Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive10

Carlos Latuff Carlos Latuff (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Carlos Latuff (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Some editors keep insering unsourced comments his cartoons are "antilocution cartoons that demonize". It's obviously unsourced, but I don't know if it's controversial enough to risk a 3RR violation. Comments would be welcome. // Liftarn 11:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Update: New inserts are that he is called a hollocause denier (appears to be a mixup between the conference and the cartoon contest). A flickr.com page is used as source (is that reliable?). Also some cartoons are described as "monsters and as nazis" (the source would be the images themselves, no other source given). // Liftarn 13:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• There were over forty external links in that article.. Many of them were duplicates, and barely half of them were in compliance with Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:External links. — Athænara ✉ 08:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Schwarz (3) Barbara Schwarz (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Barbara Schwarz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) A sizable amount of this biography is currently sourced to usenet postings. The artcile subject is mildly notable for having filed a possibly record number of FOIA requests related to Scientology, whcih are generally seen as groundless and obsessive. Beyond that info, which can be sourced to a minor news artcile, a group of editors, at least one of whom is involved in a rather nasty and abusive flame war with the article's subject, have been aggressively blocking attempts to removed the non WP:RS usenet sourcing, which seems to be included only to cast the article subject in a negative light by highlighting her personal troubles. The page has been locked by an admnin who himself is a public critic of Scientology outside of Wikipedia (as are the editors blocking removal and discussion of the non WP:RS usenet sources. The basics are on the Talk page for the artcile. BabyDweezil 23:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This is clearly an attack page. When it was nominated for deletion before a call was put out on Usenet to bring in votes for its retention, and still it just barely survived. Steve Dufour 06:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC) p.s. What is ironic is that they think by attacking Barbara, who left the Church of Scientology but didn't join their group, they are somehow scoring points against Scientology. Steve Dufour 12:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I nominated it for deletion as an attack page but that was taken off right away. Steve Dufour 07:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• BabyDweezil and Justanother appear to me to be editing this article's Talk page to disrupt discussions and to attack editors who contributed to the re-creation of the article, after it was blanked by Fred Bauder lat year. At that time, the aticle was entirely rewritten to include sources meeting WP:RS and the article's re-creation was watched carefully by Fred and others to ensure the article followed WP:BLP policy. BabyDweezil's statements "A sizable amount of this biography is currently sourced to usenet postings" and similar allegations are false; the article's sources include newspaper articles and court documents published by the United States government, which meet WP:RS. Likewise, the statement that one editior " is involved in a rather nasty and abusive flame war with the article's subject" is extremely misleading, since the article's subject is well known [1] [2] for her libelous and abusive postings to the Usenet where she attacks anyone and everyone who refuses to accept her delusions as factual accounts, and therefore the subject of the article is involved in "a nasty and abusive flame war" with nearly everyone she encounters [3] on the entire Usenet. BabyDweezil and Justanother have stated an intent to "cut down to what notable parts it may have and then perhaps AfD" this article, as the subject was the former president of scientology in Germany, and the well documented and well sourced antics of this former scientology leader are, without doubt, an embarressment for the scientology organization. Both editors have claimed an affinity for the scientology organization (and one editor admits being part of it), thus making it difficult to presume they are keeping a NPOV with their interest in the article. The scientology organization is well known for harassing those who do not support it and for attempting to conceal its beliefs and practices from public scrutiny which may be an embarressment to it. Nevertheless, the subject is notable for other reasons besides that involving scientology, and the subject's notability has been discussed at length and on repeated occasions as an examination of the article's Talk page archives will attest. However, I see the actions of these editors as being disruptive and a pro-scientology POV push by removing information from Wikipedia which is factual, well-sourced, and accurate, but embarressing to the scientology organization, and request that editors not involved with this article examine the article's Talk page, and examine the nature of the edits and behavior of BabyDweezil and Justanother on it. Orsini 03:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "and one editor admits being part of it". OH MY GOD. Susie, did you hear that? What, Nancy? There is a SCIENTOLOGIST editing here! You are kidding! No, really, one slipped in somehow. Well, get him out. We're working on it, dearie. He's a tough one. --Justanother 05:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I genuinely feel sorry for her on a personal level, sadly she has by her own actions made herself noteworthy for several reasons.

• 1. Ms. Schwarz has filed a very large amount of FOIA litigation regarding information she believes the government has concerning her life. I wish the circumstances were different, but what sets her apart is the unique reality she accepts as her motivation to litigate. Even more remarkable is that she has done this pro se (representing herself) without a law degree or even full command of written English. I don't mean the latter point to be an insult, it is actually a setback she overcame to make her case anyway. In a society where many citizens question the government's good faith in sharing information, Ms. Schwarz is historical. In my opinion it shows that the government does take FOIA seriously and that it can be abused. The specific circumstances I wish the article didn't have to discuss are her "delusions". It is for that reason I feel the article should be limited to discussing them as the relate to her motivation.
  2. Ms. Schwarz was subjected to a forced deprogramming session. The concept of such practices seems to be a source for debate, and to those interested I think Ms. Schwarz is a relevant topic.
  3. Ms. Schwarz has gained attention due to her posts to several online forums, including a self published autobiographical series on USENET and her hostile behavior to other users. Some editors on the Barbara Schwarz page seem to equate this as the only evidence citied for her strange beliefs in regards to the first point. That is not accurate, the main source of information is actually available directly from various government sources. The biography corroborates and expands her legal claims.

I believe that much of the debate about this article comes wholly from either WP:POV or COI concerns.

• Steve Dufour is trying to have the article removed because he made a commitment to Ms. Schwarz to do so to spare her embarrassment. This seems to violate some aspects of WP:COI.
• Justanother seems to believe the article is an indirect attack on the CoS due to Ms. Schwarz's previous association with the church.
• BabyDweezil appears to have followed User:Tilman to the article in an attempt at harassment with accusations of COI violations. When this failed, BabyDweezil has lingered to support his/her friend Justanother as friends often do.

I do not mean to offend you all, but I seriously think you are letting emotion get the better of your judgment in this case. Anynobody 04:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that friendship and concern for another person should not be involved in the WP editing process? Steve Dufour 12:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That is what I'm saying exactly Steve Dufour. This is part of what WP:COI addresses. Anynobody 06:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please. Can we not just discuss the article without trying to divine the motives of people that we do not know and have only the barest of interactions with. Orsini is clearly in WP:NPA land and, Anynobody, my friend, you are not far off. --Justanother 05:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

And you are both definitely in ad hominem land. Let's stick to the issues, shall we? --Justanother 05:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that we are attacking you Justanother, I can assure you that is not my intent. Honestly, since User:BabyDweezil and yourself began editing here the points you've both raised have been addressed before. Judging from the size of the archives, I'd guess the same argument has played out in them over and over with different editors. The points I am making come from a genuine good faith attempt to explain that your feelings are perhaps getting in the way.

• User:Steve Dufour Admitted his reasons.

Talk:Barbara Schwarz#Deletion discussions and deleted archives Continuing to push for AfD given the above link, seems personal to me. Talk:Barbara Schwarz/Archive 9#Notability? I've never claimed to be neutral. I know Barbara and the only reason I have had anything to do with her article is because she mentioned it to me and I told her I would try to get it removed. I think I said that on my first post, or if not soon after. The only thing I have done* is try to bring it to the attention of people so they can judge if it should be here according to Wikipedia policy. That's for them to decide, not me. There do seem to be wide differences of opinion here about what Wikipedia should or shouldn't be. Steve Dufour 01:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• User:BabyDweezil Appears to have had it in for User:Tilman from the start, and has supported you ever since attempts to get User:Tilman blocked for COI violations failed.

Talk:Barbara Schwarz#What's the point of this ridiculous, gratuitous article? The appearance of BabyDweezil is my fault. I mentioned Barbara Schwarz in another discussion which he probably read, as an example for administrator intervention due to (apparently) a complaint, and how the article was forcibly deleted, but then rewritten from scratch, resulting in a similar article (differently written, but same contents).

Sorry. --Tilman 06:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC) Talk:Barbara Schwarz#Tilman--conflict of interest editing this article?? Talk:Barbara Schwarz#Tilman, time to recuse yourself per WP:COI

• User:Justanother Your edits and discussion appear to focus on the Scientology aspects of the article and other's agendas for editing (which I take to mean either you think there is an agenda against Ms. Schwarz as a person or an agenda against Scientology). (Please understand I know that isn't all you discuss, but it is a very common topic).

Talk:Barbara Schwarz#Re: "president of Scientology" claim But there is no source shown that says she was the president of CoS. Just that someone with the same not uncommon name was. --Justanother 01:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC) Talk:Barbara Schwarz#Clean up needed I think I see material in the article that seems to be pushing an agenda by utilizing non-RS sources (usenet) or primary sources. She is not that notable and some "notability" seems to be being manufactured here. --Justanother 04:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC) An ad hominem attack doesn't include concern for one's ability to speak about a subject related to their spiritual belief without those beliefs possibly getting in the way. After all you are a Scientologist, therefore in a subject with a possible negative connotation for Scientology (negative in the sense that it isn't positive) you may be running into some COI issues. Anynobody 06:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Like I said over at Tilman's, this analyzing of motives to see whose are holier is really starting to weird me out. Don't anyone worry though, I'll clench up and get through it, I'm not leaving you! Just don't expect me to address that crap in any seriousness. BTW, guys. You don't really think that anyone that has a life is going to slog through all of this to see if there is some question here that this board can address, do you? If anyone really has a question for this board, I recommend that they close this topic and start a new one without all the amateur (or professional, who knows) psychobabble and attacks on other editors and just ask the damn question. Assuming there is some question. Is there a question? --Justanother 06:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

User:BabyDweezil did indeed appear with a disruptive attitude. I had mentioned Barbara Schwarz in the ICSA discussion, as an example of an "extreme" admin intervention due to (possibly) OTRS. He then appeared and questioned everything, including matters that had been settled and discussed long ago - when pointed to this, he wrote "Yes, but the arguments haven't been made with my silver tongued eloquence!". He then accused me of having a conflict of interest. The basis of this were usenet posts where Barbara had attacked me. (She has attacked about every scientology critic on the usenet) Anyway, all that User:BabyDweezil has accomplished is other people wasting enormous amounts of time, energy and braincells so that HE gets attention :-( --Tilman 06:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

And we are still going round on this and he is not even here. This was his item. Let's close it and he can open a new one when he gets back and we will see if we can pose a question for this board that they might actually be interested in addressing 'cause I gar-n-ass-tee-u that no non-involved editor in his right mind will jump in now. So what is the point? --Justanother 06:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

An easy solution would be to delete the whole Barbara Schwarz article. Then you would not have to waste your time and energy there. You are not scoring any points against Scientology by attacking Barbara. Steve Dufour 17:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link to Steve Dufour's proposal on the draft page. I've reset it in case anyone else wants to create an example. Thanks again, Steve Dufour. Anynobody 05:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Anynobody. I tried to improve the article by taking out all the trivial and uncited material. It is perhaps no longer an attack article with this done, but that doesn't make Barbara notable enough for an article however. Steve Dufour 12:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all, thank you :) Steve Dufour. Anynobody 22:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about article moved from Tilman's talk page

Analyzing motives, again, Anynobody? Why don't we just discuss the issues in the article in reference to the policies instead of trying to make some case that your motives are holier than mine or Dweezil's? That is kinda weirding me out. --Justanother 06:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

There isn't really much to discuss in the article. It was all settled before User:BabyDweezil started to disrupt an article he knew nothing about. --Tilman 06:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe. But it ain't like there is a lot to learn. It ain't string theory. ps If I occasionally use slang (like gar-n-ass-tee-u) that you are not familiar with, I apologize. --Justanother 07:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to take matters off the Barbar Schwarz talk page, User:BabyDweezil forced my hand so to speak by setting up a complaint on WP:BLPN. The observations I've made on the BLPN are observations I've held to myself and would have continued to do so until matters went to a WP board. Again sorry, this wasn't my idea. Anynobody 08:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again Tilman. Unless Justanother has more to say feel free to nix this section.Anynobody 08:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, Anynobody, one final thought. Just remember that "assume good faith" means "expend effort to do so", IMO. If you need to, if it is not coming easily. It means take all those niggling doubts about people's motives and make the effort to set them aside and make the effort to assume good faith. Make the effort to assume that when someone says they will help another with seeing that if the article can go away, they mean that they will put it up for the community to decide if it belongs here, not interfere with the process, and abide by the decision of the community. Make the effort to assume that when someone says Tilman has a conflict of interest, that they believe that Tilman's fighting and ridiculing this person for years on usenet means that he should leave it to neutral editors since he clearly is not neutral on her. And when I say we don't have any proof she was the president of the Church, please make the effort to assume I simply mean that we do this encyclopedia a disservice to rely on usenet rumor that someone with the same common name is the person that filed those FOIA requests. If you read WP:BLP, that is what we are supposed to do, insist on good sources! High quality sources and we have none. Yet some would put in the encyclopedia that the FOIA person was past president, just based on usenet. Maybe she was, I don't know and I don't care (really), it is just we don't have a source. Assume good faith takes work, sometimes, my friend. But it is work worth doing. Otherwise you find yourself going out on limbs attacking people's motives (see WP:NAM, really, read that one all the way through) and avoiding that is the least of the benefits of AGF. The real benefit is a spiritual one but that is a matter of personal belief. I even AGF Tilman that his activities, that I feel are repressive of religious freedom in his own country, are based on his heartfelt beliefs of the "dangers" of these groups and while I think he is as misguided as he no doubt thinks I am, I think we each AGF on the part of the other (though he doesn't like me ribbing him, smile). If we can, I imagine that you should be able to. --Justanother 12:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Justanother I appreciate that you feel my observations about your behavior are incorrect and lack good faith. I I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong, as I have proven when I misunderstood the talk you and User:BabyDweezil had regarding AfD after parring down the article. To that point I'm willing to look at any citations you are willing to show me from your comments and discussions in case I am wrong. Honestly I still AGF on your part in the sense that I don't think you are intentionally giving into the "bias" (for lack of a better term) of feelings for your spirituality. I urge you to take some time and read through your posts. In doing so count how many times you accuse editors of having an agenda with vague comments like this:

Talk:Barbara Schwarz#Clean up needed I think I see material in the article that seems to be pushing an agenda by utilizing non-RS sources (usenet) or primary sources. She is not that notable and some "notability" seems to be being manufactured here. --Justanother 04:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, Justanother I think this is a similar mistake to when you forgot that WP:BLP applies to articles just the same as sections of an article. You genuinely don't seem to realize that you have let your feelings get in the way, which is why I still AGF on your part. Anynobody 03:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Mark Rathbun (3) Mark Rathbun (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Mark Rathbun (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Non WP:RS that violate WP:BLP are being reverted back into the artcile. See recent history and Talk page.BabyDweezil 23:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not really an article but a missing person notice. Steve Dufour 12:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This article really should be deleted. He is only noted as the object of conspiracy theories, which may very well be true but still are not WP material. Steve Dufour 04:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

you are looking only at that section. His work for Scientology is N in its own right. But is this notice about fairness to him, or to B.Schwartz?DGG

I happen to be an (online) friend of Barbara. I feel sorry for her because of the attacks against her; which mainly take place on Usenet but also here where she is the subject of an attack article, Barbara Schwarz. Having said that, I would like to see the section about her views removed from Mark's article. I will not nominate his article for deletion; however he is really not notable. Just holding a job, however important that job may be in the little world of Scientology, is not enough to be the subject of a WP bio. Steve Dufour 01:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I tried to nominate Barbara Schwarz for deletion but was not able to figure out the process since it has been nominated 3 times before. Steve Dufour 07:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I just added a notability tag to Mark's article. Steve Dufour 18:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

More sources have been added and in general the article has been improved. If anyone knows about Mark's whereabouts please let the FBI know. Steve Dufour 20:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Steve Walsh (rugby) Steve Walsh (rugby) (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Steve Walsh (rugby) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) The entire article is being used to paint Steve Walsh in a poor light. This article should be removed and/or locked. Bardcom (talk · contribs) 10:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. He is a referee. I don't see what purpose the article could have. Steve Dufour 12:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, I just checked out the article's discussion page and some people think he is important. Steve Dufour 12:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope this can be 'put to bed' now, as I have been in and added sources for the information contained in the article. Cheers. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 12:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Pauline Hanson Pauline Hanson (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Pauline Hanson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - the subject is a controversial Australian politician who has recently announced her candidacy in the upcoming federal election. A media organisation conducted a DNA test of dubious validity (a Torres Strait Islander was supposedly of European and Asian but not Melanesian ancestry) and presented the results to the subject, as reported in a newspaper story. In this story she is quoted as saying "All I can think of is that probably down the track it eventuated from some war.", but we are not given the precise context of these remarks. Some editors have inserted this material into the biographical article, along with various attempts to ascribe racist views to the subject - see here for discussion. My main problem with this material is that it is of transitory notability - it belongs in a news article but not a biographical article, unless it develops "legs", which a search for follow-up articles shows none. But for BLP purposes, the quote is not well sourced in that we are not given any dialogue or record of conversation, so we cannot tell what, precisely, the subject was responding to. We must depend on the media organisation's own interpretation, and this has been reinterpreted in the attempts to summarise it for the biographical article. --Pete 14:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't see how it has been reinterpreted as you claim. A simple mention of the story is there. Current version of quote: "All I can think of is that probably down the track it eventuated from some war" [and] "rape and pillage" - "But I'm not going to knock it. It has made me who I am." - on discovering the results of a media-sponsored DNA test which claim Ms. Hanson's genetic makeup has 9 per cent originating in the Middle East, 32 per cent from Italy, Greece or Turkey and 59 per cent from northern Europe"Merbabu 15:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

For a start, your quote above is confected. Even taking the article at face value she didn't use those words in that order. All the paper tells us is that her words eventually followed "When told of the results, the former fish and chip shop owner appeared flustered...". We are not told of any intervening conversation, and therefore we cannot say to what statement or question, precisely, she was responding. The paper gives one interpretation, and when summarising it for the article you neccessarily reinterpret it. But I am not satisfied that the newspaper, in setting up what is clearly a stunt, has told us the full story. You appear to take the whole thing at face value, but it might be that Ms Hanson was responding to something quite different, perhaps the results of another person, or possibly the methodology of the test. You note that we are not told explicitly that it was her results to which she gave the response. We should be skeptical of media outlets which set up stunts of this nature, because they can misdirect the reader to make for a better story in order to sell more papers. Using such sources without corroboration in a biographical article is unwise or gullible, particularly when the subject is controversial. --Pete 16:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not "my" quote. It is (was) how the article sat when you posted here. And if the order bothers you, then change it - it won't change the meaning of the article. I'm sure if it was something you wanted to hear you woudln't be playing games about "interpretations" and "context". I thought our role was NOT to intepret. Furthermore, are you accusing "me" of "reinterpreting" or "taking it at face value". Which one? Furthermore, if sources cannot be summarised for inclusion in WP, then we are in big trouble - any sourced info on WP is likely to be summarised (or paraphrasing?) - do you mean you've never done it? hmm. If the interpretation is the issue then i suggest you offer an alternative.Merbabu 16:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The single source for the quote is too vague as to context for us to use it without making our own interpretation. --Pete 16:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It's probably worth noting that Pauline Hanson built her political career on views that have often been described as racist, so her own race, and her response to apparently being only mostly white, is notable. Regards, Ben Aveling 04:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

We're not talking notability here, but quality of source. Do you have any input on this? --Pete 09:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Quality of source? It happened - no one is pretending it didn't. Yes, it was a media stunt, no is suggesting otherwise, but it got a reaction that is notable - ie, hanson's apparent discomfort with it. The WP article doesn't add any interpretation to it. Merbabu 10:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the source [4]. I invite 3rd parties to check it for themselves. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Regnery Publishing Regnery Publishing (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Article (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) A big part of the article is about an employee who was fired for plagiarism done in his college days. The Wonkette is cited as a source for certain rumors about him. Steve Dufour 04:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I read this section and examined the sources used. I don't have a problem with the sources. Wonkette in this case is probably acceptable as this regards an event that occurred in the Blogosphere and the Wonkette writer has knowledge due to previous employment. That being said, the section almost certainly does not belong in the Regnery article at all, since it is too tangential, and adds nothing to our understanding of Regnery. It looks more like part of a vendetta against either Ben Domenech or more likely, Regnery. Quatloo 14:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help. The section has been put back in with the reason given being basically that Regnery is an evil, right-wing publisher and anything that can be found that might be negative about it should be included in the article. I don't feel like getting into a fight over it, however. Steve Dufour 02:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It reads like just trivial gossip to me. I bet that most publishers have fired editors and other employees for more serious offensives. It would make more sense to just say that Regnery is hated for derailing John Kerry's career. Roger 05:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

What it really does is make the anti-Regnery people look a bit out of touch. Steve Dufour 06:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments: (1) The plagiarism details don't overwhelm the article and probably should stay. (2) Whether or not the anti-Regnery bias in the article has the effect mentioned in the post above, such a bias is unencyclopedic. — Athænara ✉ 00:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Kate Mulgrew Kate Mulgrew (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Kate Mulgrew (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Acting on a ANI report, I've indefblocked a user, Taylor364 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), who did almost nothing but blank Talk:Kate Mulgrew repeatedly. That user has now issued a legal threat. On further investigation, it appears that Timfhagan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) – who may be Mulgrew's (ex-?)husband, U.S. politician Tim Hagan – had tried, earlier, to have information removed from the article and/or talk page, apparently pertaining to Mulgrew's stance on abortion or about an adoption of hers. Given this, we can speculate that Taylor364 is a sockpuppet of Timfhagan, and that if this is so, the legal threat would come from Tim Hagan. I'm unsure on how to proceed in such a situation – does this need Office attention of any sort? – and if yes, whom to contact. Guidance by those versed in WP:BLP matters would be appreciated. See also this explanation of the issue by an involved user on my talk page. // Sandstein 22:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I don't think we should jump to conclusions. For all we know, she could be telling the truth. I would suggest that you possibly run checkuser on both of the people, to get a better sense of whether they're sock puppets. Given those are sockpuppets, you can rule out any possibility of it being either one of those who they say they are. If not, though, then I think the person has a right to take off whatever they don't want on the page about them. It's only right. But I doubt that that is actually Kate Mulgrew. But again, don't just assume. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  00:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• I don't quite understand what you are saying. I've no reason to assume that Kate Mulgrew herself is involved in editing her article. My question was whether the legal threat by someone who may be her husband warrants any further action. Sandstein 06:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well, again, checkuser all of the usernames in question and if they're all coming from the same place, it's probably just some vandal trying to find a hole in the system is all. Then, just revert the comment as vandalism. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  13:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Erwin Raphael McManus Erwin Raphael McManus (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Erwin Raphael McManus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Appears to be a church figure who has supporters and enemies. The enemies (either one person or with sock-puppets) are persistently reverting to an unwikified critical version that mainly links to a bunch of anti-this-guy blogs. One or two of his supporters occasionally revert to a hagiographic version, which isn't a good article either but at least isn't potentially libelous. Both sides seem to like to keep removing my cleanup tags. --Delirium 07:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Garth Turner Garth Turner (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Garth Turner (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - A new editor, using the username Dorothy turner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and the IP 65.95.112.18 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) has been altering information on Canadian politician Garth Turner. (The article lists Dorothy Turner as the spouse of Garth Turner.) Moogle10000 (talk · contribs) interpreted this as a violation of NPOV and COI, and warned the Dorothy Turner account heavily. I'm concerned that the Dorothy Turner edits were an attempt to establish better balance in the article, and that the NPOV warnings were a bit close to WP:BITE. I don't know enough about the situation to judge which side is closer to NPOV, but I'm worried that the editors on that article don't have a solid enough grasp of WP:BLP. Editors who understand BLP and Canadian politics are invited to examine the situation. — Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Robbie Keane Robbie Keane (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Robbie Keane (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) I cleared up some of the mess which has been left, but someone is obsessed with "Snuff FC" and I don't know all the correct detaila about his playing statistics to be able to fix them all. (Jim901 (talk · contribs) 20:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC))

I have been in and supplied a whole load of sources, contained in References section; also cut out some false redlink cats at the bottom. Perhaps other editors would like to go in and help further? By the way, this isn't really the correct place to put this report is it? It seems to be merely a 'talk page' subject. I can see no biographical controversy in the Robbie Keane article. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 22:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Burt Reynolds (1) Burt Reynolds (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Burt Reynolds (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Burt Reynolds page vandalised again by unregistered user 172.189.14.186 he removed the entire reference section of which he had nothing to do with thus taking away all the citation of reference for most of the articles please stop these vandals, i have asked a few times if you could do the same thing other pages have and block edits by unregistered users, please help -- Rogue Gremlin (talk · contribs) 10:25pm (EST) Feb 18, 2007

Please use edit summaries and use the preview button rather than making repeated edits in succession. Most of the last 100 edits are from you, so it's kinda hard to follow what is going on. One IP user removed a hoard of external links ... probably excessively many unless there's some important reason to have them there. But that's likely a content dispute - we don't protect pages simply because there is a disagreement - we only protect them because of persistent vandalism. --BigDT 03:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There has been persistent vandalism, the externals links removed was the (entire Reference section), that helped to validate the entire page, including the proper citations for almost everything on the page. This is not disagreement stuff, it is straight out vandalism when others work is completely removed. Rogue_Gremlin 11:05pm (est) feb 2007

172.189.14.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

172.159.78.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

• The references were excessive, as noted in the 172.* edit summaries, and have been trimmed appropriately. — Athænara ✉ 00:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Burt Reynolds (2) Burt Reynolds (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Burt Reynolds (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - This is at least the 5th time I have reported this, PLEASE block unregistered users from editing this page, ip address 172.201.90.27 who keeps hoping ip address' in Reston, Virginia, this is not a dispute issue, he erases pertinent links that provide the citations for almost the whole page and since you can block his ip since he uses an anonimyzer or dial-up can you atleast block unregistered users, which would help stop the vandalism. TY ~~ Rogue_Gremlin Feb 20, 2007 9:07pm est

Some of the references you are adding to the article aren't helpful. I'm looking at this edit [5]. Just linking to http://www.britannica.com or http://encarta.msn.com/Default.aspx doesn't help. If you used the Burt Reynolds article as a reference, link to that article. The best practice is to link everything inline using {{cite web}}. So you would write something like this:

This is the line I want to cite. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://whatever|date=whatever|etc...}}</ref>

That will appear in the article like this:

This is the line I want to cite. ^[1]

And then if you add a <references /> tag to the bottom of the article, everywhere that you have a <ref> link in the article will show up at the bottom. As it is, the IP user is right. Several of the links you have in there just say the same thing. Does that help at all? As it is, the references section just isn't that useful. If you would like an example of an article where inline citations are properly being used, see Wikipedia. If I can help you further, please feel free to ask on my talk page. Thanks. --BigDT 02:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The 2 you mentioned are very helpful you just can't view them for free. Rogue_Gremlin Feb 2007

• The article had over twenty references, far more than needed, before it was cleared up. — Athænara ✉ 09:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yevgenia Albats Yevgenia Albats (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Yevgenia Albats (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Repeated violations by User:Vlad fedorov who is trying to defame all critics of Putin's administration. See my arguments here Talk:Yevgenia_Albats#Violation_of_BLP_rules. This issue has been resolved by User:Alex Bakharev who wrote a compromise NPOV version (me and everyone else except Vlad Fedorov agree with this version), but User:Vlad fedorov continue inserting POV, and poorly supported "exceptional claims" in the article. Biophys 16:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

So, Vlad repeatedly inserts defamatory and not supported by any independent sources claims about Yevgenia Albats made by Arutunyan who is a side of a controversy (see Talk:Yevgenia_Albats#Violation_of_BLP_rules). Then, he uses defamatory statements made by Arutunyan to discredit another journalist Anna Politkovskaya (see his edits of her article and also Putin's Russia. Actually, Yevgenia Albats struggled to protect reputation of murdered Anna Politkovskaya from defamation by Arutunyan allegedly ordered by Putin's administration (see Yevgenia Albats article).Biophys 16:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Alex Bakharev edited the article from which talk show scandal was deleted by User:Ilgiz. Moreover, Alex Bakharev has reintroduced the information according to which father of Albats was a GRU spy, which was repeatedly deleted by users Biophys and Colchicum. Alex Bakharev version doesn't endorses personal opinion of Biophys and Alex Bakharev doesn't endorsed you empty accusations.Vlad fedorov 17:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There are no any evidence that anyone except users Biophys, Colchicum and Ilgiz agree with the version of Biophys. Two other users are collegues of Biophys.

I would like to respond the following to the accusation of Biophys:

• First, users Biophys and Colchicum never contacted me on a Talk page and tried to resolve the dispute. In fact they just demanded me to stop the editing of the articles. They also never tried to resolve the dispute. They also haven't presented evidence of trying to resolve the dispute with me. Complains to the Administrators noticeboards and false, unsupported accusations of my violations of Wikipedia policies are not a method of resolving the dispute.

• Second, they violate 'good faith' obligatory assumption in cliaming that I stalk them. I am a newcomer to the Wikipedia. I was brought to the Wikipedia, because the article on Boris Stomakhin created by Biophys was completely outrageous since it turned everything uspide down. Convicted criminal Stomakhin was presented as a hero, besides his calls to exterminate all Russians, to destroy Russian with atomic explosion, to commit terrorist attacks on Russian civilians.

• Third, accusations presented here were already taken up at vurtually every Administrators, incident, 3RR, BLP noticeboards and administrators talk pages. So they just mainly repeat their accusations. I have never received any warnings from administrators, because otherwise they would have gladly published these warnings already here. I was just arbitrarily blocked by non-Russian, English speaking admin William Connolley. This admin, however, later helped me to clarify the points of dispute which I had with Biophys over Boris Stomakhin article, but unfortunately he left the discussion on the talk page of Boris Stomakhin article, when the critical decision on the validity of Biophys accusations was needed.

• Fourth, these accusations pursue the goal to harass me and to stop me from contributing another POV into the articles dedicated to Russia.

• Fifth, I also would like to bring all these issues to the arbitration, because the allegations of Biophys and Colchicum that I violate Wikipedia policy by citing reliable sources defame me and are directed not on the sources, but on my person. I would like to have finally a decision of an arbitrator/mediator/administrator that my sources are valid and reliable, the are not contradictory and do not violate anything. The problem is that Biophys claims that every my contribution violates Wikipedia policies. This is a strategy taken by him in order to discredit every introduced material presenting other point of view.

The underlying problem, in my opinion, is the personal dislike of me and revenge of user Biophys against me for the following:

• [Moved to here] ilgiz 19:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Vlad fedorov 17:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Near the top of the page, in large bold type in the instructions for how to use the noticeboard, is the line: "Please make your comments as concise as possible. Fellow editors and administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes." Did you not see that? — Athænara ✉ 14:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Jim Nobles Jim Nobles (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Jim Nobles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Editors at this article are asserting, based on some occult organisation's websites, that a politician in Seattle Washington is an occultist. The websites fail our reliable sources guidelines, and it seems likely that there are two different individuals, both interested in politics, actually involved here. Jkelly 23:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the offending material, and have left a note at the talk page of the article and of the user who was inserting the claim. Musical Linguist 00:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:L. Ron Hubbard Talk:L. Ron Hubbard (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Talk:L. Ron Hubbard (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Hi. There was a posting to the talk page here that I considered gross misuse of the talk page so I deleted it here. Now I know that my deletion there may not be supported in policy and that is not what I am asking about. One editor let my deletion slide but another reverted it. I then removed only the part that I thought was an ultra-clear BLP vio, here and again, here. Figured that would be the end of it but one came back with lawyerly stuff and the other that I am just wacked to think that (my words, not his). Am I wacked? On just this point, I mean! Please (laff). I thought that sort of unsupported and wildly derogatory material could not stand, no matter where it appeared. I thought that is what BLP says. Thanks Justanother 04:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Answer - Technically, BLP applies to article space, not the talk page. The comments you cite were not in line with Wikipedia norms in that the talk pages are specifically for the purpose of discussing ways to improve the article, not a blog or forum to voice opinions on celebrities. Feldspar's warning to that effect was an appropriate response to the comments. The comments could be seen as vandalism and removed as not constructive or trolling. But in that case, IMHO, it's better just to ingore them and not encourage the trolls.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 05:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi. Thanks for your input. How do you then reconcile this prominent line in BLP

    Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages. (emphasis added)

    --Justanother 05:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Answer - I think the difference is that it is obvious that the comments in question are not presented as biographical information officially sanctioned by Wikipedia and no reasonable person would construe them as such. (That's not a shot at you, I just mean that there's no possibility of litigation as the comments are clearly presented as one editor's opinion and not given as "fact". Nevertheless, I have left a warning on the user's talk page.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 05:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks again. That is an interesting take. I can see the logic of it but, I guess that my problem is that it introduces "gray area" into something that should probably have as little gray area as possible. We agree that the comment is inappropriate and it is certainly about a living person but now we have to apply some subjective test as to whether litigation is a factor (IAMNOTALAWYER). This one may have been clear but why add the gray area? WP:BLP does not seem to. And is it only about litigation? Wasn't there something in BLP about feelings? Why would we allow that comment to stand anywhere here? The other problem with leaving such trollish remarks in is that it leads to subtle (or not-so-subtle) enabling of the abusers. Please notice Feldspar's use of the word "our" rather than "your" when describing the trolls claims and opinions. That is a little subtle (and if I misinterpreted from that that Feldspar agrees with the troll then I apologize) but I have seen it much more obvious. My feeling is that such trolls should just be removed and that the BLP aspect just seals the deal. What do you think? --Justanother 15:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Answer - All good points...and I don't disagree. However, we're now getting into other issues that are better dealt with on more germane pages. I don't feel that this is a WP:BLP issue for reasons outlined above. You're right, however, about the "grey area" and that should be discussed on the WP:BLP policy talk page to get more consise language in the policy regarding article talk pages. This is a clear case of trolling and could legitimately be removed as such. However, that's not always the most productive was to handle trolls. As for how to best deal with trolls, see WP:NOFEEDING under the subsections "Not feeding the Trolls" and "the value of slow reverts". I am going to remove the comments as trolling and see what happens.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 17:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you once again and very much this time. It is quite a pleasure and a distinct change to have my ideas and concerns addressed with respect and not as "fantastical, bizarre". I am not even saying that my idea of the application of BLP was correct, simply that, IMO, it is not really that much of a stretch from the words and intent of BLP, though perhaps going a bit into "uncharted territory". I will look forward to any discussion of this on the policy talk page and may well start one myself at a later time. Thank you again for your help. --Justanother 20:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Victoria Toensing Victoria Toensing (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Victoria Toensing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - This looks to have an NPOV problem. I'll revert, but could someone keep an eye on this? Thanks. Eddieuny (talk · contribs) 20:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Shawn Hornbeck Shawn Hornbeck (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Shawn Hornbeck (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - The article has once again been protected. The current dispute is over whether or not we should call him a "kidnapping victim" or "an alleged kidnapping victim." Outside opinions are needed and necessary. AniMate 03:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If the case has still not been decided in court I think you have to say "alleged". In general, as I said a couple times above, I don't think the victim of a crime, especially a child, should be the subject of a WP article at all. Steve Dufour 03:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You're preaching to the choir on that one, but there are some people very invested in keeping the article. It's been protected several times, and I'm more than likely going to nominate it for deletion once the media attention dies down. Hopefully we can get it merged into the Michael Devlin article in the future. AniMate 03:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is. I would think that 99% of everyone would think that there is something wrong with an article that details the sexual abuse of a child. Why doesn't WP have a policy to remove it right away? Steve Dufour 03:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you 110%. However, these AFDs [6] [7] [8] show that people really think these are valid articles. They've been arguing for the inclusion of their birth dates and want as much info as possible. I absolutely think we need policy that states explicitly what should and shouldn't be included in these articles... and whether or not any of these articles should exist. As it stands, I'm appalled that these kids privacy is being abused after everything they've (allegedly) been through. AniMate 03:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I find it hard to recomend WP to other people, as much as I generally like it myself, if the WP community seems to have such a blind spot about this issue. Steve Dufour 08:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Mike Huckabee (pt. 2) Mike Huckabee (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Mike Huckabee (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Two editors repeatedly adding an undersourced, biased text of dubious notability, with extensive incivility. Maybe more editors coming in can add some sanity. A.J.A. 22:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Derek Bell (baseball player) Derek Bell (baseball player) (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Derek Bell (baseball player) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Derek Bell is a former baseball player who lost his job with his team after threatening to go into what he termed "Operation Shutdown" before the 2002 season. He hasn't played professionally since, and has gone downhill rapidly and been arrested for drug use. Various anonymous IPs in the 192.88.124 range have been attempting to insert a mocking reference to Mr. Bell's unfortunate circumstances into the article ("Operation Shutdown is currently in its Xth month."). I think this is unencyclopedic and needlessly cruel, and have been reverting. Most recently, a "new" user has showed up to add the identical piece of information. Anyway, if y'all could help keep an eye on things, I'd appreciate it. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 05:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

As one of the several users to edit the Derek Bell article, I feel that it is worth noting that the status of Operation Shutdown has been a part of Mr. Bell's entry for almost two years, and was the reason for starting an article on this particular baseball player. As a fan of not only Mr. Bell, but of the Pittsburgh Pirates, I do not find this information to be a mockery, but rather a way to follow a campaign on which he embarked. Furthermore, myself and the other IPs involved have not been adding useless information, but rather replacing information that I've known many people to enjoy seeing, and that has been there for, as previously stated, almost two years now. We have not been vandalizing the article, but restoring it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtcupps (talk • contribs)

Backmasking Backmasking (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Backmasking (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Poorly sourced claims are being made in this article about backmasking artists. The statement reads:

"Other artists accused of backmasking include The Eagles[13], Queen[14], Black Oak Arkansas[15], Britney Spears[16], and Rush[17]."

I asked for citations to this article and they were provided. However, the analysis of them is not reliable sources (please see the talkpage discussion). Could someone please clear this up? Ronbo76 05:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Tilman Hausherr Tilman Hausherr (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Tilman Hausherr (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - A number of editors are working together to continually reinsert some poorly sourced information which it seems would inevitably cause a very POV guilt-by-association effect. An entire paragraph is devoted to explaining what a persecutory person a "Lutheran Sect Commissioner" is, not because the article subject is a "Lutheran Sect Commissioner", but because he allegedly "worked for years" with one, and "wrote for" that "Lutheran Sect Commissioner"'s magazine. Only problem is, the single citation that claims to show that they "worked for years" together only shows that they were at a single picket together, and the pieces that were supposedly "written for" the Lutheran Sect Commissioner's magazine are nothing but weekly digests giving capsule summaries of news stories that are of interest in a particular field. Just because someone reprints such a list of capsule descriptions does not in any way show that the list was written for them.

Moreover, the people who are working together to repeatedly reinsert this poorly sourced and POV information appear to be taking a far different approach to this article than they do to any of the articles whose subjects they prefer. As I write this, the report exactly three above mine on this noticeboard is Justanother (talk · contribs) arguing repeatedly that not editing out of another editor's words a personal opinion that Tom Cruise may be "crazy and bad" is a violation of WP:BLP. (And incidentally, also taking the opportunity to smear me with innuendoes such as "Please notice Feldspar's use of the word "our" rather than "your" when describing the trolls claims and opinions" when what I told the new editor, the one Justanother refers to as "the troll", was that "Our own personal value judgements ... our personal opinions ... don't really belong here unless they lead to improvements in the article". I am not happy that Justanother is now trying to insinuate that I am somehow expressing support for the troll's views by not phrasing it as "Your opinions are not welcome here".) But who took it upon himself to restore the paragraph-long description of Lutheran Sect Commissioners([9]) and specifically add material about how Lutheran Sect Commissioners allegedly "contributed to persistent negative public attitudes toward members of minority religions", calling it "The net effect of Tilman's (and friend's) work"?([10]) Who else but Justanother?

Fossa (talk · contribs) seems to be trying to take this opportunity to completely decimate the article of even its best-sourced information([11]) as the second-best thing, perhaps, to deleting it entirely ([12], edit summary "This version contains all WP:RS-sorced information and it odes neither embellish nor put down User:tilman. Keep it that way or simply delete." -- in fact, all sourced information, including that sourced to Marburg Journal of Religion and the journal Nova Religio has been removed.) And Misou (talk · contribs), who has added unsourced personal information about the article's subject([13]) and information sourced to Renate Hartwig([14]) who has apparently lost a number of libel suits (including to the article's subject) actually left me an inappropriate vandalism warning([15]) for removing the unsourced, poorly sourced, or irrelevant material from the article and explaining in each case why I was doing so. // Antaeus Feldspar 03:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I am not working with anyone at all (don't worry though, I put "cabal" on my Christmas list). The funny thing is I came to it because Misou posted a warning on Antaeus' talk page about vantalizing Tilman (warning since by removed Antaeus here, not that I care). I thought it meant User:Tilman and I could not figure out why Antaeus would vandalize Tilman as Antaeus and Tilman are "cult-fighting" buddies. So I clicked and saw it was Tilman's (non-notable - editorial comment, laff) article, not his user space that was being referred to. So I took a look to see why Tilman was "notable" today and saw these refs to the "Lutheran Sect Commissioner". "What is that", methought, so I looked it up. (I was not aware of Misou's similar reference to what I then found as Misou's had been deleted by then.) Found some (cough) poorly-sourced material in a US State Department Report and posted it. After all, if Tilman wrote for the organization and such writing speaks to his notabilty (god knows, little else does) then does it not make sense to add some extremely well-sourced info about what that organization is and how it fits in to the overall subject of "cult-fighting" which is, again, Tilman's "claim" to notabillity. I mean, we are not running out of paper, are we? PS, Antaeus. I see that you posted this an hour ago and have moved on to other work. Don't you think it might have been worth a mention in the talk page or a notice to mine and Misou's user talk? --Justanother 04:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Justanother, let me see if I can sum up the first part of what you are claiming. You claim that you only came to Tilman Hausherr because you saw Misou's false vandalism allegation on my talk page, but you did not investigate Misou's claim: you did not examine my edits to see what information I had added or removed, or whether I had presented sound reasons for those additions/removals (such as WP:BLP violations, which you clearly care deeply about -- sometimes). But somehow, without taking any sort of time to look at the very thing that brought you to the page, the allegedly-vandalistic removal of text from the article, you somehow managed by pure coincidence to reintroduce into the article almost exactly the very same text that had been removed.([16]) That is your story so far and it already strains credulity. But all right, let us suppose that you restored -- coincidentally -- almost exactly the same quote about what a "Lutheran Sect Commissioner" because you didn't bother to take a look at the recent history of the article. What is your excuse for restoring the same material after you were made aware that the stated relevance does not exist? When I removed the poorly-sourced claim that Tilman "has been writing in" Berliner Dialog, I did so with the edit summary "As before -- Tilman writes a piece that summarizes news stories of interest; to say he is "working with" anyone who prints that piece is your OR."([17]) Removing once again the irrelevant digression about the "Lutheran Sect Commissioners", I used the edit summary "remove again irrelevant digression about the pursuits of a man who has no shown connection to Tilman besides reprinting a piece that ANYONE CAN REPRINT".([18]) You ignored both of those and restored that poorly sourced claim that he "writes for" Berliner Dialog with the edit summary "Antaeus, what are you talking about? All I do is clarify the group that the article aleady said he writes for - not the first bit of OR. Show me the OR on talk please".([19]) But this is clearly false. The article did not 'already say he writes for' Berliner Dialog because that original research had been removed. You attempted to justify the very edit in which you restored that original research by falsely claiming it was already there. Now you attempt to again in this very space promote the same claim which has already been debunked -- that because "Berliner Dialog" reprints a freely available digest of news stories of which Tilman Hausherr was the compiler, it means that Tilman "wrote for the organization" (oh, it's graduated from a publication into an entire organization now) and that anything which pertains to "the organization" is therefore relevant to Tilman Hausherr. Under a similar theory I suppose that if the Ku Klux Klan were to carry the "Dear Abby" column in their newsletters then anything about the Ku Klux Klan would suddenly be extremely relevant to "Dear Abby"? The material you repeatedly reinserted was poorly-sourced material that violated WP:BLP; your claim that even now you have still not realized this absolutely astonishes me. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry to hear that that you are strained and astonished. That does not sound comfortable. Hey, I have no reason to lie about how I got there. I watch your page, I don't watch Tilman's article. I won't bother but I imagine the edit history will prove my lack of interest there. When I arrived there the article looked like this. See the ref to the Lutheran Sect Commissioner? And the "Beliner Dialog". Well that is what I saw. So I clicks on 'em and I sees "net.update - 1. 12. 1999 - 29. 6. 2000 - von Tilman Hausherr" and "net.update von Tilman Hausherr 5.9.2002 - 29.5.2004". Now my German is bad but it looks like Tilman is the author there. So I figure those articles must be there to establish Tilman's notability since, IMO, little else does. Here we have Tilman writing for a Lutheran Church publication. OK, there is some notability, right? So I do a bit of searching and, guess what, I find the State report (it was not very hard). I am already familiar with those and I think I quoted one some time ago in the main Scientology article, if I am not mistaken. So it only makes sense to me to add that well-sourced material about the organization that published the paper that Tilman seemed to be writing for. And you know, Antaeus, I looked in the article talk page and I completely missed where you discussed this and where you justified edit-warring with Misou over it. Would you mind pointing me at it? Please. But wait, what does Tilman say over there:

      For example, that I wrote for Berliner Dialog could be properly sourced . . . Tilman 22:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

      Antaeus, it is amazing what you find if you ever actually look at a talk page while you are edit-warring. --Justanother 06:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Suppose that we take it as stipulated that Tilman wrote for Berliner Dialog. Oh hell! I'll even bend over backwards for you and pretend for the sake of argument that we have some reason to believe Tilman "wrote for" Berliner Dialog something more substantive than "Net Update", the previously-referenced digest of stories of interest from the news. Berliner Dialog is still a publication, not an organization (contrary to your earlier muddy references to them as if they were the same thing). Your argument is still "Tilman writes for the publication, therefore he supports the organization that publishes the publication, therefore anything which can be said about the organization can be brought up in reference to him" and as a result your argument is still shoddy and still no justification for your blatant attempt at guilt-by-association. If I were to insert into Kirstie Alley a paragraph of well-sourced material entirely about and unflattering to Narconon, I guarantee you would be screaming about how it was a clear attempt by "the POV-editors" to bias the article -- despite Alley being the International Spokesperson for Narconon for ten years or more, far more of a connection between the person and the organization than you have to justify your repeated insertions of anti-Lutheran Church material into Tilman Hausherr. -- Antaeus Feldspar 08:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Ah, a coherent argument (not the part where you try to back away from your error as in "that poorly sourced claim that he "writes for" Berliner Dialog" but that is OK, we all make errors - I mean the other part about Kirstie). Couched in the usual invective, of course, but a coherent argument none-the-less. Now, had I found such an argument on the talk page from your edit-war with Misou or had you presented any such argument on self-same talk page when I posted to it about my edits under the "ambiguous" heading of "Lutheran Sect Commissioner"; had you responded there instead of using up all your 3RR and having none left for Fossa and then running over here to attack me instead of simply asking a question (an abuse of this board that I will likely report on AN/I so there is your heads-up though I could likely be forestalled with a simple apology); had you done any of that you may have found that I agreed with your argument. I think we have seen time and again, Antaeus, that we two can edit together in the Scientology articles and really have no big problem about it but when you attack me and I defend myself it gets ugly and while it may be "fun" for both of us it is boring for others, and when you bring it somewhere like this, it is disruptive (and please let's not get into the bit with "our" and "your" - trust me, you don't want to bring that up either; please use my talk page if you really must). So, in response to your coherent argument. Fair enough. I think it would be most appropriate for me to make an article on the "Sect Commissioner" and put the US State data there (I also think there is UN data, and did see a bit). Then Tilman et al can help us with balancing the view. Finally, if we then want to put the Berliner Dialog in Tilman (and if we are to have anything at all there then it belongs), we can do the "publication of the sometimes controversial Lutheran [[Sect Commissioner]]" as we would if this were Kirstie's article. Does that sound fair? And again, as I have said before, but maybe you missed, "I do not have any double-standard" which also happens also to be a concise statement of who I am here. Cheers. --Justanother 14:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Oh, please, by all means, Justanother, do bring your complaints about me to AN/I. I will be tickled pink if you do that. I am sure that AN/I will have an extremely delightful time evaluating your statement that I came here to "attack you" in the context of "the bit with 'our' and 'your'" which yesterday you thought was completely all right to share with everyone here and now you think should be discussed in some more private venue. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
            • I am at your command. --Justanother 02:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen (and/or ladies), I have taken a look at the article and its talk page as well as the extremely long explanations here (in the future please note the text in bold at the top of this page about being consise). It seems this dispute is rather complex, involving AfD, deleting sourced matertial, BLP, arguments over which version is better, and some obvious POV issues. After reading the comments and histories, I believe this issue is not going to be settled here. I suggest that somebody take the issue here RFC or here Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies. A fresh set of outside eyes not involved in the issue is needed to help establish consensus and sort out WP policies. I would also suggest that everybody take a look at this essay before continuing, it contains some good advice.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 16:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

A thinly veiled effort to promote the ideas of Hausherr via Wikipedia, Tilman and his supporters insert link to a a black list of actors ("faq-you/celeb.txt"!) compiled by Hausherr directly into the article. If this was a page of a politician or a businessperson, such shameless link spamming as well as the violations of WP:RS would be removed w/i minutes, if not seconds. Instead, here the crowd of anti-cult activists is given free reign, simply thanks to their sheer size. Fossa_?! 14:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, the only people who will ever look at Tilman's article are he and his friends and people who don't like him. In all cases they are people who have made up their minds on the issue of Scientology, so no effective "promotion" will take place because of this article. Steve Dufour 21:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Kinda like the only people that will look at this noticboard item (smile). BTW, Steve, I had some words about your motives on Tilman's talk page. --Justanother 21:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

My feelings towards Tilman are friendly. I voted against the deletion of his article when it was nominated last year and I would do so again. the real Steve Dufour 21:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Peter Gelb Peter Gelb (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Peter Gelb (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Another user has reinserted a number of times what seem to me to be libelous allegations that Mr. Gelb used unfair influence to gain coverage for his clients in the New York Times. Also unecessarily inflammatory statements (my opinion) ascribed to the subject, Mr Gelb have been reinserted into the article. Editors, please evaluate appropriateness of these items. Thanks for your help. Markhh (talk · contribs) 23:25 25 February 2007

I'm the user who readded the sentences in dispute. The allegations at issue have all been previously published in print by a reliable source, and are clearly and accurately referenced and ascribed to the appropriate source per WP:V and WP:NPOV. I don't see the problem. Grover cleveland 07:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I also didn't see a problem. BTW there is freedom of the press in this country and the New York Times has the right to cover whatever they like for whatever reason. Other people have the right to comment and complain about this as much as they like too. Steve Dufour 21:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Umer Sharif Umer Sharif (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Umer Sharif (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - An anon vandal whose IP address's initials are always 210.56. is adding same paragraph again and again to Umer Sharif without any refernce. This paragraph is serious violation of WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:LIVING. I am not sure what ypu can do but I think you can easily figure out the solution. This anon vandal appears to repeat the addition of this paragraph every two three days. ([20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] Szhaider 06:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Islam sentiment cat:anti-islam sentiment (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• - This category is being added to BLP articles rather than critics of islam. This type of pov labelling was discussed on the category's talk page and consensus was that it was not to be used on these articles. A number of editors are ignoring the requests on articles such as Ann Coulter for this not to be added but despite the civil attempts to discuss the issue, namecalling, personal attacks, slander and edit wars are being waged. Help please. // Kyaa the Catlord 11:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking into it. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 18:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've nominated the category for deletion and removed it from BLP articles. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 19:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Lewis Libby Lewis Libby (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Lewis Libby (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Two editors insist on including the information that Libby was "born to a Jewish family." Libby himself has not publicly identified himself as Jewish, nor have there been any credible articles showing that his ethnicity or religion (or his parent's for that matter) has in any way impacted his professional work. This seems to me to be a violation of [WP:BLP]'s privacy provision. Certain editors seem rather adament that this information be included. Some outside intervention would be greately appreciated. Notmyrealname 17:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Far more than "two editors" have attempted to restore information to this article that others like nmrn continually revert. See the editing history of the article and Talk:Lewis Libby; there is a category called "Jewish American lawyers" in Wikipedia that has been listed in this article long before "two editors" came upon it. Both "credible" and "reliable" articles have been cited establishing the pertinence of this matter of his personal history to the rest of the article (see my comment below the bulk of comments here). The sources have been cited in good faith in this article and continually deleted by nmrn and others for some period of time. --NYScholar 09:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Libby is Jewish [27]. This took me 30 seconds to find. Quatloo 18:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Also troubling is your use of the term "has not publicly identified himself as Jewish." An individual at the highest levels of government (and Libby was one of a handful of the most powerful men in Washington) does not have to publicly acknowledge something in order for it to be reported. You can make that argument with minor celebrities, but not with Libby. Quatloo 18:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Please keep up what you are doing here Quatloo. I am a Republican I would welcome more Jewish people in our party. :-) Steve Dufour 03:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is his religion relevant? Also, the page currently reads "was born into a Jewish family." Perhaps he converted? My point was that there is no evidence that he has made his religion/ethnicity part of his work, as opposed to a politician that is courting a religious constituency, for instance (in that case, it would be appropriate, of course). His being Jewish or not is not part of his public persona or notoriety. The fact that the source you cited is the Tulsa Jewish News (is this generally considered a reliable source?) adds to the argument that this is not noteworthy to the general public.Notmyrealname 04:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The Tulsa Jewish News is a perfectly reliable and acceptable source. It has a long history of print publication -- more than 75 years -- and isn't some sham publication created for partisan purposes. There is no requirement that a reliable source be a national publication. Quatloo 13:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Conversion is extremely unlikely, and actually his being Jewish has come up as somewhat relevant. See for example. [28] [29]. Whether he was born in or not is an interesting point and it mgiht be good to find a source that explicitly says that he was born Jewish. But given how rare converts to Judaism are, if he were a convert, we can be pretty sure it would have come up. (technically this is WP:OR but hopefully sourcing can be found) At minimum, this isn't a BLP concern because being born Jewish is not potentially negative info (especially if he is Jewish no matter what)). I would suggest however, given that the above sources mention it explicitly and that they show that his Jewishness matters, that it should be mentioned in some form in the article. JoshuaZ 04:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• The policy is clear: The subject must publicly self-identify with the belief in question, AND the belief must be relevant to the subject's notability or public life. If both criteria are not met, then privacy concerns override, and it cannot be included. Clear enough? - Crockspot 05:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No, not clear enough. BLP says that category tags should not be used unless those condtions are met. I don't see anywhere where it says we can't include such information when well sourced to reliable sources and it is relevant (which is the case here). JoshuaZ 08:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe both criteria are met. For the first criterion, attending public religious services would certainly count as public self-identification. The second criterion, as to whether it is relevant -- the individual in question is involved in making policy towards Israel. I don't think anyone can make a serious contention that criterion #2 does not apply. Quatloo 13:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

As I have shown on the Libby talk page, source 1 is not reliable. The bio for Libby cites its source as "Wikipedia." For all the people it identifies, it cites "News Sources" and another website that does not indicate Libby's ethnicity. This is a bogus list. Source number 2 claims that some White Supremacist groups affiliated with KKK member David Duke thought Libby's ethnicity was relevant, however everything in the actual article says that it was not. I think it is kind of twisting logic to say that a responsible news story saying that his being Jewish is not relevant somehow makes it relevant. Read the full story. I very much disagree with Quatloo that his being involved with policy towards Israel automatically makes his being Jewish relevant. Jews have diverse opinions about Israel. There is no evidence that Libby's input (whatever it was) was influenced by his being Jewish or not. His family membership in a synagogue does not constitute PUBLIC self identification. If that were the standard, then every person of any faith who attends church/synagogue/mosque, etc. would automatically lose their right to privacy on Wikipedia. If he had written an op-ed saying "as a Jew, I believe..." than it would be a different story. Notmyrealname 16:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not an expert on Jewish matters but isn't it possible for a person to be "born into a Jewish family" (as the article says -- is this WP jargon BTW? I have seen it elsewhere).... as I was asking, can't a person be "born into a Jewish family" without being, strictly speaking, a Jew? Steve Dufour 17:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Notmy, I think you are confusing the BLP category policy with the general policy, and the second one is still a reliable source. Relevancy by a notable source saying something is not relevant is still relevant for our purposes because it was relevant enough to talk about. JoshuaZ 19:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the source itself is somewhat obscure. But, I wonder, relevant to what? I could see it if we want to include a section saying that some hate groups have mentioned him in their blogs, but then what are we doing beyond giving them more exposure? I just don't think that a single mention by a rather obscure publication (who has heard of the JTA?) is enough to justify relevancy, especially when the article is about it not being relevant. If the end result is that we just note that he is Jewish based on all of this, we have, in effect, just supported the efforts of fringe hate groups. If we are to take the role of editors seriously, we have to have some sounder rationale for relevance. According to WP:BLP we should "ask yourself if the information is presented as being true, if the source is reliable, and if the information, even if true, is relevant to an encyclopedic article on that subject." Just because it is published and true, does not make it relevant. Notmyrealname 20:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Libby's attendance at a public synagogue is so well known among the Jewish community that it is noted by Jewish publications outside of his region. That's certainly sufficient. It isn't necessary for someone to shout "I'M A JEW" to meet this requirement. This is also no privacy violation, it's published in an established newspaper. Also the language "born into a Jewish family" is not necessary and should probably be changed to be less weasel-worded. Libby himself attends synagogue. Quatloo 18:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Quatloo, I think that there are several questions here. Has Libby publicly self-identified his religious affiliation? Is it relevant? I don't think he has taken any action to indicate that this is part of his public persona. Does joining a religious institution automatically mean that your religion should be included on a Wikipedia biography? The fact that the Tulsa Jewish News included this (hardly a representative sample of "the Jewish community" (sic)), without sourcing in a minor news item isn't a sufficient case of relevance. If you look at the Google results and read the links, you will see that anti-semitic groups, including those run by KKK leader David Duke wrote some pieces under the headings "Lewis Libby: One more Jewish Traitor Neocon Exposed." One writer for JTA, Ron Kampeas, wrote a story about it that a bunch of blogs reprinted. The story was about the hate groups writing about Libby being Jewish. In his interviews, he found that most people who worked with him in the White House had no idea he was Jewish, and in fact were adamant that he was not. I have never heard of the JTA before, and I doubt anyone would consider it mainstream. There has been no discussion of it in the broader media. The article itself goes to great lengths to explain that his being Jewish is NOT relevant. The only point of including this in his bio would be to echo the blog rants of hate groups. Notmyrealname 19:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. His religious affiliation (whatever it is) seems to be irrelevant. He is not seen as a religious activist or specifically Jewish activist. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The JTA is certainly a reliable source, but I'm not seeing the relevance either. Far from being a prominent facet of the man's identity, it seems to be contentious information that was unknown by close acquaintances. Let's not yellow badge the man. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

He is not a religious activist, that is true. But the religious affiliations at the highest levels of US Government are extremely important, particularly when the play a role in formulation of policy with respect to Israel. If Israel were not a major component of policy, your argument would have merit. But such is not the case. Quatloo 04:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, he isn't involved in foreign policy and we have no reliable source claiming that his Jewishness ever effected policy. I'm in favor of including that he's Jewish but the above sounds... well, I'll AGF that it just sounds worse than it was meant to. At minimum this sounds very conspiratorial. JoshuaZ 16:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The assistant to the Vice President for national security affairs isn't involved with foreign policy? That's pretty funny. One must wonder what exactly that job description involves. Quatloo 17:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

What you need to do is find a published source that says his Jewish identity has influenced American-Israeli policy. Otherwise it is original research. Steve Dufour 12:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No. The article is on the man, Lewis Libby, and not about American-Israeli policy. A basic fact about him such as religion can be included if no other claim is made regarding it. By your logic, not even his age or marital status could be included in the article, nor can that same information be included even in articles about US Presidents. That's simply absurd. You are misapplying WP:OR, which requires that the thesis be stated ("introduces a theory, method of solution, or any other original idea"). Making a mere statement of religion implies nothing. Just as with birthdays of politicians, it is germane to include religious affiliation if it is public, but not to make any conclusion about it without supporting secondary sources. Never has it been WP policy or guideline that basic facts about an individual -- age, religion, birthdate, location of birth, names of parents and siblings -- be explicitly relevant to that person's body of work. If that is the case, let's get busy working, we have to remove all of that information from hundreds of thousands of articles. Quatloo 16:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

(indent to left side) Just chimming in since I reinserted Libby's ethnicity into article. I agree that Libby's ethnicity isn't all that notable but it seems that the wikipedia "standard" if any really exists, is to mention ethnicity if it can be properly sourced. Also, my opinion is that ethnicity should only be mentioned under "early life" or "family backround" ect unless there is some major reason to list it higher up in the article. The mention should also "flow" and not just slammed into the article for its own sake which I see quite a bit of. Anyways --Tom 17:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion regarding Quatloo's comments. You seem to be arguing two different points. One is that Libby's religion is a basic fact (like age, marital status, etc.) that should be included if it is public knowledge and properly sourced. There is a reasonable disput about this given that Wikipedia has a policy against using a category such as Jewish American Lawyers. Although the policy does not seem to explicitly rule out including his religion in the general text of the bio for privacy reasons, it is certainly implied (otherwise, why have it in categories?). Your other point seems to be that because Libby dealt with government policies involving Israel, his being Jewish is notable. This second point, if it is what you mean, is troubling and would appear to be POV. It might be helpful if you could clarify your arguments. Thanks. Notmyrealname 18:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

My argument is more nuanced than that. There are two prongs to the argument -- first, it is basic factual information, inherently not POV to include it if it is public information, properly sourced, and not used in a POV fashion. My second argument is that it is always appropriate to note the religion of a high public official (though not necessarily other individuals), because of the possibility that it might impact policy. Otherwise we must omit the fact that Mitt Romney is LDS, the ages of candidates, their birthplaces, etc. and that also is absurdity. Of course, no conclusion should be drawn from the basic facts unless there are secondary sources. Quatloo 21:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I think the main source shows that it is being used in a POV fashion. I also think you are missing the element of privacy that should be accorded in biography cases. To the second argument, I think that there is a difference for public officials and politicians. In this case, it should be proven first that it has had an impact on policy. The assumption that it always does is POV. Notmyrealname 22:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Given that his affiliation is published in an established newspaper, I am not sure what "privacy" you are referring to. But your requirement that his religion must first be shown to have an impact on policy, that is a requirement that you have invented yourself. Quatloo 23:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. I am following the logic of the rule on categories-- "Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless two criteria are met: * The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question * The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life." If this applies to categories in WP:BLP, why not to the content of the article itself? Also, YOU'RE the one who brought up the policy thing. I think a different standard should apply to non-elected officials than to elected politicians. Does it matter if the head of trade policy is Episcopalian? Should this always be included in a biography? There is a bias towards privacy on WP:BLP. Beliefs and sexual preferences are singled out in particular. Notmyrealname 00:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

But as I said before, both criteria are met. 1. He self-identifies, by attending a public synagogue, a fact well known enough in the Jewish community to be reported outside his region, and 2., the religious identification of all high officials and policy makers (not just those that are elected) are certainly "relevant to the subject's notable activities." They are extremely relevant if the individual is making foreign policy. It doesn't have to be proven that the religious affiliation has affected policy (the requirement which you have invented), it is simply inherently relevant because it helps frame where the policy is coming from. As to your second point, having different standards for elected or non-elected officials -- no. They are both public servants. The only difference is in how they are chosen. Lewis Libby was far more powerful than the majority of elected officials in the US. He was on the public payroll in an extremely critical and influential position, one more powerful than most US Senators and certainly most US Congressmen. Arguing to exclude such people from scrutiny is baffling. Quatloo 01:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

How does someone's religion frame where the policy is coming from? This is a POV contention not supported by any facts. Also, by your standard, anyone who actually practices their faith by attending a religious institution should automatically have their religion included in a Wikipedia bio? This basically includes everyone of faith. The difference between an elected official and a non elected official is that the elected one appeals to different constituencies to garner votes. According to the article cited in all this hullabaloo, most people had no idea about Libby's faith and it was NOT relevant. Notmyrealname 01:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I did not say that. What I am saying is that any official in high office (I have repeatedly stated that this does not apply to all individuals, apparently you chose to ignore that), if their religion is publicly self-identified (a criterion met in this case), it ought to be stated. The same goes for birth location, birth date/age, education, work experience, marital status. They are acting on our behalf, and we should know where they are coming from. All of these things together frame the individual and the policies they make. It is not necessary to prove each of these specifically have had an effect on policy to include them in a biography on the individual. It is extremely reasonable to state the background facts about an individual when such clearly has no privacy implications (as is true in this instance). Your logic is so absurd that it's not possible to state George W. Bush's birthdate, and here, bafflingly, it is not possible to state someone is Jewish when they make policy towards Israel. Simply astonishing. The fact is relevant even if it has not affected policy. It should be shown. As to your other point, the difference between elected and unelected officials, while interesting and noteworthy in some other venue, is irrelevant to this discussion. If someone holds high office in the US, they are answersable to the American people, and we ought to know exactly who they are. Elected or unelected. Until he resigned Libby was one of a handful of the most powerful individuals in the Executive Branch of government. There are only two elected officials in the Executive Branch. Now all the others are off limits? This seems to be what you are saying. Absurdity upon absurdity. Quatloo 02:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Quatloo seems to be saying that it is always relevant to identify whether any person involved in US/Israeli policy is Jewish or not. I will WP:AGF, but it is clearly a POV. I think some degree of relevance should be noted. That is what editing is all about. We don't list whether Libby has any pets or is a vegetarian. Not everthing should be included. However, if relevancy can be demonstrated, it should be included. Therefore, George W. Bush's birthdate is important because there is a constitutional requirement about a president's age. William Boykin's faith is relevant because he made public speeches about religion that were in violation of Pentagon policy and resulted in a scandal. Mitt Romney faith is important because he has raised a lot of money from LDS members (among other reasons). Why does someone being Jewish or not have anything to do with their policy decisions regarding Israel? Notmyrealname 02:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You are twisting my words into a Israeli/Jewish issue to make it appear that I hold an agenda. That is false. I am not approaching this from that standpoint except using it as an example here because in this instance, it demonstrates your utter absurdity. I am saying that it is perfectly acceptable to list the religious affiliation of any high official without stating a reason, if he self-identifies (I would even go further than that, it would be acceptable to list it even if he did not self-identify publicly, but I am not arguing that point here.) This must be done in a non-POV way, that is, it must merely be stated without any conclusions drawn to it. I am saying that we don't need to demonstrate a reason, because for a high official, the very nature of high office is reason enough. Quatloo 03:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you are saying that every high public official (whatever that is) who attends a religious service should have their religion on their Wikipedia bio. The WP:BLP policy that "Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy" doesn't include religion, even though there are restrictions on this regarding categories. This is because there should be a presumption that there is a possibility that the person's religion might in some way affect their policies (for instance a Jew who is involved in Israel policy). I just don't agree with this (and especially the final parenthetical, which you have put forth several times). Public officials in the United States are not required to list their religion. It would be illegal to ask them to do so when they applied for a job. I think the bias should be in favor of privacy in regards to things like religion and sexual orientation, rather than presuming relevancy. I think we need a somewhat higher standard for self identification than attending a service or belonging to a church/synagogue, etc. I am pleased that the page no longer lists Libby as a "Jewish American lawyer," "born into a Jewish family," or lumped in with the category of "Jewish American lawyers." The current rendering of the page is rather clunky and probably falls under original research, but I think we are making progress. Notmyrealname 05:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

We have already established that this is not a privacy issue (it's public information), so any privacy argument you make here is moot. The fact that public officials are not required to divulge their religion, also is not relevant to our discussion. If a high official attends public services and that becomes a published fact in a reliable source, it is perfectly fair game for Wikipedia. If you seriously are posing questions such as Why does someone being Jewish or not have anything to do with their policy decisions regarding Israel [the Jewish state]?, you really should stop and decide whether or not you are living in a different world than everyone else. Quatloo 06:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, good point. On my planet there are Jewish people with all sorts of views about Israel, just like people who aren't Jewish. Usually, people who think that all Jews think alike and that any Jew who is a high government official should be publicly identified, think that Mel Gibson got a bum rap. What's your planet like? Notmyrealname 13:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

On this planet, people think it's reasonable to know an accurate background of their high government officials. I am not and have never been singling out any one particular religious group here. In such positions, a person's religion (or lack thereof) is always a potential conflict of interest, just as his work history is. It should be out in the open. To state that Dick Cheney worked for Halliburton in his article, it is not necessary to demonstrate first that his employment at the company has affected his decisions as Vice President. Quatloo 17:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Having read the tortuous arguments above, I can see absolutely no reason why Libby's obvious and self-identified Jewishness should not be listed on wikipedia. He's a senior government official connected, however tangentially, with foreign policy. You bet it's relevant! The white-anting, undermining and subtle censorship of ordinary information like this is harming Wikipedia, of this I am certain. Skopp (Talk) 22:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This implies that someone's Jewish ethnicity or affiliation with Judaism mysteriously makes him a part of some world-wide conspiracy. Care to WP:ATTRIBUTE this? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. But it a potentially interesting data point. Being Jewish may affect some of his decisions and views, or not, as the case may be, but it is nice to know in any event. One wonders why this sort of interesting personal detail is the focus of a censorship campaign here. That's even more interesting! Skopp (Talk) 17:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's true that the Bush administration is following a secret Jewish agenda then why did 90 percent (or so) of Jewish Americans vote against him? Steve Dufour

To camouflage it, of course. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The relevance of debate in the media about whether or not Lewis Libby is Jewish is clearly established in the reliable source published by Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) and several reliable news media cited directly in the article on Lewis Libby at the following link: Lewis Libby#Personal history--deleted due to nmrn's campaign but still accessible here on the talk page--and fully explained in the talk page section long before Notmyrealname came upon the article and started deleting the sources (reverting continually pertinent sourced information): see Talk:Lewis Libby (scroll up before nmrn's comments and read my recent replies). Kampeas' article makes very clear what relevance this aspect of Libby's personal history has to current political debate in the United States regarding both the Iraq war policies of the Bush administration (in which he was a senior member) and the Libby trial about the CIA leak grand jury investigation, which is a central section in the article about Libby and his involvement in the Plame affair. --NYScholar 09:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Kampeas article makes painfully clear that Libby's being Jewish is not relevant at all, except possibly as a rejoinder to KKK leader David Duke and others who believe in conspiracies. Please check out the talk page and you will also see that NYScholar has made several comments that pretty much cross the line of WP:NPA. On the article itself, at Lewis Libby#Personal history you will see NYScholar's latest clunky edit, including poor use of sourcing, that is original research. Sigh. Notmyrealname 13:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

A mischaracterization -- the Kampeas article does nothing of the sort. The most it does is make a claim that Libby's being Jewish has not affected his decisionmaking, and that he kept his profile low. Stipulating those conclusions are true (they likely are) is not at all equal to a finding that his "being Jewish is not relevant at all." One must be careful not to draw the conclusions one wants to find, when they are not actually present. I find the article troubling for other reasons, but it is one of the few sources discussing the issue. Quatloo 17:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Hamas members (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Some debate over at Category:Hamas members if the category should be a subcat of Category:Anti-Semitic people. // Liftarn

The debate is at Category talk:Hamas members. Plenty of RS were provided. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If RS were provided we wouldn't have this debate. // Liftarn

Eric S. Raymond Eric S. Raymond (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Eric. S. Raymond (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - A user insists on putting in an accusation that Eric Raymond inserted pro-Iraq-war terms into the Jargon File. The "source" is an Internet newsletter. Raymond has stated on Wikipedia that the accusation is false and that the person who made it has apologized. Talk:Eric_S._Raymond/Archive_1#More On the subject of Criticism.

I can't keep reverting this without violating 3RR (well, I can, since it's a BLP issue, but doing so puts me at risk if the user can get an admin to disagree with me).

Using Eric's denial is also a problem because of inconsistencies in WP:RS which state that Wikipedia is not a source, period, even though it would count as a self-published source in an article about the author. Ken Arromdee 14:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Gary Radnich Gary Radnich (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Re-opened discussion from archive. — CharlotteWebb 01:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Gary Radnich (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Several users (including multiple IPs as well as CharlotteWebb) have repeatedly re-added multiple unsourced or poorly-sourced negative assertions about this Bay Area television/radio personality. Most pernicious is the accusation of racism, for which the only listed source is an article noting that Radnich has been the target of some racist remarks due to his interracial marriage.[30]

There are two other poorly-sourced assertions; one a negative description of his show using weasel words ("By some accounts"), and the other an assertion of "constant criticism of baseball superstar Barry Bonds" sourced only by a single video clip. JavaTenor 19:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This, the edit which I observed to be indiscriminate removal of the lower 75% of the article, left it with one reference which was broken in the middle of the template, no categories, and no stub tag. I did not "add negative assertions", I reverted it as page-blanking vandalism. — CharlotteWebb 01:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the reverted edit was vandalism in anything other than the clumsiness with which it broke the first reference. The first content sentence it removed was a textbook example of WP:WEASEL, and the second sentence was an entirely unsourced accusation of racism (the article referenced for that sentence being a glowing description of Radnich's multiracial family). I understand your reaction, however, and apologize for referencing you in this context without first alerting you on your talk page. JavaTenor 02:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Clumsiness is an understatement. The user removed 3½ of 4 citations, which linked to SF Weekly, the San Francisco Chronicle, and KRON-TV, a network television affiliate in San Francisco. These are reliable sources. A responsible edit would have been to replace the statements with material actually supported by those sources. Removing such references for no apparent reason is indistinguishable from vandalism. — CharlotteWebb 00:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree in this case, per WP:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material. The first sentence was perhaps salvageable, the second sentence not - it was clearly contentious and derogatory material, and clearly not supported by the listed sources (in fact, it was at least partially disproven by the listed sources). While I agree that the deleted sources are both reliable and perhaps useful in the context of this article, they actually worsened the article as it stood: readers who didn't bother to follow the links might have assumed that the sources corroborated "refusing to take responsibility for his racist commentary". Again, I understand why the edit in question might have been mistaken for vandalism, but I think the policy is clear in stating that this sort of material should be deleted.

And again, I apologize for bringing your name up; I'd never submitted an entry to the BLP noticeboard before, and was trying to cover all the users I noticed adding or re-adding the material under discussion. JavaTenor 01:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)