Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive19

Carla Baron

• Carla Baron (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

"Material found in self-published books, zines, websites and blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject (see below). These sources should also not be included as external links in BLPs, subject to the same exception." - Wikipedia

In light of the above caveat-

I wish to report that an organization named IIG West has self-published an article on me that I consider to be in extremely poor taste and defamatory.

• IIG Official Investigation of Claims of Carla Baron - contributed by user name: Grinder2112 (talk · contribs)

I am requesting full protection for this page, of which I am the subject.

I had emailed Wikipedia twice now regarding this issue, with no reply. I'd appreciate a firm and quick response to this matter. I understand that your volunteer associates are quite busy, but this matter is of a critical & professionally damaging nature.

Thank you,

Carla Baron Psychic profiler 06:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There are a couple of issues here. First, similar criticism is also on the Randi site, see: http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-07/072106gentle.html#i6 . Is that site not a well known skeptics site? It seems unlikely that it would come under the BPL self-published classification above. Secondly, why are you writing an article about yourself, more importantly, restarting it after it has been deleted. This looks a lot like self promotion. David D. (Talk) 06:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOT. Specifically the following section.

• Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

You should not recreate the article after it has been deleted. You should leave it to other wikipedians to write about you. David D. (Talk) 06:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Subject has complained on OTRS. My opinion: keep it deleted until it calms down. This is not a high priority topic. David.Monniaux 06:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

'until it calms down'? This is not a fast-happening current event that might blow over. She's a media figure complaining about a link to an unflattering report written about her in 2005. It's never going to 'calm down' because any article written about her will certainly include a link to that or some other article about her she doesn't like. Here's a suggestion to Ms. Baron: Go prove them wrong. Win their money, then donate it to a charity for crime victims. Chris Croy 06:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well at least let's wait until we stop getting emails every 5 minutes. Also, can somebody investigate whether that report is legitimate news, or just some crank? David.Monniaux 07:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you asking if James Randi a crank? He hosts one of the sites critiquing Carla Baron. David D. (Talk) 07:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not add my name to the Wikipedia listings for my name whatsoever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carla_Baron

I found this listing when someone emailed the link to me after it was created by someone. I know not who.

I do not need to create publicity for myself, as it is well-known I star in my own series on Court TV. I was merely adding links that I have sanctioned as official for Carla Baron. This is for genuine Carla Baron fans to easily locate links that are mine. I am sorry if I was "redundant" on these as I am new. That is the extent of it. - Carla Baron Psychic profiler 07:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think much of the problem here is due to your inexperience. David.Monniaux deleted the article, apparently at the request of an e-mails from yourself to OTRS. Why then did you recreat the article? Possibly you did not realise you recreated it? David, can you see who created the first version you deleted? I had edited that first version and I could have sworn Psychic profiler was the user who created that article too. David D. (Talk) 08:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that she was editing the article today to remove the link but this was AFTER she emailed OTRS. While she was editing it, David read her email, deleted the article, then she unknowingly re-created it. It was apparently speedy deleted again at some point before May 29th. Chris Croy 09:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense; so this is an ongoing saga. David D. (Talk) 09:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's bad to delete an article about someone who has chosen to be in the public eye and is. There will be negative links; use of psychic powers is controversial, and some people delight in pointing out the man behind the curtain. But NPOV demands that they be there. More importantly, we can't just blank the page as per my comment on the talk page; it looks like vandalism instead of proper administrator action.--Prosfilaes 09:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your expedient and authoritative efforts in protecting the integrity of my page, David.Monniaux - Carla Baron Psychic profiler 18:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV violation and cover-up of criticism

Carla Baron, this matter involves an obvious attempt to cover-up criticism of yourself. Such coverups aren't allowed here unless the information is libelous or undocumented. Articles here include criticism. Your misuse of this BLP Noticeboard will not succeed and has only brought more attention to your agenda, which is to keep criticism out of the article.

This documented criticism needs to be included:

• IIG Official Investigation of Claims of Carla Baron
• James Randi site
• The Case of the ‘Psychic Detectives’

I suspect there are other third party sources that can also be used to bring balance to the article. If there are issues with the quality (RS, V) of those sources, that is one matter, but covering up criticism violates NPOV, and there is plenty of criticism out there!

Carla, what has happened here is that you have become the victim of Wikipedia's "Law of Unintended Consequences":

This applies to all articles and to any subject, including pet ideas or favorite singer, regardless of who started the article. We need to cover the subject from all angles, and NPOV requires that both sides of the story are presented, so criticism is included. Many think they can write an article presenting a subject in the best light possible, only to find they have opened a can of worms and Pandora's box itself. Once the article is started, all kinds of negative things also become part of the article. So attempts to promote something often end up back-firing.

As we have often seen here, attempts to cover-up documented criticism only results in more unwanted attention and even better referenced criticisms being added to the article in question. We aren't interested in your idea of "truth", but in NPOV coverage of all aspects of the subject. Hagiographic articles are fine in the media or your own website, but are totally inappropriate here.

Your proper role here (since you have a conflict of interest) is to ensure that obvious libel or undocumented criticisms are corrected, and that is best done by participating at the article's talk page and convincing other editors to help you do it if they can be convinced by your arguments. If that doesn't work, then you can use this board.

The article should be restored, including the criticism. This attempt to violate NPOV and misuse this board should back-fire big. -- Fyslee/talk 05:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This appears to be run of the mill criticism of a public figure. The criticism does not appear to be libelous so what is the problem? The might set a bad precedent, imagine all the politicians sending e-mails to OTRS every five minutes since they know they can blank the criticism along with the article. Is this the path that wikipedia is moving toward?David D. (Talk) 06:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Carla is certainly notable enough to warrant her own article here. She won't like some of the content, but that's life. If she can't stand in for her beliefs or actions and feels compelled to cover-up criticism here, she should choose another vocation as a private person. Her current actions in deleting criticism and warnings is going to make her a lightning rod here. They invite lightning strikes...;-) -- Fyslee/talk 13:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently there's more to it than that. According to logs and history, Carla Baron is now a protected redirect to Haunting Evidence. Case looks closed. — Athaenara ✉ 15:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Bill Freeman

→ See also: first AfD, second AfD

Resolved. article deleted

• Bill Freeman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - This article has been previously deleted for violating the guidelines for biographies of living persons (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bill_Freeman_%282%29) Since it has been re-posted with the same factual inaccuracy and bias, it seems worthy of speedy deletion. It is obviously using wikipedia as a means of personal attack rather than the factual information it was designed for. Since there seems to be no way of maintaining a neutral, factual article about Bill Freeman's life and work as a Christian author and speaker, is there a solution for this situation? Rather than having to repeat this cycle of deleting the article, it being re-posted, and having to delete it again, could it be blocked? Wh4ever 18:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it resolved? Although the article has been deleted three times, as recorded on the logs page, it has not been protected against re-creation. — Athaenara ✉ 04:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that it is wise to protect. First AfD was keep. Maybe someone will write the article properly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Article deleted, protected (see logs) against re-creation. — Athaenara ✉ 15:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

List of drug smugglers

Resolved. Cleaned up and on AfD

This is a problematic list with no sources itself. I removed the name of people (possibly living) who do not have an individual WP article and also some famous families that looked like vandalism as there was no mention of this in the main articles on them. I also removed the name whose articles I list as problems below. I did not due a great deal of research here due to the number of of problems. diff

• Antônio Mota Graça (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Completely unsourced, possibly living, I blanked it

• Bradley John Murdoch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - This article is nearly completely sourced. Expect for one accusation I removed. However there is no info about drug smuggling.

• Ochoa brothers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Some of the brothers living. Completely unsourced. I pretty much blanked it.

Please tell me if I am doing something wrong here.--BirgitteSB 20:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• This indiscriminate list should be nominated for deletion. It's not nearly complete (I can think of at least one Hall of Fame baseball player convicted of smuggling drugs, who isn't included here) and probably can't ever be complete. Besides, the scope is vague. If a famous person smuggles drugs in the country in their personal baggage for their own use, is that smuggling, and is it fair to list them on a list along with kingpins like Pablo Escobar? Also, in some cases the charges are disputed (was Joe Kennedy ever actually convicted of anything?) Better just to delete the unmaintainable list. *** Crotalus *** 22:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Lists like this are a bad idea and ought to be deleted as soon as they are found. They're too much like tabloid journalism and can attract wrong accusations. Raymond Arritt 02:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

On AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_drug_smugglers ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Pablo Ganguli

Resolved. article is well sourced

• Pablo Ganguli (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Zeouspom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 144.124.16.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 59.178.69.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - baseless report.

Not notable, links/ cited articles not found. the article may be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.69.229 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

Article seems to be well sourced at first glance. Only a few links seem to be not available. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Barrett

→ See also: Stephen Barrett section in BLP/N archive 11.

• Stephen Barrett (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - There has been an ongoing dispute to add the following content to this article: Stephen Barrett is not board certified. This information is verifiable by a number of sources that have been given the approval of the editors at a sister noticeboard for WP:RS. See the conversation here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Stephen_Barrett. Now that we have confirmed that our sources are reliable, there are still just a couple of editors who think this content should be excluded as it constitutes a violation of WP:BLP. Please see the talk page here: Talk:Stephen_Barrett#Another_suggested_compromise. It should be noted that the sources which we have include Barrett himself at Wikipedia stating that he is open with this information. (A brief background: Barrett's detractors have claimed that Barrett is reluctant to admit that he is not Board Certified; Barrett responds that he is public with this information.) Anyhow, I would greatly appreciate any and all of your expert guidance here. Thanks! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is a BLP interpretation from one of the editors in favor excluding the information: Talk:Stephen_Barrett#Umbrella_of_Policy. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The sources that Levine wishes to use are among others to chiropractic magazine while the subject of the article is a noted critic of chiropractics. The problem should be clear. JoshuaZ 01:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

True, some of the sources are from chiropractic trade publications. Of course the main sources which have been deemed reliable by the editors at the Reliable Source Noticeboard are two court documents and a statement made by Barrett himself at Wikipedia:

• Stephen Barrett at Wikipedia
• Barrett v. Fonorow
• Barrett v. Mercola

These sources confirm that Barrett is not Board Certified. Barrett himself says that he is not Board Certified. Barrett says that he is public with this information. I really don't see the BLP issue here. However, I bow to the input of the expert editors here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

But Barrett says (with good reason) that the information as presented is misleading and not relevant. Given that and the related concerns, keeping it in the article is problematic. JoshuaZ 14:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

What Barrett says is misleading is the source that says that he was "forced to admit" his lack of Board Certification on the stand and that it was a major revelation. Sure Barrett had to say he wasn't Board Certified since he was under oath, but he contends that he wasn't reluctant to admit this and it wasn't a major revelation as this information has been public for thirty years. As he says here on the talk page of his article at Wikipedia, he is open with this information. Regardless, whether or not Barrett was reluctant to admit this information is besides the point as we are just going to say, "Barrett is not Board Certified" and leave out the POV issues from either side. Now then, the sources I list above verify that Barrett is not board certified. We have several other secondary sources which discuss his lack of Board Certification. My question is: Are there any BLP concerns with simply stating that Barrett is not Board Certified? And if so, what are the concerns specifically? Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe you already asked these questions and they were answered: Talk:Stephen_Barrett/Archive_8#Board_Certification. -- Ronz  17:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have asked this question before, but it has not been answered by a third-party expert in BLP policy. That is why I have posed the question here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd refer Levine2112 back to the relevant discussion on the Barrett talk page (and certainly the archive linked above by Ronz), where the specific BLP concerns have been explained quite adequately. An overlong discussion, at least two straw pols, an article RfC, and a stalled mediation once again led to a lack of clear consensus to include, and where Levine2112 routinely ignores other editors' compromises. Yet another RfC is ongoing but it is being ignored by most editors who have taken part in the first RfC. I should add that the report at the top of this section (addendum: this also applies to the description of the dispute in "Starting fresh" sunsection below) is shockingly inadequate and almost completely fails to describe a dispute over a seemingly small factoid that still has not been settled after 15 months. It's a BLP issue indeed. A special case in one of WP:BLP's grey areas. At the very least we should err on the side of caution if we don't have a clear consensus. Mentioning the disputed factoid would only be relevant in its context: criticism of Barrett. Levine2112 aims to include it in the article out of context. I feel that outside commenters would do well to take a good look at the talk page and its archives. Why give weight to a handful of partisans whose criticisms have been deemed "statements of opinion, not of fact" by various courts? Disclaimer: As you can probably tell from this response, I'm involved in this discussion and recuse myself regarding any BLPN work on the matter. AvB ÷ talk 17:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I apologize that I didn't mention your "out of context" argument above, but I wasn't sure to which part of the BLP policy that applies. I didn't come here to this Noticeboard to engage in debate with you. Rather than having the third-party editors go back and sift through the entire talk archive, it will most assuredly help them for you and/or Ronz to list out all of your specific BLP concerns here. Even if they are grey, the editors who wish to comment here will benefit from knowing exactly what your BLP concerns are. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't come here to this Noticeboard to engage in debate with you. You have posted a very one-sided report here and shouldn't be surprised that others are correcting it to some minor extent. Don't act as if "out of context" was the only thing said in the debate, or as if I am only referring to my own contributions to the debate. If you want to include disputed context, please provide good reasons instead of trolling the various boards or pestering fellow editors with yet another demand to "list out all concerns". No way. This is not the way to do dispute resolution, Levine. My patience with you just ran out. Take a look at the top of this page. This board is for a specific kind of conflict caused by editors who want to include insufficiently sourced material, like you. Not to report people who want to keep such content out, like me. AvB ÷ talk 19:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, if you feel my report here is one-sided, you are more than welcome to explain your side of it here. It will certainly help the BLP experts here aid us in our endeavor to resolve this dispute. According to the top of this page, this noticeboard is for reporting and discussing Biographies of living people policy issues which require outside intervention. I believe that is what we have here. Please don't mischaracterize my attempts to resolve this dispute as "trolling". I simply went to the RS Noticeboard first, got the answer that the sources are indeed reliable, and then they advised me to take up any BLP issues here at this noticeboard. I hardly think that qualifies as trolling. Anyhow, let's not discuss this here. It is inappropriate. Rather, let's discuss BLP concerns. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You're wikilawyering. This board is intended to help editors remove unsourced or poorly sourced BLP information from the encyclopedia, not the other way around. AvB ÷ talk 20:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read the first sentence on this Noticeboard: This noticeboard is for reporting and discussing Biographies of living people policy issues which require outside intervention. We have had a dispute about putting in material which you feel may cause a WP:BLP issue. We have had discussions about this for a long time and now it may require outside intervention. I would appreciate it if you helped those who wish to comment here by giving the specifics areas of BLP which you believe would be in violation if this content was added to the article. Otherwise, I am sure that the BLP experts here can get a sense of things for themselves. Please don't accuse me of "wikilawyering". I am not. I am merely trying my best to settle a longtime dispute by following the WP:DR process. This step falls specifically under WP:DR#Discuss_with_third_parties in which we ask for third-party opinions from a discussion page for specific policies relevant to the issue. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Who exactly will you listen to, Levine2112? You certainly don't accept my opinion here on this board (which, I may say, is based on experience, in contrast to your wikilawyering). Which of the editors here on this board will have sufficient credentials in your eyes? Who's going to waste time helping you post poorly sourced material? It is my considered opinion that you will not listen to anyone who does not say what you want to hear. It is, therefore, my opinion that responding to you on this matter outside of formal WP:DR processes is a waste of time. AvB ÷ talk 23:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are you being so hostile? This is completely inappropriate behavior. I posted here to get some third-party input on the concerns you brought up. I will listen to the third-party editors who respond here. I am hoping that they will either say that there is no BLP issues or that there is some issue and here are what they are. That's all. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Starting fresh

Disputed content: "Stephen Barrett is not Board Certified."

This statement was made by Stephen Barrett on Wikipedia: "One thrust of their campaign has been to suggest that I have midrepesented my credentials. I certainly have not. The words deliberately make it sound like what I said was somehow extracted under pressure. The fact that I am not board certified has been known by chiropractors for more than 30 years and has never been a sectret."[1]

BLP concerns itself with getting the article right and relying on good sources. Above, Barrett himself tells us that he is not Board Certified and that this information is not a secret. There are other primary and secondary sources that verify that Barrett is not Board Certified, but I think this comment by Barrett helps us determine if there is a BLP violation more than any other. I think it falls perfectly under this provision in BLP: Using the subject as a self-published source.

I would love some third-party input on this topic. Thanks! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Disputed content: (diff).

Start of discussion, first arguments and explanations given to Levine2112: here.

Cont'd discussion: here.

Cont'd discussion, compromise proposals: here.

AvB ÷ talk 18:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

AvB is directly involved in this BLP dispute. I would like a third-party opinion on whether or not adding this statement violates BLP given that there are several reliable sources verifying this information, that Barrett himself says that he is open about this information, and that no editor here has claimed that this content is false:

"Stephen Barrett is not Board Certified."

Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I've already recused myself from any BLPN duties in this case. I did so above in a part of the discussion you've sor of ended by "starting fresh". I am posting here as a concerned, involved editor who does not agree with the description of the dispute presented by you. I'm doing so at your repeated invitation. AvB ÷ talk 20:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Then please provide a description as you see it. Currently, what is being proposed is entering the text: "Stephen Barrett is not Board Certified" to the article Stephen Barrett. Do you agree with that? Do you agree that you have BLP concerns about entering this text? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that one editor has continously harped on about this for several months suggests WP:PUSHPOV is the primary motive especially after not one but two RfCs. Consensus to some means "I will keep going (400+ edits and counting) until I get what I want". Shot info 23:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Was WP:POV meant here? — Athaenara ✉ 03:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Levine is on solid ground. SB came out of retirement to appear at WP and backed it all up. He is OK with clarifying the whole thing, so why isn't everyone else? What's the fear? Levine has offered a very NPOV statement. So let's accept it and close this chapter. Steth 04:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Barrett came here, not to openly back up the fact of his lack of board certification (which he has never misrepresented), but to counter potentially libelous claims being made here regarding the fact. There is a world of difference! It has never been an issue in the real world or during his entire career, including testifying as a psychiatrist while he was in practice. It's an unnotable fact. Its only "notability" is the fact that his main detractor (Tim Bolen, whom he is now suing for libel) has attempted to make it notable by misleadingly using the fact against him to imply wrongdoing, misrepresentation, or lack of qualifications to do what he does, which is to expose quackery. Board certification is totally unnecessary in that endeavor, so it is still unnotable. Again, there is a world of difference! Steth's statement is quite misleading and further's Bolen's libelous agenda here at Wikipedia. (Steth's history here at Wikipedia speaks loads about his contempt and hatred of Barrett, including commonly pushing the limits of BLP, if not in fact, in spirit, which is very unwikipedian. He should take his agenda elsewhere.) This agenda has BLP implications and should be handled carefully. When impartial third-party sources start reporting it we can cite them. So far only those with a heavy agenda against him mention it. -- Fyslee/talk 23:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Steth here. The lack of board certification in his speciality would be a significant factor in his testifying as an expert witness in the field. If he has never achieved any board certifications (which I assume is the case, since his practice was focused on psychiatry), I would suggest a sentence that simply states that. (Example: Barrett has not been granted board certification in any medical speciality.)--Risker 04:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

As I state above it was never necessary or an issue during his career. -- Fyslee/talk 23:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Could be something to do with a policy of Wikipedia called Biographies of Living Persons? Shot info 09:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Questions for Risker: Are you basing your opinion on Levine2112's first description of the dispute given above? His second description? Or did you form this opinion after reading the discussion and arguments on the talk page and in the talk page archives? If not, could you please use the links I gave above and let us know if you still have this opinion? Levine2112 has expressed an interest in hearing from what he calls "the experts on the BLP noticeboard". Would you consider yourself such a BLP expert? Did you consider the argument that this piece of primary source info should not be taken out of context? The context is that a couple of partisan opponents running attack sites (of the kind not allowed on Wikipedia) have used the argument to attack Barrett, while not a single court has ever required him to be board certified or refused him as a witness or expert because of his not being a board certified psychiatrist? Like 2 out of 3 psychiatrists at the time as reported in the same primary sources? Or, assuming that courts had this requirement, that Barrett retired in 1990, and cannot be expected (by others than his partisan attackers) to be board certified in court cases later than 1997 since certification expires after 7 or 10 years? Etc etc - there's more to this seemingly simple point than meets the eye.

Would you agree that your example is original research? Zero reliable sources have said that.

On a side note, Steth is involved in the discussion, and clearly pushing a barrow here. Just this morning I removed a BLP violation where he demonstrated why he and other editors are so keen on including this information in a very specific form. AvB ÷ talk 13:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC) PS Steth then inserted the same attack once again, this time sourcing it to an attack site parroting Bolen, Barrett's main detractor, who (so far) only escaped being convicted for libel/defamation over it due to the court's ruling that his (Bolen's) writings about Barrett were "statements of opinion, not of fact" which is apparently normal in heated prose opposing a public figure. Go figure. I've once again removed the attack per WP:BLP. AvB ÷ talk 14:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps someone can review my two deletions of material per WP:BLP from Talk:Chiropractic? Since I removed the same attack a couple of months ago, I've become involved in the discussion. Thanks, AvB ÷ talk 14:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

To make a correct BLP assessment I think external editors/reviewers should take into account that Barrett does not have an WP-article because he is a doctor but because he is a controversial Public figure and opinion leader. He uses his MD credentials to make his attacks on all forms of alternative medicine more credible. He is also very keen on attacking educational credentials of proponents of alt med. MaxPont 18:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It is quite logical to attack the often fake credentials when they are wielded by alternative medicine quacks, which is a common problem. Diploma mills sell them to many such practitioners, so Barrett is perfectly correct in criticizing their credentials. -- Fyslee/talk 23:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

An involved editor has gone to the talk page of the one third-party that has responded here thus far, asking for secondary sources to support the statement: "Barrett has not been granted board certification in any medical speciality". For further verification, here is just a partial list of secondary sources which mention that Barrett is not Board Certified:

• Anti-chiropractic groups spreading ‘stroke’ lies online World Chiropractic Alliance
• Stephen Barrett Loses Major Defamation Trial in Hometown Dynamic Chiropractic
• Quackwatch Founder Stephen Barrett Loses Major Defamation Case in his own Hometown
• Examining the Truth By Terry S. Friedmann, MD, ABHM and Sabina DeVita, EdD, DNM, RNCP with Karen Boren PDF
• Wathing the Quacker By Terry S. Friedmann, MD, and Karen Boren PDF
• Dr. Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch Exposed In Court Cases Canadian Lyme Disease Foundation
• True Lies About Anti-Aging and Growth Hormone by Fintan Dunne for MyLongLife.com.

The primary sources include:

• Stephen Barrett at Wikipedia
• Barrett v. Fonorow
• Barrett v. Mercola

I would still love some more input from the BLP experts here. Thanks for your guidance! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

As I've already said, that statement is supported by zero sources -- reliable, questionable or unreliable. The part of it that is verifiable is taken out of context. And it is only verifiable in primary sources. These secondary sources have only been accepted by editors editing on the tiny minority side of the debate. AvB ÷ talk 00:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No need to repeat yourself then. I would like to hear from uninvolved editors... hence third-parties. They are welcome to look at the references themselves and determine if Barrett's lack of Board Certification is supported by any/all of the references provided. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Not even one of the (according to you 25+) editors involved in the discussion on the talk page disputes that Barret wasn't board certified back in the early 60's. That's simply not the issue. And please stop trying to shut me out of this discussion. You have declared, on the article's talk page, that you view these posts on the BLPN as part of WP:DR, presumably some novel type of WP:3O. Keeping those on the other side of the debate (I noticed you did not discourage Steth) from informing people helping out on this board, automatically invalidates it as a DR attempt. Not that I'm going to accept "votes" that are clearly uninformed regarding the discussion on the talk page. AvB ÷ talk 01:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Great. No one disputes the content being true. After all it has been verified by many sources. Barrett himself is public with bing not Board Certified. What's the BLP issue? WP:DR says: Asking at subject-specific Wikipedia:WikiProjects or policy pages relevant to the issue. The issue that you have with this content is that you feel it violates BLP. I have posted here to settle your concerns (for or against). Your input here is welcomed of course. But don't be uncivil. That doesn't help. Thanks! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Please be patient with me as this is my first time at something like this, make corrections if needed. This dispute has gone on for a very long time. Everyone seems to agree that Dr. Barrett is not board certified so it come downs to whether it is WP:Notable, WP:Weight and WP:Not. It is way past the time to close this already, tempers are now flying. I am disabled and I have learned a lot from this dispute but I have to also say that this information does not belong in the article. It is used against Dr. Barrett, from the external links supplied, as a negative. Him being board certified did not prevent him from practicing nor did it prevent him from being able to go to court as a specialist. Please allow this to close. Thank you,----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 11:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have had no involvement in this article and did not even read it until I saw the notice here. For this "no board certified" statement to belong in the article, since it is used as a pejorative and a swipe at Dr. Barrett, it must have relevance to his notability. He is notable as an anti-"quack" activist, not as a practicing physician. Board certification therefore has no relevance whatever and the precept in BLP of "do no harm" must prevail.--Samiharris 14:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinions. I have to disagree as to an all encompassing "swipe" or "pejorative", or special pleading - I wouldn't want to start a debilities race[2] or "dangerous" medicine/authors topic either. A number of highly credentialed and accomplished doctors and scientists have either disagreed with positions advocated by Dr Barrett or directly disagreed with Dr Barrett. Although these individuals were shouted down in a number of cases, time is changing the "mainstream" tune quite a bit.

It is highly appropriate that an author who spends so much effort attacking the credentials of others, with "others" nominally more qualified, accomplished and recognized in a number of areas, should have his own verified credentials identifiable (sometimes including lack thereof, especially in the cases of attempted attainment) and available in a reference like WP. I strongly disagree that publications of a notable segment of the health professions (e.g. DC) are non-notable for material ("not board certified" in one form or the other) for similar materials that are conventionally published at greater length in many Wikipedia biographies with less relevance therein. (I am wondering if WP has its own version of the Wilk problem from non-AMA members) Continued deletion of verified, simple facts that are notable to many but unpleasant to the sympathies of some with a such variety of thin excuses undermines the integrity of the encyclopedia. The Biography section is far more than merely sympathetic, it is promotional with any material less than glowing deleted and often seeks to discredit his opponents out of hand even where Dr Barrett is known to be trivially incorrect or greatly misrepresents the situation between mainstream subreptions of "conventional" (very poorly designed) tests and the reported conditions in alternative medicine of proposed hypotheses. The context argument seems overblown, and I think a few words are likely to be the maximum--I'clast 15:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Already dealt with in my three comments above. Take your personal agenda against Barrett elsewhere. You're beginning to sound like Bolen and Steth, which doesn't help your credibility here. -- Fyslee/talk 14:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

General remarks

As with the Hockey stick controversy, the substance here involves pertinent facts which either can or cannot be referenced with reliable sources.

Endless wrangling about the pertinence of the information and the reliability of the references is disruptive. Both quarrels have been ongoing for months and now account for over one third of the content on this noticeboard.

As the participants in these two disputes may or may not have noticed, BLP/N is rather busy: there are currently over three dozen other articles needing its attention. — Athaenara ✉ 09:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sincere apologies, Athaenara. I understand what you are saying and agree with you completely. Discussion about the pertinence of the information and the reliability of the references has no place on BLP/N. My hopes by posting here originally was to get third-party input on whether or not including the Stephen Barrett is not Board Certified violates BLP or not. That's all. I would still like some input here from third-parties. I hope that this can be acheived here without further disruption of the noticeboard. Again, my apologies. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't be absurd, of course pertinence of information and reliability of references has a place here, and daily. Endless replays of months of talk page wrangling which repeatedly revisit the same claims and counterclaims while avoiding resolution does not. — Athaenara ✉ 17:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, I am hoping that third-party opinions about BLP here will help us acheive that resolution. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Michael DelGiorno

• 65.102.179.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Michael DelGiorno (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - This article is unsourced in general, but there is a particular problem with one IP editor, User:65.102.179.133, repeatedly inserting very negative unsourced info. When the article was brought to my attention, I added the Living people cat, warned the user with blp1, and let it settle for a couple of days. The user is now back reinserting unsourced negative information again, and I have notified him of 3RR (he already violated it, but no previous warning), and I also gave a vw warning, just to cover all the warning bases. I believe attention from an admin is required. // Crockspot 21:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Edits such as this one are extremely problematic, and for that reason I agree that 65.102.179.133 needs administrative attention. — Athaenara ✉ 09:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The week-long spree seems to have ended on the 28th of May. — Athaenara ✉ 08:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Steve Javie

• Steve Javie (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Apparently involved in a problem in a recent game, his article is under attack, but even prior to that, there is a completely unsourced Controversy section, which either needs to be sourced or removed. Corvus cornix 22:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sprotected for a week. If cleanup is needed as per WP:BLP, please do not hesitate to do so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism ceased a few days after protection was removed. — Athaenara ✉ 09:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Chaparral Middle School (Moorpark)

• Chaparral Middle School (Moorpark) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Repeated personal attacks against the school's principal being made by anons. Best to keep an eye on this article. Corvus cornix 23:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

(Vandalism ceased.) — Athaenara ✉ 09:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Alfred G. Gilman

• Alfred G. Gilman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• 129.112.109.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 129.112.109.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

The following unsourced text is being repeatedly inserted into the article by an anonymous user (129.112.109.250 or 129.112.109.251): "Al Gilman continues to be despised by the UT Southwestern student body and abhorred by the faculty who are too scared to speak against him for fear of reprisal. His overall approval rating is currently 22%, an all time low for any Dean of the medical school in its 63 year history. Send your comments to Alfred.Gilman@Utsouthwestern.edu ."

I've reverted it three times. -- Takwish | Talk 17:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

(Vandalism ceased.) — Athaenara ✉ 09:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Gackt

• Gackt (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Uncited information keeps being re-introduced into this biography of a musician, while an official source on the artist's date of birth keeps being discounted by the same editors, apparently based on the (unreferenced) preconception, that the subject is rather eccentric. Not only is giving the year of birth as "unknown" and "????" quite unencyclopedic in terms of style, it also gives the article an undue air of mystery, that best belongs into the realm of fansites. Cyrus XIII 16:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the official source for the birthdate? — Athaenara ✉ 03:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The year of birth was displayed as part of a live performance of the artist during an anniversary/best of tour. Footage of that performance has been made available by the artist on DVD, which also makes it highly doubtful that he is indeed making an effort to keep this common bit of biographical information from the public. At the same time, the article references the artist's early life exclusively through his autobiography, though readers are being made aware of the nature of both sources in either the respective foot note or right within the main text body. - Cyrus XIII 10:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

A stage prop is hardly a reliable source for a birthyear. There have been no public releases of any kind with an official date of birth, and the artist in question has claimed publicly that he was born in 1540. We aren't claiming that the birth year is necessarily wrong or doesn't belong there because he's eccentric, we're stating that the birth year is in dispute, as is the validity of the source, and thus it is more appropriate to list 'year unknown' than an unfounded claim. Discussion on the Talk page for the article has led to everyone but Cyrus XIII agreeing that the stage prop should not be considered a reliable source for the birth year. Does it really meet verifiability requirements? Nique talk 20:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Warriors for innocence

• Warriors for innocence (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Someone has added the "biographies of living persons" notice-box to the Talk page of this article. Since the article is about a group or orginization is it supposed to be there/be used like that? CyntWorkStuff 08:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone believes that this fits easily as well as Project for a New American Century or Hockey Stick Controversy would. BLP would extend over the mouthpiece website of individuals, such as this blog. And someone has a name: Kyaa the Catlord 08:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Article was redirected to LiveJournal#Account suspension controversy as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warriors for innocence. — Athaenara ✉ 22:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan

• Lindsay Lohan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Hey guys,

I have no Idea how to work this thing but i just checked Lindsay Lohans article: Her date of birth in incorrect, she's one year older.

thanks, henriette —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.248.74.8 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Henriette, All I'm seeing, both on and offwiki (World Almanac) is July 2, 1986. Do you have a source that says '85? Ispy1981 20:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Peter Openshaw

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Openshaw

• Peter Openshaw (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - This New York Times article, along with a talk post by an IP claiming to be Daniel Brandt, provide some insight into what is wrong with this article: namely, it is a "biography" which contains two sentences about the judge's career, followed by four paragraphs about a potentially-embarrassing statement he made in court once. Thoughts on how best to clean this up? JavaTenor 20:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up a bit, there is no need to write a BLP based on one incident. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It's currently two paragraphs about him, followed by one on the statement, but people are trying to turn it into a redirect in the middle of the AfD.--SarekOfVulcan 18:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

John Lee Parrott

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Lee Parrott

• John Lee Parrott (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Beckyvolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

• Article is not written in a NPOV.
• Article libels the foster family, and provides no conclusive evidence that the foster family was inadequate.
• Judge Parrott is a small time judge in rural Georgia and therefore is not notable.
• The girl mention was not adopted as claimed in the article.
• Author makes the claim that he knows the mind of the Judge.
• Looks to be a hit piece on a judge that the author disagrees with. rather than scholarly work.

See Wikipedia guideline on "Articles about living people notable only for one event" Dougdeal 01:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: I have listed the article at AFD here CIreland 17:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

John Lee Parrot moved to Adoption proceedings of Emily Rose as per Afd. — Athaenara ✉ 22:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Joel Hayward

• Joel Hayward (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Several anonymous IP and suspected sock-puppet users have been making edits to this article claiming to be the subject of this blp. The edits made by these users consistently violate WP:NPOV. // Groupthink 19:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Resolved. rm unsourced material and sources that not meet the criteria for WP:RS

Article deleted. — Athaenara ✉ 22:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Nicholas Gruner

• Nicholas Gruner (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

There are many problems on the Nicholas Gruner page. Information is being added without being cited, original research may exists, and an entire section is written by someone who appears to be a Sedevacantist (an ultra-traditional Catholic who sees the current Catholic Church as heretical). It needs major revision.--Msl5046 22:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Doug Dohring

• Doug Dohring (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - contains allegations of unethical financial dealings at a company when per the reference cited these occurred after Dohring had left the company and he had no involvement in them. Contains an allegation of his being linked with "spamvertising" with no citation and no evidence. When I have tried to correct these the editor who wrote them has repeatedly reverted them or changed a few words without changing the substance. When I have place well referenced positive information about this individual, quoting reputable sources including Wired Magazine and Media Matrix, they were deleted entirely. Details are on the discussion page for the article. TashiD 06:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I checked out the spamvertising allegations, and they are true. I've added a source to substantiate them. Dohring and his business partners are apparently connected with the Church of Scientology so I am concerned that past edit warring and POV pushing related to that subject may be continuing here. Beware and check all claims carefully. Jehochman ^Talk 10:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The link you added does not go to an article. It goes to a page that says “this article does not exist”. If you do in fact have evidence that this company was linked to something — and can show how this is relevant to this individual’s bio — I’d be happy to leave it. But I don’t see it. More importantly, there are also other serious and potentially libelous statements in this article — inferring that this individual was involved in financial misdealings when in fact, per the document cited, the alleged misdealings occurred after he had left the company. The article cites an SEC document on the misdealings, yet Dohring’s name is nowhere in the document and there is nothing in it that links these “misdealings” to him. Another entry infers that Dohring profited from these misdealings through the company’s IPO, with no citation and no evidence that this occurred. (Even if it were true, the alleged misdealings occurred after the IPO, after Dohring was out of the company. So how is this even relevant to this person’s bio?) It infers that he made money off of illegal actions, with no substantiation. I have detailed these on the discussion page.

I do not understand your statement about “past editing wars” or “POV pushing”, or the connection to a Church. I don’t see any such thing in this article. The article on Biographies of Living Persons clearly states 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,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space... This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.”

The article on Doug Dohring does not meet this standard. It has unsourced and/or poorly sourced contentious, negative material. When I have tried to correct it the same editor simply reverts them — which happened again tonight, without responding in any form to the questions raised on the discussion page. Let’s stick to the point, get it fixed and get the article up to standard. TashiD 17:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

James Dicks

• James Dicks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

There has been repeated deletion of well documented material in this article by single purpose editors. The article content may well be controversial, because Dicks is controversial. The article started out as a pure commercial message for Dicks. I added much of the controversial (but documented) info. The article has since survived two Requests for Deletion. Since there are possible BLP issues, I refer it here. Smallbones 11:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ben Bernanke

• Ben Bernanke (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Jayjg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Wassermann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Wolfowit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 24.5.41.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) [Added by Athaenara 08:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)]

There seems to be a bit of a spat going on on this article. It's probably worth keeping an eye on this, as the dispute seems to have been going on for a few weeks now. -- ChrisO 19:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

From a look through his edit history, I suspect that sooner or later User:Wolfowit will have a chat with Arbcom or maybe WP:CN. Raymond Arritt 19:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty likely, yes. Apparently Wolfowit was involved in sockpuppetry, for which Jayjg blocked him (though it doesn't seem to be documented anywhere). I've asked Jay to clarify this. -- ChrisO 19:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Some of Wolfowit's socks had already been identified and blocked by me and other admins due to unrelated problems before Jayjg did a checkuser and found the connections. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 23:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hugh Grant

• Hugh Grant (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

71.55.132.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) just removed a...contentious paragraph from the Hugh Grant article, despite it being IMHO well-sourced. Probably just some well-meaning fan, but I have chosen not to warn the editor in light of the "selective" blanking. If this is the appropriate venue, external input would be appreciated, as I've removed a fair amount of vandalism from this article and may be impaired of my strategic distance :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Alenka Bikar

Alenka Bikar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Persistently edited to serve as a photo gallery and external links to photographs and videos that are not of encyclopedic meric (such as "Alenka Bikar the hottest ass" and so forth).

I will try to revert vandalism to this page, but it is worth posting at BLP Notice Board. Nimur 17:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Paul Magriel

• Paul Magriel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Hello, there is somebody adding a comment on the biography of Paul Magriel, a living person, declaring that a "Susan Silver" is the author of his work, "Backgammon". With this notice I assert, as the co-author of the book, and the book's editor, that this is not the case, and I would really appreciate it if you could stop whoever is adding this specious information from doing so. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roserose1 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• 12.75.161.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 12.75.161.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 12.75.161.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 12.75.162.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 12.75.162.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 12.75.163.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 12.75.163.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 165.155.192.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

(Added userlinks above.) — Athaenara ✉ 03:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

User talk:165.155.192.7 is tagged as registered to New York City Public Schools. Something similar seems likely for the 12.75.16*.* range as well. — Athaenara ✉ 01:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Roserose1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - COI edits also as
• 65.96.25.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

The user above, who identifies herself as one of Paul Magriel's ex-wives, makes competing ghostwriter claims. (More at Talk:Paul Magriel#Comments.) — Athaenara ✉ 07:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"Cease and desist from editing the material I am placing on this article" is now the word from 65.96.25.65 (that's Roserose1) to "anybody else who is editing this page." — Athaenara ✉ 15:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Resolved. Revert efforts + time passage seem to have calmed things down. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Peter Nehr

→ See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 13#Peter Nehr

• Peter Nehr (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Anitanehr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

User:Anitanehr, the article's main author, is the subject's wife. She says that she was "assigned to establish the Wikipedia listing for my husband" (see User talk:Anitanehr). This raises an obvious WP:COI issue, as well as issues under WP:BLP. No WP:RS is cited, which implicates WP:NOR. Further, there is no indication that this first-term Florida legislator is WP:NOTE. Finell (Talk) 07:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone elected to a state legislature is generally de facto encyclopedic. The COI/RS issues should be remedied. FCYTravis 06:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• 70.127.155.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) removed {{COI2}} {{POV}} {{Cleanup}} tags. Restored. — Athaenara ✉ 08:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Resolved. Not really a BLPN problem; recent clean up resolved any remaining BLPN issues. --Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hal Blaine

• Hal Blaine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The article on Hal Blaine seems to be a rip off of www.rockhall.com. I dont see any credit to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.1.105.192 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that it's copied - can you elaborate? --h2g2bob (talk) 08:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Resolved. Not really a BLPN problem; However, I deleted material as WP:copyvio of Biography - Hal Blaine. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Jordan McCoy

• Jordan McCoy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - This article about Jordan McCoy is sophomoric, childish and detracts from Wikipedia. In addition, it is not an accurate image of young Jordan McCoy, who has reported history with drug involvement. Citations are available. // 70.225.37.79 04:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Note this edit by 70.225.37.79 (it was reverted). — Athaenara ✉ 07:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I did a search and could not find sufficient Wikipedia reliable sources to have this article be verifiable. McCoy usually is mentioned in passing in news articles discussing someone else. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 19:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Resolved. BLP material removed by Athaenara; PROD or AfD may be appropriate as well. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 19:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The Bus Uncle

• The Bus Uncle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Dispute between User:Tony Sidaway who raises BLP concerns and User:Raul654 who says they don't exist. Please comment. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 06:51, 5 June 2007}} (UTC)

I think the article complies with the BLP, with respect to their private lives. The information about the 3 people involved in the incident have been reported heavily in the press back in June 2006, and references (which are various newspapers, reliable sources) clearly marked. All the content is based on what is written by the media. Those people are notable for one event, given their 15 minutes of fame, and this article does cover that event instead of the people, and Roger Chan Yuet Tung redirects here.

The article did not delve too deeply into the 3's personal lives, since they only mention their jobs and the district they live in, with no mentions about their family. The focus is on the criticism and analysis near the end. Those experts were certainly related to the subject at hand, in fact, they came as a consequence of the Bus Uncle's confrontation of the bus. If this article simply states what has happened, from various points of view of multiple journalists, I don't think it's biased in anyway, let alone violating WP:BLP.--Kylohk 08:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

BLP applies to unsourced or poorly sourced material, which is not the case here. It must not be used as an excuse for woolly-minded blather about "dignity" (i.e. censorship) since WP:NOT censored, in theory at least. *** Crotalus *** 15:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The truth is probably half in between. While they may have been a bit of an undue focus on the private life details of the involved parties, the article isn't terrible, and seems to be very clean now (perhaps unnecessarily so?). The version I saw (it's undergoing heavy edits) seems fine, although Tony is complaining about their names being in the article - this may be an editorial issue, but I don't think BLP really weighs in much there. Other than that, any "undue focus on private lives" is now gone ... WilyD 17:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be that their real names are sufficiently well known that they should be in the article. I am uneasy at this but it's not the main problem. There were issues of tone, which I've attempted to fix in recent edits, and there was a fair amount of irrelevant material about the Bus Uncle fellow himself. Past political campaigning, bragging about a checkered past, and so on, which while perhaps entertaining for readers of a scandal sheet are of no relevance to the incident. As the BLP says of such minor persons known only for a single event: editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability. The only reason for notability is a six minute cellphone recording. --Tony Sidaway 17:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't dig too deeply into the old article - and the relevency of background material is hard to judge for me as someone who knows very little about the issue. As I said, it probably did go into some unnecessary detail before - I was more concerned with the state of the article as it is now when I took a look. WilyD 18:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The names of the people involved were mentioned on the sources (newspapers and TV interviews). Therefore, the privacy of the people aren't be affected. As it stands now, the information regarding the 3 is brief and mainly focused on their involvement of the incident.--Kylohk 20:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Reason for notability is more than just a 6-min cellphone recording; they were actually widely reported by the mass media. And about the BLP concern - The three-musts concerning BLP:
1. Neutral point of view (NPOV)
2. Verifiability
3. No original research
And concerning NPOV, the definition of NPOV as in WP:NPOV:
"...(the neutral point of view) is a point of view that is neutral; that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject." Also: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves."

Let us now see the paragraphs: "As the video became well-known, reporters looked for the "Bus Uncle" near the end of the 68X bus route. Eventually, they found the 51-year-old^[1] restaurant worker who resides in Yuen Long, Roger Chan Yuet Tung (Chinese: 陳乙東).^[2] As of June 2006, after his identity was revealed, Chan was criticised for reportedly demanding remuneration for interviews.^[3]"
"The young man scolded in the video is Elvis Ho Yui Hei (Chinese: 何銳熙), a 23-year-old^[1] property agent of his family's property management company. On May 23, 2006, Ho (previously misidentified as "Alvin" or "Elvin") called a talk show on Commercial Radio Hong Kong claiming to be the young man involved in the argument. In a later interview with the South China Morning Post, Ho said he often takes long bus rides home and would frequently ask passengers to lower their voices so he could take a nap. Despite having been threatened, Ho said he forgave "Bus Uncle" and sympathised with whatever stress the older man was suffering.^[4] His patience throughout the ordeal was inspired by tai chi chuan, a slow internal Chinese martial art.^[5]"
"The person who recorded the video clip was identified as Jon Fong Wing Hang (Chinese: 方穎恆), a 21-year-old accountant and part-time psychology student,^[6] after he called a radio station on May 25, 2006. Fong, who recorded the incident with a Sony Ericsson W800i mobile phone, claimed there was a second video yet to be posted online in which Ho fought back by making fun of "Bus Uncle" with a friend on the phone. Fong stated that the reason for the recording was to provide evidence to the police in case "Bus Uncle" became physically violent.^[7] However, he "told reporters that he often takes videos as a hobby, and had just planned to share this one with friends."^[6]"

Are the paragraphs not asserting just facts? There is no "opinion" in the paragraphs, they are all "facts", complete with the references. For example: the wording was just something like "is criticized", "stated that", etc. It must also be stressed that assessing whether something is NPOV or not requires the assessor to read in an NPOV. The paragraphs obviously passed points 2 and 3, since everything is sufficiently referenced. I hope that editors, before raising such a concern that has great effects on the Wikipedian community, gain complete knowledge on what those policies and guidlines actually mean, and assess articles with an NPOV. --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 04:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

{{Resolved|1=Dispute is over extent of recent BLP expansion. Matter has received enough intervention on article talk page to resolve the dispute as far as this board is concerned. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 22:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Alan Feinstein

• Alan Feinstein (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Adam sk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - (added article in July 2006)

I suspect I am not doing this right, as it is the first time I have run across this problem.

There is a bio of Alan Shawn Feinstein (Alan Feinstein) which is extremely laudatory. In fact, things are not that clear, and the local paper ran an article about the source of some of his wealth. He also seems to be a very self-promoting person, as far as I can tell, he never gives a nickel to any charity without requiring that they publicize his donation. He makes tv ads about his contributions.

I made a couple of mild edits to include this info, leaving the ton of laudatory stuff alone, and then in looking at the history found that someone else had tried to do that and had had their edits removed. Also, someone has already flagged the article as of disputed neutrality.

It's annoying to see a long article that really seems off the beam. What's the policy on this? Can it be fixed to be accurate and then frozen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trudyjh (talk • contribs) 20:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Almost all of the text in this bio was copied from two sources: the March 2004 article in The Providence Journal and the Feinstein Institute page on the Roger Williams University School of Law website. It needs serious copyediting. — Athaenara ✉ 05:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Resolved. Not really a BLPN problem; Appropriate tags were added to the article per below and comments to the talk page were added. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Joe Eigo

• Joe Eigo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Article has ostensibly been edited by the subject, contains zero citations, and is in need of a clean up. Made attempts to get citations for some statements, removed others, and tagged the article ([3], [4]). My edits have been repeatedly reverted, first by Naconkantari, then Starnestommy. I can no longer try to improve the article or I will be in breach of 3RR. I've also been given a vandal warning, which is obviously completely unwarranted. --81.179.113.175 02:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Resolved. Not really a BLPN problem; However, references were added to the article to address concerns. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Correction: edits in early June (see article history) were very much a BLP policy problem. That does seem to have subsided and remaining issues are minor (e.g. "Canadan" for "Canadian" and piping to incorporate "The" into the Missouri School of Journalism). — Athaenara ✉ 04:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Mary Manin Morrissey

• Mary Manin Morrissey (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A friend of my parents' is a lawyer, and he is currently mediating a despute between this individual and a former disgruntled employee of hers. Knowing I am admin here, he just gave me a call saying that, during the mediation, the topic of the person in question editing her Wikipedia page came up. Apparently he has added a ton of untrue/biased/slanderous material and when she tries to remove it, she is reverted. He mentioned the allegations of additions section as an example. I quickly glanced at it and it appears sourced, but I didn't have time to check if it was reliably sourced. While I told him the process to e-mail the foundation to remove untrue BLP information, we should make a headstart by trying to clean this up as much as possible. I am in my last 10 days or so of college and finishing up projects, finals, etc. so I really don't have time to deal with this myself right now. If some people can look this article over for BLP problems and remove them ASAP that would be great. VegaDark (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I deleted material that was sourced to unreliable sources such as emails, personal blogs, and discussion forums and placed warning in talk. I will keep the article on my whatchlist for a while. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. VegaDark (talk) 08:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

VegaDark (talk) 06:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I've taken out the huge section on Andrew Parodi's forum. This should probably have a small paragraph, but the enormous stuff with quotes from Parodi was completely unbalanced. The bit on the settlement is also somewhat unbalanced but I'll leave it to someone else. This article needs to be very carefully watched. --Tony Sidaway 07:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've tried to make some minor adjustments to the word flow, but I'll watchlist this for future changes. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 09:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The stubbying done by Tony was the correct approach. Hopefully from now on, material added will be closely scrutinized. I will keep in my watchlist as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Resolved. I gave the article one last once over and it appears BLP free. Matter has received enough intervention to resolve the dispute as far as this board is concerned. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 23:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Gwen Shamblin and NPOV's "N"

→ See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Gwen Shamblin

• Gwen Shamblin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Gwen Shamblin bio - NPOV's "N" is for "Neutral" not "Negative" or "Newsworthy" right?

The Gwen Shamblin wiki entry including the recent discussions on the Gwen Shamblin Talk page have gotten Shamblin's attention for once. As an authorized representative for Shamblin, I am sincerely asking for the help and direction of admins and editors alike to consider the difference between allegations and facts, and unintended consequences of allegations. I would at least like to ask that anonymous edits not be allowed on this entry similar to the Phil McGraw entry.

Everyone has their critics, even Dr. Phil, Dr. Laura, and Michael Jackson have their critics, dissentors, disenchanted former employees, and ex-clients. However, some of the allegations reported in the news about Shamblin and now recently re-gurgitated on wiki, rise to a unique level that may be inciting threatening letters, emails, and phonecalls. Recently she has had several close-calls in direct face-to-face confrontations, two of which required local police intervention and subsequent discovered potentially violent intentions. These incedents by total strangers had one thing in common, they involved people who had never even met Mrs. Shamblin and knew nothing about her except what they read in a news article or on the internet where a certain few people have made vague claims that Shamblin has said, done, teaches, or approves of harming children or others. Allegations, Mrs. Shamblin has flatly denied and has repeatedly proven (and been forced to prove to police) that they are false. When someone continues to uphold these unsupported claims that she or her church approve of child-abuse, it tends to get self-appointed vigilante types crazy. A seemingly noble cause is all some people need to snap.

Media outlets are understandably slow to let go of a shocking controversy, because they sell news that is shocking. But surely, as intriguing as accusations of criminal or pseudo-criminal behavior like this are to the media and those who would stop a reported "monster", this is why wiki has a very well thought out policy on biographies of LIVING persons. I don't want to wait until some sincerely tragic headline news of an attack on Mrs. Shamblin is reported to ask for reasonable consideration of facts and what has merely been alledged, this is very serious. GwenShamblinRepresentative - GwenShamblinRepresentative 18:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Please let me know in talk page of that article what is disputed text that you want removed on that basis, and I will take a look. You can also emai me if you feel more comfortable doing so privately. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If you prefer it, you can contact the OTRS volunteers. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Physical appearance of Michael Jackson

• Physical appearance of Michael Jackson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I have removed the "Weight" section from Physical appearance of Michael Jackson. It was unsourced, controversial, potentially libelous, and appears to be original research. (See the first sentence). The diff can be found here. Although unrelated, it also uses weasel words. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 20:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the line "Since then, Michael has had his hair gradually straightened" should go, too. This is an encyclopedia, few if any of us are on a first name basis with him, and it's uncited. — Athaenara ✉ 06:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)