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.

moises salinas

Moises Salinas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Both in the 3. Academic activities section as well as in the 4.Sexual assault conviction, the information is biased and intended to cause harm and affect this persons privacy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lianto (talk • contribs) 00:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

How do you figure? The Academic activities section, although without any inline cites, is a list of his achievements. His plea of no contest to the sexual assault charge is a matter of public record and properly cited.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Source seems inaccaurte, and some claims make no sense (e.g., No Contest does not equal guilt, only federal court can order deportations, and no court can order a U.S. Citizen to leave the U.S.). Second source is only copy of first. BLPN places burden of proof on person placing content, and is highly protective of contentious material. In any event, I will submit to consensus on BLPN board discussion.--LiteraryEditor 16 March 2011

Even if it was true which I dispute, BLP's clearly states...even if true is it relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. It also states, do not use court or public records, furthermore, as to avoid victimization, materials should be paired back to the basib and stay on topic. I fail to see the relevance of adding this "interpratation of an event on this persons personal life as part of his Academic Activities, saying or trying to say it bears a relationdhip is clearly with intent and not with dissinterest. Lianto (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

There are unfortunately two discussions going on in parallel here on Salinas. That said, part of the plea agreement was he had to resign his position at the college. Hard to understand how that's not relevant to his academic activities. No "court or public records" were used in support of the assertions in the article about the plea.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

There might appear to be two issues here, still a plea agreement is NOT an academic issue, it is a legal one. For academic purposes you would only need to state that in 2011 he resigned or was terminated whatever legal proof supports the information and leave it at that. Doing anything else, is questionable, in one hand, for the motives behind doing so, as well as for the legal aspects since the facts only show he pleaded no contest, and in the state where this took place, no contest does NOT equate to gult. Questions are; Is there a chance of this infringing BLPN rules as far as privacy and accuracy? I believe so in both cases AND does there appear to be an intent of spreading negative information that true or not has a bias and at the very least affects the privacy of the person at hand without adding valuable information? I am positive. Lianto (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Note: The editors involved opened a second case on this page regarding the same issue, which I have consolidated here for convenience. Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Repeated changes to biography that are possible violation of BLPN policy. Article has been subject to many instances of vandalism before. It is doubtful that cited reference is accurate, due to numerous contradictoions. For example, a No Contest plea does not equal a conviction, and state court does not have authority to issue extradition orders against U.S. citizens. Request reverting to last stable version before 3/9/2011 and semi-protection while issue is being investigated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiteraryEditor (talk • contribs) 12:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The source is perfectly reliable. I've also added a second source. In many jurisdfictions, a no contest plea DOES equal a conviction. What the state has the authority to do or not per LiteraryEditor is irrelevant as long as the assertions match the source and the source is reliable. Even with the second source, LE has reverted. I've reverted again, but I can't get into an edit war over this.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Source seems inaccaurte, and some claims make no sense (e.g., No Contest does not equal guilt, only federal court can order deportations, and no court can order a U.S. Citizen to leave the U.S.). Second source is only copy of first. BLPN places burden of proof on person placing content, and is highly protective of contentious material. In any event, I will submit to consensus on BLPN board discussion. .--LiteraryEditor 16 March 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 15:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC).

Here is the material that LE has removed: "On March 9, 2011, Salinas plead no contest to a charge of sexual assault of one of his students. He received a one-year suspended jail sentence and a two-year conditional discharge, provided he resign his position at Central Connecticut State University and leave the country." Here are the sources: No. 1 and No. 2. The second source is not a "copy" of the first, it is substantively similar because it reports on the same event. In support of the assertions in the Salinas article, Source No. 1 says Salinas "pleaded no contest Wednesday to a charge of sexually assaulting one of his students." It says he was sentenced to "a one-year suspended jail sentence and a two-year conditional discharge." According to the source, the sentence "was issued with the conditions that Salinas resign his job at Central, not teach again and leave the country." To the extent it matters, the source also says that a plea of no contest is "recorded as a guilty plea." The second source says similar things but worded differently.

There is no issue here except LE's conclusion that because he disagrees with what the sources say, they must not be reliable. There's no reason I have to explain all this here. The so-called burden of proof was met by the cites to the sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Not that it matters to the BLP discussion, but in Connecticut, a plea of nolo contendre, or "no contest", means that you are not admitting guilt, but you are also not disputing the charge that has been made against you. Essentially, it means you're throwing yourself at the mercy of the court; it's theoretically possible (although exceedingly unlikely) that the court could find some reason why you should not be convicted after pleading nolo contendre, such as the prosecution completely failing to make a case. The main benefit to pleading nolo contendre comes if you are subsequently the subject of a civil lawsuit related to the criminal charge: while a guilty plea can be used against you in a civil case, a plea of nolo contendre is not an admission of guilt, meaning the plaintiff can't use your plea against you. A nolo contendre plea may also bring a lesser sentence, if the judge believes you are making the plea because you are innocent but are unable to effectively fight the charges (that is, you figure you'll be convicted anyway even though you're innocent, so why spend the money on lawyers?), or if you think the judge will be more lenient than a trial jury. While a "no contest" plea doesn't establish guilt, it virtually always results in a verdict of "guilty" from the judge—typically immediately—so there's no logical contradiction in the article or sources there. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on this BLP. I've held off doing anything, even though the material has been removed, because at this point we have a dispute between LE and me with no one else voicing an opinion. Meanwhile, another editor, whose interest also seems to be only on this article (why is that?) has removed material. Because it's related to the removal of the no contest plea material, I am leaving the latest removal alone until the issue is resolved.

Opinions please?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Users Lianto and LE misunderstand our rules. The assertions are reliably sourced, to newspapers, not to primary source court records. Nor do the articles claim that a state court deported him, merely that he worked out a deal under which he may leave the country. If you believe that the two newspaper sources are wrong, please feel free to add another reliable source to the artiole contradicting them. Your statement that you think the article false is not sufficient. However, may I suggest a compromise solution we have applied before in cases of arrested professors? The bio as is does not establish his notability under WP:PROF and deleting it would end the argument. Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I have several comments. First, I have no problem with the move of the material to the Academic activities section to give it less prominence. Second, I, too, think the article fails notability. I get a little lost in Wikipedia deletion procedures (AND tracing the history of previous attempts), but assuming it was proposed once before (that's what it looks like to me), can't it be nominated - just not proposed? Third, I have a couple of quibbles with the rewording of the material. There's no good reason to put no contest in quotes. We don't put guilty or not guilty in quotes, and no contest is a standard plea. Also, saying he resigned without saying he was forced to resign purusant to the terms of the plea is misleading. I can live without the plea term about leaving the country, although I don't why it shouldn't be there.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding deletion, I started to propose the article for deletion but saw it had been nominated for deletion once before, so it can't be PROD'd as a result. It can be nominated any number of times, but the intervention of people not involved in the current dispute who thought it should be kept last time may happen again. I deleted the "leaving the country" material as a compromise solution because its easy to misinterpret and more properly, was one of a number of features of the plea deal, so potentially creates WP:WEIGHT problems if phrased as something the court "ordered" Salinas to do.Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Any problem with my removing the quotation marks from no contest? What about my resignation comment? As I said, I'm willing to let go of the country part.

If it was nominated for deletion before, shouldn't there be a discussion on it somewhere to read?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm also willing to accept removing the quotation marks from no contest, and leaving the rest of the information as is. The discussion on notability seems to be here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Moises_salinas There also seems to be the issue of Zionist Activities, which is the main focus of the aforementioned discussion. I will do some more research on Salinas (time permitting).

In any event think its fair to have a reference to the sexual assault case, as long as it is objective and not misleading. LiteraryEditor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.230.31 (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer to the 2007 delete discussion. When I looked at, I remembered how to find these by searching the archives. I haven't done it enough to keep the process in my brain. Based on my read of the discussion, I'm not sure there would be a consensus to delete now. Because you're okay with removing the quotes, I'll remove them.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche

Lyndon LaRouche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's an RfC on the talk page asking whether the first sentence should say in Wikipedia's voice that Lyndon LaRouche "is an American political activist" or "an American political activist and economist" (emphasis added). Both versions of the lead end the first paragraph with "[he] has written prolifically on economic, scientific, and political topics, as well as on history, philosophy, and psychoanalysis."

Uninvolved eyes would be appreciated as this has been raised several times over the last few years, so it would be good to get a clear consensus.

Arguments in favor: several reliable sources call him an economist, and he reportedly became known as one in South America. Arguments against: he has no qualifications in economics, has never been employed or independently published as one, and most reliable sources describe him in other terms.

The RfC is at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche#Should the lead say in WP's voice that Lyndon LaRouche is an economist?. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche 2

SlimVirgin posted a thread here (and at at least three other locations) pointing to an RfC in progress without advising editors on the talk page where the RfC is located of her actions. The effect has been one of WP:CANVASSING, because what she posted above, although she tried to word it neutrally, is factually incorrect. LaRouche has in fact been independently published as an economist.

LaRouche, under the pen name Lyn Marcus, authored a book, Dialectical economics : an introduction to Marxist political economy (1975) (entry at archive.org), published by D. C. Heath and Company (Lexington, Massachusetts), which was reviewed [1][2] in the American Economic Review, published by the American Economic Association. The review states,

"NEW Dialectical Economics: An Introduction to Marxist Political Economy Lyn Marcus, Chairman, National Caucus of Labor Committees March 1975 Cloth 544 pages An unprecedented approach to Marx's method and economic theory, this book explains, analyzes, and interprets Marxian economics through an interdisciplinary approach. ..." [3][4]

That doesn't sound like they're thrashing it as the work of a rank amateur. The book has citations in Google Scholar and in Google Books.

According to King, who's written a book-length (and fairly hostile) study of LaRouche, he became known in Latin America as "a serious economist and political strategist". That's repeated in a Department of Defense document (which cites King). He had meetings with multiple presidents in Latin America, advising them to take a course against the IMF, which they did to some extent. His writings had an influence on the Malaysian government in 1997/1998, according to the Wall Street Journal, and that government then also took a course against the IMF. If you are reviewed in the AER, and end up influencing multiple governments' economic policy, that makes you an economist, in my book. --JN466 05:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Why not just add this to the existing thread, above?   Will Beback  talk  05:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Merged. Off2riorob (talk) 12:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not canvassing. This is informing people on relevant noticeboards of an RfC that needed uninvolved eyes. It needed uninvolved eyes because of the large amount of advocacy and FRINGE editing that's going on in that article. So I posted it, laying out the arguments advanced to that point in favour and against. I find Jayen's reaction to this disturbing. He's been posting on the talk pages of people who responded to the RfC, trying to persuade them to change their minds, and in general relying on LaRouche publications to a worrying degree.

The function of an RfC is to lay out the arguments calmly, inform people in neutral locations in a neutral tone, then let them review the arguments for themselves on the page without being badgered. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 13:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I don't know how it is that you built this rod for own back, probably sentence by sentence over six years, but the problem seems to be that there is far too much about LaRouche than is in any sense warranted.

Just for fun I had a look at what another encyclopaedia had to say about him. Which seems to be an adequate and fair summary and about all you would wish to know. however, once you have started slinging everything you can into the pot, as it were, there is no stopping. All you have provided is sentence after sentence of coatrack, which people can attack and defend, and attack again. The article is a monster that needs some serious culling, all the rest is just more polishing and tarnishing. --John lilburne (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It's just unfortunate that you said, in your posts to the four noticeboards, that LaRouche had never been independently published, because that turned out to be wrong, and it wasn't part of the RfC statement. After you posted your note to the various boards, five editors turned up in quick succession at the RfC, all commenting in the same way, based on the info you'd provided. Had you notified editors at the LaRouche talk page beforehand, that mistake could have been ironed out before disseminating it to various locations. But it's water under the bridge now. --JN466 22:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

And please stop saying that I rely on LaRouche publications, because it's patently untrue. --JN466 23:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• User:Volunteer Marek has checked the AER issue in question. The Google Books snippets are in fact from an advertisement in the back matter, rather than a review of the book, so that is different, and I've struck the relevant comments above. --JN466 22:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

"Death of ..." sections in Lyndon LaRouche BLP

SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) yesterday reintroduced longstanding section wordings in the Lyndon LaRouche BLP that strike me as potential WP:COATRACKs; both sections are related to suicides by people associated with the LaRouche movement. The sections in question read like this a couple of days ago:

• Kronberg section
• Duggan section (last paragraph)

After SlimVirgin's edits, they read as follows:

• Kronberg section
• Duggan section

I felt concerned that this presentation of these incidents in LaRouche's BLP was uncomfortably close to presenting the BLP subject as personally responsible for these deaths, and was incompatible with BLP policy demanding that we edit conservatively.

Talk page discussion: Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche#Death_of_..._subheadings

It should be noted that the Death of Jeremiah Duggan, which happened in Germany, went all the way to the German Supreme Court, which denied appeals for further enquiries. The German authorities gave a verdict of suicide, based on eyewitness testimony, which according to them ruled out any third-party involvement in the death. On the other hand, there have been British coroner's inquests over the past few years investigating allegations of foul play raised by Duggan's family; one is currently still underway. None of the sources, to my knowledge, present any evidence linking LaRouche to this death.

Subsequent edits to these sections: [5][6][7]

SlimVirgin has asked me to point out that similar or identical versions of these sections had been present in the BLP for a long time (see e.g. this version from late February) until I started editing the article three weeks ago.

LaRouche is a person widely considered to hold repugnant views. He has earned this reputation. At the same time, a BLP policy is worthless if it is only applied to people about whom there are only nice things to say. While I have no problem with the other articles we have referring to these incidents—I've previously done work on Death of Jeremiah Duggan with SlimVirgin and think it's at least a GA-level article—I am uncomfortable with the way SlimVirgin wishes to present this material in LaRouche's BLP. Implying that someone is responsible for two deaths, in the absence of any legal decision attributing such responsibility, is a weighty matter in a Wikipedia biography, and to me that is what the current presentation does.

Am I being oversensitive? Are SlimVirgin's edits fully in line with the letter and spirit of BLP policy? Comments welcome. --JN466 14:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I support as more npov and less undue the version without the death in the header - there is nothing at all to connect this living person to those deaths - nothing at all. Off2riorob (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. What do you think about the wordings of the sections in this BLP?

• Kronberg section
• Duggan section (last paragraph)

vs.

• Kronberg section
• Duggan section --JN466 19:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Jayen recently changed that section to remove the header, remove much of the text, remove the sources, and bury it in another section without making clear what the issue was. I therefore restored a version of the previous text. I have no problem with the header being as it currently is (without the word "death" in it). The text is understated, and doesn't elaborate on what the High Court heard might have happened. BLP was never intended to stop us repeating what multiple high-quality sources say about public figures.

I also object to the forest fires of discussion Jayen keeps starting about this article on multiple boards and user talk pages. It's good to ask on boards for fresh eyes, but the discussions should take place for the most part on the article talk page. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It was yourself who initiated discussions at three noticeboards and one WikiProject a week ago: [8][9][10][11] I did respond to these other threads, but this is the only noticeboard where I have initiated discussion of a new issue related to the article. This issue is quite distinct from the one you raised previously here and at these other locations. I have therefore moved this section back to where it was and restored its title. It is an important matter that can do with input from multiple editors, and I don't want it hidden near the top of this board in among days-old stale discussions. Please leave it in its own section. Thanks. --JN466 19:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I asked only for fresh eyes for an RfC being held on the article talk page. You, on the other hand, are starting discussions on multiple boards and multiple user talk pages, so that no one can keep up, while failing to address issues on the article talk page itself. Please reverse that focus. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyone looking at the LaRouche talk page history can see that I have answered each and every one of the points you have raised there. I did follow up on the noticeboard discussions you started a week ago (without advising us on the LaRouche talk page) and made editors who had commented in the RfC in response to your posts aware of both an error of fact in the statement you posted, and new information that came to light after they had voted. I advised them indiscriminately both of information that strengthened my argument, and of information that invalidated my argument.

Before I started this thread, I advised you of my intention to do so on the article talk page. I did so a day and a half ago, at Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche#Draft_for_BLPN_post. I posted a draft for your review on the article talk page, and made the changes to the wording that you requested before posting it here. So you have had ample notice of this thread, and had an opportunity to check and correct its wording before I posted it. --JN466 20:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

There's an outstanding question from me about what looks like your inappropriate use of academic source material—where you used a source to imply wrongly that LaRouche's absurd alternative theory about HIV-AIDs had support in peer-reviewed journals—so I'd appreciate a response to that here. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I hadn't seen your latest response yet. Replied. --JN466 20:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

This post should also note previous discussions: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive22#Worldwide_LaRouche_Youth_Movement_and_Kenneth_Kronberg. It may also be relevant that HK's socks have twice tried to get both articles deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremiah Duggan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremiah Duggan (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Kronberg, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Kronberg (2nd nomination). The Duggan article was also raised by HK in two ArbCom cases, and the ArbCom found no problems. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2. It's important for uninvolved editors to know the history of this material.   Will Beback  talk  19:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

As I've stated above, I don't have a problem with these other articles. This thread is about the presentation of these materials in the LaRouche BLP. In the Kronberg case, it should be noted that the authorship of the memo which some have said is likely to have triggered the suicide is disputed; some sources say it was written by LaRouche, others say it was written by an associate. Dennis King has a copy of the memo up on his website; it says it is by Tony Papert, a LaRouche associate. While we can speculate that LaRouche may have had a hand in writing it, this is speculation, and as such not conservative. --JN466 19:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the current version of the text of the article which even speculates that LaRouche wrote the "morning briefing" in question. However there is probably sufficient sourcing connecting it to LaRouche to justify mentioning the briefing in the article.   Will Beback  talk  20:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

If he didn't write it, why do we even mention it? We have a perfectly good reason to mention Kronberg's death in LaRouche's BLP: the suit brought by Kronberg's widow. This version does that. I don't mind adding Main article: Kenneth Kronberg to it. But that is all the LaRouche BLP needs. The rest can be and is covered in LaRouche_movement#Members and Kenneth Kronberg. --JN466 22:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

We have one reliable source that says he did write it and another that says it was written by his top aide. Further, it reflects views about Baby Boomers that have been expressed by LaRouche and his movement many times before, so it isn't an exceptional claim to say that he wrote it or was responsible for it. But the issue of this material has been discussed many times before, including on this noticeboard. I don't see any new issues here.   Will Beback  talk  22:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The new issue is that we are discussing how to present this in LaRouche's BLP. Can you live with this wording, with Main article: Kenneth Kronberg added? --JN466 23:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche is a public figure who has stood in eight presidential elections, and who whenever he gets a chance pushes himself in front of the media. The BLP policy was never intended to mean that we can't repeat what multiple reliable sources say about such figures, and indeed it's that sort of extreme interpretation that has caused the policy to acquire a bad reputation with some editors. BLP is for the most part simply the application of V, NOR, and NPOV with extra care and common sense; and with additional sensitivity when it comes to borderline notable people, or the private lives of public figures, neither of which applies here.

And if you're concerned about BLP violations, I'd suggest not using the header "Deaths related to Lyndon LaRouche," which I've tried to change but you (Jayen) keep restoring. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The point is that you're not just writing in these sections what reliable sources have said about LaRouche. You are writing about events whose connection to LaRouche personally is tenuous and unclear. No source to my knowledge states that LaRouche was even aware of Duggan's attendance at the event in Germany. The German authorities point to eye witness statements from multiple members of the public who observed the suicide and who categorically state that no one else was present. The German Supreme Court considered the theory put forward by Duggan's family, that he was killed elsewhere and then taken to the road to make it look like he died there, absurd ("abwegig"). The authorship of the memo that LaRouche critics on the Internet have said must have triggered Kronberg's suicide is unclear, and it is signed by someone else. Now I wholly agree that these events should be discussed in the articles on the LaRouche movement. But I am uncomfortable with the way you are discussing them in his BLP. --JN466 20:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The reliable sources say Duggan became vulnerable because LaRouche fears being assassinated by a British person, dislikes or fears Jews, and also has a conspiracy theory about people who received psychotherapy at the Tavistock Institute being brainwashed spies. Duggan happened to fit all three criteria. Yes, I know it's insane, but these ideas come from LaRouche himself. See for example here. As recently as 1999, he said the British royal family was plotting to kill himl; see here. Into that madness walked Jeremiah Duggan in 2003—British, Jewish, who once had counselling at the Tavistock—to attend a LaRouche conference in Germany that LaRouche and his wife attended. Days later he was dead, having thrown himself in front of three cars "in a state of terror," according to the coroner. The day after his death, LaRouche's wife told the other members there that he might have been an agent sent from London to harm LaRouche, according to the Sunday Times. [12]

You won't allow it to be explained the article, then you use the lack of explanation to claim the connection is too remote. But the connection to LaRouche's ideas about brainwashed Brits is direct. And the only point that matters here is that the connection has been made by multiple reliable sources in the UK, U.S., and Germany, including the Washington Post, BBC Newsnight, the Guardian, the Observer, the Telegraph, the Independent, and the Sunday Times, over several years; and a coroner recently handed new evidence about it to the London Metropolitan Police's Serious Crime Directorate, and asked them to look into it. What you or I or any other Wikipedian thinks about it is irrelevant. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The present article version is, as you acknowledge, your preferred one, which you restored. It doesn't make LaRouche's personal involvement in this death clear at all. I have certainly not prevented you from adding sourced material stating that LaRouche thought Duggan was a brainwashed assassin sent to kill him, and had him killed instead. I am pretty certain no such sources exist, but I'll look through the above sources, thank you. --JN466 21:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

No one has said that. I don't see the point in starting forest fires of discussion, then misrepresenting what people say so they have to keep correcting you, then raising straw men. It means people have to keep posting and posting pointlessly. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You have twice now moved this thread to the top of the board, after an editor had alredy replied to it, even though its content is unrelated to whether we should call LaRouche an economist or not. [13][14] I'll not revert again, but I think it's unhelpful for getting the best out of this noticeboard for this issue. I've changed the title of the thread in line with your concern. --JN466 20:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It is clearly completely unconnected to this living person and has not place at all in his BLP actually. I just don't understand all the intricacies regarding this person but I think the last thread was a good comment about this la rouche person - our coverage of him is bloated and very likely opinionated. As I understand there are users with very strong personal held feelings about this person which has from what I can see created a similar situation to the Scientology section of articles - undue, bloated and opinionated coverage. As to a solution, I doubt if there is one, multiple users with lengthy historic input with a desire to keep the content reflective as developed over that period. Off2riorob (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

For a long time, the Kronberg section was illustrated with a picture of Kronberg and his wife: [15] This more than anything gave me the impression that the section's point was to say, He did this. --JN466 21:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that everyone connected with this has made their views clear. Let's let uninvolved editors give their input.   Will Beback  talk  21:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

In such situations imo such articles benefit from users that have created a lot or most of the content over a period of years stepping back, taking the article or section of articles off their watchlists and allowing fresh eyes to work on it. Off2riorob (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I've given my view so there's not point in repeating myself. Here's the Duggan section Jayen objects to, in case anyone else wants to comment:

LaRouche came to widespread public attention over the death in March 2003 of Jeremiah Duggan, a British-Jewish student, at a LaRouche movement cadre school in Germany. The German police ruled the death a suicide—a verdict rejected by a British coroner—and the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany turned down the Duggan family's request to reopen the police investigation. Because of continuing controversy over the death, the High Court in London ordered a second inquest in May 2010; the coroner opened and adjourned the inquest, inviting the LaRouche movement to attend later hearings as an interested party. LaRouche has said the controversy originated as a "hoax" perpetrated by supporters of Tony Blair and Dick Cheney.

SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The type of wording that we had here (last paragraph of that section) is more appropriate in the BLP. It links to the Death of Jeremiah Duggan article, and focuses on the things LaRouche can rightly be held responsible for: the nature of his movement. The full discussion of Duggan's death can be and is provided in the other articles, i.e. LaRouche_movement#Europe and Death of Jeremiah Duggan. --JN466 21:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

That section is in the entry about Lyndon LaRouche? Why? LaRouche, as an individual, appears to have no direct connection to this event at all. We have a separate entry on Lyndon LaRouche movement, which is clearly more appropriate for the mention of Duggan. Also, there is an entire entry dedicated to Duggan's death, which makes this, and all other longer treatments of the event in LaRouche related entries seem like coatracks. That's my outside view. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The outside views on this issue appear to be unanimous and completely agree with Jayen. Cla68 (talk) 01:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what I said. Thus, agreed. Silverseren^C 07:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I see only one independent, uninvolved editor in this thread, Griswaldo. It'd be nice to get more input, but I realize LaRouche-related topics have been noticeboarded to death, so to speak.   Will Beback  talk  07:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

With respect Will, how do you claim that User:Off2riorob and User:Silverseren are "involved" here? I looked through the talk pages and edit histories of the relevant entries and see zero editing by the former, and the only "involvement" by the latter coming days ago, in response to an RSN post about this very issue. When someone responds to a question on a noticeboard without any prior involvement editing or discussing the entry they are by definition uninvolved. They don't magically become "involved" because a similar question is posed again on another noticeboard days later. To echo Cla68, there are three uninvolved editors who appear to agree with Jayen, and zero uninvolved editors who agree with you. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Cla68 and Silverseren have been involved in the topic - there's more than one talk page. Off2riorob and Jayen can describe their connection themselves. But everyone's welcome to comment here. As for "agreeing with me", I don't think anyone has significantly disagreed with my point about the briefing, the only comment I've made in this thread.   Will Beback  talk  17:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not mention Cla68. Do either of those editors edit the article? Are they often on the talk pages arguing for content changes? Please provide evidence of their involvement. I'm not saying you're wrong but from a cursory glance I cannot see it. As an outsider I'd like to know, because to me it looks like you're just trying to dismiss their opinions. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Cla68 and SlimVirgin seem to have some kind of long-running personal feud, to the point of Cla68 opposing SV's activities in ways that sometimes make no sense at all (e.g. the HK/Obamacare nonsense from a few weeks ago). I'd therefore consider Cla68 "involved" in any dispute where C68 comments on SV's editing, whether C68 has directly been editing the affected articles or not. I've had better things to do than follow their interactions closely, so if both of them say there's no such feud, I'll roll my eyes and believe it. But to this distant observer, the acrimony between them is a hundred feet tall. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

IP, I don't have any personal acrimony towards SlimVirgin. She recently helped me and others out with writing this essay, and I really appreciated her efforts. I've supported her ideas at times over the last year or so in some policy discussions, in expanding a BLP, and attempting to NPOV a certain article which is notorious for long-running NPOV problems. Sometimes me and her agree and sometimes we disagree. Cla68 (talk) 06:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that, and maybe I had the wrong impression. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I am reading the Washington Post article and will comment on the disputed paragraph after I finish. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Working on response. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 04:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC) Getting sleepy, response partially written, complicated, need to think a little more and probably post tomorrow. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 06:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• - I am completely uninvolved in this topic user Willbeback's comments are without value at all - I have assessed the issue as an uninvolved reviewer his attempt to assert I am involved are misleading. As he has chosen to claim I am involved - completely falsly , it is well known that user willbeback is an opponent of the living subject and has over years built this BLP into the opinionated bloat that it currently is and he is one of the people that as I said our article about the subject would benefit from him removing the BLP from his watchlist. The days are over that opinionated users came to wikipedia prior to BLP and created attack articles about living people that they are opposed to in real life. Off2riorob (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I am not an opponent of the subject in question. You're making a lot of unfounded assertions which verge on personal attacks. Number of edits doesn't have any relation to quality of edits, and I haven't seen anyone point to specific problems with my editing of this or any other article.
  • I did not say you were involved with the topic, but rather that you have a connection with the editor who started this thread. I was under the impression that you shared an off-Wiki history with Jayen466. If I'm wrong about that then I apologize. Being "involved" does not mean one is acting in bad faith, or that one's opinion is worthless. I suggest we stick with the issue at hand and avoid getting into tangential topics.   Will Beback  talk  21:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It is well known on wiki and also discussed off wiki that you are an opponent of this living person, there is no denying that, please stop attacking me and others and move along, take it off your watchlist and allow new contributors to balance the article up. Off2riorob (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh? Where is this discussed "off-wiki"? Are you a participant in these discussions? How about other contributors this thread - do they participate in discussions of the LaRouche articles off-wiki and decide who is an opponent? Please provide relevant diffs to support your assertions, or stop making them.   Will Beback  talk  21:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Will, is that really the reason you call Off2riorob "involved"? That is indeed disingenuous. I see Off2riorob consistently commenting on BLP issues on this board and elsewhere. From what I know his treatment of this one seems 100% on par with his general BLP MO. You can ask anyone who frequents this board. I'm quite disappointed in the aspersions you are casting his way, particularly because you did so to invalidate my own perspective as if it was only one lone uninvolved perspective. That's clearly nonsense. Perhaps you're too close to this subject to be objective. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't cast aspersions on anyone here nor did I try to invalidate your input in any way. Please re-read my comments. Let's try to keep this thread on the topic rather than the editors.   Will Beback  talk  22:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe Griswaldo's and Off2riorob's concerns are valid, so I'm going to start a thread on it on Will's user talk page. Cla68 (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who's involved and who isn't. I would count as involved anyone who has edited the article, or discussed it on or offwiki, so I'll leave people to decide that for themselves.

I do know that the aim of LaRouche's employees since 2004 has been to drive away from Wikipedia anyone very familiar with the source material about the movement. They drove away Dennis King, a published expert on LaRouche. They drove away Chip Berlet, a widely cited expert on the far right in America. They tried to drive off Will and me, as we got to know the source material better over the years. They've done this via on and offwiki attacks, some of them vicious, just as they do with anyone they see as an opponent. The movement is well known for this behavior, so I hope no Wikipedian would consider supporting them in it. That's all I'm going to say about it, because even the existence of this thread will delight them.

What matters is this: LaRouche stood for president of the United States eight times. You don't do that if you're a shrinking violet hoping not to draw attention to yourself. As a result, major newspapers, and a few academics, have written about him a great deal for over 30 years, including long investigative and analysis pieces. We therefore base our article on those articles, giving attention to the issues they give attention to, and summarizing in the way they summarize. So long as we continue to that, there are no BLP issues. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

So, essentially, you've just said that anyone who adds positive information to the article is "supporting them" because positive (and, really, even neutral) information is the kind of things that supporters would add? Thus, in order to edit this article, you should make sure to only add the negative, controversial stuff?

And, no, the issue is that you are summarizing the sources in the wrong way, sometimes paraphrasing sources in a manner that completely obscures or omits the full meaning of the source. Just a look at the talk page brings up this fact. Jayen has done a good job on the talk page with pointing out sections that have totally misrepresented the sources. Another issue is that, as I say initially, you are only allowing negative sources to be used. Anything that is positive is either unreliable, though only according to you two, or is connected to LaRouche and thus can't be used, even if the connection is a flimsy, transient thing. Also, at the same time, you ignore the Communist, and thus direct, connections between the critics and LaRouche and also try to keep out any information that points out this connection to readers, since that would discredit the critics that harshly attack LaRouche (oftentimes these attacks are valid, other times they are purposely exaggerated and distorted by the critics) Silverseren^C 02:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The article contains many positive assertions and is probably as well-balanced as any LaRouche biography in existence. Vague accusations against other editors don't help. If there are specific issues you think need work then this is a good place to discuss them. Which particular secondary sources have been left out that you think should be used?   Will Beback  talk  08:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

What matters is this: LaRouche stood for president of the United States eight times. You don't do that if you're a shrinking violet hoping not to draw attention to yourself. screaming Lord Such stood in every General election and pretty much all the by-election too. He even had a political party dissolve itself, and Thatcher changed the law to curb his activities. The point being that the LaRouche articles are far too excessive that they do not reflect on the actual significance of the guy. What you have done as I said before is create a monster, something that now has a life of its own, a target for supporters and anti-supporters to attack alike. IMO the editing activities of 466 and others are doing no good in this article they are simply expanding it and adding further words to argue over. The article should be reduced back to bare bones, giving the essential details and references whether anyone interested (damn few) can go for further research. All the rest of the trivia and crap that happened decades ago removed. John lilburne (talk) 10:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If there's a problem with the article then let's fix it. SV and JN have been working busily on it, stripping it down to its bare bones and fleshing it out again. The current version bears little resemblance to last year's.[16] I'm sure next year's article will look different too. That's Wikipedia. ;)   Will Beback  talk  12:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Well you could strip out practically all the 1970s and not lose anything of importance or interest. That section seems to be documenting the internecine wars between various parts of the hard left. Trotskyite splinter groups are called splinter groups for a reason, they are forever undergoing fragmentation, the result being they get into fist fights on street corners and in pubs, some would argue that their behaviour is what split the socialist left in Germany in the early 1930s. That aside non of it is of any interest to anyone except the participants themselves. And yeah the various factions tend to erect a personality cult around the leader. Do yourself a favour and junk the navel gazing. John lilburne (talk) 13:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that input, but that's not how encyclopedia articles should be written. The secondary sources generally devote considerable space to the activities of the subject in the 1970s, so that period receives its due weight in the biography. OTOH, the subject received relatively little attention during the 1990s, so the article devotes less space to that decade. The subject received more attention again in the last few years, so that is covered more fully even at the risk of recentism. Weight issues are never easy to resolve, but the most important factor is the prominence of coverage in independent secondary sources, per WP:WEIGHT.   Will Beback  talk  23:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Just my two cents: Leaving aside for a moment those flaming edit wars, the personal attacks and those never-ending internecine (Thanks to John lilburne btw, I did not know this word before) 40% of the article on Larouche are actually very good. To be honest, I do not think that there is anywhere in the world such a massive collection of secondary sources about LaRouche. Yes, ALL of you have contributed something very valuable and I would like to sincerely thank SlimVirgin, Jayen, Will Beback and last but not least HerschelKrustofsky and everyone that has been labeled "HK" for doing this. All of you did a great job in creating the best reference list for LaRouche one can imagine. THANKS! 81.210.206.223 (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

that's not how encyclopedia articles should be written really you would know that how? Whatever you think you are doing you aren't building an encyclopaedia biography here, you are documenting the internecine infighting of splinter groups. The media may well have had an interest in their goings on, particularly as one of them was running for president, that doesn't mean that it actually had any real relevance then, and 40 years on it is of no interest to anyone other than the participants (were you one?), or historians of the left. John lilburne (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you really suggesting that EB page as a template? You said above that we shouldn't bother with material from the 1970s, yet that only covers the subject's life up to 1984, and it spends many of its few words to saying he's know for spreading "bizarre economic conspiracy theories". The article in question is from the Britannica's student's encyclopedia.[17] Is that the best model for Wikipedia? I don't think so.   Will Beback  talk  23:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The EB article is enough. Try this experiment: walk into your local Starbucks and ask for a show of hands as to how many people know who LaRouche is. If anyone raises their hand check that they aren't confusing him with the fellow that won the War of Independence. Of the others tell them just how important he is to the history of American society because he thinks that "Queen Elizabeth II was the head of an international drug-smuggling cartel, and that the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing was the first strike in a British attempt to take over the United States." Try to get out before they have you sectioned. John lilburne (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

If we followed the "Starbucks" test we'd have to delete 99.999% of the articles in Wikipedia, including John Lilburne. ;) People come to encyclopedias to learn about topic they don't already know about.   Will Beback  talk  00:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

If you'd walked into a London coffee house in 1680 they'd have known who John Lilburne was. There you have it - 30 years on and not only don't the coffee house clientèle know about LaRouche, even when you tell them about his 70s exploits they won't care. None of that expanse of newsprint from 30 years ago, was about anything of any lasting significance. Determine the bits that were significant and you have your article. All the he said, she said, they said, we said from 30 years ago is one big SO WHAT? John lilburne (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW I have a number of books that mention John Lilburne they are full of the ins and outs of the events of the time, the arguments, rows, and pamphlets, interesting stuff for sure, but that isn't what you want to brain dump into an encyclopaedia article. John lilburne (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

If it would help, I can offer an outside opinion since I have no special sympathy or antipathy toward LaRouche, his movement, or any of the editors engaged in this discussion. My opinion is that the deaths should not be mentioned in the LaRouche bio. Accusations or insinuations of complicity in someone's death ought to meet a very high standard for any BLP, regardless of how public or controversial the bio's subject is. If there were an unambiguous resolution of the allegations, and those allegations or their outcome had turned out to significantly impact the narrative of the subject's life, then they would be worthy of treatment in the bio. (An example of this might be O.J. Simpson.) But from what I can tell, the allegations remain in doubt to some extent, as officials from two different countries disagree on the question of LaRouche's involvement, and the allegations do not appear to have altered the fortunes, public behavior, philosophy, or notoriety of LaRouche in a significant way. Thus the informative value of mentioning the deaths is low enough to fail to meet the BLP standard. However, I agree with earlier comments that the deaths and circumstances surrounding them are appropriate to address in more focused articles than the main LaRouche biography. alanyst ^/talk/ 03:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Micheal Fitzgerald

Micheal Fitzgerald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I don't believe this person warrants a wikipedia article or at least the extent of the article should be limited somewhat. Wikipedia should not be used for advertisement or to increase somebody's profile beyond what they deserve. It appears that either the subject, or a close acquaintance of the subject, is the author of the article. He appeared as an extra in a TV show and raced cars as little more than a hobby. Any reference cited is either irrelevant or a link to a web page authored by the subject. Cleary the person wants to increase their exposure by having a wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.5.88.217 (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. The sources provided give little indication of notability by Wikipedia standards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

He doesn't look very notable to me either and whats with that back lit promo pic, james bond style. Off2riorob (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Early on the article was nominated for a speedy delete. An admin removed the tag. A little later, somone proposed the article for deletion, but that tag, too, was removed when a reliable source was inserted. It's true that the article has been heavily edited by one user, but what makes you think she is falsely stating that she is someone other than the subject, or she is a "close acquaintance of the subject"? Fitzgerald doesn't seem particularly notable to me, but I haven't done any searching for references in the media or in books to verify my initial take. You could add a notability tag to the article. You could then raise your issues on the Talk page. You could also nominate the article for deletion, which should trigger a discussion. See WP:AFD.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed IMDB as it is not a reliable source and flagged other areas in need of citations. Bagumba (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I've tagged article for notability. Also other sources are dubious as they are short snippets about some person named Micheal Fitzgerald and its not obvious its about the same person with such a generic name. Bagumba (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion discussion has been started at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Micheal_Fitzgerald Bagumba (talk) 08:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Barbara Plett

Barbara Plett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I believe this biography (of the current BBC Correspondent at the UN) violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy and request that Wikipedia editors flesh it out with more biographical detail to create a balanced whole. NB Earlier this month, I drew Ms Plett's attention to the fact that this biography was locked against editing - evidence if any were needed that the main author of this biography had an obvious agenda, contrary to wp:NPOV. (I believe the BBC then got in touch with Wikipedia and as a result, this biography is available for editing once again.)

As I said to Ms Plett, I find it disturbing and antithetical that Wikipedia effectively allowed one person to assume sole ownership of her biosketch on their website. (I hope it's an isolated incident - otherwise, Wikipedia has a problem!) 87.86.118.227 (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The article certainly needs attention from other editors - frankly it seems to be nothing but a WP:COATRACK attack article, and should probably be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I would accept deletion of this coatrack article (hopefully to be replaced some day with a modest, balanced and open biosketch that reflects credit on Wikipedia and, equally, does justice to Ms Plett). 87.86.118.227 (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The article has now been proposed for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Barbara Plett. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Advice on contacting a subject

Reza Moridi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Question inspired by the Reza Moridi thread above. I am inclined to contact the article subject, a Canadian politician, to ask if he is concerned about some questionably-sourced information in his article, which assigns him an ethnic identity and some views on the beliefs and behavior of another group. I have never contacted an article subject before and was wondering what our experience has been and whether this is a generally approved approach. I could simply challenge the source (a foreign country newspaper which may not be independent of government control) and delete the material, but if the subject says "I gave that interview and the information is correct", would leave it in the article (as it consists of then non-controversial personal information and a controversial opinion which could come in under WP:SPS). Thoughts, please. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Ask him for a commons licensed picture.(joking) Off2riorob (talk) 11:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

If there is questionable ethnic and similar weakly cited views I would just move them to the talkpage for discussion. I don't think we should be contacting subjects and asking them it they said this or that, or what they meant when they said this and that. Off2riorob (talk) 11:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Commented out a rather vanilla repsonse to a quite strongly worded question as giving more weight to the seeming view of the questioner than to Moridi's actual views. Revert if anyone feels that the wording actually reflects Moridi's position (I doubt that a fuller answer would have been published by that source). Collect (talk) 11:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, this was helpful and I will not contact him. Please note that even the assertion that he is of Azerbaijani origin is not reliably sourced. He was born in Iran and is now presumably a Canadian citizen. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a note to make the general point that the one area where subject's can help the most is in identifying sources. Many people who've been written about in the public sources have kept clippings and could either suggest some good sources which would be useful, especially for articles on more obscure subjects. Of course, any subject-provided sources need to be used with judgment.   Will Beback  talk  09:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Igor Shafarevich

Igor Shafarevich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article suggests that (1) Igor Shafarevich, a prominent Russian mathematician, is an anti-Semitic extreme nationalist, and also (2) that Shafarevich views the execution of Tsar Nicholas II as an example of a "Jewish ritual murder."

Claim 1 was refuted in a doctoral thesis written by Krista Berglund in 2009. Berglund concludes that Shavarevich is not an anti-Semitic extreme nationalist. WP:SOURCES states that, "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science." To my knowledge, Berglund's thesis is the most recent academic contribution to the controversy. Thus, she has the final word. However, since the accusations of anti-Semitism do have biographical significance, it seems reasonable that they are mentioned on Wikipedia.

I shall argue that the inclusion of Claim 2 violates WP:BLPSTYLE: "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all... Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and look out for biased or malicious content."

The source used to verify Claim 2 is a Russian essay written in 2000 by Semyon Reznik, a Russian journalist. It is critically important to note that the term "ritual murder" does not occur in Shafarevich's own writings. Claim 2 is based entirely on speculation. In his essay, Reznik quotes the following paragraph from Shafarevich's book, Russophobia:

Николай II был расстрелян именно как Царь, этим ритуальным актом подводилась черта под многовековой эпохой русской истории... Казалось бы, от такого болезненного, оставляющего след во всей истории действия представители незначительного этнического меньшинства должны были бы держаться как можно дальше. А какие имена мы встречаем? Лично руководил расстрелом и стрелял в Царя Яков Юровский, председателем местного Совета был Белобородов (Вайсбардт), а общее руководство в Екатеринбурге осуществлял Шая Голощекин. Картина дополняется тем, что на стене комнаты, где происходил расстрел, было обнаружено написанное (по-немецки) двустишие из стихотворения Гейне о царе Валтасаре, оскорбившем Иегову и убитом за это. (И. Р.Шафаревич. Сочинения в трех томах. Т.2., Москва, "Феникс", 1994, стр. 145).

Translation:

This ritual action [i.e., the execution of Nicholas II] symbolized the end of centuries of Russian history, so that it can be compared only to the execution of Charles I in England or Louis XVI in France. It would seem that representatives of an insignificant ethnic minority should keep as far as possible from this painful action, which would reverberate in all history. Yet what names do we meet? The execution was personally overseen by Yakov Yurovsky who shot the Tsar; the president of the local Soviet was Beloborodov (Vaisbart); the person responsible for the general administration in Ekaterinburg was Shaya Goloshchekin. To round out the picture, on the wall of the room where the execution took place was a distich from a poem by Heine (written in German) about King Balthazar, who offended Jehovah and was killed for the offense.

Note that the words set in bold type are simply omitted by Reznik. The reason is that here Shafarevich compares the execution of the Tsar with the executions of Charles I and Louis XVI; and this does not suit Reznik's purposes. By means of speculative arguments, Reznik attempts to show that what Shafarevich "really" says in this paragraph is that the execution of the Tsar was a ritual murder performed by the Jews. Reznik's (mis)interpretation collides with Shafarevich's own announcement that he is not an anti-Semite.

To my knowledge, Reznik is the only writer to have suggested that, in Shafarevich's writings, the execution of the Tsar is described as a Jewish ritual murder. Aron Katsenelinboigen, too, is a sworn enemy of Shafarevich, but contrary to Reznik he stresses that Shafarevich does not accuse the Jews of ritual murders: "The only thing lacking in the book is the accusation that Jews perform ritual murders!" (The Soviet Union: Empire, Nation, and System, p. 176).

Conclusion: Claim 2 is clearly the view of a tiny minority. It is biased and malicious, and should not be included in the WP article on Igor Shafarevich.

There are other problems as well. Claim 2 is brought twice; and at least one source seems questionable. WP:BLPSTYLE states: "When citing such a source [i.e., a non-English source] without quoting it, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote or the talk page."

I suggest that Claim 2, which appears twice, is removed from the article, and that the sources on Shafarevich's alleged anti-Semitism are re-examined. If citing Russian sources, please provide a translation of the relevant paragraphs. Nidrosia (talk) 02:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The two "claims" are clearly on different levels. I don't think we can accept that Krista Berglund's thesis is the "last word" on Claim 1: there has been a long debate on the issues there, which should be reported neutrally and proportionately in our article. Further it is not clear to me that Berglund's work on Sharafevich has actually been published, which means that there is an problem with treating it as a source; we can of course report on it. It is in any case not Wikipedia's way to go to sources and come up with verdicts, where there is substantive controversy: we are supposed to give a fair summary of the debated points and leave the rest to the reader.

But as for Claim 2, it would be reasonable at this point to treat it as a "fringe" view, depending on interpretation, and currently below the threshold for inclusion in the Shafarevich article. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that Berglund's thesis is not yet available as a published book. According to an unconfirmed source at the University of Helsinki, an edition of her dissertation is forthcoming in 2011 as a monograph, published by a European academic publishing house. I realize now that maybe I should have waited before citing her thesis here on WP. Information on her views was obtained from a press release. However, as far as I can see, the discussion on the inclusion of Claim 2 is a separate matter, and does not involve Berglund. Nidrosia (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

James Tabor

James Tabor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• quotes by him removed as BLP violations

An editor has just removed this edit [18] saying that association Tabor with Barry Fell is a BLP violation. As it is Tabor who is quoting and supporting Fell, I can't see how this is a BLP violation. Much of Tabor's writing has been controversial and I don't see this as any different. Dougweller (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, a BLP violation by association. The removed paragraph could have used some rewriting, but I don't see any BLP violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Not a BLP violation. It is probably WP:UNDUE and a WP:COATRACK. I think it could be shortened to a sentence and stay in the article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I did so. This is an interesting one--it appears that there really is a rock in a New Mexico park inscribed in a Greek-influenced Hebrew. There are a number of professors who say it may be genuine, and since it has been cleaned by amateurs, there is no longer a patina which would permit the carving to be dated. It was first reported in the 1930's with one eyewitness claiming to have seen it in the 1880's. So the jury is out as to whether it really was carved in ancient times or is a much later forgery. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Glen Campbell

Glen Campbell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is woefully undersourced, including for contentious claims - heck a huge amount of the entire article is lacking references. Everything might be true, but this is a fairly popular article, and should not be so seedy. Collect (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I added a tag to the top of the article. It may be popular, but it's not watched much (32 before me), so I don't know how much attention it'll get.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I took out some of the contentious material that was either unsourced or sourced only to sources of questionable reliability. There was duplicated material in the article also, I had removed the first version of it because the source did not look reliable, but left the second one in, the source does appear reliable there. GB fan (talk) 13:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Richard A. Berman Master Drawings

Resolved

 – 15 March 2011 User:OlEnglish deleted "Richard A. Berman Master Drawings/Fine Arts" ‎ (WP:G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

I created this as a biography of my work. I would like to change the page titled "Richard A. Berman Master Drawings/Fine Art" to just Richard A. Berman. My first edit =was ore of an advertisement taken from a business profile on Manta. I realized with its present title it seems more of a solicitation. I have been a dealer and conoisseur of old and modern master drawings for 22 yaers and I doid not think ot unresaonable to ae descriptive page of my work.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardaberman (talk • contribs) 00:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Creating a page about yourself is highly disfavored here, see WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIO. In general, if you are notable, someone else will write about you sooner or later. We also tend to be concerned when an article is too much like an advertisement or a marketing brochure. Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I see someone already posted some helpful links on your talk page, and an explanation of why your article was deleted from Wikipedia. Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Carl Wimmer

Carl Wimmer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Negative material being added by User:Wimmerleaks to bio of U.S. state rep. Appears to be a smear effort: quotes from blogs, editorializing about speaker's fees, etc. Could use some eyes. The Interior (Talk) 01:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I stubbed the article. Some of this material may be appropriately added back in later, if reliably sourced and neutrally phrased. As it stood, it was an attack page. Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I left User:Wimmerleaks a helpful menu of links to help him get acquainted with our WP:policies and guidelines and a note linking him to this report and asking him not to add the content in such a manner again and watchlisted the BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• update - User:Truconservative was created to replace the content. User:AlexiusHoratius Semi Protected Carl Wimmer: Violations of the biographies of living persons policy - Two weeks.Off2riorob (talk) 21:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking point on that one guys. The Interior (Talk) 21:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

el:Δημοσθένης Λιακόπουλος

Resolved

 – nothing to see

The article in greek wikipedia. There was a poll about delete or not the article. There were 25 votes supporting deletion and 5 votes suporting no-deletion. The poll was terminated, and the conclusion was no deletion! The justification was that more votes were trolls and pupets, the decision was taken after Liakopoulos said publicly that he didn't want an article about himself exist in wikipedia. Greek wikipedia authorities think, that Liakopoulos didn't like what was written in the article. I think that: he knew that the article would propably be deleted, so he would lose free advertisement via wikipedia. He wanted an article about himself be in wikipedia, so he claimed the opposite, greek wikipedia authorities would do the opposite of what he wanted to, so voila! The decision was taken, and the article preserved!

The truth is he doesn't deserve an article (the english version is already deleted), but greek wikipedia authorities aren't proffesional and were spooved. It seems like a conspiracy, but Liakopoulos is conspiracy analyser, so it may be true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.112.133 (talk) 10:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Our deletion discussion is here. The article was deleted from English Wikipedia on somewhat unusual grounds, that he is notable but that no independent third party sources are available. Each Wikipedia is independently edited and rules and their application re notability and sourcing may be different. We have no involvement with or ability to affect Greek Wikipedia, and the fact he was not found worth keeping in English Wikipedia does not mean he is not to be considered notable there. It is also possible that Greek-speaking editors found third party sources that were not recognized here (though foreign language sources can also be used in English articles). Sorry we can't do more to help. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Alexander Goldberg

Alexander Goldberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article seems to be just about self promotion of the subject. It seems to be disproportionally long and it is questionable whether he even requires a wikipedia entry at all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.220.114.139 (talk • contribs)

Goldberg seems to be notable. He is or has been affiliated with many prominent organizations in major capacities, e.g., London Jewish Forum and CCJO Rene Cassin. Nor do I think it is self-promoting, at least not in style. It has no areas of criticism, but maybe there aren't any notable ones, don't know. As for its length, that's a matter of judgment. If you think it should be pared down without removing relevant and noteworthy material, do so. You've apparently stated your intention to do just that on the Talk page. My biggest quibble with the article is the formatting of references and the use of inline URLs.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Wayne Pacelle

Wayne Pacelle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article stated as fact: "Pacelle is a dumbass". I reverted it and warned the dumbass who inserted it, but I would ask this question: doesn't Wikipedia have some kind of filter to detect words like "dumbass"?  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the right person to answer your question because I don't know all the relevant bots or how they work, but ClueBot does, at least partly, work off of a list. See User:ClueBot/Source#Score list. You might be able to get more information at WP:BOTREQ or its Talk page. Also, more experienced editors than I may have information for you here.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll be interested if anyone else has further info. BTW, I have no problem with the Alexandre Dumas article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this the place Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested. Off2riorob (talk) 23:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

(Undent) A slightly different IP has reinserted the material, and I reverted again. Some protection might be appropriate.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• additional report

In the artlce on Wayne Pacelle, under Career with USHS, someone wrote: Pacelle is a dumbass —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.109.115.130 (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The inserters are ip's from Michigan university, I warned and templated, User talk:35.8.214.121 if it occurs again - I agree, semi-protection request for a few months. Off2riorob (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Chris Lilik and friends

• GrassrootsPA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Albert Boscov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Chris Lilik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An IP address has been slow-motion edit warring to add some negative information about living people, very badly sourced, into these three articles. Someone who is apparently Chris Lilik, turned up on IRC to ask for help. The IP address has received a final warning and the negative information has been removed, however it'd be useful if some extra people could watchlist these three articles in case the behaviour continues. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The IP address concerned came back with a rather angry edit summary [19] and is now blocked for one week (and has been reverted again). It's a static IP so we'll see what he does next. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Muammar Gaddafi

Mummar Gaddafi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The neutrality of the articles written about Muammar Gaddafi have many biased statements. It is also questionable that those who write the page are being unconsciously controlled by propaganda on the news.

Here is a simple argument: Libyan rebels are a minority , Libyan rebels are armed. Before Gaddafi armed his volunteers, this is no different than armed minorities oppressing unarmed civilians.

Also contradiction in the article: in the article it is said he "gave up all his government posts" (says citation needed- Gaddafi did also claim this in an interview before foreign intervention), if he has given up his posts, it is incorrect to assert all blames on him alone. He is simply the figure head. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phantom ko (talk • contribs) 13:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

He is simply the figure head. - If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. – ukexpat (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid that with this wikis current policy and guidelines and the weak application of such in situations as that, there is no chance of a neutral article here. In the future when the biased reports have been forgotten and the long term details are revealed and all the attracted contributors have gone, only then will a decent neutral article have any chance of existing. All you can do is watch for the worst violations and bring them to uninvolved editors, but even then the sheer weight of numbers can overwhelm attempts to balance such an article - I recommend you take it of your watchlist and never look at it again. Off2riorob (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Matt Hermer

Matt Hermer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The following sentence is not true nor has it been documented anywhere -- it has been added by someone trying to make a joke but it needs to be removed immediately. <In his free time Matt enjoys practicing Limbo and he aspires to be President of The International Limbo Brotherhood.> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Hermer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marissailamae (talk • contribs) 14:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You succeeded in reverting the vandalism yourself. Please let us know if there are other problems with the article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The article is in need of a tidy-up. I have added a tag, and will be back to copyedit if no-one else does this first. Acabashi (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Reporting of child pornography images on Wikimedia Commons

Reporting of child pornography images on Wikimedia Commons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An Individual has expressed concerns about misrepresentations made about himself within the article. I would strongly encourage level headed people to examine things there. Talk:Reporting of child pornography images on Wikimedia Commons The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 17:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking at it. He was indeed misrepresented. This will be an interesting article to get right. --JN466 19:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Pat Stryker

Resolved

Pat Stryker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Citation 5 is a store. Citation 7 points to a 404. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.82.47.234 (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Repaired one with wayback and replaced the other. Such issues are not really within the remit of the BLP noticeboard issues, I left you a menu of helpful links to help you edit and correct simple issues, new users are encouraged to WP:BEBOLD - happy editing.Off2riorob (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Michael Moore

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

Having a disagreement over the presence of this text: As an outspoken critic of capitalism, Michael Moore has been accused of hypocrisy for being wealthy, with an estimated worth of over $50 million. It is sourced to this blog: Michael Moore's hypocrisy My feeling is that this source is insufficient to cite his net worth or his hypocrisy. The Interior (Talk) 22:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you are right here, because the quoted text is not a good representation of the source, which only makes the comment in passing. It certainly isn't a good source for Moore's bank balance. The comment itself does not seem very insightful - the same criticism, if it is considered to be a valid criticism, can be applied to most high-profile figures who lean to the left. The fact that one minor blogger has made it regarding Moore does not make it a noteworthy criticism of him. So, WP:UNDUE. --FormerIP (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Its Armstrong Williams blogging, he is self published from that source see here - the blog site is linked from only ten articles on wikipedia - two BLP articles where the blogger is the subject of the article, four talk page, this BLPN and the Michael Moore BLP and one other BLP and one other article. As a SelfPublishedSource its WP:SELFPUB - its only good to support content about himself. Off2riorob (talk) 22:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Since the blogger gives no indication of where the estimate of Moore's wealth came from, that looks dubious. It could be used to source the accusation of hypocrisy, if it could be shown either that (a) this bloggers opinion is of any significance, or (b) the opinion is more widely held. So no, it doesn't seem to be much of a source for anything in itself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I'll say this: I am a supporter of Michael Moore, and I consider myself a liberal. However, given the amount of controversy on Michael Moore (which is really undeniable), I think there should be a controversy section. Is this agreed?

As for the hypocrisy claims, this seems to be a fairly common criticism (perhaps the claims of hypocrisy as related to the lawsuits should be specified). See here: http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/21/101857.shtml, http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/11/3/150518.shtml, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/10/the-hypocrisy-of-michael-moore/, http://exposethemedia.com/2011/03/03/the-blistering-hypocrisy-of-michael-moore-part-352/, and http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2011/02/08/note-to-conservatives-it-isn%E2%80%99t-hypocritical-for-michael-moore-to-sue-someone/, among many others. Are none of these usable sources? Are editorials or newspaper-owned blogs not enough? Quoting WP:IRS: "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control."

I agree that the worth should be cited from another source. InverseHypercube (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• - I can't see a declaration of blogger editorial control on the hill, it it there somewhere? Controversy sections should be avoided - integrate content into the body of the article where it sits well. Also please attribute who it is that is critical and use the highest quality citations available. There has been on wiki and off wiki issues regarding that BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Moore is a divisive figure. For every right-wing blogger calling him a "hypocrite", we could find left-wing blogs calling him the second coming. What's needed is a reliable source (non-blog) discussing this divisiveness. Agree with Rob that this info should be incorporated into an existing section, probably "Political views". Trying to aggregate public opinion using blogs is an impossible task, and not within WP's mandate as an encyclopedia. The Interior (Talk) 23:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Different categories of criticism also need to be distinguished, though. Simple pot-shots and purely rhetorical criticisms don't normally have encyclopaedic value (particularly for a BLP) unless the criticisms themselves have been widely commented on, because they don't tell us very much about the subject, only that a certain form of argument is possible. "Michael Moore criticises capitalism yet he is wealthy" would come into this category, along with imaginable criticisms such as "Michael Moore criticises the automobile industry yet he owns a car" or "Michael Moore criticises American healthcare yet he has received medical treatment in America on a number of occasions".

Substantive and artistic criticism of Moore would of course be suitable for the article, but that's not the question in the OP. --FormerIP (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, perhaps you are correct. Particularly, the arguments are ad hominem and seem to rely on association fallacy: Michael Moore criticizes capitalism; Michael Moore is a capitalist; therefore, Michael Moore is a hypocrite. Don't all claims of hypocrisy follow this pattern, though? Are all claims of hypocrisy non-encyclopedic, even if they are widespread? Nearly all forms of criticism could be traced to some logical fallacy, but is it an encyclopedia's job to determine which are valid? InverseHypercube (talk) 05:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess I'd answer it's WP's job to determine which criticism the reliable sources think are valid. It's the only way to wade through the murk of public opinion. The Interior (Talk) 06:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Is Moore actually an "outspoken critic of capitalism," or just a critic of the parts of the system that he sees flaws with? Dayewalker (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Death of Philip Gale → Philip Gale

Just alerting people to this requested move discussion. Talk:Death of Philip Gale#Requested move. You input would be appreciated.--Scott Mac 09:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Gale died in 1999 and there's nothing obviously BLP-related in the article. Why is this here? 75.57.242.120 (talk) 08:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Declan Lynch -- wikipedia

Declan Lynch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

To whom it concerns

I am the subject of the above entry which, apart from being factually inaccurate in at least three places, is grossly libellous. As a journalist myself, I know that the reference to an article of mine as "trivialising sexual abuse" would never have been printed in any responsible publication. It must be removed immediately, as must all associated references to the relevant article on the Irish language -- I have written thousands of articles over the years, yet the majority of my wikipedia entry is about this one article, which tells you a lot more about the person who made that addition, and his prejudices, than it does about me. There was no great "controversy" about that piece, which is crudely misrepresented anyway. But the notion of it "trivialising sexual abuse" is the most defamatory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.1.51 (talk) 09:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed two sentences from the article as I felt they weren't sufficiently well sourced to justify their making up half the content of the biography. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Sean O'Brien (windsurfer)

Disgusting self promotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.43.250 (talk) 10:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The article is:

Sean O'Brien (windsurfer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It's not that bad? However, a strong case could be made that the references are very weak, and after a quick look I could only see confirmation of a couple of minor competition results, with no verification of any of the bio assertions. Notability may be weak, so WP:AFD is a possibility. Johnuniq (talk) 10:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Declan Lynch -- wikipedia

Declan Lynch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thank you for removing libellous content from my biography (Declan Lynch) ,and for doing it so promptly. In the interest of factual accuracy, it is not true that I dropped out of law school and moved to Cork and later started to write for Hot Press. I dropped out of law school at 17 years of age IN ORDER TO work for Hot Press. And I live in Wicklow, not Dublin.

My list of publications is also incomplete. It should contain:

• The Book Of Poor Ould Fellas (with Arthur Matthews) (2009)
• Days Of Heaven -- Italia 90 and the Charlton Years (2010)
• A Football Man - John Giles with Declan Lynch (2010) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.1.51 (talk) 10:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I addressed what I could, the article needs more WP:RS reliable citations. Off2riorob (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Murder of Meredith Kercher

Murder of Meredith Kercher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This blog post likely deserves some attention. My interest is simply in making sure that this entry accurately reflects what reliable sources have said and that no reliable sources are omitted based on anyone's agenda in either direction. I'm posting this notice on the BLP noticeboard and the talk page of the article.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Case of WP:GREATWRONGS? --John (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Possibly. But also possibly a case of WP:OWN. The blog post contains some perfectly legitimate kinds of objections. Are reliable sources that don't jibe with our article's perspective being omitted? Does our article accurately reflect what reliable sources have said? Does our article rely on tabloid press rather than serious journalism? Those are all worthy questions of review, always.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Reviewing the 27 pages of Talk page archives might be a good place to start, as every single item there has been hashed out amongst parties. MLauba ^(Talk) 17:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
      • MLauba, if that is the case then succinctly summarizing how they are addressed, or at the very least calmly explaining to Jimbo the nature of the situation might be a bit more appropriate than the reception his post on the talk page has garnered. We should all take care to make sure we're reflecting NPOV, and also in this case BLP concerns. It is not an attack on the editors of that page to say, "hey someone has expressed concern, can you all have a look into this"? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Considering the particular aura that Jimbo carries, I'd expect that before asking questions like "Are reliable sources that don't jibe with our article's perspective being omitted? Does our article accurately reflect what reliable sources have said? Does our article rely on tabloid press rather than serious journalism?" he would spend a bit of time and look at the article before raising them and throwing WP:OWN around. The question about the tabloid press for instance can be answered by looking at the article proper. MLauba ^(Talk) 17:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
          • Suit yourself. When people innocently raise concerns about material that I have edited and/or am familiar with I try to give them the benefit of the doubt and explain to them what's up. But we all have our own methods of social interaction. Have a pleasant day. (Note: WP:OWN only appeared here after you all jumped on him at the talk page.)Griswaldo (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
            • Don't see how you find pointing to the previous discussions objectionable then. An equally pleasant day to you. MLauba ^(Talk) 17:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
              • When any experienced editor raises concerns about an article, telling them they ought to read 27 pages of discussion before they are allowed to comment is the equivalent of telling them to ***ck off. There are plenty instances of 27 pages of discussion by small groups leading to dreadful articles and an attitude of ownership. When I review an article for neutrality and BLP compliance, the pertinent thing to read is the article itself. If it is biased and based on poor sources then the talk pages be damned. (NB I've not reviewed this article, so I'm not commenting on the content.) Further, although Wikipedia's founder enjoys no privileges in terms of editing I think what he posts generally merits a little more though than that curt dismissal.--Scott Mac 17:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
                • The concern here is that Wikipedia's founder appears, at least on the face of it, to let himself be uncritically canvassed by an offsite blog post. Again, just by looking at the article's reference, the question "are we relying on tabloid press?" can be answered (and the answer is no, the article doesn't rely on tabloid sources). MLauba ^(Talk) 17:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's unreasonable for Jimmy to post because a blogpost has been addressed to him. On the other hand, there is reason to be cautious about the blog post because it comes from a site which is connected to past edit-warring on the article. That doesn't mean everything it says must be ignored, of course, but I think that is why MLauba is referencing past discussions. It can be seen from those that a number of editors have been banned in the past, but this was for behaviour, not for having the wrong POV.

As an involved, I'll take a look at the blog post and then I'll post again. We should not be jumping to the tune of a pressure-group, obviously, but I wouldn't claim the article is a work of perfection, so it is not inconceivable that they might raise reasonable points.--FormerIP (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I've commented instead on the article talkpage: Talk:Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher#Open_Letter. --FormerIP (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps split to content-forks to avoid WP:UNDUE: With the recent broadcast of new U.S. TV film Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial in Italy, then Amanda Knox can be considered to have reached individual notability, so there is no reason to restrict coverage about her 4 court cases to just the 1 MoMK article. Much of the concern over the article has been trying to avoid a WP:UNDUE balance and retain the focus on the article's title subject: the murder of British student Meredith Kercher. However, news reports about Amanda Knox's trial, re-trial, and pending trial for slander, have completely eclipsed the original event. Meanwhile, Amanda Knox has continued to gain in individual notability, to finally allow separate articles about her with notable criticism of the trial proceedings. There have been years of news events: with the November 2007 arrests, then the October 2008 Perugia court ruling which sent her to trial, followed by the June 2009 televised court hearing when she claimed she was hit on the head to force a false confession, then the new 2010 charges of criminal slander against the Perugia police. Add to that, the ongoing January-July 2011 appellate re-trial to re-examine the DNA evidence (by a university in Rome) and eyewitness testimonies, plus her parents being indicted for criminal slander against the police, and then this February 2011 TV film Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial in Italy, starring Hayden Panettiere (which all 3 families, Knox, Kercher and Sollecito, objected to being shown). It is time to "untie the Gordian Knot" and allow multiple articles, so that people will no longer claim that attempts to balance the text for WP:UNDUE are attempts by "moderators" to slant the article by suppressing opposing views. It is time for separate articles:
  • Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito - to cover both the joint trial and subsequent joint appellate re-trial on the evidence, plus media responses; this is called "Italy's trial of the Century".
  • Amanda Knox - as a bio page, with sub-section about Raffaele Sollecito because sources support he met her first and allowed her to spend nights at his 2-story house, plus their trial together.
  Those 2 articles would untangle the restrictions of WP:UNDUE and allow ample space to write volumes about whatever the reliable sources say, without an imbalance to the original MoMK article. The notable February 2011 film was the final event which justified this separation into larger, broader content-forks to be completely acceptable. What else needs to be done to proceed further? -Wikid77 (talk) 03:50, revised 04:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Bopp_ wrong person in image

Resolved

 – false picture removed - picture is hosted at commons and is under deletion discussion there

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

To Whom it may concern,

The image of Thomas Bopp that is posted on this page is not the image of (me) Thomas J. Bopp D.Sc... co-discover Comet Hale-Bopp I have written before, not to this page, so I guess I didn't reach the right person to do something about it, to ask that this image be removed, and a proper replacement image be inserted instead.

Someone can easily do a web search, and find other images of me to prove to you that I am who I say I am, or you may contact me and I can email you a proper image.

(address and email redacted)

Please advise me on how I may provide you with a proper image.

Thank you for your kind consideration regarding this matter, Sincerely Thomas J. Bopp D.Sc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas J. Bopp (talk • contribs) 16:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Judging from the images I found, I am inclined to view this complaint as accurate. The picture has been removed from the article by another editor.

As far as providing us with a photo, you can do one of two things:

* Upload a photo of yourself that you own the copyright to. For us to be able to use that photo you will have to release the photo under a Creative Commons license.

* Point us to a photo that is in the public domain, such as a NASA photograph. We'll upload it and put it in the article.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Gamaliel (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:Uploading images also contains a useful overview of Wikipedia copyright requirements and the uploading process. Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Joan Ryan

Joan Ryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Editing of this article was reported in the press last year[20] when some edits were being made from UK Houses of Parliament IP addresses. This sort of editing has continued sporadically and has been reverted. Following a section removal today I have attempted to get things into some sort of order. However, I am not used to editing in this sort of area and it would be good if someone else could take a look. Is the article, particularly the expenses section, acceptable in all the circumstances? Thincat (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

All of the expenses sections in British politician BLPs were written in an emotive high profile time are pretty undue as a result and they all need rewriting for weight. What did she do that was not allowed? Was she made to repay any monies by the fees office? Was she investigated by the police for anything? Off2riorob (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I have moved the section to the talk page where we can address it. The section is biased, inaccurate, uninformative and weasel. See Talk:Joan Ryan#Section removed under BLP--Scott Mac 21:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Lynne Spears

Lynne Spears (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I quote wikipedia, "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous."

This is under 'Later Life and Fame.'"The libelous part to be deleted." Also "Delete Footnote 11"

In 2008, her representative reported to the National Enquirer that in 1975, she was driving her injured brother to the hospital in Kentwood when she accidentally hit and killed the 12-year-old Anthony Winters, who was riding his bicycle. The representative subsequently released a statement: "Anthony Winters and his friend were in the road on a curve on a bicycle. As Lynne rounded the curve she could not avoid the boy in the street as there was oncoming traffic in the opposite lane... Lynne realized the boy was struck immediately and to this day is grieved by the Winters’ loss of their son."[11]

That 'National Enquirer' and 'The Daily Mail' are tabloid magazines noted for making "libelous" statements that are totally "contentious" and "unsourced" information unsubstantiated by any factual evidence. If I have to hire a attorney and sue you to remove this particular libelous information, I will do just that. This is the attorney representing the Spears family <redacted see below -floq>. If you have any questions, you can call <redacted see below -floq> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.231.168.231 (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Mr. <redacted see below -floq>;

We will attempt to address the issues here; however, please send any future concerns of such a serious nature to info@wikimedia.org, as outlined on Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject). This will ensure the problem is handled by the OTRS team, which lends considerably more weight to edits. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

We have a very strict policy against legal threats here - see WP:NLT. Please retract this threat or you will most likely be blocked from editing. For assistance, see Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject). Exxolon (talk) 23:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Leaving aside the legal threat we do have a serious problem here. A poorly sourced BLP violation was restored multiple times using Huggle and the IP was eventually blocked for repeatedly deleting it. Exxolon (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• nb I've removed the IP's claim to be a specific attorney; we have no way of verifying that, and I must say I have my suspicions about the claim. As KC says, using OTRS is the way to go if you want to verify your relationship with the article subject. (also, KC, I edited your post too, sorry). That said, I think the legal threat can be safely overlooked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

  Concur with both. Thanks, Flo. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Based on my assessment of this sorry sequence, it would appear that nobody bothered to consider WHY the IP was repeatedly removing the section, they just assumed it was vandalism and reacted accordingly. Exxolon (talk) 01:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

There's monkey business going on here. There's no reason to believe the IP has any connection to the Spears family or to the named lawyer; the story's been published and republished for years, in more reliable sources than the Enquirer (where it originally appeared), and I can't turn up any trace of any other prior or current claims that it's not true. It's hardly libelous -- kid playing in street killed in auto accident, driver not at fault. The lawyer whose name was used is representing people recently sued by Charlie Sheen, and I suspect a Sheen fan making trouble is more likely than any legitimate communication. RevDel at least the name used, and send the issue to the article talk page -- true or not, I don't see any encyclopedic value to the story, any more than in the horde of embarrassing celebrity events WP regrettably documents. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Nye

Joseph Nye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Josephnye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has blanked a large sourced section of Joseph Nye having to do with an article Nye wrote for The New Republic about Qaddafi. The edit summary claims that the article is false and The New Republic has issued an apology; more context on the situation can be found here. Obviously, this is just a content issue but the username of the user making this edit makes things questionable. I'm not sure if this issue belongs here or at WP:UAA or both. Chillllls (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the paragraph about Libya until editors can reach consensus about the WP:BLP issues. It is unpleasant to get into a revert war with an article subject about the inclusion of negative material, in a case where the sources are confusing. Irrespective of possible defamation, there is also a question of undue weight, since it will take a lot of space to lay everything out correctly, and it may not be of earthshaking importance. I see three options:

• Supposing it is agreed on the talk page that this material is essential to the article in all its details, we could construct a paragraph that includes a lot of direct quotes from the parties (Nye himself and the various magazine editors). This way we don't have to figure out who is right; we just report what everyone says.
• If the editors feel that a shorter report of this incident is enough, we could just state that an article by him on Libya led to a controversy about the sponsorship of his trip. We could boil it down to three or four sentences and not be too specific.
• Leave the whole thing out, since it may look like cherrypicking a confusing incident out of a long career, and making a lot out of it.

Please comment on these ideas. EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I personally prefer the second option and have stated so on the talk page. I believe that the incident is notable enough to be mentioned in the article but the way that the section was written gave it way too much weight. In my opinion, it should be nowhere near the three paragraph, separate section length it was before. My big concern here is that the user actually is Joseph Nye. We have to balance a whitewashing of the incident with being bitey towards the subject of a BLP that probably doesn't know much about how Wikipedia works. Chillllls (talk) 04:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. This is the same issue which just came up in the Benjamin Barber situation discussed below. The Foreign Policy article which I just added as a reference in the Barber article, also mentions that Nye "was among a small group of democracy advocates and public intellectuals...working under contract with the Monitor Group consulting firm to interact with Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi on issues of democracy and civil society". My suggestion is to add this sentence to Nye's article, because his consulting to Libya is the significant fact here; the dispute over the TNR article is secondary. Since The New Republic apparently now (per the link above) agrees that Nye disclosed the Monitor relationship, I don't see that this is significant enough to mention separately in the article. In any event, I agree per WP:WEIGHT this material deserves not more than two or three sentences maximim. Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Benjamin Barber

Benjamin Barber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contentious comments with spurious allegations regarding the subjects association with Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi are being deleted. Missing citations and political speculations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnach (talk • contribs) 02:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes - this was a mess. I've deleted all references to Libya/Gaddafi as unsourced, per WP:BLP policy. If the links claimed are true, they should be easy enough to source.

I'd ask others to keep an eye on this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

His association with Qaddafi is confirmed in this article in Foreign Policy, which states that Barber "was among a small group of democracy advocates and public intellectuals... working under contract with the Monitor Group consulting firm to interact with Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi on issues of democracy and civil society and to help his son Saif implement democratic reforms and author a more representative constitution for Libya." I added a careful sentence back to the article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Raju Narayana Swamy

Raju Narayana Swamy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have reasons to think the editor on Raju Narayana Swamy has filtered and beautified some neutral information. See diff. Jo9100 (talk) 06:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

S. P. Balasubrahmanyam

S. P. Balasubrahmanyam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Editor adding blogs, etc as references for S. P. Balasubrahmanyam, including a claim he is in the Guiness Book of Records. As I asked the editor to use http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com as a source, and he has reinserted the claim, I'm asking for eyes on it. Searches of the Guinness site turn up nothing so far as I can find, and a look at the editor's talk page shows a long history of complaints about his edits with not one response from him. Dougweller (talk) 07:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we have a reliable source (Hindu.com, an article, not a blog, in a respected Indian newspaper) which happens to be wrong. I think the Guinness site, which does not list him, trumps the Hindu article, so I will delete the assertion. Jonathanwallace (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Editor in question has demonstrated problematic behavior on many occasions. He seems to be trying to glorify certain articles and inserting "POV" and other such tags to articles which he apparently do not like. See [21], [22], [23]. He was even blocked by admin SpacemanSpiff for his disruptive editing. Salih (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Actor John Cullum's biography

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

Mr. Cullum's biography indicates he is "currently appearing on Broadway in "The Scottsboro Boys" (2010). Since the show closed several months ago, this should be amended to read "Mr. Cullum most recently appeared on Broadway in "The Scottsboro Boys." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.20.229 (talk) 12:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Next time, you can edit articles like this one yourself. I'll post some links on your user talk page which will help you to get started. Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Linda Morand

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

Stalker

Someone whose ip address 173.68.239.236 appears to be is actively stalking Linda Morand printing libelous information about criminal activity. They are misinformed and appear to be targeting someone else with the same name. I am Ms. Morand's official biographer and can assure anyone that these posts are false, defaming and libelous.

ElaineBender (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I edited the offending comments in the talk page. This is the third time this ipp address has attacked this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElaineBender (talk • contribs) 17:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello Elaine - thank you for bringing this to our attention. The talk page is clear of the BLP violations at the moment and I have added the article to my watchlist in order to ensure it is not restored. I have also added a warning to the IPs talk page which links to our policy on biographies requesting that they desist from adding the contentious information. If you encounter any further problems please leave another note here and we can elevate the warnings and/or apply protection to the article if required. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Amanda Knox

Heads up for anyone who is interested. There is discussion at Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher of creating a biography for Amanda Knox, one of the accused. An early draft can be found here - User:Wikid77/Amanda Knox. As this is as clear of a WP:BLP1E violation as I can possibly imagine I figured I'd alert those interested in BLP matters about the brewing situation. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher#User-space_draft_bio_page_about_Amanda_Knox for further information.Griswaldo (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, but when someone is imprisoned long enough and there are enough appeals and disputes about the conviction, we eventually cross out of WP:1E into more general notability which might justify a separate bio. Mumia Abu-Jamal is an example. Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I take your point in general, and specifically in terms of Mumia, but he was convicted to life in prison for a murder that occurred over 30 years ago now, and as such has sustained coverage in reliable sources, and indeed has become more notable perhaps even since the one event that originally defined his notability. The appeals are still ongoing and Knox has had no opportunity to build notability above and beyond her trial. I just feel that people confuse real enduring notability with current events, and the shock culture of tabloids. We live in an information age where everything sensational that makes the news does so with a splash that perhaps mesmerizes people into thinking it must therefore have enduring meaningfulness when they are in the thick of it. I think the aspects of notability guidelines and BLP1E that emphasize enduring notability ought to be given more weight here. IMO.Griswaldo (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I would Support an article for Amanda Knox. She even got a TV-film about her in particular.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

So Lifetime movies are now the criteria for pushing a BLP over the BLP1E threshold?Griswaldo (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I also wonder what sources are going to be reliable enough to write her biography with. Sure there has been plenty of coverage of her trial in the news, but where does one get reliable information about her life in general from? Sensationalist books? Made for TV movies?Griswaldo (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I will not get involved in a never ending dispute that centers around the wikipedia guidelines which can be twisted and turned in any direction. But the facts are that Knox has reached the notability needed and there are plenty of sourcing to provide a good wikipedia article for Knox. End of story!, All ready in 2008 there were enough notability etc etc to justify a article for Knox.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Five years in the New York Times: Per WP:BLP_NewYorkTimes_5_year_coverage, "Anyone appearing in the New York Times for 5 years in a row, automatically gets an article" (just kidding). However, at some point, claiming that Amanda Knox does not have individual notability begins to sound like a Kafkaesque universe. Here are some of those 5 years in the New York Times:

• Nov. 13, 2007 - "Grisly Murder Case Intrigues Italian University City - New York Times"

• Sep. 29, 2008 - "Perugia Journal - Details Only Add to Puzzle in Umbrian Murder"

• Jun. 12, 2009 - "American Testifies in Her Murder Trial in Italy - NYTimes.com"

• Nov. 21, 2009 - "Life Sentence Sought in Italy for a U.S. Student, Amanda Knox"

• Dec.  4, 2009 - "Italian Jury Convicts U.S. Student of Murder - NYTimes.com"

• Nov. 24, 2010 - "Amanda Knox Murder Appeal Begins in Italy - NYTimes.com"

• Dec. 18, 2010 - "Court in Perugia, Italy, Gives Amanda Knox a Victory - NYTimes.com"

• Feb. 28, 2011 - "Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial in Italy - TV Movie - Cast & Credits"

Of course, appearing 5 years, in the New York Times, does not confer individual notability, but reading some of those reports helps to access the notability, spanning 5 years. Note how, by 2010, the headlines all say "Amanda Knox" as though everyone in America had been seeing her on TV for years. They had. -Wikid77 02:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Bradley A. Buckles

Bradley A. Buckles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Name of article: Bradley A. Buckles. Two sentences were added to the end of the second paragraph on February 2, 2011 by an anonymous user that are false, misleading, defamatory and unsourced. Edit reference: 06:16, 2 February 2011 98.71.87.97. While the material has been removed from the current version it continues to appear in the article history and google searches are still displaying the offending language in search returns. Can this material be removed entirely from the edit history so that it is not picked up through google? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barryb45 (talk • contribs)

You would better make this request at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight - Off2riorob (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Michael Karlan

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

This is a vanity article that appears to have been authored by the subject himself. It lacks a NPOV and reads like an advertisement. I think deletion should be discussed for failing to meet notability guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainBen (talk • contribs) 18:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I've started a deletion discussion here. Gamaliel (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Karlan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Death of David Kelly

Death of David Kelly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is a book review, which is for the most part hidden behind a paywall, and written by an author who is known to be critical of Tony Blair, an acceptable and verifiable source for stating as a fact what happened at a meeting attended neither by the author of the book being reviewed nor by its reviewer? Is it reasonable to state the claims as a proven fact when they contradict the findings of a judicial inquiry, and the evidence given by Tony Blair? (There is no exception in WP:BLP for accusations against Prime Ministers.) Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

This has now also been posted on the reliable sources noticeboard.Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

As invited by Nishidani. I was resistant to do so lest it provoke accusations of forum shopping. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. But I'd hardly ask you to raise it there, and then challenge you for forum-shopping if you had! Even more humorous is you asking a question on this page, and not notifying me!Nishidani (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Quick comment without having sifted the underlying material. Articles in the New York Review of Books tend to be much more than reviews--in fact, many of them are highly interesting, deliberate coatracks where the book is used as the mere excuse for a disquisition on the topic. I think a lot of references to NYRB would stand either on the grounds that this prestigious, long standing publication is a reliable source, or, at worst, by analogy to WP:SPS because the authors are almost universally recognized experts in their fields. That said, I think contentious material about living persons sourced only to a NYRB review should either be better sourced or deleted. (I distinguish the smaller number of NYRB articles which are presented as actual reportage of the "letter from Cairo" ilk). Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I spent a little more time reading the thread on the article talk page. If Wheatcroft in NYRB is citing one of the books he read, it seems incumbent on anyone wishing to preserve the content to identify which one and to find and reference the underlying book (assuming it independently is a reliable source). References which state "X says in a book review that Y claimed in a book" are not encyclopedic. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I often endeavour to do this personally, where possible, as a matter of good practice. But where is the wiki ruling that supports your opinion?

This is amazing. I edit an article on a dead person, David Kelly, and the content of my edit is then construed as offending a living person! Let us stick strictly to the details. Sam is asserting that I or Wheatcroft makes an allegation. Neither I as editor, nor Wheatcroft as cited, or Rawnsley, make allegations in the edits. My edits have carefully chosen only those two elements of the review which provide us with details on what Mr Blair said on an airplane, and what took place on July 8. There is no allegation, there is only Sam's allegation that the inference he draws from these two details constitutes an allegation that is on the page! Come now, gentleman. This is really straightforward.Nishidani (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't like the way this unverified opinion is being presented as if a fact. One journo in his titillating book says this and another journo says is is true - its a double unverification presented as resulting in a positive guarantee of fact. Off2riorob (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me. What 'opinion' is unverified?

Neither Andrew Rawnsley nor Geoffrey Wheatcroft can be casually dismissed by the slightly pejorative slang 'journo'. They are both historians, qualified at respectively at Cambridge and Oxford in modern history in addition to writing for their living. Wheatcroft makes part of his living reviewing historical books from firstrate university presses. It is not customary for the TLS or the NYRB to engage hacks with a slipshod approach to work to review historical books. Both have letters to the editor columns where protests are made if the reviewer misrepresents facts. Nishidani (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

f. charles brunicardi

F. Charles Brunicardi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

not a noteable person

someone has simply uploaded a summary of his CV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.83.48.110 (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like there is a bit of copyvio here too. Sections look to be copy\pasted from different online bios. The Interior (Talk) 00:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Gavin Menzies: what are BLP standards for his own statements in reliable sources?

Questions have come up on the Gavin Menzies talk page relating to BLP standards for statements by the subject of the article that appear in reliable sources. These questions are complicated by allegations that Menzies is habitually untruthful. The life events in question are related to Menzies' career as a controversial bestselling author. Is his own account sufficient? These questions first came up on the talk page here: [[24]], and have continued in subsequent sections of the talk page, especially here: [[25]]. Thanks! --Other Choices (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Articles created via the Article Wizard

I'd just like to bring to the attention of this august and noble forum that certain articles created by the Article Wizard (so far I've only seen some articles about Idaho politicians, i.e. Chuck Winder, Shawn Keough) have at least two problems:

• All have the same date of birth (December 30, 1959) in the Persondata section by default unless changed manually by an editor
• Have all bare reflinks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Ching chong 'Modern usage' section again

I've been trying to clean up the 'ching chong' section on the Rosie O'Donnell article so feel I am not as objective to help on ching chong, specifically the 'Modern usage' section. The article laboriously details the incidents to what I feel is an WP:Undue amount and it feels soapboxy. I have no sympathy for those who actually use offensive language to belittle others but in the O'Donnell case I know she didn't and all reliable sources confirm that.

In addition every citation includes unneeded quotes, so the full quote is in the article and then repeated in the reference. I've only known this in the context of where a source is not readily available and editors need to know exactly what was said because the items are not online and available. I feel this is pulling quotes out of context and giving them further weight which may be pushing a point of view. Could other editors take a look and see if my take on the situation seems accurate? Or even clean-up the entries? Each time I've tried it has been undone. Jnast1 (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Quotes are acceptable for WP:linkrot. Poster did not mention lengthy discussion I found at Talk:Rosie_O'Donnell#Restoring_.22Chinese_parody.22_section. I'm ok with the comsensus there with Notability by quality and variety of reliable sources 166.205.136.177 (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Michael W. Allen

Michael W. Allen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I prodded this article in January and it went to Afd. There I voted to delete - and it would have been deleted but one person offered to rescue it so I reversed my delete. He has done nothing since - seems he's a strict inclusionist - and I cannot now prod it. I say it's promotional and only notable as such. Opinions please - should it go back to Afd? Mark^Dask 14:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If you take it back to AFD, I will vote "delete". It is basically a marketing brochure full of WP:PEACOCK language. A quick Google search found no confirmation of notability in independent third party sources.Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I asked the user in question and he is busy but still intents to improve the BLP when he can get the time, so I have redirected it to Macromedia Authorware and then when he finds the time he can get on it easy. Off2riorob (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Off2riorob - job done. Mark^Dask 15:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries, the user has also commented that he is happy with that. Off2riorob (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Mehdi Hasan

Mehdi Hasan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This chap is a British journalist, senior political editor for the New Statesman, a political magazine associated with the Labour Party and left wing politics. During the past month or two I notice that somebody has been posting a Youtube video in which someone identified as Mehdi Hasan addresses some Muslims and quotes the Koran on non-Muslims (calling them cattle, etc). No context is provided but the person inserting says this has been controversial. Perhaps because he wants to stir up controversy! I've removed the reference for now because no evidence that this has driven controversy is provided. --TS 17:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Good call. – ukexpat (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan Safran Foer

Jonathan Safran Foer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

in the article it says "he raises his kids vegtarian." this according to foer himself is not true though in an interview he stated"i want my children to be well informed so they can make their owan choices."he then says he occassionally makes meat dishes for them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.21.155.162 (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Well we can't use a reference as vague as "an interview" as a source; however the statement about how he raises his kids is also currently unsourced in the article (although one has to do a bit of digging to find that out), so I'm going to remove it until and unless someone can provide a source. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Wissam Tarif

Wissam Tarif (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page was created & written by the same person whose name is in the page title. The resources & citations are extremely poor, in addition to various mistakes and mis-information. Kindly omit this page to avoid any misuse. Thanks JB — Preceding unsigned comment added by JBlumenstein (talk • contribs) 21:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Keith Fordyce

Keith Fordyce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

On 24 March 2011, claims that Fordyce had died were inserted into the piece. The sources for this information were unedited British media message boards, and as of 2330 UTC on 24 March there has not been any such death notice issued by a credible British news organisation. Consideing Fordyce's prominence in British radio and television for several decades, mere message board claims are extremely poor bases for such information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingDaevid (talk • contribs) 22:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Kellyanne Conway

Kellyanne Conway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Violates NPOV and verifiability in that the only references are the subject's own website and that of one of the subject's clients. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.77.167.202 (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The article reads like an advertisement for Conway. I removed some of the worst puffery and then tagged it as lacking sources and advert.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I also updated, trimmed and tagged. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 03:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)