irrespective of whatever his sexual preference is, so I don't think we need to cover rumors about his sexual preference much (if at all). What evidence does the DVD provide that Crist is concerned about anything other than getting more votes, or that Crist is letting his sex preferences influence his policies?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

What Wikipedia policy is preventing us from telling the reader about allegations from the documentary film Outrage? Please quote policy, not personal preference. Binksternet (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Our editorial judgment not to add unfounded spuroius claims hes a closet gay and BLP to write conservatively with respect to a subjects privacy, etc. Apart from this one rumor filled gay activist documentary there is nothing to suggest he is anything but a married heterosexual man. Off2riorob (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Your personal "editorial judgment" is valuable when making decisions not covered by guidelines. This decision is covered, and the guideline at WP:WELLKNOWN directs us to include the allegations. Academy Award-winning filmmaker Kirby Dick is not a gay activist, and if he was, his documentary would not be any less notable. You have continued to rephrase "I don't like it" but you have not quoted policy. Wikipedia policy is clear on this issue: put it into the article. There is even an apt example: "A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but The New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing The New York Times as the source." Binksternet (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

That right, we should keep that out as well, politician alleged to have affair. Off2riorob (talk) 17:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:GOSSIP, "content hosted in Wikipedia is not for....[s]candal mongering, something 'heard through the grapevine' or gossip." If the DVD in question is reporting that Crist is basing policy decisions on his sexual preference, then that might rise above the level of gossip. Likewise if there is a high-profile public scandal about this, but I'm not aware that such a scandal exists.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:GOSSIP applies to the case where an editor adds non-notable or original gossip material to an article. In Crist's case, the material added is already out in the national and international press, so that guideline does not apply. Regarding the scandal being high profile, I am resting my case on its appearance in The Huffington Post, The Los Angeles Times, National Public Radio, The New York Times, Salon.com, The London Times, Dallas News, The Daily Telegraph and the documentary film Outrage. Any one of these would suffice, but the documentary clinches it. Binksternet (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, just for purposes of this discussion, can you please say briefly what relevant material you think is common to all of those sources? That might help clarify matters here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

As best I can tell, we should not be citing or relying on the film Outrage (2009 film). The other sources are much more reliable. Outrage seems to be a non-neutral attempt to "out" only those gay politicians who have not voted the way the movie's director would like. Outrage views non-coverage in the mainstream media as a "tacit policy of self-censorship when reporting on these issues", so it seems that Outrage has very different criteria from the mainstream media regarding this kind of thing. See WP:Neutrality.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

What is common to the sources is their high profile, their notability.

Of course Outrage is non-neutral; that is the nature of a political documentary. The film cannot be dismissed by noting that it takes a political position.

What part of WP:NPOV are you quoting? I cannot see where it applies to a partisan political film such as Outrage. The funny thing about WP:NPOV is that it supports the inclusion of notable allegations. It says "Biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution and not as if they are facts." We are doing that. More to the point, at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Morally offensive views it says that a neutral point of view is supported "by attributing emotionally charged views to prominent representatives or to a group of people." We do that by saying which prominent people allege Crist to have had sex with men: filmmaker Kirby Dick and Florida reporter Bob Norman. Binksternet (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to ask what all those sources have in common. What I meant to ask is what those sources say about Crist's alleged gaiety-homosexuality that is common to all of those sources.

WP:BLP says, "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. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and look out for biased or malicious content."

If Kirby Dick's biased viewpoint is reported in newspapers like the New York Times, that would make it much more appropriate as a Wikipedia source than Kirby Dick's own movie, which is basically a primary source in which he presents his opinions. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Kirkby dick claims a notable person had sex with men and that man votes against gay rights, Straight into the vomit pit that is the BLP reject bin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs) 18:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Specific policy points

Policy must be applied to this emotional topic, not personal opinions. This topic is the longest-running one on the Charlie Crist talk page, repeatedly discussed ever since January 2006. The first RfC was initiated in July 2008 by Hurmata, at Talk:Charlie Crist/Archive 1#Request for Comment (RfC) regarding whether to report rumors about sexual orientation, a request that was repeated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 16#RFC for Charlie Crist. Over the years, policy cited against the inclusion of same-sex allegations includes:

• WP:RS cited by User:Captainktainer in October 2006 at Talk:Charlie Crist/Archive 1#2006 Race.
  • Certainly sources such as Academy Award-winning filmmaker Kirby Dick and noted South Florida reporter Bob Norman are reliable sources, as are mentions of the allegations in The Daily Telegraph, The New York Times, The London Times, The Los Angeles Times etc. Binksternet (talk) 20:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• WP:GOSSIP cited by User:Hurmata at Talk:Charlie Crist/Archive 1#Crist's sex life; Wikipedia is not a gossip magazine.
  • This guideline states WP is not for "scandal mongering, something 'heard through the grapevine' or gossip." The allegations have been published in national and international news articles, and featured in a political documentary. The allegations are far beyond the definition of gossip, far beyond the grapevine, and the 'scandal mongering' has already been done by notable sources, not WP. Binksternet (talk) 20:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• WP:BLP cited by User:Hurmata at Talk:Charlie Crist/Archive 1#Crist's sex life; Wikipedia is not a gossip magazine.
  • This guideline states "Avoid gossip". The allegations have been published in national and international news articles, and featured in a political documentary. The allegations are far beyond the definition of gossip. Binksternet (talk) 20:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• WP:UNDUE cited by Horologium in December 2008 at Talk:Charlie_Crist/Archive_2#Max Linn's accusation.
  • We are not unbalancing the article by including a few sentences about the allegations. Binksternet (talk) 20:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• WP:NPOV cited by User talk:Anythingyouwant here in this thread.
  • That guideline says "Biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution and not as if they are facts." The allegations are presented with attribution and not stated as facts. At Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Morally offensive views it says that a neutral point of view is supported "by attributing emotionally charged views to prominent representatives or to a group of people." The allegations are properly attributed. Binksternet (talk) 20:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Policy which supports the inclusion:

• WP:WELLKNOWN cited by User:Brewcrewer at Talk:Charlie Crist/Archive 1#Crist's sex life; Wikipedia is not a gossip magazine.
  • The guideline states "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." The allegations are notable because of their wide publishing. They are relevant because Crist has been connected by Kirby Dick (and others) to a greater interest in anti-gay legislation as a tactic for hiding his sexuality. The allegations are well-documented by news accounts, film appearances and sworn affidavits. Binksternet (talk) 20:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

"If an allegation or incident is notable". It isn't. Unsubstantiated rumours about politicians emerge all the time. There is nothing whatsoever notable about a rumour. Or if there is, Wikipedia is going to rapidly deteriorate into a worthless accumulation of unsubstantiated trivia. To avoid this, I'd suggest that 'notability' must include 'credibility' too (and already implicitly does: David Ike has frequently claimed that prominent individuals are 'shape-shifting lizards', and these claims have been noted in many reliable sources. Wikipedia doesn't repeat Ike's claims in the BLPs of the individual involved). Given the denial by the persons involved, and the complete lack of any other evidence to back the 'allegation' up, it is no longer credible that the rumour is likely ever to be confirmed, and therefore not notable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Notability does not implicitly include credibility. Check out Masonic conspiracy theories for a taste of incredible but notable nuttiness. On Wikipedia, we are not so much taken up with WP:The Truth as we are concerned about verifiability through reliable sources. The rapid deterioration you are afraid of is kept in check by WP:V and WP:RS. The reason WP does not repeat Ike's claims is that the source is no good, not because the claims are not credible.

Your wish to keep out the allegations does not measure up against the example given at WP:WELLKNOWN, where by chance we are instructed that a politician's sex scandal reported in The New York Times is to be included in the article whether he likes it or not. Regarding your assertion that the allegations lack notability, it's instructive to look at WP:N where the guideline specifically states that it is not about article content but about article topics in general. However, the allegations of same sex activity would meet all the requirements of WP:N, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT, which means there is enough material to create a POV fork called something like Charlie Crist homosexual allegations. I don't want to do that; it's not necessary. All we need is a mention of the allegations in the main biography article. It does not matter if some editors don't like it, the allegations meet Wikipedia requirements perfectly. Binksternet (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You've said that the "allegations" have appeared in The Los Angeles Times, National Public Radio, The New York Times, Salon.com, The London Times, Dallas News, and The Daily Telegraph. So I'll ask you again: what do those sources say about Crist's alleged gaiety-homosexuality that is common to all of those sources? Given that this material appears in those sources, I see no reason to mention Dick and his flick.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Your use of the word gaiety makes me grin. ;^)

The argument that the reviews of the film should be used as references instead of the film itself is a backwards one. The reviews in mainstream press make the film notable. Once the film is acknowledged as notable, it is suitable as a reference. The film itself and the press reviews of it can be used here. Binksternet (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Opposing positions

Various editors have taken a stance against some or all of the allegations being included in the BLP. I think each opposing stance is vulnerable, that none are conclusive. Binksternet (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• AndyTheGrump said "I know nothing about Charlie Crist" but is against Wikipedia becoming a supermarket tabloid. He says that notability should include credibility, which the allegations lack. However, at WP:N there is no mention at all of credibility being a requirement, only that there "be verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention". At WP:WELLKNOWN, a politician's sex scandal that has been mentioned in The New York Times is something that should be put into the article—an allegation published in mainstream press has gone beyond tabloid gossip. Binksternet (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Anythingyouwant: Would rather not cite the non-neutral political documentary film, just the news stories. I argue that the film can be cited as it is notable by itself. Binksternet (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Off2riorob: Argues that the allegations are not notable, that they are an attack on a living person. I argue that notability is applied in spades by the appearance of the allegations in The Huffington Post, The Los Angeles Times, National Public Radio, The New York Times, Salon.com, The London Times, Dallas News, The Daily Telegraph and the documentary film Outrage. I argue that a notable attack on a well-known public figure, one that the figure denies, is covered specifically by WP:WELLKNOWN. Binksternet (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Sugar-Baby-Love: Does not see multiple sources, just one. I have two responses: there are multiple sources quoted in Outrage and more sources besides, and only one notable source is required for our purposes, per WP:WELLKNOWN in which only one example is given, one where a sex scandal is published in The New York Times. Binksternet (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

None of these opposing positions offers a compelling response to WP:WELLKNOWN which states "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." The allegations are notable, relevant and well-documented. Binksternet (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Notable? The allegation in a film does not meet that bar. Relevant? The consensus on the talk page has been that the allegation is not relevant. In such matters, consensus rules. Well-documented? The only thing documented is that it is in a film. there is absolutely zero outside documentation that Crist is gay. Sorry - the consensus is and has been clear every time this issue has been raised. Collect (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The material ought to be removed from the article until there is consensus for inclusion in this article. AFAIK, no reliable sources other than Dick allege Crist is gay. Given that numerous reliable sources report on Dick's allegation, and yet fail to confirm the truth of it, suggests that the Dick allegation is the stance of a very small minority. Reliable sources do not report that anyone but Dick make this allegation. So, it seems like undue weight to cover Dick's allegation in this article. Put it in the articles about Dick and his movie, not here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

A big problem I have with your opinion, Anythingyouwant, is that it is uninformed. It appears to me that you are shooting from the hip rather than studying the topic in any depth. Here's a brief history of gay allegations: in January 2005 Crist was publicly asked by Lee Drury De Cesare, a prominent South Florida reporter and columnist, if he was gay as rumors said he was, and he replied "I'm not." In October 2006, his longtime friend Max Linn said on the radio Crist was bisexual, that the two men had discussed his sexuality on two occasions. Also in October 2006, reporter Bob Norman outed Crist with what he felt was conclusive evidence taken from sources he would not name, GOP staffers that named Jason Wetherington as boasting about having sex with Crist. Sworn affidavits were given on video, ones by Dee Dee Hall and Jay Vass who both said that Crist had a long term lover in GOP aide Bruce Carlton Jordan. In 2008, gay bar owner Rick Calderoni said that Crist was gay, that he frequented his Tampa bar and hung out with gay men. All of this was summed up by The Daily Telegraph in July 2008 when they wrote that Crist had been "dogged for years by homosexuality rumours." As you see, prior to the political documentary film Outrage there was already a lot of gay rumor being printed in the press.

The second big problem I have with your advice is that we do not need any of the sources to confirm the truth of it to have the allegations attain the proper level of notability. We are not here to find WP:The Truth, we are here to reflect what is found in reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 18:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Cameron Newton

• Cameron Newton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are persistent rumors which have been reported as "alleged". One editor even claims (with what evidence I do not know) that an FBI investigation is ongoing. As yet, the case appears to be rich with allegation and notably short on fact. The allegations if true would be damaging, but even the suggested investigations don't appear to be established as fact. The NCAA simply declines to comment.

I've reverted a couple of times over the past few days but I think that's enough. I hand this over to the noticeboard to investigate and resolve according to past practice and commonsense. If the rumors are correct, facts will not be in short supply before long. --TS 23:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Tony, if a reliable source is reporting that certain rumors exist, then that probably raises issues of notability and recentism. In other words, the existence of an unconfirmed rumor seems inherently less encyclopedic than the existence of a confirmed fact. However, you also seem to have reverted the stuff about the NCAA iinvestigating allegations. It's not a mere rumor that the NCAA is investigating Newton, so why take out that part? This is analagous to a person being on trial; Wikipedia can say he's on trial even though there hasn't yet been a conviction.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Rumors, we don't really report rumors, it looks like all smoke and no fire to me and we should not be part of propagating rumors. Better wait for something concrete. Who is reporting it,. is it multiple reliable citations? Off2riorob (talk) 23:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

ESPN reports: "The NCAA is investigating allegations surrounding the Newtons in regards to the recruiting process.". That doesn't sound like a rumor to me. It sounds like ESPN has confirmed that there's an ongoing Investigation.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I had a look and did notice it was sourced to ESPN and then I watched one of the videos, I was asking is it being picked up and repeated my multiple reliable sources, the ESPN is in effect a primary for the content. Off2riorob (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

ESPN is a pretty well known outfit. Has there been prior discussion at Wikipedia about whether ESPN is primary versus secondary? It looks to me like a typical news report, not a transcript. Incidentally, why not mention at the article talk page that the matter has been brought to this noticeboard? There seem to be several editors who might take an interest in this discussion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, there can be, it doesn't always be done but you are welcome to if you know others will be interested. as far as I know it is not an actual condition of making a report.Off2riorob (talk) 00:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The question is this: if the NCAA really is investigating Newton, and he really is involved in something nasty, then the facts will be reported very soon, and we'll be happy to report them in the interests of accuracy. But meanwhile there are absolutely no grounds to put anything negative into his biography. Everything we have is based on the unhappy and false saying "no smoke without fire." So the question is: why report when we have no facts to report, but we have a good expectation of facts in the future? --TS 00:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's get one thing settled. See "Heisman Front-Runner Is Focus of Investigation", New York Times (2010-11-04).Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It actually is not suggesting that the subject of the BLP has any involvement at all or that they have done anything at all wrong, I support waiting to see what is actually happened and if it has anything to do with the subject in any way. Actually they if they are going to investigate anyone it is the Auburn university. Yes, wait and see whet happens and if it is anything to do with him.

Off2riorob (talk) 00:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

At first sight that looks like investigative journalism of the most superlative kind. However we're not a news source and we do have a policy on BLPs. Can't we wait until the facts are established?

Maybe some people think we really ought to be the Woodward and Bernstein of encyclopedias. To those people I say: go to your blog and write what you like. We don't do that. --TS 00:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Heh. "Woodstein" would be a fantastic user name.  :-). Maybe it's already taken.

Seriously, my view is this: clearly there's an investigation. Clearly the other editors at his bio have not been given a chance to weigh in. I lean toward leaving out the investigation on recentism grounds, but will not favor that until the other editors at his bio have a chance to opine here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Meanwhile it looks like so far we're all agreed that we can afford to wait. --TS 00:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the NYT cite Anythinguwant. It actually is not suggesting that the subject of the BLP has any involvement at all or that they have done anything at all wrong, I support waiting to see what is actually happened and if it has anything to do with the subject in any way. Actually they if they are going to investigate anyone it seems to be the Auburn university. Yes, wait and see what happens and if it is anything to do with him.Off2riorob (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, except that the other editors at the article should get a chance to argue otherwise.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

There is plenty of rumor, and there is plenty of news coverage. Anyone who follows college football will tell you that this is the number one story for a week or more--in fact, the big story yesterday was whether he would start or not because of the investigation (that apparently the FBI is getting in on also). But while there are enough sources for us to write that an investigation is underway, we should really ask ourselves if this is our job--right now, in my opinion, it falls under WP:NOTNEWS, and I see no point in flooding the article with reported rumors. I could write you two paragraphs just based on what my paper wrote yesterday, what the local TV stations reported, and what ESPN was talking about, but what's the point? We have no responsibility to report the news, and right now it actually seems likely that the story will go away, if Dad sticks to his guns and his son does too. BTW, he had another fantastic game, as much as it pains me to say it. Roll Tide, Drmies (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP#Public figures suggests the NCAA investigation should be included. "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." The Cam Newton story has a multitude of reliable published sources as has already been pointed out: New York Times, Washington Post, and ESPN have all reported that the NCAA is investigating. It is false to characterize this as "gossip." It is an established fact that there is an ongoing investigation. —Ute in DC (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

That's right, Ute. There is a fact to be reckoned with in the article: that there is a widely reported investigation underway. Sources are topnotch. The article should mention this fact briefly. Binksternet (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

If the investigation exonerates Newton, then the story will go away, and no one will remember in ten years that he was ever investigated. I say wait, per WP:Recentism, to see if the investigation uncovers anything.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

First off, WP:Recentism is an admonishment not to "overburden" an article with recent details. A brief mention that an investigation is ongoing is not an overburden. If the investigation exonerates Newton, then that should be included in the article as well. I disagree that this will be forgotten in 10 years. This is a serious allegation. Richard Jewell has been exonerated many times over, but the fact that he was investigated by the FBI is still relevant. Besides, if we're going to delete information because of recentism, then information about individual games he has played should certainly be deleted. In 10 years, no one is going to care about a 52–3 victory over Louisiana-Monroe, or a 37–34 victory over Kentucky. —Ute in DC (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The key difference is that both the Jewell investigation and the two games you mentioned are completely and totally in the past, and we know the outcomes. So, the Jewell article descrbes his exoneration; it's very unusual for an investigation and exoneration to remain notable a decade later but they did for Jewell. We don't yet know the results of the Newton investigation. Let's just wait and see, there's no deadline.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The Jewell example was just to show that the investigation of a person is can be notable even if the person is later exonerated. As for waiting, "recentism" isn't relevant to whether the investigation meets BLP requirements. It does meet the requirements because the incident is notable, relevant and well-documented. An FBI investigation and an NCAA investigation that has been covered in topnotch sources should be included. You are using "recentism" to keep out negative information but not positive information. To make Wikipedia a reliable source of information, we have to include the "warts" so to speak. —Ute in DC (talk) 01:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a difference between a wart and a potential-wart-in-the-making. Let's see which one this is.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Why wait to include factual information? You're not even arguing BLP policy. —Ute in DC (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS and WP:Recentism apply as much to BLPs as to anything else.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Simply stating WP:NOTNEWS and WP:Recentism apply without saying why they apply is not arguing BLP. It's stating a conclusion without laying the foundation. —Ute in DC (talk) 02:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Ute, they apply for the reasons already explained. Let the investigation play out, and then we'll know how to deal with it. There's no deadline here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS warns us against inserting routine news, such as Cameron attending a Little League game and giving a short speech. There is nothing routine about allegations discussed in Sports Illustrated.

WP:Recentism warns us against "overburdening" articles "with documenting controversy as it happens." The investigation can be mentioned briefly without undue weight, without overburdening the article, and it can be mentioned without trying to describe each new twist and turn. There is absolutely no guideline telling us to wait until there is a conclusion. We simply say Newton is under investigation by which parties, and when there is closure, we say he was investigated for whatever length of time by whatever parties with whatever conclusion. Binksternet (talk) 03:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• My turn an investigation in and of itself is not really notable as investigations happen on a constant basis. However, the results of the investigation could be notable. It may be worthwhile to mention in the article that an investigation is in process with a brief statement about the allegations, but that should really be it at this time. Once the results are known and published, then they may well need to be included. Until then, it's an issue for WikiNews, not WikiPedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

As I stated on the article's talk page, I believe that with Mr. Newton being a public individual, coupled with the existence of a controversy, there should at least be mention of the controversy in the article. It is well reported by a multitude of reliable news outlets, all of which are citing that an NCAA investigation is taking place. It is beyond ridiculous not to include any mention of the controversy in the article (note that I say "the controversy," not "the gossip"), but at the same time include that he's a "Heisman contender," something that is purely speculation. --Mr. Brown (talk) 02:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Pramila Vasudevan

Resolved

 – Article has been deleted.

Pramila Vasudevan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I believe that this biography is probably self-published and that the posted alerts speak for themselves.

From my personal experience the subject is a "legend in her own mind," to say the least. She is a grantsmanship-working public arts funding phenomena in Minneapolis, MN. I don't believe her entry conforms to the biographies of living persons policies, and wish it could be removed on grounds of being misuse of wikipedia.

Thank you.

Will6iam (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Article has been deleted.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Salted the page. -- Cirt (talk) 03:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Ileana D'Cruz

Resolved

 – Vandalism removed, article overhauled, article semi-protected.

• Ileana D'Cruz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This BLP seems to be mostly unwatched and heavily vandalised. I stumbled across it looking at the other contributions of a vandal when I reverted vandalism elsewhere, and nobody but me seems to be looking at it at the moment; also, whenever I see vandalism there, the version that was vandalised also seems to be incorrect. As far as I can tell, the article is mostly a heap of vandalism at the moment, with other vandals changing the information back and forth between incorrect versions. (For instance, I had to fix this suspicious-looking edit with something that was not a revert at all; of the two references for the statement in question, one didn't match either version, whereas the other didn't reference the statement at all.) Could someone have a look at it and try to figure out what parts of it are actually valid, and which are entirely a pile-up of vandalism? --ais523 16:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll look.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected the page. -- Cirt (talk) 03:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Article overhauled, vandalism removed, additional sources cited.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Ed Drewett

Resolved

 – Self-promotional material removed

• Ed Drewett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Self promotional and contextually inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.45.114 (talk • contribs)

Left message at article talk page, removed self-promotion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Britton Chance

Resolved

 – Reliable source confirms demise.

Britton Chance is listed as dead in his article and on Deaths in 2010, but I don't see anything other than blog notices that are reporting his death. Didn't want to revert, as maybe I'm missing something, but I would have thought that the death of a person who has a lab named after him, and an Olympic gold medal, would get some better coverage... 96.52.5.187 (talk) 05:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Removed the poorly sourced info from page, Deaths in 2010. -- Cirt (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. It got replaced again rather quick, with an exact copy of the post in another blog... I've removed it, but an eye should be kept on the page because currently there is nothing reliable to note his death (just blogs and a Find a Grave profile that is copied from Wikipedia information). I suspect that it will keep popping up however... 96.52.5.187 (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Semi-protected the page. Warned the user. -- Cirt (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
      • My goodness, semi-protection seems unwarranted as the "offending" edits were not made by an IP address. Very heavy handed ... WWGB (talk) 06:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Could you protect the Britton Chance article as well? It's suffering from the same poor sourcing that I just reverted (but as I am just a lowly IP, I will likely be reverted right back soon enough...) 96.52.5.187 (talk) 05:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Added SPIE News source reporting his death, which is reliable per BLPN. Molimaging (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, semi-protecting such a heavily edited article for three months over a single incident sure seems heavy-handed to me. There are a number of established editors monitoring that article quite closely and unregistered accounts have not been disruptive enough recently to warrant three months of protection. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Update: I dropped down the semi-protection on Deaths in 2010 to one-week. Any other admin please feel free to change it. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 07:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Ed Reilly (karting)

• Ed Reilly (karting) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

My name is Ed Reilly and my friends have made a greatly exaggerarted wikipiedia link about me. I want it off! Help! - 222.155.28.191 (talk) 08:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• In general, we don't delete article on their subject's request. In this case, I have done a bit of research, and I'll nominate the article for deletion on the grounds of a lack of verifiability. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

AFD ongoing, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Reilly (karting). -- Cirt (talk) 09:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Welcomed the above IP user. -- Cirt (talk) 09:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Esther Hicks

Resolved

 – External link not included in Hicks article

Robert Todd Carroll is a notable author who published articles in The Skeptical Inquirer and also published the book Skeptic’s Dictionary. He has written a criticism on the work of Esther Hicks on his website skepdic.com, which I feel is appropriate to be listed as Criticism under Esther Hicks’ external links. It does not take up a disproportionate part of the page, and it is more neutral than many of the external links on other similar pages. Sylvia Browne‘s page, and John Edward‘s page both list critical links from less credible and more slanted sources than the skeptic’s dictionary article. Opinions? Lesley1914 (talk) 08:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)lesley1914

Per WP:BLP, "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Also per WP:BLP, "Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the 'Further reading' or 'External links' sections of BLPs, and when including such links in other articles make sure the material linked to does not violate this policy. Self-published sources written or published by the subject of a BLP may be included in the FR or EL sections of that BLP with caution...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hector Holthouse

Resolved

 – two cites added for expiration. Thanks to all. Off2riorob (talk) 12:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hector Holthouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hector Holthouse is not a living person. He died in 1991. Peter Bell (talk) 08:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any online sources reporting his death, I assume that if he did indeed die in 1991 then it would be mentioned in ISBN 0646108980 written by a relative in 1992. I think the death needs to be verified from a source like this before the category can be removed. SmartSE (talk) 12:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a cat . . possibly living people, I can't find anything either, perhaps an Aussie editors knows or can find a citeation .. Off2riorob (talk) 12:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you got a citation that reports the death Peter? - I have added possibly living as it is uncited although, Peter seems to be a writer and a historian from that area. Off2riorob (talk) 12:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This has been puzzling me for some time, because Holthouse obviously stopped writing (or at least publishing) in 1991, but information about him is hard to come by. The blurbs on his books, his publishers' websites and library catalogues never give a date of death for him. However, a recent article on historians who have written about Queensland gave his life span as 1916-1991, which fits everything else that is known about him: Metcalf, Bill, "Histories of Queensland: a Bibliographic Survey", Queensland History Journal 21, No. 3, November 2010, p. 171. I've added the reference to the article. Peter Bell (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The National Library of Australia says the chap expired in 1991.[5]Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Tim Patterson

• Tim Patterson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A user by the name of Borneolobster keeps inserting information on this biographical page on Dr. Tim Patterson, a professor of Earth Sciences at Carleton University, claiming that he is an American, born in Calais, Maine, and gives an incorrect birth year. Dr. Patterson himself has tried to correct this, and I, too, have tried to correct this (I am a student of his), yet Borneolobster claims it is vandalism. This information is nowhere to be seen on Google or any other source outside of Wikipedia, so I'm not sure where Borneolobster gets the information on Dr. Patterson's biographical details. I'd say it's just as easily a case of vandalism, since it is all unsourced. Since I know Dr. Patterson personally, I can vouch that none of it is true. This could all easily be corroborated by contacting Carleton University directly. Since so much of the material on the page is dubious, and since the burden of proof on our end (proving we are who we are) might be daunting, I'd recommend the page be locked from further edit (at least relating to the biographical details), the current biographical details removed, and it strictly being about his scientific publication record until biographics can be sorted. 143.117.143.17 (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed it as its uncited and left Borneo lobster a note with a link to this thread and asked he not replace it again without a WP:RS or discussion here. Off2riorob (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected during ongoing BLPN investigation. -- Cirt (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Ari Fleischer

Resolved

 – content removed as undue, see discussion below

• Ari Fleischer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Although it is an incontrovertible fact that Fleischer told many spectacular lies to the press, and became famous for contradicting reporters quoting him directly - to the point that Slate's Timothy Noah published many accountings of his lying, reference to this notable feature of his career have been removed repeatedly, seemingly with a partisan agenda. Xuancris (talk) 15:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected during ongoing BLPN investigation. -- Cirt (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• - you mean this? Seems a bit attacking in nature .....imo.. Off2riorob (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

During his tenure he became notorious for telling spectacular and implausible lies in defense of the invasion of Iraq.

• - http://www.slate.com/id/2079496/ Whopper of the week.

• - http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/3/12/131048/790 - Shameless liar.

• - http://thinkprogress.org/2007/08/22/ari-fleischer-returns Sample Listing of Lies

Off2riorob

I have heard of the blog "Daily Kos" but have not heard that it is considered a reliable source at Wikipedia. Blogs generally are not reliable sources, unless they are operated by newspapers that have editorial control. Accordingly, I've removed the two blogs (Daily Kos and Think Progress), and used in-text attribution for the Slate column by Timothy Noah, per WP:Weasel. I'm not quite sure what to do about Noah and his Slate column. Law Professor Eugene Volokh rebutted Noah at Volokh's blog,[6] so it seems kind of one-sided to only include the Noah reference in our Wikipedia article. And yet we might be running into trouble by including the Volokh blog, because --- after all --- it's a blog. Maybe the best thing might be to just remove the Noah sentence, inasmuch as Noah has not been cited by other reliable sources. What do you think?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Question about tiny minorities

According to WP:BLP, "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." Since we don't have any indication that any other person or reliable source agrees with the opinion piece by Timothy Noah, does that mean we should remove the mention of Noah's opinion in this BLP?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, given that there were no objections to removing the sentence about Noah, I've done so, with the following edit summary: "Undue weight. Noah is the only RS making this claim. Also see http://volokh.com/2003_05_25_volokh_archive.html#200365236".Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Support that removal, the addition was like a school playground chant of liar liar, undue weight to an attacking POV. Of course, notable incidents of controversy can be, and are included in the article in a more encyclopedic style. Off2riorob (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Louise Glover - repeated OTRS and on-wiki complaints from the subject

• Louise Glover (AfD discussion)

There are two issues here:

• Per User talk:Scott MacDonald#Louise Glover, we need what we were citing as sources double-checked. Were the sources reliable, high-quality, and factual reporting rather than sensationalism?
• On Talk:Louise Glover we need to work out whether and how to include the legal incidents. Clearly, giving them a top-level section heading is a wholly over-emphatic way to present them; even standalone sections of their own at all is probably wrong, since it obscures context. Equally clearly, this is a case where summary style does harm rather than good. Moreover: Is this even what is in the sources at all? The subject asserts that the facts of the matter are more prosaic. Are we again parrotting someone else's sensationalism?

More eyes are appreciated. Uncle G (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Currently the page appears to be full-protected. -- Cirt (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  • That it is. Witness why. That doesn't in any way stop the above questions from being answered, though. Uncle G (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Hey, no worries, just noting that here for posterity, is all. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Poorly sourced material

I need to log off for a couple hours, but I'm hoping an editor or two could pop Nabil Miskinyar on to their watchlist. An IP has been adding unsourced material to the article throughout the day. They are inserting the material between other references, adding [1] to signify references that are not supplied, and making an overall mess of the article. I've directed them to the talk page to discuss what edits they would like to make and even offered to help them with the formatting and english, but I'm just repeatedly reverted without discussion. As far as BLP violations go, this is small potatoes (it's not even the crumbs of said potatoes), but it is a BLP that is being edited disruptively and without regard to guidelines. Any help would be appreciated. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice try Ponyo, there is just no helping some people though. I reverted the edits and left him a template. Seems in good faith but the refusal to discuss is the main issue now. Off2riorob (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

(Popping in quickly), thanks Rob. I think there are language issues involved; I can't help them if they can't understand me. They are actually edit warring to make the article worse. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected during this ongoing BLPN investigation. -- Cirt (talk) 03:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Mohammed Akbar Jehangir Aurangzeb Shah Jehan Frasier Ravi Teja

Resolved

 – deleted

• Mohammed Akbar Jehangir Aurangzeb Shah Jehan Frasier Ravi Teja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article is about the actor Ravi Teja but is titled as - "Mohammed Akbar Jehangir Aurangzeb Shah Jehan Frasier Ravi Teja".

• - deleted as vandalism. Off2riorob (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Full protected the above redlink. -- Cirt (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

david papaleo

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

David Papaleo requests that this information be removed - the entire page. Most of it is not notable, relelvant or well document s as far as his personal life and career - not even his hair color or weight is correct. The timeline of his life in aslo incorrect. The references to his sexuality are sensationalist and slanted. Most of the informatin is demonstrably false, libelous, private and sensitive.Tpapaleo (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• - Stripped it back of all the dubious uncited, article was very poor indeed. Anyone thinking to expand should do a much better job than was done previously. Off2riorob (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit considering Tpapaleo explained in edit summaries why they removed the information and their explaination appears to have been supported by the article at the time (which only seemed to have 1 ref) it's disappointing to see people still reverted them without any attempt to address the concerns (at least bringing the issue here). Nil Einne (talk) 17:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Although editors may still comment on your request, one recourse you have is to nominate the article for deletion. You should read the criteria carefully.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is perhaps one option. Feel free to nominate it if you feel that is correct. Off2riorob (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion, discussion now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Papaleo. -- Cirt (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Suhas Gopinath

Resolved

 – Pending protected

Suhas Gopinath has been subject to ongoing low-level vandalism. I believe it should be semi-protected. I made a request on the talk page but got no response, so I thought I would mention it here. I would do it myself, but Suhas is a friend and don't want there to be any conflict of interest concerns.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I'll watchlist it and monitor for vandalism. Yworo (talk) 05:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I've put the article into pending changes. I have no problem if someone wants to swap that out with semiprotection. Jclemens (talk) 07:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Added semi-protection during this ongoing BLPN investigation. -- Cirt (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Mary-Kay Wilmers

• Mary-Kay Wilmers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Yuraboosteezee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

To be on the safe side I've undone brand-new editor Yuraboosteezee's pair of edits on this page. Since this isn't really my field I thought best to bring it to the attention of people who know what they're doing. Thanks, almost-instinct 10:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• - Text was a cut and copy copyright violation from the source, new user, WP:AGF left them a note with some assistance, a request not to post it again and a link to this thread. Off2riorob (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected the page during ongoing BLPN investigation. -- Cirt (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Keiko Fujimori

Resolved

 – New source cited, correct info about potential pardon inserted, editor who sought removal blocked

• Keiko Fujimori (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A well-meaning new editor, non-native English speaker, keeps removing referenced material in an attempt to sanitize the article before the election. I can't get them to desist, can you? Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I would not necessarily agree that an editor seeking to sanitize an article is "well-meaning".

More importantly, the thing that the new editor is seeking to remove is the assertion that the subject plans to pardon her father. In fact, as far as I can tell, the subject has no such plans.

<ref>[http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-07-01/fujimori-nostalgia-in-peru-fuels-daughter-s-candidacy.html "Fujimori Nostalgia in Peru Fuels Daughter’s Candidacy"], Bloomberg Business Week (2010-07-01): "After previously vowing to pardon her father if elected, she now says she will wait for the Constitutional Court to rule on an appeal before deciding."</ref>

Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I corrected the info in the article, and included the new footnote described above. But, the editor in question took this footnote out and put in lots of uncited info. So, I reverted with the following edit summary: "Infinitoperu, you can add this info if you include footnotes and do not delete footnotes." I won't revert again.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I put references(footnotes), more links and the real and actually information, is the same of the spanish version, please not to confuse the public with political intentions, this one is a biography! We have the same problem in spanish version, about comunist politicians with a not neutral version. --Infinitoperu (talk) 13:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You are still attempting to remove information including appropriate footnotes. You are still trying to delete everything about a possible pardon for her father. A lot of the new material you are inserting is okay, but you are still not including information about where that material comes from. See WP:Verifiability. It's good that you are very knowledgeable and enthusiastic, but we have to follow the rules for English Wikipedia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

User in question blocked for disruptive editing. -- Cirt (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

And right back at it again. Please more than a 10 minute block.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

User picked up exact same behavior pattern after previous block, on exact same WP:BLP page. User failed to engage in talk page discussion. Blocked for one week. -- Cirt (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

This diff is kind of suspicious.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thandie Newton

• Thandie Newton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In this article Thandie Newton is listed as being married to two people:- In the sidebar:"Spouse Ol Parker (1998–present; 2 children)" In the text:"Newton married American music producer Joshua Earl in 1998" I believe the first of these to be correct, but am unsure, hence the query.

Regards

Simply old undetected vandalism from an IP address. I've reverted it. Yworo (talk) 23:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected the page during BLPN investigation. -- Cirt (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Doug Molitor

• Doug Molitor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I did not create this page, but it was incomplete. A few weeks ago, I spent hours putting up all of my TV credits and creating links to the Wikipedia entries on those shows for which I wrote.

Today I find the article has been completely rewritten, dumping virtually all of my credits, even though each of them can be verified on either imdb.com, TV.com, or the webpages devoted to those series. I also have video tapes of all my work with my writing credits clearly visible.

I had indicated that I wanted to be notified about any changes to my page, which has maliciously altered before. Yet I received no notice this time.

Please advise.

When I have time, I will go back and restore the links that were omitted.

I would first appreciate an assurance that no further deletions from this page will occur without at least allowing me to comment and present evidence.

Best regards,

Doug Molitor CDM2222 (talk) 07:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Autobiography: "Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, unless your writing has been approved by other editors in the community. Editing a biography about yourself should only be done in clear-cut cases."Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcomed the user. Gave the user a conflict of interest notice. -- Cirt (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Do note that IMDB and tv.com aren't usually considered WP:RS Nil Einne (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Adnan Oktar

• Adnan Oktar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A friend of mine recently brought to my attention the Adnan Oktar page. In addition I was working with the "Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre of Jordan" for my own studies. That report ranked this person as 45th of the most influence Muslims in the world. I could not believe the discrepancy between the biography published in the Royal Islamic Studies report and the wikipeida page. The Adnan Oktar page clearly seemed to violate Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons in the following respects:

• It was not written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy
• It was written like a tabloid
• It was not written in encyclopedic fashion rather lists of court cases and negative information without context or connecting prose
• The legal issues were quoted twice, repeating information in both the Biography and also the Legal sections
• Most of the sources are openly hostile to the subjectt. The first line of one source, quoted several times, explicitly says "The following article is mostly a personal attack." [7]

So I began slowly, over the course of two weeks to add additional information:

• The fact that the latest court case was appealed and overturned
• The "Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre of Jordan"
• A couple of book covers to illustrate the style of the subject
• I DID NOT DELETE NEGATIVE information
• Instead I added a quote from the subject's websites where he claims the court cases are harassment. I assume this is allowed in WP:SELFPUB because I am quoting the subject point of view and clearly labeling it as such.
• Lastly, I added some highly toned down information from their website to the biographical section. WP:SELFPUB specifically allows adding context from self published websites that is not unduly self serving. There is no reason to doubt the information I added because it is even confirmed by highly negative article [8]

Then before I can turn around, the page is reverted, I am labeled as "Conflict of Interest". I challenge the "Conflict of Interest", but I do not know where.

I wish to dispute your claim of conflict of interest. You have brought incorrect information. CONTRARY TO YOUR CLAIMS. I do not knows any of the other authors. I have not deleted any references from the original text. I think it is very unprofessional that a case was open and closed without giving me ANY CHANCE TO REPLY.

Please tell me how to do dispute the roll back. 1) It was not done with neutral editors 2) it was based on fallacious claims. 3) It was done without giving me a chance to reply to any of the claims.

I need advice. What is the correct thing to do? Should dispute the role back, or re-add the changes one at a time with an explanation on the talk page for justification of the change. I request assistance in this matter as i have never done this before. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

For whatever it may be worth, here's my advice. First of all, is the "friend" to whom you refer the subject of the article? That may be relevant for purposes of WP: COI. Additionally, there's nothing necessarily wrong with an editor like yourself making bold edits to an article, but if they're reverted then the appropriate step to take is discussion at the article talk page. See WP:BRD. You're doing that now at the article talk page, where you have assumed good faith and proposed posting each section from the pre-rolled back version, and if there is no objection, moving it to the main page. So why not see how that goes before coming back here? Just because the recent rollback discussion occurred rather quickly, before you could participate, doesn't necessarily mean that is was done improperly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

No the friend is NOT the subject of the article. And this person did not ask me to make any change to wikipedia. That was my idea. I am assuming good faith, but the fact that they let me make changes for weeks without comment, and then revert the article without any chance for discussion makes me feel question Fae's neutrality, but I am assuming good faith. I feel that I need help and advice here from someone who has dealt with this kind of issue. I feel I don't know what is the right thing to do. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 19:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The only real way to proceed is to discuss specific changes as necessary on the article talk page. Having posted here will bring more attention to it, so that there shouldn't be a problem of only a couple of editors in dispute. In any event, having looked at the article it's not clear to me what the problem is -- there are plenty of references for the material you appear not to like, and I don't understand why you would try to delete those sections. Adding material for balance might be appropriate, but if what is there is properly sourced then it is difficult to see why it should be deleted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

So you agree that the page should not have been rolled back? If you diff the pages you can see I did not delete information, I only added new information for balance; and considering Fae had observed the changes for two weeks without comment or criticism, and then had an OPEN/SHUT case in six hours deleting all the sourced new material without attempting to contact the author of the changes for comment or explanation? --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 07:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I would also advise some slow and methodical discussion on the article talk page, and agree that this report is premature (a report is appropriate when there is unsourced negative material, or inexperienced editors adding POV slants, or other similar problems). It's best to focus on one part of the article at a time and explain (on the article talk page) why the current text is inappropriate, and why some alternative would be better. Johnuniq (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I have started exactly that, see the talk page of Talk:Adnan_Oktar. I TRULY HOPE some neutral editors will assist to improve this page. Even the people who "agreed" to my procedure have expressed prior bias as they agreed, for example User:Hrafn on Talk:Adnan_Oktar says "Adnan Oktar's views are decidedly scientifically WP:FRINGE, making WP:DUE weight a strong concern, (ii) much of what was originally introduced was "unduly self-serving", (iii) Oktar does not have a reputation for fact-checking (e.g. the fishing lure incident)." --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 07:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, I'm glad you're at work there. But I see no reason to dismiss Hrafn's contributions: his thoughts might not be "prior bias", instead perhaps they are considered opinions formed on the basis of looking at the relevant sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not dismissing it. I just HOPE other neutral editors will contribute. So far participation is very light. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 10:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not see anything what is wrong with Hrafn's comments.Jeff5102 (talk) 08:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Hrafn is a senior editor and very experienced, however without reference to anything source he has declared several times the subject to be WP:FRINGE and unreliable because he "published a (plagiarised) photo of a fishing lure among his pictures of insects, in one of his glossy (and scientifically vapid) books" and the subject "does not have a reputation for fact-checking (e.g. the fishing lure incident)", essentially invalidating ANY counter claims originating from the subject himself. I don't discount Hrafn, but I wish there were other neutral editors. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 09:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Fae & Jeff5102, the only other editors on the page, are interesting in adding criminal allegations to lead article, while deleting the only academic review of the subject from the lead. I feel that they are not following WP:BLP, in fact I feel hopelessly outnumbered on this page. WHY DOES ANY NEUTRAL PARTY HELP? I give up, if this is wikipedia, forget it. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you wish some academic sources, Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers wrote several articles on Adnan Oktar. These articles were removed from the article for "being blogs." If you insist on "academic sources," it might be an idea to reinsert them.Jeff5102 (talk) 12:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Lets discuss this on the talk page, I am not against including these academic sources if their source is identified. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 12:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not see any indication that Fae and Jeff5102 are participating improperly at that article. "Neutral" does not mean "in agreement with you". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course I don't mean "in agreement". I was referring to bringing up many issues at one time instead of dealing with things one at at time. This is something you would see by looking at the time stamps, conversations are happening at ten different places in the talk page at the same time. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 12:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yoonjung Han

Resolved

 – Reliable sources cited, material removed that made it look like a CV

looks like a personal fan page..

Yoonjung Han (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Off2riorob (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I inserted a couple citations to reliable newspapers that have written about her. Also, removed some of the more egregious stuff in the article that made it look like a curriculum vitae.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Derek Laud

• Derek Laud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It is totally untrue he supported apartheid. He wrote a report to Foreign office Minsiter's attcking apartheid and calling for cultural sanctions. He was born in Chelsea, London. Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 86.159.212.203 (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I've just removed the paragraph concerned, as it is unreferenced and arguably negative. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

... and I may well be putting it back, since it *is* in one of the references, just not the one cited. What a mess. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcomed the above user. -- Cirt (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Prof Bishnodat Persaud

• Bishnodat Persaud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Click "Show" to the right, in order to see what is posted here.

Prof. Bishnodat Persaud

Professor Bishnodat Persaud was Director and Head of the Economic Affairs Division of the Commonwealth Secretariat, Marlborough House, London from 1981 to 1992 and Professor of Sustainable Development at the University of the West Indies (UWI) in Jamaica, 1992-1996. He was founding Director of the University’s Centre for Environment and Development. On leaving UWI in 1996, he was made an Honorary Professor. His academic career includes serving in an earlier period as Research Fellow and Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of the West Indies in Barbados,1964-1974 and acting as External Examiner for post-graduate courses(Masters and PhD) at Universities in the UK amd in Malta. He was appointed by the President of Guyana, a member of a Review Commission on the University of Guyana in 1991 and again in 1996 a member of the Presidential Commission on the University of Guyana. He served in 1987-1990, a member of the External Advisory Committee of the London University MSc and Post-Graduate Diploma course in Agricultural Development. In 1990, he was invited to deliver the Fifth Adlith Brown Memorial lecture at the Institute of Social and Economic Research, Univesity of the West indies. In 1995, he was appointed by the Commonwealth Secretary-General, a member of the Commission on Commonwealth Studies.

In 1997, Professor Persaud was appointed Chief Technical Coordinator of the Caribbean Regional Negotiating Machinery (CRNM) and more recently as a Senior Associate of the CRNM. For the period 1994-2000, he was a member of the UN Secretary-General’s High-Level Committee on Development Policy (CDP). In 1994, he was appointed by the President of the Inter-Amearican Development, co-Leader with Prof Mike Faber, of a Team to Report on the Socio-Economic Development of Guyana and in 1995 was a member of a CIDA Team which undertook a strategic management review of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States. Prof Persaud has recently co-authored a Report ‘ Towards an Outward-Oriented Development Strategy for Small States: Issues, Opportunities and Resilience-Building’ for the World Bank and the Commonwealth Secretariat.

Prior to joining the Commonwealth Secretariat in London in 1974,and while he was at the University of the West Indies, Prof Persaud served on a number of high level Commissions of Enquiry appointed by Caribbean and UK Governments. These included sugar industry enquiries in Belize and Grenada, land development projects in the British Virgin Islands and the Anguilla separation problem.

While at the Commonwealth Secretariat, Prof Persaud served as adviser to the then Commonwealth Secretary-General, Sir Shridath RAmphal, in his membership of the Brandt and South Commissions and the Latin American and Caribbean Commission on Development and the Environment.

Prof. Persaud has a long list of publications, including two co-authored books, papers in academic Journals, reports for Governments and International Organisations, including the World Bank, the Commonwealth Secretariat and the UN. He has served on a number Boards including, World Aware, The Commonwealth Partnership for Technology Management, The Commonwealth Equity Fund, the Central Bank of Barbados, the Iwokrama International Rainforest Programme, Jamaica Conservation and Development Trust, the Environmental Foundation of Jamaica and the Ramphal Centre in London

Professor Persaud holds a Ph.D degree from the University of Reading and a first degree from the Queen’s University of Belfast.

Prof Persaud was born in Guyana, is a citizen of the UK and Barbados and lives in the UK. He is the husband of the celebrated Caribbean nevelist Lakshmi Persaud, the father of noted Psychiatrist, Raj Persaud and well known financial economist Avinash Persaud and former city economist, Sharda Dean.

Integ9 (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I installed a hide/show feature due to the length of what is posted here. This appears to be a draft article. I welcomed the new user at his talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Kristian Otto Herzog

Resolved

 – Article deleted

• Kristian Otto Herzog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi! This was nominated for speedy deletion, but there does appear to be a bit of notability, although it is more of notoriety, going by the content. There are citations, but none of them are inline, and they are all pretty much for a single source - www.tmz.com, who apparently broke the story.

I'd check all the external links, but they are so full of adverts it is taking an absolute age to load. Given the nature of the article and the fact that one of the mentioned parties could probably afford expensive legal representation, I thought I'd best raise it here and see if anyone here could pass judgement and clean up/delete if necessary.

I've not declined the speedy deletion tag; thought the more admins who view the article the better! Stephen! ^Coming... 13:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Stephen, thanks for placing a note at the article talk page pointing here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I took a quick look, and I would probably support deletion of this article. The subject is a former bodyguard for celebrities, he's writing a tell-all book, and he may become notable depending on how the book does.

The main reason he's in the news now is because he's involved in the ongoing child custody dispute between Mel Gibson and Oksana Grigorieva. He's not even mentioned in the Wikipedia articles for those two people, so the present article under discussion may be some kind of "fork". In any event, per WP:Recentism, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:GOSSIP it seems like a good case for deletion, even if it were properly formatted with the external links used as in-line citations.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The article has now been deleted.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Fully protected it. -- Cirt (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Alfred A. Marcus

There are no inline sources to Alfred A. Marcus, plus a lot of probably less-than-notable redlinks. I thought about putting a prod blp template on it, but it does have external links, though whether those links actually prove the assertions in the article, I don't know. Corvus cornix_talk 23:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

As the article stands today, I'd say it's a candidate for deletion as it currently fails WP:PROF. However, if the unsubstantiated claims made in the article are true, it seems to me more likely than not that Marcus can pass WP:PROF if someone cares to put in the work to find reliable sources to meet that standard. The article is tended by a SPA, which seems suspicious given the nature of the article. I'm going to PROD BLP it and see what happens; perhaps someone will rescue it. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I should note that the "External links" are all self-published, and therefore not reliable sources, so they can't be used to satisfy WP:PROF. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred A. Marcus. -- Cirt (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

List of atheists

• List of atheists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This list's stated inclusion principle is

This is a list of people who have been identified as atheists, or who have expressed that they do not believe in deities.

To the extent that this concerns living people, it's a BLP violation, for two reasons:

1. WP:BLPCAT requires self-identifcation in matters or religious belief and sexual preference. Identification by third parties is not enough. (This has been part of BLP policy for as long as the policy has existed.)

2. According to authoritative surveys, most people who don't believe in God do not identify as atheists.

The same applies to the various sublists.--JN466 05:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

What the heck? Why is nonsense like this included in Wikipedia in the first place? If this is a valid article, can I create one on 'halfwits who think that they can classify people according to arbitrary categories based on abstract questions on theological propositions they may never have attempted to answer, not being deluded enough to think they could'? Obviously I'll include anyone on my list that I can't find conclusive evidence shouldn't be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

JN466, it looks like you haven't mentioned WP:BLPCAT at the article talk page. Why not? There's a discussion there about this very topic. The editor Noleander wrote, "The WP:BLP policy does not require that all information come from the subject's own mouth. If a reliable source says that the subject is an atheist, that is acceptable. The essence of the BLP policy is that the source has to be very reliable, and not a gossip-mongerer (for instance, if the source were hostile to the subject, that may disqualify the source). In addition, there is no requirement that the source use the word 'atheist': the source describes the person using words that reasonably fit within a common definition of "atheism", that is sufficient.". Why not try to set Noleander straight?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not that simple. In the UK - and probably much of the US - atheism means an absence of belief in God or a god. However, there is a determined effort by some evangelicals to push the concept of atheism as a specific belief system. People are more chary of being identified in this way in countries where religious faith is seen as something generally positive. I agree with Andy above and can forsee ongoing arguments about how to define an atheist. Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

These types of lists should be avoided here at all costs, especially if they require editors to make inclusion judgement not based on exact self-identification. There is some manner of contemporary disagreement about what "atheist" means in terms of disbelief. For instance, the broad idea that atheism is the "absence of belief in God or gods" is not very traditional, and to some (myself included) much too general. Agnosticism is also the "absence of belief in God or gods", but to many it is rather distinctly not atheism or any part of a spectrum of atheism. I would argue that atheism is the belief that there are no gods. The belief that the world is absent of gods, not the absence of belief in such gods. But like I said others will disagree, but my point isn't that I, as an agnostic, am correct, but simply that the definition of atheism isn't as cut and dry as some believe it is.Griswaldo (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

That is correct. Agnostics do not believe in God either. According to Encyclopædia Britannica, atheists make up only about 16% of non-believers in Europe, for example. The remainder are classified as "Nonreligious (agnostics): Persons professing no religion, nonbelievers, agnostics, freethinkers, uninterested, or dereligionized secularists indifferent to all religion but not militantly so." --JN466 10:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Agnostics neither know nor care (much). Look at Britannica's definition of atheists. . Persons professing atheism, skepticism, disbelief, or irreligion, including the militantly antireligious (opposed to all religion). It includes persons expressing disbelief. That's all. Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

(Undent)I've put a note at the article talk page pointing here. I also quote policy at the article talk page: "Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources."Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The reason for this mess is that someone moved the article to List of non-theists which opened a whole extra can of worms :) Then it got moved back and modified and... etc. I'm not sure of the relevance of your comments Griswaldo (FYI agnosticism is definitely distinct from atheism and you won't find a mainstream account that suggests one is a subset of another). Generally speaking the list criteria works on the broader definition of "little a" atheism (i.e. a belief that there is no God, rather and advocation of no God). For deceased subjects we can rely on their own accounts OR reliably published and neutral sources (and with the latter form of source we should be careful to ensure that it indicates the persons preference - i.e. if the subject rejected the term but a reputable source calls them atheist we should go with the former). For BLP's it is personal accounts only. If someone wants to go through the list and weed out the BLP problems I fully support them doing so, I don't have the time or the inclination though ;) On a side not: the list has as much legitimacy as List of Christians, and getting rid of it or applying particularly gregarious restrictions becomes difficult in that context. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your comment on my comment see Negative and positive atheism and Implicit and explicit atheism. In recent years the category has been stretched by some to include various types of people who have not made any determination of their own about the existence or non-existence of deities. Anyone who is not a theist is basically considered an atheist of some sort in some of these schemes.Griswaldo (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

yeh, sorry for the aside on this. I see the point you are making - but these are fringe issues, Atheism is pretty clear as an article in identifying the generally accepted broad and narrow definitions. It seems widely established in the list that we use the generally accepted wide definition with certain caveats --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I dispute the idea that this is a "generally accepted wide definition". Definitions this inclusive may be generally accepted by many self-proclaiming contemporary atheists but not others.Griswaldo (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It's very hard to see it otherwise I am afraid, atheism has a pretty clear definition with wide sourcing, and the two articles you linked to are identified as fringe in a number of ways :) It is not really in debate what "atheism" is generally accepted to mean in normal usage. Of course; when dealing with a source we should account for the writers (or subjects) personal interpretation of the word. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 18:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

What sources? Did you look at Jayen's reference to the Cambridge Companion to Atheism? A majority of people who answer surveys that they do not believe in God do not self-identify as "atheists". How can you argue that the inclusive definition of atheism is generally accepted in "normal usage"? Above and beyond this it is listed in reference works as a more contemporary and alternative usage to the traditional and more strict usage. As I said above, this inclusive definition may be the normal usage of self-identifying contemporary atheists perhaps, but not of others. I keep on hearing about it being well attested to in reliable sources but I don't see it.Griswaldo (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

How can you argue that the inclusive definition of atheism is generally accepted in "normal usage"? , I'm s;ightly confused because I have not argued this? Please have a good read of the atheism article - "little a" atheism is a well defined term dealing with the rejection of a deity. It is not overly inclusive and does not include agnosticism etc. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 19:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Look you started this over something I claimed, so I'm the confused one, no offense. I was arguing against the even more inclusive definition listed above, that atheism is simply the "absence of belief in a deity". Such a definition, does indeed include agnosticism. If that's not what you are claiming as the "wider definition" then I plead innocence to the charges of causing the confusion. I do think, more generally however, that the entry atheism is skewed towards the atheist POV, and gives the appearance of mass usage from that perpective as opposed to any real sociological or socio-linguistic evidence. But that is, I guess, a matter to be discussed elsewhere. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The consensus that has developed for this list up to this point is that it is to be inclusive of all persons who do not believe in deities, as confirmed by reliable sources. The subjects' choice of a particular label for this non-belief is not considered a necessity for (or an obstacle to) inclusion. It is the position that is being documented--the term atheist (or, until somewhat recently, nontheist) in the title has merely been chosen as a far less unwieldy placeholder to mean, simply, "one who does not believe in deities." This definition, though more inclusive than some, is well-attested in numerous reliable sources.

To what extent does the policy or guideline for categories apply to lists? Nick Graves (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLPCAT explicitly addresses this - These principles apply equally to infobox statements, and to lists and navigation templates that are based on religious beliefs and sexual orientation, or which suggest that the persons included in the list or template have a poor reputation. I don't think there is any question that for BLPs self-identification is a requirement.Griswaldo (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I think a good way to see that there is disagreement and inconsistency on this issue is to look at Ed Miliband. He's in the list but his article doesn't treat him as an atheist. See the tragically long talk page... some of which addresses this issue (search for atheist). Sean.hoyland - talk 18:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

That's probably a prime example of someone to be removed. If the article is inconclusive then he has no place on the list. My marker for lists such as this is does their article identify them as such. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 18:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not qualify as a reliable source, and if a main entry is violating BLP you risk violating BLP at the list as well by not strictly applying WP:BLPCAT to the list itself. In other words do not simply rely on what is written in an entry, but of course use the main entry's reliable sourcing, when it does exist, to verify the claim. But in the end it has to be self-identification per WP:BLPCAT and that is policy.Griswaldo (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Apply common sense! To spell out what should have been clear; if the article reliably identifies them as an atheist then they work for inclusion in this list. My main point is I am always dubious of list entries with their own specific source where it is not mentioned in the article --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 19:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't help thinking that some people are missing the point here. As Jayen466 stated at the start of this discussion, and tmorton166 has just reminded us, WP:BLPCAT requires self-identification in matters or religious belief.... There is no need to argue about what constitutes atheism - the sole criteria for inclusion of any living individual on this list will be a WP:RS that demonstrates that he/she has explicitly self-identified as atheist. End of story. No other source has any relevance whatsoever. Anyone not meeting this criteria should be removed from the list immediately. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, that is not what Tim is saying, that's what I'm saying. Tim said that the main article on the BLP has to be conclusive about calling them an atheist. That's not what BLPCAT says. The subject has to self-identify as an atheist, as you are saying, as Jayen was saying, and as I have been trying to say as well. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

(e)@Tim. I am also dubious of list entries in general, especially lists like this that classify people by religious belief, etc. I'm simply saying that a reliable source is required which shows self-identification. If that source is also found in the main entry of the BLP, then great, if it found somewhere else, then great, but it is required. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

But atheism is not a religious belief; it is a lack of religious belief. It is misleading to consider "lack of belief" as a sub-category of "belief". RolandR (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Although atheism is sometimes treated as a religious identity, atheism is not perfectly analogous to religious adherence. The latter involves membership in a religious organization, completion of initiation rites, and/or self-labeling according to a specific religious identity. Atheism is largely a philosophical position. Unlike most religious groups, atheists do not necessarily share a common cosmology, mythology, moral/ethical system, body of rituals, etc. Just as one needn't specifically identify oneself as a materialist, determinist, utilitarian, etc. in order to be reliably identified with these philosophical positions, so too one needn't specifically identify oneself as an "atheist" in order to be so identified. Expression of a view that constitutes atheism as defined in reliable sources is sufficient. Nick Graves (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Self identifying atheists certainly share those attributes with each other to a much closer degree than all of the different self-identifying theists. There is a false-dichotomy creeping in here between atheism and religion. You say atheism is a philosophical position, but the philosophical dichotomy is between atheism and theism, and not "religion". Relgion, as a sociological category, cannot be confused with theism. Sociologically speaking the various attributes you mentioned above are actually found in common between most self-identifying atheists. Not between most non-theists, sure, and certainly not between most of the dissafiliated, but atheists yes. That's the last I will say on this here though, since we are now way off topic. My original point was only to illustrate definitional disagreement and not to hash out these disagreements.Griswaldo (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Other than the above paragraph, I am sympathetic to much of what you have written in this thread, Griswaldo. Yes, there is definitional disagreement, and I've made that point repeatedly over the years during my involvement with this list. If this disagreement is explicitly acknowledged in the list, and the inclusion criteria explained and supported by reliable sources, does this not address the following concern stated in the relevant policy?: "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources." In other words, is the case for inclusion in this list not made clear by (1) acknowledging definitional disagreement, (2) explicitly stating what is meant by use of the term for purposes of this list, and (3) citing the reliable source that confirms that a particular person is an atheist according to the reliably attested definition chosen for the list?

Concerns about self-identification were addressed earlier by a move to "List of nontheists." Nontheist was then deemed a more neutral, less controversially defined term whose advantages outweighed its lesser currency as an identifier. I submit, however, that expression of non-belief in deities can be regarded as a sufficient self-identification as an atheist (broadly defined), even when use of the term is absent. Nick Graves (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I made the mistake of continuing to debate the definitions, and I apologize for that. Like I said I really just wanted to illustrate disagreement originally. I think Jayen's point #2 is being overlooked a bit in the thread. The point of BLP standards being very conservative and hinging on self-identification, is illustrated by the fact that many people say they don't believe in god(s) but do not self-identify as "atheists". If we used inclusion criteria other than self-identification such individuals would be included despite their explicit distancing from identifying with the term "atheism". Like it or not, "atheist" connotes much more than even "not believing in god(s)" to many people, and we can't impose our own criteria of what we claim the term means upon them. We can write general entries on atheism based on the most reliable sources, but we can't go around calling people atheists if they are not willing to do so themselves. That's my position on this.Griswaldo (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, I think we actually agree on this - just coming from different ends. The atheism used in this list is, I think, self-identified atheists who fall under the general broad definition of "denying the existence of god" (not the ultra modern "include everything" fringe variance). By using the article I meant to imply that as long as it follows BLP then the conclusion of the article is fair; that is because it might be legitimate to label someone Atheist without them explicitly saying "I am an atheist". We can best deal with those issues at the article levels and just use the decisions there to fill the list. I think everyone agrees on this article - that we need to weed out any BLP problems, it's just getting down to sorting it ;) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 22:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

OK great. I'm just a tad too argumentative on this subject for some reason :). It sounds like we are making headway at the list in a productive direction.Griswaldo (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

(Undent) I've edited the intro to the list, in order to conform with WP:BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It's all very well editing the intro, but the fact is that many (possibly most) entries on the list of living persons are in fact in violation of WP:BLP, as they do not provide WP:RS for self-identified atheism.

Given that the list is clearly flawed, can I suggest that the correct action would be to remove the article, and then start a new one with proper sourcing - doing anything else is just leaving the violations in place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The list is perfectly okay, as regards dead people. As for live people, they could be deleted, but it might be better to put a "verification needed" tag next to each one, or just presume that each one complies with BLP policy until proven otherwise.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

"...just presume that each one complies with BLP policy until proven otherwise...". Nope. Policy is policy. Nothing that might breach policy should be on the list until it shown that it doesn't. Why else have a policy in the first place? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Andy here. Unreferenced BLP information should be deleted.Griswaldo (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Gris, Andy, Anything: All information is supported by reliable sources. The question is not of sourcing, but of inclusion criteria. If it is a BLP violation to identify a living person as an atheist without them having specifically identified themselves using this term, then culling the list would be in order. However, complete "removal" of the list is not necessary. The history should be retained so editors have access to all of the sources that have been cited in order to rebuild it with more restrictive criteria. Having helped with or witnessed the addition of most of the several hundred entries, I'd wager that most of the entries would be retained under the more restrictive criteria, though many would indeed have to go.

I still think it is worth revisiting the issue of renaming the list. A number of possibilities come to mind: "List of nontheists," "List of atheists or nontheists," "List of atheists and other nontheists," "List of atheists and agnostics," or "List of atheists, agnostics and other nontheists." Or there's the clunky "List of people who do not believe in deities," which is all that was meant by those who have developed the list. An objection was raised before to the use of the term "nontheists," but I still maintain that it does not have the definitional challenges or potential negative connotations of the term atheist. Nick Graves (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

"All information is supported by reliable sources". Even if this is true, it is irrelevant. The article is in breach of WP:BLP. As such, it should not remain as an article on Wikipedia, just for the convenience of editors. As with any article, there is nothing that prevents someone copying it to a local hard drive, or indeed looking at the article history. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Andy, whether the information is supported by reliable sources has quite a lot to do with BLP violations, real or alleged. I still don't see the conflict with BLPCAT here. Those who say they do not believe in deities have publicly self-identified with atheism, broadly defined, whether or not they use the word to label themselves. Regardless, atheism is not a religious belief. Nick Graves (talk) 02:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you regarding WP:RS and WP:BLP, however what you describe is a BLP violation. I do not "believe in deities" and if I were notable enough for an entry and you added me to a list of atheists I'd send in an OTRS request because I would deny rather vehemently that I was one. The fact that you think all people who "do not believe in deities" are atheists does not make it so, and once again, the statistics Jayen quoted show that in fact a majority of people who say they do not believe in god(s) do not identify as atheists. BLP is conservative exactly to protect the rights of living individuals, and that includes the right to choose their own religious, or non-religious self-identifications. I think that part of this issue is closed since BLP is 100% clear on the matter.Griswaldo (talk) 02:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

(Undent) How about if we tag every living person on the list like this?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Still a violation of WP:BLP. The correct approach has to be to comment out all the names on the list, and then for those who wish the list to be maintained to go through each case and restore those who are either (a) dead, or (b) have cited RS verification of self-identified atheism. In fact I'm almost tempted to do this right now. Obviously, a note would have to be put on the page to explain why the list was empty. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

What does "comment out" mean? You mean "hide"? Anyway, there are clearly many dead people on the list (this is clear because the list includes year of death).Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I say just go through the list and remove living individuals for whom an adequate source for self-identification cannot be found. I don't think there is any need to hide every entry of a BLP before verifying. On the other hand I do not think verification tags will do either. When the individual is assessed if there is no adequate sourcing simply delete, when there is retain. My hunch is that 95%+ are going to be retained here.Griswaldo (talk) 02:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Self-identification sourcing

Do we actually need quotations from the living person using the self-identification of "atheist" or is an RS claim that they self-identify as such enough? For instance, the second entry on List of atheists (activists and educators) is Ayaan Hirsi Ali and it is sourced to the following quote from the Financial Times - "Too much reason can reform a faith away, which would be fine with Hirsi Ali, who regards herself as an atheist." My inclination is to say that this satisfies BLP unless the claim is disputed somewhere else. Thoughts?Griswaldo (talk) 02:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Your inclination is correct.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually it isn't - this is what WP:BLPCAT says: "Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources". The FT stating that someone regards him or herself as an atheist isn't the same thing as that person actually saying so: journalists can get things wrong.

The proviso "the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their notable activities or public life" also seems to be relevant here. On this basis, even self-identification as an atheist may not be sufficient.

Can I remind people that we cannot ignore WP:BLP 'by consensus' here. Even if we were to decide we thought the standard was too strict, we couldn't apply a looser one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Andy the problem is that you are interpreting the policy in ways that the rest of us are not. If a reliable source says that someone regards him or herself as an atheist we can trust that they have publicly identified as such unless another source disputes this fact. It does not say, in any shape or form, that we need direct quotes from such figures, or that we need a reliable source to use the exact words used in the policy, or some such. Of course consensus does not override policy, but when most editors interpret policy in one way and not another, well then that's what the policy says. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

If I accept that for the moment (it isn't particularly clear-cut either way), how do you suppose we deal with the proviso in PP:BLPCAT that living people can only be included if "the subject's beliefs ... are relevant to their notable activities or public life"? That seems significant too, and was presumably included for a reason. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

To me it seems that this proviso implies that the subjects must be notable as atheists, and not just a notable person who happens to be an atheist. A notable person who made a passing comment on their beliefs to a reporter or mentioned their beliefs in a single interview should not be on this list; someone whose activities that directly pertain to atheism have generated news coverage for whatever reason should be. As examples anyone who is particularly vocal about it, or is involved to some great extent in an atheist organization would qualify.--Dycedarg ж 06:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, if a politician says "I don't believe in God", all the papers that don't support his party say, "S/he is a self-confessed atheist". Now, as I pointed out in my original post, the two are not the same. While politically motivated papers make the jump from "I don't believe in God" to "He is a self-confessed atheist", we as an encyclopedia should not. That is a very important point. The same applies to sexuality: if someone says in an interview, "I had a homosexual experience at boarding school", you may well get sources saying, "S/he is a self-identified bisexual". "I had a homosexual experience at boarding school" is not self-identification as "bisexual". Saying that we should categorise and infobox such a person as bisexual unless we can also find a quote where the person says, "I don't actually identify as bisexual, even though I had a homosexual experience when I was 14", is putting the cart before the horse. --JN466 10:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

From that perspective I'm very sympathetic to your POV and that of Andy. I wonder though if the language at WP:BLPCAT doesn't need to be strengthened in that direction. It doesn't indicate that a person has to publicly declare a self-identification with the specific label used, instead using "belief" as the criterion. Holding a religious "belief" (or anti-belief) is not equivalent to identifying with a group of seemingly like-minded people. Self identification, in other words, is not the same as publicly declaring a belief. That's exactly what your statistics tell us as well. The language of BLPCAT has to change if we want this to stick and I'm 100% behind doing so for the record.Griswaldo (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Subject's beliefs or sexual orientation need to be relevant to their notable activities or public life

I think this needs to be emphasised more, hence a new subheading although others have referred to this before. There's a strange tendency to ignore this bit of our policy. Unless someone's beliefs have clearly influenced their notable activities/public life, they should be categorised, listed, or info-boxed by their beliefs. This is flaunted in many, many articles, and I'd like to see it taken more seriously. It is just as relevant to articles mentioning religions as it is to this list. Dougweller (talk) 06:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree here too, but my first reaction to that part of the guideline was to squirm because of the ambiguity of the guideline. Who judges relevance? In the example Jayen brings up certain publications keep on labeling a politician as "atheist" in public, seemingly for political reasons. These publications are clearly wanting us to believe that the religious beliefs of the politician they are reporting to are relevant to their notable activities or public life. In fact, even though the politician has not chosen this for himself, one could argue that his opposition has made his beliefs relevant to his public life and that this is easily measurable and verifiable. What do we do in such a situation? This is just one example that illustrates how tricky that part of the policy is to implement. It relies on a heavier dose of interpretation than I'm comfortable with presently. I agree with it's aims, but I can see why it is easier for most editors to overlook it.Griswaldo (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, when lists of people like this one are compiled a 'heavy dose of interpretation' is inevitable. Probably a good reason for discouraging them. I'm uncertain why they are so popular in the first place, given their arbitrariness and incompleteness. I'd say that if we are to accept such lists at all, it is down to those compiling them to ensure they meet the requirements of WP:BLPCAT, and if this is 'tricky' in a particular case, then the person under consideration should not be on the list, per WP:PROVEIT: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. How quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources yourself that support such material, and cite them. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page". In this case, what has to be proven is that the inclusion of the person on the list is not in fact in breach of WP:BLPCAT. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a matter that extends way beyond this specific issue. Because there are a number of arguments; for example if someone identifies as an atheist, but it is not a significant aspect of their life (i.e. it is simply their belief and is not involved with why they are notable) does it count to be included? I've always argued that, where non-controversial, it is necessary to record these aspects of their life; because we aim for a complete and balanced biography (recall; notability relates to the entire articles existence, there is a much lower bar of "significance" for article content). BLPCAT and other aspects of BLP policy do not preclude recording "X calls himself an Atheist", just cautions the use of categories or inclusion in lists. If you read the talk page archives of this page Jimbo actually stepped in and argued that we should make it a list of notable atheists - i.e. those notable for their atheism. Such a criteria is going to be hard/subjective to judge - but it is probably what BLPCAT recommends. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 13:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree absolutely that it "extends way beyond this specific issue". It has to be seen in the broader context of a world where data-gathering is used for all sorts of purposes other than the one originally intended by the person compiling it. Many of these uses have the potential to be harmful to the individual about whom the data is gathered. I'd assume that it should not be Wikipedias job to make such data-gathering easier. Individuals, even notable ones, have a right to privacy where their beliefs, sexual orientation and other personal issues have no consequence to outsiders. BLPCAT seems to be based on this assumption, and enforces (not 'recommends') it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

BLPCAT has to be the most unenforced part of policy we have. I had a quick look through Category:American Roman Catholics the other week, and out of the first 200 entries I found 39 out of 82 living people were inappopriately categorised. When you also add on the fact that probably 15-25% of the living people who were appopriately categorised were Catholic priests/bishops/etc, it becomes even more worrying. There are probably thousands upon thousands of violations of BLPCAT right now, it really does need a major cleanup effort if it's going to actually be policy. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Every time I've looked at one of these lists I've also easily found people who were inappropriately categorised. Maybe we should get up a working party? Dougweller (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Unilateral page move

User:Nick Graves has now unilaterally moved the list(s) to a new title, and re-added Mililband and Gillard based on his page move. I do not think this is an appropriate way to solve the problem under current discussion. In fact I actually don't think it solves the problem either.Griswaldo (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

If we are concerned about listing people as atheists who might object to being called atheists (despite confirmed non-belief in deities), a more inclusive name for the article is a step in the right direction. Perhaps it does not solve the problem, but to revert to its former name would certainly make the problem worse. My unilateral (bold) move of the article is a precaution more consistent with protecting BLP than to leave the article as formerly named while discussion continues. Gris, there are many more like Miliband and Gillard who have been listed for quite some time. The consensus that developed at the list prior to opening of this discussion was to be inclusive. My reversion and page move are consistent with that consensus for inclusiveness. Nick Graves (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

"The consensus that developed at the list prior to opening of this discussion was to be inclusive". Possibly. Of no relevance however, as policy cannot be ignored 'by consensus'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Andy. Which is why I moved the list to a more inclusive name. Weren't we concerned about living people being listed as atheists when they hadn't specifically used that label for themselves? Nick Graves (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You are wikilawyering Nick. The main concern here has been with self-identification, which is not in anyway solved by your page move. Does Miliband refer to himself as a "nontheist" or "agnostic"? I don't think so. Please revert yourself in good faith while the conversation is ongoing. You do not own the list. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 15:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Nick, you may have been involved in discussions over "living people being listed as atheists when they hadn't specifically used that label for themselves", but as I'm sure you are well aware, the debate has moved well beyond that. Please revert, and then discuss the issues here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the new name opens a whole new issue with inclusion on the list, how to list people in a way that reflects their own choice of label, whether it allows us to work with people who are not self-identified etc. Plus we have, then, issues with whether to include the many religions that are non-theist and whether it is logical/correct to list them besides Atheist. To put it into perspective this would be like having List of people following a religion. Which was the main reason for resisting a move to nob-theism as a title. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you Tim. I think there are a myriad of reasons why this is not a good idea and ought to be discussed first. Nick has made it clear on his talk page that he will not self-revert. I am going to revert him.Griswaldo (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no 'issue' over whether a rename "allows us to work with people who are not self-identified". This is expressly forbidden by WP:BLPCAT. The only possible issue is how strictly the requirement to only include subjects who's beliefs (or lack thereof) are relevant to their notable activities should be interpreted. AS I've already said, WP:PROVEIT applies here in any case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the page moves. I hope that Nick will engage in discussion about them at the appropriate talk page, or here instead of move warring.Griswaldo (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The list was renamed to 'nontheists' some time ago. I moved it back to atheists on the basis of WP:NAME and what I saw as a BLP violation in calling people who self-identified as atheists nontheists, and discussion confirmed that that was appropriate. Nick Graves seems to have taken the opportunity here to overrule that discussion. Not a good idea, and I agree with AndyTheGrump that this has no effect on the BLP issue. Dougweller (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Doug, the renaming I did was not back to the old name (List of nontheists), and addressed the concerns of that earlier discussion. When the list was earlier renamed List of atheists, none of the participants who were so concerned about atheists being offended at being called nontheists did anything to sort out the several nonbelievers in deities listed who might object to being called atheists. I find it bizarre that you say that the name of the list has no effect on the BLP issue, as it was that very concern that precipitated your earlier move of the article.

If it's a BLP violation to list living people as atheists who have not publicly identified themselves as such, then either the name needs to change, or the articles need to be blanked using "<!-- -->" while the entries are sorted through. Inexplicably, this discussion's participants seem to prefer a more exclusive and potentially connotation-laden identifier in the list name during ongoing discussion than a more inclusive and neutral set of identifiers. I'm not going to fight it, but given the relatively clear consensus that BLP violations are occurring, the latter interim solution (blank and sort) is, at the very least, in order. Any volunteers? Nick Graves (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Go for it.Griswaldo (talk) 21:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I've not expressed any opinion on the name - this isn't what is currently under contention. Yes, the lists need blanking: I'd do this myself, but as a newbie at Wikipedia editing, I'd be afraid I'd make a mess of it. Perhaps someone else will do the honours?

As for 'sorting' the list, that as always is the responsibility of those who wish to add people to it: I'd recommend not doing this until it is clear exactly what criteria are being used, and having ensured that such criteria do not breach WP:BLPCAT. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

They don't need to be blanked. People need to just start going down the lists, finding the living persons and verifying. If they fail verification delete those entries.Griswaldo (talk) 21:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going through the activists and educators list right now.Griswaldo (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that the source given for David Miliband is woefully weak for a listing like this. It is a throwaway line written by a journalist, not something he said himself, and not something that - based on the surrounding text in that article - was the point of the article. Arguably, if there were a whole article on the issue, with thorough proof provided by the journalist, then this listing would be appropriate. Here, it isn't.

Let's not be afraid to raise the question of POV-pushing - a desire to make as many people into "atheists" as possible.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Jimbo Wales raises an important point (well I would say that, grovel, grovel...), The very existence of such lists can create a real locus for POV-pushing. I'll find all the atheist 'good guys' and someone else will find the atheist bad guys, and then we'll have a race to see who can throw the list out of whack first. Not a very encyclopaedic activity, but difficult to legislate against. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I've never understood that concern about POV pushing. Let's say some famous author publicly says "I am a homosexual", yet the homosexuality is not a major part of their public life or writings. Can that author be included in the List of LGBT writers? I think the answer is "yes". Inclusion is factually accurate, and helps the encyclopedia provide information to readers. If a gay person looks at the List article and finds encouragement that hundreds of writers were gay, is that a bad thing? How can a fact be POV? Is there some opposing view to "author XYZ is gay"? --Noleander (talk) 00:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You may think the answer is "yes", but BLP policy clearly states "no". If you think the policy is wrong, you should try to get it changed, not ignore it. The fact that BLP policy was misapplied in the first place is the reason this debate is occurring, and nothing we could decide here about what we think policy 'should be' would stop it occurring again. We cannot overrule policy by consensus. End of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Im curious: what was the situation that gave rise to the policy? That is what I dont understand. If some editor added 100s of persons to a LGBT list who where not LGBT, the Verifiability policy would be sufficient to remove them. What episode led to the " must be relevant to their notable activities or public life" requirement? Also, it seems that if the person made a public pronouncement, and it was significant enough for a biographer to repeat it, that alone makes it "relevant". --Noleander (talk) 01:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the precise reasoning and history for the policy, though I can see why it was arrived at: people become 'notable' for what they do to establish their notability. Other information about them (particularly of a personal nature) isn't automatically 'notable'. This is basically a presumption of the right to privacy of living individuals (a right which incidentally is protected by law in some countries: If I was to compile a list of 'notable gays', store it on a database on my PC, and make it available to others, I might well fall foul of the UK Data Protection Act 1998). AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I have more questions, but I'll pose them on the WP:BLP talk page. --Noleander (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Although lists are historically more inclusive. I think there is reasonable precedent for including a larger list of atheists; it at least needs discussing one way or another. BLPCAT is very brief and I don't think it is particularly clear whether it being part of their notability is a hard and fast rule or part of the criminal example (an example I agree with). Then we get into a major issue over whether their atheism is part of their notability (for example, Dawkins as an atheist writer) or whether it is notable because of who they are (i.e. the fact they are declared atheist is a notable fact about them - i.e. in the case of a prominent public figure). Someone needs to open a central discussion I think --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 10:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Going forward

• Some of the sub-pages seem to have been moved also. Can they go back? At least in the interim, it's a bit confusing.
• We need to agree one way or another on an inclusion criteria and list name; I support the current name and a more BLP-friendly inclusion criteria.
• It might be worth discussion ways to re-sort the list, and cut down the number of sub-lists. It's a bit unwieldy to maintain and condensing things might make the job a little more sane :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 23:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The inclusion criteria don't just need to be "more BLP-friendly". They need to conform to WP:BLPCAT: all of it, including the requirement that "subject's beliefs... are relevant to their notable activities or public life". This is not an issue for debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The names of the lists should remain "List of Atheists" - that naming issue has been widely discussed in the past in the Talk page of that article, and the naming debate is not relevant to the BLP issue. The requirement for sourcing in these List articles has always been enforced. I'd say over 50% of the persons added into the list are removed within a day because the source is insufficient, or because they are not atheists. The BLPCAT issue does need more consideration, to be sure. But that is a simple matter of identifying living persons that have not made a big deal of their atheism and removing them .. although that is a bit of a subjective call. Looking at the lists of LGBT person (List of LGBT writers for example) it is clear that the BLPCAT policy is interpreted fairly liberally, that is, WP has erred on the side of inclusion. The atheist lists should be treated no differently. --Noleander (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but just because you can find an example of a 'liberal' interpretation of rules that you think harmless, doesn't mean other 'liberal' interpretations may not be. Since I don't want to be accused of canvassing, I'll not cite any examples, but believe me, they exist... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. But to help give newcomers some guidance on the BLPCAT policy, can you give some List articles that are in conformance with the policy (i.e. have had "non relevant" persons removed) and some Lists that have not had that done? You say we should not use List of LGBT writers as a model ... but how can we know that? Maybe seeing the "before" and "after" versions of a List article (and the associated Talk page discusssions) will shed light on the matter. --Noleander (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Editnotice

I propose we create a coloured Wikipedia:Editnotice for all the lists of atheists, making clear to editors that living persons require self-identification rather than identification by third parties. --JN466 06:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is a draft edit notice:

Please review
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Will this do? Editors would see this when they click Edit on any of the Atheist lists. --JN466 12:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

This proposal has merit. But why limit it to lists of atheists? There's now a debate about List of Jewish actors, where few of the sources are self-identifications. In some cases, religion and sexual orientation can be hard to determine by objective standards, unlike nationality or race, so self-identification is necessary. I suggest making this notice more generic and adding it to every applicable list article.   Will Beback  talk  13:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm with you there; we could use it as a boilerplate and adapt it to similar cases. The situation with the Jewish categories is that it is unclear whether they are ethnic or religious categories. (I actually replied to an old post of yours the other day at Category_talk:American_Jews#BLP_issue.3F.) Per current BLPCAT status, ethnic origin does not require self-identification and can be sourced with third-party sources; there have been proposals at BLP talk to change this. I don't know how best to solve the ambiguity; perhaps you and Jayjg can come up with some ideas. --JN466 17:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is insufficient. As WP:BLPCAT clearly states: "Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources". Quite explicit: Unless a persons Atheism is of relevance to their notable activities, they cannot be included on the list. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Andy, that applies to categories, not lists. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

And how exactly do you compile a list, without deciding whether a particular candidate fits the category for inclusion? In any case WP:LISTPEOPLE is completely explicit here, even to the extent of actually mentioning atheism: "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles (or the reasonable expectation of an article in the future). For example, lists of atheists doesn't include every individual with a Wikipedia article who happens to be an atheist, because not all of them are notable for their atheism. However, it might well include Sigmund Freud." AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Andy, you are confusing two meanings of the word category. One is "category" in the technical Wikipedia sense. The other is using category to mean "satisfies a certain predicate." These are not the same thing. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The section heading of WP:BLPCAT is Categories, lists and navigation templates. In short, it applies to all three, not just categories. Yworo (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Tha's a good point. Not from the title (which doesn't matter) but regarding later in the section where it says that "These principles apply equally to infobox statements, and to lists and navigation templates that are based on religious beliefs and sexual orientation, or which suggest that the persons included in the list or template have a poor reputation" which strongly supports that interpretation. It appears that Andy may be correct. But if he is correct, it is a correctness which is completely coincidental, having nothing to do with his argument about LISTPEOPLE. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, really it all follows from WP:BLP itself. Yworo (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• You're right Andy, the requirement that it should be relevant to their notable activities is something I should have included as well. It occurred to me later, but I didn't have time to put it in, and anyway wanted to see what sort of feedback the proposal would get. I've added it now; please check the wording. Thanks. --JN466 15:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this template intended solely for lists of atheists? I'd assume that a similar editnotice would be applicable for all religiously-categorised lists, as the policy is the same, and only applying it to atheists would seem to imply some sort of exception.

I see that JN466 states that "ethnic origin does not require self-identification and can be sourced with third-party sources". I thought that in regards to BLPCAT for living persons, self-identification was mandatory, even under present rules, or if it wasn't it was certainly covered by Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality guidelines, which are expected to be followed with "occasional exceptions", which presumably have to be justified per BLP burden of evidence requirements. I'd also suggest that the term "ethnic origin" is misleading in any case, as it isn't the same thing as "ethnicity" Actually one can't self-identify one's "origins": "I'm Albanian" is a statement about oneself, whereas "my parents came from Albania" is a statement about them, not you. This may seem a minor point, but it is clearly relevant in relation to several of the debates currently going on regarding BLP categorisations and lists. The term "ethnic origins" is generally best avoided anyway, as it implies a particular POV: that "ethnicities" are eternal constants, which is demonstrably false. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

This particular editnotice is for the 16 atheist lists that we have, but I fully agree that we should create equivalent editnotices for other lists of that type. BLPCAT's self-identification requirement presently only applies to religion and sexuality. There have been proposals recently to expand that to ethnicity (see BLP talk page), which I support, given the neverending problems. Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality does not require self-identification for ethnic categories; as far as I can see, it just says "Inclusion must be justifiable by external references". --JN466 08:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Andy. "Ethnic origin" (e.g. "his grandparents emigrated from Albania") and "nationality" (e.g. "he is a French citizen") can be sourced to reliable third party sources, but "ethnicity" (e.g. "he is Italian-American") cannot, and should require self-identification. The difference between these three is not a minor point at all in my book. "Ethnicity" really ought to be added, per many of the above proposals, to the language of WP:BLPCAT. That said I support Jayen's edit notice and would also support a similar one across religious categories.Griswaldo (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Kevin Morrison (cyberterrorist)

Resolved

 – Jclemens deleted "Kevin Morrison (cyberterrorist)" ‎ (G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP)

Two things, the above has to be re-named for obvious reasons, what shld it be re-named to? And perhaps more importantly is this BLP1E? Multiple mentions etc but going purely by the titles I can only see one item specifically about him.--Misarxist 12:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

No reliable source with online access links the pseudonym to the name. There are exactly two contributions from the account that created this--both to this article. I agree, the books listed are unlikely to actually contain non-trivial mention of such a person. Smells too fishy to me to stand for a BLP, so it's G10'ed. Jclemens (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Full protected it. -- Cirt (talk) 15:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Pinoy Big Brother: Teen Clash 2010

• Pinoy Big Brother: Teen Clash 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Talk page includes BLP concerns raised: Talk:Pinoy_Big_Brother:_Teen_Clash_2010#WP:BLP_violations, and other places as well. Could use examination from additional users experienced with BLP issues. Much of the page is uncited. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I left a note at the article talk page, linking here. Also left messages for the editors who were involvd in the BLP discussion back in April (Active Banana, Eaglestorm, TwelveOz, Black Kite, 上村七美 (Nanami-chan)).Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Elias James Corey

Resolved

 – Additional source cited for NPOV, discussing "baseless" fears of Jason Altom.

• Elias James Corey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

At issue is the content of the Graduate student suicides section of the page on Elias James Corey. The main article cited in this section is the New York Times Article “Lethal Chemistry at Harvard” that according to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP) is an example of problematic reporting that unfairly scapegoats and harms Corey. All attempts to either delete this section or provide a balanced view that depression most likely played a role in a specific graduate student’s suicide (Jason Altom) have been consistently removed. The content on graduate student suicides should, in my opinion, either be removed or reflect the fact that the AFSP clearly states that Corey was not to blame for Altom's suicide. The constant reverting by some editors to a version that blames Corey is, in my opinion, not only in direct contrast to all that we now know about the need to clearly identify depression and intervene effectively but is also a form of cyber bullying of Corey. I would like the edits that either remove this section or provide a balanced view to remain without reversion to the version I consider biased. The AFSP does not consider the cited New York Times article as a valid and reliable source of information on Altom's suicide. What is the next step? 23:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)trvthchem —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trvthchem (talk • contribs)

I have edited the section a bit, with WP:NPOV in mind.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Franz Lidz

Further information: [[:User talk:Jimbo Wales#Paid editing of biographies, BLP subjects, legal threats, sockpuppets, years-long edit war …|User talk:Jimbo Wales § Paid editing of biographies, BLP subjects, legal threats, sockpuppets, years-long edit war …]]; and [[:User talk:Moonriddengirl#Robert Garside|User talk:Moonriddengirl § Robert Garside]]

• Franz Lidz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Robert Garside dispute has spilled over onto another article, which already has its own problem of apparently forty single-purpose accounts used by (if what one account says is true for the rest) paid editor(s) at the U.S. subsidiary of Bloomsbury Publishing. The article is in need of some fresh eyes. Uncle G (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

John S. Pistole

• John S. Pistole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could use some extra eyes. I just undid a string of poorly referenced, non-NPOV additions by a SPA. Will be a target for a while. Grsz 11 03:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Put him under Pending Changes for 3 months, hope that helps cut down the workload some. Jclemens (talk) 05:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

List of Jewish Nobel laureates

• List of Jewish Nobel laureates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is an ongoing dispute at List of Jewish Nobel laureates that would benefit from some outside help. At the center of the dispute is the repeated insertion of recent laureate Andre Geim into the list. Geim, who was born of German parents in Russia, has a Dutch passport, and lives in the UK is not ethnically or culturally or religiously Jewish. To quote Geim, "My mother's grandmother was Jewish. I suffered from anti-Semitism in Russia because my name sounds Jewish." But of all the hundreds of articles that have been written about Geim that describe him as Russian and German, the cherry-pickers have managed to find 3 sources that call him "Jewish"--and as for all the rest of the WP:RS that talk about his ethnicity, they do not specifically say Geim is NOT Jewish.

The same people who want to stretch the list by describing Geim as "Jewish" are adamantly opposed to having the article say that the criterion for inclusion is that some WP:RS called the person Jewish. It seems to me that the word "Jewish" could have many definitions, and any article using such a wide-ranging term should make it clear to readers which definition is being used. betsythedevine (talk) 03:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's List of atheists does include a sensible explanation of their rule of inclusion: "This is a list of people who have been identified by reliable sources as atheists, or who have expressed that they do not believe in deities; the living people on this list have publicly self-identified as atheists or have expressed that they do not believe in deities, according to reliable published sources (and those reliable published sources do not say that their religious beliefs are irrelevant to their notable activities or public life)." I think that some similar rule for the list of Jewish laureates would work well -- for dead people, that WP:RS called them Jewish but for living people that they self-identified as Jewish. I might add that having such a clear, public expression of the inclusion rule would save a lot of arguments over whether any person did or did not belong on the relevant list.betsythedevine (talk) 04:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd advise people to read what WP:BLPCAT has to say on the subject, and to note that there is an ongoing discussion (above) about whether the List of atheists is in fact in breach of Wikipedia policies. In particular, look at Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, where it is stated that "Categories regarding religious beliefs ... should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief ... in question; and the subject's beliefs ... are relevant to their notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources. This states that inclusion requires both (a) self-identification, and (b) relevance (with RS) to notability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Part of the difficulty is that there is no consensus at the list's talk page that WP:BLPCAT applies to the list. This is because the word "Jewish" has many meanings, and need not refer to religious belief. --Avenue (talk) 13:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The word Jewish has many meanings, but if you subtract both ethnicity and religion from the definition of Jewish then not much is left. One could just as well argue that the restrictions of WP:BLPCAT should apply even more carefully to describing people as "Jewish," since the clear intent of including both ethnicity and religion as covered categories is to cover such cases. If "Jewish" is excluded from those rules, by all means re-write BLPCAT to explain that no restrictions at all are placed on describing people as "Jewish" other that some reliable source called them so.betsythedevine (talk) 14:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps that intent is not clear enough to many editors. One of the reasons people gave for keeping the list during its an AfD earlier this year was that Jewishness has a significant ethnic aspect, and does not only reflect a religious belief. However BLP issues were not raised once during that AfD, as far as I can see. --Avenue (talk) 00:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me that it is simply a mistake of omission that WP:BLPCAT does not expressly include ethnicity as well. The related policies about categories lump ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality together. WP:BLPCAT needs to add the other two. Ethnic nationalists of all types often argue tendentiously about labeling prominent people they can be proud of as part of their group. These people ought to have the right to self-identify as part of that group, anything else seems contrary to the spirit of WP:BLP.Griswaldo (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I should have figured there was already and ongoing discussion. See - Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Ethno-religious_categories.Griswaldo (talk) 14:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Griswaldo

(Restarting indents) This is a much smaller and more resolveable issue than the enormous question being debated at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Ethno-religious_categories. If we assume for the moment that there exists in Wikipedia a List of Jewish Nobel laureates, should not such a list explain what rules it uses to classify people as Jewish?betsythedevine (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The only valid rules according to WP:BLPCAT would be that (a) they self-identified as Jewish, and (b) their Jewishness was relevant to them being Nobel laureates. I suspect that the resultant list will be fairly short... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

And that is precisely the problem. The BLPCAT policy is not being followed in most Lists. I'm not sure when that "must be relevant" policy was established, but it was a mistake, and is not being followed. Using that policy to prune a particular list (when scores of lists are not following it) is senseless. --Noleander (talk) 03:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

If you think the "must be relevant" policy was a mistake (I don't) then try to get it changed. Having rules that 'nobody' follows is senseless, particularly when the same rules can then be cited to push a particular POV. There are enough people engaging in Wikilawyering over rules we at least attempt to follow, without giving them unenforced rules to play with. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've made a change proposal on the BLP talk page. But it looks like there is a lot of heat on that Talk page, and not much light. So Im not optimistic. --Noleander (talk) 04:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that those rules are the only reasonable interpretation of how WP:BLPCAT should apply to this list, because BLPCAT seems to apply to statements about the religious beliefs of living people, but not about their cultural background or ethnicity. In fact, we have an experienced editor maintaining on the list's talk page that BLPCAT doesn't apply at all to the list for this reason. I wouldn't go that far, but I do find the situation very unclear.

However, there are two cases that do seem clear to me. If a laureate (1) identified as Jewish, but not in a religious sense, then BLPCAT apparently would not apply. Thus BLPCAT's requirements for self-identification and that their Jewishness was relevant to them being a Nobel laureate would not apply either. Another situation that seem clear to me is laureates who are religious but not ethnic Jews, e.g. recent converts, to whom BLPCAT would definitely seem to apply. But all other cases seem to fall into a grey area, where it is quite unclear to me whether BLPCAT applies. This would include entries for laureates where it is unclear whether the laureate was Jewish in some sense other than a religious one, or where they are Jewish in both a religious and an ethnic sense. Why do you think BLPCAT applies in these cases? --Avenue (talk) 08:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Ethno-religious categories, which is probably where Noleander's post should have been placed. Dougweller (talk) 10:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I have now read through that twice. There are several proposals there for changes to BLPCAT, none of which seems to have gathered a clear consensus, so I don't see how it answers my question. It does make clear that this is not an isolated problem. --Avenue (talk) 04:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope everyone realizes there's a very simple solution to this problem. That being delete the list. It serves no purpose because the Nobel Prize committee explicitly states its prize is awarded without consideration to ethnicity, religion, or even nationality. Ethnicity, by itself, is not notable and the policy on lists states that a good way of judging whether something is listcruft is by seeing if an article can be written about its contents. List of Freemasons exists because of Freemasonry... but List of Jewish Nobel Prize winners doesn't have a Jews & The Nobel Prize article to substantiate it, and will never have such an article because there's nothing to say except "A good number of Nobel Prize winners had a Jewish parent." Furthermore having members of a distinct ethnic group win the prize often is also not a list-worthy characteristic. Nobody feels the need to make List of ethnic German Nobel Prize laureates, though if it were created on the same criteria as the Jewish list (having a recent ancestor of German ethnicity), there'd be just as many self-identifying candidates. Furthermore, despite what's being said here, about 1/3rd of the list maintains various other ethnic ancestries in addition to Jewish, and many more have never outright stated they identify as being "Jewish." (e.g., It's never mentioned that Otto Wallach -- who is frequently listed as only Jewish -- is only approximately 1/4th Jewish by ethnic descent -- his Jewish grandfather having converted to Protestantism and the rest of his ancestors being church-attending ethnic Germans.) I would say the exact same thing about List of ethnic Chinese Nobel laureates, and I plan to nominate that list for deletion first (because it's less controversial) shortly. Bulldog123 11:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

From WP:BLPCAT: "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources." This should especially apply to List of Jewish Nobel laureates -- every name on it is being tagged as "Jewish" without any disclaimer or modifier. An explanation of why that identification -- ethnicity? religion? self-identification? -- is made should be given either name by name or else at the beginning of the list.betsythedevine (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we should at least say how people qualify for inclusion in the list. We had an explanation that appeared to have consensus until it was removed in this edit a month ago. Now there is no consensus at the talk page that the list requires any such explanation, let alone what it should say. --Avenue (talk) 04:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Before somebody says that a list is not a category, the List of Jewish Nobel laureates is being used like a category in that the Andre Geim article has repeatedly been tagged with a See also section whose only member is List of Jewish Nobel laureates, which amounts to a prominent claim that Geim is unmodified-ly Jewish. betsythedevine (talk) 13:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Betsy is 100% correct. This backdoor technique of using lists to replace the functionality of categories on Jewish pages is not exclusive to the Nobel Prize list either. A long time ago there was a massive debate about Category:Jewish mathematicians. When that category was deleted, List of Jewish mathematicians popped up and a handful of users began to surreptitiously add the list to "See Also" sections of the articles formerly under the category. Today, the Nobel Prize list is popping up in See Also sections for various people like Otto Warburg, basically suggesting that Warburg is famous FOR being Jewish. Note: Warburg's father's family converted to Protestantism and his mother was a Christian gentile... so how exactly is his career/life defined by being Jewish? Bulldog123 14:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You badly want the list deleted, so you see everything through that lens. I think that the best remedy for somebody adding such a list to "See also" sections where it doesn't belong is to remove it from those sections and dissuade them doing it again - not to delete the list itself. --Avenue (talk) 10:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Note the list has now been AfDed (again) with discussion ongoing.betsythedevine (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

And I've gone ahead and speedy deleted it WP:CSD#G4 (recreation of deleted page) and WP:SALTed it to prevent renewed recreation without a WP:DRV. There are lots of inbound links (from all the list members I guess) which need cleaning up. Rd232 ^talk 22:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

And the list's creator has gotten it undeleted again. And the AfD is a mess. Uninvolved editors are urged to check out the policy issues raised. betsythedevine (talk) 15:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at List of Jewish mathematicians, the first living entry I found, Philip Dawid, has nothing in the article suggesting he's Jewish, he was in 2 Jewish cats and another list, List of British Jewish scientists. There's a huge number of these lists. Dougweller (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe that we have three solutions here:

1. Closely watch all such list articles and enforce the BLP requirement for sources supporting self-identification.
2. Move all such articles to "List of such-and-such of Jewish descent".
3. Delete all such lists.

Not sure which is the more appropriate solution. Yworo (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there may be 100s of such lists, so closely watching them is virtually impossible (and not a good way for experienced editors to use their time). Dougweller (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment the people who WP:OWN the list claim the list is exempt from the WP:BLPCAT requirement for self-identification because 1) ethnicity is excluded from teh requirement for self-identification and 2) the article is a list not a category. If some uninvolved editors were able to establish which Wikipedia policies should apply to the list, that might improve the future ability of a few random incomers interested in Wikipedia's accuracy and policies to correct the systemic bias of the list's proponents. betsythedevine (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLPCAT specifically includes lists, both in its heading and the text. "These principles apply equally to infobox statements, and to lists and navigation templates that are based on religious beliefs and sexual orientation". Further, as the term "Jewish" is ambigious and can refer to religion, the principles of WP:BLP require us to treat it as such. Further, a main principle of our BLP policy is "Do no harm". We need only one example of a subject objecting that being misidentified as Jewish has caused them harm, and we have that quite clearly in Andre Geim's statement, "I suffered from anti-Semitism in Russia because my name sounds Jewish". This is enough to show the potential for causing harm by including living persons who do not self-identify as Jewish. Yworo (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree the list should be deleted. TFD (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Biography of Amjed Jaaved

The name of the Pakistani writer is spelled as Amjed Jaaved. The biographic information about UAE cricketer has been wrongly, perhaps foolishly, appended to the Pakistani writer.Click on google or any other search engine the above name, or any of his pseudonyms, and you would get the writer's contributions listed. Mr Amjed Jaaved, born on 25 Nov 2010, at Rawalpindi (Pakistan)has contributed for over 40 years to leading dailies in Pakistan(Dawn, Nation, News, etc and abroad (Bangla Desh, Nepal).

I would give more information about the writer when the foolish information about him is removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amjedjaaved (talk • contribs) 03:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no wiki article for Amjed Jaaved. -- Cirt (talk) 04:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that the you are referring to Amjad Javed, if I read things correctly. Amjad Javed is a cricketer, and that seems to be the correct spelling of his name, so the article on him is properly under "Amjad Javed". As Cirt identified, we don't currently have an article on the Pakistani writer, Amjed Jaaved, but if there were sufficient sources to develop one I don't see a problem with both articles existing under those two names. - Bilby (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

An article about the Pakistani writer was recently deleted.[9] This is discussed at the user talk page of the user who started this BLPN section. I added a note at his talk page regarding WP:Autobiography and WP:COI.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Deaths in 2010

• Deaths in 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Severe BLP issues with this page. There is no References section, at all. Just listed bare-links next to the entries. What if the links go dead? What if someone wants to cite a newspaper, a book, a magazine? This is entirely an inappropriate formatting structure for information related to WP:BLP. -- Cirt (talk) 04:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

First, if they're truly dead then BLP does not apply. Second, there appears to be plenty of bare EL's in other "deaths in..." articles. Jclemens (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Note: One of the users that added poorly sourced info to the page, WWGB (talk · contribs), removed a BLP warning from the account's user talk page with the edit summary, "cleanup". There indeed appears to be very cavalier flouting against WP:BLP at Deaths in 2010, in addition to fundamental site policy issues such as WP:RS and WP:V. -- Cirt (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

In response to Jclemens (talk · contribs), see WP:BDP. There are BLP issues to be considered here. -- Cirt (talk) 04:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

There are sourcing, referencing, and cleanup issues to be considered, and this and similar articles do indeed deal with real people. What I have not seen is a specific assertion of unsourced negative content. Digging through the various articles might very well turn some up, of course, and scrutiny for such is well-advised, but concern is accurately based more on quantity (lots of mediocre entries) than on a specific concern that a particular person may be harmed, am I right? Jclemens (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This is mainly a formatting issue. All one would need to do, if one were interested in being WP:BOLD would be to convert these to proper footnotes. It seems a minor fix. --Jayron32 05:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It does, doesn't it? And yet users such as WWGB (talk · contribs), seem quite resistant to this BLP related improvement. -- Cirt (talk) 05:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Update: In response to above recommendation from Jayron32 (talk · contribs), please see this edit. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Now ten references have been formatted, see diff link. -- Cirt (talk) 06:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I came here because WWGB raised an issue on my talk page, and I have to admit a bit of a conflict in my eyes. On one hand, I continue to be disappointed with the reliability of sourcing for Britton Chance's death – I would expect that, within a week, there would be some uncontroversially reliable sources mentioning his death, as a famous medical researcher and Olympic gold medalist, but everything I have seen is problematic at best and seems to stem from information presented in a blog article (ie. I see no verification of his death independent of this source). I do think WWGB made an error in the source that he used to present the death, although I think the types of warnings left for an established user such as himself were a bit excessive. I want to speak in his defense a bit - the Deaths in 20XX pages are incredibly difficult to maintain and no one on Wikipedia does a better job than WWGB. He has maintained the page for years and done an admirable job of it, for even despite the fact that the Deaths in 20XX pages are all among my most edited articles, he still finds mistakes that I make and corrects them as due. So firstly, I think think that if we start escalating warnings on each other's page and avoid speaking directly, we're going to cause more drama than is necessary. I noticed that Cirt, whom I have known to be nothing but an exceptional editor and administrator in my limited dealings with them, has taken to converting the bare URLs to proper references, despite a previous talk page consensus, as well as a controversial semi-protection. Regarding the latter matter, I understanding the rationale behind this (Deaths in 2010 has been a highly-vandalized – and remains a highly visible – page on Wikipedia), but I think that the semi-protection was a bit of an over-reaction; if WWGB can make an error, then anyone could, and I think under the current circumstances, the semi-protection limits valuable IP edits more than it protects against BLP vandalism. I think that there are some concerns about reference styling and BLP that are legitimate, but I think the first step should be to clear the air a bit, because I know that WWGB and Cirt have only the best interests of Wikipedia in mind. Hopefully with that said, we can follow up on discussions at Talk:Deaths in 2010 rather than have to deal with the issue on my talk page, Cirt's talk page, WP:BLPN, WWGB's talk page etc. etc. My point in all of this is that I think we can work this out on the appropriate talk page, and centralize the discussion there. Canadian Paul 06:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Some very good comments have been raised, here, including those of Jayron32 (talk · contribs). The issue is relevant to WP:BLP, specifically, WP:BDP. It is worthwhile to continue centralized discussion, here, at WP:BLPN. -- Cirt (talk) 06:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I haven no objections to centralizing the discussion here, but perhaps we should make note of that at Deaths in 2010 in the two threads that have been started there? I know that there are some long-term editors who would be happy to comment here if this is the more appropriate venue. I think if we can all agree to discussing in one place, then the issues that have been raised will be more easily solved - sometimes I feel like the Deaths in 20XX pages run on sporadic or even implied consensus, so it would be nice to have a direct link to... well, you know, link to, if need be. Canadian Paul 06:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Notice given. -- Cirt (talk) 06:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. I'm tired and I'm going to bed, haha. Hopefully this will all work out to everyone's satisfaction. Canadian Paul 06:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I share that hope. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 06:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing in the Oluchi Onweagba article

• Oluchi Onweagba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An IP editor is adamant in adding material from blogspots into this BLP article. He has received several cautions and messages on his talk page from editors and administrators (e.g. 1, 2, 3) that blogspots are not reliable sources, and thusly not fit for BLP articles. The IP editors' reaction is to delete all messages on his talk page, and continue adding material from blogsites into the article. In the past few days he has stopped doing so. Today he commenced again. The material that he wants to be added is already in the article (subject of the BLP having a son), yet he ignores this, and continues adding material from blogsites into the article and using blogsites as references. I have reverted his edits, reported him twice to AiV, to no avail. Could other editors & admins please add this article to their watchlist to stop these disruptive edits from the IP editor? Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 07:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It sounds more like edit-warring than vandalism. Anyway, it looks like you only started commenting at the article talk page today, so maybe that will work. I've watchlisted the article, FWIW, and also quoted policy at the article talk page (regarding blogs).Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi anythingyouwant. I'm not editwarring. I added in Oluchi's son Ugo & it was sourced. ansaim reverted. I said and think and feel that instead of just reverting, why not add on? ansaim replied that if i wanted the info in, I needed to add it. This is off putting. Isnt this a collaboration? So I did add sources. Then ansaim again reverted. ansaim doesnt like the source but isnt willing to look for one. Next ansaim claimed the blog was self published the info, which it wasnt. Ansaim didnt bother to read the source. I wrote to ansaim explaining that the blog has screencaps of the interview so it isnt a self published source. He reverted and called me a vandal. I again reposted asking ansaim to dialogue with me. I asked ansaim to be encouraging not condescending, his reply was to just revert. Third ansaim claimed the material doesnt appear in source but it did and does. The sources are Nigerian blogs (an exmaple is blog linda ikeji) blog which are quoting the Nigerian newspaper http://www.thisdayonline.com. This all frustrated me. What about helping? Instead ansaim just reverts. It seemed like ansaim was/is just trying to get his/her edit count up. The sources I added are blogs that have screencaps and quotes from the original newspapers. They aren't the blogger's opinions. Quoting from articles for purposes of discussion isn't copyright infringement, it is fair use, so why aren't they allowed as sources? Still ansaim just reverted, didn't help in bettering the article. So I found 6 additonal sources. Again ansaim reverted and revertedand reverted.

I wrote to ansaim explaining each source. I asked ansaim to please look instead of just reverting. I was very polite saying please and thank you. Ansaim said I was a spammer, then called me a vandal, i asked why are you calling me a vandal?; he continued to just yell vandal. I asked ansaim to please answer me, then i realised that in 10minutes I had reverted 5x & self reverted and left wikipedia for the real world because this is no reason to get high blood pressure.

I came back from the real world with a fresh attitude. I posted my sources and explaination to the discussion page. I waited for ansaim and othes. No one wrote me back. So I edited. As soon as I did that again ansaim is back reverting and now reporting me as disruptive.

Also, please counsel ansaim on his disruptive behaviour. Rudeness and callousness. Ansaim is warning me,saying I personally attacked him & was incivil, what about this? This incivility is ok? Thank You. 69.140.210.255 (talk) 20:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is no reason to get high blood pressure.  :-). This seems like a dispute where both sides are trying to do the right thing, but disagree about what the right thing is.

My advice is: don't use a blog unless a newspaper runs the blog. If you want to cite a newspaper article, and the newspaper article is no longer available online except at some blog that's not run by the newspaper, then don't cite the blog---just cite the newspaper article without giving any link to it. Cheers, Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Jack Hirschman

Resolved

 – Rephrased statement and cited to reliable source

• Jack Hirschman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm questioning the statement "Hirschman is an avowed Stalinist." Although the author backs it up with the fact that Hirschman "has translated the youthful poems of Joseph Stalin," would Mr. Hirschman identify himself TODAY as "an avowed Stalinist"? I think this assertion needs to be checked with the source. Alternatively, an epithet such as "an avowed anti-capitalist" might be used instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KarenLaws (talk • contribs) 21:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I welcomed the new user, rephrased the Stalinism characterization, and inserted a footnote.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Johan Staël von Holstein

• Johan Staël von Holstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article appears to be self-promotional. The article does not cite any references or sources. ---Unsigned comment by Svartapa.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcomed new user, left message at article talk page pointing to BLPN.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Willow Palin

• Bristol Palin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sarah Palin's Alaska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Requesting some BLP expertise on inclusion of information about Willow Palin, the 16-year-old daughter of Sarah Palin, from this story in the articles mentioned above. Willow Palin is itself a protected redirect to Sarah Palin and has been since 2008; the consensus in the past has been that Willow is not herself a public figure, though her sister Bristol Palin is. My opinion is that while information about Bristol's part in the story is fair game for her article, the information on Willow Palin should be left out. Kelly ^hi! 23:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Willow Palin is a minor and is not a public figure. I think that if we take ourselves seriously as an encyclopedia, and if we take WP:BLP seriously, then we shouldn't be in the business of writing up Facebook posts from 16-year-old non-public figures. MastCell ^Talk 23:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

If the media continues to report on a minor, and if that minor goes out of her way to get media attention, then she will eventually become a public figure. This particular minor is a featured performer in a reality TV show.[10] When folks put themselves in front of cameras for pay they become public figures.   Will Beback  talk  00:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Since this person is a minor, presumably the decision to appear in the television show would be her parents' not hers. Kelly ^hi! 00:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how it matters that any contract must be between the parents and the show. Clearly, some child actors are public figures. However, in response to Will, I also don't see how Willow being a "performer" on her mother's reality show makes Willow notable. It's still derivative of her mother. The media may write about it but probably only because of the relationship. At some point, Willow has to do something of her own to be notable.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Not notable enough for an article of her own. But notable enough that we should be wary of suppressing information about her that's been widely reported. For example, I'm not sure why these edits were necessary from a BLP perspective.[11][12] Does BLP demand that we redact information about minors who are in TV shows? I don't believe so.   Will Beback  talk  01:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Seems to smack more of sanitization than relevance or notability.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

(Not that I'd add any of that back - the material had other problems. But I don't see the BLP aspect.)   Will Beback  talk  01:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

<outdent> I added it back in, because it relates to Bristol, since Bristol issued an apology on behalf of herself and her sister. The way I read the consensus here, there are no BLP concerns with this material. Victor Victoria (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

There's no consensus at this point - the discussion has only been open for a few hours. I don't want to edit-war, but I'm removing the material per WP:BLP for now. Kelly ^hi! 04:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'd better not do that because the article is part of the Sarah Palin article probation. But I would ask an uninvolved editor to consider removing the material while the discussion is ongoing. Kelly ^hi! 04:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to err on the side of caution here too, and give the kid a break. Even if she is 'notable' (a dubious proposition), the fact that she wrote something she shouldn't isn't. Teenagers being teenagers is never notable, though it may sometimes be annoying. If BLP doesn't apply, common sense should. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It certainly seems to me, that given that her statement to E! Online, she has become a public figure and the incident has acheived WP:NOTEworthiness. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 04:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally I don't think a short statement made to quash tabloid allegations are suffient to make one a public figure. Kelly ^hi! 04:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that user 184.59.23.225 has a very strange idea of what constitutes noteworthiness. What is notable about a teenager saying things about facebook, or about the people she went to school with? Were it not for her mother's notability, none of this would merit a glance, and the story will probably be forgotten in a few days in any case. This is supposed to be an online encyclopaedia, not a supermarket tabloid. I have to wonder about the motivations of those who wish to include this sort of junk pseudo-journalism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources also report that Willow has a boyfriend named Andy Almon who has also made some spicy remarks. I agree with AndyTheGrump (who presumably is not Andy Almon) about this. Like Pink Floyd said, leave them kids alone.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there is something that's missing from this conversation: Nobody is proposing to write an article about Willow Palin. The question at hand is: Given that Bristol Palin issued an apology on behalf of herself and on behalf of her sister, does it not make sense to say in the Bristol Palin article what she apologized on behalf of her sister for? Victor Victoria (talk) 05:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 06:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I just commented at the article talk page. I do not see any encyclopedic value in recording details of a rant and subsequent apology. Bristol ranted (just like any other young and often not-so-young person under pressure), then had to make an apology because of more pressure. Recording that she said shit is pathetic (i.e. no encyclopedic value), and the name of her sister is not required. Johnuniq (talk) 10:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Unworthy of going into any article, 'pathetic' just about sums it up. A non-event. And for the record - no I'm not Andy Almon, I doubt very much that Willow Palin's mother would approve of me, either on the grounds of age difference, or on the basis of my politics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the preceding two comments - none of this is encylopedic no matter how it is phrased. However, as compromise with those who really really want the topic covered, I have re-written the paragraph. The re-write removes the unsourced negative and contentious material, which includes the all the quotes, believe it or not, and tries to make the passage conform with the source (an AP article) that has been in the article for a while. I would ask anyone who wants to comment further to look at the diff of the edits I made here that was reverted before this tiff began, and the current language which is simply this: "During the airing of the first episode, Bristol posted defensive comments on Facebook against posters who criticized the Palin family. Some of Bristol's comments included salty and "offensive" language for which she later apologized".-Regards- KeptSouth (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The "unsourced comments" are now sourced, but that's besides the point, as I'm not insisting on including the actual quotes. I'm objecting that there is an effort to hide the fact that Bristol apologized for both herself and her sister. I am further objecting that there is opposition to using her sister's name. Since she has two sisters, it's important to name which sister she is apologizing for. For now, I only included the fact that the apology was for both herself and for her sister, and I'm waiting to see how the consensus here forms regarding naming the sister (which both references in the article do). Victor Victoria (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

If someone thinks it's important, they can go look at the article linked in the footnote?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not even seeing why it's necessary to state in the article that she included her sister in her apology. Kelly ^hi! 21:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

"it's important to name which sister she is apologizing for". No it isn't. The whole story is total trivia, and as far as I can tell of no importance whatsoever to anyone who isn't either (a) using it to push a political agenda, or (b) attempting to convert Wikipedia into a repository of random tabloid junk. There are serious debates going on at the moment regarding Wikipedia content (including one on an image of a young girl killed by a plastic bullet). How about looking at this with a sense of proportion, or preferably dropping the whole issue as unworthy of consideration. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

<outdent>May I remind you of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument? Victor Victoria (talk) 05:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The appropriate policy here is WP:NPF, I believe - Willow Palin is not a public figure. And I still don't understand the insistence on putting negative information about her into an article about her sister, Bristol Palin. The "news" is questionable for insertion even as it relates to Bristol Palin. Kelly ^hi! 05:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPF doesn't apply-- anyone who can issue public statements to E! which are "excitedly repeated" is necessarily a public figure. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump and Kelly are correct. Of course news outlets will excitedly repeat gossip, particularly when it involves the children of a prominent politician. However, an encyclopedic article does not need to record the details of a trivial incident (a 20 year old wrote a comment including "shit" and later issued an apology). Details are not warranted unless a secondary reliable source has written an analysis showing that the details are significant. Johnuniq (talk) 06:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Did we just enter La La Land here? Here are TWO secondary sources: Source 1, Source 2. They are in the article. Victor Victoria (talk) 07:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

No consensus

I just reverted User:Anythingyouwant's declaration of resolution for this issue, as I don't see that consensus has been reached. AFAICT, the argument is being put forth that it requires a consensus to include accurate, well-sourced content in a BLP, and there is no such consensus for this inclusion. However, I can't find any WP policy that backs that argument. The incident in question unarguably did occur, the material is sourced to (at least) two WP:SECONDARY sources, the WP:NOTABILITY of the content is established by those sources, and WP:NPF isn't at issue as the subject issued a press release regarding the incident. Please, someone, put forth a defensible argument for the exclusion of this material that doesn't violate WP:NOTCENSORED. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the opening paragraph of WP:BLP says "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material." Kelly ^hi! 23:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

"Burden of evidence" is met by the sources provided-- it did (unquestionably) happen. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

So, if there is no consensus that you've met your burden of evidence, you should still be able to jam material into a BLP as long as you think that you've met the burden of evidence? That's an interesting theory, but it would give you unlimited ability to insert almost anything you want into a BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Dude, look up the word "evidence." Here, I'll help you out: "that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof." The burden of evidence is met by the sources provided. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

There's no consensus that the burden of evidence is met by the sources provided. Also, per WP: Handling trivia, "If an item is too unimportant, be bold and remove it." There is no consensus that the item is sufficiently important for inclusion. Mere mention in a newspaper is insufficient evidence, per WP:NOTNEWS.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

how about WP:BORINGTRIVIANOTWORTHWASTEINGEVERYONESTIMEWITH? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You may have been tipped off by the red link that there's no such policy. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there was such a policy, but, despite agreement that it was a truly wonderful policy, after a long and contenious debate about the difficulties of enforcing it, it was deleted. See deletelognoonereads.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing in the deletion log to indicate that there used to be such a policy. Victor Victoria (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

How about this? WP:SARCASM. And the fact that something happened, and can be proven to have happened, doesn't make it notable. There is policy on this too, but I can't be bothered to find it just for a debate over pointless trivia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Huh?????? WP:SARCASM says not to use sarcasm. So why are you using it? Victor Victoria (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:IRONY. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't support your point. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

If you can't be bothered to debate this, then stop. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

There isn't anything to debate. You've got to prove this is notable. You can't. It is self-evidently trivia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You're wrong: "The notability guidelines are only used to determine whether a topic can have its own separate article on Wikipedia and do not govern article content." That's from WP:NOTABILITY.

Anyway, how many citations would you like? Would 9 do?

1. Bristol Palin apologizes for Facebook rant (Salon): "Bristol Palin is apologizing for herself and her younger sister for their Facebook rant against posters criticizing their family. Palin posted the apology on her Facebook page, saying she and her 16-year-old sister Willow "shouldn't have reacted to negative comments about our family. We apologize.""
2. Willow Palin response to criticism with anti-gay Facebook rant (Today Show): "However, Bristol Palin (who chimed in to the argument between Tre and Willow) posted an apology Tuesday night on her Facebook account. "Willow and I shouldn't have reacted to negative comments about our family. We apologize."
3. Willow Palin slams Facebook attachers, defends Bristol going into 'Dancing with the Stars' finale (NY Daily News): "Willow herself drew fire last week when she was caught using homophobic rants on her Facebook page…. Bristol later apologized for her sister's comments, adding that she was sorry for joining in the fray herself and posting her own nasty remarks towards critics of her mother's show."
4. Willow Palin's homophobic, hateful Facebook rant (Boston Globe): "…older sister Bristol has apologized for the flare up, but even she hasn't mentioned the f-word: “Willow and I shouldn’t have reacted to negative comments about our family. We apologize,” she wrote on her Facebook page."
5. Willow Palin Tosses Homophobic Slurs Around on Facebook (AOL News):"Late Tuesday night, Bristol apologized on her official Facebook page. "Willow and I shouldn't have reacted to negative comments about our family. We apologize. On a nicer note, thank you for supporting the great competition in Dancing With the Stars!""
6. Bristol Palin Apologizes for Willow Palin Facebook Rant (National Ledger): "Bristol Palin has apologized for a Facebook rant from her sister Willow Palin.  She said, "We shouldn't have reacted to negative comments about our family. We apologize."
7. Willow Palin Lashes Out at Facebook "Attackers," Prefers Cheering On Bristol (E! Online): "Willow Palin has a bone to pick with the "lamestream media."'A week after big sister Bristol Palin apologized for Willow's use of a gay slur in a posting on Facebook, the 16-year-old is sounding off on her own."
8. Bristol Palin Apologizes For Willow Palin's Offensive Facebook Slurs: "Bristol Palin has returned to her Facebook page, not for more inappropriate prattle with her sister Willow Palin, but to apologize for the offensive comments she and Willow made during a war on the social networking site this week"
9. Bristol Palin Apologizes for Antigay Slurs (The Advocate): "Bristol Palin took to Facebook to apologize, or not, for antigay slurs she and her sister wielded in response to a young man who criticized their mother Sarah Palin’s television show on the social networking site."

184.59.23.225 (talk) 02:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Should the above quotes be redacted from here and from Talk:Bristol Palin, where they've been crossposted? WP:NPF applies to all pages. Kelly ^hi! 02:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

If you remove sourced material, it will be considered vandalism. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

If you remove sourced material because it is trivial garbage, it will be considered good practice. And even a mistaken deletion due to a content dispute is never vandalism - look at policy. On the other hand, calling someone a 'vandal' without justification will be a breach of WP:CIVIL, if not WP:NPA. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:POT. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 03:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Related discussion opened at WP:ANI

At WP:ANI#Sarah Palin community article probation. Kelly ^hi! 03:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

shi de li

An official statement on a self-proclaimed "shaolin abbot Shi De Li" has been issued from China Shaolin Temple. Details are as following:

Recent reports said a self-proclaimed “abbot of Shaolin Temple, 31st generation successor in lineage from Bodhidharma, Shi De Li” would offer profitable lecture and Kungfu trainings at Pawcatuck Martial Arts School on November 27, 2010.

According to the temple’s investigation, no record is found about the above-mentioned person that has lived in China Shaolin Temple and its sub temples. China Shaolin Temple hereby makes the following statement:

1. China Shaolin Temple has only the one current abbot named Shi Yongxin;

2. Shaolin Temple has nothing to do with the Shi De Li’s activity at Pawcatuck Martial Arts School;

3. Shi De Li must immediately cease acting against the Buddhist belief and jeopardizing the temple’s legal right in the name of Shaolin Temple;

4. If Shi De Li would continue to do things his own way, China Shaolin Temple shall reserve the right of filing a court appeal.

Welcome everyone to visit the official website of China Shaolin Temple with information about Shaolin activities, cultural studies and foreign communications. http://www.shaolin.org.cn/en —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misshui (talk • contribs) 07:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I have refactored (changed) your above comment to show more clearly the text you wanted, I think. You have edited these article: Shi Yongxin and Shaolin Kung Fu and Pagoda Forest at Shaolin Temple and Shaolin Monastery. Is there a problem in any of these articles? Which article? What is the problem? Johnuniq (talk) 10:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see it has aroused controversies over true and fake shaolin monks. The introduction to Shi De Li's bio, it's total fabrication, because the official website of china shaolin temple has released the above clarification statement:"no record founded in shaolin temple or its sub temples and the temple has only the one current abbot named Shi Yongxin." I agree such material requires a high degree of sensitivity.We must get the article right. Thanks for your time and considerations! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misshui (talk • contribs) 01:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a general noticeboard where people probably have no relevant knowledge, so you would need to clearly spell out the problem and how it should be solved. Are you talking about the article Shi De Li? What text in the article is wrong? How should it be fixed? If you want help to edit the article, please say so and someone might be able to help, provided there are reliable sources to verify informaton. Johnuniq (talk) 06:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Canada's Worst Driver 6

Canada's Worst Driver 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is not a report against any particular user, but rather a heads up for anyone tracking potential BLP issues who might want to police this article in question. In brief, a contestant on the Canadian realty series Canada's Worst Driver 6 was expelled from the series in part because of certain statements and claims made by him on camera that required police notification. I have just removed some wording (see diff) that I feel violated BLP and was somewhat dangerous, due to the fact the person involved has not been convicted, nor even charged as yet (according to statements made on an episode that aired a couple weeks ago). Innocent until proven guilty. As an unregistered user, it's possible my edit might be reverted out of hand (perhaps by bot), although I did state my case on the talk page, and there are a number of other unregistered users working on the article who may not be aware of BLP, so for the sake of due diligence I'm reporting it here in case anyone wants to keep an eye on it. I might not have caught everything, either. 68.146.64.9 (talk) 07:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I rephrased and watchlisted.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Harsimrat Kaur Badal

Harsimrat Kaur Badal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Someone please keep an eye on this bio? Saw it for the first time today, a massive BLP vio. ("Intellectually deficient", etc). Did a quick pass to cleanup, but that might not be enough. Checked history, it seems some similar Mumbai-based IP's, presumably the same editor, keep on inserting the material. Cheers, 115.113.48.2 (talk) 09:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Good cleanup job. I've watchlisted it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Trouble is continuing at this article, and it needs semi-protection.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Don Neely

Resolved

 – uncited disputed claim removed

Don Neely (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Family is listed as wife Padianne, and 2 sons. I went to school with their daughter and spent many weekends in the home. They definitely have a daughter and 2 sons! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.131.10.141 (talk) 10:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• So prove it. We need more than the word of an unidentified person writing on an open wiki on the WWW. Uncle G (talk) 12:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • OTOH the current listing has no source either. So, I've removed it. Better to say nothing until someone can provide a reliable source for the info.--Scott Mac 13:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Swami X

Resolved

 – userfyed at User:Will Beback/Swami X - Off2riorob (talk) 11:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Swami X (AfD discussion)

This biography of a recently-living-and-no-indication-of-being-dead person is sourced to WikiMapia and YouTube videos, which doesn't seem like the height of reliability. Alas, this appears to be part of a pattern of bad sourcing. Uncle G (talk) 12:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• My inclination, had I seen this first, would be to delete it as a BLP violation. It contains any number of poorly sourced controversial statements. I'd have marked the deletion summary as "will restore on request if someone willing to make BLP compliant". It's been festering for four years after the AFD with no improvement, so such drastic action prevents that, and forces any keepers to do some work. The only reason I'm not nuking this right now is out of respect to the fact you haven't and I wondering whether you've got a better plan. If not, I suggest mine.--Scott Mac 13:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I also support Scott's comments, either accept it does not comply with sourcing and likely is never going to comply with policy or get rid of it. Off2riorob (talk) 13:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• I don't have a plan. There are multiple fronts, here, unfortunately. I'm currently looking at some of Special:Contributions/Elcajonfarms, after seeing Geier hitch (AfD discussion). Such things as this version of that article and Geier (WikiProject discussion) seem to indicate that some poor standards of sourcing have been employed. Uncle G (talk) 14:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've nuked it. If anyone wants to fix it for BLP instead, feel free to undelete it.--Scott Mac 15:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Major clean-up required

Sister Abhaya murder case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While referencing some articles with 'citation required' templates, I came across Sister Abhaya murder case. Although BLP obviously does not apply to the subject of the article, there are numerous accusations made against the accused and court members that are definitely BLP violations. The entire article is a nightmare of poor referencing and POV statements, and I'm having a hard time even following the prose to figure out how to fix it. Anyone want to take a crack at cleaning it up? It's such a convoluted mess I don't want to just tag it and leave it. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It is a mess. The problem I have is trying to gain an overview of the case, which, in part, requires me to follow the legal issues in India (of which I have no knowledge). I thought about taking the overly long lead and separating it into a one-paragraph lead and the rest of it into some sort of overview. But I'm not sure how to summarize it. Then, I could start removing whole chunks of stuff that have no sources at all or are obviously POV (usually both).

Is there any question as to whether the article is notable? There's no article on the person herself, but there has been press about the investigation of her death. Clearly, the investigation of every person's suspicious death isn't notable (most suspicious deaths get some press), so what makes this one worth keeping? I'd hate to spend a lot of time on an article that shouldn't even be here.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

These are the same issues I was having; I have no problem with rolling up my sleeves and just getting things done on my own, but in this case I don't know where to even begin. As far as notability is concerned having the article about the event as opposed to the victim is recommended, so that part is ok. I think it would likely survive an AfD, but I understand not wanting to put too much effort in if it's just going to be deleted. It would almost be best it if was removed from mainspace to the article incubator (or userfied) for a complete rewrite. Once the enormous amount of unsourced info and POV was removed it could be moved back to mainspace and then be monitored to ensure anything added is policy compliant. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Ahha, I bet you wish you never set eyes on that. The picture looks like a copyright violation, I have asked the uploader where they got it from. One option is tough love, move all the cites but one to the talkpage, blank almost all of the uncited and then watch it and insist it is recreated in a manner compliant with wikipedia policy and guidelines. Some of it looks like cut and copy copyright violations, as is often the case when large sections are added uncited, but I haven't had a deep investigation. As for notability, perhaps in Kerela but publication to the world is presently being accomplished through wikipedia.Off2riorob (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Ha - I remember stumbling across a similar article a long time ago and asking you for advice on your talk page and you joked "pretend you didn't see it". This is the same situation. For some reason (stubbornness? ego? stupidity?) I'm not capable of ignoring these tough ones. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Now you need to look inside and visualize a Samurai swordsman and with the concept that sometimes less is more, (especially if it is policy compliant) whip out your razor sharp sword and slash it to the bones. Off2riorob (talk) 21:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Sage advice Mr. Miyagi. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I've requested a discussion on deletion of the picture file. It defies any logic that the uploader actually took the picture, even though he says he did. She died in 1992. He says he uploaded it in November of 2008. A short time before his upload, the picture appeared in a newspaper article on the web. As of now, it's in many places on the web.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

So who is going to slash it? Jezebel (or do you go by Ponyo?)? Rob? Me? Someone else? No one? Rob, please clarify what you mean by moving the cites to the Talk page, etc. Why couldn't I just remove all of the uncited material? That preserves all of the cites, such as they are.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Rob, who started editing while I was posting my question. More power to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bb23, thanks for your help with this. My comment in regards to moving all but one of the cites to the talkpage was from the point of view that we simply clean the content completely to a stub, move the additional externals to the talkpage to allow the interested parties to use them to recreate the content in a policy compliant manner, this is not required if a couple of users here are prepared to have an in depth look and attempt to improve it ourselves. Off2riorob (talk) 22:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I have tidied a few cites, this is one way of seeing what you actually have by looking at all the cites and exposing and expanding them...I have also improved it by 20 percent by removing 20 percent of the uncited dubious stuff, it can so easily be replaced with correct cites if a contributor wants to be I try to work such articles by keeping the basic details and removing the tangential fluff. I will look at the deletion discussion for the pic, the user has a copyright warning ion his talkpage from a couple of years ago and a few deleted uploads. I am to busy to look more now, feel free to tweak and improve, there are also some useful looking articles in the external link section. Off2riorob (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Anwar Hajjaj

Resolved

 – deleted

Extreme BLP violation. Corvus cornix_talk 23:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Phyllis Connor

Phyllis Connor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is about my aunt who is a very private person and doesn't want to be on Wikipedia. How can I have the article removed? Thank you so much? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prayn4peace (talk • contribs) 07:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• - Prodded,WP:PROD and removed non free picture from a living persons infobox. Note - The amount of picture violations that are throughout wikipedia it is always a good idea to have a good look at not only the content but also the pictures in an article. Off2riorob (talk) 11:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Louise Portal (Canadian actress) (Quebec)

Louise Portal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• The English version (very short) about French-Canadian actress Louise Portal states that she got an award for her role in (Canadian movie by director Denys Arcand) JESUS DE MONTREAL.

  I have seen the movie about 5 times...and I don't remember her being in the movie, least of all being in a role that would justify getting an award !—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.200 (talk) 23:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

  • I've made the correction. She won for The Decline of the American Empire. Thanks for identifying the mistake. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Hari Shankar Tiwari

Hari Shankar Tiwari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article looks like a blp nightmare but it more or less checks out. How much prominence should be given to unproven charges?--Misarxist 14:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure someone will be along shortly to scrub it on account of he is obviously being unfairly smeared. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• - Trimmed of the attack content. BLP and NPOV and accusatory speculation, so he has a criminal record, in UP Utter Pradesh that is pretty normal, In the last assembly, 205 of the total of 403 legislators had pending criminal charges. - partisan attack content creation, not even close to a balanced life story, suggest either, writing a decent all round policy compliant BLP or keeping content as non accusatory as possible. Off2riorob (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Recurrent problem with deleted bios

This page has been deleted.

The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

• (del/undel) 03:44, May 4, 2009 EvilBastard (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Deleted Person" ‎ (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deleted Person where a dozen people say deleted Person is insignificant) (view/restore)
• (del/undel) 04:14, April 30, 2008 AutobiographYNuker (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Deleted Person" ‎ (G11: Deleted Person is a spammer) (view/restore)
• (del/undel) 03:19, April 30, 2008 HeartlessPerson (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Deleted Person" ‎ (A7: Deleted Person is completely unimportant) (view/restore)

---

Good top hit in Google? Maybe not.

I am experimenting with {{deleted article}} as a kludge to work around this but I suspect that is not right; maybe people have a better way round this (or maybe we should talk to the devs or perhaps collapse the deleted stuff in the MediaWiki base templates) Guy (Help!) 21:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

This page has been deleted.

The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

• (del/undel) 03:44, May 4, 2009 ThinkAboutthechildren (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Deleted Person" ‎ (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deleted Person where a dozen people argue about whether we censor articles on nonces, racists and white fascists) (view/restore)
• (del/undel) 04:14, April 30, 2008 LazySummary (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Deleted Person" ‎ (content was "Deleted person was a paedophile activist) (view/restore)
• (del/undel) 03:19, April 30, 2008 RighteousAdmin (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Deleted Person" ‎ (A7: being a paedophile activist doesn't make you notable) (view/restore)

Or?--Scott Mac 22:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Well quite. I don't know, maybe we should get onto the devs and raise a Bugzilla to collapse the logs or something? Guy (Help!) 22:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

We need to add "__noindex__" or "robots.txt" to these pages. I'm not sure what is the best way to do this, since they can't simply be typed into the edit window. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure they actually get indexed? For instance I can't find [13] in google ([14])

Deleted pages already have "robots = noindex,nofollow", so they won't last at all long in Google after deletion. Frankly admins should be taking more care with deletion summaries, and inappropriate ones should be revdeleted, because they're going to be visible one way or another when someone goes to a deleted title. Assuming that won't happen, the start of the notice is provided by MediaWiki:Moveddeleted-notice, and it's got it's own classes (mw-warning-with-logexcerpt, mw-logline-delete), so someone over at MediaWiki talk:Common.js, MediaWiki talk:Common.css, Wikipedia talk:NavFrame, and/or WP:VPT should be able to collapse it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Rich Rodriguez

• Rich Rodriguez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can I please get some more eyes on this article? We're having BLP violations (often ones with disastrous potential) hit it daily. If not I'll be forced to semi-protect it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Billie "Buckwheat" Thomas

Resolved

 – Buckwheat is no longer with us.

Billie Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Over the following years, he worked on several prominent motion pictures, including Steven Spielberg’s Jaws and Michael Anderson’s Logan’s Run.[citation needed]

This statement appears on the bio. I doubt it's true. There is no mention of his name in the film on imdb. I believe someone is doing a hoax. You should remove this as I've seen the information from you blog spread elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.207.160 (talk) 13:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll investigate (and may mention a certain SNL sketch about the subject).Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Buckwheat died in 1980. Even though it's a BDP, I'll see about fixing it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Jim Towey

I just sprotected Jim Towey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) due to controversial and poorly sourced commentary; this may reappear as to a certain extent it is a matter of interpretation as much as objective fact. I have also advised the subject to register and comment on the talk page. Eyes would be appreciated as the person most active in fixing problems has not edited in a while. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 14:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Yashpal Raghav

Resolved

 – wrong location

Yashpal Raghav (born on 14 July 1985 in Darbhanga District of Bihar India), is an Entrepreneur. After working as software engineer he quit his job and started his new venture in 2009 as a Stock Market Technical Analyst and portfolio manager in Indian stock market. By qualification he a mechanical engineer from Sir M. Visvesvaraiya Institute of technology has done his early education from Patna Bihar.

Yashpal is a born sportsperson and adventurous by nature. He believes in educated and well researched approach to any works.He is regular contributor to different websites and blog related to stock market like stockezy.com, raghav invest hub etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashpalraghav (talk • contribs) 14:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• - This is the BLP noticeboard for reports about biographies that already exist. For suggestions regarding article creation you could ask at Wikipedia:Requested articles. Off2riorob (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)