Resolved

There is a politician named Amadou Cisse, but I think there should be a separate page for the 29 year old University of Chicago graduate student of the same name, who was shot and killed in an apparent robbery near campus on November 19. There has been a lot of coverage of the shooting in the Chicago press, but I am not sure how to add a new article that shares a name with an existing article. This is a link to one story about it: [[1]] Haglundt (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to create an article on him due to WP:BLP1E (and believe me, I'm sympathetic, I'm a UChicago student myself). We could disambiguate to create a new article though. Perhaps Amadou Cisse (student). We would then add a "hat" on the politician's article, which would inform readers of this alternative meaning. Cool Hand Luke 22:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.Haglundt (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Article looks like a speedy to me, but they've hung a hang-on on it. Whole darned thing looks like one massive BLP violation. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

See also the version of User:Aniracrellim I just blanked! --Orange Mike | Talk 22:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Currently, I'm stripping sources that violate policy. We'll see what's left after that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I just deleted the whole shebang. None of it makes clear why the person is encyclopedic, and the rest is about how evil he is. If there's an article to be written about this person, what was there was not it. FCYTravis (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems like the best choice. :) It was looking pretty clearly to come down to a curiosity story about Ramtha testifying against this guy. I hadn't found any credible evidence linking the man in the rape case to the studio. I didn't find anything about an outcome to the case. I strongly doubt that the user is going to be able to come up with sufficient notability to establish this article, although the few reliable sources documenting Ramtha's involvement might make their way into Ramtha or JZ Knight. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – sprotection and removal of offending material

Atrios is trying to make a point at Richard Stengel. Could someone check this out? I need to leave now. Haukur (talk) 08:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Have fixed, tagged, and applied for semi-protection. Thanks! BusterD (talk) 08:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Section removed. Although Time is cited - there is no independent secondary attestation offered.--Doc^g 09:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Section has been re-written, tagged as current event, and article semi-ed for three days. Page will still get traffic, but at least we've got a good start on a responsible approach. Good eyes, Haukur. BusterD (talk) 10:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Haukur (talk) 10:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is this on Richard Stengel rather than on Time Magazine or elsewhere? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The vandalism occurred in the Richard Stengel pagespace, and Haukur was the first to mention the Atrios satirical comparison made on the blog concerning what Atrios felt was Stengel's inconsistent weasel-wording. Immediately after that post on Eschaton, some very creative anonymous editor created this, Atrios used the vandalism to promote his satire, and some ip fun occurred in the wake. Quick eyes by Haukurth facilitated prevention of more mischief (which is ideally how we work around here). I'm sure this won't go away soon; the many Eschaton readers and contributors may choose to ring this bell from time to time. BusterD (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Poorly sourced material removed / Page semi-protected

The following Information is most incorrect and needs to be removed immediately "Diane Dodds, (nee Al-Khaibari) is a Councillor in West Belfast for the Democratic Unionist Party. She was born in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. At the age of four she fled to Northern Ireland with her mother, after her mother was accused of adultery in her homeland. Her mother became impressed with Ian Paisley's conservative rhetoric and converted to the Free Presbyterian faith soon after their arrival." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.50.134 (talk) 11:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

According to this, at least the first sentence is accurate. Can you expand on your objections? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Can't find any evidence that the Saudi Arabia and adultery information is true. It has been taken out now and should remain so until a reliable source is provided. --Slp1 (talk) 12:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The following information is incorrect and should be removed from the site.

(nee Al-Khaibari)[citation needed] is a Councillor in West Belfast for the Democratic Unionist Party. She was born in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia[citation needed]. At the age of four she fled to Northern Ireland with her mother, after her mother was accused of adultery in her homeland[citation needed]. Her mother became impressed with Ian Paisley's conservative rhetoric and converted to the Free Presbyterian faith soon after their arrival[citation needed]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.50.134 (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Has been removed again and the poster warned. --Slp1 (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

A single purpose editor has now added the same contentious claim four times [2] [3] [4] [5] in less than 24 hours on the Cabo Wabo article (why is it always in such unlikely places) that a certain Noel E. Vestri designed the company logo for an MTV contest. This comes despite my edit summaries [6] [7] [8] and warning [9] urging the user not to do so.

The material seems innocuous enough but on further investigation it is not. A little investigation reveals that Vestri appears to be a real graphic designer [10], who claimed on a blog that he designed the logo and that Sammy Hagar and his former Van Halen band members "screwed" him in some way over the logo design.[11]/] However, the information is unsourced in the article, and I could find no reliable source anywhere on the web that established either fact. In fact, I cannot even tell for sure what the dispute is all about. Presumably he didn't get paid properly or the logo was used for some purpose other than it was commissioned for. That happens all the time if you're a graphic designer and it is a sore point. It is very suspicious that an IP account editor who has made no other contributions to the encyclopedia is edit warring over the same obscure, contentious fact. This is not the kind of thing one would know or discover randomly on the Web. I surmise that the editor is somehow connected to the events, or otherwise has an axe to grind (sorry, pun).

Anyway, I would appreciate if someone could take a look and consider either semi-protecting the article (it has been more than six months since any IP editor contributed a useful edit) or a short term block of the user for 3RR and BLP. I am at 3RR myself on this and don't want to step over the line even if BLP sort of says I can. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• I have also reverted three times now in just 6 minutes and the contentious text is already back again. Can n admin perhaps block this user and/or protect the article? Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Reversions 5 through 8.[12] [13] [14] [15]. Wikidemo (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Canadianactress and dancer, Tabitha Lupien, has a Wikipedia article. However, in the introductory paragraph there is a sentance stating that she was born in 1990 (makinger her 17 years old). However, she is actually 19 and was born in 1988. You cannot edit the introduction, but that is the wrong information and needs to be changed! 24.36.202.63 (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Since there is no source that I am able to locate for her birth year, I've simply deleted any reference to it from the article. If you have a source for the 1988 year, feel free to put it in (note that firsthand knowledge doesn't count as a source). As for it being impossible to edit the introduction, that's actually a misconception: you just need to click "edit this page" at the top of the article to edit the entire article, introduction included (there's also a slightly more complex way to edit just the introduction, but never mind that). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thank-you! Actually I do have a source that states her birth year. her myspace page (open to the public) says that she is 19 years old as of this summer, making her birth year 1988, I've also met her.24.36.202.63 (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Using a subject's Myspace page as a source for this probably doesn't meet the reliable sources requirement (see, specifically, WP:SELFPUB). That said, I'm not certain enough about that to delete it from the article if added - somebody else may well do so, though. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, well, thank-you! I've found websites that say both birth years, so I won't post anything just in case. Thanks for everything!! 24.36.202.63 (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think a self-published source could be cited as saying that the subject has stated her own age to be 19; it is possibly insufficient to say definitively that that IS her age. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say that normally such a source would be sufficient to assert it as truth (if a newspaper prints a subject's age in a story, odds are they just got it from the subject without any fact-checking anyway); in this case, though, since there seems to be some disagreement about her age, I think we probably need something more reliable to settle the question. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

True enough; what a newspaper cares about wrt things like that is not being sue-able; if the subject agrees and the fact is otherwise unimportant and uncontroversial, they'll accept their word for it. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the future of this article. It seems that User:Jcfanatic is constantly removing sourced information about Chasez's adoption. I'm not sure if this person is actually related to Chasez or is just a diehard fan, but the statement is well-referenced by an article in which Chasez himself states that he is adopted. I've tried contacting the user several times, but the user does not seem to ever look at their talk page. Is there any way we can stop this user from removing important, factual information from this article? --MgCupcake (talk) 02:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I have left the editor a modified template warning against blanking content, merging Template:Uw-delete and Template:Uw-delete2, since the first one seems inappropriate given the history (these deletions are obviously not accidental) and the second one doesn't explain the proper procedure for discussing changes. If he continues to blank content without responding, you might want to proceed with the blanking templates Template:Uw-delete3 and Template:Uw-delete4 prior to registering a report on the user's activity at the board for administrator intervention against vandalism. Disruptive editing of Wikipedia can lead to a block. You can read more about addressing this kind of activity at Wikipedia:Vandalism. Meanwhile, I've added the article to my watchlist as well. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks! --MgCupcake (talk) 05:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Vidor introduced into Ron Paul the statement that "Paul wrote" certain racist statements which Paul claims were written by someone else. When I reverted, Vidor made this same charge twice more on the Talk page. Believing that WP:BLP trumps WP:TALK, I added "alleged" the first time, deleted the claim from Vidor's comments (4 times) the second time, and gave Vidor a level-3 BLP warning (3 violations). OrangeMike, a helpful editor, restored Vidor's original (apparently violative) comments, but accepted my argument and let me remove them again. Now User:68.162.80.156 has appeared and restored Vidor's comments again twice, for which I gave the IP a level-2 and level-4 warning (it is clear the IP is familiar with me and the Paul page because it alludes to my outing sockpuppets of James Salsman). Still believing that WP:BLP trumps WP:TALK, I will proceed to delete Vidor's comments again. If the IP restores these comments, I believe it is ripe for block on that count. I believe its latest comments also make it ripe for temporary block as an obvious sockpuppet ("I'm editing from an IP because I feel like it and because Wikipedia policy permits me to do so"; no valid reason stated for the account's use by a clearly experienced editor; account used only for racism controversies). I would appreciate it if someone would (1) let me know if my interpretation of WP:BLP is correct; (2) see if checkuser can tie this account to another; (3) block the IP and/or main account if warranted. This narrative can be verified by consulting the IP's contributions and the Talk:Ron Paul history. John J. Bulten 22:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Similar case today. An IP adds unsourced opinions to Talk:Ron Paul hinting that Paul condones racism, sexism, and rape, I delete, longtime editor PhotoUploaded restores, I delete again. I deleted similar opinions from Talk:Political positions of Ron Paul, which was the IP's only other edit. I'm surprised that this question has gone unanswered. John J. Bulten (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The behavior has stopped, so (2) and (3) can be ignored, but I would still appreciate either an answer or referral to a better place to ask the question. John J. Bulten 11:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. WP:BLP does trump WP:TALK. (That said, I suspect that rather than edit another user's comments as you did the first time, it is better to remove them in the first place and leave a note explaining why on the page. You might also supply alternative language for discourse, if there's a way to discuss the issue without violating BLP, if it is evident that the user has legitimate interest in the article and is not simply vandalizing, in the "X Celebrity is gay!" vein. :))

In terms of your question about a better place to ask, it may be that your questions went unanswered because few of the volunteers on this board are likely to be authorized to do checkuser and so may have left your request to offer assistance where they could. In general, when I've asked for assistance and received none, I look for alternative venues where I can ask. Given your circumstances, I might have asked for a confirmation of my reading of policy at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons, since no outside intervention is required there, and taken the actual intervention request to Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser, where it is more likely to be seen by an admin authorized to follow up.

Sorry that no one offered an opinion on your question. I know how frustrating that can be, and I know that as you get moved up the queue the odds of receiving an answer at all diminish. I probably would not have seen your question myself if you had not been the most recent contributor when I checked my watchlist on first logging on. I hope my response is in some way helpful to you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Article about a Rabbi who has been accused of sexual impropriety. He has not been charged or convicted, there are just rumors reported in the press. This seems an obvious BLP violation to me, but perhaps I am misreading the situation. Another set of eyes would be appreciated. It is currently up for deletion, and I expressed my concerns there; nobody listened, and I think it will be kept. I would thus like it to meet Wikipedia guidelines for BLP. Thanks, Jeffpw (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is much more broad and discusses his 30 year history as a prominent rabbi in the LA area. The rumors about Tendler are many, yet none of these rumors are mentioned in the article. His early and forced resignation is mentioned and three major and reliable press sources who printed allegations about him, are referenced. The article merely says that the allegations have been made in the press, it expressly does not quote the allegations as anything other than that. And that is fine for wikipedia, since if three publications have printed something wikipedia can reference that. The rumors about him are summarized by Luke Ford here, but that does not belong in wikipedia as Ford is not sufficiently reliable.Lobojo (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I had removed the material I felt was in violation, and Lobojo has reinstated it. I will not revert, but would appreciate it if disinterested parties could evaluate the article with respect to BLP policy. Thanks, Jeffpw (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the key word here is "rumors" - we should be very reluctant to include such material in biographies of living people. The accusations have not been widely reported and nothing seems to have been proved against this person. Therefore, per WP:BLP, I do not think the material its present state is appropriate and I have removed it. I suggest talkpage discussion to agree an appropriate level of sourcing for the accusations if they are to be reported. My instinct however is that these should be left out until those rumors are confirmed to be true. WjBscribe 23:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

"Have not been widely reported" Erm, yeah. Except in the New York Post, The Jewish Week and the Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles. We must be careful not to censor wikipedia unless there is a need to, and if there is no need for these publications there is no need here either. Lobojo (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you have the links to those sources? • Lawrence Cohen 00:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes there were all referenced explicitly in the old version of the article. Lobojo (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

"Until they are confimed to be true", this logic would stop wikipedia from writing anything about ongoing legal cases. This is not thank God, anything like wikipedia policy, indeed it is the opposite of policy. Lobojo (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing legal cases are rather different to rumours. Feel free to add sourced discussion of any proceedings being brought against Tendler. WjBscribe 00:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The refs provided are also not complete, so it is at this time not possible to verify them. Indeed, the New York Post ref doesn't even mention the paper in the reference. Other refs don't include the writers or page numbers. I could go on about the formatting of them, but this isn't WP:FAR. Here is the version Lobojo feels is fully sourced. Jeffpw (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't need page numbers in a newspaper cite, you merely need enough to be able to find the article. There is a typo where the words "New York Post" are missing, I would change it, but I cant since it is an old version. Lobojo (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The sources are "Tendler Resigns Under Cloud, Amy Klein, Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles, March 7, 2006", the second one is "Rabbi Expelled From Shul, JEANE MacINTOSH and DAVID HAFETZ, New York Post, March 1, 2006" and the third pertinent one is "Rabbi Tendler Suspended From Monsey Synagogue, Jewish Week (NY), March 1, 2006" Perfect sourcing. Lobojo (talk) 00:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

From WP:REF:References for newspaper articles typically include the title of the article in quotes, the byline (author's name), the name of the newspaper in italics, date of publication, page number(s), and the date you retrieved it if it is online. How did you find the articles, by the way? If you did a Lexis search, you should provide a link to the preview of it; ditto for an archive search. Just saying. Jeffpw (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thats suprising I stand corrected. It is not practical to probide page numbers since my versions are from online libraries to which I have access. You will find all three artilces copied many times all over google though. I cant provide links to previews as this stuff is behind firewalls etc. Lobojo (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Lobojo, you must provide references to where you actually found them, firewalls or not. Some people will have access and can check if needed. And if you did go through Lexis or similar service, they usually give the page numbers. DGG (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

For anyone that wants to check more than enough information is provided. How can I provide a link to an intranet? How can I say where without disclosing my identitiy? Lobojo (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

First, I should opine that these citation technicalities are not BLP issues. There's enough information here to verify the sources. However: we are supposed to name the referenced source. I doubt that this is an insular intranet service. You could just name the database source like Lexisnexis, Factiva, Newsbank, Proquest, or whatever (although many of these include page numbers anyway). URLs are not required, just sources. Cool Hand Luke 05:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The BLP issue is the repetition of rumors. The fact that the runors could not be verified just added to the trouble. Jeffpw (talk) 06:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) And the user is now readding the disputed content, and engaging in personal attacks on the discussion page. <sigh> Jeffpw (talk) 15:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, no that is a completle misrepresentation, Jeff has continued to the revert the page in the face of two editors, and has reverted the corrections that HE himself requested to the sourced. Lobojo (talk) 15:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, neither Aron nor Mordecai Tendler have been charged with any crimes. They were forced to quit their posts by colleagues and congregants who require a high and irreproachable standard. It is certainly not the job of Wikipedia to act as a (kangaroo) court of law nor is Wikipedia a sex offender registry of any kind. Until such time that a charge is brought, or an allegation is proven in a formal court of law, then any aspersions cast against anyone is a violation of WP:LIBEL and I would not be surprised if the offended parties would get angry enough to sue, but evidently some editors and admins do not realize this, so they allow yellow journalism and muckraking to exist and pretend that it's a legitimate "biography" when it is not. Reports in newspapers are not much more than hearsay when it comes to such legal situations, so everyone concerned needs to be very cautious before creating more of these articles which are nothing more than ticking time bombs waiting to go off. IZAK (talk) 11:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Article is now deleted. Can an admin courtesy blank this discussion, as happened to the Afd discussion? Jeffpw (talk) 10:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia can be exposed to libel through talk page histories, no? If so, I think this is a case of that. Gory details:

On September 27, this article was visited by 74.0.20.180 who inserted this material:

• Reid Stowe, oldid 160689941 09:39, 27 September 2007

After eight hours and change, and eighteen versions through edits by eight anonymous editors, the article reached this state:

• Reid Stowe, oldid 160786045 17:52, 27 September 2007

When a new anonymous editor, 96.232.22.251 deleted the malicious material, drawing the attention of recent change patroller, ArielGold. This editor was involved in dealing with a number of questionable edits by anonymous and registered participants over the next few hours; she then requested page protection, which administrator Alison granted. Immediate case closed.

However, it occured to me (belatedly, this morning) that this pretty libelous stuff is still visible in the edit histories. Should it not be blocked even there? There are two issues, libel against Reid Stowe, and statements being, possibly falsely, attributed to S B. Please review, and accept my apologies for not reporting it sooner; In case it matters, I'm a frequent contributor to this article, and often find myself being a policy wonk on the talk pages. Gosgood (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Not really possible. The edit history is complicated and it isn't easy to see which revisions could be removed without distorting the history for GFDL purposes.--Doc^g 17:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Oversight for the procedure, if you think it is really necessary. DGG (talk) 04:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Doc, David (DGG, I recall meeting you at the NYC Meetup last August. Hope all is well). I don't know about 'necessary.' I'm not an attorney, and I'm certainly not a counsellor for Wikimedia Foundation, so my opinion is moot. Reid Stowe is certainly aware of the article; he links to it at the expedition web site, and may even be aware of the spate of vandalism and that S B's allegations, originally posted at Sailing Anarchy in 2006 are now mirrored in the article history pages. I understand that Mr Stowe and Ms B had a business and personal relationship that soured, and she was quite angry for a time, so it is plausible that she authored the list (I don't know that for a fact), and I have no idea if she still stands by it. I do feel the urge to raise this to the attention of people who do counsel for Wikimedia Foundation; if this post suffices, fine. If there are other steps I should take, let me know. Thank you for your responses, and take care. Gosgood 14:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Frances Lynn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I'm concerned that this article has been almost entirely been edited by a user sharing the same name as the article topic. However I am also surprised that the journalist, Frances Lynn, would create such a technically poor article. This may thus be something entirely different, such as impersonation. Please review. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • You might consider listing this at WP:COIN. Corvus cornix_talk 00:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Oddly I am not wholly sure that this is a conflict of interest, simply because a good journalist would not have produced such an execrable article. Hence my posting it here on the basis that those visiting this noticeboard have more experience in looking at a biog and the creator and making a judgment call over this type of thing. Starting too many wikihares running can be counterproductive. Fiddle Faddle 20:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The bio post on Robert J. Sawyer is well written, but reads like a press release from his agent.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:(({1))}|(({1))}]] ([[User talk:(({1))}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/(({1))}|contribs]])

Yes, ((sofixit)).--Doc^g 10:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Emily Sander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There is some reverting going back and forth about what is, and what isn't acceptable under BLP policy. A (few) extra set of experienced eye(s) wouldn't hurt the matter. Martijn Hoekstra 15:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions

1/ As this person is dead, I am not sure this still falls under BLP....

2/ Is Wikipedia going to have an article about each murder victim being reported upon by the media?

--Crusio 15:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

1. The subject is dead, the alledged killer is not.
2. I don't know. Martijn Hoekstra 20:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd shoot this thing. But it will survive AfD, so leave it.--Doc^g 20:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Recently dead people are covered under BLP. This has always been true, and in addition Template:Recent death (since Phil's edit on November 15th, just clarified by me) sends people here. Chick Bowen 22:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it is covered under BLP all right. I'm just not sure what we're supposed to do under BLP.--Doc^g 22:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Just watch it for now, I think. The AfD didn't last long. . . Chick Bowen 23:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Supergrass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - IP editor continues to insert claim that the band has plagiarised one of their hits. See also Mary (Supergrass song). Catchpole 22:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotected both for 2 weeks.--Doc^g 22:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The stuff is now cropping up on the talkpages of these articles..... --Crusio 23:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Fattown1c (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This incident is not about one article, it is about a user that keeps adding unsourced material to articles, and if the user adds a source (only in one case) it is not a reliable source.
  

Just by reading the user's talk page, it can be seen he does not care about the guidelines, policies and warnings that I and other users gave him. I also have warned him over the edit summary and seems that he doesn't care or just ignore me.
The proofs can be seen here: 2nd II None, Crips, Hoo-Bangin' Records, Bloods, Jim Jones (rapper), The Black Wall Street Records. There are more but I think this is enough to start. The information is difamatory when it's not cited with a source.
I personally think, that in case a temporary block, this user won't stop adding this type of information. He did not paid attention to my and other users' warnings.--Tasc0 22:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. If he continues to edit in this way, without useful contributions or attention to warnings, I'm quite ready to indef block him. This is not a useful editor at the moment - but let's hope he gets the message.--Doc^g 22:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That sounds decent. Yes, let's hope he gets the message.--Tasc0 23:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read the description of the Image:At Home With Evel Knievel.jpg Sagredo^Discussione? 00:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The description page had been vandalized before it was uploaded to Commons; vandalism has now been removed. Shell ^babelfish 00:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. The Evel_Knievel#Early_life section should probably have a good going over, too. I went to college in Butte for a couple of years, and know all/most of it might very well be true, but it might also be myth. (Butte was a wild, wild place in its heyday!) Many would consider it defamatory, and there's almost no references. I heard the "Awful Knofel" story from a teacher in roughly 1969. But did "Awful Knofel" ever actually exist? Probably this should come out. - "It is rumored that Knievel bought his first bike after breaking into the safe of the Butte courthouse." There is a bit of a bio at [16] click on "the man." Also some at [17]. This might become contentious, there's probably some number of Butte natives who "just know" that it's all true and take pride in it! Sagredo^Discussione? 03:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• 71.255.55.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps reverting edits and inserting POV items in Foxy Brown // The Gnome 07:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I raised a BLP concern on Commons at Commons:C:VP#Drunks. I seem to have been roundly ignored. Someone else may wish to take up the fight, preferably before we find ourselves with a lawsuit. - Jmabel | Talk 07:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm a BLP hawk, but a lawsuit here is unlikely. Very unlikely. I can't get worked up over this.--Doc^g 13:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Historical pederastic couples went through some heated, multi-editor, multi-admin turmoil last month. At the end of the 20th and 21st centuries section, look: There are now several unsourced claims of pederastic relationships with children whose first and last names and sometimes their picture is given. These children are almost certain to still be alive. Why does User:Haiduc insist on including such BLP violations?

I'm not touching it because I saw what happened last time. I hope someone with more BLP experience will please trim the contemporary listings. 209.17.131.233 15:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody provide diffs to identify what's wrong? - Jehochman ^Talk 15:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's all of the entries in Historical pederastic couples#20th and 21st centuries where the identified child might still be alive, of which I would say there are several. Biochem67 13:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

And in general, there are huge amounts of unsourced allegations in there. (And the issue of classifying non-sexual friendships as 'pederasty') Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I copied this back from the archives, as the article is still filled with boys who could easily still be alive. 85.140.206.170 14:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Mr. anonymous IP, your concern seems utterly misplaced. Those whose photos appear in the article are either dead, or are noted for the relationship they had. There is no BLP violation in the article that I can see. Jeffpw 14:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Davoli, though a public figure, needs more better sourcing for the relationship if the picture is to remain. and how about the names -- you responded only about the pictures. DGG (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a large penis photo that scrolls as I scroll!

Would someone get rid of the large penis photo? I can't read the article.

Because of repeated vandalism that I have been prevented from correcting, my biography is continutally inaccurate and significantly misrepresents both me and my work.

Therefore, I hereby request that my biography be deleted from the Wikipedia.

Sincerely,

Carl Hewitt —Preceding unsigned comment added by MonaKea (talk • contribs) 22:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want it to be deleted you will have to do it through an AFD. Oysterguitarist 23:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't differ that much from the short biography found here. —Ruud 00:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Have your lawyer contact the WikiMedia Foundation. WAS 4.250 02:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Dealing with articles about yourself and Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) for what you can do about factual errors in a biography about yourself. –panda 16:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia harassment of Professor Hewitt has to stop

The Wikipedia should be ashamed of itself for harassing Professor Hewitt. Arthur Rubin took away his category as an American Logician. Then Ruud Koot deliberately insulted Professor Hewitt by taking away his Emeritus title and he changed the title of Hewitt's "Seminars, Publications, and Academic Biography" to "blog", which is (deliberately?) misleading. Also Ruud has been censoring those who attempted to protest his antics. First they called it the "Great Firewall of Ruud." But recently I have heard it referred to as "Ruud's Musharraf Strategy."

The Wikipedia harassment of Professor Hewitt has to stop.--LittleSur 23:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The article on Professor Hewitt is still being censored and the harassment has continued. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.66.33.196 (talk) 23:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The article on Professor Hewitt is still being censored and the harassment has continued.--WestNahant (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Ruud has continued the abuse, which is reminiscent of an incident in the history of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia.--208.54.15.157 (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The Great Purge has begun! See

• Scientific community metaphor‎
• Indeterminacy in concurrent computation
• History of the Actor model
• Actor model and process calculi history
• Futures and promises
• Denotational semantics of the Actor model
• Actor model theory
• Actor model middle history
• History of logic programming
• Actor model implementation
• Logical necessity of inconsistency
• Actor model and process calculi
• Actor model later history

and Ruud Koot’s latest edits to

• Denotational semantics
• Marvin Minsky
• Message passing
• Power domains
• Bruno Latour
• Gerald Jay Sussman
• Sociology of scientific knowledge
• Terry Winograd

--63.249.108.250 01:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection, provided the articles on Actor model and his interpretation of concurrent computing are also deleted. (He's not a mathematical logician. I'm not qualified to decide if he's a philosophical logician.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The article of Frank LaGrotta mentions criminal charges, but the only reference given is an article in the "Beaver County Times". I have done a Google search and find several references to this event, but most are on blogs and such and I don't know the journals that come up. Perhaps someone who knows more about this kind of things could have a look at this article to see whether this accusation is properly phrased and referenced. thanks! --Crusio (talk) 10:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement removed. The rule of BLP is "if in doubt - remove it". --Doc^g 18:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement is back, with a marginally better source. Not sure here, eyes please.--Doc^g 23:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Even with a better source, it's still undue weight for such a short article on an individual's life. Accordingly, I cut it. --Jkp212 16:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

As the creator of the article, I'd like to let you all know: the "marginally better source" is the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the premier newspaper of Pittsburgh and two-time Pulitzer recipient. It's rather unfair to a reputable smaller newspaper like the Beaver County Times to brand it an unreliable source, but the Post-Gazette is most definitely a leading paper nationwide. Nyttend 20:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how reliable the source is if the one incident takes up the majority of the BLP article. Wikipedia is NOT a newspaper, nor a collection of controversy. The article should be written as if it's part of an encyclopedia, and give a thoughtful bio of the subject, not a collection of controversy. --Jkp212 20:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that the questioned text is approximately 24% of the article — hardly a majority — this is a biography of a public figure: he's been a state representative for twenty years. According to WP:BLP: "In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." I've presented two reliable published sources, including one of the most important newspapers in the United States. This is notable and well-documented by being mentioned in multiple such sources, and I daresay that criminal charges against someone are relevant to that person himself. Nyttend 20:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep the mention of it, but only if it is proportionate to his life as a whole. It seems that the article was created BECAUSE of the incident. Right now, even if it's 25% of the article (which it's not), it's too much.. One-time criminal charges do not make a man. Again, this is not a newspaper.--Jkp212 22:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

This is clearly a major event in the subject's life. I've reviewed an archive of newspapers and the subject is mentioned in almost 200 articles. However he was the subject of only a few prior to his indictment. We can't exclude it if it's based on reliable sources, which it is, and is presented neutrally, which it is. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[removing indent] Yes, I created the article after seeing the newspaper report. However, I don't create articles on every alleged criminal that's in the newspaper; it's only because I knew that he was notable, being a state legislator. In short: the newspaper article alerted me to his very existence and provided enough biographical information (see the intro and the first main section) to have an article and prove notability by WP:BIO for politicians. Nyttend 23:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

perhaps then, a more thoughtful and detailed article on the subject's life should be written first, before inserting the negative incident? Then it would not be undue weight.. --Jkp212 23:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Add what you like, but please don't delete sourced, neutral material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You are clearly trying to make a point here since I have deleted controversial material that you would like included in another BLP. In both cases, it is not my responsibility to write a longer, thorough article that does not violate BLP. If someone else decides to write a more thoughtful and detailed article on the subject's life, and the negative content doesn't have undue weight, then I would remove my objection. --Jkp212 01:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't assume bad faith. Regarding "weight", I think you don't understand our policies. There is no policy that calls for deleting sourced, neutral information because insufficient other information is present in an article. I don't know which policy you are thinking of. Can you link to it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

WP Undue Weight states: "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. " This is particularly true with BLP.--Jkp212 03:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

That's why most of the article, even before you began editing it dealt with matters altogether unrelated to the criminal charges. Look at the size of the article: your edits have an average size of 1561 bytes versus a pre-Jkp size of 2055 bytes — what we're talking about is less than ¼ of the article, and it's likely the part that makes him most prominent. If this is undue weight, we'd probably best cut down the E. Howard Hunt article, because it too has a huge percentage of text related to criminal matters. Nyttend 03:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You said that the article was created as a result of his criminal charges. Certainly the timing of the article seems to suggest it. I thought that a biographical article should focus more on the substance of the subject's life, and not be created as a result of negative news items. He has only been charged, not convicted. Many things could change, and yet right now (by your calculations) it is 24% of his bio. --Jkp212 04:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Nyttend: Such a stub definitively suffers from WP:UNDUE when that material is there, in particular as it has not been yet decided that the person is guilty of anything, the source is only about an arraignment. Wait until the case is closed, and then we can report whatever needs to be reported. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

So we can't mention it at all? Go chop the robbery section from O. J. Simpson and nominate the robbery article for deletion a second time. Note that the first nomination ended up "keep" despite opposition for the same reasons that LaGrotta's criminal charges are being deleted; and surely if an entire article is considered appropriate and not undue for him, surely two sentences aren't too much for this man. G. V. Loganathan was created because of his death in the Virginia Tech massacre, but it was kept in an AFD because he was notable enough to pass anyway. We can see on that principle that the reason for creating the article doesn't need to affect the article itself, as you seem to think that it does. If we delete all negative information on undue-weight grounds, we're giving undue weight to other matters. Nyttend 04:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

OJ's criminal cases have been the subject of continued and overwhelming international media attention for many years. In other words, for a great deal of his life he has been in the media spotlight for this reason in an exceptional and unusually notable way. This man's bio is a stub, and these charges are very different. How can you use the OJ case as precedent for much less notable subjects whose wiki presence is a tiny stub? --Jkp212 05:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

First, the article is not a stub if the criminal charges are not presented. Secondly, it's the point: his robbery case isn't closed, but we still have a notable and worthy article on it. The principle is the same, and censorship of the material is equally bad, even though Simpson's case is more serious and deserves either as much or more carefulness. Think of it: it completely passes the BLP concerns and all others. See what BLP says? "A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source." This is only an allegation, but not proven. If it be true of the greater, it is true of the lesser. And remember: Wikipedia is not paper, so you can always expand the article to decrease the proportion of space devoted to the charges. Nyttend 06:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Due to the extensive press coverage of this "non-notable" event, there are now several articles about the subject in reliable sources. Our article could be three times as long without a strain. Could Nyttend perhaps do the work and build it into a well-rounded biograohy? I can supplement the effort with older citations from ProQuest. That would address the weight issue. Also, this is indictment is apparently part of a large investigation that may see more indictments. If that's the case then we may find it best to have an article on the investigation/scandal, rather than repeating many details in individual bios. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, NYTTEND, why don't you build it into a much longer, thoughtful bio, and then the article will not suffer from WP:UNDUE by including the charges...But i think it should not be allowed to be 1/3 of the article or anywhere close... --Jkp212 18:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well...there are several ways to expand the article. One is to add unsourced information, which is not correct; I have therefore removed Jkp's change, as it violates WP:BLP. I don't have much of any sources here that aren't available online, except for local resources such as the local newspaper, the Beaver County Times, which people here seem to think is an unacceptable resource — I disagree, but if people are going to complain I'm not going to bother placing information from it. As far as other resources, they're online, and anyone can add that, including Jkp or Will Beback; I'm busy currently with county templates and less concerned with expanding an article on an apparently corrupt politician. Anyway, I'm not attempting to repeat many details; it's only two sentences saying what happened to him and what the attorney general said. Nyttend 04:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know enough about this subject but all sorts of statements are being made about the article's subject with no reference sources. I believe Jimmy Johnson is still living. Mattisse 15:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Offending material removed.--Doc^g 15:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

One user is determined to add "controversies" or "criticisms" to this page in a manner which overwhelms the article and appears to side with the critics. The edits invariably begin with a small amount of factual information, then inject a large amount of commentary from Israeli partisans. (The subject is a prominent Palestinian politician & negotiator.) None of the sources provided are actually about Saeb Erekat specifically, rather, they are news or editorial pieces which simply mention him - thus, I find it difficult to understand the relevance to Erekat's notability as a whole. It's a little like adding all of the controversies of the first Bush administration to our biography of Ari Fleischer.

What's worse, recently the same user has decided to add an additional "controversy" section consisting of one news article which mentions Erekat passingly in the context of quoting the official P.A. position, two editorials from the American Jewish community which (surprise) condemn him, and one blog posting by a Campus Watch - approved Israeli. In other words, it's looking more and more like a smear job. <eleland/talkedits> 18:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

A somewhat heated argument cum revert war about one word. Should this person be described as "gay" or "openly gay"? Haukur 00:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

There may be some BLP issues here. Subject is accused of sexual harassment and perjury and an edit war seems to be in progress between two users ("Truther truther" and "Letsnotlie") that both have made edits on Wikipedia exclusively to this article. No third person has edited this article, either. These two users accuse each other of being the protagonists in the sexual harassment case. (In edit summaries, there is no discussion at all on the talk page). I stumbled upon this by accident and don't know the subject, but somebody who knows about these kinds of things should urgently have a look at what is going on here. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 08:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

This is fishy. I've deleted one image of an alleged court report as unverifiable original research violating BLP. But the whole section here needs checked and possibly removed. No time just now. Other clued eyes appreciated. And watchlist.-Doc^g 20:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm unhappy with this also; most of the references are from blogs. Naturally, I have removed those, as blog references absolutely cannot be used in such a context. But there are still some reliable sources,including the Chronicle of Higher Education. Unfortunately a few f even these are cited only indirectly via blogs, but the original sources should be findable easily enough. I have not yet checked to see to what extent the quotes in the article are proven by the remaining sources. But I have doubts about using the quotes, rather than the news reports-- sourced or not--especially as the accusations were settled out of court, thus there will not be an actual court verdict to cite. If any uninvolved party concurs with me and removes them, I would certainly not object.

Additionally, a paragraph about a patent case in which his testimony was involved contained selective quotations, although sourced reliably from the verdict. I adjusted them to more appropriate emphasis. DGG (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC) I see Docg has just commented them out. DGG (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Users Truther truther and Letsnotlie are at it again, adding/deleting info on the sexual harassment and patent lawsuits. --Crusio (talk) 09:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I a,m taking this off my watch list. There have been 17 edits today, 8 by Letsnotlie and 7 by Truther truther. Not being an admin, there's not much I can do about this, but I hope somebody will put a stop to it. I think both of these editors should be blocked and the article overhauled by an experienced editor with an eye for BLP issues. Just my 2 cents. --Crusio 00:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

A new editor has popped up, Hillhealth, who reverts edits from Truther truther and may well be a sockpuppet of Letsnotlie. --Crusio 19:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I've fully protected the page for a week and commented out the sexual harassment section because of the obvious BLP concerns. Let's hope our little warriors use the opportunity to talk things out. — Coren ^(talk) 22:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Coren! Hope you'll also keep an eye on the Schlessinger talk page now.... Cheers, --Crusio 09:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Below is Mitt Romney's Wikipedia biography. This section (biography) is the first thing you read about Mitt Romney (after the intro) on the site. Count, with me, the number of times his religion, religious practices, and polygamy are mentioned in his (biograph).

Biography

Born on March 12, 1947 in Detroit, Michigan, Mitt Romney is the son of former Michigan Governor and 1968 presidential candidate George W. Romney and 1970 U.S. Senate candidate Lenore Romney. His name "Willard" was after hotel magnate J. Willard Marriott, his father's best friend. Mitt, his middle name, comes from a relative who played football for the Chicago Bears. Romney married his high school girlfriend Ann Davies in 1968. Both are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1), commonly known as Mormons (2), though Ann was raised Episcopalian (3). They have five married sons (Tagg, Matt, Josh, Ben and Craig) and eleven grandchildren. Romney's great-grandparents were polygamist (4) Mormons (5) who fled to Mexico in 1884 after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld various anti-polygamy (6) laws in 1879. Romney's father, George Romney, was born in Chihuahua, Mexico, and the family moved to the United States in 1912 after the outbreak of the Mexican Revolution. Romney is a former bishop (7) and stake president (8) in his church(9), and he attends a temple (10) regularly. As a devout Mormon, (11) he does not drink (12) or smoke (13). He's also a proponent of family values, saying that he abstained from sex until marriage and has since remained faithful to his wife of 39 years.

There are 13 mentions of his religious practices, and polygamy in his "Biography". How many times do you think the articles about Rudy, McCain, Hillary, and Barak mention their religion? Take a wild guess.

Do you think this page is fair to Romney? Do they treat Romney the same as Rudy or Hillary?

I say no.

No other candidate has their religion mentioned 12 times! No other candidate has scandalous behavior of their grandparent's discussed! And it's not just the fact that these things are mentioned, but that they are mentioned at the top of the page, as the first (and most likely last things that people read about Romney, as most people just want the executive summary) thing in the page. The first thing on the page, should be, in my opinion, the things that get him onto wikipedia. According to that procedure, the most important thing about Romney is that he is Mormon. This happens in my life also, and I hate it. People I work with see my Resume, they see that I went to BYU, and they ask me how many wives I have... It gets really old... I don't see what it is about Romney, that makes polygamy important to discuss, let alone in the first paragraph after the into... If they want to create a separate "religion section" that is fine, but I don't get it. I am a Mormon. If I ever become famous will polygamy be discussed in my wikipedia article?

I don't mean to question the motives of those who are editing the page, but it seems to me that people are only going to discuss polygamy with regard to Romney (as apposed to other famous Mormons who don't have polygamy discussed in their wikipedia articles) because he is a politician and some people don't want to see him elected... I do want him to be elected, but I don't want his article to be pro-Romney, I just want him to be treated fairly...

I don't think Romney's pre-marital sex life should be mentioned in the firs section after the into. I do not think polygamy should be mentioned there either...

I have tried to change it, but this guy keeps changing it back... I want to formally request arbitration...

He keeps saying that a lot of people discuss Romney's religion, so we should put it in their. I say that a lot of people look at porn, but that doesn't mean we should give it to them... wikipedia is supposed to treat people fairly, and professionally. myclob 00:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. Be WP:BOLD and fix these issues. If you get reverted, take it to talk and present your arguments as eloquently as you have presented it here. If no consensus can be found, pursue dispute resolution. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Not very many people seem to be responding... I've tried many times to discuss it, and no consensus has been reached... I really want arbitration...myclob 00:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, there is no content arbitration in wikipedia.--Doc^g 00:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You say to be bold, so I tried changing it one more time, but I know it will be changed back, with no arguments on the discussion page....myclob 00:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Please look at dispute resolution there's nothing here we can help with.--Doc^g 01:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[undent] Unfortunately, this is a complete distortion of what has been going on on Talk:Mitt Romney as well as a distortion of the actual article. There has been a great deal of discussion about this matter - Myclob's concerns have been replied to repeatedly - but he has just continued to say the same thing over and over again without responding to changes that have been made to try to accommodate him. I am afraid that his objections are very subjective - he says several times that he has experienced difficulties regarding his religion that this is similar to, and he has a strong POV about it - and while I am sorry for any discomfort he feels, that is not at all the intent of the way the article is written, nor is it a realistic complaint about it. Romney's religion, and his family background, are cited and discussed in numerous reliable sources, and they are included in the article because they are an issue that is commented on a great deal. Being bold is great, but ignoring what the other editors of the article have said on Talk is not ok. Tvoz |talk 02:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not "distort what was going on". I wrote exactly what Tvoz keeps reverting the article back to... It is not a " distortion of the actual article" of the article, I re-wrote the article exactly as it reads, and you can go read it yoursef... it says "Early life and family background" and all it talks about is his religion... "This has not been "greatly discussed" in the article... and "my concerns have been replied to repeatedly" How can it be fair to have the first part of Mitt Romney's article (after the intodduction) say that it is going to be talking about his "Early life and family background" but have 13 mentions of poligamy and his religion? Yes, Tvoz, keeps repeating that people like to talk about his religion, but he has not responded to any questions, as to why it should be kept in it's present state, what is wrong with moving the religion stuff out of the "Early life and family background" section, or to the argument that just because people like to do stuff that is unfair, doesn't mean wikipedia does... People ask how many wifes I have, when they see on my Resume that I went to BYU... People are doing the same thing to Mitt Romney, and Tvoz is the only person on the discussion page that thinks that this is fair, but apparently he has enough time to keep changing it back... Go to the discusion page.. there is not a concensus, but he keeps changing it back to the way he likes it with 13 mentions of Romney's religion within the "Early life and family background" section, which seems so rediculous to me that it just drives me crazy.myclob 14:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC) In fact if you look at the discussion page you will see that I, myclob, coolhandluke, and Raymondwinn all think it should change...myclob 15:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a useful discussion about how to improve the Mitt Romney article. However, some editors have been trying to delete the information about Romney's family history with polygamy. The information is both true and has been discussed repeatedly by Romney and throughout the mainstream media from Fox News leftward. A partial list of stories include:

1. Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romney's Family Tree from Fox News, Feb 24, 2007
2. Mitt Romney's Evangelical Problem The Washington Monthly, September 2005
3. The march of the Mormons The Guardian, Feb 27, 2006. The article says "...Mitt Romney's father, George, an automobile executive and a three-term Republican governor of Missouri who was born in a polygamous Mormon community in Mexico."
4. Romney Family Tree Has Polygamy Branch - White House candidate Mitt Romney condemns polygamy, but his great-grandfather had 5 wives CBS News, Feb 24, 2007
5. Romney Family Tree Has Polygamy Branch ABC News, Feb 24, 2007
6. The Making of Mitt Romney Boston Globe, June 25, 2007
7. Mitt Romney on 60 Minutes with Mike Wallace - Mormonism 60 Minutes interview on YouTube.

It would be helpful if some experienced editors who don't have a personal stake in this article could weigh in about the standards for including this kind of fact on a Wikipedia bio page. Notmyrealname 03:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

A simple question: How does something that is generationaly removed from the individual affect the readers understanding of that individual or how it has bearing upon who he is? If you can answer that in such a manner as to indicate that the inclusion is worthwhile, then go for it, otherwise, leave it out. I do not see how it is pertinent to understanding the individual and it is controversial, so why would we include it? Brimba 03:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Another editor recently pointed out at the talk page that "Romney is also descended from Rebecca Nurse, who was hanged for witchcraft in 1692 after the Salem witch trials, and of Anne Marbury Hutchinson, religious reformer, heretic and a founder of Rhode Island." Interesting point, no?Ferrylodge 03:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It is, but unlike the above, hardly controversial and no more worth covering within a one page bio than the above. Brimba 04:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

That's an unsourced red herring. The answer to the simple question is that editors at every major news outlet in the US and many abroad have determined that it is relevant. That's more than Wikipedia requires. Notmyrealname 03:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a stake in this, but this whole issue is undue weight. The focus on his great-grandparents and practices which were common (from my understanding) within the Mormon religion at the time are irrelevant in today's world. Romney has denounced the practice of Polygamy, but to ascribe some connection to his past is purely an attack on both him and his religion. I think people should look at it for what it is, and that is a partisan attack on him personally. Those claiming RS and notability can hide behind that wall as much as they want, but it is clear the motivation is to associate Romney with a practice he has denouced numerous times. Arzel 04:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess it's time for one of those WP:AGF reminders. Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, The National Review, and other conservative media outlets have all covered the issue. It is frequently mentioned in all major media outlets as an issue that may affect voter perception of his campaign. He has discussed it on national television. Reliable sources and notability are the gold standards of BLP pages, not something that you hide behind. To NOT include something on his bio page, in a factual and neutral manner, that has been widely discussed in the national and international media would be biased. WP:BLP policy is very clear about including information that might be perceived as embarrassing. If it is notable and properly sourced, it should be included. Notmyrealname 04:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

If it's been covered by the media "as an issue that may affect voter perception of his campaign" then why shouldn't it go in the campaign section of the Wikipedia article? And why does it require anything more than a sentence like this, with appropriate footnotes: "Some of Romney’s ancestors were polygamists, which is a practice that he has denounced"? I also want to point out that many presidents have ancestors who were aboard the Mayflower, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia biographies should give every detail, regardless of what the mass media says.Ferrylodge 05:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Right. It's a campaign issue, along with his religion in general. It should be covered as such, because that's how reliable sources indicate it's notable. Cool Hand Luke 17:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. The family's practice of polygamy led to him having a lot more family members (see the Globe article I cited at earlier that interviews many of his other family members). Also, his father was born in Mexico. That is a pretty interesting family fact, again, directly the result of his grandparents fleeing the US to continue practicing polygamy. Notmyrealname 17:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Mitt Romney has three siblings, which doesn't seem like a huge number, and they're all listed right up front in the Mitt Romney Wikipedia article — no one is objecting to that. Mitt Romney's mother was born in Utah, directly the result of Mormons fleeing persecution in the Midwest; her family appears to have been completely monogamous rather than polygamous, but no one is suggesting to put that fact in the Mitt Romney Wikipedia article. Likewise, no one is seriously suggesting to put Romney's ancestor Rebecca Nurse in the Mitt Romney Wikipedia article. So, putting the polygamous behavior of his paternal great-grandparents into the article would be kind of unusual. I would have no objection to a couple sentences in the campaign section of the Mitt Romney article, like this: "Romney's paternal great-grandparents emigrated to Mexico to avoid polygamy laws in the United States, and this fact has been reported by some media outlets as a factor that may affect voter perception of his campaign. Mitt Romney has denounced the practice of polygamy, and is a proponent of traditional marriage." This can be footnoted, so that interested readers can learn more if they want to. Sound okay?Ferrylodge 18:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI, we are back to square one. Th editor named Turtlescrubber has come along and made this edit reverting a version of the article that had been discussed at length here and at the Mitt Romney talk page. The article is now back to square one, and I must say that this is apparently an attempt to emphasize as strongly as possible that Romney is from a family of POLYGAMIST MORMONS. In my view, it's very offsensive. In addition, the version that Tutlescrubber has installed conatins blatant falsehoods. For example, it includes the following footnote: "Romney's family tree has polygamous roots Associated Press, February 242007." That is not the title of the Associated Press article, as I have repeatedly stated to Tutlescrubber. Additionally, he insists on the statement that "Romney's paternal great-grandparents were polygamist Mormons who moved to Mexico in 1884." Again, this is highly misleading, if not completely false; there is no documented polygamy on Romney's mother's side of the family. Frankly, I don't know what to do now. HELP!Ferrylodge 03:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, stop forum shopping. Second, you could stop running off and actually discuss compromise edits. I guess it's your way or the highway right. We are having a conversation, I go to work, and boom, there is "compromise" that I was unaware snuck into a formerly protected article. I don't think that we are that far away from reaching a compromise but I don't like to see the rules circumvented like that. I am open to discussion but do not like the way things are being handled on this page. One editor has already been driven off by a few of the footsoldiers on this page. I also don't like the crossposting on page looking for more "help", i.e. additional footsoldiers. Ferry is basically saying that I am an anti-mormon bigot, which he would find very funny if he knew anything about me. Which he doesn't. So he should really assume good faith and keep his petty accusations under his hat. Turtlescrubber 03:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn;t start this thread, so I don't understand how I could be forum shopping.Ferrylodge 03:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

And I don't think you're an anti-Mormon bigot, Turtlescrubber. I think you're someone who wants to display as prominently as possible that Romney is from a family of POLYGAMOUS MORMONS.Ferrylodge 03:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)