Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 194.46.183.21 (talk) at 21:08, 24 May 2010 (→‎Gary Fitzgerald: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
    Shortcuts

    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:




    Fiona Russell-Powell

    Chandana Prasanna


    Kevin Boyce

    User:Dpyb and autobiography found by aosasti

    • Article about Canadian poet Dionne Brand seems to be in violation of conflict of interest since it seems it is being entirely edited by the author herself or users with few other contributions to Wikipedia.

    Episkopon

    Episkopon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Living persons are named as alumni of a controversial secret society (Episkopon), but there is no citation or source for this. I think this is dangerous. I have tried to apply some tags to this article, to indicate where it needs fixing, but I am not sufficiently experienced to deal with this all myself. It's a very contentious and important topic, but the article has some serious flaws. Could someone please take an interest and help out with this? It would be so very appreciated. Thank you.

    By the way, the secret society was recently implicated in the press for nearly killing a student during a hazing ritual.

    As well, several of the living persons named as alumni are very prominent individuals:

    Bill Graham (...a former Canadian politician. In 2006, he was Canada's Leader of the Opposition as well as the interim leader of the Liberal Party of Canada between the resignation of Paul Martin and the election of Stéphane Dion as his successor. Graham was variously Minister of National Defence and Minister of Foreign Affairs in the cabinets of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin... Graham serves as chancellor of Trinity College at the University of Toronto; chair of the Atlantic Council of Canada; and co-vice chair of the Canadian International Council. He is a director of the Empire Club of Canada and a member of the Trilateral Commission.)

    Adrienne Clarkson (...is a Canadian journalist and stateswoman who served as Governor General of Canada, the 26th since that country's confederation. She was appointed as such by Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, on the recommendation of then Prime Minister of Canada Jean Chrétien...)

    Anthony Indelicato

    [ No Legal Threats -- Redacted, user cautioned ]

    Joshua Pellicer

    Joshua Pellicer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    • - Article is repeatedly edited to add that 'Joshua Pellicer has positions teaching dating and relationship-related content with a number of companies'. However, this is uncited and there is no evidence that Joshua Pellicer has any position with any company, let alone in the dating field. // ~HateToLoveMe

    Omar Khadr

    Omar Khadr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Noticed that this article has been edited with predjudice. Just wanted to bring it to the notice of someone who knows how to right such things.

    Gilad Atzmon

    The infamous David Duke has apparently praised Gilad Atzmon; (who is an ex-Isreali also known for being extremely critical of Israel). I am arguing that the former Klu Klux Klan leader David Duke is a "fringe view", and should not be included; his views are only included to smear him by association, see Talk:Gilad_Atzmon#David_Duke. Comments, please? Huldra (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    For clarification (I personally don't see why Duke should be in the article) David Duke praises Atzmon because he refers to himself as a an "ex Jew and proud self hating Jew" not an "ex Israeli" Drsmoo (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact is, we don't know why Duke praises Atzmon, and a pair of editors are trying to smear Atzmon through guilt by association. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I took off the sentence. It was sourced by Duke's website. I don't know if I have ever seen a more clear violation of several important WP policies. If we let that stand then all Duke needs to do is praise people on his website and people who don't like them will post that on their WP bios and give Duke some free publicity. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and I had to remove it, yet again, as some "new" editor insists on inserting David Duke´s views. Apparently arguments are simply not getting through. Any suggestions as to next move? Huldra (talk) 01:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reinstated the Duke quote, which is relevant and verifiable. WP:RS says that a person's website is a reliable source when it comes to that person's opinions, as long as those opinions are not being taken for fact. If X says on his own website, "I think Y is Z," you can't use that statement to support "Y is Z," but you certainly can use it to support the statement "X says Y is Z." This is what the entry does.
    Nothing in the article attempts to explain why Duke thinks Atzmon is brilliant. Nor should it. The quote is apparently being attacked for a WP:SYNTH it doesn't even make; if that is the new editorial principle -- any editor can delete anything from any article at whim based on whatever implicit conclusion might be drawn from it -- then no article on Wikipedia is safe from gutting. RT-LAMP (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ..and I have undone it. RT-LAMP: you have about 50 edits in all on wp; almost all of them edit-warring to insert David Dukes opinion on Atzmon. That you want to use wp to smear Atzmon through guilt by association is now quite clear. But that does still not make David Dukes opinion noteable, least of all in a BLP-article. Huldra (talk) 01:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone who's read the history of the entry knows that quite a few people have complained about how Atzmon's entry is so airbrushed as to represent not any actual Atzmon but some sparkly-unicorn supersanitized Disney version, the one where he doesn't go around distributing Holocaust denial essays and getting praised by David Duke. I am reading all sorts of nonce pseudo-rules being used to excuse that sanitizing. When the most important single representative of organized racism in America has something to say about your racial writings about Jews, that is indeed significant. Embarrassing maybe, but again if there is a rule saying that no BLP should contain information readers might find negative, maybe you could point me to it. RT-LAMP (talk) 02:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess you missed the part where it said self published opinions cannot be sourced to their website if they concern other living people ('it does not involve claims about third parties'). If it is 'indeed significant' then other reliable sources would have picked up on it. The fact they have not suggests it is not significant in the opinion of those that matter. And as always, neither your opinion nor my opinion whether it is significant or not is particularly relevant. Nil Einne (talk) 11:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no serious policy based reason to keep the Duke quotes out. They meet WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR, as required by WP:BLP. The only reason some people want to keep the quotes out is because they think they're protecting Atzmon's reputation. Now that's POV. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that's quite correct. I think some people are more interested in the sparkly-unicorn version of Atzmon than they are in the real guy, with his real controversies and his real missteps. Any complete entry on Atzmon that really addresses his problematic reputation is going to have to deal with both the antisemitism allegation and his apparently accelerating segue into Holocaust denial. But that would knock the sparkles off the unicorn, and must therefore be sanitized away. You are quite correct that an entry that consciously evades significant and verifiable controversies is by its very nature [edit:] not NPOV. RT-LAMP (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    <- How does this material even comply with WP:V ? Which RS has published this opinion and established that it merits inclusion ? Editors are supposed to be building an encyclopedia based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, as the policy says. Is there a plan to include Duke's opinions about everything in the appropriate articles, his favourite breakfast cereal, which brand of shoes he finds most comfortable etc ? How about Oprah's opinions ? She says all sorts of things on her twitter site. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe Duke is a RS for his opinions. He could also be described as an expert on being an anti-semite. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, but Duke says he admires Atzmon's honesty and bravery. Is Duke an expert on honesty and bravery? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk

    The effort to link Atzmon and Duke has been made at David Duke's article as well. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Duke admires Atzmon's "honesty and bravery" regarding his statements about Jews. It's not an "effort" to link Duke and Atzmon. Duke isn't really shy about it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Duke admires Atzmon's "honesty and bravery" regarding his statements about Jews. That's not in the source, is it? That makes it original research. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    this seems pretty clear. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you think the Atzmon article Duke's praising so ecstatically is about, Malik, hangnails? RT-LAMP (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • But still the article is about Atzmon, not about some crazy blogger's opinion of Atzmon. If someone used Duke's website as a source in the article on President Obama it would be gone in about 2 seconds. How is this any different? Steve Dufour (talk) 20:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    David Duke is not merely "some crazy blogger"; he is, more than any other single living figure, the personification of racism in America. As such it's disappointing to have this significant comment sanitized out. However, I'm prepared to accept the entire section as it now stands. RT-LAMP (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Atzmon's column is primarily about AIPAC, and Duke doesn't say anything about admiring Atzmon's honesty regarding what he (Atzmon) says about Jews. He praises this column about "true Jewish extremism". Remind me again why Duke is an "expert" on the subject of honesty and bravery. Because he sees "Jewish extremists Axelrod and Emanuel at [Obama's] left ear and right ear"? I guess you're right: Duke must be honest and brave to write that.</sarcasm> — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a shame you are willing to whitewash both Duke's and Atzmon's words like that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • To the original question: a sufficiently well RS'ed statement by Duke praising Atzmon is not a BLP violation against either person. David Duke's own website is an authoritative website for what Duke says. The question on whether this should be included in either or both articles is really an editorial decision, and not one where BLP considerations have any particular weight. Jclemens (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I quite agree. And I am willing to work with other editors to craft an entry that contains that information in a way others find satisfactory. However, there are others whose only acceptable solution is to completely sanitize it away -- the 100% solution. RT-LAMP (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a shame you are willing to disregard so many of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in your effort to link the two men through guilt by association. There have been enough things written about Atzmon by reliable sources that can be used to write his biography in compliance WP policies without sugar-coating his views. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    To spell it out, because apparently it's necessary, here's Duke: "The speeches at AIPAC by Democratic leaders show clearly though, that Obama and Clinton are fully prostrate at the feet of the Jewish extremists." Duke calls AIPAC "the Jewish extremists." He is not attacking Zionists but Jews. And so is Atzmon: " every Jew is a potential little God or Goddess. Gilad Shalit is the God ‘innocence’, Abe Foxman is the God anti Semitism, Maddof is the God of swindling, Greenspan is the God of ‘good economy’, Lord Goldsmith is the God of the ‘green light’, Lord Levy is the God of fundraising, Wolfowitz is the God of new American expansionism and AIPAC is the American Olympus where American elected human beings come to ask for mercy and forgiveness for being Goyim and for daring to occasionally tell the truth about Israel." Please find anything defensible in that paragraph from Atzmon. RT-LAMP (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Please explain what that paragraph has to do with WP:BLP, WP:NOR, and guilt by association? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    RT-LAMP, using your reasoning, anybody who called, say, members of the John Birch Society American extremists would be being anti-American (that is, attacking Americans)? By the way, I think that Atzmon was attacking "Holocaust religion", not Jews (of which he's, obviously, one) per se. I'm in the process of reading A Report on the Banality of Evil and have noticed that Eichman approved strongly of Zionism. Now, if somebody who was, perhaps, trying to smear Zionists was to mention that in the Zionism article, or the articles on individual Zionists, what would your reaction be?     ←   ZScarpia   22:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for being blunt, but are you people for real? "If you wonder why Jewish politicians repeat exactly the same mistakes time after time, the answer is easy. Jews do not know their Jewish history for there is no Jewish history". Spin that to be about AIPAC or "Holocaust religion" or whatever other whitewash you can come up with. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The meaning of the sentence is explained clearly in the paragraph which follows it in Judea declares War on Obama and in the article it links to, Truth, History and Integrity. Perhaps it is summed up well by the sentence: in the Jewish intellectual ghetto, one decides what the future ought to be, then one constructs ‘a past’ accordingly. Is that supposed to be so shocking as to earn Atzmon a comparison with David Duke?     ←   ZScarpia   23:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you seriously refer me back to Atzmon's article and quote him approvingly when he made some more hostile comments about Jews? The new quote is supposed to explain why "there is no Jewish history" is not a racist thing to say? If you don't get it, I can't explain it to you. At this point I have to doubt if you'd recognize anti-semitism if it landed in your lap. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your personal opinion of Gilad Atzmon is irrelevant.
    • Your opinion of me is your own business; keep it off this noticeboard.
    • If you want to portray Atzmon as a racist, find a reliable secondary source which supports your viewpoint. Don't use a primary source stating David Duke's approval of one of Atzmon's articles to hint it.
    • Don't quote a sentence and ask others to "spin" its meaning without taking the trouble to read the author's explanation of the meaning.
    • Don't take somebody's explanation that the meaning of something you have quoted is clearly stated in the source as "approval" for the thing quoted.
        ←   ZScarpia   02:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you know what you can do with that list. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ran HaCohen: Israel, a New Decade (comments on racism and anti-Semitism).     ←   ZScarpia   15:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My reaction is that you would only be walking in the footsteps of Atzmon, who already says things like that -- things I'm glad to see you acknowledge as a smear. RT-LAMP (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So, you would criticise somebody for trying to smear Zionists using something said by Eichman? Shouldn't you criticise what looks like an attempt to smear Atzmon, by using guilt by association, too?     ←   ZScarpia   00:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Of relevance: Guilt by association as an ad hominem fallacy. Also: Reductio ad Hitlerum. I think that somebody has missed a trick; I see that Duke quotes Shlomo Sand too.     ←   ZScarpia   21:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The David Duke wikipedia article doesn't even mention allegations of antisemitism against him until half way down the article, while the Atzmon article has them in the lead and as a whole section. The former brief description of his views has been repeatedly gutted. Why does Duke get more respect than Atzmon on Wikipedia, I wonder? CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet the Duke article mentions Duke's racism in the very first sentence, right after name, birthdate, and nationality. Right across the front bumper in big letters. RT-LAMP (talk) 04:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually looking at it more closely it says: Duke describes himself as a racial realist asserting that "all people have a basic human right to preserve their own heritage".[5] He speaks in favor of voluntary racial segregation and white separatism.[6][7][8] Considering that Atzmon accuses Israeli Jews of practicing something similar, I'm surprised Duke carries him at all. Anyway, the issue is extreme bias by editors like yourself who constantly attack Atzmon on the talk page and here. When an article has a preponderance of such editors, editors who might consense to have the article actually follow wikipedia policies may be intimidated into failing to edit. (At least there are not the blatant accusations of antisemitism against editors which had to suffer through in past years.) Anyway, in protest I've stopped editing because of constant POV reversions, though I do threaten to start again from time to time. But as long as wikipedia cannot control biased editors who engage in POV attack editing on BLPs, more NPOV editors will be discouraged from editing these, and other, wikipedia articles. I have cut my editing down mostly to maintaining old articles and have not started or cleaned up a number of articles on a number of topics because of the eroding wikipedia process. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP does not recognize the idea of an NPOV editor; that's an impossibility. Texts, however, can be NPOV. In the particular saga of Atzmon and Duke, the entry has now hit a point which is neither as hagiographic as some might like nor as condemnatory as some might like in its treatment of the Duke material. All in all, therefore, I'm willing to let the treatment of Duke stand as it is currently; Duke's direct praise of Atzmon is out, but Duke's repeated publication of Atzmon's essay stays in. RT-LAMP (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP does recognize that an editor's constant exposing a POV vs. the subject on the talk page discredits their insertion of questionable material or deletion of other WP:RS material. Unfortunately, the person who brought the Duke WP:RS issue to WP:BLP should have brought it to WP:RSN where it would have been quickly and thoroughly trounced because board members don't want to see this kind of precedent. (If a WP:RS commented on Duke publishing his material, that might be relevant.) My issues of POV Bias which originally was its own section is more appropriate for this page. I don't think it's too late to bring it to WP:RSN now. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    <- Deja vu Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive70#Jonathan_Cook Sean.hoyland - talk 17:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Not at all, David Duke has been publishing Gilad Atzmon's articles for over 3 years. This isn't a single article in discussion Drsmoo (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Irrelevant. What WP:RS makes this fact notable? Please read excellent link to past discussion Sean Hoyland suggested above. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I meant deja vu on blatant attempts to smear a living person through guilt by association and ride roughshod over mandatory policy compliance. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And once again I am caught wondering exactly how it benefits the Palestinians to attempt to disguise or efface Atzmon's blatant and well-documented antisemitism.RT-LAMP (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And I'm caught wondering what that has to do with policy based decision procedures related to Wiki article content and why benefiting or not benefiting Palestinians would be a valid reason to do anything whatsoever in Wikipedia. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And I'm wondering why a particular editor has a habit of posting new headline every time he/she wishes to make a comment(despite its relevance to the rest of the discussion or its degree of redundancy) I have yet to see any other editor behave in this way on a noticeboard. Drsmoo (talk) 00:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm disappointed that you didn't ironically post a new headline to make that point. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Extreme bias

    Because Atzmon is a popular musician and writer worldwide who criticizes Israeli and Jewish ethics as well as Zionism, his article attracts extremely biased editors out to prove he is an antisemite. In the lead and writing sections they constantly delete information from neutral sources that do not support their "attack agenda," use Atzmon quotes from such articles out of context in a WP:OR fashion, present various attacks on Atzmon, while deleting defenses from Atzmon or his supporters, etc. Currently several are engaged in guilt-by-association references to the fact that David Duke’s website reprints some of his articles and have reverted a couple editor's attempts to delete these. See recent discussions on the talk page.

    It is impossible to make constructive edits (which are usually reverted) or build a truly neutral consensus with such extreme bias. Before bringing these editors to Wikipedia Arbitration Enforcement under 2008 Palestine-Israel articles arbitration, I thought I would give this noticeboard a shot. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Carol. See the discussion above. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note that although I am one of the defenders of Mr. Atzmon on this issue I am a strong supporter of Israel. As a member of the Unification Church I was called "rabidly pro-Israel" by the largest and most respected English language newspaper in the Arab world. Read about it here. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 06:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Conversely, as an anti-Zionist Jew, I am known as one of the most active opponents of Atzmon and his views. I have largely kept away from the article, both in order to minimise charges of conflict of interest, and because I profounndly disagree (for very different reasons) with both warring camps in the article. RolandR (talk) 07:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you share Tony Greenstein's views (please excuse my curiosity)?     ←   ZScarpia   22:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes,,as he notes in the discussion. RolandR (talk) 07:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks to me as though Atzmon, in his philosophical pilgrim's progress, in avoiding the wild beasts on one side, has got himself into a swamp on the other (or vice versa).     ←   ZScarpia   14:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Also my view. It's essential to understand that Atzmon's loudest critics are not the right-wing Zionists whose work Atzmon makes simpler but the legitimate critics of Israel whose job Atzmon makes more difficult by affiliating them in an unwanted way with antisemitism and Holocaust denial. RT-LAMP (talk) 15:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But still, WP is not a court of law. It's not our job to present evidence to determine if a person is a good or bad guy. Even if it were guilt by association would still not be admissible. In this case the plain facts, and opinions by reliable sources (not KKK websites), are more than enough to give the information on Mr Atzmon's views so that readers can decide for themselves. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Roland, you don't know of anywhere where Atzmon has given a defence of his articles being published on the Duke site do you (I haven't had any luck finding anything using Google)?     ←   ZScarpia   19:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Editors' comments expose extreme bias

    The comments above just prove the point that anyone trying to enforce BLP policies on this article will be tarred with guilt-by-association because of the attacks on Atzmon by editors in the article, its talk page and various personal talk pages and recent noticeboards. All of which should prove useful evidence in an arbitration enforcement case.

    I would like to note in the past there were versions of the article that were far more balanced in at least discussing what Atzmon's views are (only allegedly antisemitic ones are noted in the current view) as described by one of several WP:RS which take a balanced view of him. Past versions also balancing specific criticisms of him with factual replies or defenses, most of which have now been deleted. Check out this version for comparison. Not perfect, but a lot more in compliance with both BLP and NPOV than what we have today. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Interesting, I just checked the discussion page from the time when that edit was made, and just about every post you made was attacking and threatening editors over various things, accusing them of bias, and calling the article "original research" and a "coatrack." Looking at it now, I don't see how it was an improvement over the current revision, which is quite good in my opinion. Also I think this subsection should be moved into the "Gilad Atzmon" section, along with the other subsection, as it seems quite different from every other discussion noticeboard discussion Drsmoo (talk) 01:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the one thing that the version Carol points to has that the current version needs is a direct engagement with Atzmon's recurring problems with the Holocaust denial issue re the "Holocaust Wars" essay which was so damaging to his reputation, which ignited a considerable conflagration of protest among anti-Zionists who didn't want to be associated with that kind of raw antisemitism, and which Carol has failed to acknowledge even once. It continues to be strongly POV that this issue, the point at which the antisemitism issue boiled over in Atzmon's life and from which Atzmon has never recovered, is not treated in his entry. RT-LAMP (talk) 03:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    To answer Drsmoo, talk pages are the place to point out policy violations. When an article is being as abused as this one is, to the point that one feels one cannot even edit anymore because of the constant POV edit warring, one has little option but to remind people of sanctions. I just have been hoping this BLP process would bring such editors along to article so I would not have to proceed.
    To answer RTLamp, I have not commented on the topic because it surely would be presented in as biased a fashion as everyone else, as opposed to a less biased fashion in that version that allows readers to draw their own conclusions as to whether the accusations are over blown.
    If one looks back to the editing and talk of the period right after the version I linked to in April 2009 - when neutral administrators last took a serious look at the article:
    • User:Sandstein wrote 4/17/09: Covering this antisemitism issue at length, in addition to an already very unwieldy "Politics" section (itself mainly about his anti-whatever-views), would give these matters undue weight, in addition to being redundant and inelegant. I submit that it suffices to mention somewhere in the "Politics" section that he has been accused by such-and-such notable figures of being an antisemite for saying this and that, evidently with good sources.
    • User:JzG (aka Guy) wrote a whole section arguing that all the material should removed. See here and he then did so at this diff writing in edit summary: This whole section is seriously problematic, taking to Talk for RFC. Please do not restore, discuss and wordsmith instead. Of course, editor warring editors ignored him and put back some questionable version which remained when the article was locked for 4 months. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For over a year you've been threatening to have banned every editor who disagrees with you on the article (or edits it in a way that you disapprove of). Despite every noticeboard you've gone to disagreeing with your assertions, you continue to threaten and attempt to intimidate the article's editors. Drsmoo (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I think you were the only one I have said should be banned under WP:ARBPIA since last year, after another editor quit wikipedia because others' complaints led to multiple blocks. (Though someone else recently has been added to the list.) But I don't have the power to do that. Only to complain and ask that it be done. Which I will do shortly, since this discussion seems to have petered out with no satisfactory resolution. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the problem here? The lead already mentions that some have accused him of being an antisemite and there is a whole RSd section devoted to it. Is Duke needed to pile it on? Let it go until there is some good secondary coverage.Cptnono (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that there's a SPA who is determined to load up the article with every stupid thing Atzmon has ever said and any other negative things that can be written about him. If the editor in question keeps it up, soon the article may qualify for speedy deletion as an attack page under G10. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    1986 Hvalur sinkings – categorising an event as terrorism

    This article needs attention. It is about two Sea Shepherd members scuttling two unmanned whaling boats in a dock. At the time the Icelandic government called it "terrorism", which is of course hyperbole. It is at most "eco-terrorism", and that only because the term has been defined so widely as to include a lot of stuff that is not terrorism in the usual sense.

    Now I am having a little edit war with the above user, who insists on applying Category:Terrorism in Iceland to this article, which mentions the two executors by name. The name of one of the two is David Howitt, which was linked, presumably incorrectly, to David Howitt (an English footballer). The other is Rod Coronado, whose article is in Category:Terrorism in the United States, but apparently for better reasons.

    My reading of WP:BLP#Categories, especially in conjunction with WP:WTA#Extremist, terrorist, or freedom fighter?, is that we simply cannot categorise this incident in this way. I would appreciate comments, and additional eyes on the article. Hans Adler 22:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've added more explanation to Discussion. I still submit that the article meets WP guidelines from WP:WTA: If a reliable source describes a person or group using one of these words, then the word can be used but the description must be attributed in the article text to its source, preferably by direct quotation, and always with a verifiable citation. Reputable news sources report organs of the Icelandic government declaring the act "terrorism". The individuals in question are not referred to as "terrorists" in any form, but the category Category:Terrorism in Iceland recognises that the Icelandic government publicly declared this event such. This is also important in that it ties the article into the general Category:Terrorism by country tree. Until such point as we have a Category:Ideologically-motivated destructive acts by country, the above is the closest we have. If all categories with the word "terrorism" are renamed to some mutually agreed alternative, I'm cool with that, but in the meantime there's no other cat which groups such acts together. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The Icelandic government was a significant player in this event. When the US government declared waterboarding not to be torture we didn't take them at face value. We don't categorise evolution as pseudoscience just because some physicist-turned-mad or a large creationist organisation says so. Should we apply all categories to United States that describe the various insults that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has applied to that state? Similarly we don't categorise an event as terrorism just because a country has badmouthed activists who threaten their unsustainable exploitation of a natural resource. Not even George W. Bush is in Category:War criminals. That's because the category was deleted as a BLP nightmare after being (ab)used in just such a way that you are using Category:Terrorism in Iceland.
    This is a project to write an encyclopedia. I know that some people are working on a parallel project, an ontology. But that's not why we are here and most people are simply not interested in that. Your concerns are very minor when compared to the BLP nightmare of pretending that an incident in which a living person was involved was actually terrorism (as opposed to being characterised as such by the targeted government).
    On a strictly formal level, you don't need reports of the form "A called X an act of terrorism." Of course you need reports of the form "X was an act of terrorism", from a neutral, reliable source. But in this case even that would not be enough because it's clearly at most a borderline case. If you want to rename the category to make it more inclusive, go ahead. But we don't violate BLP while working on a longterm solution to some problem that exists only in the mind of some Wikipedians. In the meantime there would be a real danger of incidents such as the English ex-footballer Dave Howitt being sent back from a US airport because someone googled him and found an association with terrorism that wasn't just about a different person with the same name (although until a few minutes ago there was a misleading link), but was even mere hyperbole in the first place. Hans Adler 23:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    From my point of view, calling this a BLP issue is a bit of a red herring. It was eco-terrorism, it happened in Icelandic territory, so I see nothing wrong with using a category that is called "Terrorism in Iceland". A category of that type on an article about an incident is not the same as and in my opinion is a far cry from calling the perpetrators "terrorists". If the user doesn't like the categories in Category:Terrorism by country, there is an obvious solution, and that is to nominate them all for deletion, and see if there is consensus to delete them rather than deciding unilaterally that one or more of them is problematic. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This particular article is on my watchlist and this particular article has the BLP problem. We are definitely claiming that two named individuals were involved in an act of terrorism when objectively the most we can say is that it was an act of eco-terrorism. And that some newspapers have reported, as if it was odd, that certain people called it terrorism.
    I have proposed the category Category:Terrorism in Iceland for deletion, but only because it is now empty and because I want to make sure that the empty category is not abused in the same way again. Every normal person would be glad that Iceland has no terrorism, rather than make things up and try to present other things as terrorism.
    Many instances of eco-terrorism are not terrorism at all. Not even the attack on the bank in Athens, where three people were killed, falls under the common definition of terrorism, so it makes no sense at all to include relatively limited action against things that didn't even endanger a single person and was obviously never meant to terrorise anybody. Hans Adler 19:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What I've stated is just my opinion. I came to this "dispute" without any pre-conceived notions of the incident or who was correct and who was incorrect, but I have to say that I largely agree with User:MatthewVanitas's position. I understand you feel that using the category in this way is an "abuse", but there are two of us so far who do not agree. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Allow me to quote from eco-terrorism:

    Eco-terrorism usually refers to acts of terrorism, violence or sabotage committed in support of ecological, environmental, or animal rights causes against persons or their property. [...] Critics of this use of the term argue that it has been defined in order to try and vilify activists [...]

    Therefore the mere fact that acts of eco-sabotage are nowadays called "eco-terrorism" does not imply that they are also terrorism. Let's look at terrorism:

    Terrorism is, in the most general sense, the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. At present, the International community has been unable to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism. Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). [...] The terms "terrorism" and "terrorist" (someone who engages in terrorism) carry strong negative connotations. These terms are often used as political labels, to condemn violence or the threat of violence by certain actors as immoral, indiscriminate, unjustified or to condemn an entire segment of a population.

    Therefore we must distinguish whether basically everybody calls an act terrorism, or whether newspapers merely report that certain sources (e.g. the Norwegian state) have called something terrorism. Moreover, we should consider the standard dictionary definitions of terrorism, see wikt:terrorism, none of which covers normal cases of eco-sabotage, like this one.

    It is unfortunate that this noticeboard is nearly defunct at the moment, perhaps due to the cleanup of unsourced BLP articles. But I will edit war against anyone trying to restore the category if these points are not addressed. Hans Adler 17:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you need to chill a bit. Announcing that you "will edit war against anyone" trying to restore a category that you believe should not be on an article is a good way to lead to events that will get yourself blocked. It's just not productive. You're basically saying, "I'm right and I will edit war with anyone who disagrees". A little humility and an acknowledgment that none of us are perfect and necessarily 100% "correct" in all our opinions could be useful. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit warring to keep a BLP violation out of an article while trying to draw the attention of the wider community to the matter so that consensus can be reached is explicitly authorised by the BLP policy, see WP:GRAPEVINE if you really don't know that. Posting here was a necessary step for doing that. Of course the assumption of the policy is that there would be neutral input and reasoned debate. Unfortunately that does not seem feasible at the moment. The only responses so far were from MatthewVanitas, who was involved from the beginning (and indeed caused the problem), and from you, who apparently came here via my category deletion request, initially only complained about my "emptying" (with a single edit) the category before asking for deletion, and have not even tried to make a case that classifying this act of sabotage as terrorism accurately reflects the way it is treated by reliable sources. Hans Adler 08:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    "Edit warring to keep a BLP violation out of an article while trying to draw the attention of the wider community to the matter so that consensus can be reached is explicitly authorised by the BLP policy" ... Unless of course it's not a BLP violation. If there's a dispute as to whether or not it is and you're in the minority, there is a chance that it is is not. Which is why I suggested you should consider that possibility. Let's just say that you don't appear prima facie to be terribly open minded about this, which could deter a person from making the effort to try to persuade you of anything. To be brief—it's unlikely that a category that designates an incident as "terrorism" when the article text and sources classify it as "eco-terrorism" constitutes a violation of BLP. I understand that you disagree, but I don't think you're on terribly solid ground saying you will edit war over the issue, because it's entirely possible you are wrong. You can try to pooh-pooh the contributions of the editors who participate here—which is very convenient for you since you disagree with them—but in the end, you have to work with the opinions that are shared. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Please read the article. It says nothing about "eco-terrorism" because that's not in any of the sources. The event happened more than 20 years ago, and there is a reason why "eco-terrorism" is in Category:Political neologisms, along with expressions such as Flying while Muslim, McWorld and Rogue state. In contrast to "terrorism", which is a neutral description of a despicable method, "eco-terrorism" is a dysphemism. I don't know if it started as a term for a particular type of terrorism and its meaning was later widened beyond reason, or if someone wanted to coin a word for a particular type of activism and chose the most ominous-sounding one he thought he could get away with ("ecologically-motivated mass murder" or "eco-fascist bomb throwing" might not have been accepted as uncritically).
    The unreflected assumption that something is terrorism just because it's called "eco-terrorism" is of course precisely what the governments pushing this term want. Reliable sources are falling for this game to some extent by using the term without reflection. Reliable sources tend to accept uncritically both the ridiculously wide (when judged by its etymolgy) definition of this term and any claims to the effect that eco-terrorism is terrorism. What they generally don't do is put these two things together and claim that every random act of sabotage is terrorism when it obviously isn't. Doing that kind of thing is a speciality of Wikipedia editors, and is so popular that we need the explicit prohibition in WP:SYN. Hans Adler 09:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You can presume that I have read the article. You make many arguments as to why you are right and other editors, governments, etc. are wrong and that things should be changed to suit your opinions, but your central problem from my point of view is that this is not a BLP issue. But despite this, if you could even acknowledge the possibility that you may not be 100% correct, I would consider your posting this on the BLP board to have been worthwhile. Regarding lack of participation, I think one way to encourage participation in things like this is to avoid the War and Peace problem and try to keep things concise. Nobody much likes to wade through a bunch of writing to find the central issues. Much of what was said here was irrelevant, which I regret getting sucked in to. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Really? "It is at most 'eco-terrorism'"? "At most" implies that it is not terrorism. That does not matter though:
    Sources called it terrorism and since categories are navigational there shouldn't be a problem. It isn't a label. If it assists a reader in navigating the topic area then it should be in. If eco-terrorism is a subcategory of terrorism then it should be sufficient. If the eco-terrorism category is ever deleted than terrorism needs to be substituted. Another subcat should be on the same footing with the subcat also mentioned but that might be an Mos and not a BlP issue.Cptnono (talk) 09:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's bad wikilawyering. The fact that Category:Eco-terrorism is a subcategory of Category:Terrorism doesn't prove every instance of "eco-terrorism" is an instance of terrorism. In fact most are not. We recently had an RfC on the similar case of Ghost, which was categorised in Category:Paranormal, a subcategory of Category:Pseudoscience. The result was that while both individual categorisations are fine, it would be incorrect to categorise the article directly as pseudoscience.
    Almost(?) all reliable sources did not call it terrorism. Sources reported that the Norwegian government and Greenpeace called it terrorism. Those are not neutral parties at all, and the reliable sources did not appear to take that claim seriously. Hans Adler 09:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Accusing someone of wikilawyering is bad form and you have been around long enough to know better. Do it again and I am dragging this to another noticeboard.
    And you didn't read my comment at all it looks like. Eco-terrorism is fine in place of terrorism. If another subcategory is available then it should be considered as well.Cptnono (talk) 09:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't get around providing reliable sources for the claim that this act of sabotage was terrorism by a WP:SYN argument that abuses our category system. Trying it anyway is bad wikilawyering. You have the experience to know that, so it must be allowed to point it out when you are doing it anyway. If I felt it was sufficiently egregious, I would take you to ANI for it. But it isn't. If you think my pointing it out in the wrong venue is sufficiently egregious, take me to ANI. That's fine for me because then the behaviour of all parties will be examined.
    "If another subcategory is available then it should be considered as well." That is precisely the point of this section. This discussion is about Category:Terrorism in Iceland, of which the page under discussion was the only member. Hans Adler 10:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't SYN at all. Sources call it terrorism. Enough of them do so that it is not fringey so calling it SYN applies to how to discuss it in an article but not as navigation. Enough sources are available calling it terrorism that disregarding it is a disservice to the reader. So if Category:Terrorism in Iceland survives deletion (why is it at deletion anyways?) and is at the same level subcat wise as eco-terrorism then it is MoS not a BLP concern. I would assume that both should be mentioned.Cptnono (talk) 10:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "Sources called it terrorism." – "Sources call it terrorism." – Don't repeat it, WP:PROVEIT. The sources in the article don't call it terrorism, and trying to get around that obstacle with rhetorical tricks is not acceptable. Hans Adler 11:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    <- The problem is that reliable sources call all sorts of things terrorism and there isn't a way to attribute category membership to a source e.g. Communist party of China's actions against Falun Gong, Falun Gong's actions against the Communist party of China, Sri Lankan government's actions against the Tamil Tigers, Tamil Tigers actions against the Sri Lankan government, Pakistan's actions for and against all sorts of things, Venezuela expelling the Israeli ambassador for use of state terrorism in Gaza etc etc, I could go on endlessly. It's a can of worms. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Although WP:TERRORISM has BLP implications when living people are involved, I think that guideline and the logic behind it are enough to resolve this issue. We cannot reasonably say, or categorize, the event as terrorism. Governments and their agencies do indeed get mileage out of calling their adversaries terrorists. The most we can say in the article, and a far more encyclopedic approach, is to simply note that the government of Iceland has called the incident an act of terrorism (assuming it is adequately supported by the sources). Better yet, mention the specific way they did so. However, also note that adding an article to a category (or Wikiproject) on terrorism does not necessarily label them as such, although it may depending on how it is done. - Wikidemon (talk) 11:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, it seems that this thread is finally getting some attention from editors who were not previously involved. In my opinion creating a category named "Terrorism in Iceland" for the sole purpose of putting a single page in it that is actually only about a rhetorical accusation of terrorism is akin to creating a category named "US Presidents with uncertain place of birth" for the obvious purpose. I have just gone through all pages that are in Category:Eco-terrorism, and I have found only one other article there that is also questionably in such a terrorism by country category. (There are a number of clear cases of terrorism which are categorised as such. All the clear cases of no terrorism are not categorised in terrorism by country categories. There is one borderline case categorised in that way. In a previous probe into some terrorism by country categories I found only very few cases that were miscategorised.) Hans Adler 11:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, categorization is not a label. Maybe this would be better at Village Pump if there is so much confusion? We can add sources from Canada, Iceland, US, and who knows where else that say it is terrorism. But it does not matter because it is not a label. In fact, the article should detail that it has been called terrorism more. But that isn't the discussion. Is the discussion really Terrorism in Iceland? It looks pretty close to jumping boards since that cat is up for deletion. The country does not pop up with terrorism in news searches but that is again another discussion. So Eco-terrorism seems obvious (not saying it is just saying it has been called such in sources). If Terrorism in Iceland is a valid cat then it makes sense. Wikilawyering has been tossed around in this conversation but it is pretty apparent to me that it is a wikiclusterfuck.Cptnono (talk) 11:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is beginning to look like a serious case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. If there are reliable "sources from Canada, Iceland, US, and who knows where else that say it is terrorism", then put them on the table and you win automatically. But make sure that they talk about terrorism, not eco-terrorism, and that they don't simply report an accusation without endorsing it. Hans Adler 11:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The real problem here is abuse of language. The politics or correctness of either side are irrelevant. For this to fit the definition of terrorism, it would have to be be intended to cause serious injury or death to innocent persons. I could see calling this an act of vandalism, sabotage, or even war, but calling it terrorism is simply an error, so removing the "Terrorism in Iceland" tag is just a fact correction, not a political statement. (Also, this entire discussion seems seriously misplaced as a BLP topic.) Dusty14 (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    BLP applies in all articles, not just biographies. The two people who committed this sabotage are named in the article. The name of one of them is David Howitt, and for months we had a misleading (I assume) link David Howitt in the article. (The other one is Rod Coronado, but given what else he has done I guess the article under discussion is at most a marginal problem for him.) If someone wrote an article about something I have done and put it into a terrorism category, I would be very worried. I am not planning to travel to the US anyway, but in that case I would not dare do it because there is always a chance that someone googles at the border. Hans Adler 18:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I have just learned that we don't know the name of Coronado's accomplice. He is being referred to under 3 1/2 different, relatively common, names, so he is practically anonymous. I didn't know this when I posted here. Hans Adler 20:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There is currently an ANI discussion related to this matter, see WP:ANI#I am edit warring against two admins who try to connect two living people with terrorism.... Hans Adler 11:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    "If there are reliable 'sources from Canada, Iceland, US, and who knows where else that say it is terrorism', then put them on the table and you win automatically." Done. Read the article (someone else added it not me). This isn't wikilawyering and this isn't bias. It is just the way it is. Sources call it terrorism. I really don't think it was terrorism as in 9/11 or other stuff but the category is a navigational tool based on how the sources discuss it. Your continued forum shopping and accusations don't change that. You are battling with two admins (admins screw up sometimes so I understand), reporting yourself at 3rr, and forum shopping. Get it together.Cptnono (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Many of the sources that have been added recently are not accessible to me. Those that are generally give the impression that this cannot simply described as terrorism, note e.g. the inverted commmas in "Iceland adventure ‘easy’ for whaling ‘terrorists’". Under these circumstances I would say you really need to say which of your sources supports your claim that this was described as terrorism, and give a bit more context. E.g. the title "No cause can justify terrorist acts" sounds promising in this respect, but without more context it's impossible to say. This might be an editorial, or it might be one of those frequent cases where the author had no control over the headline, which is catchy but incorrect; or it might be about something entirely else and merely mention Iceland in passing. Hans Adler 13:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Note also that saying that something is terrorism is not the same as casually referring to something as terrorism. Context is important to tell whether an author meant to seriously characterise something as terrorism or merely used a printable equivalent of words such as "shithead" and "motherfucker". Another way of saying this: "Terrorism" has a wide range of meanings, and it's not OK to simply dig out the few sources that use the term in the widest sense imaginable. I am a bit suspicious about your inaccessible sources given that the numerous accessible sources don't support you.
    The quoted New Yorker article says about Paul Watson: "Some have even called him a terrorist". I believe a similar sentence about characterisations of the sinkings would be appropriate in the article instead of the undue weight of a full paragraph. Hans Adler 13:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    As has been noted repeatedly, the real issue here is the semantics of category labels: if you take them as factual or ontological contentions then you need to be incredibly careful about how they are implied. So careful, in fact, that the whole category system would need to be scrapped. (Do we really want editors emptying out Category:Infotainers, for example, because they feel some of those tagged are better described as pure journalists?) If instead you just take them as a navigational structure—a means of finding articles that touch on particular topics—then it seems pretty obvious that this article should be in the category. And this latter interpretation is the way categories work in Wikipedia. The category tag should be restored/retained. Rvcx (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a long-standing consensus that some categories do label. In fact, there have been countless edit wars on Wikipedia precisely because of this labelling function of Category:Pseudoscience, and there was an entire Arbcom case about when this labelling category may be applied to an article and when it may not be applied. If you want to change this consensus you have a lot of work before you. Hans Adler 14:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We cannot as editors determine by decree how other people will interpret the significance of a category label. People will, obviously, read the category and decide that Wikipedia has classified the incident as terrorism and the perpetrators as terrorists. If this were a viable category, the solution would be to work on the name and/or add suitable disclaimers so that a typical reader does not make the connection. However, if it's true that the category exists only for this one article, then there's no purpose in keeping it at all. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the appropriate policy page for this? As I say, my concern is that setting the standard for categories as high as that for asserted facts would mean most category tags should be removed; I had assumed that category tags were appropriate so long as their content rose above WP:fringe. Rvcx (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would personally choose WP:Village pump (policy) or WT:Categorization. I recommend reading WP:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience before you start a discussion, to get an idea of how contentious categories can be. Also highly recommended is WP:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people, which is only about a related problem, but much more recent. I think that should give you an idea of the range of feelings in the community. Hans Adler 15:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I protected the article for one week due to edit warring. The BLP issue with the label "terrorism" certainly warrants a complete discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    A large part of the input here has been from involved editors. The matter temporarily got some attention while it was on ANI, see WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive615#I am edit warring against two admins who try to connect two living people with terrorism.... In that thread I could find the following comments on the underlying question from previously uninvolved editors:
    • Floquenbeam: "I'm slightly ambivalent about the underlying issue; I can see both sides."
    • CBM: "Given the recent history and trends with BLP, it is very difficult to understand how established editors could believe it is appropriate to repeatedly insert a category entitled 'terrorism' while the matter is being discussed at the BLP noticeboard."
    • Wikidemon: "Having considered the matter, I do not believe it does harm, nor do I think the policy fairly applies to events or groups."
    • Stephan Schulz: "To quote from WP:CLN: 'Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of neutral point of view (NPOV) when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category.'"
    CBM has protected the article for a week, but that's not a long time given how long this discussion has been going on already. We should really find a consensus soon. It seems conceivable to me at this point that we already have a consensus because everybody agrees that the two sentences from WP:CLN which Stephan Schulz quoted settle the matter. I note that this text has been in the guideline, essentially unchanged, ever since David Gerard rewrote an earlier formulation on 31 July 2004. [2]
    If we do not have a consensus about the category yet, I think it is at least clear by now that a consensus is needed to put the article in the category. That makes me hopeful that there will be no more edit warring on the matter. Therefore I propose taking the discussion to WP:NPOV/N, where there will be less focus on whether this is a BLP problem or not, and hopefully we will get additional input from previously uninvolved editors. I am not doing this immediately because (1) it's not necessary if we already have a consensus, and (2) I have previously been accused of forum shopping for my attempts to get a wider section of the community involved. Hans Adler 10:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Contrary to my initial thoughts on the matter, WP:CLN does seem pretty clear: if a category tag is controversial (particularly in the case of BLP-relevent controversy) it shouldn't be added. I'd prefer a different interpretation of categories (i.e. that category tags not by taken as asserting facts, but merely indicate that a classification rises above WP:FRINGE), but current policy and semantics are what they are. The terrorism tag should be/remain removed. Rvcx (talk) 10:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Winner

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

    I am making some changes based on an OTRS email from Mr. Winner's assistant. Please look over the following points and see if I have corrected them all; also the article has many {{citation needed}} tags dating back to 2008 and appears to be cut from whole cloth, it is possible that there is a copyright problem or original research issues.

    The comments are:

    1. Mr Winner was the Film Critic for the New Musical Express.

    2. Mr Winner’s first director credit was not on a cinema short entitled Floating Fortress. He was billed on that as the Associate Producer. His first director credit was on a film called The Square which he made with his own company.

    3. The Billy Fury film Play It Cool did not follow The Cool Mikado. It preceded The Cool Mikado. They were both made in 1962.

    4. The comedy short Behave Yourself was made in 1961 not 1962.

    5. It is incorrect to say that Mr Winner’s first American film was with Dino de Laurentiis and was called Lawman (made 1970 released 1971). Mr Winner made Lawman for United Artists for whom he also made Chato’s Land (made 1971 released 1972). The film he made for Dino de Laurentiis which took Dino into America was the Charles Bronson’s thriller The Stone Killer (made and released in 1973).

    6. It is not true to say that Winner made no films in 1975 he made Won Ton Ton The Dog Who Saved Hollywood, it was released in 1976. In 1976 (released 1977) he made the Sentinel. He made the Big Sleep in 1977 (released 1978) and Firepower in 1978 (released 1979) with Sophia Loren, James Coburn and OJ Simpson. In 1981 (released 1982) he made Death Wish 2. In 1982 (released 1983) The Wicked Lady with Faye Dunaway. In 1983 (released 1984) a thriller called Scream for Help for Lorimar. In 1985 (made and released) Death Wish 3. In 1987 (released 1988) he made Appointment with Death. After that in 1988 (released 1988) he made A Chorus of Disapproval.

    7. Michael Winner did not “help establish” the Police Memorial Trust. He founded the Police Memorial Trust himself and runs it himself. No-one else is or has been involved.

    8. In 1991 he starred in his own TV series Michael Winner’s True Crimes and in 2010 in his own TV series Michael Winner’s Dining Stars.

    9. You say that Mr Winner said he thought his father died from trying to repay all the money his wife (Winner’s mother) lost which came to £35million. This is nonsense. Mr Winner’s father died before his widow had incurred serious debts. After he died she gambled recklessly and sold all the paintings and furniture left to her only for life but to Michael thereafter. This story has often been told many times (accurately) in the media. She sold in the 1970’s about £10million worth of art and other works which today would have been worth well in excess of £50million.

    10. On your list of films Behave Yourself was not made in 1962, it was made in 1960 well before Mr Winner’s first feature film Play It Cool.

    Thanks, Guy (Help!) 17:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I made some of the requested minor changes concerning the filmography and removed a duplicated word. It took me quite a while to understand "furniture left to her only for life but to Michael thereafter", but now that I have understood it I can't think of a better way to phrase it succinctly. Hans Adler 14:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There have been additional exchanges of email which I have merged together under VRTS ticket # 2010041710014178. This includes an official biography which I copy by permission at Talk:Michael Winner/Bio. This is, of course, not presented with inline sources and the style is not compatible with our manual of style, but I would appreciate it if people could cross-check for factual inaccuracies since Mr. Winner's office is (perhaps understandably) unwilling to spoon-feed us with specifics and I currently have jetlag having just returned to the UK from NYC. Guy (Help!) 14:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Karan Gera

    Prodded. Aditya Ex Machina 12:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Artel Kayàru

    There is an image being used on the Artel Kayàru article that could be cause for concern. Editor Drgreative (possibly Artel or someone affiliated with him) has strongly disputed that the image is that of the actor and repeatedly removed it as well as details of his place of birth. Ultimately JzG deleted the article due to it being unsourced, contentious and for not meeting notability criteria. The next day Phrasia recreated the article and included the contentious photo. I removed the photo and left a note on the talk page that it should not be restored unless it could be determined that the image is accurate. Phrasia has now restored the image with the note "The photo is him. I uploaded the picture so I think I should know if it is him or not". Note that the image page does not identify the person as Artel, and Phrasia did indeed upload the photo. I'm strongly inclined to remove the photo again as unverified, but would like some additional input from this board to determine consensus. Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 14:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Judging by his pictures on imdb and Google images, that image is definitely not Artel. You guys can be the judge of that. However until we know for sure that the photo is authentic, it should be removed to avoid BLP issues. I've gone ahead and removed it. Aditya Ex Machina 15:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Added and removed again....--Tom (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have the feeling that an IP will be along shortly to add it back in. Is the upload of the photo itself valid? I don't really understand where it even came from. Phrasia has uploaded many troublesome images including screen captures and his/her talk page is littered with fair use warnings and deletions. I think there is an all around non-comprehension regarding copyright, WP:V and BLP policies. Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 16:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Army of God page, Associated Individuals

    Army_of_God_(USA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    The page at Army_of_God_(USA) contains almost no references whatsoever. Several references don't even support what they're supposed to support, one repeatedly used link has been dead for over a year (I removed it), others do not provide online links so they can't be verified, and with a minimum of research on Troy Newman I found he is actually being criticized by the Army of God, and does not appear affiliated. Authors of section may have pro-abortion bent, and using section to criticize pro-life individuals. Discussion on page appears to have ended in 2008 with criticism of this lack of citation, which never was followed up on. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I nuked the section. There's insufficient justification for all but one of those places, and in the case of Tiller's killer, the guy's former roommate (queue the Spaceballs jokes) told CNN they were both members. SPS's are not allowed to assert BLP material about third parties. The article as a whole appears woefully neglected, and taking out those unsupported BLP issues appears to have taken about 1/3 of the text out. Jclemens (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, thanks for the help! I did some research on the talk page to serve as a starting point if there's consensus about redoing the section, but am glad to see the section gone for now, as a number of the names on there, even after doing research, did not appear to have much basis whatsoever. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's backwards: when it's BLP material, remove first, ask questions later. Jclemens (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Nawaz Sharif

    Can some knowledgeable/neutral editors keep an eye on this high visibility article on Pakistani politician and former Prime Minister, which currently has many unsourced defamatory claims ? Examples (from the lead alone!):

    • "end of his final term in a dramatic change after intense standoff which included an attack masterminded by his brother on the supreme court."
    • "He claims he is the only Pakistani politician that does not belongs to any family feudals yet he claims he was born with a silver spoon and lives like a king."
    • "He claims his family was the richest in country to hide his corruption."
    • "He actually belongs to a hard working class family of Punjab but claims otherwise."

    Unfortunately I could not even find a problem-free version that I could revert to. Most of the edits over the past month seem to be by IPs and new accounts. I have semi-protect the article for a month to provide experienced neutral editors some room to get it into shape and at a minimum, compliance with WP:BLP. Regards. (I have also left this message on the Pakistan project noticeboard) Abecedare (talk) 22:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ick, what a problem. As well as the defamatory stuff, there's also a lot of uncited gushing about his achievements which probably has to go as well. I've started on the article, but it's going to take a fair bit to bring it up to shape. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

    Maurice Strong

    Maurice Strong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Glenn Beck has just issued a call for "everyone" to research Maurice Strong (currently semi-protected). Beck's claim is that "they" are going to sanitize the internet of information on Strong. I suggest that more eyes are needed to ensure a Neutral Point of View in that article. Recent activity in the article may or may not be related, and I do not know if it is currently NPOV. Abductive (reasoning) 19:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Richard Goldstone

    Richard Goldstone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I'm concerned with what appears to have been going on with the article on Richard Goldstone, a distinguished South African judge. I read this article for the first time earlier today and was dismayed to find that it had some major BLP problems - focusing heavily on recent allegations from an Israeli newspaper and prominently featuring quotes from apparent fringe figures comparing Goldstone to Josef Mengele and Nazi war criminals and accusing him of committing crimes of "moral turpitude". A substantial amount of material was sourced to blogs and thoroughly unreliable sources such as WorldNetDaily. This issue has already been raised at Talk:Richard Goldstone#Proliferation of poorly sourced material on Goldstone as judge in South Africa. The conduct of Tallicfan20 (talk · contribs) causes particular concern (e.g. diffs: [3], [4]), as does that of Gilisa (talk · contribs), who introduced this material in the first place.

    I've responded by rewriting the section in question to give a much more comprehensive expanded overview of Goldstone's career in South Africa, working in material from recent reporting without unbalancing the entire article to focus on one allegation to the exclusion of everything else. (See diff). However, it would be helpful if uninvolved editors could provide some feedback on this rewrite at Talk:Richard Goldstone#Major BLP concerns: South Africa section rewrite. I suggest that the article could also benefit from being watchlisted and/or reviewed by BLP regulars so that these problems don't recur. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Deleting long paragraphs of perfectly sourced and perfectly valid information under the excuse of BLP is unacceptable. There may have been issues with pieces of the text. That doesn't mean you delete it all and rewrite it with information that makes him look like a saint, just because you personally feel that he is a "disguished" judge. Other people think the exact opposite of him, and you should not be deleting text just because you disagree. Check out WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Breein1007 (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think editors of that article need to read Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Editors_counseled and ask themselves honestly whether they are complying with the sanctions. If an editor sees something negative about Goldstone and feels absolutely compelled to add it to the article simply because he has said bad things about their favourite country they need to walk away. At some point, editors need to recognise that dragging Wikipedia into the latest information war shitstorm/character assassination campaign is inconsistent with what we're supposed to be doing here. The mandatory requirement that this cannot be a battlefield isn't that difficult to understand. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's worth noting that Goldstone has been the target of an extended smear campaign in the press. It's obvious enough that Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a vehicle for it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, it's been going on since March last year and there's no reason to believe it's going to stop. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyways, ChrisO deleted entire paragraphs justified by a very weak rationale. While I do agree WND is not a reliable source, only a fraction of what Chris0 removed was supported by that source. Most of the content meets the general requirement of BLP and the sources are reliable (jpost, ynet, haretz, etc..). It seems ChrisO removed both the negative and supportive sections, and replaced them with very basic cherry-picked facts that don't help the article very much. there really is no need to turn this into an epic battle. I suggest Chris0 restore the major edits and work towards a consensus in talk on the disputed paragraphs. Sound good? If any of you see the article as a victim of a smear campaign please be explicit. I don't think its right to infer other editors are somehow part of a campaign to vilify Goldstone. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's in the interests of the project to openly acknowledge that over an extended period, several editors have repeatedly dragged Wikipedia into multiple shitstorm/character assassination campaigns to vilify Goldstone, Kenneth Roth, Joe Stork, Sarah Leah Whitson, Marc Garlasco, Desmond Travers and many other people. There are 2 common factors, 1) the BLP subjects have criticised various actions by the State of Israel as part of their professional duties and 2) the editors adding the material (often poorly sourced) consistently make edits that can be characterised as 'pro-Israel' (although I would dispute that description personally). This is inconsistent with the discretionary sanctions and it needs to stop. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sean, that isn't particularly relevant at this point. We are talking about ChrisO removing entire paragraphs (cited with reliable source) about Goldstone's history in South Africa. Now are you seriously accusing me of contributing to a smear campaign of Goldstone because I have a problem with ChrisO' deleting paragraphs that contained criticism of Goldstone's reputation as a lawyer in apartheid South Africa? Sounds like fear-mongering to me. Just follow the rules. Restore the edits and keep the dispute relevant.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs)
    What we had here was basically allegations of questionable accuracy from a non-South African newspaper being used to present a revisionist view of his South African career that simply isn't supported by contemporary sources. As I've said on the article talk page, the material I removed was not in any way "responsible, conservative or disinterested" and grossly unbalanced the article, focusing on one issue - Goldstone's sentencing record - out of context and to the exclusion of almost everything else about this period in his career. Its division into opposing criticism and support sections - with criticism going first - is a classic sign of bad, biased writing. The excessive attention paid to this one issue is also clearly a distortion of the historical record; in researching his career in South Africa I found no evidence that his conduct as a judge was the subject of controversy or criticism at the time. Note that none of this is about whether sources are "reliable." BLP requires much more than that, as the first section of WP:BLP states: biographies "must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." -- ChrisO (talk) 09:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, you want to censor his well sourced and easily verified sentencing record because you think it portrays him in a bad light. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Consider making complete paragraphs more concise instead of flat out removing them.Cptnono (talk) 11:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all - his sentencing record is dealt with in the revised version of the article. The difference is that it's dealt with in context and without undue weight. It's not a matter of presenting him in a "good light" (how about assuming good faith some time?) but of presenting a balanced overview that isn't distorted by recent controversies and is consistent with the broader historical record. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, when you remove most of the information (reliably sourced of course) that would put his actions in question, and at the same time put his explanations in the encyclopedia's neutral voice, it would seem you're trying to present him in a good light.
    For example, I see that the issue of him upholding Apartheid law through death sentences, lashings, putting children in jail for disrupting school, etc, has been excised from the article. On the other hand the article now states in the neutral voice that "he had always been against the death penalty" (despite sentencing 2 people to death himself and rejecting the appeals of 28 more). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (unindenting) The context that you are omitting is that - as the article now states - he swore an oath to uphold the law. He wouldn't have been a judge if he hadn't, but by becoming a judge he was able to undermine apartheid from within the system. There's no doubt that he was against the death penalty - another South African judge, D. Curlewis, said in 1991 that he was more likely to impose the death penalty than Goldstone because the latter was one of several judges who were "at heart abolitionists for one reason or another... Obviously, and for that reason, they cannot be sound on the imposition of the death penalty" (7 South African Journal on Human Rights, p. 229). And indeed when Goldstone became a judge on South Africa's Constitutional Court, he voted to abolish the death penalty. I've not yet looked into the "28 appeals" claim you mention in much detail, but my impression is that none of the sentences were carried out because executions had been suspended in 1989, before Goldstone became an appellate judge. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Reliable sources reported Goldstone did some controversial things. The article should reflect that. It should also reflect the context and other pertinent information. Currently the article reads like a fluff piece. The lead didn't even include the fact he was a judge under Apartheid until I added that a few days ago. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's just review the situation for a moment, shall we? Goldstone has had a long and extremely distinguished career. If you review the sources in detail, it's soon apparent that he had a stellar reputation in South Africa. He was supported and trusted by both sides. Nelson Mandela himself hand-picked Goldstone to sit on the Constitional Court. There is simply no significant controversy and a huge amount of praise in the sources about his role.
    As against that, we have a piece published 11 days ago in an Israeli newspaper that makes lurid claims about his past, which contemporary sources and his peers in South Africa do not support, and quotes from fringe figures on the American right that compare him to Josef Mengele and Nazi war criminals - grossly over-the-top and insulting, particularly considering that he's Jewish. You apparently believe that this material is more important than everything that's previously been published about Goldstone. On the contrary, it's classic red flag material - "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons." The "Goldstone as Nazi war criminal" line is an extreme fringe view far removed from the established view of his career.
    As I've said before, the fact that something appears in reliable sources does not mean that we should include it or give it more weight than it deserves. BLP isn't just about reliable sources - it's an intersection of multiple policies and a conservative approach to biographical material.-- ChrisO (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Copy and paste from original discussion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, I'm not following you here. You are saying that the fact, reported by a reliable source, that he sentenced a 13 year old Black kid to jail because he was disrupting school in an anti-Apartheid protest should not go in the article because...? What exactly is your policy based argument here? How would presenting this to the reader be a violation of BLP? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Who cares about that? This person has probably made 1,000s of rulings. Why is this one notable? Because somebody with an agenda said so? How widely has that been covered by reliable sources? I have zippo knowledge about this guy and give less of a dam about him. What does concern me is what are editors agenda's for introducing any contensious/agenda driven material into a BLP. Having seen ChrisO works before, it seems that he to really doesn't care about "sides", but is more interested in complying with Wikipedia's policies and trying to deal with BLPs "fairly". Anyways...--Tom (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I also support User:CrisO's comments. I don't know about this person but the selective use of controversial issues giving it undue weight in the life story of a BLP subject is something I also strongly object to. Off2riorob (talk) 18:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It is notable because he is a prominent human rights activist. Human rights activists usually don't tend to put people to death if they can help it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid that's completely inaccurate. Goldstone was a judge who supported human rights, not a human rights activist. To become a judge, he had to swear an oath to uphold the law as it stood. South African law at the time gave judges no discretion to avoid imposing the death penalty in certain cases (in this instance, murders with no mitigating factors). I've certainly found no contemporary evidence to suggest that Goldstone's sentencing record was any different from that of any other liberal South African judge. If anything, as the words "liberal judge" might suggest to you, he seems to have had a far better record than the judges who were supportive of apartheid. This whole business of his sentencing record wasn't even an issue until an Israeli tabloid raised it just 11 days ago. It's a textbook example of recentism and undue weight. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He is now a human rights activist. He was a board member of HRW. How many HRW board members sentenced people to death? Your explanation about the oath he took, while very interesting, is not a reason to keep notable information out of the article.
    He obviously was not a human rights activist in the 1980s. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how exactly a couple of sentences about this are UNDUE or how something that happened in the 1980s is RECENT. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    could you present these two sentences here for discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Seda Pumpyanskaya

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

    This page contains inaccurate information, with serious mistakes, and it is a self-congratulatory text, with the purpose of self-promotion. It does not show sufficient evidence to support the statements made. The person described should not appear in an encyclopedia, as she is not worldwide renowned.}} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srrrrr (talk • contribs) 22:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably a good idea. From what I understand the page was set up to politically smear a former mid-level bureaucrat who has no real need of a separate Wikipedia page of her own. It is hardly self-congratulatory or self-promotional though, especially when the text of the article was not written by her and was written to promote her in a bad light. It is obviously a source of much unwarranted vandalism and special attention from various anti-semitic individuals. Btw, is the IP of user Srrrrr, the same as the IP of user Brrrr who was banned for vandalizing the page a few days back? It seems an amazing coincidence that the usernames are so similar. PaulRaunette (talk) 01:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I had a little look and think she has a bit of notability but the article needs improving. Removed speedy and added BLP refimprove and added a couple of citations. Off2riorob (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Pola Illéry

    Pola Illéry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Proposed move to Possibly living people. The external page cited as an indication that she is still alive is essentially a summary of blog information from that website. It has 4 links for Pola Illéry: IMDB (which merely lists date and place of birth), wiki and 2 blog entries from 2007 one of which is an unanswered question as to whether she is still alive and the other briefly mentions her career and nothing else. In short there are no reports, reliable or otherwise, that she is still alive merely a lack of confirmation that she has died. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems reasonable, Category:Possibly_living_people I can't find anything either. Off2riorob (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Jimmy Wales

    Here is a proposal for Jimmy Wales#Role: Following a complaint by Larry Sanger to the FBI that he later clarified as obscene visual representations of children in sexual situations being hosted on Wikimedia Commons, Wales deleted sexual images without consulting the community. After some editors who volunteer to maintain the site argued that the decision to delete was done hastily, Wales has voluntarily given up some of the powers he had as part of his co-founder status. He wrote in a message to Wikimedia Foundation mailing list this was "in the interest of encouraging this discussion to be about real philosophical/content issues, rather than be about me and how quickly I acted."[5] See Talk:Jimmy Wales#Wales wades into porn debate. QuackGuru (talk) 05:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    What is the actual question about this? Twelve minutes after you posted this here you added the content to the Jimbo Wales BLP? I have to ask you, having been here three and a half years with many thousands of edits, how come you can not yet format a citation and add it in a correct way? We don't add external links inline like that. Off2riorob (talk) 11:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Since this is a BLP I wanted to ensure the text was neutrally written including what was later clarified as "illegal obscene visual representations of children in sexual situations". It takes a lot of time to format references. QuackGuru (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The proposal was discussed by me at this noticeboard but no rationale objection was made. It was deleted without a specific objection to the text. The text is sourced and neutrally written so logically reason was made to not include. See Talk:Jimmy Wales#Wales wades into porn debate for the discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion involves at least two people. Actually you have presented a wrong diff, the content was removed in this diff with an edit summary of, " Based on BBC rehash of Fox report - not a neutral source - more current reports have Fox involved - don't insinuate kiddiporn allegations when none have been established" you replaced it without discussion and I removed it in support of User:Simonxag's position.Off2riorob (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The Fox news source is being used at Larry Sanger with your blessing. The BBC article meets V. The text is sourced and faithfully written to the source. Don't insinuate I added original research. QuackGuru (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It is actually much more relevant to the sanger article, the comment about insinuation is not mine, your addition to the wales article gives far to much weight to the issue, it is more about sanger, all wales did was remove some pics and got reverted, normal issues at wikipedia, sanger reported to the fbi so the content is about him. Off2riorob (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There has been a lot of press coverage about Wales on this issue. Wales' role has changed which is notable. The BBC and other article are making the claims not me. so there was no insinuation on my part. It can't be a BLP violation when it is sourced and neutrally written. For the Sanger page, it did not have the clarification which makes it not neutrally written but you supported the biasely written text. QuackGuru (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There has been press coverage, not major but minor as it is a minor issue as I said much more to do with Sanger's life story that Wales. Wales role has not changed at all, a couple of very minor issues on minor wikis, his fundamental role has not changed at all, also Sanger made a report and it has not been actioned at all, which is a BLP issue, POV accusations and claims of illegality that came to nothing. As for Sanger that is discussion for the section below, I just supported the citation for that, and I still do. Off2riorob (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wales' Status has changed according to the reference. Sanger made a report which is sourced according to V which is not a BLP issue when it is neutrally written. As for Sanger that is discussion for the section below, Off2riorob supported a BLP violation against Larry Sanger when the text was not neutrally written. QuackGuru (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wales status has not changed in any notable way. As for Sanger, I still support whatever it was. I also note that you have added the content to the Criticism of Wikipedia article, where you are the third most major contributor of all time to the article, at least that is not a BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Off2riorob acknowledged it is not a BLP at the Criticism of Wikipedia article. When that is not a BLP at Criticism of Wikipedia it can't be a BLP at Jimmy Wales. Wales status has changed which is notable according to reliable sources. As for Sanger, Off2riorob supported whatever text it was while ignoring the BLP violations even though it was not an accurate representation of the sources and contained an unreliable reference. QuackGuru (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't push words into my mouth. The criticism of wikipedia article is not a blp article. I support the additions to Sanger and don't see them as BLP problem at all. I also notice that you are the vast majority contributor to the Larry Sanger article, sure you must have been asked this before but your edit history is reflective of a Single interest account as regards Larry Sanger and criticism of wikipedia. Have you declared a conflict of interest? Off2riorob (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Larry Sanger

    This forced change added misleading text and unreliable source from Sott.net. The recent edit is WEIGHT problem for a BLP and the material is discussed at Criticism of Wikipedia. There is a discussion on the talk page. See Talk:Larry Sanger#Child porn report section. For the material at the criticism article see Criticism of Wikipedia#Sexual content. QuackGuru (talk) 05:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Looks fine to me, any of about 100 references can be used including the coverage at Fox News. It is about time it was covered. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You ignored the clarification and did not elaborate about this is criticism so it belongs in the criticism article and not the BLP. There is an unreliable source from Sott.net. QuackGuru (talk) 05:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If you have a problem with one source why are you deleting the entire section that has 4 sources? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You not explained your opinion of Sott.net., you have ignored for the second time the problem about the misleading text that does not have the clarification, and I already explained this is about criticism so it belongs in the criticism page. Do you think the text is misleading because it does not have the clarification. It seems you don't care. QuackGuru (talk) 05:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem editor has returned and has ignored the problems again. QuackGuru (talk) 06:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not a "problem editor" you complained about Sott.net and I removed that source added by another author. That was your complaint about BLP, so the tag comes down now that it is no longer in the article. If you have other complaints you need to articulate them better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You did not remove the unreliable referece. You replaced the unreliable reference with another unreliable reference. QuackGuru (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There's consensus on the talk page for including the content, there are multiple sources, and the incident is certainly notable. Most significantly, not a single specific criticism of the text has been offered anywhere; only efforts to expunge any mention of Sanger's letter to the FBI, groundless wikilawyering, and empty rhetoric. And as the "problem editor" comment above indicates, some name-calling. Rvcx (talk) 08:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Content appears fine to me, small comment, neutrally and conservatively written and well sourced notable issue in Sangers life and not given excessive weight in his Bio. Off2riorob (talk) 11:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Off2riorob ignored there was an unreliable reference added and the clarification is missing from the text. QuackGuru (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The text is strickly criticism that is already mentioned in the criticism article. See WEIGHT. This is clearly a BLP violation when there is no clarification. Editors continue to ignore my concerns. I request admin oversight. QuackGuru (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Quack, do you mean that it's criticism of Wikipedia or that it's criticism of Sanger? Certainly the fact that Wikipedia has been accused of distributing child pornography is relevant to Criticism of Wikipedia, but the fact that Sanger sent a letter to the FBI is relevant to Sanger himself. Given the coverage the Sanger has received as a result, this certainly seems notable enough to merit at least a single sentence in his bio. Further, I have no idea what "clarification" you're looking for; once again could you please explain in detail what your objection is? Frankly, I'm bewildered (and annoyed) that this discussion needed to be brought to the notice board instead of you simply explaining your objection on the talk page. Rvcx (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Misleading text is a BLP violation against Sanger. See Criticism of Wikipedia#Sexual content that explained the clarification. There is no need to repeat a story about criticism in a BLP. QuackGuru (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, Quack—answer the questions and articulate your objections or just drop it. What do you find misleading about the text? I can't even fathom the logic that anything related to any kind of "criticism" is a BLP violation. As I've said, this isn't criticism of Sanger. What's more, Sanger's letter to the FBI need not even be viewed as criticism of Wikipedia—he's repeatedly argued that he thought he was legally compelled to send it. The current text is extremely neutral on this count. Rvcx (talk) 18:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As previously explained, there is no clarification. You can read the clarification at Criticism of Wikipedia#Sexual content. QuackGuru (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Richard Arthur Norton has now added an unreliable reference about discussion logs. QuackGuru (talk) 17:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It isn't unreliable, that is the organization that Sanger chose to make his actions known. He chose to contact that organization with news of his actions and they are posting his original email to them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It is unreliable and does not verify the text and it does not explain about the clarification. QuackGuru (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You have not shown how the reference is reliable. QuackGuru (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a reliable secondary source. It IS a primary source, with the attendant cautions and restrictions. Jclemens (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The text is specifically about criticism and not written from a neutral point of view, and the clarification that is in the Criticism of Wikipedia article was left out of the Larry Sanger page. If editors want to violate WEIGHT they should at least write something that is factually accurate like what is written in the criticism page. QuackGuru (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You keep using Wikipedia phrases like NPOV and unreliable-source, but to be honest I haven't a clue what changes you are lobbying for. I think you want the section removed because you think it looks bad for Sanger, or you are Sanger. You need to make it clear what you are lobbying for and not just regurgitate the names of Wikipedia guidelines. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Richard Arthur Norton ignored the comment made by Jclemens. Richard Arthur Norton did not remove an unreliable source. He replaced an unreliable source with another unreliable source. QuackGuru (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Jclemens was pointing out that as a primary source it is more reliable as a reference for that fact, not less. I ignored it because I agree 100%, nothing more needed to be added to his cogent logic. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, don't say anything that could be understood as suggesting that the QuackGuru account is controlled by Larry Sanger. That's an offensive claim (for Larry Sanger), obviously false, and to some extent BLP applies on talk pages. Thanks. Hans Adler 17:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Richard Arthur Norton ignored that Jclemens wrote "It's not a reliable secondary source. It IS a primary source, with the attendant cautions and restrictions." That is clear to me the reference is an unreliable primary source according to Jclemens. QuackGuru (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Steve Jones (musician)

    Steve Jones (musician) is getting hit by a lot of vandals. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Barack Obama, proposed controversies

    Could we get some eyes at this page? A recent closed section, Citizenship conspiracy theories, is being accused of a BLP violation for providing some dirty laundry on Barack Obama; namely that he opposed bills to stop children who survived abortions from being left to die (including the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act passed in 2002), that he disqualified all 4 candidates in his first election via petition rule technicalities using a team of lawyers, and that he struck a deal with Illinois Senate leader Emil Jones to get himself appointed head of legislation worked on by other senators to raise his political profile.

    The problem is, those three controversies alone were sourced with 19 Wikipedia pages already mentioning the controversies, and 33 independent sources from major media organizations like CNN, the New York Times, Time Magazine, the Chicago Tribune, FOX News, the Boston Globe, FactCheck.org, PolitiFact, National Review, MSNBC, ABC News, the Washington Post, the Chicago Sun-Times, and the New York Sun. Additionally, 2 Illinois Senate transcript pages were included showing Obama's words verbatim concerning the 1st controversy.

    Therefore, I am concerned that this is unfairly being labeled a BLP violation. It's not a BLP violation if there is overwhelming proof that this has been addressed in the media, right? After all, they don't need to be portrayed as accurate, it would be enough simply to point out these have indeed been major issues in the media, and what was reported on. Right now, the discussion is on whether these can even be mentioned on the page at all, and despite overwhelming sourcing showing these to be major issues, there is also adamant opposition from a select group of editors who have been frequently involved in past disciplinary action on the page. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Whether the discredited "birther" and other stuff about Obama as a BLP violation (as some people would term poorly sourced / unduly weighted / POV / fringe stuff about major political figures), or simply material rejected by consensus on any of a number of other content policy grounds (as I would put it), or simply material that the community has decided through editing process not to include, is a moot point. There is no consensus to add any of this stuff. Further, the editor bringing this seems to be having some major problems with civility, attacks, forum shopping, edit warring, tendentiousness, etc., and appears to be on a flame-out at this point. I've given what should be understood as a final warning on the topic. A serious discussion of this here would be redundant, and frankly, a waste of time. If anyone believes this is a legitimate, sincere editor who may be able to adopt a constructive approach, I strongly suggest they act quickly - if this continues, given that they are renewing the behavior for which they were recently topic-banned for a month, it's probably headed in the direction of a longer term or indefinite separation here. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    'Birther'? Isn't that typically used to refer to the suggestion Obama was not a U.S. citizen? Your use of the term seems disingenuous at best. I would invite anyone to examine the page themselves to see whether the material in question was 'poorly sourced' (YEAH RIGHT) and thus unduly weighted/fringe stuff, as Wikidemon would like to label this. I would even post the sources here to disprove this erroneous lie, except I can assure you Wikidemon would have it closed. I have a problem with thread closings of potentially valuable contribution to the article when it is well-sourced; and this admin, Wikidemon, allowing insults and attacks against conservatives to go unstopped, while using any little excuse (like using bolded red font formatting) to close threads. He would like to portray this as a recent topic ban. The incident in question occurred in December. All of his points are through and through misportrayals of what's actually going on here, and his own problematic actions, and in some cases inaction, as an admin. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This highlights the problem with really enforcing NPOV: even if something is reported in RS, folks who don't like it can manufacture a consensus to reject it. Does NPOV trump consensus? UNDUE, as I read it, and YESPOV, demand that unpopular views be included. FRINGE is inappropriately cited in some cases to suppress minority opinions and beliefs as if they were scientific assertions about reality. Is it any surprise that those who want to see "fair and balanced" representation of what RS'es say can become frustrated? Jclemens (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    All I would like is for the material to be examined by the merits of its sourcing, rather than an alleged consensus that seeks to silence all who get in its way. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to escalate this to AN/I at this point. Could someone please close this as vexatious and unlikely to lead to any constructive resolution? If there's any hope for the above editor, it isn't by continuing a discussion like this here. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    American Airlines Flight 614

    Resolved
     – poorly cited content removed-speedy deleted at AFD

    I redirected and protected this article, since it seems to have numerous blp allegations sourced to blogs. I have also voted "delete" on its pending AfD, but I feel that this being a BLP violation, it should be removed immediately. Any admin is welcome to review and possibly reverse my actions. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    AFD is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Airlines_Flight_614 seems to be an issue with format as the template has not appeared on the article, if someone know how to add one belatedly that would be appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah I see, Crum has deleted and redirected the title to the main American airlines article, here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Airlines_Flight_614&diff=362892774&oldid=362889341 is the content pre deletion, it seems strange and unnecessary to AFD something you have blanked on BLP claims, speedy would have been cleaner, now there is an AFD about removed content? Off2riorob (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I should have protected the redirect originally, but assumed it would just go away. I was then directed to the AfD, where I voted delete, then realized that per BLP the article should be stubbed or redirected. I did this, and this time protected the redirect. Crum375 (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, yes your actions are all totally within policy, it just took me some time to work it out and then I see it is all explained an the AFD. I was tempted to snow close and speedy the redirect any objections? Off2riorob (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I certainly won't object, go ahead. Crum375 (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I cleaned up this leftover... MastCell Talk 23:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Good catch! I have deleted the redirect from the flight number, mostly to get rid of the previous revisions. A new redirect can be created in future if so decided. Crum375 (talk) 23:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    While I agree that the article (looking at its Google cache) is stupid and should have been deleted, I see absolutely no reason why it needs to have been revision deleted. It alleged unbecoming behavior on the part of one flight attendant, who was not uniquely identified (i.e., full name not given) Let's be a bit more sensible here, please: NOTHING in what I see in the Google cache demands pseudo-oversighting. Jclemens (talk) 06:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Richard Blumenthal

    Richard Blumenthal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a U.S. politician in upcoming elections. It appears the subject has one or two problems, but surely headings like "Lied That He Did Not Accept PAC Money" are not compatible with WP:BLP? If someone would care to make an edit with a summary referencing BLP I will try to join in, but I suspect that articles like this should either be left to the two warring camps, or protected. Johnuniq (talk) 23:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sant Singh Chatwal

    Further to Ticket:2010051310049011, can someone take a power hose to this article? Looks like someone who doesn't like him very much has stuffed it full of scandal. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Cleaned. I don't see anything good ever coming from the Biography myself, it was an awful POV attack piece, personally I support deletion.Off2riorob (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    A couple of IP 74.210.40.55 and and 74.210.48.142 added all the attack content, one editor same location different IP addresses, same POV. Off2riorob (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Fred Singer

    Fred Singer, 85 years old and Professor Emeritus at the University of Virginia, is currently described in the lead sentence of his BLP as a "retired atmospheric physicist". The statement is unsourced, and appears to be factually incorrect.

    Singer continues to play an active part in the scientific community:

    In my view, this unsourced descriptor as "a retired atmospheric physicist" is a BLP violation, and the word "retired" should be deleted at the earliest convenience (the article is currently locked). Singer may well have retired from his University of Virginia faculty position as Professor of Environmental Sciences at some point in the past, but we have no basis to describe him as a "retired atmospheric physicist" when there is not a single source describing him as such, when he clearly continues to be professionally active in the field, and when his activities as a scientist continue to be the subject of coverage in top-quality sources like the New York Times.

    Related discussions:

    Comment: the user filing this request is well aware of this [8], which states "But one prominent critic of mainstream climate science, S. Fred Singer, a retired physicist, is...", and of this source [9] from the U Virginia which lists him amongst the retired faculty William M. Connolley (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The first one of these sources I was not actually aware of, thank you. The other one I linked myself, above. Your source predates this December 2009 article, also in the New York Times, describing him as "an atmospheric physicist", by more than two years. It is undue weight to argue that we should follow the only press source you have been able to find that describes him as "retired", when there are literally dozens describing him as an active atmospheric physicist over the past two years. --JN466 20:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is someone "dismissing the work of physicist Fred Singer as 'fraudulent nonsense" in 2008. I don't mind anyone dismissing his work as nonsense, just don't claim he isn't doing any. ;) --JN466 20:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    NYT has been calling Singer a retired physicist since 2001 at least, as well as the above link here is another earlier one: [10]. Personally I have no view on including the word retired but I do have a view that it is not sensible to pretend this is a BLP issue. --BozMo talk 20:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just remove the retired bit then, looking at the citations he is a busy man, the misrepresentation of living people is a clear BLP issue. Off2riorob (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at a few of these recent citations and reports he doesn't appear to be retired at all, appears to be quite an active octarian. Off2riorob (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I protected the page because of an edit war on the inclusion of the word retired in a different location. As it happens I protected the version with the word out in that version. First you tried to claim twice that a consensus existed to remove the word retired in a second location to get a change under protection when there was clearly no consensus was process abuse. Coming to this page and now trying to present this edit war as a BLP issue is forum shopping. Since I take BLPs seriously I have had to go and check and took trouble to find both academic papers (on google scholar) and repeated RSs to support "retired physicist" when you claimed there were none. If you think that is going to get more sympathy to your particular point of view you are wrong. I have wasted enough time checking your claim that there is a genuine BLP issue here and there is not. It is a normal content dispute. Settle in on talk in the normal way. --BozMo talk 20:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • He is a retired professor; this is uncontroversial
    • His contributions to physics were decades ago; his last position was professor of environmental science
    • "Scientist" is a job, not a lifelong title; when people retire, they are called "retired x", even if they are in related professions (Colin Powell is called a "retired general", even though his opinion remains widely sought by the press on military matters. Ditto Barry McCaffrey and Wesley Clark).
    • If you look at his last 20 years of contributions in ISI-indexed publications (70+, mostly opinion pieces and letters to the editor), the only publications in a physics journals is an opinion piece about climate change
    • While he has published opinion pieces on climate change, UV B and skin cancer, CFCs and ozone depletion, oil production, and the origins of Martian moons, there's nothing that appears to be physics
    • His current activity does not appear to the in a subfield of physics; analysis of the temperature record does not appear to be physics; speculation on the origins of Martian moons does not appear to be physics; arguing that UV B does not cause melanoma does not appear to be physics. The only thing that might arguably fall into "physics" is the role of CFCs in ozone depletion, and publications related to that issue are opinion pieces in the early 90s, at the far end of the 20-year window I looked at.

    Calling Singer a "retired atmospheric physicist" appears to be accurate. How germane it is to his notability is another issue - his last academic positions were not in physics at all. Guettarda (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • First of all, this isn't a WP:BLP issue. It does not reflect negatively on Singer to say that he is "retired", since that is essentially the meaning of emeritus status. Nor is it unsourced: Singer's own university describes him as "retired" and "emeritus" faculty, so while it is possible to debate whether this is the ideal description, it is not possible to claim that this is a BLP violation. Finally, "atmospheric physicist" and "retired atmospheric physicist" are not mutually exclusive categories (rather, the former is a prerequisite for the latter). Just because a source describes him as an "atmospheric physicist", that source does not contradict the idea that he's currently retired. This dispute is picayune to the point of absurdity, but whatever else it may be, it isn't a BLP violation. MastCell Talk 20:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that multiple uninvolved editors are just getting totally fed up to the back teeth of the constant never ending disruption from the climate change articles and the climate change editors, It is time to sort this out and stop the constant disruption. Every BLP the group of editors moves to is disrupted and locked, no living person is safe from their attention, all of which results in protection of the BLP and again and again, it is a clear and repeated BLP problem and it needs sorting out. Off2riorob (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it reflects negatively on Singer to call him "retired". We are all well aware that WMC, as a scientist, holds the diametrically opposite point of view to Singer. If you call someone an "atmospheric physicist", that sounds like someone you take seriously. If you call him a "retired atmospheric physicist", that implies you can write him off as an old crank. Please. --JN466 21:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect, you are reading way too much into "retired". It is not an inherently insulting adjective. There's an unhealthy fixation on the personalities involved here, rather than the actual content/policy issue. You can't possibly believe that UVa or the Times are insulting Singer by labeling him "retired". So presumably your objection is that William is applying the descriptor, rather than that the descriptor is inherently offensive. MastCell Talk 22:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    When I originally looked into this, I found not a single source calling Singer "a retired atmospheric physicist", the phrase the article's lead sentence has, and hundreds and hundreds of sources calling him "an atmospheric physicist"; among them a few, even of very recent date, calling him a "world renowned atmospheric physicist" or "highly respected atmospheric physicist" (newsmax), or similar terms. There are, I see now, indeed all of 4 sources that have described him as a "retired physicist". Yet he clearly is still very active, and is routinely described as an active scientist, with a voice that commands worldwide attention.
    I have never edited the climate topic. If anything, my personal views on it are the opposite of Singer's, but I believe dissent should be heard. I saw SlimVirgin's arbitration enforcement request, and looking through WMC's edits to this BLP, readily came across edits that were exactly consistent with what SlimVirgin (who found WMC made it impossible for her to work on the article) was saying. There was addition of original research, insertion of a self-published source, gratuitous insertion of realclimate.org, a site WMC himself contributes to ("A more detailed discussion of the lack of evidence of a link between the sun and the earth's climate can be found at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/#Solar RealClimate "), and general evidence of a profound need to control this BLP, not least over the matter of the unsourced "retired" label. Insisting on labelling a man who regularly speaks at international climate conferences, including one this week, and who last year published a widely-reported 880-page book, as "retired", against the weight of sources and outside editor opinion, is simply irrational. This has nothing to do with WMC personally, or his views, only his apparent need to have the Fred Singer BLP say exactly what he wants it to say, and the sources be damned. And you are correct in that I do not now have a very high opinion of WMC's work on this BLP. --JN466 23:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopefully we aren't all aware that I'm a scientist, since I'm not. I'm a former scientist. I retain a scientific worldview; I retain an interest in the subject; but I'm not a scientist William M. Connolley (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you implying the Singer should be referred to as a former atmospheric physicist? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no point in describing Singer as "retired". It seems unhelpful. It's kind of like saying that, "Albert Einstein is a dead physicist who is known for relativity". Also, JN makes an excellent point in his last two sentences above. That's my $0.02 Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that calling someone "retired" is derogatory, akin to calling him a "has been", and should not be done unless there is excellent agreement about it among all reliable sources. I think the title "emeritus" is fine, since it refers to a specific institution, and one can be emeritus from A, while working actively in B. In general in BLP cases, we should aim for the least amount of possible harm, and in this case removing this adjective would accomplish that. Crum375 (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "Emeritus" means "retired". One can be retired from a formal position while still remaining intellectually active. It is literally incomprehensible to me that people perceive the word "retired" as a derogatory epithet, or that a retired professor would be "harmed" by being labeled retired. I can only attribute it to the collective insanity that seems to afflict anything related to our climate-change articles. MastCell Talk 23:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain to me where the harm is in describing him as "an atmospheric physicist and Professor Emeritus ...", the way the vast majority of sources do? And if there is no harm, then why am I having to type my fingers off here? --JN466 23:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no harm in that description. It's fine. I think either formulation is acceptable, and I don't really care which one is chosen. I do feel strongly that this is a garden-variety minor content dispute, and not a matter of WP:BLP violations. If I were you, I'd probably just let it go, since there's no way that describing a retired faculty member as "retired" is derogatory. Of course, if I were William, I'd also probably let it go, since there's really no reason to fight to include the word "retired" over other equally reasonable formulations. I think you both need to chill. In general, the entire topic area suffers from an unwillingness to concede, a lack of perspective, and an inability to separate important matters from inconsequential ones. This seems like it would be a good place for someone to set an example, but that's just me. MastCell Talk 00:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just some of Singer's recent activities
    • [11] "... distinguished skeptical scientists, economists, and policymakers from around the world – Pat Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Ian Plimer, Bob Carter, Fred Singer.. you name them, they’re here", Daily Telegraph blog, today
    • [12] "I was impressed by the presentation of Dr Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist and founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service, who challenged the IPCC findings with his research data.", China Daily, 28 January 2010, reporting on the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in Dec. 2009
    • [13] In 2007, Professors David Douglass, John Christy, Benjamin Pearson, and Fred Singer wrote a scientific paper in the International Journal of Climatology ..., American Thinker, 18 January 2010
    • [14] "The scientists said they were on Capitol Hill to challenge the president’s claims and show that Mother Nature controls climate around the world and that CO2 in the atmosphere benefits people, plants and animals. “Nature, not human activity rules the planet,” said Fred Singer, an atmospheric and space physicist and research professor at George Mason University and professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia." CNS News, October 2009
    Some recent publications authored or co-authored by Singer found in google scholar
    • "Climate Change Reconsidered. 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)", Craig Idso, Fred Singer et al. 880 pages, 2009
    • "Petitioning for a revised statement on climate change" SF Singer, H Lewis, W Happer, L Gould, R Cohen, RH … - Nature, 23 July 2009 - nature.com
    • "Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate", SF Singer, International Panel on Climate Change 2008 12 citations in google scholar
    • "Climate Distorting US Energy Policies", SF Singer, The American Oil & Gas Reporter, 2008
    • "A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions", arizona.edu DH Douglass, JR Christy, BD Pearson, SF Singer, Int'l Journal of Climatology 2007, 30 citations in google scholar
    • December 14, 2007 “Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural?”, S Fred Singer, Buckeye Institute
    • "Unstoppable global warming: every 1,500 years" SF Singer, DT Avery - 2007 (book) 40 citations in google scholar.

    If this is retirement, I'd rather work. --JN466 22:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The only thing of any scientific standing is the paper with Douglas, Christie, et al in J. Climatology. The rest is self-published and/or opinion. The ref you give for "Nature, Not Human Activity..." is wrong. The IPCC is not involved. Please be more careful about this. GScholar claims 5 references to it, but only shows 4. Being named as a co-author of one (bad) scientific paper is entirely compatible with a a status as retired scientist. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like we are getting to the main point here: Is he a scientist, or is he a political activist on a science-related topic who used to be a scientist? That's an important distinction which, unfortunately, is apparently not being made by most of the press. This asks for compromise language that neither says directly that he is retired or no longer doing research, but also does not suggest that he is still doing research. It may be necessary to write the lead in more clumsy language than we would otherwise do. Hans Adler 22:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you need to be doing active research to be a physicist, any more than you have to write books to be a philosopher, or see patients daily to be a physician. The only way one could be described as a "retired" professional, is if he no longer does work related to his profession, and the reliable sources have a clear consensus that he is retired. Otherwise, we give them the benefit of the doubt, which is compatible with the principle of least harm in BLPs. Crum375 (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Stephan, Nature (journal) is "the world's most highly cited interdisciplinary science journal". The piece in question may have been a letter to the editor, but even so, you need to have some standing to get your letter printed in Nature. Hans, I found coverage of Singer in books just the same as in the press: google books. I agree press sources do often have problems, and I wish we relied less on them, but I see no difference on this specific point, and no reason to "correct" sources by substituting editors' original research. --JN466 23:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And Stephan, here are the 12 (not 4) citations for "Nature, hot human activity rules the climate". --JN466 23:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can tell, he is a retired (emeritus) professor. However if his training is in physics then he will presumably be a physicist for the rest of his life.   Will Beback  talk  23:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Spot on. --FormerIPOnlyEditor (talk) 05:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the prevailing opinions of uninvolved editors here (and I myself am not uninvolved) is that it is ok to describe Singer as a retired professor, but not as a retired atmospheric physicist, since that is a title he will carry with him until he passes away. Agreed? Cla68 (talk) 23:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds reasonable to me. MastCell Talk 00:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that the use of the word "retired" should only be used in the body of the article (i.e., not in the lead) and then only under a "personal life" kind of section. Unless, of course, it can be shown that "retired" is the typical way a retired scientist Wikipedia articles are described as. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, does that mean we're agreed here that we can change the lead sentence from
      • Siegfried Fred Singer (born September 27, 1924 in Vienna) is a retired American atmospheric physicist and professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia.
    • to
      • Siegfried Fred Singer (born September 27, 1924 in Vienna) is an American atmospheric physicist, and professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia.
    • per all of these sources? --JN466 00:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with that. Cla68 (talk) 00:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree too. Crum375 (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Me three. :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. --FormerIPOnlyEditor (talk) 05:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Also agree. SlimVirgin talk contribs 06:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support this alteration. Off2riorob (talk) 11:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support this change mark nutley (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm on board with it, too (although I'd replace "professor emeritus" with "retired professor" because I prefer simpler wording, but that's just nitpicky) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    How is "atmospheric physicist" a title of any sort? It's a job description. And no, you don't carry your job description for the rest of your life. You carry your PhD (if you were awarded one) for the rest of your life. But you don't carry your job title. You don't carry the title "bus driver" after you stop driving buses, because it's not a title. Nor is "heavy welder". Nor is "physicist". It's a job description. Guettarda (talk) 01:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't agree with you. When it comes to biographies, we do label people by their life's work. Atmospheric phsyicist isn't necessarily a job title, it's what a person is as a cumulative result of their education, experience, research, formal titles, activities, and, most importantly, how they're described in reliable sources, which are our guide. Cla68 (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I also disagree. Professional people carry their training to their deathbed, and may work part time, in various capacities, relying on their professional expertise as long as they live. They don't have to work for a formal employer, nor be producing output at some prolific rate. This applies to physicians, lawyers, artists, philosophers, authors, scientists, and many others. Some of them serve on boards, some provide consulting, sometimes for pay and sometimes pro bono, often till they can no longer function. Some may just publish things on their own website. You can retire from a formal position with a company or institution; you can't retire from your profession. Crum375 (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, we don't follow sources when they are wrong. Despite the fact that many sources simply call him "General Powell" the Colin Powell article quite correctly refers to him as a retired general. If atmospheric physicist isn't a job title, what is it? "Scientist" is not a title, it's a job description. "Atmospheric physicist" is simply the field of science in which you work. Physicians and lawyers, for example, are certified by professional bodies. You have to meet some set of special requirements for professional certification. You don't need an advanced degree in a field to be a scientist. You need to do science. Guettarda (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Professor, on the other hand, is a professional title, much like lawyer. And yet no one has a problem with calling him a retired professor. Guettarda (talk) 02:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We follow reliable sources, period. That's what Wikipedia is all about. And you may retire from a position with a company or institution, but you don't retire from your training as an intellectual professional. A "scientist" is someone trained in science. He may work for some company or institution, and then leave those positions and go freelance, to serve on boards, to provide consulting, or just publish his latest ideas somewhere. There is no magical point where a professional like that becomes "retired", only dead, when the time comes. Crum375 (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We follow reliable sources, period ... A "scientist" is someone trained in science. - It's pretty amusing you see you say "we follow reliable sources" and then come up with a novel definition of "scientist" which contradicts most sources (and the scientist article). You really need to get the basic facts straight. Guettarda (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is what your wiki link says: "A scientist, in the broadest sense, is any person who engages in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge or an individual that engages in such practices and traditions that are linked to schools of thought or philosophy. In a more restricted sense, a scientist is an individual who uses the scientific method." Can you show me where it says (or implies) that a scientist has to engage in active research? Or where it says (or implies) that if he doesn't work for a university or other large employer he is "retired"? Or where it says (or implies) that he can't be a consultant? Or manage a think thank? Or serve on a board? Or publish his ideas on his website? Or that a scientist is not someone trained in science (are you saying it's enough to self-declare as such, like a Christian Scientist?) Crum375 (talk) 03:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And per the dictdef I also linked below, a scientist is someone with "expert knowledge". You may retire from your job, but not from your knowledge. Crum375 (talk) 03:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely not. I agree with Crum375 - we ONLY follow reliable sources, especially and specifically when it comes to contentious subjects. To do otherwise is to engage in original research. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Crum375 isn't following reliable sources. He is asserting that a "scientist" is someone with a degree in science. This assertion is made without sourcing. It's not just unsourced - it contradicts reliable sources. It's a popular misconception about science and scientists. It's also one that has been used by the people who claim evolution isn't happening, cigarettes don't cause cancer and humans aren't causing climate change. Wikipedia isn't about propagating misconceptions, no matter how popular. Guettarda (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The concept of "scientist" is a linguistic and philosophical term. What counts is the common usage of the term, just like any English word. And as I noted above, scientist does not say a scientist must be engaged in active research to qualify, nor does it say you can become a scientist by self-declaring as one. Crum375 (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And here is a dictdef: "sci·en·tist (sī'ən-tĭst) n. A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences, especially a natural or physical science."[15] You train to get expertise, maintain it over your lifetime, and you don't "retire" from it. You may retire from your position at the institution or company, but not from your knowledge. Crum375 (talk) 03:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The situation at Fred Singer is worrying; wanting to insist in the first sentence that he is retired is only a tiny part of it. There has been editing there for a long time that seems to have the aim of undermining Singer, rather than just telling his story, good and bad. I've started a new draft of the article at User:SlimVirgin/Fred Singer. Anyone willing to help build that up with good sources is welcome to join me. SlimVirgin talk contribs 06:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thre is no BLP issue here. How to describe Singer should be done on t:FS; forum-shopping here is unacceptable William M. Connolley (talk) 08:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think trying to disparage a scientist with an opposing point of view by forcing "retired" into his professional description, when he appears to be active, and the sources don't use that qualifier, is akin to calling him a "has been", and is in fact a BLP violation. Crum375 (talk) 13:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I would expect that the normal cycle for the biography of a physicist is as follows:

    1. "X is a physicist [...]."
    2. "X is a retired physicist [...]." or other language that avoids any explicit claims that X still is a physicist. That's because most of us at some point simply stop doing science itself (because it gets too hard for an aging brain and we stop following the latest developments in detail because playing with our grandchildren is a lot more rewarding), even though we may still use our scientific reputations and take part in science-related debates.
    3. "X was a physicist [...]."

    I suggest that we concentrate on "or other language that avoids ...", because that's where compromise lies. Hans Adler 13:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    At least in my own experience, "physicists" are labeled as such even after they stop doing active academic research or teaching. Many such PhD physicists are still young (in their 30s and 40s), and work as managers, consultants, or board directors, long out of their academic research environment, and are always called "physicist" when referring to their professional background. To call someone "retired" you'd need good sourcing, which would normally reflect what they call themselves. It seems that in this particular case the majority of the sources call this apparently very active person "physicist" without "retired", and we should do the same. Crum375 (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously someone who didn't retire cannot be called retired. But someone who is no longer doing science isn't a scientist. And just because people use language imprecisely and incorrectly doesn't mean that we should. "Physicist by training" or "trained as a physicist", yes. "Physicist" (a scientist working in a subfield of physics), no. Not if it's plainly incorrect. Guettarda (talk) 17:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A good exemplar of this notion may be the Congressman Vernon Ehlers, who has a PhD in nuclear physics. Even though he's a politician now, very clearly not an active physicist anymore, he is routinely referred to as a physicist in media coverage about him. Nowhere in our own article do we refer to him as a "retired physicist," nor does the New York Times in this profile of him and two other physicists elected to Congress [16]. — e. ripley\talk 14:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Our article says he "was the first..." It doesn't call him a physicist (although the language could be a lot tighter). Nor would it be appropriate to call him a retired physicist, since he didn't (AFAICT) make it to retirement (he was about 40 when he entered politics). He remains a physicist by training. But if he's not doing science, there's no way you can call him a scientist. A scientist is a person who does science. Sure, there are lots of other colloquial definitions. Sure journalists use imprecise (and often incorrect) language all the time. But we aren't supposed to make factual statements that are obviously incorrect. Attribute POV, attribute inaccuracies, but don't assert them as if they were true. Not when they are, quite obviously, not true. Guettarda (talk) 17:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, here's the thing - Wikipedia is a project to write an encyclopaedia, so it's important to get things right. We don't assert that the American Bison is a buffalo because many people call it that (actually the article has nicely nuanced, though sadly unsourced, discussion of the term). It's especially true of BLPs. Our BLP policy is about getting it right, not about writing hagiography. Just because OJ says he's not a murderer doesn't mean that we assert his innocence. Just because lots of people say he is one doesn't mean that we can say that either. "Scientist" is a term that's frequently misused by the public, but that doesn't mean we should embrace that usage. "Evolution" is also misused and misunderstood. But just because most people think that individuals evolve doesn't mean that our article should say so. Same here. Incorrect usage should be documented, but it should not be embraced. Guettarda (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "it's important to get things right": Correct, where "right" means an "accurate representation of what reliable sources have written about those things". And not disparaging a man in his BLP by labeling him a professional "has been", when he is clearly doing work in areas related to his profession, is a basic requirement of WP:BLP. Just because you disagree with someone's political or academic views is no reason to trash their biography. If he is so wrong, prove it by showing that reliable sources contradict his views, not by calling him names or otherwise trying to ridicule him. Crum375 (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But someone who is no longer doing science isn't a scientist. The concept of "doing science" is broad enough to encompass his current opining on controversial subjects involving science, since it's directly based on his career as a scientist. I'm not sure, but he might still be called a scientist if he developed alzheimers and became completely incapacitated. Bureaucrats who come from backgrounds in science and who run scientific organizations are "doing science" and are typically credited with being scientists. How much science is the chief science officer of the British government actually "doing"? Enough, I'm sure. Nobody demands a beaker and a lab coat throughout a scientists' career. The Surgeon General of the United States is still a medical doctor, for instance, even if he or she isn't seeing patients or writing prescriptions. There's also an honorary or honorific element to this, particularly with a public figure. Is this Dr. Smith? Are you a medical doctor? ... I'm a doctor, but I retired from my practice. You don't retire from being a published novelist or poet, either, and will still get called one unless you insist on saying you have stopped writing, and say it loud and long. It's a bit different with various professions and offices. Governors, senators and U.S. presidents and generals keep the honorific in retirement, mostly informally I think. And there are no "former Marines". It's not right to ignore the honorific implications of a desription. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    S. E. Cupp

    S. E. Cupp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Repeated insertion on OR/POV non notable material. Edit warring and non use of talk page. A few more eyes would be appreciated. Thanks. --Tom (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Replied at the article talk page. — e. ripley\talk 20:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hutaree

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

    Hi, i'm kinda of on a wikibreak and limiting my time on here, but a user has recently added Ref to OKCupid and a bunch of other questionable sources that may constitute WP:OR on an individual within the movement. I dont have time to deal with it right now but is highly questionable at best. I considered posting on OR noticboard until i remembered that it fell under BLP, here is the restored material diff [17] I'm sorry i dont have time to bicker with this guy. thank you Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, i'm kinda of on a wikibreak and limiting my time on here, but a user has recently added Ref to OKCupid and a bunch of other questionable sources that may constitute WP:OR on an individual within the movement. I dont have time to deal with it right now but is highly questionable at best. I considered posting on OR noticboard until i remembered that it fell under BLP, here is the restored material diff [18] I'm sorry i dont have time to bicker with this guy. thank you Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeff Perry (politician)

    Jeff Perry (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Hi. This is an edit dispute. An IP keeps adding an unreliable source, and refuses to discuss at the talk page. See here. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Some help with this would be much appreciated. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, I've just requested semi-protection.[19]Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The semi-protection was rejected, the vandalism continues, and the vandalism includes criminal accusations. Is there something else I'm supposed to do here? If not, I'll just let the vandalism pile up. It's not my BLP after all, so it's no big deal as far as I'm concerned.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thx.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, if the content is replaced we should direct the IP here for discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Lisa Ling

    Lisa Ling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Resolved
     – DOB corrected

    I doubt that she was born in 1900! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miriam Feldstein Case (talk • contribs) 05:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverted by CaliforniaAliBaba (talk · contribs). Aditya Ex Machina 09:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Diane Abbott

    Diane Abbott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I just wish to draw some attention that this article appears to be far from neutral in its description of Diane Abbott's career. There is undue attention given to minor issues as "Controversies" and repeated poorly sourced or unfounded accusations of racism. In addition the "Controversies" section makes little effort to present a balanced view on these issues and reads like a list of accusations. The piece does not have the tone of a balanced autobiography.

    I have made some effort to remove what is clearly unsourced or unfounded, but the whole piece is, in my view in need of significant, urgent overhaul, particularly in light of her now raised profile as candidate for Labour leader. Particularly as I have already witnessed erroneous information being quoted from Wikipedia on blog comments etc.

    143.117.45.114 (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I have only found two refs which looked suspect, one was to answers.com the other to a blog. I have removed them an tagged [citation needed] If you have a reliable source for her candidacy for the labour party leadership fire it in man mark nutley (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article has been tweaked a bit since its higher prominence since Abbot announced she would stand for leadership election of the labour party. Article is now semi protected for one month by the Administrator User:HJ Mitchell . Off2riorob (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Abhisit Vejjajiva

    Abhisit Vejjajiva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Some of the most contentious information on here is very poorly sourced. For example, the line "Among the dead protesters were soldiers dressed in red shirts - the Army did not clarify what they were doing among the protesters" in the last introductory paragraph cites four different sources, three of which mention nothing of the kind, and the one which does (the first) does so in a bit-piece article on a different subject, and states only that soldiers were in disguise, not that they were wearing red shirts (an important distinction given the background to this issue--wearing red shirts implies specific attempts to infiltrate the protesters, whereas if they had been wearing black disguises, they are likely disaffected elements of the Thai military not controlled by the government led by the subject of this article).

    In the same paragraph, the line "Members of Abhisit's government were implicated in the 2009 attempted assassination of PAD leader Sondhi Limthongkul, although the government blamed Thaksin" is possibly libelous, and again is not supported by any of the three sources cited. The third source supports the second contention of the sentence (that members of government accused Thaksin Shinawatra of masterminding the assassination attempt) but none of the sources support the libellous contention that "member of Abhisit's government were implicated" in the assassination attempt.

    Much later in the article, under the section "Thaksin asset seizure court case", the line "Twenty-three people were killed in the conflict, including a Japanese cameraman, a number of uniformed soldiers, and an unknown number of soldiers dressed in red shirts" is included, again citing multiple sources, none of which confirm any soldiers dressed in red shirts, or indeed any information other than that a given number of people (ranging from nineteen to twenty-four, depending on source) were killed, and one was a Japanese cameraman.

    These issues are present throughout the (unusually long) article, even including the final section, titled "Unusual wealth" which claims "The result of the government's investigation into Abhisit's alleged unusual wealth was not revealed" while citing a source that never mentions any such investigation.

    71.57.71.46 (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I removed all mentioned. The article is excessively long with multiple issues. Off2riorob (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Sol Hoopii

    Sol Hoopii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Resolved
     – Changed talk page to reflect non BLP

    The talk page has erroneously been tagged re bio of living persons. Sol Hoopii died 1953. I am unable to remove tag. Maile66 (talk) 21:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I just changed the talk page template, hopefully thats ok now? Thank you. --Tom (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Edwin Ubiles

    Edwin Ubiles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Resolved
     – Not a BLP issue, OP advised to take elsewhere

    Why does wikipedia waste space on an unknown college basketball player? Unless he does something that is of importance, he should not have an entry on this site. If that is the case, then perhaps someone should create a wikipedia entry for EVERY NCAA college basketball player. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.75.56 (talk) 08:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the wrong venue. If you feel this person isn't notable enough for an article go to WP:AFD and nominate it for deletion. Exxolon (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert Amsterdam

    Robert Amsterdam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    It may be worth a few eyes on the Robert Amsterdam article for a while. Amsterdam is exiled Former Prime Minister of Thailand Thaksin Shinawatra's lawyer and spokesperson. He's been in the media recently arguing the Red Shirt's side during the recent demonstrations/army actions in Bangkok. I noticed that a Bangkok based IP made this potentially contentious edit. There may be more in the post. There's also this entertaining BLP violation from January. There are also things like 'The firm's unique niche of handling politically difficult cases in some of the most challenging investment environments'.... Sean.hoyland - talk 11:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Article has multiple issues. Uncited claims, inline links, all citations unformatted, excessive promo fluff and so on. Off2riorob (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Rick Scott (businessman)

    Rick Scott (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Hello, earlier today I put a comment on the Discussion page for Rick Scott (businessman) because I am very concerned that it is unfair to him. It is a matter of great concern to me because I work with him. However, I understand that if I make changes directly that may cause additional trouble, and I wish to avoid this. Mr. Scott is now running for Florida governor, and it is a very serious problem that this article seems to be written by his political opponents and does not present information neutrally.

    There is too much hostile language to deal with it all now, but I did make 3 suggestions to the article today. I hope that someone will recognize these points are a serious issue and take care of them. If there is a better way to go about this, I would appreciate information about that as well. Thank you. --Thirteenth Florida (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, this is just about the correct place. American political candidate with heaalthcare issues, could any neutral USA editors have a look? Off2riorob (talk) 13:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Debi Nova

    Debi Nova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Resolved
     – removed large copy and paste addition Off2riorob (talk) 13:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The article has a good summary at the beginning, with a couple of sources. After that, it goes completely downhill into something that seems to be written exclusively by her label's P.R. team. It's in urgent need of attention and citations. I'd do it myself, but I'm a new user and it's not a question of deleting the article, it's about trying to improve it. If the whole thing is simply deleted, no one benefits. Wholeheartedly wishing you fix this soon, --Conoceymedio (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for this notification. The large addition from an IP account was a copyright violation from http://www.hitlab.com/83362/interviews/blog/33454 I have reverted the article back to pre-the addition and notified the IP about our policies and guidelines. Off2riorob (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Nastassja Kinski

    Resolved

    Nastassja Kinski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) removed a sourced rumor in this edit. I reverted him, and he reverted me back. I have no problem either way, I would just like to know what is correct according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, both in general, and in this specific case (with its specific sources) in particular. Debresser (talk) 08:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I saw that edit of yours (not wherever it first came from), and thought it quite inappropriate, as Hullaballoo's edit summary states. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That paragraph was a very selective and distorting reporting of what was actually in the interview. IMO that was a BLP violation. Hans Adler 12:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It does seem to be weakly claimed/cited and the fact that you have to add "rumored" and "denied by the subject" is reflective of the value of the actual content, cited to that opinionated video and a autobigraphy, doesn't also seem well known either, titillating content. I would also remove it for discussion and consensus., which in this case seems to be to exclude. Off2riorob (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your opinions. I got the point. Debresser (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Damishi Sango

    Damishi Sango (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    The subject of this article is objecting to it, with some justification. See User talk:Aymatth2#Damishi Sango I created the article by patching together material from newspaper stories, which gives a rough, unbalanced and incomplete result. The subject replaced that version with a copy of his biography from http://damishisango.com/the-man/, much more complete but decidedly fluffy and dropping information from reliable independent sources. Not sure how to proceed... Aymatth2 (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It is just a cut and copy copyright violation from http://damishisango.com/the-man I reverted back to your version and I have left him a note on his talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If you have a problem with your research been replaced, I am quite happy to leave the information you posted there in. But what I cannot do is to leave your rough picture which paints a wrong image of the subject. The information on www.damishisango.com is a much more complete biography of the subject. I will do another edit of the article, ignoring your own edit and sources, but adding to it my own edit and sources in order to provide a much more balanced and complete picture of Damishi Sango. Samejohnton —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samejohnton (talk • contribs) 18:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for commenting, please take a little time to read the links I placed on your talkpage, as I pointed out there "your contributions are welcomed but as you have commented that you are the subject of the article here you are discouraged from editing the actual article" .. your contributions are welcome please present your desired alterations, improvements and supporting citations here or on the article talkpage for discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Article has been semi protected for a week, repeated insertion of cut and copy copyright violations. Off2riorob (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Art LaFleur

    Art LaFleur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    There seems to be some editing that continually tries to add some information about a nonexistent nephew. This ip is public and continually makes the fake changes. It needs to be blocked from editing as it continually defaces the article. Possibly, this article just needs to be locked, and definitely closely monitored. 16:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.13.115 (talk • contribs)

    Hi, seems to be an IP66 that has also added similar false additions at onther articles and has mostly done silly edits and slipped under the radar. He hasn't edited for a couple of weeks and never may come back again, if he returns and continues to add false details to article we can look at blocking him then. We can't lock an article I am afraid. I have also added it and the IP address to my watchlist. Off2riorob (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Pousti

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

    This article should be combined with SMS.ac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - cf. Wikipedia:BLP1E (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:BLP1E|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mr. Pousti is really only well known for being President of SMS.ac. The article needs some serious editing the last paragraph as well.

    Agreed, he does not look to be individually notable, any comments? Off2riorob (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Mordechai Vanunu - editor adding sources from her own websites

    Mordechai Vanunu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Concerns about sourcing, I just remove a load of links to a blog, and I have also seen, & left, links to another site eg[20] owned by the blog owner who is also heavily editing the article, Eileen fleming. Dougweller (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think those citations are reliable and have removed them and left the editor a note on her talkpage with links explaining the issue and asking her not to replace them without support at the WP:RSN. Off2riorob (talk) 22:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC). Off2riorob (talk) 22:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    A few more eyes needed at News.admin.net-abuse.email

    A few attempts have been made to add the name of an unpopular but otherwise non-notable living person to this article. Further note, I've also removed my own name from that article but I'm not the person in question. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree it is thoroughly inappropriate. I've removed another negative reference sourced to a googlesearch. [21]. The article is problematic as a whole actually. There's a heck of a lot of unsourced information, and a severe lack of secondary sourcing, needed to show that the topic is even notable. --Slp1 (talk) 13:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Akahi Nui

    Akahi Nui: tone of article is unrelentingly hostile to its subject. In particular, it is utterly inappropriate use the expression "a lifelong criminal" to refer to someone whose convictions all relate to what are essentially acts of civil disobedience (asserting his sovereignty as king of Hawaii). Would we call civil rights protesters "criminals" on a similar basis? But clearly there are other problems with the article as well.

    I have no expertise on the topic. A friend interested in Hawaiian sovereignty issues pointed me at the article. - Jmabel | Talk 16:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Should this article even exist? A Google Books search only came up with about half a dozen hits, some of which appeared to be on unrelated subjects. A regular Google search showed a lot of hits, but not much in the way of actual reliable sources. For a BLP, we need good sourcing, and if it doesn't exist, neither should the article. *** Crotalus *** 17:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Gary Fitzgerald

    Gary Fitzgerald

    Appears to be an autobiography of a non-notable person. A candidate for local elections in Ireland who failed to get elected and has tried to keep up a media profile since. User Account Dublinborn appears to have created this article and not much else Special:Contributions/Dublinborn, concern it may violate WP:Auto 


    There was a vote to keep after discussion 4-2 Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gary_Fitzgerald
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=363994452"