Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Cleo123 (talk | contribs)
1,494 edits
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 206: Line 206:
:: Response to [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] : "If any of that were true?" Are alleging that my statement is false? I've provided links to the discussions and a link to your block log that anyone can review for themselves. As for whether or not it "matters" - well, yes, it most certainly does. There seems to be a disturbing pattern here. As I read it, you were banned from FAC discussions for disrupting article discussions with your misinterpretations of policies and incivility. Many editors apparently attempted to reason with you and explain why your interpretations of policy were incorrect. The record indicates that you refused to listen to people. I see you doing the same thing here. The material in question is libelous, a COURT has ruled it to be libelous. Wikipedia cannot reprint it - plain and simple. Rather than accepting and abiding by Wikipedia's policy, you and John Carter encouraged the creation of a freestanding article that cannot serve any other purpose than to defame a living person. Is that useful? Is that what you think Wikipedia is all about? I'm not sure what idea you think I'm championing. As I see it, the only idea I am championing is adherence to [[WP:BLP]]. There were two individuals edit warring who both appeared to have a personal involvement of some sort with the real life events depicted in the article. After I entered the discussion and better explained Wikipedia's policies on biographies, the "aggressor" seems to have come to his senses and abandoned all efforts to insert libel into the article. As far as I see it - the conflict was resolved. Why do we still have a self appointed "mediator" trying to stir the pot engaging in outrageous and unnecessary behavior such as contacting the article's subject on behalf of Wikipedia? Is that useful? Or does it just make you feel important? As for me being somehow alone in my ideas - well if you think I'm wrong, go ahead and create your article designed to reprint libel on Wikipedia. When it is deleted, I hope you'll realize that the majority of users share my interpretation of policy. There are no "compromises" where [[WP:LIBEL]] is concerned. [[User:Cleo123|Cleo123]] ([[User talk:Cleo123|talk]]) 00:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
:: Response to [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] : "If any of that were true?" Are alleging that my statement is false? I've provided links to the discussions and a link to your block log that anyone can review for themselves. As for whether or not it "matters" - well, yes, it most certainly does. There seems to be a disturbing pattern here. As I read it, you were banned from FAC discussions for disrupting article discussions with your misinterpretations of policies and incivility. Many editors apparently attempted to reason with you and explain why your interpretations of policy were incorrect. The record indicates that you refused to listen to people. I see you doing the same thing here. The material in question is libelous, a COURT has ruled it to be libelous. Wikipedia cannot reprint it - plain and simple. Rather than accepting and abiding by Wikipedia's policy, you and John Carter encouraged the creation of a freestanding article that cannot serve any other purpose than to defame a living person. Is that useful? Is that what you think Wikipedia is all about? I'm not sure what idea you think I'm championing. As I see it, the only idea I am championing is adherence to [[WP:BLP]]. There were two individuals edit warring who both appeared to have a personal involvement of some sort with the real life events depicted in the article. After I entered the discussion and better explained Wikipedia's policies on biographies, the "aggressor" seems to have come to his senses and abandoned all efforts to insert libel into the article. As far as I see it - the conflict was resolved. Why do we still have a self appointed "mediator" trying to stir the pot engaging in outrageous and unnecessary behavior such as contacting the article's subject on behalf of Wikipedia? Is that useful? Or does it just make you feel important? As for me being somehow alone in my ideas - well if you think I'm wrong, go ahead and create your article designed to reprint libel on Wikipedia. When it is deleted, I hope you'll realize that the majority of users share my interpretation of policy. There are no "compromises" where [[WP:LIBEL]] is concerned. [[User:Cleo123|Cleo123]] ([[User talk:Cleo123|talk]]) 00:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Please link to the court proceedings filed against Wikipedia. Unless you do, your statement is completely false. One person's conviction does not necessitate another's. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[User talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 01:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Please link to the court proceedings filed against Wikipedia. Unless you do, your statement is completely false. One person's conviction does not necessitate another's. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[User talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 01:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
:::: Wow! You really don't seem to get it - no matter how many times it is explained to you. Steve Windom does NOT have to SUE Wikipedia! '''He already HAS prevailed in a court of law.''' The material has been ruled libelous - therefore we can't reprint it - period. The victim does not have to go through the expense of filing a new lawsuit to get Wikipedia to remove it - because we DON'T knowingly reprint what has been established as libel. If we did, I suspect Mr. Windom would have one heck of a suit against us and Wikipedia would undoubtedly be paying not only his legal costs but damages to boot. Please, act responsibly, heir on the side of caution where living people are concerned as policy dictates. Let's end this nonsense. [[User:Cleo123|Cleo123]] ([[User talk:Cleo123|talk]]) 04:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


== [[Pritam]] ==
== [[Pritam]] ==

Revision as of 04:27, 5 July 2008

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

    This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

    Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

    Search this noticeboard & archives
    Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Additional notes:



    Please edit the main page of the noticeboard.

    Individual articles

    Sean Hannity

    I am concerned that the following is within the article.

    • Journalist Max Blumenthal, son of former Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal, in a June 2005 article published in The Nation, claimed that Hannity's radio show provided a regular forum for the rants of white supremacist Hal Turner and that their relationship extended to an off-air friendship from 1998 to 2000.[10] While the relationship claims were seconded by Turner in a posting on his personal blog, they were denied by Hannity and by the program director at WABC, Phil Boyce, who disputed the factual accuracy of many of the allegations.[11]

    My primary concern is that reference "The Nation" ref relies on two sources, Hal Turner (and his blog site) and Daryle Jenkins of One People's Project (which is most likely not a reliable source.) Google searching has provided no additional published articles which quality as reliable sources regarding this issue, and as it stands it basically reads as Turner's word against Hannity. It has been stated by a few editors that it raises WP:REDFLAG and WP:WELLKNOWN. Being that Hannity is wellknown there should be additional sources which discuss this issue, but there are not. Additionally, this is a pretty exceptional claim, and if so there should be substantial reliable sources which discuss the incident less it be a case of WP:UNDUE Editors which have objected to the material have stated a desire for additional reliable sources. Editors in favor have stated that "The Nation" is a reliable source which is verifiable and that is all that is needed. Indeed "The Nation" is a reliable source, and it is verifiable that Turner made these statements, however, does his word reach the level which would validate inclusion? Are the allegations of a couple of people enough to include contencious material which Hannity has already denied? I believe that RS News Organizations may also cover this because it is an opinion piece being used as a statement of fact. Arzel (talk) 03:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[]

    A cursory examination of Google News Archives doesn't have much to go on, either. The Blumenthal piece shows up, but most of the other references are from News Hounds, whose motto is We watch Fox so you don't have to. There are also some hits for Infoshop News, whose motto is anarchist news, opinion and much more. Finally, there's one hit from ALM Research that strikes me as fairly reliable, but the article is about a libel suit by Cynthia McKinney's lawsuit against the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and only mentions in passing that Turner is an associate of Hannity's. Putting my rather strong dislike for Fox News and Sean Hannity aside, none of these sources seems very good. Personally, I think it's pretty likely they're correct, but I'd feel much more comfortable if this was discussed in some unbiased, non-opinion based sources. AniMate 04:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[]
    HI Ani! What do you think about Blumenthal's The Nation article? Docku (talk) 11:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[]
    Are you serious? The Nation Op-Ed on Turner's Blog site is more reliable than the denial by Hannity and his program director on another Blog site? Arzel (talk) 13:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[]
    The editorial in the Nation is not Blumenthal's opinion but him repeating information gleaned from One People's Project. Since The Nation is a biased source (for a conservative BLP article : they bill themselves as left/liberal) that means the only sources for this controversial material in a BLP are: a biased editorial based on information from an unusable source, blogs and forums. I don't think that's enough to include the material. --PTR (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[]
    It is not a valid argument. BBC reporters reporting from Afghanistan sometimes have sources who are some poor Afghans. Are we going to question BBC report because of that??? We accept that as good information because we know BBC wouldnt report all the information they receive. Now, What about FOX news channel. Well, everyone knows that it is right leaning organisation but it doesnt mean that they report false news, and if they do, it will be detrimental to their reputaion. The point is right leaning or left leaning magazines, newspaper or news organisations which are also considered reliable sources may give more importance to or omit reports to suit their position. They dont report false information. If they do, they shouldnt be called reliable sources. Let us not confuse left leaning and right leaning with reliability. Docku (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[]

    I'm not going to rehash the overly long discussion on the Hannity talk page, I'm just going to make two points: First, this is not an "editorial", it is a regular article from a reliable source. It is only an "editorial" in the minds of some editors who oppose using the RS. Two, do we typically dissect the sources of articles from a RS like this? Do we even know what the sources are? Most sources are not identified and yet we accept the material when it comes from an RS, and we should do no different in this case. Gamaliel (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[]

    We should dissect them for a BLP. I would expect to do the same if a National Review editorial was the only source of controversial information someone was trying to include in [Al Franken]. The sources for something like this should be mainstream and multiple; not relying on one source that was listed in the index under columns, was written by a Media Matters Fellow, was web only (not in the print version), uses two blogs as it's sources and is in the Fox News Network section of The Nation, which is politically left. The goal of getting it right is worth some time to make sure that controversial inclusions are well sourced. --PTR (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[]
    If we should take the time to get it right, then we shouldn't repeat misconceptions like the fact that this is listed under "columns", when as I pointed out the talk page, the phrase "column left" is appended only to Robert Scheer's article. Also, the fact that it is web only is immaterial and I'm not sure why you bring it up. Innuendos about the writer's background are also immaterial. We aren't running opposition research here. We're deciding how to employ a reliable source, when all some editors appear interested in is creating and fabricating all sorts of fallacious reasons to slur a source that is perfectly acceptable according to WP policies. Gamaliel (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[]
    There are small headings under different sections and it appears to me that the items under the column left heading are all in that category. The fact that it is web only makes it more likely that it's an editorial and not an article that they would have used in their print media. I made no innuendos about the writer's background - in his bio on The Nation page it lists that he is a Media Matters Fellow. I don't know what you consider slurs. I mentioned that they are left/liberal. The have that on their web page. All I said was the use of this as the sole source for a conservative's BLP is not adequate and that multiple main stream sources were necessary. --PTR (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[]
    If you follow the links for the different articles, you will see that Scheer's article is labeled "Column Left" at the top of the article and Blumenthal's is not. It's pretty clear that this means "Column Left" is the name of Scheer's regular feature or that it is part of a series called "Column Left", while Blumenthal's is not. Your point about the web-only material meaning it is an editorial is only speculation and we shouldn't use such speculation when evaluating sources for BLPs. The writer's background is pretty irrelevant. MMfA and The Nation are both progressive, there is nothing unusual about a journalist working for both institutions, nor should we use that as an indication to speculate that a writer is less reliable because of it. The key question, which everyone is furiously trying to dance around, is this: is The Nation a reliable source? It is, so the material is acceptable to use. Gamaliel (talk) 17:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[]
    Blumenthal's piece is also not listed as an article and is in the Fox News Network section which primarily editorials about Fox News. It is written in editorial fashion using blogs as sources and representing one side only while at the end making editorial comments. The writer's background on an editorial is relevant. I'm not saying he is unrealiable or making any slurs on his character. I would expect an editorial to be written from the viewpoint of the writer. And the main question is not is The Nation a reliable source but: Is one non mainstream source, which is possibly an editorial, from a politically opposite source adequate for controversial material in a BLP. As it says in [WP:RS} How reliable a source is depends on context. --PTR (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[]
    Unbelievable. It is so tiring to argue with people who dont want to stick to the points and policies which matter to this discussion. I guess we should take it to WP:Mediation or WP:Arbitration. Docku (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[]
    What about WP:REDFLAG and WP:WELLKNOWN? Why don't you look at that? As an admin you should have a good knowledge of WP policies, yet you have yet to make a single comment regarding these two important policies. Arzel (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[]
    I only have so much time and energy. Perhaps if I didn't have to spend so much time discussing bullshit accusations like calling a magazine article a "blog" then I would have time to discuss those policies in depth. Gamaliel (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[]
    If you consider concerns regarding a BLP "bullshit" then perhaps you should rethink your purpose here. I brought up WP:WELLKNOWN at the beginning. WP:REDFLAG was also brought up at the beginning. Your response leads me to believe you have no good answer. Arzel (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[]
    I guess, Arzel's concerns were answered in the article talk page several times. I also think Gemaliel was refering to the misguided and inconsistent words used by both Arzel and PTK (column, editorial, blog column and finally blog) to characterise the The Nation article to support their argument wrongly, which led us to question their intentions. The question: Is it about getting a fair solution to this issue? or get the edit removed no matter what? Docku (talk) 00:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[]
    Stop trolling, Arzel. You know damn well I am concerned about BLPs (perhaps you recall asking your assistance regarding the bio of conservative Kevin James), but that concern doesn't make me resort to fabricating problem after problem to get my way and making blatantly false statements like calling a magazine article a blog. If you want to discuss the issue, discuss it without resorting to manipulating policy like this. Gamaliel (talk) 01:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[]
    The difference here is that it is clearly stated in the article that the source for "The Nation" article is a blog. Now if blogs like the one used in "The Nation" article are not suitable as a primary source, then why would an article that simply restates the blog be a reliable source? Seems to me that the policy of WP:RS is being used word for word, but the spirit of the policy is being tossed aside. In any case if this was an issue there should be several additional RS's that could be used, and I don't understand why superceding policies of WP:REDFLAG and WP:WELLKNOWN are being ignored by some. What is the point of even having there policies if they are to be ignored? Arzel (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[]
    I have to agree with Arzel on the above. I should state that I have been involved with the Hannity article in the past (starting in March or April of this year); I came there a neutral party, and I still regard myself as such. (I also ended up with the biographies of several other conservative media personalities on my watchlist at the same time, and I've unfortunately learned that critics of the people involved love to coatrack these bios with poorly-sourced "controversies".) I am the person who drafted the wording above (I did so to effect a compromise between warring parties) but I am still very uncomfortable with its inclusion. I researched this extensively, and everything seems to trace back to the word of a fringe racist figure (Hal Turner), which was picked up and amplified by Hannity's detractors. (A look into the article history will show that this claim has come and gone multiple times as different editors focus their attention on the article.) My research into commentary by the The Nation (the reliable source listed for this info) shows that they have engaged in polemical attacks against conservative figures in the past, particularly in editorial columns. I don't think we should keep this claim - particularly in a biography on Hannity, a prominent media figure who could cause damage to Wikipedia should he regard this as libel. I would support inclusion of the claim if more reliable sourcing could be found for the claim - but for now, the information should go. Kelly hi! 16:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[]
    I am wondering what changed Kelly's mind as he(she) admitted that he(she) (I guess Gemaliel was also involved in the compromised and balanced edit) was the one who presented the current version. FYI, It is not wikipedia policy to analyse the intentions and background of how informations land up in reliable sources. Our duty is to write what is reported in reliable sources. It is not about conservatism or liberalism, it is about reliable source. It is not a good idea to let ones affiliation to one ideology interfere with editorial process here. Docku (talk) 16:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[]
    What changed it was that I continued to research the issue after I drafted the compromise wording to end the edit war. I can't find any credible source to establish the claimed relationship between Hannity and Turner, aside from Turner himself. I initially took the The Nation as being an unquestioned reliable source, but the more I looked, the more I realized that were likely pushing a particular point of view about Hannity, and other conservatives, that could not be regarded as neutral. Just my opinion, but it appears others share that opinion. (And I will declaim for the public record right now that I myself an decidedly not a conservative - except when it come to compliance with WP:BLP.) If this claimed relationship is really notable, it should be easy to find another source to back it up - if not, I sincerely believe it should go. Kelly hi! 16:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[]
    Well, The Nation is an unquestionable reliable source. Docku (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[]
    As I stated above, that is questioned in this case. This is a perfect example of the situation described in WP:REDFLAG. It's appropriate to demand a high-quality source for this claim. Given Hannity's high profile in the media, I find it pretty suspicious that no other reliable source has mentioned this claimed association. Kelly hi! 16:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[]
    The evidence from the reliable source satisfying WP:VERI, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR far outweighs that it can not be disqualified by your suggested policies. Docku (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[]
    Please read my previous reply again. The answer is there. Docku (talk) 16:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[]
    It's clearly not a blog, and even if it were, it would be irrelevant as it is from an RS. Gamaliel (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[]
    No, WP:RS doesn't work thatway in BLP's. Arzel (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[]
    This is what is bothersome. A perceived disregard and condemnation for a procedure the subject initiated himself. Docku (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[]
    I would want to remind the neutral observers here to have a look at the edit histories of the parties involved in the discussion. If a pattern adhering to WP:SPA can be ascertained from this edit history, it can explain some of the unusual argumental behaviours witnessed here. Docku (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[]
    Yes, I'm sure my pattern of editing on articles related to porn stars and other problematic BLP articles can be used to discredit what I'm saying (especially my DYK on Ashley Alexandra Dupre), by demonstrating that I'm some kind of Republican bible-thumper. Docku, please - focus your effort on finding sources to support your claim. Kelly hi! 19:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[]
    Neutral people here will probably confine themselves to commenting on the BLP issues. If you have concerns about an editing pattern then you should take it up in another forum, e.g. a user RfC. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[]
    Thanks. I will consider that option. Docku (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[]

    OK, I have read through all of the above, enough of the talk page comments related to this to get a proper flavor of the material there, and read the Nation article. For what it's worth, this is my take on the situation:

    • Hannity is obviously well known, so WP:WELLKNOWN applies. This means you need multiple reliable sources. You have precisely one.
    • WP:REDFLAG includes "apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources". Note the plural there on the sources. I suspect it is plural for the obvious reason. Again, you have one. And within that single source I find the following: "Turner (or someone claiming to be Turner) wrote in an August 4, 1998, Google discussion forum ...". If the author of the article is unclear as to whether their sources are reliable, what more needs to be said?
    • The Hal Turner blog is a WP:SPS which was NOT written by the subject of the BLP and is thus NOT a valid source in this context per WP:BLP.
    • The only thread of a argument for inclusion that I can see is that, under ordinary circumstances, The Nation would be considered WP:RS and WP:V, but that fact alone does not warrant ignoring the concerns listed above, at least IMHO. To quote from WP:BLP, "An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is 'do no harm'." The fact that we are talking about including material designed to paint Hannity as a racist solely using a guilt by association fallacy will obviously be harmful.

    So, from my reading unless and until you can identify additional WP:RS to corroborate these claims it seems wholly inappropriate to include this material given the potential harm to the subject and their family members. --GoRight (talk) 06:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[]

    A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism

    Is is acceptable to use a blog comment by a scientist that is sharply critical of a minor (no WP article) signatory to the petition and also cite a throwaway line in the same blog comment that makes an accusation against another signatory? The reference is no. 32 in the article, blog by PZ Myers. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[]

    PZ is a great guy, and I love his blog, but his rhetorical comment about one of the signatories of a petition, in the context of the article, is insignificant. His efficient demolition of a blog posting by Egnor is of some interest, but we shouldn't be recording exchanges confined (as this one is) to the blogosphere. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 10:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[]
    This doesn't seem to be a BLP issue so much as a question of sourcing. We don't use blogs. However, the article in question seems to be quite a POV-fest. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[]
    I don't see why people have such a problem. After all the petition itself is a product of the evolutionary process. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 02:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[]

    Fred Singer (closed)

    Steve Windom

    A few more BLP-minded eyes on this could be very helpful. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[]

    What the admin said. If I have something wrong, I want to know. If not, I want to know that, too. Thanks to all who help. Audemus Defendere (talk) 06:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[]

    Happy to report, Dem1970 is on the Talk page of the subject article. Now that he's there (how sexist of me to presume "he"), I have tried to set out the outstanding issues as I see them, for those with an adequate supply of coffee. Everyone jump in and let's see what happens. We do have some additional editors jumping in rather than talking, including one with a bare IP address and no other contribs. Audemus Defendere (talk) 04:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[]

    Audemus Defendere, you will not be dictating the terms under which WP:BLP concerns are addressed, as you talk page commentary would seem to imply. No one has asked you to take charge of the article's talk page discussion. As I see it your edits to the article do not represent a neutral point of view, at best they are mean spirited and inappropriate. According to this New York Times' article, this man was the victim of an illegal conspiracy of defamation which resulted in a criminal prosecution and conviction. He is the victim, not the perpetrator. The manner in which you have presented the material seems deliberately misleading, depicting the subject in a false and derogatory light. Obviously, the Times is a more reliable source of information than some local paper you've scrounged up quoting an anonymous juror. You are also WAY OVER THE LINE - speculating as to another editors real life identity on the article's talk page. I will be removing those remarks and referring the article's subject to WP:Oversight so they can be permanently expunged from the page history. I suggest that you step away from the article as you appear to have a personal bias against the article's subject. Cleo123 (talk) 05:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[]

    UNhappy to report, a person whose involvement apparently began only late last night, after having spent minimal time researching the subject, and without floating ANY suggestions in Talk for comment or feedback, has unilaterally taken an edit axe to the article, basing her conclusions and the entire tone and tenor of the article on a 95-word New York Times "news brief," the factual bases of which were undercut by subsequent events, duly sourced in later, local, and reliable media sources, which were edited out by this person. Not to mention her shrill and uncivil comments on my Talk page. q.v. And people wonder why people leave Wikipedia just as they are getting interested in it. If anyone who's willing to work collaboratively, and with at least a semblance of concern for WP:CON and other claimed Wikipedia standards wants in, hurry. This is getting worse than the micturating contests between Notre Dame and Michigan fans on an obscure Sports Illustrated blog. Audemus Defendere (talk) 11:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[]

    More WP:BLP eyes are clearly needed not only on the article, but this user, who has a clear penchant for spinning the the truth! Sorry, but I gotta love his speculation and spin on my research.LOL! Likewise, his misleading link to his talk page that I've never contributed to is pretty priceless. This guy has clearly got some sort of vendetta against the article's subject and is misusing Wikipedia as a weapon in an online vendetta. The article needs more eyes and I think this user bares watching. I don't have the time, but allegations have been made on the article's talk page which would seem to indicate that Audemus Defendere may have engaged in similar WP:BLP violations elsewhere. Cleo123 (talk) 09:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[]
    I don't know about the rest, but the jug incident seems to be validly sourced to 113 archive news hits, including the New York Times (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D03E5D61F30F932A05750C0A96F958260), and evidently served to make some changes in the US Senate. It should be included in the article, properly sourced. --Faith (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[]
    Actually, the jug incident is not at issue. It's notable, sourced and must be included. I agree with you. The primary dispute concerns the prostitution incident. In a nutshell, during an election, supporters of Windom's political opponent paid a prostitute to make libelous charges designed to defame Windom and hurt his campaign. Ultimately, several people faced criminal defamation and witness tampering charges. The prostitute and the pay off front man came clean and testified to the conspiracy at trial, and an attorney was convicted. The court found all the prostitute's initial charges to be false, libelous and defamatory.
    When I came to the article Audemus Defendere, was busy inserting as many specifics as possible - essentially republishing what had been ruled libelous. Even more troubling, he was inserting quotes from a juror from a separate trial designed to leave reader's with the mis-impression that the original libel was true. I have since dramatically altered the article, removing libelous sections while still retaining a paragraph on the incident. The article needs expansion, but for the most part, it essentially now conforms to WP:BLP.
    Here's the problem. There is now an apparently self appointed "mediator" on the page, who doesn't seem to understand WP:BLP policies as well as he/she should. The "mediator" and an admin (who has a long standing grudge against me) are actually arguing not only for an expansion of the section (including the libelous material) but a free standing article titled "The Steve Windom Scandal (!) They are essentially spurring on Audemus Defendere, who quite clearly has some personal involvement in the case. Throw into that mix a new user, who seems to have some ties or at least loyalty to Windom. He's inadvertently made what some have construed to be a legal threat.
    In short, it's ugly over there and as a "lone gunman" of sorts, I find myself coming off as a bit of a b*tch. It seems that I've been followed to the page by this adversarial admin, who seems to be arguing against policy just to spite me. I don't want to see the subject of this article be victimized all over again on the pages of Wikipedia. And I certainly would hate to think that an admin's grudge against me played any part in that victimization. I think it would be better for all concerned if someone other than myself took the lead on this one. Thanks! Cleo123 (talk) 06:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[]
    I believe that Cleo has exagerated the matter. I have been in contact with Dem and Audemus, and they are willing to work together. I have also been in contact with Steve Windom, and I can say that, preliminarily, there are no concerns or problems. If any further admin would wish to read over the correspondence so far, they can contact me. There are over five admin currently watching the page to ensure that no major problems erupt, but others are welcome. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[]
    Also, I can testify to John Carter's character and to his involvement in the matter. John Carter and I have worked on quite a few pages together, and have had a lot of involvement. He is interested in BLPs and he came in as a mediating force to discuss Wikipedia policy. He entered at the same time that I expressed interest to both Dem and Audemus to mediate and come to a consesus between the two, and he was not brought in from any involvement with Cleo. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[]
    No, I haven't exaggerated anything. What kind of editor inserts themselves into a discussion presenting themselves as a moderator, without reviewing the page history so they can understand the problem? What kind of editor tries to contact the subject of the article on behalf of Wikipedia? You do not represent Wikipedia!
    Ottava Rima, I have researched your very checkered, albeit brief, history on Wikipedia. It seems that you engaged in a very similar pattern of disruption over at WP:FAC, repeatedly misinterpreting policies and being very combative with other users, trying to force them to bend to your misinterpretations. It seems that you consistently attempted to take on a mantle of leadership, when you didn't know what you were talking about, as unfortunately seems to be the case here. You have demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of WP:BLP, WP:LIBEL, WP:NOT, WP:SOAP and WP:STALK. It seems that you are now up to the same old tricks that got you banned from participating in FAC discussions and cited for extreme incivility and blocked numerous times. Misinterpreting footnoting standards is one thing, misinterpreting WP:LIBEL and creating disruption on biographies of living people is a good deal more serious. Cleo123 (talk) 05:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[]
    Cleo, if any of that was true or mattered, why would you be the only one to champion such an idea, especially when I made my announcement of intentions quite open and clear on AN/I? Ottava Rima (talk) 11:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[]
    Agreed, such accusations which do not indicate the specific nature of the alleged lack of understanding carry no weight, nor is this the place to post such accusations. In fact, they could be seen as being perhaps a violation of policy and guidelines themselves. John Carter (talk) 23:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[]
    Response to Ottava Rima : "If any of that were true?" Are alleging that my statement is false? I've provided links to the discussions and a link to your block log that anyone can review for themselves. As for whether or not it "matters" - well, yes, it most certainly does. There seems to be a disturbing pattern here. As I read it, you were banned from FAC discussions for disrupting article discussions with your misinterpretations of policies and incivility. Many editors apparently attempted to reason with you and explain why your interpretations of policy were incorrect. The record indicates that you refused to listen to people. I see you doing the same thing here. The material in question is libelous, a COURT has ruled it to be libelous. Wikipedia cannot reprint it - plain and simple. Rather than accepting and abiding by Wikipedia's policy, you and John Carter encouraged the creation of a freestanding article that cannot serve any other purpose than to defame a living person. Is that useful? Is that what you think Wikipedia is all about? I'm not sure what idea you think I'm championing. As I see it, the only idea I am championing is adherence to WP:BLP. There were two individuals edit warring who both appeared to have a personal involvement of some sort with the real life events depicted in the article. After I entered the discussion and better explained Wikipedia's policies on biographies, the "aggressor" seems to have come to his senses and abandoned all efforts to insert libel into the article. As far as I see it - the conflict was resolved. Why do we still have a self appointed "mediator" trying to stir the pot engaging in outrageous and unnecessary behavior such as contacting the article's subject on behalf of Wikipedia? Is that useful? Or does it just make you feel important? As for me being somehow alone in my ideas - well if you think I'm wrong, go ahead and create your article designed to reprint libel on Wikipedia. When it is deleted, I hope you'll realize that the majority of users share my interpretation of policy. There are no "compromises" where WP:LIBEL is concerned. Cleo123 (talk) 00:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[]
    Please link to the court proceedings filed against Wikipedia. Unless you do, your statement is completely false. One person's conviction does not necessitate another's. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[]
    Wow! You really don't seem to get it - no matter how many times it is explained to you. Steve Windom does NOT have to SUE Wikipedia! He already HAS prevailed in a court of law. The material has been ruled libelous - therefore we can't reprint it - period. The victim does not have to go through the expense of filing a new lawsuit to get Wikipedia to remove it - because we DON'T knowingly reprint what has been established as libel. If we did, I suspect Mr. Windom would have one heck of a suit against us and Wikipedia would undoubtedly be paying not only his legal costs but damages to boot. Please, act responsibly, heir on the side of caution where living people are concerned as policy dictates. Let's end this nonsense. Cleo123 (talk) 04:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[]

    Pritam

    I started watching this article a couple of months ago when it showed up on the RefDesk. This article is hit by a lot of IP editors who feel a burning need to educate the world that Pritam is a plagiarist. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they were completely right, but usually these edits take the form of vitriolic unreferenced allegations, or simply pleas to the reader to go watch some comparison videos on youtube.

    Recently, however, this site has been showing up a lot as a sole reference to support a whole paragraph (or more) on Pritam's plagiarism : http://www.itwofs.com/

    The IP editors claim this is a very notable source, even though it seems to me to simply be a self-published web-site with no outside references beyond YouTube. Is this sort of thing an acceptable cite in a BLP article? APL (talk) 03:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[]

    No. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[]

    Alex Kulbashian

    Please have a look at the above article. More revert waring, this time by Frank Pais in order to put in the article that the subject is a neo-nazi and white supremacist. I do not believe it has been sufficiently established by the sources and should be removed per WP:BLP. Please advise. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[]

    Why don't the sources sufficiently establish this? The text states "... is a Canadian white supremacist[17] who has been called a neo-Nazi[18] by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs." I agree that until recently, the referencing for this was insufficient, but it seems okay now. Neıl 龱 08:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[]

    V.T. Rajshekar

    I've watched this page for ages and kept off some BLP violations and I would really appreciate some fresh pairs of eyes. A lot of material could probably be shifted to Dalit Voice, the publication with which the subject is closely associated. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[]

    George_Soros#Native_Hungary.2C_and_move_to_England

    There's a continuing issue on George Soros. This is the 3rd time it has come up over several years and both times before the material has been removed or toned down.

    The apparent SPA who wants to include it in an inflammatory form has ignored my request to get a formal 3rd opinion on this, so I bring it here.

    The issue is whether the 13 year old Soros "helped" or "assisted" the Nazis in confiscating Jewish property during the Hungarian halocost. Soros was acting under the orders of his father to act as the godson of a Hungarian official who helped in the confiscation. Remember that Soros is Jewish and his life depended on hiding from the Nazis. Also please remember that Soros was almost 70 years old during the following interview. The apparent SPA seems to imply that this is a confession of war crimes. A transcript of the interview is in hidden text in the section.


    Kroft: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.

    • Mr. Soros: Yes. That's right. Yes.

    ....

    • Mr. Soros: ... I was only a spectator, .... I had no role in taking away that property.


    Please, somebody with a NPOV take a look at this section.

    Smallbones (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[]

    Your account of the controversy seems a bit self-serving -- I see three editors in the edit history who have supported the use of the interview. Only one of them, the IP editor who initially added the interview transcript[19], could be possibly called an "SPA." None of them "seem to imply that this is a confession of war crimes." It looks like you objected to the use of the transcript[20], which would be one way of ensuring that no one "implies" anything. To my mind, the solution would be to use the transcript, or to ensure that a summary of the transcript is as complete as possible. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[]
    User:Buster Capiñoaz is the apparent SPA, 11 of 23 edits on Soros, the rest look like political spin to me. The anon plunked down an out-of-context, unformatted transcript into the middle of the article, User:Mindmatrix reverted, the apparent SPA reverted and I supported Mindmatrix, the transcript is simply confusing and out of place, with a problem with WP:weight, so why put in a transcript where Soros ultimately says
    I was only a spectator, .... I had no role in taking away that property. when the point of including the transcript seems to be that he did play a role in confiscating the property? The transcript is simply confusing and long, and irrelevant unless the point the editor is trying to make is that a 13 year old boy, hiding for his life from the Nazis, was somehow collaberating with the Nazis - but at the end of the transcript this interpretation is explicitly denied. Why include it??
    Smallbones (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[]
    That interview is famous. It was very high-profile ("60 Minutes") and a bit of a landmark in the life of the subject. It should be treated carefully, no spinning allowed, but it should not be swept under the rug. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[]
    • It needs to be said here that the LaRouche movement considers Soros to be a villain.[21][22][23] Some of the editors who've posted the material or defended it appear, due to their other edits, to be sympathetic to the LaRouche movement. Therefore it seems there is an effort to promote negative material about Soros in order to further a POV. Regarding the interview itself, it is a primary source and should be used with great care if at all. Secondary sources are much better. One of the secondary sources is a link to a site that is hosting a copyvio and so the link should be removed. The original reference, if found to say what it's purported to say, is sufficient if properly cited. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[]
    I've seen this tactic before. Someone who has an axe to grind in a particular dispute manages to find a quote that indicates that LaRouche agrees with the other side, which is supposed to confer all kinds of legitimacy to the side of the quote-finder. This is guilt by association, an old rhetorical trick. The edits should be judged on their own merits. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[]
    I don't have any axes to grind, so I'm not sure who you're talking about. I stand by my statement. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[]
    Then the perhaps you could specify which editors you are accusing of having a hidden agenda. After all, Smallbones was kind enough to specify which editor he thinks is an SPA (although to me, that editor looks more like a Newby, as in "Don't bite the newbies." In my opinion, this discussion could use a healthy dose of WP:AGF. I heard somewhere that speculating about the motives of other editors was frowned on around here.) --Leatherstocking (talk) 02:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[]
    I didn't say anything about a hidden agenda. I said that some editors have demonstrated a sympathy for the LaRouche movement, which is relevant to this matter becuase the LaRouche movement villifies George Soros. Wikipedia is not a publishing arm of the LaRouche movement. His concepts are thoroughly covered in the the articles about him and his movement. We don't need to use Wikipedia to further his ideas. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[]
    I see no evidence whatsoever of a vast LaRouchite conspiracy here. If you have any evidence, present diffs. Otherwise, this is a total red herring. --Marvin Diode (talk) 06:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[]

    (unindent)I've never read the article until now, and on first glance it's strikingly problematic in its present form. The tone is not encyclopedic or biographical - it seems to be more of a reportage of opinions and scandals. Whatever the editors' motivations, the section inappropriately casts aspersions on Soros. It seems to be in argumentative style - trying to piece together facts. The account of the minutia of an interview is not relevant or informative, and there is no justification for the weight it is given. Clearly should be trimmed back and simply describe notable events in this part his life. Other parts suffer from this too. The article could use a substantial clean-up. Wikidemo (talk) 05:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[]

    I've gone ahead and made an initial approach[24] to the worst part of it. The full interview is way over the top, and I think any use of the interview is inappropriate - so I removed it from the text and the commented-out section (the talk page can link to it if anyone wants to preserve some reference or discuss it). Under BLP, this kind of information does not belong. Even outside of BLP, controversial material like this should not be added without consensus for inclusion.Wikidemo (talk) 05:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[]

    John Aravosis

    Persistent insertion of unsourced POV material by new editors. Gamaliel (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[]

    I added a 3RR warning to one of the offender's talk.--agr (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[]
    Offender has been blocked: [25]. Bearian (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[]

    Neve Gordon


    See also Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive44#Neve Gordon.

    Israeli academic and peace activist Neve Gordon won a libel action, confirmed by an appeals court, against right-wing academic Steven Plaut. There have been several attempts to use the articles on both of these figures to repeat the allegations found by two Israeli courts to be libellous, and to compound this by racist attacks against the judge.

    Following the appeal verdict earlier this year, there was a concerted attack by sockpuppets, who falsely claimed that the appeal court had reversed the original verdict and found in favour of Plaut. The sockpuppets were blocked, and the article settled down. Now, however, Amoruso, on his return after a two-month block for "very abusive sockpuppetry", has repeatedly edited the article to deny the objective reports (from Haaretz and The Chronicle of Higher Education), and to assert that the appeal overturned the verdict. His source for this is an article in the neoconservatve Campus Watch, for which Plaut regularly writes, and a reference in Hebrew to the Israeli court judgement, apparently not available online.

    There are several problems with this. The claim that the verdict was overturned is not supported by the objective third-party sources; Campus Watch is hardly a reliable source in any matter, even less so in one like this; and the use of the court verdict seems in direct contradiction of WP:NOR, which states "Primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is an example of a primary source. Other examples include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews... 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."

    I have no wish to get involved in yet another edit war with this editor, and would appreciate comments from neutral observers on the appropriateness of his edits and sources. RolandR (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[]

    Here's a ref for it being upheld: http://chronicle.com/daily/2008/03/1937n.htm--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[]
    The verdict was overturned. user:RolandR has a habit of not using talk pages and not engaging in discussions, but using false allegations. Apparently, he now blames me for using non reliable sources. Well, he should have done so in the wikipedia talk page. He also tries to slander me and say that I was banned in the past. I was banned, unjustly, but he user:RolandR was banned for disruptive behavior on Steven Plaut (same issue) article in the past more than once that this seems hypocrite of course. I was never accused for being a sockpuppet of someone who edited in this article in the past. Btw, he made this entry here without even telling me and also filed a report of a 3RR that never occurred. He tries to intimidate users in "terrorist" means it seems.
    The matter is simple. I've engaged in the talk page - Talk:Neve Gordon and explained this in full. To copy from there:
    Even though user:RolandR chose not to engage in the talk page, from his summary it seems he believes that we should not use the words from the verdict. I'm open to other opinions. user:RolandR prefers to use Source #1 which says that the court upheld the ruling while I showed that there is another source, Source #2 which says that the court overturned the ruling. This is a terminology issue because the court both upheld and overturned the ruling. However, it overturned 90% of the ruling, and upheld only a small part. Therefore, I proposed to use the words from the verdict - which explain exactly that. Is it not the most logical and WP:NPOV solution?
    The verdict is available here. This all is depicted in the article nicely. The version RolandR is trying to force because of his WP:POV and WP:OWN (it's impossible to uphold WP:AGF here as much as I try) is simply faulty. The verdict was overturned except for one small thing (basically 10% of the verdict). Saying it was upheld and inventing stuff like "reduced because of exaggeration" simply because he found some place on the web that says it, is ridiculous. We're quoting the actual things the judges said. There are plenty of Hebrew speakers out there if he doesn't speak Hebrew to verify it. Amoruso (talk) 23:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[]
    I must say I think RolandR's summary does a decent job, while the Amoruso version seems to dwell rather too heavily on the details. The verdict was upheld on appeal but the damages were reduced because the appeal court found that Gordon had exaggerated Plaut's libels. The rest just seems like undue weight. Amoruso, I think you're treading on thin ice in impugning another Wikipedian's good faith just after returning from a long block for sock puppetry. --Jenny 03:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[]
    Thank you Jenny. On my part, before RolandR wrote here without telling me, I've asked for a third opinion through the proper channels, and the third opinion agreed with me. I think it's not about undue weight or summaries, it's about the factual information. The verdict was overturned. The first verdict said that Plaut was libelous in regards to many different publications. In the appeal the judges overturned that again and again. I think the main confusion is that it's not about damages - it's about whether he made libel - each publication stands on its own. Only one small publication was left and the damages therefore are dramatically changed. This was a victory for Steven Plaut, not Neve Gordon. What user:RolandR is trying to do is distort the facts of the appeal. I agree it's open to interpretation, so the best thing to do, the most WP:NPOV and WP:NOR way is to quote from the horse's mouth - the judges. The judges explicitly say the verdict is overturned. This is the correct judicial language. If you read the verdict, you would see how the first verdict is ferociously attacked and dissected to pieces. Saying that it was upheld therefore is a parody, not reality. Amoruso (talk) 10:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[]
    The bottom line, as far as this article is concerned, is that two Israeli courts have now found that Plaut libelled Gordon. The article must state this; anything else is commentary, which should not be allowed to disguise this central point. RolandR (talk) 10:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[]
    No, the bottom line is that the second higher court overturned the ruling. It used this exact wording in hebrew. Amoruso (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[]
    If I may advise you both, I think you're both tackling it from the wrong side. This was a small part of a busy and reasonably prominent person's life. He would have a Wikipedia article even if not for the Plaut libel case. A Ben-Gurion University professor (same place where Benny Morris teaches) with articles and papers published internationally in prominent papers like The Guardian, The Chicago Tribune, The Nation. The article is about him, not about the lawsuit. If the lawsuit should become important enough that it merits a lot of coverage, write a separate article, don't use this article as a coatrack for a court case that doesn't seem to have been that widely covered.
    And for Amoruso: your source for the appeal says this in its summary page: "An Israeli appeals court has upheld a libel judgment that resulted from a dispute between two Israeli academics, but drastically slashed the damages." Try to write something similar to that, conveying the same information. Nitpicking detail is not required. And most important: if your source says the libel judgement was upheld, then it's original research to state or imply that it was overturned, and it's original research to say that the different counts are to be handled separately. The appeal court apparently did concur that Gordon had been libelled but differed on the details and the extent. If the source isn't reliable, get one that is (and that doesn't mean try to interpret court documents yourself--original research again). --Jenny 11:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[]
    Thank you Jenny . Well, right now there is no consencus, and user:RolandR is doing some damage to the article and erasing my contributions. That's a shame. I think he tried to confuse with his WP:OR remark, which is nonsensical. It's not WP:OR to quote from the actual verdict. The verdict is available on-line. The verdict says that the first verdict is overturned. This is a better source than user:RolandR's source. Therefore we go by the best source. I asked for third opinion and he concurred in the talk page. Therefore it's what we will use I think it's fair... Amoruso (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[]
    Well, you can wait for the 3O but generally court verdicts are regarded as primary sources. If they are significant verdicts they are immediately reported in newspapers. In this case the Jerusalem Post and Ha'aretz would be appropriate reliable secondary sources. If neither of them reported the verdict, then we must wonder why not. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[]
    The third opinion agreed with me that we should use the verdict's words. It's just that user:RolandR ignores wikipedia's dispute resolution process and reverts by giving false summaries. He wants to RV fight and scare me away. Haaretz didn't report of the second verdict, only the first one. There are many sources which say that the appeal was accepted. This source here says בית המשפט המחוזי בנצרת קבל חלקית את ערעורו של פרופ' סטיבן פלאוט - PARTIALLY ACCEPTED. [26] it's from psakdin, major israeli legal site, like Westlaw.

    We have English sources saying it overturned vs. one that says it was upheld.

    • This is one that says overturned:

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=8431B5B9-9777-4A3D-8218-94679BB9DCF9 (i think campus watch used this one).

    • This is another one that says it was overturned: isracampus.org.il

    [27]

    • And RolandR has just one source that uses the other wording.
    The answer is quite simple: because they are a primary source. It was sensible to get a 3O on the question, but because this is a BLP the need for reliable sourcing overrides the dispute resolution procedure. I doubt whether anyone will have any problem with psakdin as reliably reporting what the verdict was, but actually this question comes up really frequently and the answer is always the same. A secondary source is needed for interpreting what significance is to be attached to the verdict. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[]

    Talk:2006 Toronto terrorism case

    Mista-X (talk · contribs) persists in inserting [28] this material, despite that fact that it's an egregious BLP violation and in no way relates to improving the article. I blocked him for BLP violations a few months ago, and he has since expressed a preference that I remove myself from his genitals, so I'll leave it for others to deal with. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[]

    Mista-X was blocked for a month two days ago, but the material was still on the talk page, so I've removed it. Neıl 龱 08:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[]

    Chris Hodgson

    Could someone here check out Chris Hodgson, please? I found it while updating Hodgson. It has what looks like potentially controversial allegations and coverage, and in general the article needs attention. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[]

    Yes, this was highly problematic. I have tagged it as unreferenced and removed an offending paragraph. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[]
    I'm also coming across a fair number of articles about living people that aren't in Category:Living people. Is there a regular effort to put uncategorised people or those lacking a death category in one or other of the right categories? I found User:Dsp13/People needing categorization as living or by year of death, but I'm not clear how active, up-to-date or complete that is. At the moment, I'm finding about 1 in 20 (rough guess) without Category:Living people. Carcharoth (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[]

    Dani Filth Biography

    In the article on Dani Filth, it states that he married his girlfriend of 14 years in 2005. I do not believe this to be correct but that isn't what concerns me. It says that their daughter was born in 1991, which would mean that his girlfriend gave birth at 9 years old, which I believe is not true and defamming for Dani Filth to say a man in his late twentys did that to a child. The page is protected against editing so I can't change it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.120.19 (talk) 07:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[]

    Someone has fixed it - the page isn't protected, though! Neıl 龱 08:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[]

    Fred Singer

    I've been trying to remove some rather egregious WP:SOAPboxing from the Fred Singer article. Our policies do not allow us to simply dredge through everything someone has ever written and pick and choose certain quotes in order to paint a subject in a poor light without secondary sourcing. Can someone please keep an eye on it? -- Kendrick7talk 11:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[]

    Not soap and not an attack - read it. Just because some blogger misinterpreted something in a negative manner doesn't make it so. The section records an incident from 1960 which positively reflects on Singer. I'm not sure why Kendrick thinks it is negative - unless he is reading just the blogger's complaint rather than the article. Vsmith (talk) 12:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[]

    Heather Wilson

    We have a dispute in an article that has seen at least one previous, outrageous, indefensible BLP violation against the husband of the biography's subject, calling him a child molester in a bold section header when he had been cleared in the investigation. There is source material indicating that at one time, Congresswoman Heather Wilson was under preliminary investigation by the House Ethics Committee. However, the most recent reliable source has a spokesperson for the committee saying that he is unaware of any such investigation.

    We have an editor, User:Therefore, pushing to include a paragraph in the article lead claiming, "Currently, she is under a preliminary investigation by the House Ethics Committee over an alleged inappropriate contact with the United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico by inquiring, shortly before an election in which she faced a stiff challenge, on the status of a corruption investigation involving a Democratic politician."

    This editor's only concession was to add the following sentence at the end of the paragraph: "However, an official investigation has not been confirmed." In my opinion, without confirmation, it does not go into the lead of the article. Thoughts and comments, please. Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[]

    Please note the notice at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Kossack4Truth. If you would please also review the discussion page at WP:BLP violation where several editors have participated in a discussion to modifying the above section. I don't know why T4K did not disclose this since consensus was nearing to completely rewrite the lede mention and in no fashion am I the writer or "pusher" of the sentence, quite the contrary. T4K has a history of contentious editing and non-collegial participation on talk pages. The page editors are in the process of resolving this issue. T4K has chosen instead not to participate in the points raised and to edit war. I was not informed of this current action. ∴ Therefore | talk 13:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[]

    Kumiki Gibson

    Kumiki Gibson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This page is being switched back and forth between a diatribe against the subject, and an entry that reads like a letter of recommendation. I posted what I believed to be an objective version a few times, but gave up after a while. // Jpstead (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[]

    I tagged it as non-notable. Here is the opening sentence: "Kumiki Gibson (b. May 24, 1959) is a lawyer of Japanese and African American descent, originally from Buffalo, New York." And the article doesn't get any better than that. It either needs to be rewritten so it tells us something notable about the person or else deleted. IMO of course. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[]

    Martha Nussbaum

    pls review 88.113.45.184 (talk · contribs)'s edit[29] to Talk:Martha Nussbaum. i've boldly refactored[30] this user's latest comment to retain the editorial concern while getting rid of the polemics. Doldrums (talk) 08:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[]

    Potential BLP violation?

    Would this particular section need to be changed? It mocks persons but is not on a biographical article. If it does, feel free to make the changes yourself.--Otterathome (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[]

    It doesn't deal with biographical material. It reports on a parody website having parodies. Words like "Desciclopédian humour" ensure that it is known to be fictional. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[]
    I agree. It merely reports that the site makes fun of Brazilian celebs. It doesn't even repeat any substantial criticisms of them. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[]

    Ato Boldon

    • Ato Boldon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - There currently seems to be a dispute on this Athlete's biographical page regarding a recent addition of a controversial issue that made the press. The "Letter to John Smith" section was added based on this source in the The Guardian, which reported an alleged letter between the athlete and his former coach regarding a drug usage scandal that has hit many similar athletes. User:Tonylongman - and several IP editors have been engaged in a revert war to remove the section. This user is the webmaster of Ato Boldon's official website. In comments on this User talk:Vianello, he has made some vague mention of lawsuits. His basis for the removal is that it was only initially covered by one newspaper, which was acting like a tabloid. However subsequent to this, the story has been referenced in several major newspapers, including the Times (UK), The Age (US) and the Trinidad Guardian. The user has been urged to take it to a content dispute, but has ignored these requests and continued to revert (in the above talk comment, vowed to keep reverting indefinitely). I have brought the issue here for additional opinions since I think more input is need. Personally I don't see a reason to remove the section. It is short and does not add any undue weight to the article. The event was sourced (the article in fact suffers from lack of sources, but having knowledge of the athlete, I don't see any unverifiable claims in the article) and has been mentioned in a number of reputable media houses around the world. Whether the allegations are true or not is something we can't determine. // Rasadam (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=223666655"