Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive17

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

• Jodie Foster (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - The question of Ms Foster's sexual orientation is a subject of great interest and, in the absence of reliable sourcing for any statement, has been kept from the article. No problem so far, the subject gets raised every now and again, most offered sources are pretty lame and any added information gets edited out. A US magazine recently "outed" Ms Foster but not in an clear unambiguous way that would meet the RS requirements. It has engendered a lot of discussion and I feel that a further eyes are required to offer guidance on the point. In particular the following citation would undoubtedly be acceptable for a non-BLP issue. Canada.com article This article has a named byline, the website is part of a reputable mass market publishing corportation and the site reeks of proper journalism. The statement that Foster is in a relationship with Cydney Bernard is unambiguous and I believe that it may meet the threshold for inclusion. Given the long standing consensus for excluding this information, I'd be obliged if some of the regulars here who are more knowledgeable on BLP than me could pass their eye over the discussion on the talk page and offer some opinion on this question. Thank you // Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If it's worded carefully to emphasize that it's unconfirmed, I don't see a problem with including it, as long as it's not over-emphasized in proportion to the rest of the article. If it's not speculation originating from Wikipedia editors, and if there haven't been any unequivocal denials from Foster's people, I don't see a BLP problem. bobanny 18:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes rumors become so prevalent that they become noteworthy in their own right. At that point if we didn't mention them their absence would be conspicuous and well-intentioned editors would simply add something. What we usually end up with something like, "There is speculation about the subject's orientation, including ..., but the subject has said it is a private matter". For examples, see Anderson Cooper and Clay Aiken. -Will Beback · † · 10:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

On the talk page I point out that there are two facts which can be included that are definately not violations of BLP. 1. She has been living with the same woman for many years. 2. Out magazine called her a powerful lezbian, but she has not publicly stated that she is a lesbian. --Gbleem 23:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Al Gore III Al Gore III (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Al Gore III (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Getaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - Getaway is a blatant POV pusher who has been inserting irrelevant tabloid-type information into the Al Gore III article for months on end in a long term edit war. Since there is extremely little information available about Al Gore III (as he is not a public figure) this gives the article a very negative bias in violation of the BLP and NPOV policies. I have been extremely lenient with this editor, allowing him to include Gore III's entire adult criminal record in the article. I have drawn the line, however, at including information about Gore III being suspending from high school when he was 13 for smoking marajuana. Although this fact can be sourced, it violates a reasonable expectation of privacy for a non-public figure and it is certainly not encyclopedic. Every time I remove this information, Getaway attempts to initiate a voluminous debate with me extemporizing his unique interpretations of our policies and whining about how other editors do the same thing in other articles. Getaway also commonly trolls Al Gore III's talk page where he is not shy about expressing his POV concerning "Gorebot Junior" (as he refers to the article's subject). As you can see from Getaway's talk page, he has been blocked a few times already for 3RR and POV pushing. I would really appreciate it if another admin would back me up on my warnings about the Al Gore III article, as I'm sick of trying to debate the nuances of BLP policy with someone who is basically acting as a troll. // Kaldari 15:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess calling someone a "troll" is ok? I do not believe that language conforms with the rules of WP:CIVIL. Please do not call me a "troll" and I have been making reasonable arguments for the inclusion. Also, several other editors have agreed that the Gore III is a public figure. There have been five or six votes on that issue and the votes every time come out positive for Gore III being included as a topic of Wikipedia. Have a good day.--Getaway 19:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

the Wikipedian rules on personal attacks states: The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user. Wikipedia encourages a positive online community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia. My comment is: Clearly these rules apply to admins as well as regular Wikipedia users.--Getaway 20:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've gone farther than that. We don't have article sections called "Infractions of the law." That's unbiographical, nonsensical and completely lacking in context. How in God's name is a citation for reckless driving encyclopedic? Wikipedia is not a scandal sheet. FCYTravis 18:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Notice Getaway's hoary, flimsy device of using a red herring argument to avoid addressing the argument. Kaldari is right. Getaway (formerly banned user "Keetoowah") is a blatant POV pusher, who has never made a "reasonable argument" for the unduly-weighted POV he wishes spread on the Al Gore III page. Getaway/Keetoowah seems to enjoy libelling the children of Democratic politicians, while removing any remotely negative information from the children of Republican politicians. (Contrast his edits on the Bush twins' pages with those he made on the Al Gore III page.) What a hypocrite. And, yes, Getaway/Keetoowah's actions are those of a troll. Eleemosynary 01:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please notice dear admins of all stripes that Eleemosynary personally attacked me with the word "hypocrite" (among other personal attacks) and not one admin on this page has attempted to tell Eleemosynary that his behavior violates the Wikipedian rules of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Once again, I would ask Eleemosynary to stop engaging in personal attacks.--Getaway 12:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Getaway/Keetowah. I'd be happy to post diffs for over 500 instances of personal attacks and disruptive edits coming from you, your various identities, and your sockpuppet/meatpuppets. I urge you, as Fred Bauder has, to take this to a dispute resolution so all information can come to light. : ) Eleemosynary 16:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The easy solution is to just delete the whole article. The only interest in it is in how it might discredit his dad. If you want to delete the Bush twins' article too I would not complain. Steve Dufour 02:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

While I applaud your even-handedness, the problem with this is that the twins, for whatever reason, are in fact far more notable than Al Gore III. A Google search for "jenna bush" turns up about 277,000 hits, while one for "al gore iii" turns up only about 2,820 hits. That's a difference of two orders of magnitude. (I didn't search for Barbara Bush because those results could also refer to the former First Lady.) For what it's worth, the 2nd Google hit for Al Gore III (after his Wikipedia bio, of course) is from CNN: Al Gore's son charged with pot possession. So, in fairness, we're not really overemphasizing criminality any worse than the mainstream press has done. Still, I think this "biography" should really be merged into the main Al Gore page. Al Gore III is clearly only notable because his father is a high-powered politician. *** Crotalus *** 05:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The marajuana incident I am referring to is from when Al Gore III was 13, not the adult incident commonly mentioned in the press. Wikipedia is not the place to discuss the children of famous people being suspended from school. No matter how you slice it, that does not belong in an encyclopedia. Regarding the "personal attacks", I can only refer to WP:SPADE. Although Getaway does make positive edits to non-political articles, I've only seen him edit political bios in a way that expresses a rather obvious bias. His attempts to twist policies into his defense and attack any criticisms rather than acknowledging the problems with his edits can only be seen as troll-like behavior. As much as I generally encourage gently nudging problematic editors, I'm not convinced that Getaway has any intention of wanting to be a legitimate contributor to Wikipedia, rather than simply a political POV-pusher. Kaldari 15:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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

John Travolta (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A lot of the article is devoted to rumors that he is gay. I just removed a tabloid photo of him kissing a friend and it was put right back. Steve Dufour 02:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is on several watchlists. Vandalism, including the sort reported here, is typically reverted quickly. — Athaenara 11:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

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

• Tracie Spencer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Gardeniagurl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

A user who says she is the subject of this article has changed the birthdate repeatedly, to make her two years younger. I have no issue with this ~ i've never heard of her other than as the subject of the article ~ but there are two fairly good references showing the prior date. Several users have attempted to persuade her not to do this, but she appears not to look at (or at least pay attention to) her talk page, or the talk page of the article, or even the edit summaries. Do we just keep watching this, or is there more to do? I defer, as a beginner, to the more experience users here. Cheers, Lindsay 07:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

How about not mentioning a birthdate at all? Steve Dufour 19:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent choice; it has been done, and remained stable for some time. Cheers, Lindsay 09:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

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

• Teesta Setalvad (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Mikeslackenerny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

The user in question persists in adding commentary and strongly contentious claims about this individual's views by what looks to me like misrepresentation of sources. I'd like some other editors to come in and have a look, if possible. Hornplease 08:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not marking this as resolved yet, but the user in question seems to have finally read WP:BLP and is being a little constructive on the talkpage. Hornplease 10:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Adam Cayton-Holland Adam Cayton-Holland (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Adam Cayton-Holland (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

At least he blames his friends, not us :-) But, ah, one to keep an eye on! - David Gerard 12:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"Bi-curious when drunk, maybe, but not gay."??? LMAO! :) I'll help keep an eye on it. MoodyGroove 19:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

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

• Dirk Nowitzki (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - The entire page keeps being deleted. Can someone please watch over it? 75.32.83.41 04:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Serial vandalism by unregistered users was reverted and the page was semi-protected. — Athaenara 22:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Duece22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) repeatedly added a long unsourced paragraph which kept NPOV editors busy reverting and earned the user a 24 hour block. — Athaenara 01:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

He's added it twice more since the block expired. If he continues, he's courting a second and probably longer block for 3RR violations. — Athaenara 09:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Just so. Second block: 48 hours. — Athaenara 02:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

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

• Matt Sanchez (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A USMC Reservist who has a past career as an actor in gay porn videos, is now being victimized by many in the blogosphere who feel that they have proof that he was also a gay prostitute. There are no secondary sources confirming this, just some "connect the dots" primary sources, and some conflicting statements by Sanchez himself. We've been trying to keep the article neutral and referenced, but various accounts (mostly {{spa}}) are generating some heat on the talkpage, and the article is currently protected. Some help from other experienced Wikipedia editors would be appreciated. Thanks, Elonka 21:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

To me he looks like a 15 minutes of fame guy. He is only notable for being involved in one incident. Steve Dufour 19:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Users Aatombomb (talk · contribs) and Bluemarine (talk · contribs) were doing most of the edit warring before WJBscribe protected the article. In general, there is far more speculative gossip-oriented content in this article than there should be in any Wikipedia biography. All of it should be removed. Wikipedia is distinct from the blogosphere and should remain so. — Athaenara 03:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that Bluemarine (talk · contribs) is Sanchez himself. WjBscribe 03:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Resolved.

→ See also: Keith Henson section in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive15.

• Maureen D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - advocacy on behalf of Keith Henson, see [1]
• Damotclese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - serious NPOV/vandalism issues, posting private info [2]
• 206.114.20.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - resolves to Scottsdale AZ, history of WP:NPOV issues, seems to act in concert
• Hkhenson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - article subject
• Keith Henson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)- This article is the one targeted by the above mentioned edits. These accounts seem to be acting in coordination. I am mediating a dispute between the subject, User:Hkhenson and another unrelated editor, so I don't want to revert any of these edits myself. Cleanup, page protection, and blocks may be required. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 21:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC) (modified Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 21:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC))

• Alluvialwind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) removed the {{OR}} tag in one edit and altered an external link in another. Reverted. — Athaenara 01:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Added {{BLPC}} for Category:BLP Check. — Athaenara 01:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Since time's-a-wastin', I have started cleaning up and issuing warnings. This may screw up the mediation I was doing, but on balance, this is more important. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 13:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP concerns have been mostly resolved. This situation needs monitoring for WP:COI and WP:NPOV. I am going to copy this report over to WP:COIN since that will be a better forum. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 18:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

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

• Robert Beltran (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

dont recall him raping michael jackson. best change it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.64.220.3 (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Simple vandalism, reverted. Hornplease 22:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

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

• Gloria Steinem (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Gloria Steinem biography, updated by a user on the 11th of May, contains crude and offensive material and sexual slang. Please watch this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.96.178.89 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandal attacks, most recently by 68.109.20.243. Article protected by FCYTravis. Hornplease 01:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Bad faith BLP enforcement?

→ See also: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat rejected.

Jossi knows very well that the statement that Maharaji aka Prem Rawat is a "cult" leader is stated in a reputable source, yet he defends removing it from user talk page [3] with the justification that the contributor does not mention its source. User:Jossi knows the source very well, because we discussed it extensively and he agreed it to be a reputable source. His removal of this statement with the stated reason of WP:BLP strikes me as either overzealous or made in bad faith. Jossi removes complaints by me about this from his talk page. [4]

An analogy. If I write without sources on my user talk page that George W. Bush made a mistake when attacking Iraq on my user talk page then removal of this statement by a contributor who knows very well that this has also been voiced in reputable sources strikes me as censorship.

Reputable source: Saul Levine chapter 9, discusses "Psychological Perspectives on Cult Leadership." in the book "Cults and New Religious Movements: A Report of the American Psychiatric Association " by Marc Galanter Andries 23:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

User talk space is not a free speech zone to make vulgar and unnecessary comments about living persons. No personal attacks is a universal policy. The action was quite justifiable. FCYTravis 00:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If somebody wants to write that Rawat ... then I think this is fine because this is also written down in reputable sources. I think removing such comments if you know the sources very well is censorship and inappropriate.

Sources:

1. Saul Levine chapter 9, discusses "Psychological Perspectives on Cult Leadership." in the book "Cults and New Religious Movements: A Report of the American Psychiatric Association " by Marc Galanter'

2. Rice, The Divine Light Mission as a social organization. pp.279-96

3. Brown, Chip, Parents Versus Cult: Frustration, Kidnapping, Tears; Who Became Kidnappers to Rescue Daughter From Her Guru, The Washington Post, February 15, 1982

4. Melton, J. Gordon The Encyclopedia Handbook of Cults in America p.143, Garland Publishing (1986) ISBN 0-8240-9036-5

Andries 01:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"Censorship?" As I said, Wikipedia is not a free speech zone. The Interwebs have plenty of places where you may freely make vulgar insults or string together a bunch of unproven allegations about someone and then call them all of the above. Wikipedia space is not one of them. I have similarly removed your comments from this page, because the BLP Noticeboard is not the place for it, either. FCYTravis 01:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, censorhip, because there is no policy that supports such removal, as much I am aware. Please show it if you disagree. Andries 01:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

And please I am waiting for you to cite policy that supports your removal. If you cannot I will revert. Andries 01:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA is not universal but is only meant for Wikipedia contributors, as is clear from its wording. Andries 01:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it's up to you to justify how personal attacks against a living person are valid material for a user talk page. See WP:USER. Using userspace pages for polemical purposes is prohibited. FCYTravis 01:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Material that's properly sourced isn't in violation of BLP. Rather than defending inclusion of the unsourced material it'd be easier just to append the source. -Will Beback · † · 01:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what the need was to make the comment on a user talk page, and the source didn't look reliable to me. But regardless, even with a good source, it was unnecessary. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The four sources mentioned here above are reliable and Jossi was fully aware of the existence and the contents of these sources. Andries 02:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Checking the subject's article, the allegations referenced appear to be heavily disputed - thus straight-up calling someone an "obese cult leader" would appear to me to be a potentially libelous statement of alleged fact. As I've noted, regardless of the source, user talk space is not "free pass to call people out" zone. FCYTravis 02:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No, that I do not agree with your reasoning. An analogy. I can write down on my user talk page that George W. Bush made a mistake when invading Iraq without violating BLP. I do not have to write "According to Time magazine (23/04/2006) Bush may have made a mistake."Andries 02:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

But calling him a fat pig would be childish and stupid. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree and I do not object to removing these comments ("fat pig"). I only object to removing comments that are well-known to be well-sourced. Andries 02:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

So, okay, I understand that the applicable rule in this case is not the policy WP:BLP, but the guideline against campaigning WP:USER#Removal_of_inappropriate_content. Correct? Andries 02:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

He removed two things, the first a link to some discussion group containing allegations about a BLP, and the second a comment about someone's personal appearance. Why are you even bothering anyone about this? We're here to write articles, not insult people on talk pages. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I object to removal of the word "cult leader" that is also mentioned in reputable sources and Jossi was fully aware of that. Jossi's removal is a bad faith enforcement of WP:BLP. Andries 02:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This is silly, Andries. It's a talk page. If there's a good source for him being a cult leader, and someone removes it from an article, then by all means raise a hue and cry. But there's no point in posting insults about living people on user talk pages. It's a waste of everyone's time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I will write down similar statement to include in a more concise version of the article on the article talk page and make sure that it is well-sourced. Andries 02:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC) amended 02:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not post insults about living people on user talk pages and have no intention to do so. I only object to removal of comments under the pretext of WP:BLP when the person who removes it is fully aware that the some of the comments can be very well sourced. Andries 02:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC) amended 02:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I do not think that this discussion is silly, because such censorship by Jossi will make the already bad relationship with other contributors worse. And he does not even attempt to address the issue seriously. Censorhip is the right word, because policy that he cites for removal does not apply here. Andries 02:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this a content dispute which has or has not been resolved, or a user conduct dispute which has either been resolved or should be presented on another venue? — Athaenara 02:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I am complaining about user:Jossi's bad faith BLP enforcement. Andries 19:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I've read this three times and I still don't know what's going on. --Gbleem 12:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the questions are: Can you call someone an "Obese cult leader" on a user talk page? If that is a BLP policy violation can it be deleted? --Gbleem 12:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that the word "obese" mentioned in a reputable source, so I do not oppose its removal. The word "cult leader" is mentioned in a reputable source, so it should not be removed citing BLP as a reason by a person (Jossi) who knows the reputable source very well. Andries 19:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the other issue is posting a link to a website that makes fun of the living person on the talk page and saying that you like to look at it. --Gbleem 12:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I had no problem with Jossi removing this link. Andries 19:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Just a couple of comments: First, Jossi helped put this noticeboard together, and the words "Jossi", "BLP", and "bad faith" just do not go together in the same sentence. Second, you cannot expect other editors to remember what sources exist for obscure bits of knowledge. Jossi is a very hard-working editor, and probably did not recall your sources. Third, material of this type must be sourced. If there is no source, or a poor source, the material should be removed from ALL namespaces, without discussion necessary. If you want the material to remain, then it is up to you to provide a source, or risk having it removed. It is not censorship, it is the rules. - Crockspot 20:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• No, Jossi is a self-admitted student of Prem Rawat and admits that he has conflict of interest on that article. Andries 21:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Jossi's problem is that he goes further in removing BLP issues in subjects that are dear to him than a reasonable and fair person would go and wikilawyers to justify his actions. His actions anger people who disagree with him more and more and works eventually counterproductive. Andries 21:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Then take it to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. — Athaenara 07:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The description here states "These may include disputes with tendentious editors [..]". So I believe this is the right place. Andries 08:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

A question, then: What specific result do you seek or expect from posting about this here (or anywhere)? — Athaenara 09:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, should stop enforcing BLP on this particular subject, because he has a self-admitted conflict of interest and hence behaves tendentiously and over-zealously. I admit that he really tries to be fair and reasonable when trying to enforce BLP and editing the article and the talk page, though I also think that he has not succeeded at all. Andries 09:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I have avoided replying to Andries spurious and baseless accusations until now, because I felt it was below my dignity to do so, and because given enough rope some people will tend to perform their proverbial self-hanging. As it stands now, I am preparing a user conduct RfC on Andries, so that the community can give further feedback about his his continuous threats at disruption and his overall attitude to this project and its editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, two questions

1. Do you admit that you have a WP:COI on the subject of Prem Rawat?

2. If the answer is yes, then don't you think that enforcing WP:BLP is better left to others who do not have a WP:COI

Andries 21:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Very clever, Andries. As you know I declared my possible COI last year. But your complain here was not about a possible COI, but about what you considered "bad faith and overzealous enforcement", as if the violation was not such. You could have removed the BLP violation yourself, as other editors here have argued for, but instead you attempted to re-publish that violation here, which was deleted by another editor that commented here. Your response was "I will revert you". Note that BLP violations can be removed by anyone, including these with possible COIs. You would be better off listening to the comments of other editors here, and you may need to re-read WP:COI as well as WP:BLP where that is explained. And while you are it, you can also take some time and re-read WP:POINT, reconsider the way your are interacting with me and others in this project, and self-assess your actions: are these helping this project or not? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, you have a self-admitted conflict of interest and hence I think that, though you may be Wikilegally right, you are not the right person to enforce BLP on this matter because you behave over-zealously and unreasonably. Andries 05:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, I think that you, not me, should re-consider your interaction with me. I gave a detailed complaint about your behavior on your talk page that you removed very quickly without giving a reply. Andries 05:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I did not re-publish a BLP violation. I re-publlished negative statements with reputable sources which is not a BLP violation. Andries 06:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the mediation request? The link for it (see top of this section) has gone red even though it still shows up on a search of WP and WT pages as a live link. Was it deleted? Moved with no redirect? — Athaenara ✉ 23:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. It showed up briefly on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected cases, which may be what this noticeboard should do with this section as well. — Athaenara ✉ 23:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

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

• Rebecca Curci (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

zerorules677 (talk · contribs) has been continuing to change Rebecca Curci's year of birth, despite not having a reliable source. For proof of this, go to talk page. Once I correct the year of birth on the article, zerorules677 (talk · contribs) will change it back to the wrong year of birth, and this happens nearly every day. If you could try and make her/him see some sense that would be great, as I'm getting annoyed with having to correct the year of birth every day. Thanks. Xchickenx 06:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not a BLP issue, but a content dispute. From what I read in the talk page, it seems nobody has a good, reliable source for what her birthday is. Thus no date should be inserted, and certainly not a "correction" to a date which is not reliably sourced. --C S (Talk) 07:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Benjamin Cohen (British journalist) Benjamin Cohen (British journalist) (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Benjamin Cohen (British journalist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) has been listed as "weasel words" and neutrality disputed. Can this be removed? Philsome 17:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

The {{weasel}} tag was removed two days later. — Athaenara 03:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Enrique A. Pollack Enrique A. Pollack (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Original report on Henry Pollack, since deleted. Enrique A. Pollack deletion overturned.

→ See also Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 12#Enrique A. Pollack
→ See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Henry Pollack

• Henry Pollack (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

There is a related thread posted at ANI. I have blocked the user for making legal threats.

The article itself is up for deletion, but it may yet be kept. Given charges of fraud against the subject, the article certainly needs to be cleaned up. There are also accusations of stalking, libel, and the works. Needs help. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 06:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion was overturned, procedural AfD which followed resulted in keep, Enrique A. Pollack returned to normal status. — Athaenara ✉ 04:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Preity Zinta (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A lot of rubbish has been written on Preity Zinta's page regarding her various polls and all. There has hundred's of polls like this.How many polls will you add.For instance Preity Zinta was not ranked in Filmfare's Annual Power List any time.Aishwarya Rai and Rani Mukherjee have been ranked 2 and 3 times in that list. And who cares about rediff and other such sites.Some sites even put actresses like Mallika on top.On top of that Aishwarya's name has been come in International surveys and that has not been written.It makes a impression that she is a huge star.Yes,she is a big star but not bigger than Aishwarya Rai or Hrithik Roshan. So I request you to delete this information of these rubbish surveys.-5:19, 11 May 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.63.160.206 (talk) 11:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

I don't seen an entry about polls on the talk page for the article. You should discuss it there first. --Gbleem 12:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

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

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Ostad

David Ostad (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - I am the original author of this article. I believe this article is accurate, referenced, and neutrally written. However, I would like to submit it for review because of the very negative facts relating to this person. I have never met this person nor have any friends, relative, or work colleagues who have been treated by him. I only saw him on TV on a show after the news (Entertainment Tonight? Access Hollywood? Inside Edition?)Newcolex 23:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

James Dobson James_Dobson (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

James Dobson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• I question whether the citations support saying he is an advocate of dominionism. What critics have written about him should certainly be mentioned, subject to due weight and neutrality. I think more, and more neutral, sources are needed before we can say Dobson advocates dominionism. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources provided are acceptable, Salon, etc, as was noted by a number of admins when they where previously discussed at Template_talk:Dominionism. Odd nature 23:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think people expect WP to have a higher standard than Salon, etc. Steve Dufour 00:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I seem to recall that the arbcom in a RfArb on Satya Sai Baba assumed salon.com was reliable. I certainly think it meets WP:RS, as there is significant editorial oversight. 160.39.52.232 06:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that Salon should not be used as a source. Steve Dufour 02:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This particular Salon article is an interview with someone who is promoting his book. It would be a good source for things that Chris Hodges said or thinks. He indirectly calls Dobson a dominionist. After looking over the talk page I'm not sure what the issue is. --Gbleem 12:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be part of a larger controversy focusing on the Dominionism-related articles. It appears that some sources say that Dobson is an advocate of Dominionism and some say that he is not, or that Dominionism doesn't actually exist as a broad movement within the Christian Right and is instead limited to a small fringe group not including Dobson. Is that right?

Although I did not do independent research on this beyond checking some of the online sources that WP cites, I cannot find anything glaringly wrong in the paragraph in Dobson's article. I believe that the main dispute revolves around including Dobson as an "advocate" in the template. If the reliable sources don't agree on something, WP cannot take a position either way. Accordingly, labelling Dobson as an "advocate" of Dominionism in the template seems inappropriate. However, including Dobson in the template under "Other" or a similar label would be appropriate, because a reader interested in Dominionism may be interested in his article. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Rich DeVos Richard_DeVos (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Rich DeVos (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I have removed Rich DeVos from the list of 'Financiers of Dominionism' on Template:Dominionism. The only source I can find is one article in Rolling Stone. That is not adequate to support listing him on the template. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have blocked User:Errorstock for restoring the name. Review invited. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Obvious sockpuppet. Musical Linguist 20:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• I again removed DeVos (and Monaghan, see above) and blocked User:151.151.73.167 to keep him from adding them again. Guettarda regards my block as grossly inappropriate and urges me in strong terms not to do such a thing again.[5] I am not persuaded by his reasoning, but I appreciate his review and welcome further input. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• • That template has been a source of trouble for a while. Like categories and article names, templates are hard to make NPOV. Guettarda is a level-headed guy, and I'm sure he's working towards consensus.
  • Regarding DeVos, this edit [6] to Amway removed several sources presumably about his connections to Dominionism. The unregistered editor described the material as: "original research" sourced from blogs. However I think some non-blog sources were also deleted. I've had it on my list to check through the deleted material to see if anything is salvageable but haven't gotten to it yet. Will Beback · † · 10:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I would certainly welcome wider participation. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm missing something? Why isn't the Rolling Stone citation enough? JoshuaZ 01:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe because if it was true that DeVos, one of the wealthiest people in the USA, was one of the main funders of a off-the-wall extremist politicial movement the fact would be reported in other media as well. Nothing against the Rolling Stone. Steve Dufour 19:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Bill O'Reilly Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This page is very poorly sourced, the majority of the cited sources are from the unabashedly agenda pushing Media Matters for America. Can I get some help bringing it to meet the sourcing requirements of BLP? The editors there simply do not understand that "multiple" sources are needed for negative material in a BLP article. Kyaa the Catlord 04:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see this as a BLP issue, but as a standard editing dispute. Per WP:BLP#Criticism: "The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material." O'Reilly has directly attacked Media Matters on-air, so in that context, their responses (as well as whatever statements prompted O'Reilly's initial criticisms) are notable and should be included. Obviously, care should be taken that this is done in a neutral manner. I do think that the "Controversy about O'Reilly's childhood home" section has some original research that should be removed, though. Ideally, this whole article should be merged back into the main O'Reilly article, but size considerations probably preclude that. *** Crotalus *** 05:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that it is an editting dispute for the most part. I agree that Media Matters should be covered, but it should not be used as a source per the following wording in BLP: "Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all." I've asked for multiple sources to back up the MMfA sourcing, but these have not been presented in the article. The related problem to having these sources not being presented is that "If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article." If the criticisms of BOR were more than that of a tiny minority, we'd be able to find more reliable sources than simply the partisan MMfA. (And I'm prepared for people to say that I'm wrong, I'm ok with that.) Kyaa the Catlord 06:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Also of note, it is somewhat questionable that the "criticism of BOR" article is larger than the BOR article. Kyaa the Catlord 06:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add that a highly critical study of BOR has been inserted as factual evidence that BOR insults people on a regular basis which appears to go beyond criticism involving BOR to direct criticism of BOR. Arzel 15:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

To me it seems like the article is not really about "Criticism of Bill O'Reilly." It is more like an outlet to repeat the criticisms. It seems more like a political website than an encyclopedia article. Steve Dufour 19:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and it appears to be quite common on BLP articles. Arzel 01:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If politics was excluded from WP about 90% of the problems posted on this noticeboard would go away. Steve Dufour 00:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I made some edits that I hope vitiate the POV nature of the study in question. Since the controversy has drawn replies from BOR and a FOX producer, I think it's notable. Best, MoodyGroove 19:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

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

Dan Burton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I haven't had a chance to read through everything carefully, but some recently added content here seems a little biased (and I say that as someone who is no fan of Burton). Also many of the references cited are bare URL links expired articles on a newspaper site. I dunno if these can be recovered from archives at the newspaper site, but the article doesn't provide much in the way of context to help locate them. older ≠ wiser 22:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Date, source, and article title are insufficient for you? Quatloo 23:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Many of the references are just fine -- there are some that are problematic though as in undated and dead link and a search of the site for the given title revealing no hits. older ≠ wiser 10:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If there is a date, source and title, there is no "problem" with a dead link, since you can consult the source at a library or archive. There is no restriction that a source be live on the Internet. That would be absurd. Undated links, that is a different issue altogether. Quatloo 18:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but if the link does NOT provide sufficient information it is not very easy to retreive this -- it is the dead, undated links that I was remarking on, not the other sufficiently cited sources. older ≠ wiser 12:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Fredwerner added to the intro,[7] "The 5th District is one of the most gerrymandered districts for Republicans, essentially guaranteeing his re-election despite his frequent golf trips, mis-statements, and other embarrassing scandals." To help me refine my blp-detector, does anyone see a problem with that? Tom Harrison ^Talk

I don't think it needs more refinement. There is a clear problem with that statement. --C S (Talk) 02:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:External links#What can be done with a dead external link
• Wikipedia:Dead external links
• Wikipedia:Citing sources#What to do when a reference link "goes dead"

The three pages I listed above apply here to the issue addressed in the initial report. It is an ongoing and widespread problem. User:Quatloo's tone, which implied that it is an editor attitude issue rather than an encyclopedia issue, was inappropriate. — Athaenara 03:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Then it should have been explained better. The complaint was about being unable to track something down because it was not on the Internet, even though the links had enough information. It should not have been framed as a source issue if the issue was actually something else. If you reread, it is as if "I can't find this source on the Internet without leaving my comfy chair, and things that are not on the Internet do not exist." An anti-dead-tree bias. When I checked the references had titles, sources, and dates. Quatloo 04:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the Wikipedia:Civility policy? — Athaenara 07:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I was, and am, being perfectly civil. Quatloo 10:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

While Quatloo's response may not have been especially polite or helpful (and perhaps even a little bit snarky), I wouldn't consider it as uncivil (speaking as one who has made an occasional curt or snarky remark myself). My point was (and is) that some of the dead links did not and do not contain sufficient information to retrieve them for verification (whether online or in dead tree format). A further point, was that some of the recent edits seemed to be decidedly biased -- and the editor was inserting these dead links as supporting evidence. It is not as if these links were inserted long ago and only recently went dead. It looked to me as though someone with an axe to grind against Burton may be using unverifiable (or at the very least, unverified) sources to insert biased comments. older ≠ wiser 12:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

My statement was entirely serious and not intended as a snipe. Because of its nature Wikipedia has a problem with offline sources. Also certain non-good-faith editors take advantage of the problem of offline sources by fabricating them in order to put false information in the article, but this is a somewhat rare occurrence. More frequent is an editor not believing a valid offline source and removing it or worse. I experienced a problem with an editor repeatedly removing a copyvio tag I had added because he simply could not believe parts of an article were copied from... Encyclopaedia Britannica. Even though he could easily have checked this. His reasoning -- it wasn't online in a place he could see it. His convenience of checking the suorce was paramount, and the truth was apparently unimportant. Quatloo 23:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a fairly common occurrence, especially on articles about political figures with strong ideological convictions (as well as with some other contentious issues), for editors to cherry-pick details from a print source to make the source appear to more strongly support a POV than a balanced reading of the text would warrant (or even worse, would completely misrepresent and distort the information in a print source). I've no problem with print sources, so long as they are appropriately cited. older ≠ wiser 02:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

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

• Gail Omvedt (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• 70.112.77.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Anon IP, probably a sock of the banned user Hkelkar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), repeatedly re-inserting contentious material, much of which sounds like classic well-poisoning to me, and is unsourced in terms of direct relevance. Hornplease 21:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• DachMaCheh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) also. — Athaenara 07:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

List of notable converts to Christianity List of notable converts to Christianity (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• List of notable converts to Christianity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Bob Dylan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Bus stop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

It has been remarked by the above user and some others the inclusion of the name Bob Dylan on this list, as well as reference to his prior seemingly well documented conversion to a form of Christianity on his own page, might potentially be grounds for a libel suit. The article has even been proposed for deletion on the basis of including that particular name. Please advise whether you believe there are possible grounds for legal action here, and/or whether the evidence cited would seemingly be enough to include the name on the list and/or information relevant to the topic in the Bob Dylan article itself. John Carter 14:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Grounds for a libel suit? Why? Could you please link to the part of the talkpage that discusses that? Hornplease 14:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Found it. It's on the List page, not the Dylan page, in case anyone is looking. "To label a practicing Jew as a "convert to Christianity" is potentially libellous." OK, whatever. Hornplease 14:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

"Documentation" for conversion is virtually nonexistent. Dylan was born and raised a Jew. Dylan spent two years (1979/1980) performing in a "Christian" mode. Very arguably his "sermonettes" delivered from the stage were a prop to support his professional performance. He has since been seen re-involving himself in many Jewish-oriented pursuits and activities. Most importantly -- Dylan has had no involvement with Christianity since he stepped down from the stage of his last "Gospel" concert in 1980. Without the active negation of his Jewish identity there is virtually no argument to be made in support of the labeling of Dylan either as a "Christian" or a "convert to Christianity." Bus stop 13:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The standard here is "verifiability, not truth". Since this is verifiable [8],[9] (15 additional sources cited in the article/list) as per wikipedia policy, there are no libel issues here. JJay 13:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've always had the feeling the Dylan was influenced by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Steve Dufour 14:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This issue would not even exist if not for a contrivance in the parameters of the list in question. See here. Bus stop 14:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

All you have to do is compare the two sets of parameters if you have any doubts which is more natural, logical, or commonsensical. I think you will see one is clearly a contrivance. This list (List of converts to Christianity) stands in contrast to those Christians who are not converts to Christianity. There are, in actuality, only two means of arriving at Christianity: by birth, and by conversion. The natural parameters of this list are those parameters that distinguish those on this list from those who arrive at their Christian identity by means of being born Christian. It is an added criteria contrived by editors to define this list as including "all those notable people who have ever converted to Christianity." And that contrivance is quite simply to get superstar Dylan onto the list. It is just a contrivance. Bus stop 15:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, why not take a little dose of WP:AGF and stop accusing other editors of contrivances? Often these sorts of problems with lists can be solved with better definitions of the criteria for inclusion. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about this some more, although I think this isn't really a WP:BLP issue and that Bus Stop is a bit over the top, I'm not sure that we are doing the best job of informing our readers by characterizing Dylan a "convert" to Christianity based on a three-year flirtation with it nearly thirty years ago. Mere lists with no other information about the topic are pretty uninformative in general. Perhaps Dylan's entry on this list could say that he converted to Christianity but abandoned it three years later? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

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

• Beatrice Arthur (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Is it properly and adequately documented that American actress Beatrice Arthur was born a hermaphrodite, as her Wiki bio says in its present form? I've followed her career for decades, yet this nugget of information somehow escaped my attention until I happened to read it today! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeygator (talk • contribs) 03:05, May 18 2007 (UTC)

DISREGARD...within the several minutes that have elapsed since I posted this, the bio has been edited and no longer makes reference to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeygator (talk • contribs) 03:12, May 18 2007 (UTC)

List of bisexual people List of bisexual people (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• List of bisexual people (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

After extensive overhaul and watchlisting by the LGBT studies WikiProject, this list had finally reached a high status of attribution and reliability. Then someone added Jackie Clune, a British journalist who identified as a lesbian in the past and currently identifies as straight, based on this source, which clearly states that she does not wish to be identified as bisexual. I tried to remove the entry ([10]) and was reverted, and then brought the issue up on the talk page. Yet, after weeks of absence, the issue has yet to be resolved. Please advise. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 15:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I read the article you linked to and it is far from obvious to me that Clune "currently identifies as straight". In fact, it seems to me the whole point of her article is that she refuses to be categorized by labels such as "straight" or "bisexual", etc., but considers herself (and others) as on a "continuum, the polarities being absolutely straight and absolutely gay." But I would agree she does not wish to be called "bisexual", although that seems a rather minor point to her overall message. I'm not sure if this is really a BLP issue; Clune clearly revels in her ambiguous status and publicizes it heavily (she wrote an article, makes it part of her comedy act, etc), so it's highly unlikely her inclusion on this list could somehow affect her life negatively. ---C S (Talk) 17:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP#Use of 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, according to reliable published sources.

This doesn't explicitly say it applies to lists too, but common sense would suggest it does.

Moreover, the BLP policy says that "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles." It doesn't have to be negative; positive and just questionable material should be removed too. Ken Arromdee 23:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I was unclear above, although I would suggest reading the article linked and then my response. Clune's sexual preferences are definitely relevant to her notable activities and public life. She also makes a habit of publicly self-identifying as on a continuum between straight and gay; she basically coyly suggests she would be what many people call "bisexual" while stating "hey, don't call me bisexual!" to make her philosophical point. So I don't believe this is the kind of "questionable" material that the BLP policy is meant to be applied to. --C S (Talk) 04:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to get into questionable content, perhaps you should take a look at the Jackie Clune article itself, where "she currently identifies herself as straight" is supported by the linked Guardian article I discussed above. My reading of that article is that she doesn't actually do so and I would say that is truly questionable. By the way, I think applying these category criteria would essentially smoke the list; this kind of list is always problematic, and it doesn't appear to have been set up to follow these criteria. --C S (Talk) 04:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Besides that, how can we know for sure that a person is bisexual? Ask them? Steve Dufour 05:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

In lists about people, Wikipedia:Categorization of people applies. We cannot and should not make assertions about a person's ideology, sexual orientation or other such personal issues, unless that assertion is made by the person himself and such assertion is publoihsed in a reliable source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

For instance, Ian McKellen is legitimately categorised in Category:LGBT people from England because he self-identifies as such and is a prominent LGBT campaigner. -- ChrisO 00:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The point I was trying to make is that if bisexual means having feelings towards both genders we really have no way to know for sure because we can not measure a person's feelings. However, I would support a list of bisexual people if that was defined by them saying that they were. Steve Dufour 00:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

In response to Chan-Ho, the line you're looking for is at the very beginning of the article: "I decided to "go back in" and went straight." Clune says explicitly that she went "straight" -- an easy equivalent to "heterosexual" -- not that she went back to men, or any other such ambiguous statement. She didn't say, "I'm attracted to both sexes, but I don't like labels; she said, "I'm straight." How can she possibly be included in a list of bisexual people when she does not now, nor has in the past (as far as I'm aware) identified as bisexual? LeaHazel : talk : contribs 17:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think she should be put on any list. Steve Dufour 19:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Marilyn Monroe is on the list, but the source used doesn't seem the least bit reliable. Perhaps this list needs more checking. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 13:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Frank Colacurcio, Sr. Frank Colacurcio, Sr. (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Frank Colacurcio, Sr. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Frank Colacurcio runs a number of strip-clubs in the Seattle area and is the alleged head (or former head) of the Seattle Mafia. Considering that claim is well-referenced in the article via the external links, I thought much of the article was be fine, so I left most of it alone. But I'm not 100% sure, and there was a claim in there that Colacurcio was associated with former Washington State governor Albero Rosellini, and one sentence that went as far as to say Rosellini was suspected of running the mob that Colacurcio once headed. I went ahead and removed that line, but given the article's anemic sourcing, I'm wondering if more drastic actions is necessary. The article has details on the rise of Colacurcio from associate to boss, and without footnotes, I am unsure if any of that is permissable under WP:BLP. hateless 21:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, none of the linked articles suggest that he is in fact Mafia, although one Seattle PI article imply he has been accused of that or at least of being an organized crime boss. That article is basically about him defending himself and denying these allegations. This biography seems rather shady to me. The Seattle Weekly article seems more like an opinionated attack piece, and I certainly would not put it as a reliable source. Currently, his WP bio has nothing really about his life apart from his past criminal activities and allegations. And yes, not knowing where certain fact(?)s are sourced from is a major problem. Some books are listed, but they mainly seem to be about other people. One book is "Orders to Kill: The Truth Behind the Murder of Martin Luther King", which doesn't inspire much confidence as a reliable source. So this article seems riddled with problems. --C S (Talk) 05:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for examining the article Chan-Ho. The Seattle Times published this article on their homepage today that Colacurcio is being investigated for five murders in the 70's and 80's, and that he was once considered Seattle's connection to the mafia, but "more likely, investigators have concluded" that he was the head of a organized crime outfit. Given this material, and whatever sources left on the page that can be relied upon, how far back do you think the article be scaled back? hateless 06:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. Anyway, I would say most of the article before "recent years" section should just be deleted and the 100% factual parts can be added in, but in a better way. The real issue is that even the correct facts are introduced or mixed in with speculation. Also, the lede is highly unsatisfactory. Describe what he is and what he does (retired businessman who ran series of strip clubs, now a consultant), and then a statement saying something like he is being investigated for being an organized crime head is sufficient. --C S (Talk) 04:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

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

• Natalee Holloway (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Natalee Holloway is an article about a missing person, who may or may not be alive. However, I received an email of complaint from a family friend, so it may be one to watch and apply stringent content policies to - David Gerard 18:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• I added the Living people cat so that recent changes to the article appear in our monitoring tool. I also added a commented-out comment stating why it's there, and not to remove it until her living status is confirmed. Watchlisted as well. - Crockspot 19:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• The "Living people" category, while it may "feel" like the right thing from a humanity standpoint, is almost certainly incorrect and should probably be removed. Quatloo 05:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it should if the consensus is that she is dead. If the concern is simply one of ensuring that BLP concerns are met to protect WP, it's on my watchlist now, and I'm sure on a few others. Hornplease 09:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Scientology and the legal system Scientology and the legal system (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Scientology and the legal system (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This article includes a list of about 70 lawyers who have done legal work for the Church of Scientology. (6 of them have WP articles of their own.) I'm not sure what to make of this. It might not be a living persons violation but it does seem kind of strange. Steve Dufour 19:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed some of the names about which no sources were provided. There is a need to check all other names to ensure that these are all reliable sources for the claims made. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, every name on that list was sourced. There were two general source links that covered everyone on the list who didn't have a specific citation right after their name. wikipediatrix 02:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If that is the case and to comply with WP:BLP, please use the <ref name=theref /> format so that each entry can be verified against a source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I am quite concerned about this list's compliance with WP:LIVING which quite frankly goes beyond whether the lawyers are Scientologists or not, particularly given the high quality standard of source material required for potentially defamatory information about living persons. The article describes numerous allegations that Scientology abuses the legal system, some of which are quite serious and would amount to professional misconduct on the part of any lawyer involved. Immediately below follows an indiscriminate list of lawyers that are supposed to have acted for Scientology at one time or another (for many of which the only source is a single web page describing them all as 'shysters' without any evidence). The implication is obvious. I have raised these legitimate concerns on the talk page, but the editors involved have chosen to respond with unilateral reverts and blank assertions that the list is 'relevant'. What can be done to get some objective intervention on this? -- Really Spooky 00:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The article does not specifically accuse these lawyers of wrongdoing, or of anything else, for that matter. Furthermore, the article does not state that they are Scientologists themselves, so I don't know why you would even mention that. There is no "supposed to have" about it - are you saying you doubt that any of these lawyers have actually done work for the CoS and its entities? Tell me which ones. wikipediatrix 02:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I never said the article contains direct accusations, but rather that it stigmatises them by implication. The list is juxtaposed in an article discussing Scientology lawyers' misdeeds, which is something the law calls 'innuendo', and would be sufficient for any one of them to start a defamation lawsuit (at least in England, not sure of the position in America). The only other way I can see of dealing with this is to include a clear disclaimer above the list to the effect of wikipediatrix' words above, namely that inclusion in the list does not imply any wrongdoing or misconduct on the part of the lawyer or that s/he is a Scientologist.

My concern on the WP:LIVING issue is not whether a particular lawyer has actually done work for Scientology or not (that is an issue of mere factual accuracy) but rather the innuendo issue I raise above. Having said that, there are several on the list without any or any conclusive references (Blakely, Bokor, Pesce and Sanders to name a few, I haven't checked all of them), and the quality of most of the source material is very poor indeed, definitely not up to the high standard required by WP:LIVING. -- Really Spooky 02:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

PS - See WP:LIVING#Sources#Reliable sources, which hopefully should make clear the issue I am talking about here. - Really Spooky 02:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The article most certainly does not "discuss Scientology lawyers' misdeeds", so there goes your whole "juxtaposed innuendo" theory out the window. The only misdeed mentioned is the frivolous-lawsuit fine given to Helena Kobrin. wikipediatrix 03:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

As you well know, the article is full of comments about Scientology harassment, surveillance, intimidation and threats by unnamed people, and not just the Kobrin incident. I can assure you, those are all misdeeds. The article also says Scientology spends millions of dollars on legal fees to accomplish these things (presumably not just on Kobrin), and then provides a list of their lawyers. Anyhow, I'm not going to argue with you further on this point, as you are clearly not interested in any other point of view than your own. I trust other editors less emotionally attached to the list of lawyers will see what I am talking about. -- Really Spooky 03:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the list. The sources largely fail to meet reliability requirements, and are clearly not neutral. The list is an attempt to attack living people by associating them with COS, and as such clearly violates both WP:BLP and WP:NOR. FNMF 02:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

And you're violating WP:AGF and WP:NPA by presuming to know that this list was "an attempt" to attack anyone. You've also insulted our Scientologist editors by claiming that mere association with the CoS constitutes an attack :) Can you explain exactly how the list is an attempt to attack living people by associating them with COS"? You kinda have to do more than just SAY that, you have to show some sort of, you know, reasoning. wikipediatrix 03:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If the attorneys are not being accused of anything, but are simply being listed as lawyers who have acted for the COS, then there is nothing notable about them, and there is no reason to include the list. Who somebody's lawyers are is not encyclopaedic information. FNMF 03:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur, this list is inappropriate trivia. It is peculiar that Wikipedia does not sport such lists for other organizations. Quatloo 05:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Scientology and sex Scientology and sex (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Scientology and sex (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Sorry to have to mention another Scientology article, but an average of one a day are being written. This one mentions some Scientologists who have done nude scenes in movies. The implication seems to be that somehow this is a contradiction of their religion without any supporting evidence given. Steve Dufour 05:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You've completely failed to read what the article says, then. It does not say, nor does it imply, this is a contradiction of their religion. wikipediatrix 12:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of this page is to deal with factual inaccuracies or defamatory comments about living people. I don't know about Mimi Rogers or John Travolta, but I saw Eyes Wide Shut and Nicole Kidman was most certainly nude there. Don't know if she was a Scientologist at the time, however. -- Really Spooky 05:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

There are no factual inaccuracies in this article. Since the bit about movie stars is about 5 percent of the article, it's preposterous for you to insultingly claim that the "purpose of this page" is to make defamatory comments about them. wikipediatrix 12:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

wikipediatrix, I think you have simply misunderstood my comment. By 'this page' I was referring to this Noticeboard, not the Scientology article. The point I was trying to make to Steve Dufour is that the Noticeboard is only for dealing with factual inaccuracies or defamatory comments about living people, whereas the statement that Nicole Kidman has appeared nude in a film is neither factually inaccurate nor does it strike me as defamatory. It appears that Steve Dufour understood my comment correctly (see below), although he disagreed with me. -- Really Spooky 15:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't question that. However the article seems to be saying that they are going against their religion by doing so. That could be defamatory. Steve Dufour 05:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't "seem" to be saying any such thing, in fact, it's saying just the opposite. wikipediatrix 12:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the offending sentence: "Despite the anti-sexual attitudes inherent in Scientology doctrine, many Scientologist actors have appeared nude or nearly nude in films, such as Mimi Rogers, John Travolta, Nicole Kidman, and others." The word "despite" makes me think that a problem is being pointed out. BTW most Scientologists that I know personally seem to have fairly normal sex lives. Steve Dufour 13:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

And on the basis of that single word "despite", you brought this to the BLP noticeboard?? No problem is being pointed out by the "despite". It's actually supporting your own position that most Scientologists are sexually normal, by noting that despite the previous sourced information about Hubbard's Pain and Sex edict, Scientologists are apparently still free to do what they want. wikipediatrix 13:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Then the article should be about "L. Ron Hubbard's opinions about sex". As it is now it implies that all Scientologists have views and practices based on the things he had to say. Steve Dufour 13:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, no, it implies no such thing. The article isn't about Hubbard's opinions, it's about what is contained in official Scientology doctrine, and it is flawlessly sourced and referenced in that respect. The section you are trying to remove is, ironically, the part of the article that supports your own position, since it indicates that Scientologists apparently do have free will to do what they want, sexually. But like a Catholic who doesn't always agree with the Pope, that doesn't change what is written in official Church doctrine, and that is what the article is about. wikipediatrix 14:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Then change the title of the article to "The official Church of Scientology doctrine on sex", if that is what the article is really about. Steve Dufour 14:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Anecdotally, I don't think Nicole Kidman was ever a Scientologist. She's self-identified as Catholic, and a videotaped interview (which I still have a copy of) recorded just after her breakup with TC had her stating that the difference in their religious beliefs wasn't a factor in their breakup. Anchoress 05:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

She was taking Scientology courses under Tom's nagging, and some sources say she actually reached OT II. You can be a Scientologist and still be Catholic, or so the CoS says. wikipediatrix 12:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Does taking Scientology courses make you a Scientologist? Her article has her in the category 'ex Scientologists', but there's nothing in the article itself about her relationship to Scientology. Anchoress 14:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

A Scientologist is defined as "a believer in Scientology". Presumably one believes in Scientology to some degree if they are involved in it, and spending the money to be taking the courses. (Especially if she got all the way to OT II.) wikipediatrix 15:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

In California, especially, lots of people take courses and so forth in various spiritual type things without becoming members of anything. Steve Dufour 07:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That section needs to be removed for violating WP:NOR, if nothing else. If there is a source that describers a duality between nudity and the CoS religious dogma, you can re-add it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

John W. Morgan John W. Morgan (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• John W. Morgan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Hello there,

I keep removing unsourced references to John Morgan's IQ as per policy of the Biographies of living persons. The various agruments have included that it is public knowledge (I am from the public and have asked many in the public, all of whom have answered negative to that statement) and that most people, including a significate amount of untracable non-users, disagree with me so I am wrong.

I have just been accused of Edit Warring for what I consider to be vandalism because it is unsourced. While I think IQ is hardly encyclopedic and should not be included or hinted, in this particular case it seems extremely biased, putting the person in question in a very favourable light which could be taken as braging/glotting or extremely intellegent and therefore should not be opposed, both of which are hardly views of impartiality. I am removing any mention to IQ as I believe it to fall under Biographies of living persons policy that "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous". I am notifying you as I am not comfortable with being accused of Edit warring when I believe myself to be following policy. --Kirkoconnell 00:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• I left a note on the talk page. - Crockspot 05:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• I copied the above out of archive 17, and am reopening this case. I've been sitting on the article for the past ten days, and I have determined that at the best case, there is an abusive meatpuppet team of three working this article, violating, circumventing, and evading 3RR, committing personal attacks against User:Kirkoconnell, posting personal information about him in edit summaries, and continuously inserting the same piece of unsourced information. At worst case, we are dealing with one person here. Below I have listed every IP address that has ever edited the article. The vast majority have edit histories limited only to this one article, and are involved in the reverts and attacks. Some have been blocked and/or warned. One was blocked for evading the block of another. There is also quite a bit of consistency with unsigned talk page comments. I made some notes at the end, bold notations are blocks and warnings, italics are behavior I observed in edit histories, PA-personal attack, RV-reverting the same unsourced info, PI-disclosing personal information. - Crockspot 00:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• 24.138.48.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) EastLink (Halifax) Dartmouth, Nova Scotia - B:3RR W:Tilde
• 24.222.89.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) EastLink (Halifax) Lower Sackville, Nova Scotia - W:Tilde not involved?
• 24.224.195.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) EastLink (Halifax) Halifax, Nova Scotia - W:NPA
• 24.224.254.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) EastLink (Halifax) Halifax, Nova Scotia -
• 142.68.12.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Bell Aliant, St. John, New Brunswick - W:NPA
• 142.68.12.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Bell Aliant, St. John, New Brunswick - not involved
• 142.68.13.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Bell Aliant, St. John, New Brunswick - PA
• 142.68.13.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Bell Aliant, St. John, New Brunswick - RV
• 142.68.13.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Bell Aliant, St. John, New Brunswick - strange
• 142.68.13.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Bell Aliant, St. John, New Brunswick - RV
• 142.68.13.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Bell Aliant, St. John, New Brunswick - RV
• 142.68.14.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Bell Aliant, St. John, New Brunswick - RV
• 142.68.14.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Bell Aliant, St. John, New Brunswick - RV
• 142.68.14.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Bell Aliant, St. John, New Brunswick - RV, PA
• 142.68.14.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Bell Aliant, St. John, New Brunswick - B:Evade3RR summary:(This is User:24.138.48.196 evading 3rr block)
• 142.68.14.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Bell Aliant, St. John, New Brunswick - RV
• 142.68.14.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Bell Aliant, St. John, New Brunswick - RV, PA, PI
• 142.68.14.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Bell Aliant, St. John, New Brunswick - RV
• 142.167.192.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Stentor, Truro, Nova Scotia
• 142.167.217.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Stentor, Truro, Nova Scotia - RV
• 142.167.233.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Stentor, Halifax, Nova Scotia - RV, evading?
• 142.167.238.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Stentor, Halifax, Nova Scotia - RV
• 142.167.238.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Stentor, Halifax, Nova Scotia
• 142.176.13.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Stentor, Halifax, Nova Scotia - B:3RR x2 RV, PA
• 206.191.22.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Sheraton Ottawa Hotel - RV

The only way I see to resolve this without blocking out all of the Maritimes is to semi-protect the page for an extended period of time. As this person or persons seem to have no other interest than this article, he/they will have to create an account(s), and be accountable for their behavior, or not be able to edit. I know that long term sprotects are something that the community tries to avoid, but in this case I believe it is warranted. - Crockspot 00:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I support temporary semiprotection on the grounds that it halts edit warring while discouraging irresponsible users from editing and encouraging responsible editors to register.

Note: as a member of a high IQ organisation myself, I am not at all comfortable with the term accusation (see article talk page & article edit summaries) in the context of public acknowledgement of it, but "I thought I would settle this debate, for good!" is funny :-D Athaenara ✉ 03:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Article is now sprotected for 4 weeks. I will add to my watchlist to keep an eye on it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

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

• Mumbai underworld (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Completely unsourced article accusing numerous named people of serious crimes. AndyJones 13:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Merged onto Indian mafia, and unsourced material removed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)