This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Resolved

 – the editors repoting are blocked

• Loren Legarda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• GiannaManiego (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

At issue is a defamatory and non-verifiable text that is being repeatedly inserted by user HoppingHare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). May I suggest that the board keep an eye on this page and on other Filipino politicians' biographies as well. I weeded out as best I could. But since the national election is approaching, mudslinging is in full swing. Thank you!

GiannaManiego (talk) 07:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)GiannaManiego (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The issue whether this is verifiable is baseless. As you can see, there are neutral sources that confirm this so any suggestion of such is unreasonable. I think it is sad that a good politician can be tainted but regardless facts are facts and they should be told as such. Please see The Philippine Star. See below:

• Corpus apologizes to Loren but sticks to accusations. Manila. February 7, 2004. The Philippine Star/Philippine Headline News. Retrieved on February 13, 2010.

• What do you think of the Villar-Legarda tandem?. Manila. November 22, 2009. The Philippine Star. Retrieved on February 13, 2010.

I am asking that the deleted material be restored.--HoppingHare (talk) 08:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Demagogy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Repeated attempts to define examples of "modern demagogues". Invariably provides more insights into the politics of the person making the addition than about the subject of the article. Could use additional contributors watchlisting the article. --Allen3 ^talk 20:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

There are many problems with this article, about a prominent dissident journalist in Israel. It has become a coatrack of hostile smears, many of them poorly translated from unreliable Hebrew-language sources. One of these is sourced to http://www.omedia.co.il/Show_Article.asp?DynamicContentID=25789&MenuID=681&ThreadID=1014003 , which gives a 404 not found error. The entire site is currently unavailable; but it appears to be an aggregator of news and commentary, with a right-wing, "pro-security" leaning. A Google search for the Hebrew original cited in the footnote leads to the apparent source, a blog by one Uri Heitner, an Israeli settler in the Golan Heights and "director of the Golan Youth Cultural Centre" http://israblog.nana10.co.il/blogread.asp?blog=272685&blogcode=11000765 . Although I have removed this, as a personal attack taken from a hostile blog, another editor has restored it, claiming that it is not a blog, and that the comment is notable and reliable. Is this an acceptable source for an attack on the character and integrity of a living person? RolandR (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It was in the footnotes, in Israeli or Arabic and translated into English for good measure, there is no good excuse to do this in the footnotes unless it is a quote that is used in the article , which it wasn't, the citation is also not needed as there are other citations supporting the comments, its excessively opinionated and the article is more WP:NPOV without it. Off2riorob (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

RolandR neglected to mention that Omedia's website is currently under revamping (see "האתר בתהליך שידרוג") and I don't know where he came up with the idea that they are right-wing. Maybe compared to his professed anti-zionist position they are but I've been reading that news-site for a while and they are a mainstream site without any notable political affiliation. This is also mentioned in their brief on the web. Anyways, I wasn't aware that their article was quoted by any other source and being quoted by a blog is not a reason to remove a reliable source. The writer of the article was Omedia's cheif editor, Ran Farhi, btw and not Uri Heitner who is, I know due to working on the 1929 Hebron Massacre article, indeed a settler in the Hebron area. RolandR was noted to be wrong to assume the original was any blog and I can vouche that it was indeed taken from the news-source with the exact link posted here. As for the value of the translation, that is another issue and we can surely discuss it collegiately without harrassing the community needlessly. The original issue, though, for which this concern was posted -- i.e. the belief that "the footnote leads to the apparent source, a blog by one Uri Heitner" -- is flat out wrong. Also, the text in the quote is used in the article regarding "pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli" perspectives of the subject. The word "propagandist" was left out as a way to avoid BLP concerns raised by fellow editors.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This article appears on Heitner's blog, where he writes "נכתב על ידי הייטנר 26/6/2009 09:28" -- "Written by Heitner, 09.28, 26/6/2009". It also appears under Heitner's name on Hadashot Ben Ezer, published by the Union of Creative Women of Israel.[1] I have no idea why Jaakobou insists that it was written by Ron Farhi; this is disproved by the only two sites where the article can currently be found. RolandR (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

RolandR,

You saw the original editorial by Ran Farhi on Omedia so I'm not getting where you're suddenly refering to this blogger as the alleged source. No one can control if this blogger copy-pasted the article into his blog without adding who the original writer is. This doesn't change that both of us saw the original and that it was written by Farhi, not Heitner.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not see, and never have seen, the "original" on Omedia. I have no reason to doubt that a version of this article was there, but it is not now, and cannot be verified. I have never seen any source that alleges that this was written by Farhi. What I have found is that all available versions, including Heitner's blog, state that it was written by Heitner. This is the only verifiable information that we have. RolandR (talk) 08:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The obvious solution satisfying BLP rules is to keep the material out of the article until verification of the source is possible. With due respect to Jaakobou, it is not his recollections but what can be verified by others that matters. Zero^talk 02:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Zero,

No offense, but there's no such rule. The source does not make an exceptional claim and even the blog sites the original came from אומדיה.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no such rule as what ? Which rule are you referring to ? I assume it isn't "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources" in WP:SPS. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I was actually thinking of "Verifiability ... means that anyone should be able to check the sources to verify that material in a Wikipedia article has already been published by a reliable source". It seems that at the moment the precise relationship of the text to Omedia cannot be verified. Since this is policy, and the example is contentious, and the BLP rules enjoin us to be especially careful, we can't at the moment use the material. If Omedia comes back on line we can revisit the question. Zero^talk 05:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well,

No offense intended, but you're both wrong.

Sean, the material was not self-published but rather came out in a meainstream news-outlet. On top of this, we're not dealing with an exceptional claim and this is one of several reliable and notable sources that repeat a similar perspective.

Zero, the original was verified just a couple months ago by several established wikipedia editors. Let's not make this into a "precise relationship of the text to Omedia" thing since RolandR saw the original himself.

Regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

He says he didn't see it, and it does seem that Heitner's name appears as author in the places Roland indicated. So even if your memory is perfect and it did appear in Omedia as the work of Farhi, we would still have the problem of two competing claims for authorship. It is more than enough reason to discard it; you should at least come up with sources whose provenance is clear and unambiguous. Zero^talk 12:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

RolandR hasn't said he hasn't seen it since he did, in fact, did see it. The blog copy-pasted the original and the blog username was timestamped into the post. This argument that Heitner is the source can also be fully rejected considering he never wrote for Omedia and "אומדיה" is stamped at the bottom of his post. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC) correction - I missed the comment above. 13:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I said that I did not see it, and I was telling the truth. I request that you withdraw the assertion that I am lying. RolandR (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

RolandR, how can you say you never saw the editorial, when you commented on it here? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I was responding to the discussion on the talk page. What I wrote was "please give an explicit translated quote. Until you do, this has no place in the article". The moment I tried to check the reliability of this source (in response to recent request on my talk page), I discovered that not only was the cited source unavailable, but the only available source was a blog article. I repeat, although I accept that the text was previously on Omedia, I have not seen it there, and object to being called a liar. I have certainly neither seen nor read anything, except your assertion above, to suggest that this was written by the Omedia editor, while I have cited two sources which state that it was written by a blogger. I can back my claim with verifiable sources; you cannot. That is the issue here, which you are trying to evade by false accusations, red herrings and other obfuscatory tactics.RolandR (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

RolandR, how can you say "I have not seen it [on Omedia]" when in your original comment you said "Especially since the editorial is in Hebrew"?[2] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

QED RolandR (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

For the benefit of any editors with challenged understanding of colloquial English, my cryptic remark above did not mean that I had conceded Jaakobou's argument and accepted that Farhi wrote the text in Omedia. It meant that I had established my argument that Jaakobou was trying to evade the issue by means of "false accusations, red herrings and other obfuscatory tactics".RolandR (talk) 11:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

For your own beneft, the conversation above shows that you claimed the source to be a blog while fully knowing it to be a news editorial in a Hebrew mews-site. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you not understand plain English? I state that the source is a blog. I do not "know it to be a news editorial", since I do not believe this to be the case. Stop accusing me of lying, and please bring verifiable sources for your assertions.

I think I can put an end to this particular disagreement. I posted the question at Uri Heitner's blog, saying that there was a disagreement over the authorship of the article. Here is his response:

אני כתבתי את המאמר ופירסמתי אותו ב"חדשות בן עזר", ב"אומדיה" ובבלוג שלי. איפה יש ויכוח כזה? מהיכן הוא צץ? על סמך מה טוען מישהו שהמאמר אינו שלי? איזו סיבה יש למישהו לפרסם בשמי מאמר שאינו שלי? איזו סיבה יש למישהו לחשוב שהמאמר אינו שלי? מוזר מאוד מאוד. אשמח לקבל יותר פרטים.

Translation: I wrote this article and published it at "Hadashot Ben Ezer", "Omedia" and on my own blog. Where is this dispute? How did it arise? On what basis would someone claim that this article was not my own? What possible reason would someone have to publish an article in my name that wasn't me? What reason could make anyone doubt that the article was by me? Very odd, indeed. I will be glad to receive details.

So I think we can safely say that the article was written by Uri Heitner and originally published on his blog (among other places), and therefore, under the rules as they are presented here, inadmissable in a biography of a living person.

Personally, I think that disallowing this is petty and wrong. There is nothing in Heitner's article that could be interpreted as a personal slur or libel to Levy - it is simply an opinion about Levy's opinions, and perfectly legitimate. I don't think that Heitner himself is particularly notable, nor is his opinion especially original. He does have a way with words (albeit in Hebrew), and makes points which could be germaine to the article. On the other hand, three other sources make pretty much the same point, and they are already quoted. So I don't think that disallowing this source makes much difference one way or the other. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Later: Uri Heitner wrote me a second email, noting that he was a regular contributor to Omedia up until the time of its closure (which suggests to me that the site is not temporarily disabled, but permanently kaput). --Ravpapa (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Ravpapa for your efforts in clarifying the facts here, and also for your work in tidying up the article. I don't agree with your assessment of the legitimacy of this article as a source; but I think we agree that, under Wikipedia rules, it is not admissible. RolandR (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought I'd give it a look and, considering Ravpapa's efforts it becomes clear that the article was published on Omedia. As Omedia was a news source with its own ediotial proccess, this article becomes a legitimate source of opinion. The quostion that remains is towards the notability of Heitner's opinion being noted on Omedia. Heitner is, while some people are unaware of this, currently writing for Israel Hayom, which is fast becoming Israel's no.1 newspaper. Heitner is not notable as a signle opinon, but when we write that 'critics say...', Heitner's opinion can be added as long as its done conservatively.

p.s. thank you Ravpapa for clarifying the authorship issue and making note to RolandR the issues to be considered in the BLP discussion (notability and exceptionality of the claim).

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Marcus (comedian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The article has a sourced reference as to the subject's last name. The subject has allegedly denied that this is his last name, in a comedy routine and on a podcast, without saying what his real last name is; but there is no reliable source to indicate that the published information is wrong. I believe that this is a matter of "I don't want people to know my last name, and I am trying to cover up the fact that (when I was even more obscure) it got published, by creating a fog of FUD about the issue." Another editor keeps removing the sourced information in favor of keeping the whole thing secret. I feel that WP:NOT#CENSORED and WP:V are on my side; but I'm bringing it to this forum for further comment. Orange Mike | Talk 18:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This is weakly cited and disputed and IMO should be left out of the article.The subject wants it out and disputes it is accurate, it is cited to one single weak citation and not supported anywhere. As it is a BLP and we need to err on the side of caution is this detail available at multiple reliable sources? Off2riorob (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The only citation it is in is this knoxville Karaoke’s still king at Big Mama’s citation , imo , considering it is disputed this is not strong enough or widely reported to be worthy of inclusion here. Off2riorob (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If someone's last name isn't publicly known and the subject of BLP disputes, it's a pretty strong sign that they're not notable enough for Wikipedia. I've nominated the article for deletion. THF (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

He came in 2nd place on a season of Last Comic Standing, a show that aired on network TV with ratings in the millions per night. If deleted, this would place a hole in the references for the show. He has been the subject of newspaper articles relating to his appearance on the show. The subject is notable, just none of them have references to his last name.Whillice (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. If there's dozens of articles of cruft from Last Comic Standing, where even the winners fail to go on to anything resembling real careers, that's an argument for more deletions/mergers, rather than keeping this one, but take it to the AFD page. THF (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I had this thought earlier, so lets see. Off2riorob (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

We should side with wikipedia rules here, not OrangeMike's suspicions over the motivations of the subject. My contentions: 1- I believe that the overarching rule is that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful."-- this info is contentious and should be removed. 2- The sources cited are reliable. First, None of the references are part of a "comedy routine." One is from Twitter where Marcus expresses his frustration that people keep adding this info on his page, mostly by engaging in name-calling to other wikipedia editors. http://twitter.com/ComedianMarcus/statuses/7879267179 This coincides with edits from an anonymous user claiming to be Marcus asking people to stop changing this info because it is false. The other source is an episode of the Geek Show Podcast, downloadable through iTunes, episode named "Kill It, Before IT Kills You." At minute approx 21, Marcus again explicitly states that the info people keep putting on his page, specifically related to his name, is false. Per WP:SELFPUB these sources which normally wouldn't be considered reliable CAN be, as long as:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

the material is not unduly self-serving;

it does not involve claims about third parties;

it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

the article is not based primarily on such sources.

It meets none of those caveats, so the sources are reliable when it comes to keeping this info out.

Also, per WP:BLPEDIT "The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to the subjects of biographies who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whillice (talk • contribs) 23:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

We should also note that the source for the name is not the body of the article in question at all, but a caption on a photo, further adding to its dubiousness. Since this is a case of leaving contentious material out of an article rather than leaving it it, I believe we must side with keeping it out. Whillice (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

In the unlikely event that the article isn't deleted, I think the SELFPUB argument has a mild amount of merit. But those are some of the unfunniest tweets I've ever seen. THF (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Through more searching, here is a source that is not a podcast, not from Twitter, which says Marcus only has a first name. http://www.pegasusnews.com/news/2008/aug/18/last-comic-standing-live-tour-comes-bass-performan/ I have 1 verifiable source, you have 1, and I have two which I claim to be verifiable per SELFPUB. By the by, THF, if humorousness of source material was a requirement for verifiability, wikipedia would be pretty small. ha! Whillice (talk) 07:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – An IP editor has restored the article to its pre-troublesome state. Still needs sources, though. Ray^Talk 22:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Andrew Olexander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - website with slander // 210.84.2.155 (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC) and/or
• Hahapsht (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - mischievous user // 210.84.2.155 (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, this user seems to have a grudge against people involved in the Australian Democrats in 2008-09. This person has added a whole bunch of crazy to the article on Andrew Olexander, including some pretty hardcore assertions with no citations. Here's a diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrew_Olexander&action=historysubmit&diff=341110635&oldid=310624341

Their edits to the Australian Democrats page are petty, but probably not worth hassling over.

Anyway, I don't feel comfortable editing the page.

Not a biography, but still with a BLP-like issue. See [3]. The root of the problem appears to be this edit on 9 November 2008. The word "blasphemous" remained until 7 April 2009. Although that has now been removed, could someone please take a look at the mentions of this book in the article to make sure that it is now NPOV? (Context: the author has just contacted WMUK about this). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Daley was not born in Worcester Park Surrey. He was born in West London. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.202.232 (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

This bio says Notting Hill . Is that west london? Off2riorob (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – inserter of the content was blocked indefinitely.

Is this a BLP voilation "I think what is most controversial was Brown apparently trying to use his dead child to gain votes." on the talkpage of Gordon Brown, I asked him to bring a citation but the user says he doesn't need one as it is all over the press. I have removed it twice and this is a bit rephrased ith the edit summary of..No citation is required since it is in every newspaper and online news source. I suggest you stop this biased removal of facts before I complain Off2riorob (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I tend to think that a lot of latitude should be granted on talk pages, especially when discussing major political figures, and a cursory check of google news suggests that that level of invective really does exist in this particular situation. If he tries to put anything like that in the article text without a good source, then that'd be a serious BLP violation. Ray^Talk 20:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

BLP applies equally on talkpage, if it is a serious violation in the article then it is a serious violation on the talkpage to imo. Off2riorob (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

For something to be judged, it must be raised and properly discussed. Editors must be free to consult each other on the merits of material, to find and evaluate information regarding sourcing, etc. Only information capable of causing grave harm which is not in common circulation, or vandalism, should be removed from talk pages. Ray^Talk 21:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkpages are not for general discussion and adding content that you know there is no chance of insertion is simply a way to add it somewhere, there is no intention that the comment should be added and no care to offer a citation, is is simply an attack against the subject of the biography and unsupportable imo. Any unsourced defamatory content should in my opinion be removed from anywhere on the wikipedia, if you can't source it you shouldn't add it. Off2riorob (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

If there is no intention the comment should be added, that is correct (which is quite distinct from there being no "possibility" of the comment being added to the main article as written). When you find a way to see into the minds of men, let me know. In the meantime, we assume good faith when we see somebody add a comment on an ongoing discussion that pertains to the subject of the discussion. Ray^Talk 21:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this is were we are differing, this is repeated behavior from the sock of a blocked indef user, although its a dynamic ip I have tagged him but it is almost a waste of time to make a report, I have reported a few but it is never ending I have moved to this position now as it is repeated behaviour adding such content to the talkpage with not intention of bringing a citation. Off2riorob (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, if it's a sock, go ahead and revert away. Disruptive behavior and vandalism are something else entirely. Ray^Talk 22:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I am interested in your comment from a stand alone position though that this comment in isolation is not a BLP violation, I know the whole picture so perhaps my judgment is affected by that, if I am wrong to remove it as a blp violation then perhaps if I see no benefit in making a report I should perhaps look at it through your eyes and leave it there for discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I think ... that the death of a child is a major event in any person's life, particularly in the case of Mr. Brown, who has referred to it as having had a very great effect on his thinking and his own motivations. A proper and tasteful examination of its effect on his political career, how he relates to particular issues and other politicians, and the degree to which it plays a role in his electoral politics wouldn't go awry, if anybody wants to write it. In that context, a mention of this particular accusation, perhaps in a brief section summarizing critics of Mr. Brown's views on the matter, wouldn't be necessarily undue. Since this is a talk page, I would've taken the comment, on its own, as contributing in that light. But if it comes as part of a longstanding pattern of POV-pushing and disruption, then go ahead and remove it. Ray^Talk 23:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion Ray, another user has removed it, I don't think we will ever be adding, some of his political opponents suggested that he may have mentioned his dead baby to win votes though, anyway, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Hello,

On the Karyn Paluzzano wiki page the heading 'allegations of corruption' makes false statements. It says that Timothy Horan was fired for whistleblowing when he was in fact placed on suspension with full pay for misconduct. It also claims he was fired "in violation of Whistleblower protection laws". Tim Horan had also been suspended before he made claims of corruption. Karyn Paluzzano is vigorously denying these claims. None of this has been mentioned in the article and thus is should be removed immediately as it is defamatory. Thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbrown1979 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the offending sentence and have watchlisted the page. Ray^Talk 03:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Article trimmed for weight and is stable. Off2riorob (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Needs admin attention. Powell has a bad reputation but article seems to go overboard in trashing him. Recently mentioned at WP:EAR#ADAM_CLAYTON_POWELL.2C_IV_PAGE. --CliffC (talk) 04:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This article should be stubbed immediately and rewritten from a NPOV. Sole Soul (talk) 04:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• In the link above someone apparently related to Adam Clayton Powell claims that a political rival called Nelson Antonio Denis is inserting malicious content to his article. A user named Nelsondenis248 (talk · contribs) was blocked in 30 January 2009 for "Attacks to Adam Clayton Powell IV (politician), WP:BLP violations". I think a sockpuppet investigation should determine if he returned with another user name. Sole Soul (talk) 05:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• A user named MBernal615 (talk · contribs) whose first edit was to create the article Nelson Antonio Denis, started to edit Adam Clayton Powell page in July 2009. The user edits are largely negative. Sole Soul (talk) 05:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• I opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nelsondenis248. Sole Soul (talk) 06:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• Even the picture of Adam Clayton Powell uploaded by MBernal615 is unflattering to any politician and sends a clear message. The comments under the pictures are outrageous [4] : under one picture "Powell's mother charged with fraud", under another while he looks distressed "Powell accused of rape". Sole Soul (talk) 08:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

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

The subject of this article is wanting some information removed, see discussion at editor assistance. However, it is sourced to a reliable source (the BBC) and so his efforts to have it removed have been understandably resisted. My thinking is slightly different however. The offence was relatively minor with only a small fine, and our BLP policy states "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources". I do not think that the information is relevant to the subject's notability. Quantpole (talk) 09:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with you there, for me it could be removed, its a very minor offense, with a small fine, a small thing like that, well published through wikipedia could have a detrimental effect on his charity work, I added a bit to portray it a bit more npov. Off2riorob (talk) 12:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute: "officially transformed his apartment into the Baked Bean Museum of Excellence" is encyclopedic content, but a criminal offense reported by the Beeb is not? I think this reeks of a NPOV-breaching WP:NOT#CENSORED violation, requested in order to improve the subject's cash flow. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Captain Beany frequently stands for political office in elections (for which he gets significant publicity). A conviction of this kind is certainly relevant to such notability. The conviction was also reported in articles:

• "Beany is fined for fraud", South Wales Echo (Cardiff); Sep 1, 2005; p. 21
• "'Beany' is fined £200, South Wales Echo (Cardiff), Sep 2, 2005, p. 2
• "Fundraiser Captain Beany is convicted of benefit fraud", Western Mail (Cardiff), Sep 2, 2005, Paul Carey, p. 7.[5]
• It is also repeated in "Still full of beans", Wales on Sunday (Cardiff), Feb 5, 2006, Nathan Bevan, p. 30.

Ty 06:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

As the user that originally answered the query on EAR from the person claiming to be Beany himself and then adding the sources now seen in the article, I'm of the opinion that this is actually a fairly major event that impacts Beany's notability as defined by our standards. As I mentioned on EAR, I understand why he wanted it removed, but it's not up to him, nor do we censor our pages, as Orangemike mentioned. Even if it's just a small mention, we should stil be including it in the article. GlassCobra 07:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I have introduced two items to the Bill Moyers article. These items were objected to on the basis of not meeting BLP requirements. Please look over and give your opinion, citing specifics of BLP policy:

1. Under the direction of President Johnson, Moyers gave J Edgar Hoover the go-ahead to discredit Martin Luther King, played a part in the wiretapping of King, discouraged the American embassy in Oslo from assisting King on his Nobel Peace Prize trip, and worked to prevent King from challenging the all-white Mississippi delegation to the 1964 Democratic National Convention.^[1][2]

2. Allegations of hypocrisy on the influence of money in politics

Though Moyers regularly objects to the influence of money in American politics, he distributes significant amounts of money to political advocacy groups and news organizations for the purpose of influencing public policy. Moyers hands out these funds as president of the endowed Schumann Center for Media and Democracy.^[3]

Discussions at Talk:Bill_Moyers#Addition_of_unsourced_or_badly_sourced_derogatory_material and User_talk:Drrll#Bill_Moyers --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

--Drrll (talk) 09:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Please provide your sources here. Requiring editors to track down sources on disputed text that is no longer in the article makes it hard to judge one way or another. JPatterson (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The sources are in the text above (please see the footnotes). Thanks.--Drrll (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

An anon editor has regularly been updating the page with poorly sourced information about a real crisis at this school. The information added has been removed or sourced and made more neutral by several editors. However, in defence of their actions, the anon has posted material to the talk page about the current principal which I think might be unacceptable. Am I justified in removing this? Normally talk pages are subject to much looser rules than articles. I have semi-protected the article to prevent the repeated addition of the material.-gadfium 22:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a common attempt at inserting negative content on the talkpage that the editor wants to put in the article and has failed, BLP applies on talkpages as much as anywhere else here but more lax attitudes are generally applied to talkpages, wrongly imo. One course of action that I have used in similar cases is to archive content like that, but deletion is an option, delete, uncited or poorly cited attack on a living person. I have deleted it, I would also take a little bit of weight out of the critical comments, perhaps remove the comments about student fights or squabbles, as that sort of think happens at every school and is not really notable content and is getting undue weight and coverage through its inclusion in the wikipedia.Off2riorob (talk) 12:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice and action. I think in due time the whole section will be condensed down significantly, with some of the more minor incidents removed. I am inclined not to do this quite yet, as the situation at the school does not appear fully resolved, but I would not defend the material against pruning by uninvolved editors.-gadfium 18:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done Off2riorob (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• User:Ash/Paul Carrigan

Possibility of a WP:BLP with sourcing issues being moved from userspace (User:Ash/Paul Carrigan) into article mainspace. Discussion is at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_February_15#Paul_Carrigan. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I worked on it myself and improved the page, with a different draft now at User:Cirt/Paul Carrigan. :) Cirt (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That is the best way to get things done round here. Off2riorob (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Could we have some more eyes over on Charles Karel Bouley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? JoyDiamond (talk · contribs) and SkagitRiverQueen (talk · contribs) are incapable of editing collaboratively on this article, and rather than handing out more blocks, I'd rather get some editors involved who know nothing about the subject. It was previously discussed here in September of last year. Thanks! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No care about terrorists but take away that horrible image from the box. Majid Khan (Guantanamo captive 10020). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.101.50.68 (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I have removed it, the booking shot displays the subject in an extremely disparaging light, in fact the subject is unrecognizable and could actually be anybody, for that reason the picture is of no value to readers of the article either. Off2riorob (talk) 07:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Terima kasih (thank you). I know also 2 others Mohamad Farik Amin Malaysia and Riduan Isamuddin Indonesia. Why english wikipedia has such horrible images off them. Please repair this pages too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.101.183.7 (talk) 07:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

They are the only known free images of the subjects, thus we use them. They are not demeaning or picking their nose, it is their federal mugshot - exact same as we use for Timothy McVeigh. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 18:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You might put on some glasses because this image does not compare to the one of Timpthy McVeigh at all. Agree with Off2riorob. IQinn (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That's his mugshot, he wore sunglasses (eyeglasses?) and consequently looks a little strange...but that's the only free image that exists of him - and there's no compelling reason not to use it. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 00:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No that's wrong. You might read my sentence and this post again. Removed per WP:MUG the reasons are given here by Off2rioro and i agree with him. Could you please address the given reasons. IQinn (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with IQinn, this image could be anyone, the representation of the subject is so poor that the benefits to the reader are imo zero, it is a poor derogatory representation of a living person. I am not a supporter of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but looking at McViegh there is no comparison at all. Please feel free to seek support for the pictures insertion here and see if there community support for your position that the picture is ok. Off2riorob (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I put up a ((fair use)) replacement for the commons image of Majid Khan.

One of the contributors who participated in this discussion has removed other CIA images, which, while not ideal, are sufficiently useful to be recognizeable. In doing so they cited this discussion, as if there had been a consensus here to remove those other images. Geo Swan (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I also support that image removal it is very poor, the new fair use picture of Majid Kahn is very good, although fair use is not a good option on a BLP, I don't see there being an issue with that pic, if there is a bad pic in the infobox, I have seen them replaced further down the article where they are less obtrusive and given less weight. We don't have any need to have a picture and no picture can be better than a very poor one, if there is a specific picture that IYO adds something of real value to an article then please bring it here to see if there is support for that position. Off2riorob (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This talk page here seems to have had a few edits that imply that the person has committed sexual harassment and is now under name supression. There is no source to justify this, apart from internet forum rumours, and there has been a lot of work keeping such unsourced accusations from the actual article. I've blanked the talk page, but as it had no useful content I think it should be deleted and re-created from scratch so that this potentially libelous information is not even in the revision history.--Anon 10:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if this is easy to do, but there are some revisions in the main page that may need to be deleted also (most of the vandal deletions before the page was protected).--Anon 10:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a debate about the listing of employees of an organisation - specifically, Venezuela Information Office with this edit re-adding content omitted from the article since March 2009. That omission followed discussion on the talk page (Talk:Venezuela_Information_Office#VIO_employees_discussion) and here at BLPN (Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive60#Venezuela_Information_Office) and showed no consensus for including all content, though possibly for including the director(s).

No discussion was resumed before reinserting the same disputed content nearly a year later. The context for this should be understood as this ANI discussion documenting a smear campaign against the Center for Economic and Policy Research, which is mentioned in the edit linked above.

Questions: (a) how should disputed BLP-related content be treated? Is it appropriate to edit war to insert it? (b) is the material reasonable? (WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, etc) Rd232 ^talk 19:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I see no problem with adding, per reliable sources, the officers or other key employees of an organization for which there is a wiki article. I don't see how that would be UNDUE, POV or a BLP violation. Crum375 (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly! The operative words being "officers or other key employees" - that is essentially the consensus from March. And there is no evidence to hand that James or Naiman are either officers or "key employees". If they are not, their inclusion is WP:UNDUE. Rd232 ^talk 20:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Unless there is a reliable source specifically making their employment there notable (when focusing on the organization, not their own career). Crum375 (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

in other type of articles we have normally limited such a listed to the president / ceo /chairman of the borard , except in extremely large and famous organizations where one step down is appropriate. Eg, the article Citibank includes the name of the CFO. for government agencies, we've usually been considering those in a major policy-making position notable, but we do not generally include them in the main article--e.g. Department of State lists only the Secretary and the two Deputy secretaries. DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I would agree. We don't want an article about an organization to be a phone directory of its employees or members. The key people, officers, directors, and the most important or notable ones of those (for larger organizations) would suffice. Crum375 (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Arthur A. Goldberg‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There seems to be a bit of an incipient edit war starting at Arthur A. Goldberg‎ over the name represented by the middle initial. Some editors believe it stands for Abba and others seem to believe it stands for Avrum. This becomes a BLP issue in that the "Abba" editors have inserted information about fraud charges and a disbarment, and the "Avrum" editors (likely related to the controversial anti-gay organisation headed by Goldberg) have removed the information. Neither side seems to have introduced any references to show that the A stands for either Abba or Avrum. I don't know if the allegations about Goldberg are true or not, but without sourcing of the name and a more direct link to the charges, I don't believe it is appropriate to include them. Anyone want to tackle this? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this has been moved to the talk page already for just this reason. All of the charges and the disbarment were sourced in this version, but due to the ambiguity about the middle name, will be left out until it can be better determined. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 17:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

An IP has now added the information back in, with a reference. I'll leave it for someone else to judge the reliability, but perhaps another eye or two on this wouldn't hurt. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

My rule of thumb is that if there aren't reliable sources about what someone's name is, it's extremely likely they're not notable, much less worth Wikipedia editors' time trying to suss out that trivia. The article had no secondary sources, and I don't see any indication it met BIO. I've set up a redirect, and we'll see if that sticks; if not, I'll just propose deletion. THF (talk) 04:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur A. Goldberg is now pending. THF (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how "alleged conviction" of a person whose name is at issue can be anything but intrinsically contentious. Collect (talk) 11:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Further research has convinced us that this is indeed Arthur Abba Goldberg. I've withdrawn the AFD, and we can close this one: lots of editors looking at it now. THF (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems likely that it is the same person, but I haven't seen anything from a reliable source that confirms it. Hopefully it is forthcoming. Without it, this is WP:SYNTH at best. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This was the Google search that convinced me. That would be OR, but in this case, it confirms the Advocate/SFGN stories. THF (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing in the search results that mentions any of the organisations (NARTH, JONAH) associated with this Arthur Goldberg. As I say, it seems likely, but in this case, with highly politicized camps, I would wait for a reliable source. Having said that, there's no way I'm getting involved in editing that article. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

JONAH says Arthur A. Goldberg taught at Connecticut and practiced law in New Jersey; Google says Arthur Abba Goldberg taught at Connecticut and practiced law in New Jersey. That's beyond reasonable doubt that they're the same person. My analysis is OR and can't go into Wikipedia, but it's enough to verify that a RS analysis is correct and claims contesting it are spurious. THF (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

We generally don't need to "verify" what reliable sources say. A post on the Advocate's blog stating that an unreliable source said they were the same person doesn't make the original source any more reliable, any more than if it were reported in the NY Times (or pick your favourite reliable source) that a blog says some people were abducted by aliens. I believe that the Advocate is a generally reliable source, but their reporting that someone else said something does not make it reliable. This is a game of broken telephone that we ought not to be playing. If the reports are true, this will be confirmed soon enough. Please don't give me another round of why you think it is true - that's not the point. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

See, that didn't take long at all! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

He died yesterday. Some say BLP doesn't apply. Is this true? We can smear anyone we want if they are dead? I don't think so. If so, at least apply the spirit of BLP to dead people.

WP:BLP says The Foundation urges that special attention be paid to neutrality and verifiability regarding living persons; that human dignity and personal privacy be taken into account,

The Navy refused to make comments on the cause of death -- ---- but declined to reveal additional details, citing his family's request for privacy and federal privacy laws. from http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/08/john.murtha.obit/index.html?hpt=T1

So shouldn't we abide by that? The specifics can be discussed on that talk page but guidance/confirmation about following BLP and following personal privacy (as noted by the BLP quote) may be helpful.Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI: the proposed edit is: Murtha was hospitalized with gallbladder problems for a few days in December 2009 and had surgery January 28 at Bethesda Naval Hospital. He was again hospitalized two days later, and died on the afternoon of February 8, 2010, in the Virginia Hospital Center in Arlington, Virginia with his family by his side.[69] The National Naval Medical Center did not release further details citing requests from Murtha's family and federal privacy laws.[69] (rather than go into heresay information about how he died, H1N1 flu, kidney failure, infection, etc. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Strictly speaking BLP doesn't apply to the dead. However in the case of the recently dead we have to be careful because BLP does apply to their living friends and family. In fact there is a template for this situation -- ((Blpo)) -- though it is rarely used. It was the subject of a deletion discussion in 2008 (Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 21#Template:Blpo) and I think the comments of the "Keepers" there are spot on. – ukexpat (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In response to Suomi Finland 2009's (possibly rhetorical or even sarcastic) question, the fact that WP:BLP does not apply has nothing to do with 'smearing' anyone. Information must still be reliably sourced and accurate. HIPAA limits what details the hospital can disclose, but cause of death is generally public information, even for private citizens. Reliable sources report unanimously that the cause was complications from surgery, specifically a bacterial infection, not H1N1. The article does respect the family's privacy, omitting any tabloid details of their vigil during the subject's last days.TVC 15 (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It does look to be well written and without any excessive commentary, I would say it is respectful and written in an encyclopedic manner. Off2riorob (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Alive or dead, we seek to have accurate articles. That said, the enhanced concerns that apply to living people do not apply to dead people, however. The fact that recently dead have relatives does not distinguish them from people who are dead a number of years, but also have living relatives. IMHO, of course.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sarcastic. I don't know why there is the BLP policy. I thought is was because Jimbo Wales did not want to smear people but wanted a respectable encyclopedia.

I'm still not certain why there isn't a BLP-BDP, D for dead. Is it because dead people have a hard time suing?

The Murtha issue is resolving as their are more reports on what happened. I read that he was feeling deathly ill but tried to tough it out for 3 days before seeing a doctor. By then, he was nearly dead. That is too bad. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The primary reason for BLP isn't legal, but moral. We strive to not do unwarranted harm to living people and, in the case of the recently dead, their families. That means we make sure that information is properly sourced, so we aren't posting false information about a person. There's no set time period, but it's reasonable to give a few days for things to sort out before we start debating what to include. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there any disadvantages to extending BLP policies to all people, living and dead? Why kick the dead and multilate their bodies? Very disrespectful if done to the living or the dead. Couldn't the nice way be to have references and verify all things for all biographies? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggested that it be for all people born after, say, 1850, lest someone complain about it applying to King Tut <g>. And that it apply to articles specifically dealing with such people as far as contentious claims about them are concerned. Collect (talk) 11:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Kevin Trudeau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This grotesque mess of an article needs to be stripped bare – as in probably 2/3 of it should be deleted – and the heavily watchlisted by people not afraid to enforce policy. I'm by no means a BLP extremist, but I find myself constantly in the position of having to police this article, from WP:NPA, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:WEASEL and WP:SOAPBOX violations on the one hand, and WP:PEACOCK, WP:GREATWRONGS, WP:COI wallowing on the other. Just to keep it from getting worse. I've given up attempting to actually improve it, or even make it not grossly violate WP:BLP, WP:V, etc., in more places than can be counted. I'm neutral about the subject muself, but after months of trying to do anything with it only to get editwarred with, I can only conclude that others are going to have to deal with it, and should do so en masse and with thick skins. I don't think that long-ish term partial or even full protections would be out of order, to stem the tide of total crap edits at that article, which are a near-daily affair, and the almost certain revertwarrior backlash that will rise against any attempt to bring balance to that article. Fromwaht I can tell, the only editors at that article are a) me and a few other BLP-enforcing editors who are worn out; b) people who hate Kevin Trudeau because they fell for some telemarketing scheme of his, or they just heard he's a Bad Guy(tm) and feel like getting their two cents in, and c) shills, almost certainly paid, who perennially try to re-write the article to spin Trudeau in a ridiculously positive light ("consumer rights advocate", etc.). The fact that he's been successfully prosecuted for fraud is very much proven and sourced, is a major part of his notability, and cannot legitimately be stripped from the lead, or otherwise marginalized. The countervailing facts that the IPT and some other projects of his haven't raised any fraud red flags at all and people are actually pretty happy with them is also significant. It is grossly unfair to both the article subject and the readership to marginalize everything notable about Trudeau that doesn't happen to be salacious enough to bring uncharitable glee to his haters. It's equally wrong to let the article be whitewashed simply because Trudeau happens to be a living person. We're not here to protect his feelings. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 08:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for two weeks. The article has only been protected once previously, and that for but a day, so I was unwilling to go straight to longer protection. However, I saw all the issues that you menion above, and am willing to extend the protection if the problems persist. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Quite a mess. I did a couple of copyedits, but the place looks like everyone just puts everything inthe soup. Collect (talk) 11:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Robert D. Kaplan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Repeated insertion of negative POV info into a BLP. I have tried discussing this with the editor, but am not getting very far. More eyes please. Quantpole (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Watching. Off2riorob (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, can a couple people poke their head in at Joseph LeBaron, especially this addition? It appears to be sourced, but I am on the road and can't follow the sources and ensure that everything is supported by them, that they are RSes, etc. Thanks in advance- and if you have questions/a reply, please leave me a talkback- I'm not following BLPN. tedder (talk) 14:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Watching. Off2riorob (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey all. I'm not sure how to interpret WP:ELBLP in relation to WP:PRESS. At this diff you can see a removal of two articles from the press template which covered the corresponding wikipedia article. I have no idea whether they should or shouldn't be included, but figured I'd ask here before trying to revert on vague intuition.--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Miodrag Ješić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I've been called by a soccer coach and former player Miodrag Ješić. After some discussion, I finally realized that he is right about what he is saying, so i removed the link [6] (but, i was thinking that i was at sr.wp, so i left comment in serbian :) ). The point is that that site has partial information about him. It is about a lot of his unsuccessful parts of carrier than about his successful parts of carrier, which affects his life: football club managers are looking into that information. So, i have one question and one ask. The question is: do you think that my action is according to BLP policy (it is important to me because of sr.wp, too)? Ask is: if it is so, site reprezentacija.rs should be added into the list of sites with not so reliable information about living people. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 12:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

  A note: The site is promoted as "Serbian national football team website" [7], which is not true. It is a fan site, which has been during the past months. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 12:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I´ve properly re-arranged the page. The site www.reprezentacija.rs is in the list of WP reliable sources, so it´s utilization here has been very usefull for certain biographies, specially the ones of older Yugoslav players. I´ve made some minor changes, so if you have any more questions about it, you can post them here or on my talk page. Anyway, on the page, there were two more general sites (the Partizan and Buducnost P. official sites) but without any information about Jesic, so I removed them as well. Thanx for notecing this. FkpCascais (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no such thing like the "list of Wikipedia's reliable sources". Also, you've added that it is an official site in your last edit, even it is not. The official site of Serbian federation is http://www.fss.rs/. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 00:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Besides that, the article is not appropriate as it doesn't list all of the Jesic's carrier, but it pretends to that it consist the whole. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 00:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Link should be removed until the information inside of the article would be fixed. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 00:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a list of sites here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Links, and please don´t engage in edit wars. The removal of the site is not productive in any way, and the site contains a relatively complete playing and coaching careers, in both, Serbian and English language, so it´s really hard to understand what are you talking about. If there is any info missing in the article, you could help by adding sources, and adding that infrmation, but please don´t be disruptive, and stop removing the valid source that is "covering" much of the information written in the article. If you have some issues regarding the use of the website here, please be kind and adress them properly here:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Links or Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football. If the issues are about the website itself, or lack of some important info in the Jesic´s page in the site, it is the website that you should contact. About the naming here of the website ("Serbian Federation site" or "Serbian national team"), it has been named this way ever since, so if adequate, a change can be donne, but you need to adress this issue first, and demonstrate your points, before engaging in some massive changes. From what I can see, your intention is to de-creditaze the website, but it is hard to understand, since the website has been considered reliable for a long time now, and has been very usefull, as I already told you.

P.S.:I do understand that in the translated English version in the site, much enphasis is given to the Turkish player incident injury, and the text could obviously be better written, but that is far from being a reason to consider the website unreliable, and remove it from everywhere. Anyway, all written there is right. The simple reason of the source not writting the text the way you would like isn´t reason enough to delete it. Adding more sources would be much more adequat. I think you are also missing the entire point of how sources work here on WP, and remember, Wikipedia is by no means a promotional website, as you can see here FkpCascais (talk) 07:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Thanks for explaining to me rules at Wikipedia. Unfortunately for you, your threatening style may work with some new editor and I am not a new editor here. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 20:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
2. The page which you mentioned states that it is not a list of reliable sources. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 20:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
3. The name of the site which you promote is misleading readers to think that it is an official site, which means that you are doing advertising here. --millosh (talk (meta:))
4. But, besides all of that, this issue is not about your site in general, but about particular page and particular link. Otherwise, this discussion would go elsewhere. Partial information about Jesic at that site affects his life and Wikipedia shouldn't promote such sites as reliable sources of information. At least, in that particular case. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 20:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've read the Wikipedia article and the link for the reprezentacija.rs webpage. First, we should be clear that represezentacija.rs is NOT the official website of the Football Association of Serbia (which is fss.rs). Second, without knowing any details about the phone call mentioned above, I suspect Mr. Ješić's concern deals with the content about the clash with Rıdvan Dilmen that is currently in the article and the reprezentacija.rs webpage linked on the article. It is a negative statement, and I think that without further confirmation (in reliable sources), the statement should be removed from the article. I don't know if the link should also be removed since it does contain useful confirmation of many details about Ješić's career. I suppose WP:EL has the answer, so I'll take a look. Jogurney (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

In your last comment you said: "...your threatening style..." , where exactly did I threat you? "...I am not a new editor here..." , where I said that you were? Please, be precise in when putting words in someone elses mouth.

Regarding the link to the external sources used in the WikiProject Football, the list may be not named that way, but the criterium of inclusion of the websites to that list is very much about reliability. And the site www.reprezentacija.rs has been very reliable for now. About Ješić, again, all the rest of the information in the website page is wright (clubs, stats...).

I am not promoting the website here. I am editing here for some years now, and the website was used as a source for almost all Yugoslav and Serbian international players way before I started editing here. I´m just following the precedent trend by naming it by the name I do. Anyway, it is my right, as a active ditor of football players biographies, specialised mostly in the Serbian and ex-Yugoslav players, to support the website as a reliable source.

Talking concretly on Mr.Miodrag Ješić, he is a worldwide well know football manager, so it is really hard to understand your statement that the inclusion of the website in his article as a source for the enumeration of his playing career clubs, with stats, and his coaching career clubs, can be harmfull. If the text of the WP article was harmfull to his career, that would be one issue, but WP is not responsable for the content of another external websites. Your suggestion that club Presidents could hire or not him as a coach for their club based on the inclusion or not of certain website as external link on his page, is wrong and quite naive.

Anyway, the content in his WP articles should not be a copy/paste from the content of his article from that website, so the removal of the controversial content can be perfectly donne without the unecessary removal of the link (not everything from the source must be in the text). And please remember, I am a football editor here with a great passion for Serbian and Yugoslav football, so it wouldn´t be hard for me to agree with you if there was anything harmfull, or against the WP policies, found in any article related with Serbian or Yugoslav football. You could have removed the paragraph istead (as I ended doing).

About the naming of the source, we should rename it in another way, so when a proper renaming is found, I will change it in all the articles where is named wrongly. FkpCascais (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you Filip for removing the negative content about the clash with Dilmen. I re-read the coaching section, and I suspect Mr. Ješić may have a concern that it is not written from a neutral point of view. I added inline citations for the statements about his departures from Partizan and Otopeni, and tweaked the language to be more NPOV. The section describes his successes at CSKA Sofia, but not with Buducnost, so adding something there would help make the entire section more NPOV. Otherwise, I think the only question is whether the link to the reprezentajica.rs page can be (or should be) included. Jogurney (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the site has information about his playing career with all stats, that are really difficult to find elswhere. All the initial coaching career is included in the Serbian part of the text, wich unfortunatelly is very much abscent from the awfull English version. I think, as I already said quite many times, the article needs more sources, adding them, and making a expansion of several parts of his career in the text of the article is really welcomed. But removing the source, that I honestly beleve that in case of being missing, it will, sooner or later, be re-added by some other editor, it´s just unfruitfull. My main divergence with Millosh is maynly my total oposition in trying to name the website non-reliable (as he said in one of his comments) only because of his disliking of the way this article was written. Despite the article in the website being far from ideal, I´m refering to the English version, because the Serbian is way better, there is also not found anything that is untrouth, so what possible reason could exist for eliminating the website in general? And the other thing where I disagree with Millosh is about the way of understanding the sources themselfs. I´m not sure if Millosh understands that a source doesn´t necessarilly have to have all from it included in the article, and can be used only, as for exemple, for the career stats. Many sources can be used for many different parts of the article, and all of them are welcomed. FkpCascais (talk) 02:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Jogurney, thanks for taking care about this issue. Jesic didn't talk about articles on Wikipedia (both: in English and Serbian), but about article at the site reprezentacija.rs. Managers probably know that they should use Wikipedia article just as the starting point and they use for description of his work article on reprezentacija.rs site, as they think that it is an official site of Serbian Football Federation. Probably, it would be good enough to mention inside of the paragraph with link that the information about Jesic is impartial and that it doesn't contain a number of his latest successes, as well as being clear that it is not an official site. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 06:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I am out of football for 20 years (I know for Jesic as a player, not as a coach) and I don't have any clue about anything related to him as a coach (actually, I don't know a lot about him as a player, too, as he was not one of the stars at the time when he was playing football). However, I have no doubt when a person tell to me: "This is written inside of the article, but not those my successes. And it affects my carrier." I am sure that both of you know better about what he was talking to me. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 06:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, but the paragraph is now removed, since there is plenty of other more important stories that could be written in the article, luckily, many of them of success. I´m not sure you understood, but when I was talking about the English and Serbian versions of the text, I wasn´t refering to the Eng. or Srb. wikipedia, but the texts written in both languages that are in Jesic´s page in the website, that unfortunatelly, is quite well written in the Serbian version, but awfully resumed and incident concentrated in the English version. Just for making the things clear: The main reason about the complain is regarded to the English text from the website that is very concise, and gives too much enphasis to the incident that happend in Turkey while he was a player, right? As I told you initially, I removed the paragraph, so that information is not there any more. But unfortunatelly, there is one strong reason why I think that the website should stay. You certainly are not aware, but it is currently under way a process of colecting the unsourced articles, that would soon be deleted. The Jesic article, beside his actual website, has only this one (reprezentacija.rs) as a source. If removed, it would leave the article quite "naked" of sources. We could try to find some other websites that could contein much of the information about him, but I think that that would not be a easy task. So the Reprezentacija.rs website has been very practical exactly for that purpose, because it covers, as source, all his playing statistics, clubs, years, matches, goals, and much of his coaching career, beside the information regarding his participation in the national team matches.

I think you should really think about a possibility of you, or Jesic himself, contacting the website, and asking them to make a better translation of his career to English. About wikipedia, I think that having a well written, and precise about the facts, article here is really all we can do. I hope that you are much more satisfied now with the article here, after having the controversial paragraph been removed. More sugestions? Jogurney? By the way, many thanx for all your help. FkpCascais (talk) 08:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both. I agree with Filip that we should link to the website as it contains details about his career that don't appear to be available elsewhere. Perhaps we should link to the Serbian version, since the English one has the problem? Otherwise, I think the Wikipedia article is okay, but obviously could be improved with some copyediting. Jogurney (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:EL, it appears that we should only use link "[s]ites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." Thus, I'll change the link to the Serbian version which appears to be neutral, rather than the English version which may not be. Jogurney (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to say that it seems that this issue has been solved. I'd contacted the site owner and he removed problematic parts from the text in English. Please, check it, so we can conclude this. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 01:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's no longer an issue, but I'm just a single editor. Did Mr. Ješić actually complain about this article? If so, has he seen the changes and accept the revised version? Jogurney (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a simple question of policy on using wording from a newspaper as a slur on an eminent scientist when we know it to be factually incorrect. The editor, Keepcalmandcarryon, who wishes to include this wording is using the arguement "It comes from the NYT so it must be correct" and it therefore appropriate to "to mention this fact briefly alongside the scientist's previous employment history". As this claim relates to a living person, I believe that BLPN is the correct place to bring this question. The issue relates to a statement made about the lead author of a paper recently published Science, Dr Judy Mikovits, a researcher with over 20 years experience in viral and retroviral research with over 70 scientific papers, in areas such as HIV, SIV, HTLV-1, HERV, HHV-6 and HHV-8.

The editor wishes to include the phrase "Mikovits ... was working as a bartender when a patron introduced her to the Whittemores through a mutual friend." This is based on a NYT journalist's human interest anecdote "She had left the institute in 2001 to get married and move to California, where she went to work for a drug development company that failed. She was tending bar at a yacht club when a patron said her constant talk about viruses reminded him of someone he knew in Nevada. That person was a friend of Annette Whittemore's. Dr. Mikovits soon found herself at a conference on chronic fatigue syndrome." We have a whole section (~3,000 words) on Archive 1#Bartender where I have pointed out:

1. This is a woosle-worded anecdote and should be treated with suspicion on these grounds
2. The source doesn't say she worked as a bartender but that she was tending bar at a club. (e.g. I have tended bar at a club of which I was a member, but wasn't in paid work as a bar tender).
3. It is also factually incorrect (RSs given in above talk section).
4. Even if all of this were true, it should be her academic record and not her private interests that are relevant to her description.

We thought that this whole issue was done and dusted a few weeks ago when posts to this section lapsed, but this editor seems to hold to the position that any text once published in a broadsheet can be quote to advance her POV (see [8]) and she has reopened her intent to restore this quote. (IIRC, we've had 3+ editors back this out). I find this distressing because this quite unnecessarily impugns the reputation of a respected scientist (e.g this Wikipedia text has been quoted in the gutter blogsphere to attack the validity of the WPI paper.) I therefore ask for feedback on two points (i) is this particular case defensible; (ii) is the general technique of RS trawling for spicy quotes to advance a particular PoV and setting individuals in a critical context acceptable within Wikipedia policies? -- TerryE (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no question that Judy Mikovits is an experienced scientist who worked for 20 years at the National Cancer Institute in the US, earning her PhD along the way. There is also no question that The New York Times reported that she was working as a bartender after the failure of the biotech company where she worked. The New York Times, furthermore, reported that Mikovits was introduced to her eventual employers by a client in the bar who noticed Mikovits's interest in viruses. That the head of a controversial and notable organisation was hired as a result of bartending is interesting (probably unique in the history of scientific institutes), notable and eminently well-sourced. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I have done a little checking and it seems that Mikowits was not a paid bartender but instead a club official in the Pierpoint Bay Yacht Club sharing voluntary bar duty with other members. See this section. Hopefully if Keepcalmandcarryon accepts this analysis and removes these claims, then we can close this notice. -- TerryE (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's take a look at what the New York Times wrote: "She (Mikovits) was tending bar at a yacht club when a patron said her constant talk about viruses reminded him of someone he knew in Nevada. That person was a friend of Annette Whittemore’s. Dr. Mikovits soon found herself at a conference on chronic fatigue syndrome". Clearly, Mikovits was working as a bartender in the yacht club, got to know a "patron" and was introduced to the Whittemores. That's all I've ever stated. If or how much she was paid is of no importance whatsoever, as compensation structures are not discussed by the New York Times or by any other reliable source.

Again, what we have here is a scientific institute hiring its head of research at least partially as a result of an introduction made in a bar where she worked (whether as a volunteer or a paid employee remains unclear). This is highly unusual and noteworthy and could not possibly be better-sourced. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

@Keepcalmandcarryon and "That's all I've ever stated" and of course your previous statements on this page, on the articles talk pages, and on two other RfC noticeboards [9] [10]:

• RfC: According to The New York Times, the scientific director for WPI, Judy Mikovits, was was hired as a direct result of an introduction made by a client of a yacht club bar where she was working as a bartender (see this article). Is it appropriate to mention this fact briefly alongside the scientist's previous employment history?
• Fringe Theories: The lead investigator for WPI, Judy Mikovits, is probably the only Institute director to have been hired from behind a bar in a yacht club. To the CFS editors, it's neither interesting nor noteworthy, even when reported by the New York Times, that Mikovits got the job through someone she was serving in a bar, so they delete.

I think that any reasonable person would accept that "working as a bartender" has an entirely different connotation to "was serving at a bar of a yacht club where she was a member and elected junior commodore." which appears to be the truth of the matter. OK one might at a stretch have difficulty suing the NYT for its wording, but your proposed wording does seem to have tipped into liable. You still haven't accepted my other point that I detailed weeks ago on the talk page that another source explains that Mikovits was actually introduced to Whittemore by an ex colleague, Loomis, who was hosting the 2005 HHV-6 conference in Barcelona when he invited them both partly for this purpose. Look all I am asking K to say was "OK, I agree that this NYT source isn't reliable for this quote and I will withdraw it. Sorry for the inconvenience that I caused." And then we can all move on. Sighhhhhhh. -- TerryE (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Under no circumstances should I or any other Wikipedia editor state that the New York Times is unreliable. No circumstances, that is, short of a retraction or clarification by the New York Times itself. Faced with a choice of the reported results of TerryE's private sleuthing and a quote from the New York Times, WP:BLP is fairly clear on which is the reliable source for our encyclopaedia. But the entire issue is moot, as none of this is in the article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not moot. We had a long discussion on this over two weeks ago, where K didn't comment and our proposed settlement so the editors thought that we had reached consensus. Two weeks later K brought this up again, and stated her intention to revert this. You are still using this on other noticeboards to claim misconduct on the part of other editors. I want this properly closed. I don't think that this is an unreasonable expectation. -- TerryE (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The article about Daphne Caruana Galizia violates Wikipedia's rules on biographies of living persons.

"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

and

"Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives"

The article contains material that is poorly sourced, sensationalist and makes many negative claims about the subject. All attempts at removing the information result in a reversal of the edits by users Notpietru or Qattusu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.109.180.17 (talk) 08:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Article integrity should be preserved; this anon is consistently blanking the page, for whatever agenda driven reason. Certainly the page can be shaped to conform with sources, or more sources can be brought in to substantiate claims. However, there's no reason to blank it or call for it to be removed simply because the individual under discussion has become the object of scrutiny. No need for sour grapes - this too shall pass. And other platitudes :) Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Whenever problematic BLP content is removed, it should only be re-added, when it can properly be sourced, and properly reflects those sources. Generally, we err on the side of exclusion. Anyways, we need some new editors on this article. Hopefully somebody familiar with the subject, but who doesn't have a personal stake. Removal of problematic content, is not vandalism. --Rob (talk) 09:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have done a little rewrite and made imo the content a bit more npov, it was also a bit embellished or tabloidese and it could use some more citations and any content cited from a Maltese writing should be translated in the footnotes, especially anything that could be considered controversial type content, anyway its a fair bit better now, imo. Off2riorob (talk) 10:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, much better. Anybody else willing to work on it, that would be great. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση

If anyone wants to wade through some potential BLP nightmares, I suggest taking a look at some of the articles in Category:Years in organized crime. I have cleaned up the 1989 article, the other (relatively recent) ones probably need a similar treatment. Barely any sources are used, but the year articles are nevertheless naming (often redlinked) people as being involved in serious crimes. All the info in these articles may be correct, but for biographies of potentially living people, that's far from sufficient. Fram (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I've cleaned up 1998 & 1999. Kevin (talk) 04:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I've started for example

(I have a long-standing concern that we've got a lot of people writing organised crime bios with scant regard for BLP. I deleted several as G10 speedies a few weeks ago.)--Scott Mac (Doc) 10:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thomas McDermott, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - IPs have continually added a section on a 2009 controversy involving McDermott that's been deleted several times as undue. The section is back, would someone mind taking a look at it and registering an opinion? The IPs never stop to discuss. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Content look undue to me as well, removed and requested discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 09:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Could I have some eyes over on this article editor is insisting on adding content which breaches both WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, they have revert 4 times so far and I don't wish to become embroiled in an edit war. Mo ainm (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The page is now protected. Mo ainm (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Good report, well done. Off2riorob (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I wholly agree this article needs more eyes on it when the protection wears off. That is the edit the editor in question keeps trying to make, it's riddled with unsourced POV claims, and the stuff that does have sources cited is equally POV (such as "In the case of De Juana Chaos he piled up years or remission by abusing the absurdly liberal Spanish Legal System") and as the sources are in Spanish I was unable to reword to what the sources actually said. Therefore as its a BLP I took the most sensible approach and removed the entire edit. Regardless of what crimes someone has been convicted of BLP and NPOV apply, and that edit was just basically turning the article into an attack page. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

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

One of the hottest BLP topics from plwiki — see pl:Krzysztof Skubiszewski (history · log) — has made its way into the English Wikipedia. The question whether this person did work as the secret informant of the Służba Bezpieczeństwa during the People's Republic of Poland period and earlier (1944-1990).

It is incredibly difficult to have good sources on the subject; even scientific analyzes (like those of Institute of National Remembrance, an official body to deal with the past) are usually based on the secret police own documentation and few other sources. The information being added is based on a press article from Gazeta Polska, allegedly based on the secret police archives (those are currently managed by the above-mentioned Institute). This subject needs to be handled very carefully, as the accusation of being secret communist police informant is considered as serious. Mr Skubiszewski died recently, so technically it is no longer a living person biography.

The issues surrounding the Polish Wikipedia article on Skubiszewski made it into some political blogs in Poland, like [11], [12], [13], [14].

 « Saper // @talk »  00:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe user to have a BLP violation in this edit he claims that Amy Bishop is a 'troll'/'creeper' and i believe this goes against your policy. Amy Bishop has only been charged with a crime and i do not believe it is necessary to slander her name unnecessarily. He links to the 2010_University_of_Alabama_in_Huntsville_shooting#Suspect page, which shows a picture of her, as she is the prime suspect in a murder investigation. I understand that it is in vogue to pick on accused murderers and everything but lets wait until that case gets resolved before we start slandering her? 212.219.9.167 (talk) 05:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

My apologies upfront for bringing this back. Because one of the editors who support retaining the "Dawn Wells marijuana" incident continues to claim there is no current consensus regarding omitting this content based on undue weight and WP:BLP basis, I was advised to ask for a final consensus call. Please see Talk:Dawn Wells#Final consensus call to register your opinion on whether this content belongs. There is a link included so that you can see the paragraph that has been removed. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This revert with no discussion and a deceptive edit summary by Nunh-huh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is in violation of WP:BLP as discussed here. As per WP:BLP, the burden of evidence to show the reinserted material is well sourced lies with him. I requested a self-revert but received no response. JPatterson (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps it would be better to have put citation needed tags. Most of your unilateral objections seem to be based in a claim that there there is no scientific consensus to cite. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, legal findings of fact support the claim that there is a scientific consensus, so it is unlikely that Behe will sue Wikipedia. Abductive (reasoning) 02:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Most All of what I removed was either unsourced or non-RS. WP:BLP is quite explicit as to sourcing requirements and I see nothing there that provides exceptions based on the likelihood of getting sued. The trial transcripts are primary sources so conclusions drawn from them are OR and unacceptable in a BLP context. They should be able to find solid sources from recognized scientific bodies to support the assertions. JPatterson (talk) 02:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thing is, I seem to recall hearing and reading many secondary sources saying that evolution is the overwhelming scientific consensus. Just for laughs, here is a source (Education Week) that uses the words "overwhelming", "consensus" and "evolution" together: [15]. You will note that it spells out that creationist's latest strategy in its Abstract; "In another twist in the decades-long battle over evolution's status in public school science classrooms, state legislators are arguing that teachers have a right to raise doubts about that essential scientific theory as a matter of free speech. Similarly worded bills that attempt to protect the right of educators and students to present critiques of evolution on the basis of "academic freedom" have emerged in at least five states. Those measures do not call for teaching "intelligent design" or biblically based creationism. Instead, they generally describe evolution as controversial and seek to bar school administrators from interfering with teachers who describe what they see as flaws in the theory. The overwhelming scientific consensus, however, is that there is no debate about the core principles of evolution, which scientists regard as the only credible, and thoroughly tested, scientific explanation for the development of human and other life on Earth, and for its diversity of species. Opponents of the bills see them as repackaged attempts to introduce religious concepts into science lessons by falsely implying evolutionary theory is riddled with doubt." Sound familar? Abductive (reasoning) 08:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Look don't get me wrong. I certainly do not disagree that ID or IC or whatever are WP:FRINGE. That doesn't change the fact that there are strict sourcing standards for BLPs. If the editors want to hang the coats back on the rack all they need to do is find reliable sources for each point of contention. There were many unsourced contentions on both sides that I removed. You've focused on just one, which isn't even germane (the statement was about rejection of Behe's theory specifically). Statements like "[Behe's theories] are rejected by the scientific community" need to be backed up with something more than cites to three web articles criticizing the theory. If you want to defend the sources I removed, please do so on a point by point basis. This isn't about evolution vs creationism. It's about reliable sources vs. unreliable ones. JPatterson (talk) 12:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, it is precipitous to remove the text, rather than just removing the references and adding citation needed tags. The preponderance of evidence suggests that the article is correctly balanced. Abductive (reasoning) 17:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Your statement is in direct contradiction to the policy laid out in WP:BLP which requires immediate removal. I did a search of the archives here on this page and ironically the last editor who came here on this article claimed he was banned for doing exactly what you suggest. Why don't we follow policy and add the material back in as reliable sources can be found? JPatterson (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd say if it were an article about a Flat Earther, which said "Person X's theories are rejected by the scientific community," we wouldn't be having this conversation. Suffice to say, there's no scientific basis for Behe's claims. What, exactly, would you qualify as a source that his claims are rejected? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Please have a look at all of the sourcing issues I've summarized here. When I actually got down to editing and checking sources I found numerous other issues on both sides of the argument. Play particular attention to item #8 which is very problematic. Please note that the fact that a person is a proponent of a fringe theory does not give license for editors to say whatever they want. Each contention must be sourced and there are numerous unsourced or poorly sourced contentions in this article. As to your specific question, Scientific societies exist to opine on just such issues. One would think there exists a biology society that has issued a statement on irreducibly complexity which would be an excellent source. If not, I've offered specific suggestions on the TP as to how the opposing views could be juxtaposed to avoid the SYN issue. JPatterson (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

To refocus this discussion on the specific issues with this article, I've detailed the 19 identified sourcing issues here. Note that these are not, as the above red-herring would have it, "based in a claim that there there is no scientific consensus to cite" but rather clear violations of WP:BLP. I do not understand why any of this should be controversial. We can not allow OR and SYN and non-RS/unsourced material on BLP pages simply because some of the editors want it there. JPatterson (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sources are being provided on that Talk page discussion, so I don't think there's anything else to do here. Also, saying "X person's theory is wrong" is not a BLP violation. Saying "he's an idiot" or "he's deluded" would be, but simply saying his ideas are rejected doesn't have anything to do with BLP. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

WP can not say X person's theory is wrong. It can say Y says X person's theory is wrong, assuming Y is RS JPatterson (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you seriously proposing that we couldn't say a Flat-Earther was wrong? How about Timecube guy? Behe is in the same vein. There is nothing to support his claims. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying we have to abide by policy. To wit from WP:BLP:

And yes, if a flat-earth proponent had somehow managed to get his theories published multiple times in peer reviewed scientific journals and had been an invited presenter at the most prestigious scientific body in their field we would have to source criticism of his theories. Which reminds me, times about up on fixing the many issues with this article. JPatterson (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't quote policy at me. I'm very strict with BLP, but you're really stretching things here. And acting like it's impossible for someone who is wrong to get published and be an invited presenter is laughable. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

As are comparisons between flat-earthers and published academics. I'm not the one stretching here. The policy is clear, even if you try and hide it with a hab. What is lacking is the will to enforce it. JPatterson (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

There is an ongoing BLP-related dispute at the article's talk page, and I think that extra input from people experienced in BLP issues would be helpful. The dispute concerns two separate points: how much and what exactly to say about the subject's sexuality in the article itself (there have been speculations, reported in mainstream newsmedia, regarding his sexuality, but he himself has refused to comment on it) and whether or not placing a Wikiproject LGBT tag at the article's talk page is appropriate under the circumstances. If someone has an opinion either way on these points, your input at the article's talkpage would be appreciated. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 12:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Huw Jenkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - repeated posting of unsourced, contentious and defamatory material http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huw_Jenkins&action=historysubmit&diff=345029761&oldid=344670519 // 16:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope this is the right place to put this. It seems to be suffering from edit wars regarding his gender and appropriate pronouns. One particular person has been changing it again and again despite repeated requests to stop as per the style guide's recommendations. 69.244.77.52 (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This person is dead, so this really isn't the correct place to deal with this issue. Have you attempted to discuss this on the article's talk page? That's the place to begin to resolve content disputes. – ukexpat (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

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

I'm not sure if this is the right section to discuss this, but I will give it a try. In the article Murder of Meredith Kercher there is a lot of discussion of Amanda Knox. Amanda Knox, an American, was convicted of the murder of Kercher, from Britain, in an Italian court. But much of the American media and many public officials and public figures in the U.S. believe she is innocent and that there were many problems with the process that convicted her. I and others have tried to add information that tends to show the other side of the story--i.e. that she may be innocent but British editors keep deleting the information or editing in a manner to try to make Knox look as guilty as possible. If she is in fact innocent then an article that makes her look like a sex crazed murderer is defamatory. It seems to me that both sides of the story should be allowed to be presented in the article under the policies about living people and NPOV. Due to this dispute, the article was semi-protected today for one month so that now only the British editors can edit the article and I now can't get in to the article. This seems all wrong to me. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you. Zlykinskyja (talk) 07:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This message from Former IP that was on your talkpage appears to be an invitation to discuss on the talk any issues you have, if I was you I would except the offer and discussion is actually the only way to sort things out here and the article won't be locked for very long, it is only done as a last resort. Off2riorob (talk) 07:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally while there is likely to be a difference between the view points of British and American editors and WP:Systemic bias can arise, approaching the matter in an 'us versus them' is rarely helpful and usually just serves to damage the discussion. You may also want to see WP:No Personal Attacks and note that refusing to WP:Assume good faith of an editor solely because of their nationality is unacceptable on wikipedia. Also consider that there is no such thing as 'so that now only the British editors can edit the article', protection either prevents all non admins and semiprotection such as this case all non autoconfirmed uses from editing. It doesn't discriminate by nationality. Given that there are far more American editors on wikipedia then British, it's obviously the case that far more Americans can edit the article if they desire then British. Also from what I've seen, several editors have expressed concern that you are the same as another editor who has just come off a block. If this is the case, even though you are now entilted to edit as you are no longer blocked, you should confirm it since otherwise it comes across that may be attempting to avoid scrutiny. Nil Einne (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected so only established editors can change it, but it is not limited to British editors. I moved up one UK press source for balance, and added one fact from two sources (ABC, which is American, and New Scientist, which is primarily British). The media have portrayed the case differently on opposite sides of 'the pond,' so prudence suggests working towards WP:Consensus even more carefully than usual. Reading the whole article, not just the parts about Amanda Knox, it appears that the most clearly guilty defendant now has the shortest sentence.TVC 15 (talk) 07:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

As a disinterested admin I have looked at the article, read the talk page and run many of the sources. It seems we are fairly well balanced here with regards to Knox. Statements have been sourced and the talk page is remarkably civil. Thanks for working together on this. JodyB _talk 22:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

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

I have a complaint about the Wikipedia entry under my name. Specifically about the remarks relating to the incident at the Buffalo Poetics List, its shut-down, & my role in that.

There has been much controversy and rancor surrounding this incident (which, by the way, I consider a very minor event in my so-called "biography"!). The Wikipedia entry suggests the entire brouhaha was caused by my over-posting to that discussion list, which is not true. I feel that someone has been repeatedly editing this author entry about me in a derogatory fashion. Originally, for example, I was simply described as a "poet". Now I am described as a "poet-blogger". Etc.

I'm grateful for any good will interest in this matter.

sincerely, Henry Gould —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hhgould (talk • contribs) 21:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Poet blogger, doubtful notability, Article needs some secondary citations to support notability. sent to AFD for discussion . Off2riorob (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have removed the material Mr Gould objects to. It had not reference anyway.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

POETICS list is worth a look too. It does have a (probably non reliable) source, but the source appears to support Mr Gould's POV anyway Nil Einne (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

reporting vandalism/inaccurate info —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.169.189 (talk) 02:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism removed, vandal blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Ajay and Atul Gogavale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Carefully referenced content is being replaced by much longer but unreferenced (and a bit unencylopedic) content by multiple users. Also note: The article has been re-created after being speedied in April 2009.SPat ^talk 02:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

As it is now it looks pretty OK, they appear to be notablish and have won a biggish award, there are a couple of hindi citations being used and I am unable to judge how much content is actually about the subjects, the editors need to stop inserting the uncited content, as rather than improving it they actually are threatening its existance, troublesome article, repeated additions of uncited content, borderline notability, previously speedied...possible outcome? Off2riorob (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Swapnilprakashpatil reverted without any discussion or comment to the badly written original research version that has a short paragraph of the cited material copied into it. Hekerui (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted to the decent version and left him a note on his talkpage informing him of this discussion and requestiing he moves to discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

We have a bunch of poorly referenced BLP material there, and also in sub-articles. The comprehensive list of names is only partially verified from the sole ref. Pcap ping 06:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Uncited detail removed by Scott MacDonald. Off2riorob (talk) 13:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Several editors have stated that opinion pieces from a RS have no place in a BLP. Is this the case or not? Quote specific policy, please. If this is policy, it is being very inconsistently applied in BLPs (often depends upon the politics of the BLP subject and/or the author of the opinion piece). This gets into such thorny issues as what sources are soley a source of opinion, and what specific pieces are journalism, advocacy journalism, analysis, or straight opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drrll (talk • contribs) 21:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if it involves claims about anyone but the author, that is correct as far as I understand the issue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Eh? Link please? We may have some confusion here as a RS giving an opinion about the subject of a BLP is certainly allowed as long as it's identified as opinion and not fact. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's covered in WP:RS#Statements_of_opinion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia:BLPSPS#Self-published_sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes but that's referring to self-published sources and BLPs which may not be applicable here. For example, look at Van Morrison - a Good Article. It contains many cites to opinion pieces (none of them selfpub) which describe his personality, playing style, etc. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It says "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources.". As long as that is followed it should be ok, shouldn't it? Dougweller (talk) 10:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

IMo and interpretation of the guidelines you also have to consider notability and undue weight to decide, there should not be excessive opinionated partisan commentary and is this particular opinion especially in its self notable in regards to the subject of the biography and such opinions must be attributed as such. Off2riorob (talk) 13:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

A mugshot photo of Mel Gibson was recently added in the section about his DUI arrest Mel_Gibson#Alcohol_abuse. Does anyone feel this might be inappropriate per WP:MUG? It is already used in the seperate article about the topic Mel Gibson DUI incident. It seems to me that one use is sufficient. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is undue to add it in the main articlw when the incident has its own article. Off2riorob (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I as well. ++Lar: t/c 17:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Another editor removed it on those groups. I just thought a few uninvolved opinions would be a good idea. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone with time needs to give the article a thorough scrubbing: lots of links to TMZ and other gossip sites. THF (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Maybe discuss it at Talk:Carrie Prejean? -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Jerry Thomas (Louisiana politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've just removed a section about this guy being arrested that was sourced to a political blog, however it does seem to be at least partly true [16]. In my opinion mentioning it probably would be giving undue weight to a minor incident. Thoughts? Kevin (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems it was a misdemeanor, a very minor charge and he is an adult, its good for the toilet walls but better kept out of an encyclopedia. Perhaps a very minor comment if there was a clear connection to the incident ending his political career, which it doesn't appear to have done, the edit as it was inserted was a negative portrayal of the incident and resulted in an attack type insertion, which was as you say cited to a very opinionated looking blog, totally correct to remove. Off2riorob (talk) 12:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Two things to fix. Essentially the last two comments. He has never taught at Alfriston and is not married to Virginie or anyone else for that matter and he has no kids... that he knows about.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erniepinches (talk • contribs) 06:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your report.
  • Stubbed back to within an inch of its life and watchlisted. Off2riorob (talk) 10:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

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

This article, originally COI-ridden and promotional, was the subject of edit-warring in 2007, which I resolved with some basic research that determined that, yes, the anon who claimed that Rossi had gone to jail for assaulting his wife was correct and the other anon was lying through his teeth when trying to delete it. Legal threats and socking and bans resulted.

In the two and a half years since, IP anons (very likely socks of the banned editor) have been gradually tweaking the article with self-promotional edits and angry talk-page claims and, recently, legal threats and a block of an IP. Additional research showed that the angry talk-page claims were fictional, and, in fact, the 2007 version was too kind to Rossi by failing to indicate the facts of his alibi.

I've finally gotten around to cleaning up the article, and would appreciate a second set of eyes to confirm BLP-compliance. In terms of WEIGHT, I would justify the current article structure by noting that the subject does not meet (or, at best, very marginally meets) WP:CREATIVE (but you might greatly enjoy the unintentional humor in his acting reel on YouTube) and has received only sporadic coverage, usually in minor religious magazines, for his low-budget movie; his preaching career is marginally notable at best (and only because the subject is very good at self-promotion compared to other preachers with congregations in the low hundreds); while his attempted-murder trial received national coverage by the Associated Press and front-page coverage in local newspapers. There's enough GNG that this isn't a BLP1E. THF (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

That obviously took a lot of work. In my opinion, the article should stick to the facts proven in the trial and should omit all of the unproven allegations. These are salaciously interesting but there is absolutely no way to prove veracity, especially since a court has done just that. If this change were made, I think it would bring the size of the two sections down significantly and avoid any issues of undue.Jarhed (talk) 02:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I support Jarhed's comments, coverage looks excessive to me, if I was against this person I would write what we have there now, needs trimming, as a NPOV editor in the issue I will trim it for weight if requested. Off2riorob (talk) 13:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree about the WEIGHT argument. The attempted murder trial comprises less than half of the article, and it's the only national press coverage Rossi has ever received, the only front-section local news coverage Rossi has ever received, and the vast majority of his Google News hits. Given that the article already stretches to cite to every single example of a trivial mention of Rossi in a local newspaper, it seems counterintuitive to delete sourced information that gives context to the most notable event of his life. (Indeed, without the trial, it's hard to see how a pastor of a 400-person congregation meets WP:N; even his post-trial publicity feels obligated to mention (and probably wouldn't exist without) the trial.) But if there's an overwhelming consensus to tighten it, I won't object. THF (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I just had another read of it and I do agree with Jarhed, its excessive imo and could happily be trimmed in half, its like a blow by blow commentary of the trial, lets get some more people to look at it to find a consensus. Off2riorob (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

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

The article about Jyoti Amge, one of the world's smallest people, states that she has the form of dwarfism called Achondroplasia. However, she clearly isn't an achondroplasiac. Achondroplasiacs are much bigger than 2ft, they have normal-sized torsos with very short extremeties. Even though it is said in multiple places that she is an achondroplasiac, it should be noted in this article that this is probably an incorrect diagnosis.Moolahface (talk) 07:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Our aticle on the topic Achondroplasia does support your comment, girls with the issue have an average size of four feet and a half an inch, so she is clearly only half that size, we report reliable citations here at wikipedia and we would need some citations that support your comment to add it, otherwise it would be consider as original research which is also not allowed here, if you have any links supporting your comment please provide them here. Off2riorob (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Here is a video on youtube of a sneak peak of a national geographic documentary. In the video the dwarfism specialist clearly states that nobody knows what causes her to be so small. (if it was in fact achondroplasia it wouldn't be so hard to diagnose.) http://www.youtube.com/watch#playnext=1&playnext_from=TL&videos=-lH17Yij-L8&v=-0qvGTeuC-s —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moolahface (talk • contribs) 00:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Jamie Bamber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Over the course of past several hours (22 February 2010) multiple revisions and additions have been made to the article on Jamie Bamber with regard to an alleged criminal investigation. These attributions do not cite a definitive third party source and as such can be construed as a violation of the WP:BLP guidelines (Stated thusly: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous.") // Lesectiondisparue (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Removed it. Per WP:BLP. Cirt (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

One week semi-prot due to disruption and WP:BLP issues. Cirt (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – nothing to see as regards BLP

Rick Snyder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) contains numerous statements which are poorly sourced. This is a problem that was addressed previously in a Wikipedia Talk, at Talk:Rick Snyder (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs), and it appears to have resurfaced with Snyder's run for public office.

The article states, "While he was with Gateway, the company grew from a private, $600 million business to a public player in the PC industry with more than $6 billion in revenues." There is no link cited to support it. The statement comes from footnote 9, which is an article which consists of an interview with Snyder. No independent source of the figures is offered in support, nor does anything in the link suggest that Snyder is responsible for the increase at Gateway.

The link to support the statement "J.T. Wang, Acer's chairman, said in a statement that the acquisition "completes Acer's global footprint, by strengthening our U.S. presence." no longer exists at the website to which the link refers.

The statement, "Between Avalon and Ardesta Rick has created 420 jobs in Michigan and 1,253 nationwide." is from the above-mentioned article which consists of an interview with Snyder. Again, the figures come solely from Snyder himself, and there is no independent corroboration for them.

The statement, "Ardesta LLC was founded by Rick and three co-founders in 2000 and has invested in 20 start-up companies to date." is offered without any support or citation.

Much of the article reads the same as the television ads for Snyder's election.

I twice made an edit to add verifiable facts to address the Gateway issues. An editor deleted it both times, stating that the linked citation did not support the edit.

• This is not a really a BLP issue, the article is void of any critical comments. Off2riorob (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Barry W. Lynn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - JohnScott2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whose edits primarily involve this article, has been repeatedly restoring a section entitled "Views on Child Pornography". While it is sourced, there is only one source which dates back 17 years. My gut feeling is that this is controversial content in a BLP, which could be construed as placing too much weigh on one event without any context or contemporary updates. It shouldn't be in as presently written, and I have removed it accordingly per WP:BLP to seek discussion. JohnScott2 has repeatedly restored it; rather than block him, as he may mean well, I have protected the page for three days to allow discussion without repeated reverts. I'd appreciate additional eyes on this one; if the consensus is that the text is OK, please by all means ask me or any other admin to unprotect the page prior to the three-day period. Thanks in advance. // Ckatz^chat_spy 07:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with keeping this out of the article. A single statement made 17 years ago on a TV talk show (and possibly quoted out of context) is not worthy of discussion -- much less an entire article section -- in an article about a person who has been in the public eye for several decades. That is doubly true when the statement deals with a volatile subject like child pornography. --Orlady (talk) 05:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this should be kept out, I though it was giving undue weight to a single interview in a lifetime of interviews and was misrepresenting his comments also, also the single citation and the age of the comments would mean wikipedia would likely become the primary vehicle for the publication of the controversial content. Off2riorob (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm hoping someone can suggest a suitable course of action here. All (apparently reliable) sources found indicate his date of birth as 21 February 1961, but User:Rockinkitten has altered this several times, claiming that this date is as a result of Roger lying about his age in the early days of The Beat as he was under age at the time, and that his true birthdate is in fact 22 February 1963. It's not uncommon for people in the public eye to claim that they are younger than they really are, so some method of verification is required to confirm the D.o.B. If we assume that these claims are made in good faith (and I have no reason to believe otherwise), is there a recommended approach for allowing the subject of the article to confirm their date of birth? There do not appear to be any reliable sources available online to confirm it, but is there any action that can be taken to allow the claim to be confirmed? Or is there a more appropriate forum for this issue? There is some discussion at User_talk:Michig#Ranking_Roger.27s_birthdate. The article's edit history may also be useful. Thanks in advance. --Michig (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

If he confirms his identity to the OTRS at least then we would know it actually was him. Perhaps a OTRS volunteer would have an idea about what it would take to confirm such a thing. Off2riorob (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Roger is willing to make a youtube video explaining the situation back when he was 16. He had to say he was 18 in order to be allowed to play in some of the clubs. Would a link to a youtube video be enough evidence?--83.86.95.55 (talk) 12:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, as I said I will look for a OTRS person to ask what would be best, but ft Roger was to do that then personally I would add the story to the article adding Rogers date and the reported date, a sort of halfway house. Something like...according to roger he was born on such and such a {date} and lied about his age (add reason) which is reported by other sources as being (date). But just a little wait for a comment from an OTRS volunteer or someone with some experiance in a similar issue. Off2riorob (talk) 12:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Contacting OTRS would confirm that the user is the individual, but we would still need a reliable source to change or note the discrepancy in the birthdate. We routinely require this on such contacts. If Roger is willing to give us a reliable source, then Off2riorob's solution would probably be the one to go with: note both dates and the reason for the discrepancy. We can't just replace the one reported in earlier reliable sources, but we can explain what Roger says about that date. I assume it goes without saying that we need to be sure the video, if that's the route taken, actually is Roger. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The email to talk to OTRS is here , another thought is that there is a chance that under privacy considerations it could be requested to remove a date of birth from an article, but if Roger wants to add his side of it then confirming his identity to OTRS would be the first step. Off2riorob (talk) 13:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's the right address link. :) However, if Roger wants to make a video, OTRS is not necessary, so long as there's no doubt of authenticity. If there is an official youtube channel, that would do it. Alternatively, if the band website could link to the youtube from somewhere discrete or even include a subpage to which we could link instead of a video, that would also do it. (Said page does not need to be viewable from the usual menu.) If Roger has his own website, that would also do, as long as there's no question whether it's official.

One thing I would like to note: even if he sent OTRS private documents verifying his birthdate, such as his birth certificate, we would probably not be able to replace reliably published sources with that information. I've seen that tried before, and the Wikipedia article contributors objected that it did not meet WP:V and noted that birth certificates can be doctored. Accordingly, a public statement somewhere really is best. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, we will make the video this weekend and post it somewhere. Would his Myspace do? We will post it also on the Facebook, and official Beat Myspace. If this is not enough we will try the beat website although this is currently under construction. Thanks for all the advice! --Rockinkitten (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

As long as his Myspace is clearly official, it should be fine. As I'm sure you know, celebrities do get imitators, so we need to be careful about things like that. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The official beat myspace has him listed as number 1 friend so hopefully that will be enough!--Rockinkitten (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, his official myspace should be plenty. Off2riorob (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Victory Forge Military Academy is a controversial boarding school/boot camp (now apparently doing business as Southeastern Military Academy). Over the long term, the article has been the subject of tug-of-war between users who want to advertise it (or at least defend its honor) and users portray the place as evil.

This is a BLP issue because much of the article is about the school's owner/operator/headmaster, "Colonel" Alan Weierman. The reliably sourced information about Weierman is almost entirely negative -- in fact, a person could easily conclude that the article is a scurrilous attack page, until you look at the cited sources and discover that the negative content is fully supported by reliable sources (although I hasten to point out that not all of the sources may be online on any given day...).

Positive/neutral information about him (to provide some balance) is hard to find. However, someone who self-identifies as Alan Weierman of Victory Forge has web-posted information about himself in venues like linkedin, Twitter, a blog, and the article comments section of a newspaper website. Some of that information has been used in the article, in the form of a sentence that currently says "He lists his credentials as including a Ph.D in specialized business, a masters degree in counseling and psychology, certification as a behavioral analyst, and (as of 2008) 29 years of experience in child care and youth services." Although no one can prove that the person who posted this information is actually Weierman, I think the self-description needs to be included in the article to counterbalance the negative info. Now at least on user is urging deletion of this information for not being reliably sourced, which I believe would violate WP:BLP by converting the article into an unrelenting attack.

So the question is: Do we (A) err on the side of WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE and include information that is probably valid but fails the WP:RS criterion, or (B) victimize a living person -- in the name of WP:V -- by reporting only negative info about him because the only positive info we have about him is not fully verifiable? --Orlady (talk) 02:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

A lot of the controversial content appears to be from the palm beach post, a very tabloidy affair is it a WP RS? and tcpalm which doesn't look to be a RS, I would have a good look at the citations and as it is extremely controversial content I would say high quality citations are in order and then I would trim it of all the titillating excessive detail about issues for which there was no outcome, or where stories and even charges did not result in a conviction. I would more look at removing any weakly cited and excessive detail from the article than add weakly cited content to balance, the school has clearly had issues but trim it back to the well cited bare facts. Off2riorob (talk) 13:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Palm Beach Post can hardly be called a "tabloidy affair" (read the Wikipedia article on it). TCPalm is a news website owned by the E. W. Scripps company, a major media conglomerate. I believe both of these would count as reliable sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed a couple of allegations and claims that came to nothing and it seems a bit better now, although if your going to shackle children the article is always going to reflect that. Off2riorob (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You've suggested that BLP somehow "trumps" the need for valid, well sourced information.... something that's part of the pillars of Wikipedia. I don't think anything trumps the need for reliable sources, this is an encyclopedia after all, not a rumour page or even a newspaper. Further, these online postings could have been done by anyone, you could just as easily be defaming this person by posting these alleged credentials, because a few cursory Google searches show that - at least for the credentials he claims on the LinkedIn page - he can't possibly have these credentials because the school he claims he went to doesn't award them (see my talk post for details). This isn't a rumour page. You've also been editing out well sourced information about police investigations, is this really about "not defaming" him or is it something else? I don't get this double standard that LinkedIn and comments sections from websites are good enough sources, while newspapers that reflect poorly on him aren't. Hairhorn (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

there are so many crimes and allegations against the school that it is better to only cite the actual offenses that came to anything, most of the content is cited to a couple of local papers, nothing national and I imagine it was a bit of a campaign the local paper had, titillating stuff but personally Orlady thought there were issues with it being a bit of an attack and I did too, although as I said the school clearly had issues I must add that no criminal activity was found, I don't know your involvement in the story, but anyway imo its better to trim excessive content that adds nothing but more claims of allegation, keep the strong stuff, the other issue of his qualifications, attribute it to him if needed, according to ... What is your involvement in the story? Off2riorob (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this approach. Ty 17:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any connection to this story, have a look at my edit history if you have any doubts. What's your connection? Hairhorn (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I work on BLP protection. Off2riorob (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Luis González-Mestres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Gives a clear impression of autobiography (an unkind observer might say gratuitous self-promotion), sourced chiefly from the subject's own publications. Notability may or may not be an issue; verifiability certainly is. I lack the experience and moxy with an anonymous and uninterested editor to do much more than add suggestive templates and watch them disappear. • Lainagier • talk • 00:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I pre-emptively cut out the names of the people whose identities were stolen by the assassins. It feels a bit weird to me, to be censoring Wikipedia, but I think in this case the people named were emphatically innocent private figures who were victimized, and do not deserve (nor could they conceivably want) to have their names identified with assassins on Wikipedia. I'd appreciate some comments on the matter. Ray^Talk 20:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I support not adding the names, the names add nothing of value and these are innocent living people, strong support for not inserting these names. Off2riorob (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Completely agree, clearly covered by WP:BLP. – ukexpat (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The conversation has moved to the article Talk:Assassination of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh. Ray^Talk 18:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

An RfC on a BLP-related controversy has been opened at the above page. Nsk92 (talk) 02:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This RfC has now been removed as a violation of the spirit of BLP in an of itself. See the discussion at WP:ANI#Excessive violations of BLP on Talk:Johnny Weir--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Mr de Grazia has emailed one of the editors on the article complaining about the material sourced (and attributed) to Ted Morgan's biography of William Burroughs. He says that the Burroughs biography was the subject of a lawsuit that was resoled in favour of the plaintiff, which is true, another editor has found the judgement online. But it doesn't seem to be at all similar to the present case. I have asked the editor who was emailed to forward the message to Wikimedia using the link on WP:LIBEL. Can anyone see any problem with the article as it stands? There are some citation needed tags in the article, but they are on material that the de Grazia family wants to see included. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

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

The article does a lot of praise singing for Ezra. forgetting that he is invloved in serious fraud. he has conned several people in uganda and even now he is facing fraud cases in court.i' am suprised the article says Ezra is a target of several conmen. Do you people know Ezra himself is a conman. Those items quoted in the articla are written in the uganda media by people he bribes to write them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.210.191.5 (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've given this it's own section as I'm not sure where it should go. Verbal chat 20:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Can someone strip this BLP mess down to a stub? Full of factually false and libelous statements, original-research of primary sources and speculation, unreliable sources, and violent violations of NPOV and WEIGHT and UNDUE and COATRACK. THF (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

According to Yoo, BLP atrocities are not torture. But I'll take a look.--Milowent (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Trimmed 30 percent with one bold edit, removed excessive linkage to primary legal documents. Off2riorob (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I have revised this article to address what seems to be an implicit argument to discredit this individual by arrangement of materials, serving to advance an implicit position in contravention of WP:NOR. Please compare this version with my reversion. I believe that the earlier version of the article suggested clearly that "we" (Wikipedia's errors) disagreed with Lavergne's conclusions, and it prioritized (by structure) the placement of materials from 1966 to do so. This is obviously not our place, and in a BLP seems completely inappropriate. I have attempted to reorganize the material in a more neutral manner. I note it here for transparency and to invite any contributors willing to review the material and help determine the most neutral method of presenting these facts. I should note that I'm traveling this weekend and will not be available after today to discuss the matter until the 22nd. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Your version is vastly better; I would hope it resolves the issue. Rd232 ^talk 16:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

What you have done Moonriddengirl, is make a mistake of conclusion according to your own observations, after discussing it with another admin, Stifle. In fact, I removed the material from the Charles Whitman article due to undue weight and because it was more appropriate for Lavergne's article, and no one complained of it there to an admin after many discussions. You also added material from the same source that I did that includes speculation on Lavergne's part about the future legal process that Whitman would have gone through if he was alive at the time of Lavergne writing the Op-Ed in 2006, and Lavergne is an author - not an attorney. Whitman's tumor would have killed Whitman within a year from all the data and medical information from 1966, how would Whitman be alive today, as Lavergne reports in yours and mine source, if he was dead by 1967, or to expand beyond the medical evidence to 1997 when his book was published? An impossible scenario that Laverne advances because he has license as an author to obfuscate information (as your re-write does), have it passed off as fact (as you mention above - neutrally of course), and makes profits and gets his job at the University of Texas. Also, Lavergne has called the tragedy the worst mass murder in American History [[17]], which is untrue as Andrew Kehoe held that distinction since 1927 until McVeigh. You removed that fact, it is not an opinion and it was sourced. If an author is going to profit from his work, he must be prepared to handle his errors as well - there is nothing in the former version that he could possibly hold Wikipedia accountable for - like representing the information in a false light. He wrote it. The book was published by a company who the University of Texas is part of a consortium here [[18]], and here [[19]] and the book was never submitted to a peer review, which would have prevented it from being published as a "definitive work", which is the opinion of journalists, not the legal or medical community. Now it has errors that need to be exposed for the benefit "of all human knowledge", I believe those are Jimbo's words, correct me if I am wrong.Victor9876 (talk) 06:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I have not discussed the matter with Stifle at all. I simply inherited the ticket and judged the material myself, as presumably Rd232 did in responding to this listing. I have rewritten your text in such a way that it does not supply a tone of skepticism to each of his conclusions, by presenting it chronologically. Your opinions on Lavergne's qualifications to make his judgments is as immaterial as my own; what matters is whether or not reliably-sourced, publish criticism questions whether he can understand the law or medicine involved. If you want to expose his errors based on your own reasoning, you will need to find a venue that publishes original research. To quote our policy on the matter, "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." As to the fact that the press calls his book the "definitive work", you'll need to take that up with them. The statement easily meets Wikipedia:Verifiability, it is relevant to the subject's notability, and it does not slant material to take a position: which is not our job. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, the fact that there are mass murders with higher numbers is really immaterial, as I believe is his claim that it was the "worst." Unless he plainly defines "worst" as "greatest number dead", your juxtaposing these cherry-picked facts seems as the former content was to imply one thing: that you disagree. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Are these "cherry-picked facts" - From Laverne's site on UNC,

"On August 1, 1966, Charles Joseph Whitman ascended the University of Texas Tower and committed what was then the largest simultaneous mass murder in American history. He gunned down forty-five people inside and around the Tower before he was killed by two Austin police officers. During the previous evening he had killed his wife and mother, bringing the total to sixteen people dead and at least thirty-one wounded."

From Andrew Kehoe's article on Wikipedia -

"The Bath School disaster is the name given to three bombings in Bath Township, Michigan on May 18, 1927, which killed 45 people and injured 58. Most of the victims were children in the second to sixth grades (7-12 years of age) attending the Bath Consolidated School. Their deaths constitute the deadliest act of mass murder in a school in U.S. history."

How is this juxtaposing? The facts are the facts. And Whitman did his killing in three different locations as well as there being three reported bombs in the Kehoe article. So don't try and tell me there is a difference based upon semantics. Both individuals were on a killing rampage to acheive the same results.

From you -

"Your opinions on Lavergne's qualifications to make his judgments is as immaterial as my own; what matters is whether or not reliably-sourced, publish criticism questions whether he can understand the law or medicine involved. If you want to expose his errors based on your own reasoning, you will need to find a venue that publishes original research."

The above is inconsistent and incoherent, can you clarify?

As to the "definitive work" and an unknown AP writer, your saying anything that can be extracted from the web is verifiable that supports a body of work whether it is false or not is what Wikipedia is about. So if someone publishes as a "ghost writer" that A said something to B about Martha Stewart, Martha Stewart would have to accept it because the "ghost writer" said so, and has A and B to back it up. That would be the most disengenuous argument I ever heard. You're obfuscating the issues by trying to make it seem that I have a bias against Lavergne and that I am "slanting" the material in a particular way, that simply is not true because I sourced the issues. Again, the original write was sourced and verified. If you think a person with a deadly tumor with a prognosis of dying within a year 43 years ago, would be sitting in a jail today, or have been prosecuted and executed a decade after the event, there is a serious problem with critical thinking there. That is not an attack or incivility, it is a fact.Victor9876 (talk) 02:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Critical thinking isn't called for here; what's called for is good research skills. I'll see if I can make this clearer for you. We are not here to evaluate his arguments and pass judgment on them. Wikipedia's purpose is to produce a neutral, verifiable summary of what reliable sources say about this author, and that's the extent of it. Associated Press is regarded as a reliable source. Hence, what an AP writer says about this man is relevant for inclusion in his article. Your opinion about his veracity or the health of the subject of a book he wrote about is not. Perhaps you can take your views to a reliable media outlet and turn them into a reliable source. In the meantime, you seem to be attempting to write this article in such a way to make plain that you think his views are wrong. Whether they are or not, we are governed by our policy on original research and our policy on articles related to living people. You simply cannot use this article to imply that his conclusions are wrong, though you are welcome to report on it if reliable sources that meet WP:BLP have done so.

You obviously have strong feelings about this case. I wonder if they are coloring your ability to contribute neutrally on this topic. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's see WP:NOR vs "what's called for here is good research skills." How does a person overcome this conundrum?Victor9876 (talk) 03:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like a conundrum to me; it seems pretty clear. Research skills are useful in finding what secondary sources have said about a subject; with proper use of secondary sources, we don't violate WP:NOR. To quote the policy, "Wikipedia is a tertiary source." Accordingly, "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." You can't analyze his books or conclusions or by arrangement of material suggest analysis. You can only reference what others have said about it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Young lady; research is what I do. Albeit, without the restrictions of Wikipedia guidelines and policies which are not "research", nor do they support the founding principles of Wikipedia. In your header above, you ask for a comparison of "my" version (which was a collaborative effort of other Wikipedians as well) with your "reversion", which was at best a "revision", not a reversion. You consistently claim I am using my opinions to "color" the article (purposely} and try to discredit the author. If an author makes grave errors in the content of history and those errors can be exposed for the good of the reader, according to your tenacious use of WP policies, and there are no references on the misinformation highway, there should be no problem with calling a "duck a duck", if there is supporting evidence against the authors opinions, where there is evidence. But you won't see that way, as you have drawn your line in the sand, based on your interpretations of restricting policies. Therefore (now this is an opinion), Wikipedia becomes a repository for erroneous information, which is the exact opposite of what an Encyclopedia should be. All of the medical references used, say Lavergne was and is wrong. Dead wrong. So perhaps in the alternative, perhaps as you suggested before posting this discussion, the controversy here should be removed from the article and "reverted" back to before Stifles and my exchange, for the benefit of the reader who may conclude that the author is right in his opinions and errors of historical data and facts. Personally, in my opinion, this would be the best alternative as the rules of WP have posted a fence, that can not be scaled at this time.Victor9876 (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did mistakenly refer to it as a reversion in my link. Above that, I called it correctly a revision. WP:NOR is, of course, one of our core content policies. Another one is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which addresses exactly this kind of situation: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source (see below), not whether editors think it is true." There are many fora for posting your primary research and opinions, but Wikipedia is only interested in information which has been previously published by reliable sources. As for your indication that this is collaborative effort, this material appears in the article at this point. If you copied this from elsewhere, then it seems you may have inadvertently violated the copyright of your collaborators. Please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for the proper processes for copying content from one Wikipedia page to another. You must at minimum provide a direct link to the article from which you are copying in edit summary.

The section can be removed. Since it's more about the book than about the author himself, it does not seem essential to the bibliography. However, the Associated Press comment about the book speaks to the author's notability and should probably be retained. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Whatever! [[20]]. Victor9876 (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for identifying your point of copying. I will repair the licensing issue at the destination article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Per Moonriddengirl's statement above that the section in question can be removed, I will do so. Also, as to the Associated Press speaking to his notability and "probably" should be retain, that is not possible if the section is removed, however, the ISBN numbers of his books should suffice.Victor9876 (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It is quite possible. I've put it in the stub: [21]. These sources are quite reliable and lend to establishing notability. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

If you would take the time to research appropriately, you will find that the books are already cited in the Works section and adding the phantom AP reference at the end of that would remove the redundant use of it in the stub.Victor9876 (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility is also policy. Referencing notable works within the body is certainly in keeping with other author articles. Cf. David Bowker, John Dryden, Michael Moorcock, Richard Rorty and Rudolf Thurneysen, to name a few. In every one of these articles, a work referenced in the bibliography section is also mention textually in the body of the article. Evidently, this is not widely regarded as a redundancy problem. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't you dare charge me with being uncivil here! Especially after some of your tongue in cheek remarks. Back to my point about the redundancy remark, I was merely noting that the un-named writer of the AP source, would have been better served at the end of the Published works section, following this entry - "A Sniper in the Tower (1997), about Charles Whitman, known for shooting people from within and without the University of Texas at Austin's 27-story tower in 1966. (add AP source here)." Lavergne's article is too small to repeat the same information, and actually, it would serve him better if the AP source was at the end of the above mentioned work. Some of your exmples I agree with, however, multi-paragraphed articles that are rich in text and visuals, need the clarification that repetition brings, a few of your examples don't, and neither does Lavergne's article. Just my opinion, edit as you like.Victor9876 (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I have just one more thing to add that addresses the AP article that Moonnriddengirl wants to use as a source for notability and verifiability. This is not directed at Moonriddengirl, it is directed at the accuracy of the source. The University of Texas Tower, is not 27 stories as the article claims. It does have elevators that go to the 27th floor, which is two tiers below the observation deck that Whitman fired at people on the campus and Guadalupe Street. The first tier above the 27th floor is accessed by a staircase that leads to a narrow hallway that leads to another stairway where a doglegged stairway leads up to the observation room, which is inside the parapet or walk around observation deck. The killings inside the tower were on the doglegged staircase (the Gabours and Lamports) and the observation room (Edna Townsley the receptionist). The bell tower is above the observation room. So if the source can not get the facts right; what good is the source? Whether it be AP, Reuters, ABC, NBC or any other acceptable source, the information contains errors! The observation deck is the 29th floor, not the 28th! [[22]]. Victor9876 (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

After re-reading the article, I appear to have erred in the authors use of the number 27 - the author mentions the 28th floor, which has been used in other articles, so even though I erred here, it was because the observation deck is usually referred to as that, the obversation deck, parapet, sniper's perch, etc. I stand corrected by my own volition.Victor9876 (talk) 02:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I am withdrawing my claim of error, and again assert the error of the source above, after finding the verifiable source that was at rest in my memory, until I found it again. This is the second time I have errored in my life, and the first time was when I thought I was wrong, but I was actually right, just like above! lol! Is that O.K. Moonriddengirl? Victor9876 (talk) 05:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This would be more of a question for WP:RSN, but a reliable source is a reliable source, and I don't believe that an error would invalidate that. When reliable sources disagree, we typically note the discrepancy. However, that source isn't being used to substantiate the height of the tower. And even if it were, it wouldn't be alone:

"It was from the observation deck, 28 stories up, that UT student Charles Whitman opened fire Aug. 1, 1966"[23]

"Twenty-eight floors below, Dickerson and Walden saw the bodies and heard the shots."[24]

"From the observation deck on the 28th floor of the University of Texas Tower, Charles J. Whitman turned the campus into a blood-stained" Newsweek, Volume 68, Issues 1-13 p. 113

Not that it's a reliable source, but even the Wikipedia article on Charles Whitman says, "Three were killed inside the University's tower and ten killed from the 28th floor observation deck of the University's 307 foot administrative building on August 1, 1966" If you want to find a reliable source that indicates it was the 29th floor, you may wish to (as per WP:V), record and note that discrepancy there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - I have corrected the Whitman page. The source is from the University of Texas historical web page. As to what you believe about an error invalidating source is irrevelant - Administrator or not. You take pride in flashing WP rules (which I know), as if they are written in stone. This is sad. I even posted an attempt to humor you on your talk page, and you respond with more rhetorical rules. I've tried to have a disussion here, all you respond with is a seminar of your interpretations of the rules and content. I still maintain that the error by the AP source should be removed as it is tainted by an error. As all of your other sources are. Victor9876 (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's rules and the consensus of the community is what governs our content. I'm sorry if my idea of a discussion doesn't suit you. I have a lot of other work to do on Wikipedia and am focused on the goal here. It wasn't my intention to offend you by ignoring your humor.

I stand by my interpretation of policy on the question of this source: even if a fact is wrong, that doesn't make it unreliable. However, I have asked for additional feedback on the matter at the appropriate forum, as I had recommended above you might. It's at the WP:RSN now.

I'm not personally concerned with the Charles Whitman article since my sole involvement is with the treatment of this living individual, but I am concerned that your alteration to that article does not seem to reflect prevailing sources. In addition to the above, there's this 1966 source which says, "Then he struggled up three flights of stairs, jerking the dolly after him, to what is regarded as the 28th floor, about 280 feet above ground." Here's a 1970 source that also considers it the 28th floor. Indeed, there seem to be quite a few...certainly more news sources than those which regard it as the 29th. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

And your point is??? You claim I was trying to discredit the author. We removed the information. Now you want to keep information that is not verifiable and raise his image. Are you associated, know, had contact with this author? Are you associated with the University of Texas or any affiliate thereof? These are legitimate questions at this time. Victor9876 (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This is crossing over from polite discussion into rather rude remarks. If you don't like the rules at Wikipedia, you're welcome to discuss changing them or contribute elsewhere, but as it stands, Moonriddengirl is quoting them correctly and the article must follow them. Whether or not you agree that the multiple sources provided are incorrect is beside the point. You seem to be quite passionate about the subject, which is good in some cases, but not so good when you're willing to bend the rules to have the article read the way you want. Present what other reliable sources say without adding in your opinion of the circumstances and you'll do just fine. Shell ^babelfish 19:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me supplicate the above with this [[25]] for a response. Victor9876 (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what kind of response you're looking for or how that relates; if you're suggesting that the AP writer may be biased, I'm not sure that's an issue. The article doesn't say we do or do not agree with the AP article. We just note that the AP said it. I do see now that I'm looking more deeply into the sources that the New York Times calls it "the authoritative account".[26] Perhaps you would worry less about the reliability of the AP source if we included that as well, particularly since its author, Frank Rich, is not anonymous and seems to have quite a catalog of writing.

Just for the record, I've never so much as been to Texas and have no affiliation with the author of any sort. I do, however, have a long track record of working at WP:BLPN, and I have an interest in making sure that our articles fairly represent their subjects. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus to remove that quote. I've restored it, but have added in the Rich quote that I think you meant to replace it with. However, Rich didn't say that, and you can't quote somebody inaccurately or without an inline citation immediately following. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I have taken the liberty to adjust the Lavergne article to your liking. Victor9876 (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you through now? BTW, You answered my direct response to Shell. I do not appreciate your responding for her. It muddles the conversation and was none of your business. I wish nothing else to do with you. In the future, please refer any problems you have with my edits to another admin who doesn't put words in my mouth, accuse me of making mistakes on purpose and other allegations that speak for themselves on these threads. Thank you! Victor9876 (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to communicate with Shell Kinney privately, you should not do so at a board where any contributor is permitted to respond. I have no intentions of going out of my way to interact with you, but I will not go out of my way to avoid you, either. I am fully confident that my actions and words will withstanding scrutiny from uninvolved parties. I will not be cowed into backing down on this issue by your umbrage. I do not intend to edit this article further unless material is added or removed in a way that seems biased, and then I will act transparently and within policy as I have all along. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)You meant "withstand scrutiny" - and of course, if a party is uninvolved - there can be no scrutiny - BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT INVOLVED!!! Your logic is your own! You constantly rant about "no opinions" then give opinions yourself. You remind me of the biblical parable about the wiseman arguing in public with a fool - passersby can't distinguish with who the wise one is and who is the fool. I'm sorry I fell into your trap! If I may suggest - change your moniker from Moonriddengirl to "Rulesriddengirl", it would be more fitting! Goodbye!!! 22:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor9876 (talk • contribs)

Let me preface this by saying that I think this is the single dumbest "dispute" I have been involved in here. A number of users are intent on removing any mention of Omar Sharif being of Lebanese ancestry. I have assembled a list of articles, each available through Lexis-Nexis, that explicitly say that Sharif was born into a Lebanese-Egyptian family on the talk page. However, more than one user is intent on removing this info, and I aint really looking for a block for something this silly so would somebody mind lending a hand? nableezy - 01:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

When there is a dispute like that, go with what the subject is cited as saying, he's Egyptian by birth. Looks to me like a case of him being such a nice guy that everyone wants to claim him, are there any quoted comments from the subject himself? Off2riorob (talk) 13:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The LA Times once quoted Sharif as follows: "You never stop being Lebanese," says Omar Sharif. However, that LA Times article goes so far as to claim he was also born in Lebanon, which is surely wrong (?). There are many book references to his being born in Egypt, to parents of Syrian/Lebanese descent: [27]. Google News: [28] Unless he or anyone else has ever credibly denied that his parents were of Syrian/Lebanese descent, I think we should follow these sources. --JN466 14:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

All the bios I found are clear that he was born in Alexandria Egypt, a fair few do mention Lebanon/Syria decent but there is no actual detail as to how or why. Also they spell his birth name in two different ways, the article now says he was born into an Egyptian catholic family, which could well be correct on a nationality basis but may not mention genealogy which is the issue here. It would be clear if there was an interview with him clearly talking about it, the LA times was good but fell down with the claim of actual birth in Lebanon, I can't find anyone else supporting that. Off2riorob (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue with using "what the subject said" is there is no evidence that he actually said what is used in the article. I have tried to track down this interview and have not been able to even find a record of it ever being aired, much less a transcript or an exact date and time. nableezy - 17:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, JN, Variety has the same quote: Egypt's Omar Sharif, speaking on film in Daizy Gedeon's documentary "Beirut ... Imprisoned Splendor," said he is of local descent and that "you never stop being Lebanese." (Young, Deborah. "Glitz and pix rebound in Beirut", Variety. November 3, 1997) nableezy - 17:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is strong enough or clear enough to bother with, he is egyptian and was born to an egyption catholic family...do you accept that as correct? Do you know where his mother and father were born? Off2riorob (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Not clear enough? There are over a hundred sources that say that he was born to either a "Lebanese-Egyptian" or "Lebanese-Syrian" family. How do you get not clear enough from that? The 7 listed on the talk page were just the first seven from a Lexis-Nexis search, if you ask me to waste my time citing the other 123 results I can do that, but it is clear that a huge number of sources explicitly say that Sharif is of Lebanese descent. nableezy - 17:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

this statement is in the article.... he is egyptian and was born to an egyption catholic family.... and is clearly correct.... you don't know where his mother was born and you don't know where his father was born, I have a cite...ok, but it is weakly claimed and there are differing reports, I can understand the editors resisting its inclusion. I had a look at the talkpage. , I am a bit like that, weakly claimed genetic ancestry bother me, imo it's better left out. Off2riorob (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

What differing reports? And I dont need to know where his mother or father were born, I am not making any statement as to where they were born. I am saying, and this is based on over 100 reliable sources, that Sharif is from a Lebanese family. There has not been a single verifiable source presented that disputes that. nableezy - 19:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, what source says that he was born into an "Egyptian catholic family" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen the source, but it is anyhow a simple fact, his parents and all his grandparents were Egyptian nationals also born in Egypt, whatever their genetic make up, and he was brought up as a catholic and later converted to Islam, these thing are not disputed, it is the ancestral genetics that is disputed, I have found nothing that to me confirmed strongly what those ancestral genetics are, there are cites mentioning Syria Lebanon and egyptian, personally as I said, I am not keen on inserting claims of genetic ancestry when there are differing claims without some details of who it was or when, but that is me. Off2riorob (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hold on now, where are you getting this information: "his parents and all his grandparents were Egyptian nationals also born in Egypt" Where is the source for this? How is this "simple fact" if you haven't seen the sources? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, excuse me, I thought that wasn't disputed and I thought Nableesy was leaving that in, but on second look I see he is removing, there is this Lebanese site or I think it is Lebanese that says his parents lived in Lebanon and moved to Egypt, with no mention of Syria, anyway it is reported differently around, or it that disputed? When the article was created in 2003 he was Egyptian born and then by 2005 he became Egyptian born of Syrian origin then by 2006 he had become Egyptian-born (of Lebanese and Syrian origin by august 2007 he parents were Lebanese immigrant and timber merchant, and Claire (Saada) an Egyptian of Syrian descent by may 2008 there was no mention anymore of his parents roots but they were roman catholic by 2009 his parents were Jews of Lebanese descent and so on, so there clearly is a variety of ideas about it. As I originally said he is such a nice guy that everyone wants to claim him. Off2riorob (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

"Egyptian born" is redundant to "born in Alexandria". He is an "Egyptian actor", I dont think there is any dispute about that. The sources also say that he was born into a Lebanese-Egyptian (occasionally Lebanese-Syrian) family. These things are not contradictory. nableezy - 22:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Well now we can get to the bottom of this and follow what the reliable, published sources say, and what do they say? you can see them I have presented here and them nablezzy has presented here: all of them say either "Lebanese-Egyptian" or "Lebanese-Syrian" family/descent/parents. There are no sources saying his family is "Egyptian" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It is all a bit vague if you ask me, citations are often mirrors of each other, there does appear to be a lot of weight with supporting cites to his father being Lebanese and his mother perhaps Syrian, is anything at all known about his grandparents? Off2riorob (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Omar Sharif himself makes clear that his parents and up to his grandparents' generation were Egyptian in his autobiogrpahy, The Eternal Male, and in numerous interviews, most notably the interview on a program called "Roots" on Nile Cinema on 4 September 2009. These were all properly cited on the article and then were later removed by Supreme Deliciousness and his proxies. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 11:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:Cite episode and Template:Book. Add a line that says it was previousley reported otherwise. Problem solved.Cptnono (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Nile Cinema (4 September 2009). "Al-Godhour with Omar Sharif". Al-Godhour. Cairo. Nile TV. Nile Cinema. ((cite episode)): Cite has empty unknown parameters: |serieslink=, |transcripturl=, |seriesno=, and |episodelink= (help) like this? This is very close to how it was originally cited in the article before they removed it. The autobiography reference remains in the article at a different location, but reference to Sharif's family's origins in the book have been removed. What else needs to be done? --Arab Cowboy (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The program that I see mentioned online originally aired on 4 September 2009 so I do not understand your use of the began and end parameters. Fix that up or clarify. The mention of Al Godour was lacking before and that makes it much better. The book template would benefit from a page number and ISBN. Those two should easily pass as reliable and verifiable. Making a mention somewhere in the article that it contradictory information was published elsewhere would tie it all up.Cptnono (talk) 13:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

There were 30 episodes to that program starting on 22 August 2009 and ending on 19 Sept, all with Omar Sharif, and I followed it. On 4 Sept 2009, he made the statements about his origins. I had placed that source in the article before and it was subsequently removed. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there a record that these interviews were aired? Is there any way of getting a transcript (Arabic is fine)? And where in the autobiography does he contradict what the other sources say? nableezy - 17:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Since Arab Cowboy is now blocked: WP:AGF, WP:Access to sources, and (not binding) WP:OFFLINE. An email might need to be sent to the airing station. Dude seen here watched the same program but that more than likely is not RS.Cptnono (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

That is almost a complete copy of the article as it was at the time. nableezy - 00:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably circular then.Cptnono (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

This is copied from the text AC added to the article.

To Cptnono and others. I don't want to start this shit here, but I feel that I have to say something about this, it will hopefully be my only post about this subject. AC is a sockpuppeteer and a user who has from ever since he came to wikipedia never followed what sources say and what mediators say:[29] [30][31] and based on his behavior concerning viewable sources, why should anyone trust what he claims about non-viewable sources that contradicts 30-40 published sources including the New York Times? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

As much as I hate to say it, I completely understand what you are saying SD. It appeared that two editors (although a sock was an obvious possibility) were introducing a concern and a possible source was being completely disregarded. I would recommend that someone that speaks Arabic send that email and get a transcript. I am usually pretty good with Google translate but am running into walls here. It would be good form to try to verify the reference but there is of course little motivation to do so when an editor has a history of screwing around. Maybe after the block he will come back with some info.Cptnono (talk) 08:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)