Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem. Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Additional notes: Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases. For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead. Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Ongoing WP:BLP-related concerns

Archived Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Ongoing BLP concerns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The following subsections may apply to any or all Biographies of living persons:

James B. Lockhart III

James B. Lockhart III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

One or more editors from the IP range 141.156.72.xxx have made numerous changes to the page (see diff).

The edits are disruptive not only to the substance (removing relevant, well-sourced, NPOV information, replacing it with redundant recitations of the subject's official bio--political spin and all), but also in form (removing internal links and citations).

This IP range appears to be registered to HUD, raising obvious NPOV and COI issues (not to mention inappropriate use of taxpayer money).

DGG (talk) semiprotected the page against anonymous edits.

Cooperage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user twice (this time and this time) reverted addition of relevant, properly sourced material. (Since, as of this notice, that user hasn't made any additional changes since the last week of December 2008, I am not requesting a checkuser at this time.)

Primary sources - the author themselves

I've run into an issue on a specific biography, but it probably has wider implications. For a couple of years I've been monitoring the biography of Mark Steyn, a columnist and author. Now this fellow Steyn apparently has his fans and detractors, and every few weeks I go in and clear out the stuff that violates BLP. Recently I removed the insertion of a quote from one of his hundreds of columns, as a combination of a WP:BLP and WP:NOR violation. I based this removal primarily on the BLP statement "The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves." The material was not published by the subject about himself (i.e. it is not a statement like "I grew up in Liverpool and attended Cardinal Heenan Catholic High School"), was based on a primary source (his own writings), was provided was without context, and was clearly inserted as an attempt to discredit him in some way; thus, its removal. As I said on the article's talk page:

Steyn has written millions of words in literally hundreds, perhaps thousands, of articles. Please explain what makes that particular statement notable in any way; in particular, please find reliable secondary sources that have discussed that statement and provided a context for it. Until then, do not re-insert that WP:BLP-violating original research. Thanks.

Since then, the editor who inserted it, and one other editor objected, even restoring the material. When I insisted that they find secondary sources that discussed the statement, they searched the internet, and managed to discover this source, a book review which mentioned the statement in passing. I've continued to remove the statement as an obvious violation of the very principles of WP:BLP; rather than attempt to show what reliable secondary sources have said about the subject, it is an obvious attempt to reflect negatively on the subject, using primary sources (his own writings). I've also warned them that if they continue to restore it, I will block them for doing so. In reply, they have now argued that because I have been removing the material, that means I am now "in a content dispute" with them, and no longer acting in an administrative capacity. I've pointed out to them the absurdity of this claim; it would mean that any admin who removed BLP-violating material was now "in a content dispute" regarding the material, and could therefore no longer act in an administrative capacity, but they are insistent. Given their continuing insistence that the material does not violate BLP, and that by removing the material I have suddenly become "involved in a content dispute", I've come to this board for additional opinions. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply. I am one of these editors. Here is the compromise material that I proposed at Talk:Mark Steyn. After fellow journalist Robert Fisk, a vocal critic of US foreign policy, was badly beaten up by Afghan refugees, Mark Steyn wrote of Fisk's account of the incident, "You'd have to have a heart of stone not to weep with laughter." [1] [2]. The material is very clearly and reliably sourced, and note that the Steyn article is headed "A self-loathing multiculaturalist gets his due", so I do not see any breach of neutrality, and Steyn's remarks seem significant enough to me. Other sources have been given too, but Jayjg claims that they have all mentioned the remarks in passing, and that more sources that discuss the remarks are needed. But discussion mostly belongs in blogs and forums which are not accepted, although the other editor states that Fisk has discussed the subject in his book The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East. If we have to find non-blog and non-forum sources that discuss significance of everything like this in biographies, then there needs to be a lot of deleting. What is there to discuss about Steyn's remarks? They speak for themselves. Viewfinder (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You say the Steyn's remarks "speak for themselves", but without reliable secondary sources discussing them, what exactly do they say? In the absence of such reliable secondary sources that actually discuss this statement, what can we say about the relevance, notability, importance, etc. of this statement to Steyn's biography, thought, worldview? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly how in-depth a discussion are you looking for, Jayjg, seeing as discussing it "in passing" does not meet your standard? As you've been told, Steyn's remarks are notable because they show a very unusual attitude for a journalist to have toward a colleague. You forgot this link I provided on the talk page: [3]. Fisk also referred to the statement in a lecture given at the Centre de Cultura Contemporánia de Barcelona on 26 September 2002, and it's discussed on page 371 of David Wallis' Killed: Great Journalism Too Hot to Print. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank for reminding me about the above source. Here in an extract: When he was almost killed by an enraged mob of Afghan refugees during the American invasion, Fisk wrote a column saying if he had been in their shoes, he too would have attacked any Westerner he saw, which led some readers to send him Christmas cards expressing their disappointment that the Afghans hadn't "finished the job." This sentiment was more or less echoed by the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, which ran an article bearing the subhead "A self-loathing multiculturalist gets his due." The right-wing columnist Mark Steyn wrote of Fisk's column, "You'd have to have a heart of stone not to weep with laughter." Is this merely a mention in passing? I see commentary on Steyn's remarks here. Viewfinder (talk) 07:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I am still unable to see a clause in WP:BLP which demands that secondary sources which "discuss" the statement must be found. If that is our position, I think that that needs stating on WP:BLP more specifically. Viewfinder (talk) 08:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

While not discussing the sourcing here, the requirement for secondary sources is a clear implication of NOR, whether or not they're BLPs. Nil Einne (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That about wraps it up, I reckon. The counter-arguments have dwindled away to nothing. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I reckon so too. I could repeat the arguments, but that would be pointless. I could restore the material, but its life will likely be shorter than the block that I will get for so doing. But no matter how we word the material, it will be seen as seriously negative by MS and his supporters, and carefully selected for the purposes of damaging him. It seems that admin have been given the power to revert such material, and block those who contribute it, however verifiable it may be. My impression is that there are well resourced supporters of conservative journalists who dislike us "losers" at Wikipedia, and that admins therefore consider that they cannot be too careful. Viewfinder (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't provided any reliable secondary sources that have discussed the material, and you have been told on the Talk: page by more than one person that it is a BLP violation. For example: Speaking in an administrative capacity, I concur with Jayjg. That indeed about wraps it up. Failing a third party consensus here that it can be added, if I see either of you adding it again, I will first protect the article, and, if need be, block the offenders. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You have been provided with umpteen sources, all of which you have wriggled around by stretching Wikipedia's requirements well past their breaking points. You and others are making a mockery of your positions as administrators, and not for the first time. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "umpteen sources" like this, a personal website, and a speech made by Robert Fisk. On the contrary, it is you who are trying to make a mockery of WP:BLP; not on my watch, though. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The sources are listed at Talk:Mark_Steyn#Review_of_.22sources_to_date.22. Unfortunately, whether or not we think there ought to be, there is not consensus in support of the addition of the material as currently proposed. But the incident is verifiable and should be included in the biography. More examples of and excerpts from independent media coverage of the incident should enable it to stick. Viewfinder (talk) 07:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Fisk-Steyn break 1

An uninvolved admin – meaning someone who isn't a regular editor of Middle-East related pages, and who is neither friend nor foe of Jayjg – should take this matter out of his hands. I am far from uninvolved by my own definition, but looking closely at the talk pages and the sources adduced thus far, there doesn't appear to be any BLP problem. None whatsoever. There are multiple secondary sources discussing Steyn's statement; all of them are excellent, high-profile mainstream reliable sources. When Jayjg describes an "absence of such reliable secondary sources that actually discuss this statement," he's simply hoping you won't actually check and discover that he's making this up.

The facts here are very simple. In a rather infamous op-ed for a very high-profile newspaper (the Wall Street Journal), Steyn laughingly cheered on the savage mob beating of a very prominent journalist. There are multiple secondary sources discussing the Steyn op-ed – and specifically addressing the very sentence of Stein's that Jay is threatening to block editors for mentioning in the article – including by the victim of the mob beating, the celebrated journalist Robert Fisk. Here's what Fisk has to say about the Steyn quote:

Later reactions were even more interesting. Among a mass of letters that arrived from readers of the Independent, almost all of them expressing their horror at what had happened, came a few Christmas cards, all but one of them unsigned, expressing the writer's disappointment that the Afghans hadn't "finished the job." The Wall Street Journal carried an article which said more or less the same thing under the subhead "A self-loathing multiculturalist gets his due." In it, Mark Steyn wrote of my reaction that "you'd have to have a heart of stone not to weep with laughter." The "Fisk Doctrine," he went on, "taken to its logical conclusion, absolves of responsibility not only the perpetrators of Sept. 11 but also Taliban supporters who attacked several of Fisk's fellow journalists in Afghanistan, all of whom, alas, died before being able to file a final column explaining why their murderers are blameless."

Quite apart from the fact that most of the journalists who died in Afghanistan were killed by thieves taking advantage of the Taliban's defeat, Steyn's article was interesting for two reasons. It insinuated that I in some way approved of the crimes against humanity on September 11 — or, at the least, that I would absolve the mass murderers. More important, the article would not have been written had I not explained the context of the assault that was made on me, tiny though it was in the scale of suffering visited upon Afghanistan. Had I merely reported an attack by a mob, the story would have fit neatly into the general American media presentation of the Afghan war with no reference to civilian deaths from US B- 52 bombers and no suggestion that the widespread casualties caused in the American raids would turn Afghans to fury against the West. We were, after all, supposed to be "liberating" these people, not killing their relatives. Of course, my crime — the Journal gave Steyn's column the headline "Hate-Me Crimes" — was to report the "why" as well as the "what and where." Wallis, David ed. Killed: Great Journalism Too Hot to Print. Nation Books, 2004: 371-373.

Jay says of this passage that its "relevance is unclear," and complains that it was "found by googling Google Books."

Other secondary sources specifically discussing the Steyn quote include the London Independent (a major British broadsheet), Salon.com, and the New Zealand Herald. The CBC's Evan Solomon also discussed the significance of the Steyn quote in an interview with Fisk for the television show Hot Type.

Three things are absolutely clear: (1) there are multiple secondary sources discussing this quote; (2) there is nothing here even remotely approaching a BLP violation; and (3) Jayjg is here as a party to a content dispute, in an area of the encyclopedia where he has a known bias. This last issue is the gravest by far. In misrepresenting his own role here, in pretending to be simply an admin safeguarding BLP rather than a party to a content dispute, Jay is trying to justify the use of his admin tools as weapons in order to win that content dispute. Hence all his threats to other editors. This is a very serious form of admin abuse, the sort that might well merit desysoping. At any rate, this entire episode represents not a BLP issue, but an admin-abuse issue, and should be moved, accordingly, to the AN/I page.--G-Dett (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I will preface this by saying that Jayjg has asked for my opinion on this matter. I do not, however, think that makes me biased in the matter -- I don't have an ideological commitment in the dispute, nor indeed a particularly close friendship with Jayjg. I think I can comment sensibly on the matter.

Firstly, with regards to the text in the lead. The absence of discussion of these matters in the body of the article makes them unsuitable for inclusion in the lead, where they have the potential to give a non-neutral impression. If there is substance to the discussion, it should be included in the text of the article.

Secondly, with regards to the quote from the WSJ article. The use of the quotation as it stands is staggeringly non-neutral. As it is, it is a quotation from the middle of the article that does not take into consideration the article's general tone or the context of the statement -- the presentation in the Wikipedia article gives the impression that he considered the fact of Mr Fisk's being beaten up humorous; Steyn's article makes it very clear that it is the irony of Fisk's continued position in the face of his being beaten up that is humorous. The presentation of the quotation is not neutral and as such it is a violation of BLP. If there is a genuine controversy over the statement -- or if it is a significant part of a genuine, documented controversy -- then it could be included as part of a discussion of this controversy. As it is, it is not neutral and Jayjg is quite right to remove it.

As I have not looked too far into the history of this dispute, I have no opinion as to the appropriateness of Jayjg himself taking administrative actions, but I feel very strongly that he is correct to make these removals.

[[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 17:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sam, your post is a very reasonable assessment of the content issue; I find it in many respects quite convincing. And Jayjg is entirely within his rights to agree with you and edit accordingly. Where he is not within his rights is in (a) threatening to block other editors who take the opposing position, (b) misrepresenting this as a BLP issue, and (c) falsely claiming (from the very heading he's given this thread on down) that there is an "absence of reliable secondary sources that actually discuss this statement."--G-Dett (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not going to discuss Jayjg's approach, but it avowedly is a BLP issue. They are both (in their current presentation) non-neutral, negative statements on a biography of a living person. That's about the best definition of a "BLP issue" I can think of. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 18:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I can think of one better: negative material that is dubiously sourced.

Anyway, here's my suggestion. Why don't you take over the matter from here? You can address the neutrality issues surrounding the presentation of the quote, without falsely claiming there are no reliable secondary sources discussing it, without threatening to block fellow editors if they disagree with you, and without pretending that it isn't a content dispute. It's really win-win-win: the article improves; the cynicism that sets in when an admin abuses his privileges is stemmed or even reversed; and the ugly drama of pursuing Jay's abuse as a formal matter is avoided.--G-Dett (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your careful analysis and comments, Sam. You're the third uninvolved administrator who has commented on this issue, and you both have agreed with my view that the material violated WP:BLP. And I completely agree that if there is a "genuine controversy over the statement -- or if it is a significant part of a genuine, documented controversy -- then it could be included as part of a discussion of this controversy." That's exactly why I've been asking for reliable secondary sources that discuss the statement. I've asked a couple of other uninvolved admins to take a look at this too, and am hoping that they will have the time to analyze the issue and express their views. In the meantime, I will continue to act in an administrative capacity on this article to remove all WP:BLP violations, and ensure that none are inserted. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sam's stated reason for opposing the material as currently written is completely different from yours. It would be interesting to know who the other two uninvolved admins are, whether you emailed them privately like you did Sam, and whether they took you at your word when you falsely asserted that secondary sources discussing the quote were lacking. If they believed you on this last, that would of course render their opinions on the BLP issue irrelevant.--G-Dett (talk) 03:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Fisk-Steyn break 2

Possible compromise:

Noting the irony of anti-Western writer Robert Fisk being beaten by Muslims whom he sympathized with, Steyn called it a "hate-me crime" and wrote "You'd have to have a heart of stone not to weep with laughter."[fn to 15 Dec 01 WSJ] Fisk criticized the remark as insensitive.[fn to book]

This would necessarily belong in the text of the article, not the lead. THF (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

THF, my concern, as before, is unlike, say, the Dershowitz–Finkelstein affair that we don't seem to have reliable secondary sources that discuss this "incident". Steyn wrote it, Fisk responded briefly in a speech and in his book, and a couple of book reviews note it. From where would a proper WP:BLP-compliant analysis come? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Jay, I may be mistaken here, but you seem to be requiring a tertiary source. The secondary source is Fisk's commentary (and the commentary of others) on Steyn's essay, and the case has been made that that secondary commentary is notable. The reason we then go to the primary source is to give Steyn a chance to defend himself by appropriately putting his words in context so that the article isn't twisted by Fisk's tendentious reading. You seem to be concerned that the result will make Steyn look bad, but it's only going to look bad to Fisk partisans wearing blinders. Everyone else is going to chuckle.

I agree that the text you removed was correctly removed. But the issue is one of NPOV because of the failure to put the text in context, and that's readily resolved. THF (talk) 05:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree no mention of this belongs in the lead. Your proposed wording is an improvement. I think Sam may still object to it because in his view the article should be careful not to "give the impression that [Steyn] considered the fact of Mr Fisk's being beaten up humorous." I don't fully share Sam's concern here, in part because it's very clear that Steyn did find the beating itself humorous–

You can understand why Mr. Fisk has been in low spirits of late: The much-feared "Arab street" is as seething and turbulent as a leafy cul-de-sac in Westchester County...But last weekend the people finally roused themselves--and beat up Fisky! His car broke down just a stone's throw (as it turned out) from the Pakistani border and a crowd gathered. To the evident surprise of the man known to his readers as "the champion of the oppressed," the oppressed decided to take on the champ. They lunged for his wallet and began lobbing rocks. Yet even as the rubble bounced off his skull, Mr. Fisk was shrewd enough to look for the "root causes."

–and it's certainly clear that the Wall Street Journal's headline writer understood Steyn to be applauding the beating; the article is subtitled "A self-loathing multiculturalist gets his due." But given that the quoted sentence ("heart of stone" etc.) is talking about laughing at Fisk's response, I concur with Sam that that's how it should be phrased.

How about something like this: Noting the irony of US-foreign-policy critic Robert Fisk being beaten by Muslims whose views he'd championed, Steyn called it a "hate-me crime." Regarding Fisk's subsequent expressions of sympathy for his attackers, Steyn wrote "You'd have to have a heart of stone not to weep with laughter." Other commentators described Steyn's remark as "vicious" and tantamount to an endorsement of the attack. Fisk himself went further, arguing that Steyn's remarks implied that Fisk "in some way approved of the crimes against humanity on September 11." Could probably be trimmed and tightened, but that's the essence of the episode.--G-Dett (talk) 03:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"US-foreign-policy critic" for Fisk is perhaps too soft an appellation, since he's a conspiracy theorist of relatively extreme wackiness. "Other commentators" is WP:WEASELly, since it would be of some relevance if they were politically aligned (or not) with Fisk's views. "Tantamount to an endorsement of the attack" seems unfair in the current context, since, after all, it was Fisk's own endorsement of the attack ("I would've attacked me, too") that Steyn was humorously commenting upon (a point that my language above doesn't quite make, either). I'm fine with the choice of Fisk quote; that was certainly how I read Steyn. And Fisk, for that matter.

Of course, Jayjg is a thoughtful and persuasive editor, so if he disagrees with me for reasons I haven't thought of, I may need to reevaluate my position.

NB to interested editors that the same issue arises in the Robert Fisk article. THF (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware Fisk was a conspiracy theorist, but I've only read his major works – Pity the Nation, The Great War for Civilisation, and of course his three decades of award-winning journalism for The Independent, which is one of Britain's two or three top mainstream broadsheets. I am aware that his writing is rhetorically bombastic, and that he takes his own derring-do during the Lebanese civil war quite seriously, sometimes wearyingly so, but that is of course quite a different thing from conspiracy theories. But perhaps you are more deeply read in his minor works, or perhaps you've had privileged access to his personal notebooks or something, and found what you thought was a conspiracy theory, in which case do share. The other possibility is that you don't know what you're talking about, and are parroting something you heard some lantern-jawed illiterate pundit or thoughtful/persuasive Wikipedian say, and are forgetting that this is the BLP noticeboard, good a place as any to start not slandering living people.

If "US foreign policy critic" sounds too euphemistic, could you suggest something else? Forgive my bluntness, but "anti-Western" sounds like something a blogger who doesn't know Fisk's work – and doesn't know what "Western" means for that matter – would say.

It's secondary-source commentators in Salon, The Independent, etc. who thought that Steyn's guffaws as a mob "beat up Fisky!" and "the rubble bounced off his skull" amounted to an endorsement of the attack. His WSJ editors thought that too, which is why they subtitled his article "A self-loathing multiculturalist gets his due."--G-Dett (talk) 12:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to play Argument Clinic here. Any fair reading of Steyn's column would acknowledge that he was commenting on Fisk's own endorsement of the attack and self-hatred. As for Fisk himself, he's accused the US of faking its account of the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon and destruction of WTC7, so "foreign policy critic" is far too mild a characterization of his anti-US extremism; WP:WEIGHT suggests he's lucky to get any mention in the Steyn article at all. "Radical" or "anti-western sympathizer" is not unique with me. THF (talk) 12:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, you're right and you're wrong about a fair reading of Steyn's column. Only an unusually tone-deaf reader (or a non-native speaker) would fail to see that he's practically wetting his pants in hilarious glee as he recounts the near-fatal beating of Fisk. But you're right that where he explicitly describes his own "laughter," he's talking about his response to Fisk's sanctimonious expression of sympathy for the people who almost killed him.

What does "faking its account" mean? Does Fisk believe the US had a role in the 9-11 attacks? If so, wow, I have never, ever heard this. What I've heard him say is that while he has nagging questions about the attacks, these are rooted in personal and anecdotal evidence not professional research; here's what he says about "ravers" at talks of his who ask him why he doesn't "tell the truth about 9-11":

I have tried to tell the "truth"; that while there are unanswered questions about 9/11, I am the Middle East correspondent of The Independent, not the conspiracy correspondent; that I have quite enough real plots on my hands in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Iran, the Gulf, etc, to worry about imaginary ones in Manhattan. My final argument – a clincher, in my view – is that the Bush administration has screwed up everything – militarily, politically diplomatically – it has tried to do in the Middle East; so how on earth could it successfully bring off the international crimes against humanity in the United States on 11 September 2001?

"Western" refers to a whole trajectory of human culture compassing everything from Athenian democracy and Hellenistic culture to enlightenment humanism and liberal capitalism. There exists a handful of semi-literate contemporary elites, elites who in their own persons, ironically, do not bear much of the intellectual fruit of the Western tradition, who seem indeed not even to know what it is, who when talking about it tend to equate it with American political and military hegemony since World War II; for these hayseed elites, yes Robert Fisk is "anti-Western." For others, he is an extraordinary journalist and fierce, bombastic, and occasionally wearisome critic of American foreign policy.--G-Dett (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Fisk-Steyn break 3

I have noted the above discussion with interest. I am a bit concerned about Jayjg approaching other admins on this matter; there is a tendency in such situations, consciously or otherwise, to approach fellow admins likely to be sympathetic. Did he approach the admins who have commented on the talk page? Fisk may be radical but he is a writer for a major UK broadsheet and I see nothing about him that should disqualify him from mention in the Steyn article. "Anti-US extremist" appears to me to be unjustified but even if it is justified, Steyn's laugh about another journalist's response to a mob that beat him up, in an article entitled "a self loathing multiculturalist gets his due", seems pretty notable to me. Viewfinder (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Viewfinder, Sam Korn has explained quite clearly the nature of his relationship with me (or lack thereof). I specifically looked for experienced admins with whom I had few interactions, and who felt they were familiar with BLP. I did not approach the editors who commented on the article's Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Michael Wines

Michael Wines is a New York Times journalist who spent many years stationed in Russia. In 2001, Rolling Stone journalist and author Matt Taibbi threw a pie allegedly made from horse semen into his face. This incident has been confirmed by the New York Times, and there is documentary material extant (photographs) showing Wines with pie on his face. The incident is outlined in detail in the Wiki entry on The eXile, Taibbi's Russian newspaper. Attempts to give this incident its due weight in Wines's own entry are being deleted on spurious grounds (which also keep changing): weight, NPOV, BLP etc. The article is a stub, and the incident has been widely reported - don't see how weight is an issue. There's no reason why a factual event that occurs elsewhere in Wiki should contravene the NPOV, nor is it defamatory if it is true (it is), and reliably sourced (it is). What are other editor's thoughts on this? The discussion page on the Michael Wines article gives a fuller account of the issues here.Richard Cooke (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The due weight for this in the article on Wines is zero. The due weight for this on the eXile is either zero or very close to zero. BLP applies on all pages, not just the bio of the subject. DGG (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

DGG, I'm trying to understand your tersely worded argument but not having much success. The only mention in WP policy I can find about "due weight" is the section entitled "Undue weight" on the page WP:NPOV, which is also the redirect destination from WP:due weight. This section asserts that minority viewpoints in some controversy (e.g. evolution, the death of Napoleon, etc.) should not be given undue weight. But in the present case, there is no minority viewpoint. Neither Wines nor any other party has ever disputed any facts that were being inserted into the article; in fact his publication (NYT) actually confirmed it.

Consequently, I don't understand what relevance the due weight argument has here, or what quantity is supposed to be "zero." If the 5(!) sources available on this subject from other WP pages are added, there is clearly no surfeit of reliable sources and no violation of NPOV, BLP, or any other policy. Please correct me if there's something I've missed.... dsol (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

DCG, what is the basis for your claim that this material has "zero weight" or contravenes the BLP? Matt Taibbi is a signficant figure, as is Michael Wines. Surely one throwing a pie in the face of the other constitutes a significant event. At present, your argument seems to be "because I say so". Richard Cooke (talk) 03:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It rises to the level of inclusion if it is noteworthy, ie it has been covered by multiple RS and has some relevance to the article and is not undue weight, ie its 90% of the article. Is this the case? I have no idea. Just my 2 cents. --Tom 15:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Just took a quick look at the bio. Still not sure. Wines went to school, works for the times, has wife and kids, and some reporter threw a pie in his face?? His current bio is tiny so this "factoid" would sort of stick out awkwardly. Again, not arguing for or against inclusion, just thinking out loud.--Tom 15:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) After looking at what RC wanted to add, I would be against it. imho, it does give undue weight to eXile and their "award" and to the pie thrower. As pointed out, maybe, maybe, include a breif mention in eXile article or the pie throwers but not needed in the Wine article. Cheers, --Tom 15:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tom - I agree with you that the current inclusion is far from optimum, and that a line or two would suffice. That was the original addition I made to the stub. However, one editor, Idlewild101, seems to be demanding an absurd "burden of proof" involving multiple references and an NPOV provided by putting it in a "XYZ reported" phrasing. He is now claiming that any reference to the event is "scatalogical". Apart from needing a dictionary (he presumably means it is offensive or obscene, rather than pertaining to faeces) this is irrelevant with respect to WP. Is it tasteless? Definitely. Is it noteworthy? Ditto. I would be more than happy to have this pie section pared down to a single line reference in Wines's bio, which seems appropriate given the noteworthiness of the incident in question. Something along the lines of "In 2001, author and journalist Matt Taibbi threw a cream pie allegedly made from equine semen into Wines's face, supposedly to protest the nature of Wines's reporting from Moscow." (referenced using the three links from the three Wiki quality sources on the eXile page). What are other editors thoughts? Thanks Richard Cooke (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

One more thing - I've scoured the WP for any reference to "scatalogical material", and can't find anything. Is this a recognized reason for removal of verified content? Any help here would be appreciated. Thanks. Richard Cooke (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Scatological material as well as childish pranks are subcategories of non-notable events of no encyclopædic value. That's what you should be looking for when perusing the policy. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 00:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Idlewild101 asked me to give my opinion. My view is that the our job, as Wikipedia editors, is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. If something is reliably reported and is relevent to the subject then we should summarize it. As for weight, that's a major issue because the article is so short. I believe the most significant element of this story is that the suibject was voted the worst journalist in Russia. If we report positive awards we should also report negative awards. The fact that the "prize" was getting hit with a pie is less important, and the contents of the pie are trivial (and can't be confirmed by photograph). I'd think that a very short version is acceptable, something like, "In March 2001, The eXile declared Wines, at the time the New York Times Moscow bureau chief, the worst journalist in Russia. A pie was thrown at him as his reward." We should be doubly sure that we are also reporting any positive honors he's received as well.   Will Beback  talk  19:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Will, but is the eXile award noteable? I sure wouldn't use them as a citation. Has a 3rd party reported on the award? It seems like a fake/attack type of award, but others hopefully know better. Sorry for not knowing but just repling to your response. I will admitt that I am getting annoyed with the project by the number of times that I hear material should be included for whatever reason, probably since I am serious deletionist/minimalist. Anyways, cheers, --Tom 20:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC) ps, to reply to Ricahrd Cooke, you keep on insisting that this event was noteworthy and I am still not convienced. How widely was this covered? What do others think. If it isn't noteworthy, then don't include it at all, even if its a line or two. Anyways, when I first read this, I thought it said a pie made of horse feces, and I was like wow,nasstttie...--Tom 20:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Tom, I would encourage you to go ahead and read the disputed material and the relevant footnotes. Coverage in the secondary sources, such as Media life magazine, the NY Post, and Salon.com establish notability for this content. dsol (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Note that this material was also previously debated at the BLP noticeboard, with the final decision: "The section has been rewritten and now has adequate sourcing; it does not appear to violate WP:BLP policy." dsol (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Will BeBack. I think your concerns (and Tom's) have been dealt with in the previous discussion and resolution of this material on the BLPN with regard to The eXile article, which deals with the above concerns (there are 5 verified secondary sources discuss both the event and the contents of the pie). The only question remaining is one of weight in the context of Michael Wines's article, where consensus is now falling on the side of inclusion. I would encourage you to look at the material mooted for inclusion, and suggest any amendments there. If there are no objections, I will then restore the material. I'm also not sure why Idlewild couldn't contribute to this page himself. Richard Cooke (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to ask that editors on this page actually go to the Michael Wines and the eXile page to edit them in line with the discussion on BLPN.

User:Richard Cooke and User:dsol simply revert each of my attempts to implement the ideas here. Cooke is clearly misleading people above when he says that what he's putting in the eXile article is consistent with what editors have said here. I don't agree with Dsol's suggestion that because the eXile matter has been discussed before on this page that anything said 2 years ago is final. Dsol has an ownership problem with the eXile [4] and related articles. And please remember that Richard Cooke, not me, brought up this matter here, after inserting clearly inappropriate material in the Micheal Wines article.

As I read it, DGG and Tom say that the material should not be in the Michael Wines article, and that only a minimal mention in the eXile article would be permisable. User:Will Beback, is somewhat more lenient, saying that a fairly minimal one sentence summary might be acceptable (in either article?).

Please also note that User:Richard Cooke and User:Russavia who are both editing the Wines article and the eXile article are almost certainly sockpuppets, based upon their common attack style of writing, and edits such as [5].

Please also note that the eXile's editorial policy, as quoted by The Independent: "We shit on everybody equally." [6] and that it was a tabloid in all senses, but is now defunct. The question repeated above "What do you mean by scatological material?" is clearly not posed in good faith.

The reason that I do not engage in discussion with these people is that from experience, I've found that they simply do not discuss matters in good faith.

This shouldn't distract us from the basic question: How is the following

"In March 2001, "The eXile" set up a single-elimination contest to determine who, in their eyes, was the "most foul hack journalist" in Russia. In each issue, they paired up the previous week's survivors, who were then compared and analysed. The winner, Michael Wines who was then the Moscow correspondent for the New York Times, had a cream pie allegedly made from equine semen flung into his face by Matt Taibbi. Jonathan Shainin of Salon.com confirmed the incident, after seeing photographs of the attack."

consistent with basic Wikipedia policy?

Wikipedia:Blp#Basic_human_dignity "Basic human dignity Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."

Whereas, the version I've proposed based on discussions at the current WP:BLPN discussion is not considered acceptable?

"In March 2001, "The eXile" set up a single-elimination contest to determine who, in their eyes, was the "most foul hack journalist" in Russia. The winner, Michael Wines who was then the Moscow correspondent for the New York Times, had pie flung into his face by Matt Taibbi. "

I'd personally leave out Wine's name, but in line with Will Bebacks more lenient approach I've left it in.

I'll ask that you consider this basic question and edit based upon your consideration. I will limit any further discussion here to "Have the eXile editors answered the basic question above, or do they simply bluster and avoid it."

Idlewild101 (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

If you have evidence of sockpuppetry, pleace file an WP:SPI. If not -- well, such accusations are not to be made lightly. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 00:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Idlewild101, I would, at this point defer to your version or decision. You seem to be acting in good faith and want to do what is best so that would be fine by me. You have obviously spent more time and thought on this "matter" and seem to know the "players" involved. I admitt that I "patrol" this board to help with "obvious" easily fixed problems and add my 2 cents for what it is worth. If you would like more imput or help just let me know and good luck :) --Tom 16:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

All the objections to this material have been emotionally based, as opposed to an appeal to actual WP policies. The article should report what secondary sources have found notable about its subject. No secondary source has ever denied that this incident involving a public figure happened, and at least 6 sources, several of them highly reliable, have confirmed it. It has appeared in the lead paragraph of several secondary sources on the eXile and Matt Taibbi. Clearly these numerous secondary sources find the information to be relevant and true. Therefore I don't see what possible reason there could be for censoring the material. dsol (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I am ok with a very abbreviated version on Wines' page, so long as what the secondary sources have to say is available on the eXile or Taibbi's page. dsol (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur. WP:IDONTLIKEIT it not a reason for deletion of material. I am actually beginning to question whether Idlewild is in fact the subject, or related to the subject, of this article. As evidenced at Commons:Deletion requests/File:I don't travel to eSStonia.jpg, several editors here are commenting based purely upon their own biases, Idlewild included. WP:BLP does not say anything that would warrant removal. So long as it is sourced reliably, and is written in an NPOV fashion, it is valid for inclusion. As I have stated on the talk page, if one were to remove it, there is nothing notable about this person, and should/will be put up at AfD. Tom has now removed the information again, and Tom, I should point out that Idlewild is a brand new editor, who wouldn't have a clue on the "players" involved, unless of course he is a banned sockpuppet, as he seems to know about policies, even if he does misquote and mispresent them. Wikipedia is not censored and for this reason, so long as it complies with policies, just because we don't like it, that doesn't mean we can exclude it. --Russavia ^Dialogue 15:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Russavia and Dsol have avoided the basic question. "How is the material inserted consistent with Wikipedia:Blp#Basic_human_dignity" I've bolded the quotation of the policy above just in case they haven't seen it. The most obvious prohibition is Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly, but each of the 5 sentences quoted prohibit this nonsense.

Russavia has nominated the Michael Wines article for deletion because on "non-notability." I think many people might consider Wines borderline notable, but ... I'll suggest that everybody involved support this deletion, subject - as always is the case - that if anything more notable happens to the guy, that the article can be recreated. The section in the eXile, which the large majority of people here has said should be minimal or totally eliminated, should also be deleted. This will be especially true because the Basic Human Dignity section of BLP says "This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions."

So it comes down to "let's just get rid of everything related to this." I hope everybody will support this. Idlewild101 (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I have also voted delete on the Wines article. I don't agree however that his notability arise only from his victimization -- even he'd just been some random guy hit with a pie that would be the case, but it was his very broadly published work as a public figure that made the incident notable to the secondary sources that covered it. Not writing the article in a mocking tone is not the same as censoring any information that may reflect poorly on anyone. If you can rewrite the section in a way you feel is less mocking/more npov without removing information then I suggest you do so, other than that I would agree with Will BeBack that the secondary sources should be faithfully followed. dsol (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Alan Shawn Feinstein

I have made a couple of reports about this over the past year, but I don't know how to find those old ones, so here goes again.

Alan Shawn Feinstein is repeatedly editing his bio to insert puffery and remove unfavorable material. You can see this by looking at the history of edits by 70.184.13.225. The url below shows that this is Feinstein himself http://webmail.warwickschools.org/Public%20Announcements/FAV1-00016C5B/I00676BD4?ShowInternetHeader=1

Really, can't this be prevented? There are better uses for everyone's time than to keep monitoring and correcting his stuff.

This fellow made a bundle selling "collectibles" of somewhat dubious value, gives money to places with the provision that his name or family members name be prominently attached, runs commercials on local RI television lauding himself for doing so. Often the amounts of money are tiny. For example, a local animal shelter had a notice that he would match a portion of contributions for a month or so, and it turned out the match was like 1% or something. He's been in at least two significant controversies about his self promotion.

"Trudyjh (talk) 09:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)"

Agreed. And a SPA account has appeared to try keeping the article puffed up. Unfortunately I can not use "personal knowledge" about some of his philatelic "investments" as I was a stamp dealer for a long time. Collect (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Frank Trainor

• Frank Trainor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This has been blanked a number of times by Strangertomyself (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the original author, with edit summaries indicating they may also be the subject of the article, apparently with the aim of seeking deletion. Intervening IP edits and the article's tenure make it difficult to see this as a G7 speedy deletion, and there's at least an assertion of notability, if little sourcing. I thought I'd ask for input on whether this should or could be deleted if the subject so desires. – The Parting Glass 12:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it probably could have been deleted before you posted here. The only edit of significance before that time by anyone other than the original author was this one.[7] On the other hand, while the page is completely unsourced, it does appear to be the sort of person on whom we would like to have an encyclopedic article if we can, but don't have to have one. I'd say that if sources don't appear soon, send it to AFD. GRBerry 16:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Vehicular Homicide

A slew of IPs are continually adding a list of living people supposedly convicted of this crime to this article. While I object to the whole list as trivial to the law and possibly a BLP problem even if they people really were convicted, 2 of the names they keep restoring weren't even convicted of this particular crime. They don't seem to care about my objection though. --Movingday29 (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Definitely trivia unless someone manages to make a full encyclopedic list <g>. Collect (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems resolved for now, but the IP(s) do continually come back over time. --Movingday29 (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Venezuela Information Office

Alekboyd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Alekboyd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding information on living persons which is unsourced, sourced to primary sources and poorly sourced to secondary sources (depending on the living person) [8] [9] at Venezuela Information Office (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). JRSP (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Venezuela Information Office (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Alekboyd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I hate to have to make this report, but an editor is edit-warring to include his synthesis of primary sources about living people into this article. I've tried mentoring him, because I think he's correct that there are a number of unbalanced Venezuela-related articles; if he would just be more careful and conservative about his sourcing and his prose, he could make Wikipedia-compliant edits that provide much of the information he thinks is missing from the encyclopedia. But I'm apparently not a very good mentor. THF (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

additions comply with WP:RS (US DoJ, LA Times, BBC). Individuals cited are in the public record advocating for Chavez, and have been identified as such in sources.--Alekboyd (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Privacy violating images

I am not sure this is the right place to discuss this but I do not know a better one. There are four images used in connection with strip tease related articles which show an apparently identifiable naked female dancer. The photos were apparently taken in a private setting (looks like a private party). There is no claim of a "model release" or anything similar from the person pictured indicating that publication has been authorized. The pictures came from flickr and while a person claiming to be the photographer gave permission, that cannot be verified. I believe use of such pictures, without any sign of permission, violates the subject's privacy. And it could expose the Wikipedia to liability. [10] [11] [12] [13] I believe the pictures should be removed. Summarily. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

These are from Commons. Shouldn't this be addressed at source? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sunil Abeyesundere

I was one of many victims of a grand theft of $400,000 committed by this person. I occasionally Google his name to see what he might be up to. I found this Wikipedia biography Sunil Abeyesundere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I did not find in it any mention of his conviction, which is documented in the newspaper South Bay Daily Breeze in a series of 4 articles in 2001. I have attempted to add this to the biography, but it has been speedily deleted now three times (see this difference). A group of editors, TruthInNews (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), LotusPetals (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Puhul Dosi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and LegalLuminary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have opposed this edit. The reasons given are that it violates biography of living persons policy. The main objections are that the edit is libelous, that I cite as sources newspaper articles that are not available for free, that the edit is sensational, that the Sunil A. of the Wikipedia article is not the Sunil A. of the newspaper stories, and that I am biased. I have answered all these objections in a long dialog on the various users' talk pages, but we are unable to achieve consensus. Am I, in fact, in violation of the BLP? Thanks for taking a look at this. Spottykitty (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The other editors are all socks. Maybe even the guy himself (even though I'm still not 100% sure you have the right guy, the messages they left on your talk page are very suspicious). I nominated the article for speedy deletion because it does not assert notability. NJGW (talk) 05:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Negative Info from poorly translated foreign sources

Per issue I raised on BLP:talk, the Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources policy reads: Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages...Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors. However the article about the Israeli writer and musician Gilad Atzmon uses two long, poorly google-translated articles to include negative opinions (also WP:UNDUE since English sources share same information). (2005 German book reading paragraph and Swedish Committee Against Anti-Semitism.) People who don't like Atzmon, including someone who insists on including his own barely WP:RS negative article comments about Atzmon, have refused to removed the material. Other opinions? CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you give us some difs that show which edits you are questioning? These's very little recent activity, and the issues you're talking about all seem to have taken place last week or before. I also don't see the Swedish source you're talking about in currently in the refs. NJGW (talk) 04:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The diffs are old ones that have been debated over several months, a few months back. Evidently someone found an English translation of the Swedish source. Here's the German refs: Untranslated German. I guess at the very least they should have the full translate.google translation of relevant material in the footnote? CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

conerns over recent domestic violence reports between Chris Brown and Rihanna

In a nutshell, I'm advocating any information regarding the domestic dispute be removed from both articles until the investigation is over, per WP:BLP, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:NOT#JOURNALISM. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm an involved editor in regards to this particular part of the Rihanna article. My sole involvement has been noticing the section, rewording and sourcing the information. I don't believe that the small section that has been added to this article violates any Wikipedia policies, including all of the above mentioned. There was discussion on the talk page in regards to the information, and consensus indicated that it should be added. The information added is well-sourced, neutral and does not place undue weight in respect to the rest of the article. --Chasingsol^(talk) 10:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to clarify, my objection is not based on the reliability of the sources or the tone of the section, but on the very limited information itself, as the case is three days old. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This topic has to be covered carefully, if at all. Wikipedia is certainly not news. Per the RECENTISM page, I am not sure this incident will be notable in 10 days let alone 10 years. It is, after all, celebrity tabloidism. If it does become a long term legal issue (trial, etc), then clearly it should be covered. But sourcing and actual language needs to be impeccable. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, except in the case of Chris Brown, it already appears to be having major impact on his career (advertising cancellations, shows featuring him taken out of circulation, etc). It's unknown that the impact will continue, but I think evidence is strong enough to keep a couple sentences on the incident in Chris Brown (entertainer) (not in Rihanna, though). -kotra (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, better keep the finger in the dike on this one. A brief reliable sourced factual mention is probably okay. I've shortened the section accordingly in the Rihanna article. As the victim, assuming she was not seriously hurt this is a lot more notable to the article about Chris Brown (entertainer) where, alas, the detailed use of contradictory sources and unproven criminal charges is also a BLP issue. Whatever we do for now, sooner or later it will be yesterday's news instead of today's, so the articles will settle back down to an encyclopedic state. Wikidemon (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Jorge Telerman

Resolved

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorge_Telerman

"A possible reason for Telerman's defeat in 2007 is his alleged ties with the impeached Aníbal Ibarra."

This last paragraph is only a speculation and is not evidenced by any source. Please remove, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isoldita (talk • contribs) 12:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It has been removed. --Tom 15:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Obamawatch: Ronald Loui

Something fishy afoot here; text formatting indicates a copypaste, the creator's only contributions are to this article though it uses proper referencing in places. To the point: this is a poorly sourced BLP that needs attention from editors fluent in American politics/academia. Skomorokh 15:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I tagged the page for its issues and started a discussion on the talk page. The article's creator (Ftohme61 (talk · contribs)) tried to fix it up and removed the tags, but it still falls short. Ftohme61 is probably the subject himself. More eyes would help. NJGW (talk) 04:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Kirstie Allsopp and Phil Spencer

Kirstie Allsopp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Phil Spencer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A new user, TonkyWonky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is seeking to add a "controversy" section to this person's article. The gist is that Ms Allsopp makes her living on television property programmes and once, in 2004, she said in passing that she didn't think there would be a property price crash. Four and a half years pass and there has been. So that's a controversy, apparently. The only source for this "controversy" is a YouTube clip of her saying it. The new user and I are both at 3RR-level; they feel, it seems from their edit summaries, that WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:UNDUE do not apply. Personally, this seems to me to be gossip rather than encyclopedic. I'd like other opinions. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 15:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Gossip? Kirstie Allsopp has consistently been quoted as being very bullish about the property market, which is currently experiencing its biggest crash in history. Michael Fish's article mentions very prominently his "no hurricane" forecast - a single comment he made that technically was correct (the storms were not a hurricane) but all the same is given top billing on his page.

Kirstie Allsopp has made numerous bullish statements on a market that crashed soon afterwards. Several of these made after the credit crunch impacted.

They are surely relevant to a biography of a person who is in wikipedia on the basis of their status as a "property expert"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonkyWonky (talk • contribs) 15:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Also Panorama among others have mentioned Location Location Location as having contributed to the housing boom and bust. TonkyWonky (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason it's relevant in the Micahel Fish article is that's it's mentioned everytime he's been interviewed in the press ever since. In the case of Allsopp, if there was really a controversy, there would likewise be plenty of third-party media coverage. Taking a quote from an old interview and amking something of it is original research. Additinoally the youtube link is almost certainly a copyright violation, and hence not acceptable as a reference in any case. Find some relevant, verifiable media coverage of this controversy and fine, but you can't make up the controversy yourself. David Underdown (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Remove nonsense and block editors for 3RR please! Redvers, you are right on about this. I am sorry some brits are taking it hard, but wiki bios are not the place for retaliation. If multiple reliable sources provide coverage of these folks and there is some resemblemce of balance in respect to the rest of their bio, then MAYBE take it to the talk page and reach consensus amoung a few other editors. If not, leave it out for now, please! Thank you, --Tom 15:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I added Phil Spencer to top of this, seems like both are getting hit. --Tom 15:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

So an article by Kirstie herself? [14] "In recent weeks I've been described as a “property porn queen” in the New Statesman, sniped at on the pages of The Guardian and lambasted by Panorama for excessively inflating house prices. "

So the New Statesman, Guardian and Panorama have mentioned her in relation to her part in the bubble, such that she gets an article in the Times to deny the accusations? And its STILL not relevant. Blimey - do you have to murder someone to get a negative note in a wikipeda biography? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonkyWonky (talk • contribs) 16:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The only reason I came to this wikipedia article was for material, having seen many references to Kirstie fuelling the house price boom that caused many of the economic problems we now have. I was looking to get links to such sources - instead I found an article that could have come from the pages of Hello Magazine telling me about her blue blood, kids names and where she was born. Nothing about why she is being mentioned on Panorama, Times, Guardian, Newstatesman etc in relation to the housing slump - which is never far from the news these days. This is the biggest rolling story in the UK at present, Kirstie is often mentioned in relation to it, yet her wikipedia article has not a mention of why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonkyWonky (talk • contribs) 16:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I think she actually writes fairly regularly in The Times on property, so it's not really true that the article was specifically to rebut those claims. Now you're actually finding some sources, it might be possible to work something into the article. However, please read WP:NPOV which suggests that sections shouldn't be labelled in such away as to distort the neutrality of the article, or give undue weight to one aspect. WP:SOFIXIT, sure the article's not the best, so improve it, but make sure you understand how the article writing process here works first. Find the source, then add the material, not vice-versa. David Underdown (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Whats the point in me editing it when someone will just undo it? I genuinely tried to add content to an article that was lacking it. If you read articles for other TV celebs who aren't as newsworthy they are full of trivia, see eg Richard and Judy articles. But those edits stood.

I tried to add something to explain why Kirstie is being requently mentioned in relation to the housing crash - so that a foreigner who did not know who she was would understand why she is being mentioned in Newstatesman, Guardian, Panorama etc in this light.

It appears that the majority of editors seem to want this particular wikipedia article to be more Hello Magazine - just reference to blue blood and kids names, and no mention of why Kirstie is frequently cited in relation to the housing boom. Which is fair enough I guess. But why not go to Hello Magazine website instead?

This article also doesn't mention she was appointed as an advisor to the conservative party either. I won't bother spending the time editing that either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonkyWonky (talk • contribs) 16:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

[15] "She and her co-presenters of property shows have been vilified for distorting the market and encouraging people to buy beyond their means.

No accusation could irritate the Tories' adviser on property more. "People had been asking me even before the sub-prime and credit crunch whether I felt I was responsible for the hike in property prices and first time buyers finding it hard to get on the ladder. Absolutely not," she says."

Many articles mention the allegations re the property boom. Shouldn't wikipedia at least MENTION them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonkyWonky (talk • contribs) 16:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

What you originally added to the article wasn't an improvemnt, simply taking a comment she made in 2004 with no context and labelling it a controversy was in breach of a number of policies as we've tried to explain. However, if use some of the links you're subsequently found, there should be no problem. David Underdown (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"if use some of the links you're subsequently found, there should be no problem"

I'm confident someone will have a problem with it. When I look through the history of this article people have tried to amend in this way in the past - and its always been deleted.

I just don't see the point of wikipedia. If I look up someone I don't just want to know where they are born, what their kids are called. I want to know who they are and why they are in the news.

Tell you want David, how about you update using these links - and we'll see how long it lasts? I know as soon as I edit it, it'll be deleted.

TonkyWonky (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

[16] "Want ketchup with that? For Kirstie Allsopp, the TV property presenter who once promised to eat her hat if UK house prices crashed, yesterday’s data from Nationwide will make chewy reading."

Another reference to ignore! —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonkyWonky (talk • contribs) 17:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

A couple of points. Wikipedia is NOT the news. That doesn't mean it doesn't cover contraversey or include criticism. Look at the Bill O'Reilly article. See anything there? Also, just because there are poblems with other articles in not a reason to do so here. Its more about the endless maze of policies and guidelines that need to be aheard to. Also please note WP:3RR. This is used to avoid edit wars which are a big no no. It is probably best to enlist an experienced editor who could possible craft something into the article which covers the material you want included in a WP:NPOV way, that is also a biggie. Anyways, --Tom 17:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure Wikipedia is not the news. But Kirstie and Phil have been mentioned much in the news in relation to the housing crash. The article is incomplete if it excludes this. It excludes other facts, for example that Kirstie was appointed a housing advisor to the Tories (I'd have thought that merits a mention?) and perhaps more trivial things like her being in FHM's sexist women poll - which I'd say is still worthy of mention despite being a little trivial? At present a foreigner who read the FT, Times, Guardian etc would see her mentioned as she frequently is in relation to the housing crash, and have no background in wikipedia.

If you think an experienced editor could rewrite, then perhaps you can have a go? I'm not trying to put a spin on it or give it an angle - I have no axe to grind - I just find it staggering that the article reads like Hello Magazine rather than the wikipedia articles I've come to expect. As far as UK press coverage is concerned, Kirstie and Phil and their TV show have come to epitomize the housing crash in the same way Lastminute.com and Martha Lane Fox came to epitomize the dotcom crash. Wikipedia is incomplete without such references. The current article is pretty much what her PR company would turn out, except it doesn't include a nice photo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonkyWonky (talk • contribs) 17:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Another mention in the Telegraph [17] "Meanwhile, many fireside entrepreneurs, no doubt egged on by the kind of property porn programmes fronted by Kirstie Allsopp and her sister-in-crime, Sarah Beeny, are encouraged to put together a buy-to-let property portfolio.

Why not? Rent it out. Do it up and sell it for a profit. What could possibly go wrong?

Well, as thousands will find out when cheap mortgages run out next year, the days of the buy-to-let property deal as a one-way ticket to the pot at the end of the rainbow are well and truly over.

Can we blame it all on Kirstie Allsopp? Well, it would not be entirely fatuous to suggest that she, and others like her, have a case to answer. Allsopp, a genuinely kind person who has recently been co-opted by the Tory party to give advice on house-buying, does not specialise in the gritty reality of cheap housing rented out to even cheaper clients; those who have no intention of fulfilling their obligations as tenants.

Last year, she was still encouraging pundits to seek buy-to-let properties in Oxford, where a decent rabbit hutch costs a king's ransom. Financial troubles begin when tenants stop paying their rents and arrears mount up, which is the kind of dark side television pundits like to wash over with a tin of magnolia eggshell." TonkyWonky (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

If there is a bona fide controversy about her earlier predictions regarding the housing market you should be able to justify it via significant mentions in multiple reliable third party secondary sources (i.e. a neutrally written news, scholarly, or analysis but not an editorial piece in a major publication that says that a controversy arose over her statements). If there is significant criticism then you should, similarly, be able to find such a publication (not the criticism itself) to verify that there is criticism. Otherwise the sources are either non-existent (in which case it is a synthesis, personal opinion, or original research problem) or not reliable, and that makes the material unsuitable per BLP. Wikidemon (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Monica Conyers

• Monica Conyers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — Could I ask a couple of people to add this to their watchlists? It doesn't get many edits, but most of the ones it gets are like this. I protected it for a while, but that seems silly since the edits are so infrequent. But currently I'm evidently the only one watching it, and I'm not around that much, so I'd be grateful for a couple more eyes. Thanks! Chick Bowen 23:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have added the article to my watchlist. Penthamontar (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Elkies, religion

Hi, we have a little issue with sourcing and relevance of an article subject's religion going on in Talk:Noam Elkies#Noam Elkies is Jewish. It's only in the talk page, not the main article (after a few reverted attempts to put it into the lede of the main article) but it's getting a little heated and I'd be tempted to wipe that whole section of the talk page if only I weren't so involved myself. Suggestions (other than the obvious, to back off and let someone else take over)? —David Eppstein (talk) 03:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

And now he's branched out to an article about me. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Hey, nothing to do with sourcing. Eppstein seems convinced being Jewish is totally irrelevant, and I can't understand why. It's simply an ethnicity, if there's a source...list it. Big friggin deal. Do we really need a 4 paragraph life history of a relative who died in the holocaust to justify the inclusion? You are the one is obsessed, not me. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, Mr. Eppstein has accused me of being racist. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be for removing that section from the talk page, maybe remove certain comments if they are considered WP:FORUM but I usually only like to do that for the really "blatant" stuff. I hate seeing ethnicity just "shuved" into articles ,ie the stand alone Joe Blow is Jewish, but most well written articles do cover it, usually in a family/early life section if sources are provided. Anyways, the editors above are also being talked about over at WP:ANI#Some_wikihounding_going_on if interested. Cheers, --Tom 15:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Person featured in Flag desecration

Per Talk:Flag desecration#The guy in the picture an anonymous contributor claims to be the "guy in the picture" and wants the picture removed. Does BLP policy apply here and should we remove the picture? -- Barrylb (talk) 11:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I would think that if the person can be identified from the picture then yes, we should remove it if they object. Especially if they're depicted doing something that could potentially harm their reputation. It's kind of a legal gray area, we might not need the release under the letter of the law (a newspaper wouldn't, for example, if they were using the image for editorial purposes). But BLP generally defers to the wishes of the subject in borderline cases, I think. Oh yeah, it would help if they could authenticate it was them. Maybe they should contact OTRS. --Movingday29 (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Fortunately it seems we have found an acceptable solution by using a different image. Barrylb (talk) 10:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Help with TDS BLP?

This is very slow but I don't generally go over 1RR so am not going to revert again [18]. The youtube links may or may not be edited or geniune but several editors have explained that they are non-notable, and the same guy has added them 4 times in the last month to Zakir Naik and another four of five times before that. [19] --BozMo talk 12:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Fred Shapiro

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

User:FredShapiro42754 claims that the article is inaccurate, but the material he is removing comes directly from the biographical squibs of articles written by Fred Shapiro. Editor, often editing as an IP, keeps trying to blank the page or delete the offending sentence; other editors, pounding Shapiro with the COI policy, revert and template his page. The man is of marginal notability at best, and I moved for an AFD, but editors are overwhelmingly voting to keep. (Clearly, Shapiro should have taken the other approach to autobiography and turned his article into a hagiography so that editors would be offended and vote to delete.) I'm trying to reach out to Shapiro on his talk page to find out what precisely is inaccurate so we avoid any BLP, but he hasn't responded to me yet. Can a more experienced editor or admin with a fuller understanding of the nuances of the BLP/COI interrelationship provide another set of eyes to this issue? THF (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ismail Ayob

This article really needs to be checked out by someone experienced with BLP. There are alot of counter accusations against living people who conflicted with this guy. Links to news articles are given but the tone is not at all neutral and it need a closer examination than I can give it.--BirgitteSB 00:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ben Domenech

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

Gigantic BLP violation here, as the article is a COATRACK for non-RS Daily Kos posts criticizing Domenech. Can someone please clean? THF (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that "coatrack" - the assertions of plagiarism concern the subject, not some 3rd-party. The materials on Daily Kos are excerpts from writings by the subject, comparing them to the published writings by others. If these were used on their own then I could see the problem, but these are the postings that lead to the subject's resignation from the Washington Post. For that reason the blog links appear to qualify as primary source cited by reliable secondary sources, such as Salon.com.[20][21]   Will Beback  talk  21:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

That is not how those postings are used in the article. And there are more than just Daily Kos blog postings there. I am very disturbed that an editor such as you, who is very conscientious about removing any hint of BLP violation when it involves a center-right blog that is a primary source and meets SPS, is shrugging off unsourced claims and claims sourced only to random blogs and anonymous bloggers when it involves a BLP who is on the right. THF (talk) 02:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

And your second footnote there of "reliable secondary sources" is to Raw Story, yet another SPS that is inappropriate in a BLP. THF (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The article also has huge problems with WP:WEIGHT. THF (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Which person is the self-published writer of Raw Story? It doesn't appear to me to be an SPS. Daily Kos is more than a source for the article, it is a part of the story, and therefore a primary source. Can you be more specific about what problems you see with the article? The tags don't say.   Will Beback  talk  04:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all, at least some of those Daily Kos posts were after Domenech resigned, so they weren't part of the story. Second of all, they're cited not as "Here are the posts that led to Domenech resigning" but as "Domenech plagiarized story X"--clearly inappropriate in a BLP. Third of all, it's your own original research that Daily Kos was why Domenech resigned; neither the Salon story nor the Raw Story blog supports that claim--the latter is just a reposting of three blog posts without additional content. Fourth of all, there are several other SPSs in that article. THF (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your fourth point, please specify the sites you're concerned about rather than playing a game of "guess the problem". The other three issues are simple things to fix.   Will Beback  talk  05:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Text supported by footnote 10 violates WEASEL. The whole paragraph has WEASEL problems. Footnote 16 is all blog. Footnote 18 is blog. Footnote 23-26 are blog comments, of questionable relevance. Footnotes 28-29 are dead links. Footnote 31 is blog and of questionable relevance. The entire section violates WEIGHT: cite to the NY Times and the WaPo articles, fairly summarize the events, and be done with it. The minute-by-minute accounting is not duplicated on any other BLP on Wikipedia. THF (talk) 06:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Deal links can often be found by searching for the new URL, or by checking the Internet Archive. A similarly detailed analysis is in a biography of another plagiarist, Jason Blair. The Daily Kos postings have alredy been discussed. The "Red State" blog is also part of the story, and may be suitable as an exception. You're right that "Your Logo Here" is also a blog and I don't see any good reason to include it. The Malkin blog is used as a source for her own opinion. Is she relevant? Perhaps not. You left out several links to blogs that aren't formatted as references - those should probably go too. As for the overall weight, what else is he notable for?   Will Beback  talk  07:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You have not addressed the Daily Kos posts, other than to assert without any evidence that they are primary sources. If your argument is that Domenech's not notable for anything else, then it's a BLP1E that should be deleted. Blair isn't the right comparison; a better example is Doris Kearns Goodwin, which, once the archetypical example of a WP:SYN violation is removed, is much shorter, barely detailed at all, consists mostly of quotes from her defenders, and certainly none of the blog posts about Goodwin's plagiarism are in her article. THF (talk) 07:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

NB that the Jayson Blair article plagiarism section is hardly BLP-compliant, either; it consists almost entirely of WP:OR. THF (talk) 07:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for fixing the article. You may be right that it should be nominated for deletion, and there's only one way to see how that would go. BLP1E is intended, I believe, to handle smaller "events" than a plagiarism scandal that stretched over years. I'm not sure that a barely notable blogger and a Pulitzer Prize wining journalist have much in common, but the one thing that they do have in common seems to be handled in similar depth. I haven't looked at the Blair article recently, but there are plenty of reliable sources available. The NYT gave a very detailed accounting of events. IIRC our article went into possibly excessive detail.   Will Beback  talk  07:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not handled in "similar depth." The Domenech article details every to-and-fro that blogs had about the subject. Leaving out the last paragraph, which I will delete now as a violation of SYN, the Goodwin article has exactly three sentences putting forward the affirmative case of her plagiarism, two paragraphs defending her, and one and only one footnote detailing the allegations--and that's to Slate, not to blogs. And the Goodwin plagiarism was much more serious, as it resulted in money changing hands in subsequent litigation, rather than a college newspaper movie review getting puffed. THF (talk) 08:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Alok Nath

Personal life information about Alok nath is very controversial, and have never heard of. I am from India too. This kind of information harms Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.152.13.67 (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted to a version prior to an IP adding BLP violations as well as straight vandalism. Might not be a bad idea for a couple of people to add it to their watchlist in case the IP comes back.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Peter Gabriel

In the section, early life:

"Gabriel was born in City of Bilal, , [[in tripura], In India.[1] His father, Ralph Parton Gabriel, was an electrical engineer, and his mother, Edith Irene Allen,[2] from a musical family, taught him to play the clarinet at an early age. He attended Cable House, a private preparatory school in Woking, Surrey, then Charterhouse School from 1963. The President Bilal Bajar proposed to Gabriel but Gabriel said no and Bilal Bajar raped him. Peter Gabriel then got aids. He then changed his name to The Rapist and raped millions of people. He denied every time he was charged. He blew up the police station. And He raped the dead bodies he was caught using a time machine then raping the circuit. He was arrested for life in 2010."

Aids? he was raped? the man, the Rapist was arrested for life in 2010???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariaox (talk • contribs) 18:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, garden variety vandalism. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Schwartz

I am the subject of the biographical entry Stephen Schwartz (journalist). This entry has been subject to incessant vandalism over the years, as is reflected in warnings from Wikipedia responsible people on the talk page. A new series of malicious edits took place in February 2009. I was unable to locate a button for an OTRS complaint and therefore went ahead and attempted to revert the page myself to the form it had before the onset of the malicious edits. The malicious nature of the edits is obvious on the talk and history pages, where the individuals who carried out these edits engage in defamatory speculation about my religious choice, among other unsupportable claims. The latter include, for example, turning a couple of comments snipped from a TV interview into a relationship with the intelligence community, claiming that I am a leading figure in the neoconservative wing of the Republican party, charging that I was a propagandist for the Sandinistas. In addition, material was inserted that was contradictory to the previous content with no attempt to make the entry logical or consistent. I don't care whether there are one or two reference sections but it seems to me unfair to delete almost all references to articles by me, and I strenuously object to the inclusion of material describing me as a "whore" or a link to scurrilous gossip produced in an anarchist magazine. Allowing such vandalism, which is also libel with malicious intent to undermine my professional status and personal security, does not reflect well on Wikipedia. I did not add anything intended to promote me and have no desire to use Wikipedia for self-serving purposes. I object, however, to libelous content about me.SulejmanSchwartz (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'd say you've got fair reason to be annoyed. I'll try to keep the article watched, and encourage other uninvolved editors to do the same. Small point, but "references" ought to be for the sources cited by the article - it isn't a place for a list of relevant thinks otherwise, which should be "further reading" or "works published".--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • This is a prime example of what's wrong with our BLP policies and their enforcement. All these little-watched biographies have tremendous potential for harm, and should be deleted. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I've been saying that for 2 years now. No one listens. See User:Doc glasgow/The BLP problem--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Yeah that is not an example of our better work. Kudos for SS bringing it to the attention of the noticeboard rather than just gutting the article, even though that would have been a plausible choice. cleaned OP's link Baccyak4H (Yak!) 21:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Since there's been more IP POV pushing on this (now reverted), can any passing admin please semi-protect it for a long duration.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• The conflict is between editors who have had accounts for several months. Semi-protection would achieve nothing. I also note that there's another side to this coin. Although KevinOKeeffe does not approach biographies correctly in general, the issue that the subject is not editing with the neutral point of view appears to be legitimate, given that the subject's edits also include undoing edits such as this one (both of whose sources do appear to support the quoted material, and at least one of which, being a book review, is directly about the subject's works). Notice too that there's no mention of this content on the article's talk page. It does appear that a legitimate concern about two specific matters has been silently extended to removal of other negative information throughout the entire article, even negative information about the subject's writings on history sourced to accredited experts in the field. This issue is neither a simple nor a strictly one-sided one. Uncle G (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Varian v. Delfino

• Varian v. Delfino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ronald M. Whyte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jack Komar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Crisler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Suebenjamin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Amberjacker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

An anon editor is edit-warring to return unsourced material about living people. Sources are likely available, but the article is very much a one-sided affair that needs work.

User:Crisler works on two types of articles -- those relating to this lawsuit, and those relating to the death penalty. The article is awfully favorable to the respondents in Varian v. Delfino, and, coincidentally, the respondents in that case have since written annual guides to the death penalty. "Crisler" is the last name of the human resources officer at Varian whom Delfino and Day had their litigious dispute with.

User:Suebenjamin and User:Amberjacker also only write about this lawsuit, and use the same unusual edit-summary style as Crisler.

(Coincidentally, or not so coincidentally, the litigation involved a corporation overreacting to sockpuppet behavior by ex-employees on Internet message boards.)

The possible WP:COI and WP:SOCK problem bothers me less than the WP:NPOV issue; the article, about a minor California Supreme Court case of little precedential value that arguably flunks WP:NOTNEWS, needs a rewrite, as does the BLP article about Judges Whyte and Komar.

This is cross-posted at WP:COIN#Varian_v._Delfino & WP:NPOVN#Varian_v._Delfino; please respond at WP:NPOVN to avoid WP:MULTI. THF (talk) 12:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Reposting, since still not resolved. I apparently need to bump this every three days. THF (talk) 13:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Mary Yang and User:Maryang

Maryang (talk · contribs) has repeatedly blanked much content and the image from Mary Yang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Someone may want to take a closer look.  Doulos Christos ♥ talk  14:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Yang. Uncle G (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

BDP: Errol Flynn

I direct your attention to Wikipedia:Blp#Dealing_with_articles_about_the_deceased and request assistance at Errol Flynn, where an anon is battling to include unverified slander, and when told he must comply with V, has now apparently chosen to limit himself to repeating slander (with POV phrasing) from a thoroughly discredited book, already covered in more than enough detail in the article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

NB appears to be sourced. The issue would then be WEIGHT or RS; do you have a source for rejecting the Bret claim out of hand? (I see a lot of unreferenced criticism in David Bret, which is a BLP, but nothing sourced there.) You could well be right (I'm skeptical of biographers who make a career out of diagnosing previously-unknown homosexuality) but as an uninvolved editor, I don't have anything to go on. THF (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear me, I will go check Bret article. Yes indeed: the entire freaking book has been thoroughly debunked. The main issue is the persistent IP, whom I've reverted 3 times now. He seems to be a Flynn-hater bent on unbalancing the article against Flynn and in favor of not just homosexuality, but unproven (and in several cases, disproven) homosexual exploits of a ... well, a slutty nature. A bit homophobic, true. Friends of Gays, etc. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, was thinking of Erroll Flynn: The Untold Story KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Flynn-hater is strong; if the claim in Errol Flynn is correct, Bret defends Flynn against charges of Nazism, which is the other lurid allegation against him. THF (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Separately, the same claim appears in Ross Alexander whenever this gets resolved. THF (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, which claim? That Flynn was bi? That's been around for years and is unlikely to be "proven" one way or the other. Seems fairly likely he was; however the laundry list of ppl he supposedly had sex with is almost all made up. for example; Capote, when simple who-was-where-when calendar and location checking shows Capote had the ability to be in two places at once, on opposite ends of the continent IIRC. But its one thing to have rumors of his bi-sexuality, and quite another to lenghten the article with lurid details of his supposed affairs with multiple male stars, and/or adding completely unsourced content, or content sourced only to an Amazon book review (by an Amazon customer not the official reviews). KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I've found that celebrity articles, particularly about deceased actors, tend to become overweighted with salacious material, particularly regarding sexual proclivities. However, Flynn was as much notable for his off-screen behavior as on-screen, so I am not sure there shouldn't be a neutral section on that, one that would explore the books that have appeared and the criticism of them. A more significant problem with Errol Flynn is that it lacks sufficient substantive content on his career, his influence on the profession and on acting. Were that present, a section on his behavior would seem less disproportionate. I have some source materials that may help and I will try to find them and add. Stetsonharry (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

That would be lovely. I agree Flynn had a rep for sexcapades, but as you say, weighting in favor of salacious gossip over career puts Wikipedia in the category of a trashy tabloid, which I sincerely hope we can avoid. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, WP:Weight has canny sway on these BDPs, but either way, something tells me Flynn would be cracking up over this stuff. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

As much as I'm a proponent of a strong-hand BLP policy and implementation, even I think stretching BLP in any fashion to someone that died in 1959 is out of bounds for BLP or treating them as recently deceased--that's over two generations ago! But I'd say this was fine to look into and minimize if required under RS, NPOV, and WEIGHT. This just popped out when I saw it on the BLP noticeboard. rootology (C)(T) 19:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Correct. It isn't a BLP issue by any stretch. However, we've got a POV pusher playing with the reputation of someone, with a poor attitude to V RS and NPOV, any help offered here is appreciated. I've reverted twice and demanded good sourcing.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

And totally good edits by you. I just get twitchy sometimes when I see BLP invoked in non-BLP matters because I don't want it to ever get watered down. rootology (C)(T) 19:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You should consider the possibility that others do not want to further increase the disparity in content standards. — CharlotteWebb 23:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, what we have here mainly is a weight and neutrality issue, one that arises frequently with deceased celebrities, usually minor ones. William Eythe, for instance, at one point was dominated by his arrest on some morals charges in the 1950s. I'm not clear about Flynn, as he received extensive publicity both before and after his death on his off-screen actions. I had hoped to review some books on Flynn that I have but can't find them. They'll turn up. The Flynn article could use expansion. Stetsonharry (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Kathy Shaidle

• Kathy Shaidle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – Several editors, mostly anon IPs, have repeatedly added material that is in violation of WP:SYNTH, using selective quotes to demonstrate that Shaidle has "controversial" views. It's pretty clear that she does, but the way these editors are going about presenting this is a WP:BLP violation, I believe. I thought of going right to WP:RFPP but thought I'd better get some other opinions about whether I'm seeing this with clear eyes. I'm also wondering whether a particular remark ought to be removed from the Talk page. Thanks very much in advance. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• You're quite right to remove the quotes. Unless some reliable independent source has commented on a particular controversy, it's original research to introduce such content into the article. As far as the talkpage goes, I'm in the "as long as it's aimed at improving the article and does not break any laws in Florida, it should stay" camp. I think the article could benefit from semi-protection. 21:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• Now this is a case where semi-protection would be appropriate. However, I observe that the edit war ceased 2 days ago, when discussion on the talk page began. If discussion ceases and edit warring recommences, please let us know. You're right that any personal analyses of Wikipedia editors offered as, effectively, "Here are the raw data. Tell me that my own personal analysis of and opinion based upon those data are wrong!" are clearly in violation of our Wikipedia:No original research policy, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 13:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Pancho Pepe Jazz Band

• Pancho Pepe Jazz Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - An entry about a schoolboy rock band. Said entry has not adhered to the Music Notability guidlines. It has no sources apart from a myspace link, and some dubious TV appearances. // HeadTalking (talk) 10:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the Biographies of living persons noticeboard; here we are concerned with protecting the reputation of living people against the slings and arrows of poorly sourced contentious claims. If you are concerned about the notability of a topic, I suggest you google for coverage in reliable sources, and if that fails, propose it for deletion or take it to WP:AfD. Sincerely, Skomorokh 21:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Darren M. Jackson

Resolved

 – Only major issue brought to RSN --aktsu ^(t / c) 23:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Darren M. Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Article where the majority is sourced to a UK-only magazine whose issues in question is apparently unavailable even to the article's creator. I'm hoping for a second opinion on whether the content is appropriate per WP:BLP. Thanks! --aktsu ^(t / c) 12:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no controversial content there as far as I can see. The article consists mostly of simple facts about the career of the subject, and is sourced throughout. The sources all seem of acceptable reliability for the claims cited. Fighters Magazine looks to be a quality high street publication (carried by WH Smiths for example, staffed by professionals. With little else to go on, I see no cause for concern with this article. Skomorokh 21:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure which revision you saw, but seems like you timed it just right before Theserialcomma removed a bunch of stuff. This was the revision before removal. Him having fought (illegal) bare-knuckle boxing was only sourced to "Andrews, John E (2001). "Fracas at the Fair". Romany Routes 5 (4)", a source previously brought up at WP:RSN, but only in the context of whether it's suitable to establish that Darren exists (from what I gather) and the conclusion seemed to be that it was barely reliable for that. --aktsu ^(t / c) 21:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reinserted much of the removed stuff. Bare knuckle boxing is illegal in the UK, so should we require a better source for the claim that he has fought it? --aktsu ^(t / c) 21:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

And the article was now reverted to a revision from a week or so back. I'll just call this resolved and bring the bare-knuckle business to WP:RSN.

Advice please: Personally identifiable image of teenage girl

I am concerned that File:A Cute Looking New Rochelle High School Cheerleader.jpg could be an infringement on the privacy of the teenage girl who is depicted. This image was contributed in good faith, and I assume that the contributor had the girl's permission to make the photo, but I wonder what protocols need to be followed to ensure that all parties are properly protected in a situation like this. (I know that Commons has policies on this, but I haven't seen anything similar here.)--Orlady (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you point to the Commons policy on this for reference. Thanks --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

There is Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people. Skomorokh 16:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That standard commons link isn't working. Try this one: [22] --Orlady (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

On-line porn magazines - reliable sources

An editor has been inserting material sourced to an inteview in an online porn magazine, www.xcitement.com , and edit-warring to keep it in. He has justified this on the basis that "Xcitement is an online magazine covering the adult entertainment industry" and that those removing the source (and material) have "puritanical beliefs". Is www.xcitement.com a reliable source for BLPs? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the claims it is being used to support, the editorial policies of the publication and so on. Can you provide a link to the article/discussion to which you are referring? Skomorokh 17:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why Jayjg is being so coy but it seems to be Evan_Seinfeld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and this interview. CIreland (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say not - but perhaps not for the reasons typically given. Porn star interviews (whether for actors or directors/producers etc.) are often given completely or partially in character and so are extremely unreliable for material about the individual that has adopted the particular porn persona. This seems doubly likely to be true for porn star interviews in an online porn magazines and appears to be the case for the interview in question. CIreland (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)