Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive29

User: Perspicacite is constantly vandalizing the biography of Prof. Tamara Sonn, posting false claims of author intent regarding criticisms of past scholars works. Also, Perspicacite is unwilling to properly cite the passages used for his claim (cites page 579, in "A Brief History of Islam" by Tamara Sonn, which is only 190 pages long). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastapd (talk • contribs) 13 October 2007

"Mastapd" is one of several accounts used by a vandal who has repeatedly removed all categories and formatting from the article on Tamara Sonn. His above complaint is nonsense. Perspicacite 21:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the main issue revolves around a book source which is incorrect. Perspicacite uses it to support the notion that Sonn's book attacks another author. --h2g2bob (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Terence Fulham (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Article has been subject to an edit war which includes me. Today, an anon edited the talk page claiming to be the subject and asking for the article's deletion.[1] I don't object; I've been considering AfD. The article is sourced almost entirely to the subject's writing, and the other editor agrees "the subject is not notable per WP standards".[2] Gimmetrow 23:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The IP was in Herndon VA, not Florida so it might not be him. OTOH, you're right, it doesn't meet notability, and sourcing to the guys writing is WP:OR. I say give the IP the benefit of the doubt and delete it. <<-armon->> 13:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope someone uninvolved will explain to User:Travellingthrough what happened, as it may appear the article suddenly disappeared. Gimmetrow 19:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Dan Rather: I initially only popped in to deal with the more obvious right wing POV stuff in the article's "Killian documents" section, but it was hard to overlook the rather (so to speak) unflattering photo of Rather that was used for his bio -- it was obviously meant to be unflattering to the newsman, long a target of the US political right wing, [3] [4].

I replaced it with a cropped-for-size alternative image in wide circulation, with no copyright restrictions, only attribution, courtesy of CBS. See this NY Times article and the original photo from CBS (under "Photo Essay"). [personal attack removed] Whatever -- I'm not a Rather fan, but right (so to speak) is right. I'll let you guys decide, however. I put the CBS photo back up as well as a "Blpdispute" template at the top. -BC aka Callmebc 15:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that photo replacement in my Watchlist, and it is obviously a Commons copyright violation. I reverted to the previous Commons image. Callmebc is speculating on the reason for selection of the article's photo, and he should speak to those who chose that picture about their selection decision from among the free-licensed Dan Rather photos (wherever those are). (SEWilco 15:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC))

Whatever, dude. You also got your image deletion requests all screwed up as well -- the photo is courtesy of CBS, and The Washington Post and Reuters have nothing to do with it. But I'll let the Wiki folk decide. -BC aka Callmebc 15:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

PS - please also note the changes to my original comment that SEWilco made. -BC aka Callmebc 16:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Although not strictly a BLP issue, I feel compelled to point out the copyright issues with the photo you (Callmebc (t c)) selected. The original photo is available on CBS News' website, and the terms of use for that site explicitly state that all images are copyrighted and no rights are available to the end-user without explicit permission. The copyright notice on the Times' website similarly covers that copy of the image. It's noted at the Times that the image is via Reuters and CBS, but I strongly suspect that Reuters either has a standing agreement with CBS to reuse their images or they got specific permission for this one. Either way, the image is copyrighted and you have no rights to upload the image to Commons under CC-BY 3.0 - even if you got special permission from CBS to use the image on Wikipedia, that doesn't allow you to release it as a free image.

Free images are frequently unflattering, largely because they're often amateur photos. This happens all the time, and is a subject of much recent discussion on the English Wikipedia mailing list. If we assume the point of fact that the image you chose is in fact not "free", then replacing a free image with a non-free image (as you did) is a violation of Wikipedia's fair use policy, which explicitly states that a free image should be used in preference to any non-free image if one exists.

I doubt that the free image was really selected because it's unflattering -- and to say so without asking the reasoning behind its selection is an ill-considered accusation in violation of Wikipedia's civility policy, as well as an egregious violation of the assume good faith principle (and a borderline personal attack). Also, your original comment here about SEWilco (t c) is a shocking violation of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:AGF. Please try not to comment about your fellow editors, comment about their contributions instead. --Darkwind (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned Reuters because you, the uploader, incorrectly mentioned Reuters as the source. The Washington Post was an example with the correct credit because you did not provide the URL from which you downloaded it. Proper license information must be provided to Commons, but you've already been notified in Commons; deletion of that image is not an en.wikipedia matter. (SEWilco 15:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC))

The reporting user has been blocked for incivility (I'm shocked!) and the non-free image that was uploaded will be handled by Commons' process. I'm closing this issue. --Darkwind (talk) 22:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Aura Bogado (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - I have concerns over the notability of the subject as per WP:BLP1E. This person is essentially only known for her dispute with Larry Flynt over donations to the activist group Not in Our Name. This dispute got a lot of play in left-wing media sources like Democracy Now and Counterpunch for several months in 2005. Other than that, she's a journalist for various leftist publications and Pacifica Radio, as well as one of the webmasters of Hustlingtheleft.com. I'm not sure if all of this amounts to sufficient notability to meet WP:BIO. I'm thinking of simply moving the relevant content to Larry Flynt and Not in Our Name and AfDing the article itself. However, I'd like to get some other opinions on the subject's notability before proposing an AfD. If the article is worth keeping, I think it needs work from an NPOV standpoint, as it gives a very one-sided view of the controversy she was involved in. // Iamcuriousblue 17:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • If the "Hustling the Left" controversy itself is notable enough for an article (and I make no judgement on that), then that should be the subject of the article. I see no evidence that Bogado meets WP:BIO on her own excepting her involvement in that event. I'd suggest either moving the article to Hustling the Left controversy and rewriting it from that point of view, or nominating it for deletion entirely if an encyclopedic article on the controversy can't be written. --Darkwind (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure if the "Hustling the Left controversy" is notable enough for a stand-alone article, but like I said, the material is relevant to the articles on Larry Flynt and Not in Our Name. (Actually, there's already a section on it in the former article.) As for the Bogado bio, I'll wait and see if there are some more opinions here, but you're probably right about AfDing it once the relevant material has been worked into other articles. Iamcuriousblue 02:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Kevin Erskine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - editor claiming to be the subject of the article strenuously objects to its existence, as demonstrated at the help desk. He claims it is a privacy violation. He has been temporarily blocked for attempting to clear the article without following procedure and so cannot request assistance on this himself. At a glance, I think some of the personal information may be more than necessary, but don't have time right now to look into it. I hope that one of you can give it a look over and see if his privacy concerns are valid. --Moonriddengirl 21:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Crosspost from discussion on the issue elsewhere

I'd agree with stubbing it down at least - personal information is relevant for someone like George Bush or Paul McCartney, as it potentially has direct relevance to their work, but doesn't seem particularly relevant here (I've not read the blog - if we're claiming he's notable for the blog and that discusses personal information, then it may be relevant). — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've made some edits to the page. Another editor removed the images, which I tend to agree with. I took out the unsourced information, the rest of it appears supported by his blog and various other articles listed in the references. I'd agree with Iridescent that the personal details are probably not necessary; might be best to move this article to an entry about the blog and rewrite it significantly, but I'm not sure. Into The Fray ^T/C 22:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think User:KevinErskine makes a very valid point as well, even if it technically go against WP policy - the article was created by an SPA whose sole contributions have been to write an article about Kevin Erskine; to upload three Kevin Erskine images; to add Kevin Erskine to assorted lists; to create Talk:Kevin Erskine. WP:AGF prevents me from using the S***k word here, but there's a whiff of something weird going on. — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I was kind of kicking around nominating it for an AfD. I noticed many of the same things about it. He's really only of marginal notability; a couple quotes in some magazines, some articles and whatnot. Whether or not User:KevinErskine = Kevin Erskine, I can't really say. I suppose if his threats of blog posting come true, we'll know.  ;) What's your take on notability, though? Into The Fray ^T/C 22:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

crossposted from User talk:KevinErskine as it's not letting him edit this page

I contend that I am not notable at all.

I also contend that it is quite frightening that someone knows that much about me, and can freely post it.

All I do is consult for liquor companies. There is NO reason for me to be included here.

Re: My marital status, education and birthdate, why on earth would that need to be included even if I were notable.

My additional fear is that Someone might think I posted this myself as it looks incredible self-serving.

I previously had someone pose as me (ScotchBlog) and post to the whisky related pages and had to aske that person to change their posting name, I was getting accused of promoting my book and web site.KevinErskine 22:58, 11 October 2007

Replying to I.T.F. above - I know nothing about the liquor industry so can't really judge, but it seems to me that while he probably is notable (just) in Wikipedia terms thanks to the magazine coverage, it's in a specialist field unlikely to be of general interest - and anyone who is interested, probably reads the blog anyway so knows about him - so I'd make an IAR argument to delete this; I doubt anyone will suffer by losing it and someone might suffer by keeping it. — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say db-bio it. He's not notable, and certainly doesn't want to be. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

--and I did so. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

So I see! I don't think it failed to assert notability, that's why I was reluctant to db-bio it, though I did prod it just before your deletion. Either way.... Cheers, Into The Fray ^T/C 23:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Resolved.

Daniel Clark (actor): I have had a contact from an apparent relative claiming that inaccuracies have been introduced. Anyone able to have a look? Rich Farmbrough, 13:07 14 October 2007 (GMT).

Wow. 99% of that article is unsourced. I'll see if I can find anything. --Moonriddengirl 13:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I've stripped it to sourced material, which removes pretty much everything personal. There shouldn't be anything controversial remaining. I'll watch it for a while, in case the information is reintroduced so that the editors who introduce it can be advised about sourcing requirements, especially on BLP. --Moonriddengirl 13:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Tom Barker (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Article was started by a new editor, likely with a coi that was never investigated, who hasn't edited since Dec 2006. The article has gone through two rounds of cleanup, once with the initial editor and once since. Recently another editor who has a great deal of personal knowledge about Barker has begun contributing to the article and its talk page. He's raised a number of good questions about Barker's business ventures, and the quality of the article in general. We're hoping some of the BLP experts here could help. See: Talk:Tom_Barker#BLP_concerns --Ronz 15:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I've commented on that talk page, and for the record here, I believe the disputed information violates WP:NOR and suggested that it not be restored to the article without better sources. --Darkwind (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Closing the issue as my advice was well-received. --Darkwind (talk) 07:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Viktor Kozeny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

There is a new user called Viktor Kozeny trying to remove any information about the criminal activities of Viktor Kožený.[5] Although I cannot be sure that this new editor is Viktor Kožený himself, I find it quite likely. I do not know what to do in case of such a conflict of interest, so I hope someone more experience will look at it. Tankred 18:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Where are the sources for this article? Is he notable? I don't see any sources either for his criminal activities. • Lawrence Cohen 19:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he is notable and I have restored a source referring to his criminal activities. Viktor Kozeny has previously deleted this citation from the article. It would not be a problem to find thousands of other sources.[6] Tankred 19:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw those, yes. The problem is that the allegations, crimes, and other negative information in the article here individually aren't sourced. Anyone can removed unsourced negative information from an article. There is nothing wrong with that. • Lawrence Cohen 19:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, can we verify this user is really Viktor Kožený? Blocking policy asks us to block users with usernames very similar to living persons unless they can probe they are the real person. -- ReyBrujo 20:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The user's been asked on their user talk page to confirm if they are Viktor Kozeny. If nothing happens after a few days, they should probably be blocked until their identity is confirmed (similar to User:Stephencolbert) --h2g2bob (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think a ANI is in order given the editors recent edits and his lack of response to any of the warnings on his talk page. --Ronz 15:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The editor persists in adding unreferenced material to the article and does not respond in the talk page. I don't think ANI must be involved given the scope of the problem. I agree that the user must be simply blocked so that he starts talking. `'Míkka 18:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Now he is even posting threats of "legal action" in the edit summaries.[7] This is the only response we have gotten from him. Still no answers on the user talk page. Tankred 18:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Article is protected. --Ronz 20:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

And the editor is blocked. --Ronz 23:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Closing the issue as resolved. --Darkwind (talk) 07:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The Biography 'stub' of "Justin Whalin" appears to be at least 60% direct copy from 'http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0923529/bio'. The copyright owner is cited on the URL i have given.

James —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.255.215 (talk) 00:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I've pruned a good portion of the content, but still kept the noability factor intact.. If any editors want to re-add the pertinent info, so that it isn't copyvio be my guest.--Sethacus 01:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a problem in which an Admin with a specific POV is ensuring that evidence contrary to this POV is not represented accurately or fairly, by constantly dismissing perfectly reliable sources of criticism of the subject‘s position. At the same time, he has been pushing for a highly unreliable source which makes highly inflammatory claims about patient advocates , grossly misrepresenting their concerns/criticisms, and what is more, completely unsubstantiated and unsourced.

It is important to note that I and another editor have undertaken not to edit the page directly because of our admitted Conflict of Interest. We have limited ourselves to discussion and giving information on the talk page. I feel there is a marked inconsistency of standards being applied to this issue by an Admin, in whom we have placed trust (a rather risky venture because of his past behaviour on the talk page) and who so far has not delivered. So we have acted in good faith throughout.

Unfortunately the talk page is long and detailed- but this has been inevitable because of the complexity of the issue, particularly the problems regarding the unreliable source being pushed. But the issue is actually quite simple in some ways (or at least could be sorted quite sumply- and my recent posts on the talk page have tried to demonstrate this): A single NPOV sentence with two HANSARD references, and the removal of the unreliable reference. I should also point out that this is a proposed compromise made by me, not a ‘refusal to budge‘ position.

I THINK I’ve added Request for comment on Simon Wessely. I’m putting my concerns here as per advice of Addhoc . Angela Kennedy 12:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has dismissed any sources and I am not quite sure why my standards are being applied inconsistently. MEagenda (talk · contribs) and Angela Kennedy have been rather busy trying to discredit the standing source ("Gibson enquiry"), and I have now offered that we drop the source (as per Talk:Simon Wessely). Angela Kennedy is now offering new references without seriously considering my proposal to drop the Gibson source, and I have already replied that one of the two Hansard sources may be useful, but only in its context. JFW | T@lk 10:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The above comments from JFW do not give an accurate account of what has gone on, as is evident by the talk page. In fact, the highly unreliable 'Gibson' source appears to have been put up (unilaterally without agreement) on September 30th, wheareas I made the suggestions on the talk page for the two so-called 'new' (and reliable) references, in response to JFW's call for reliable references, on September 26th, four days before, making the 'standing' status of the Gibson reference open to dispute at the very least. If the Gibson source is dropped- reliable sources are still needed in its place (which I have supplied). Although the dropping of Gibson would be very welcome (it has not happened yet), I would still like other people looking at the problem. Angela Kennedy 14:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There is already a reliable source, a fairly impartial article in a UK national newspaper. The sources Angela Kennedy insists on are simply attacks made on the record, and just confirm what the newspaper article already shows in so many words: that this person has been the subject of strong criticism. JFW | T@lk 20:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not an accurate summation of JFW of the problem- merely his POV. The source he refers to is not reliable and I have explained why on the talk page. The sources he condemns are actually reliable as per wiki standards - whatever his personal opinion of them. We need other people to look at this fairly- especially as I and another editor have undertaken in good faith not to edit because of our own conflict of interest, and this has put us at a disadvantage to JFW and his POV. The very offending and unreliable reference JFW was pushing for has STILL not been removed from the page. Angela Kennedy 15:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The English article on "Alfred Maurice de Zayas" is accurate so too the French article since 29 September a serious defamation was added to the German article "Alfred de Zayas" and the article was immediately closed for editing, so that the defamation cannot be removed The Administrators seem to collude in this game, since five requests to open the article and remove the defamation have been rejected without reason -- simply "erledigt" It appears that on 13 February a German newspaper die WELT wrote that alfred de Zayas had "slipped to the right extremists" -- without any justification whatever However, on 9 October 2007 the same newspaper Die WELT interviewed de Zayas on the Human Rights Council and referred to him as "renommierte Völkerrechtler und UN-experte", thereby contradicting the prior, deliberate, gratuitous insult. In the discussion people are looking desperately to find articles or reviews that might place de Zayas, a member of Amnesty International and many left-oriented organizations, as a right-radical. Absurd, but nonetheless dangerous. For reviews of the books of de Zayas see http://www.alfreddezayas.com/books.shtml

Please contact your colleagues in the German Wikipedia and insist that defamation of living persons is actionable. 83.77.225.232 17:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

1)This is a noticeboard for the English-language Wikipedia: take concerns about the German Wikipedia to its equivalent noticeboard; 2) threats of legal action are not permitted in this Wikipedia. --Orange Mike 17:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

One paragraph, all about ghostwriting of articles, nothing about the person himself. Corvus cornix —Preceding comment was added at 23:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Needs work, to be sure, but it has been expanded by the creator. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I have now catted and stubbed the article, so hopefully that will attract further contributions. DuncanHill 21:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

From the article: Laughingly, he noted in the Q & A afterward, that the AFI rarely ever supplied any of the essential tools to hone his craft or facilitate the art of movie-making. If he wanted to utilize a steady cam, or construct a precise contraption to capture images on a careening car, for example, instructors detered him - first and foremost arguing that he might hurt himself, or flat-out insisting there weren't any of the essentials in stock for his capable directorial hands to put to use. Subsequently, the persistent young artist was forced to rely on his wits. You know the old saying: "necessity is the motherhood of invention". "The American Film Institute gave me a great gift," he stressed with a hint of glee, "They let me make a film with nothing."

The blog has now been removed and there is NO REFERENCE for this quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bvanderark (talk • contribs) 22:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• MorganReynolds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - This user has repeatedly inserted external links pointing at a blog which is critical of the subject of the article. The user has also inserted a link to a particular blog post as support for a controversial claim about the living person who is the subject of the article. Repeated removals by myself, Arthur Rubin, and ClueBot have been met with persistent re-insertions of the material. At least three warnings have been left on user's talk page, but user has not responded to them. // DickClarkMises 23:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Spartaz indef-blocked the offending party. DickClarkMises 00:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Greg Felton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Additions of concern by Eternalsleeper which include repeatedly changing the title of Felton's book The Host and the Parasite: How Israel's Fifth Column Consumed America to The Host and the Parasite:How Israel's filth polluted America as well as the addition of what other editors appear to agree are poorly sourced negative information. [8] [9] [10](and more). An added complication is the editing of the subject of the article, Voxveritatis, who is irritated. Slp1 19:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Almeda University (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) is under pretty constant attack. Addition of links not really related to the subject, attempts to eliminate essentially all content that isn't highly critical, et cetera. Active corporations are legal persons, so I interpret BLP to apply in this case. I could really use some extra eyes/hands. WilyD 17:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I've added it to my watchlist. --Darkwind (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Steve Hoffman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Recent documented resources were added to support a section of the article mentioning the controversy behind Mr. Hoffman's dismissal at MCA in the late 80s. These sources point to missing/misplaced master tapes which were attributed to him by MCA, leading to his dismissal. Members of Mr. Hoffman's website (specifically admins at his online forum) have partaken in a long edit-war by continually removing information pertaining to the dismissal controversy. Eventually the page was protected (as it is now) and discussion commenced. Unfortunately, affiliates of Mr. Hoffman's site (those responsible for the continual reverts) have no intention to compromise or even discuss the matter. A notice has also been posted at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Steve_Hoffman.

As the reverters have no intent to rationalize, the article's integrity will most likely be compromised without extensive moderation/protection. I suggest a deletion if no other feasible method is reached. Sidar 20:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

A deletion has been started in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steve_Hoffman#Steve_Hoffman. This forum is for discussion of WP:BLP concerns. --Ronz 16:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of cronyism in the selection of poems for The Best American Poetry series (BAP) have been on the Web for some time, but, as far as I can tell, there are no sources that Wikipedia considers reliable for most of the charges. I'm not an expert on poetry, but I created the series of articles about the BAP, which is universally acknowledged in the poetry world to be a very, very big fish in that relatively small pond. Currently, one single-purpose-account editor is battling with another about what negative information can be included in the article about the series (essentially, negative information involving charges of cronyism against the series editor, David Lehman). The dispute currently seems to revolve around three points:

1. Please confirm that including this information is allowable: Several series guest editors, among them the most widely read and most respected American poets, have included their own spouses' poetry among "the best American poetry" when those guest editors have been given a volume to select poetry for. Lehrman's own wife has had a poem selected for the series. The evidence for this is beyond dispute: The series' own Web site states that guest editors select poems and lists the authors whose poems are selected, and other reliable online sources state that these people are (or were) the spouses of the editors. (How important you think this is probably relates to how interested you are in poetry. For the poetry world, this seems to rate as a scandal, although it has not been reported in reliable, secondary sources.) It seems to me that Wikipedia is on rock-solid ground to mention that series editors have picked their spouse's poems for books that advertise themselves as "the best of American poetry". Obviously, we cannot editorialize about whether or not that's bad, or how bad it is, but we do need to include relevant facts about the series in the article. I'd like confirmation from editors here that this information does not violate WP:BLP.

2. Is this allowable? Lehman has thanked some people in the acknowledgements sections of each annual edition of the series. A good number of these people have had poems included in the series. The people thanked include famous poet John Ashbery, who doesn't need to do Lehman favors to get published regularly in the series, but they include other, not well-known people as well. There is no reliable, secondary source alleging that cronyism is taking place here. One editor has gone through the books of the series (there are about 20 of them) and collected a list of the people thanked by Lehman, then gone through the tables of contents to show where a dozen of them have been published in the series (a very resume-enhancing experience for a poet looking for jobs in creative writing programs). This information has been presented baldly, without editorial comment, in the article. I've asked that editor to provide more specific information to identify, if possible, assistants of Lehman and when they were thanked. If this can be done, it seems to me our readers would best be served by including a sentence or two about this in the article, stated baldly and without any kind of editorial comment. Again, there are no reliable, secondary sources that have brought this up, but the information seems central to the article's purpose of describing the subject.

There are some potential WP:OR issues here. Is looking at the subject of the article (the set of books) and coming up with a list of names from it original research? Is it original research to then note all the names on that list which also are numbered among the poets published in the series? At least one editor thinks so, but it appears to me that it is not, because the activity is straightforwardly taking bald facts from the books and listing them in the article (I would prefer to have the list in a footnote and a simple count made of the total number of people thanked). It seems to me that simple information, simply presented is no more a WP:OR violation than it would be to extract any other information from a book and summarize it in an article. Am I better off taking this to the WP:OR talk page?

3. Is this an acceptable source? (This refers to the current bottom paragraph of the article.) Briggs Seekins, a former editor of the literary journal run by English graduate students at Syracuse University (Salt Hill Journal) has written online a first-person account of a poet who included references to a David Lehman poem in her own poem -- and then had her poem published in Salt Hill Journal and then had it picked up by Lehman's series. Seekins' article appeared in a Web site that seems to be run by someone who mostly publishes his own work there, including interviews with some famous people. Seekins describes only what he's seen himself, first-hand. He is a writer who seems to have been published elsewhere, although he isn't a journalist. I originally thought this source, given the circumstances, was reliable enough for Wikipedia. I'm not sure now, and I'd like input from here. Seekins is saying that Lehman allowed a poem that references his work to be included in his series, which bills itself as "the best of American poetry". It seems to me that this is a fact or it isn't, but providing Seekins' perspective is useful to readers, and having a poetry journal editor state that the reference is to a poem of Lehman's makes the statement of the facts more authoritative. Quoting Seekins also gives some perspective to it.

Since there's quite a bit of contentiousness over the article from two single-purpose-account editors, one pro-Lehman, one anti-Lehman, input from here would likely settle some of this.

My own involvement in this is that I created the article and associated articles. I then saw some of the negative information on the Web and included that in the article. An editor, WaverleyR, then joined Wikipedia and removed the information as coming from unreliable sources. I came to agree with that. Another editor, Burk88, then joined Wikipedia and got into essentially the same conflict with WaverlyR, but found somewhat better sources. (Both of these contending editors have improved the article, both are very intently struggling with each other.) Noroton 20:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC) minor self-edits for clarity Noroton 20:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

To Noroton's point (1) above I would add that the information about spouses is now in the "critical response" section. While it may belong somewhere, it does not belong where it is now as that information does not come out of any sources' critical reponse to the series. The information about spouses belongs on the pages of the volumes in which the spouses poems appeared. The Harwood information is the weakest as her poem was not chosen by her husband, the series editor. Rather, it was chosen by a guest editor who may not have been aware of her relationship to the series editor.WaverlyR 12:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Jonathan Lee Riches (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - question regarding sourcing to The Smoking Gun // Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Given the extreme BLP violations of the last version of this article, I keep a careful eye on the current version to be sure it stays well within BLP policy. I'm not sure how Wikipedia stands on the reliability of The Smoking Gun. It certainly seems like a dodgy source to me, but given my involvement as the creator of this version of the article don't want to misjudge it and remove it without just cause. I'd prefer to avoid the appearance of ownership issues. Is The Smoking Gun BLP friendly? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

According to their website, The Smoking Gun is owned by Court TV, and they claim that all of their information is authentic as it comes from public records (government documents and law enforcement sources). I doubt that Court TV would risk their reputation by publishing filth or unverified material; but at the same time, it should theoretically be possible to secondarily verify anything sourced to The Smoking Gun by finding the original documents. --Darkwind (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Michelle Malkin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - There are issues being discussed here regarding the characterization of her parents' immigration status at the time of her birth, the verifiability of the source being used, and the possible synthetic use of this information to address a viewpoint she holds. // Crockspot 15:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This page was flagged as needing a lot of work in June/July 2007, since then it has been editted a lot, with more citations/links. I would like some ideas/suggestions on what else needs doing to this article in order for it to meet the wikipedia standards. Auntie Lil 11:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Steve_Hoffman_.28closed.29 to be reopened. Though the article is up for deletion, we still need BLP experts to help with the talk page discussions. Thanks! --Ronz 17:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is protected because of what I see as a gross misunderstanding of WP:BLP. Help is necessary for us to get beyond the dispute that resulted in page protection. --Ronz 21:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Haroon Siddiqui (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - The article is coming under anon edit for the last 6 monmths that seems to wanting to add negative information but not from WP:RS sources. The sources used are [11],[12].[13] Atleast the last two are blogs. He is an important Journalist from Canada from Toronto Star a very mainstream daily. To accuse him as an Islamist that too from a non reliable source is not acceptable. Per WP:REDFLAG such commentary better have good RS sources. Thanks // Taprobanus 20:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

On the article Wells, on 1 Oct, an anon added a name to 'Notable people' and added 'paedophile' alongside. This was promptly removed, but the paedophile reference is still visible if one compares past versions. Can this be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derek Andrews (talk • contribs) 13:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no need for that; it's no longer generally visible, and we would typically only take action if actual personal information is revealed or if the subject themselves requests it (see Wikipedia:Oversight for the actual policy. --Darkwind (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's a entire article consisting of a list of individuals supposedly involved in sex scandals, with details, most of it completely unverified. I deleted an addition made today with no source, but don't know what to do about the rest. -Jmh123 14:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably 96% of that list violate of WP:BLP or WP:V. Leaving the remaining 4% would have given undue exposure to a small number of cases, so I have deleted the whole list. [14]. Should anyone wish to resurrect the list, they can grab the entries from that diff and find references for a significant number of the entries and then add it back to the article. When adding to an article, the burden is on the one doing the addition to provide sources if the material is challenged. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, would any of these be alright for reinstatement, if it was sourced and described as a sex scandal? • Lawrence Cohen 16:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but I think we can't just pick on one or two incidents. If there's a list, it should be a fair representation of cases, listing the most prominent ones. We should not list a few obscure cases and ignore those which have been cited more frequently and more prominently. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The timing of this change is curious. Caution must be heeded to avoid re-posting the falsities that previously existed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProtocolOne (talk • contribs) 16:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I've emptied the article out. Nothing was sourced, and it read like an essay on someone's views of what a sex scandal is or should be, rather than what sources say a sex scandal is. Lots of original research. • Lawrence Cohen 16:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

And now it's really simply a dictionary definition. I wonder if we should submit it for AfD or a speedy delete?? It's left over from the days before reliability and verifiability and BLP were serious concerns. Do we really need a list of sex scandals? -Jmh123 19:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure someone would enjoy reading it. I suppose if there were enough notable, sourced ones... the topic is common enough that it can be probably sourced out pretty decently, if someone had the time and energy. • Lawrence Cohen 19:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Braham, Minnesota (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Request assistance watching this article, as socks and IPs are repeatedly adding unsourced information (and sometimes a photo) of someone who apparently is an alleged or convicted pedophile. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Watched. Looks like a collegiate (?) basketball rivalry.--Sethacus 20:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone also changed the team name again yesterday, so I've watchlisted it as well. Closing the issue. --Darkwind (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, there's some personal notes on this, like Kristend is the greatest, I love Kristen, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.140.100 (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. These edits were made by an impersonation account Special:Contributions/Kristinbaker, which really should be deleted. -Jmh123 19:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

And the user could be blocked for impersonation.--Sethacus 20:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I put a notice on WP:ANI. Impersonating someone is serious business, even if in this case the additions seem harmless. Thank you for bringing this to our attention, 72.48.140.100. -Jmh123 20:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find any notice on AN/I or recent archives regarding this, so I reported the username to WP:UAA and I'm closing this issue. --Darkwind (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• JJJ999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - This user keeps adding contentious, unsupported information that is not from NPOV; the user seems have a clear bias against the subject. The information he adds is not directly supported by the sources he provides, and the sources (minutes from the meetings of a debate association, old high school photos) do not seem to meet the "reliable, third-party source" requirements of WP:BLP. The user refuses to state why his additions are relevant when asked. He makes no attempt to reach a consensus before adding information. The user has also referred to the subject as someone who "waddles off to a meeting of a body of old hacks" [15], and has vandalized the page. [16], [17], [18], [19], [20] // V-train 02:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This article was recently up for deletion and was kept, with a no-consensus ruling. I'm not at all sure I agree with that, based on the debate. The sources are not significant, most being minutes of meetings and records of debates. Off the bat I can't find any substantiation in the cited source for the gentleman's having played organ for high officials, but I only read the linked page. JJJ999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) appears to have very strong feelings about Erskine's lack of notability, and the contested material is somewhat interpretive. For example, JJJ999 wants to add a comment from the minutes of a meeting to imply that Erskine did a poor job of chairing some committee, but the minutes also show Erskine being re-elected to chair the same committee, which he does not mention. There's a lot of argumentation going on here that seems too personal to me. -Jmh123 05:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

One IP and two accounts (the accounts have only been used to add to this article) have added the following about this guy since the 2nd Oct. "inappropriate advances on younger female undergraduate students." [21], "Daniel is not to be trusted by his peers, or by anyone close to him." [22], "If anyone has information regarding the whereabouts of Mr. Theaker please notify your local authorities" [23], "Wanted for questioning by Ottawa authorities for child molestation, and connections to kiddie porn websites." [24]. Out of the last 9 edits since the 2nd Oct, 4 are vandalism, 2 are an attempt to remove the vandalism and one is a revert. There have been 22 edits in the last 6 months. 70.76.239.86 requested the page be semi protected but that's been denied [25]. I think (s)he just went about it the wrong way, looks like they blanked the page to remove the vandalism and then asked for the protection so whoever looked at it thought there were the vandal. 70.76.239.86 then reverted [[26]] some of the vandalism. Replenished entry 04:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting this. I've semi-protected the article for a month. FCYTravis 04:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This article looks like a major BLP problem to me. Lots of people are "alleged" to be terrorists. Steve Dufour 01:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. They are are all sourced to the DoD. JoshuaZ 16:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It still seems to me that the purpose of the article is not to tell us about the list but to repeat the accusations from it. There is about one sentence telling what the list is and then a 2 or 3 page table giving information on the people listed. They may be bad guys but I don't think that's what WP is supposed to be about. Steve Dufour 16:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That's more of an argument that the list is simply redundant and not a useful Wikipedia article. That's a concern of AfD, not BLP. JoshuaZ 17:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I will probably AfD it. Steve Dufour 17:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I've proposed it for deletion. Steve Dufour 22:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defense Department list of terrorist organizations other than the Taliban or al QaedaSteve Dufour 00:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned about BLP with this list (on the current article and naming) as it functionally parrots the point of view of a single primary source (the United States DoD) with no reliable secondary sources. It is either an advocacy piece, or an attack piece, or a soapbox, depending on your point of view. No fault of the authors; good job collecting and sorting the data. Without multiple sources from places besides the United States government, it is however simply regurgitating an American government POV, and not appropriate. I'm tempted to gut the list on these grounds. Are my concerns grounded in BLP? Labeling a person or group "terrorist" is about as severe as can be. • Lawrence Cohen 12:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Per my BLP concerns, I've hidden the Primary-sourced list from search engines until concerns are resolved, under WP:BLP. • Lawrence Cohen 12:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly dispute that this article is an "advocacy piece/attack piece/soapbox".

I am extremely skepctical that it violates {{blp}}.

I am extremely skepctical that reporting a DoD allegation, without taking a stand on its credibility violates {{blp}}.

It is not see the DoD as some kind of irresponsible blogger. I am extremely skeptical that reporting well-documented DoD allegations, without taking a stand on their credibility, exposes the wikipedia to any risk of a law-suit for libel or slander.

I strongly dispute that reporting the allegations that has lead to the Guantanamo captives' extrajudicial detention, without taking a stand on its credibility, makes those passages POV. I don't believe any topic is "inherently POV". I believe that any topic, any issue, can be covered from a neutral point of view. And goldarnit, when I write on a controversial topic I bend over backwards to fully comply with WP:NPOV. I think that if someone has a concern that my contributions do not comply with {{npov}} I should feel I can call on them to be specific about the passages that violate the policy -- both the passages, and how they fail to comply.

I have addressed the naming issue several times, over on the {{afd}}. I am quite frustrated that my correspondent here has brought this concern up, again, without addressing the points I raised.

Candidly, Geo Swan 15:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned about names of real people and organizations being listed on a page called Defense Department list of terrorist organizations other than the Taliban or al Qaeda, when we have no evidence or reliable non-primary sources saying they are terrorists. As of this moment, we have in essence only the United States government saying a person named "Ali Smith" is a terrorist. Should we, based on that alone, list Ali Smith on something like List of Terrorists? Absolutely not, ever. If Saudi Arabia's military department labeled a C.I.A. agent named Stan Smith a terrorist, would we then included Stan Smith on List of Terrorists as well? No RS, no inclusion. Questions for you:

• Why can't this article be about the existence of the list itself?
• Do we have any neutral (not controlled by the US/DoD) media, other nations, or WP:RS that asserts these people are terrorists?
• If someone besides yourself or I restores the list for the purposes of the discussion with sourced information that meet RS standards saying these people are terrorists, I will not object.

Thanks. • Lawrence Cohen 15:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

User:SpamAssasin/Voyages - the page contains a lot of statements which are not true in any way. This especially includes the list of accounts, ownership of domains, court actions, employment and scamming practice. The whole page looks as highly biased biographical material without proper sources. I am asking to remove this material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.44.110 (talk) 12:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This article has been on Wikipedia and has never had a source of any kind. Corvus cornix 21:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Neil ☎ 22:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Copy vio + impersonation from http://groups.myspace.com/nikkiflores. The entire biography of another singer with subsitution of name only has been pasted into the article. Voceditenore 05:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• In addition, the lead paragraph is taken from Nikki Flores with only minor substitutions.Voceditenore 05:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

In the Thought Field Therapy article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Field_Therapy , someone who goes by the name of Boodlesthecat added a reference of a Letter to the Editor I wrote stating an opinion supportive of TFT when it was obvious that this was an outdated reference and that I have publicly retracted my views on TFT. I tried to point this out to Boodlesthecat and delete this, but Boodlesthecat reverted it and accused me of "suppressing" information. I then actually wrote to the journal being referenced (Traumatology) and wrote a retraction for the particular letter that was cited and then put that into the article. In the Traumatology retraction I stated that Boodlesthecat putting this in, in the first place was misleading and really tangential to the topic of hand, which was to cite published articles on TFT, not bring in letters to the editor. No reputable encyclopedia would put in letters to the editor where enthusiastic supporters were merely stating opinions (as was the case with the retracted letter I had previously written). Please note that in addition to the Traumatology retraction I just put in after this incident, there was also an earlier article I had published in 2005 where I explicitly stated agreement with the review by Hooke in question so there really was no good reason for Boodlesthecat to be citing this outdated reference that misrepresents my present views. I would like to have this removed. Another point in terms of the quality of the article, is that an enthusiastic opinion from a TFT devotee (which I was at the time I wrote that retracted letter) is tangential and having to then put in the fact I retracted the letter really makes the article appear very poorly written. If people really wanted to add "balance" they could have cited and quoted from Roger Callahan's response article to the review in question, rather than a letter to the editor from an enthusiastic TFT devotee merely stating an opinion that was late retracted. I will be writing about this incident in an article I have been invited to write for an APA publication, by the way. --MonicaPignotti 14:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have copied this to Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. I think it will get better attention there.--BirgitteSB 19:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone fixed it. Thank you for your speedy response. --MonicaPignotti 15:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Resolved.

Someone keeps adding less than generous references to the size and shape of Mikael's head on this page.

It's sheer vandalism.

I removed it once but it has now reappeared!

"217.114.165.34 16:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)"

Vandalism removed. Warning issued. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed material about the Bilderberg Group that was cited to infowars.com. User:Lord Chao objects.[27] Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with the sources being discussed (though they look pretty dodgy to me), but wanted to point out that the conversation has moved to Talk:Ed_Kronenburg. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged the article as non-notable. Steve Dufour 19:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Logan53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), as well as the IP 24.44.52.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), has repeatedly added a link to a site that appears to be an attack page on Miller, as well as lines which accuse Miller of fabricating a stalking charge (which was investigated and resulted in a court conviction). Obviously I'm deleting it as soon as I see it, but since the attack site is actually authored by the convicted stalker, and the user has not made any contributions save for adding this content to the Miller article, I'm somewhat concerned that there is a conflict of interest, the user is either the stalker or someone acting on his behalf, and this might be another attempt at cyberstalking or harassment. DanielEng 17:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

how do we add that link to the link blacklist? --Rocksanddirt 23:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Would that be a possibility? If so it would b a very good idea. DanielEng 15:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Jill Saward (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - One of my children have placed the names of Jill Saward's young children on this article (we know the family). I have deleted the names to protect the children (and told my son off). I'd be grateful of an administrator could remove the edit from the edit history so this personal information about juveniles could be deleted completely. Thank You. // 86.29.28.230 15:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Oscar de la Hoya (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - An editor keeps restoring negative material (alleged photos of de la Hoya in drag) primarily sourced by a paparazzi website. There are a few secondary reliable sources about the controversy of whether the photos are authentic or not. Seems like a borderline case; I've deleted it twice, time for the experts. If the general topic is kept, I think the paparazzi links should go. Studerby 00:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

All those sources cited are tabloids, and the Post and Daily News have notoriously poor editorial oversight (that's the perception here in their home state at least). Coverage does not equal notability, and this material is immaterial to de la Hoya's biography. Salacious material that doesn't have established notability does not belong in an encyclopedic article and should go. east.718 at 03:07, 10/26/2007

- This template is being used to categorize living persons as "dominionists". These people do not self-identify as such and, since this is a perjorative, they should be removed from this list. I do not see any policy related to templates which work like categories in the BLP policy page, is this an oversight? // Kyaa the Catlord 02:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

In terms of its application within specific articles, its removal should not be problematic if the claim of dominionism lacks proper sourcing. While WP:BLP doesn't address the application of templates, per se, it's very clear about sourcing requirements for any information in BLPs. :) If reliable sources are identifying these individuals as dominionist, then there could be some complication. I wonder if this is a question that might be more fruitfully raised at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons. Not everybody who contributes there monitors the noticeboard. :) At one point, I requested that we require self-identification for any labeling of sexuality and (later) religion in a BLP (as it is required to apply categories with those labels), but the conversation grew complicated and I was distracted by other things. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No this template is seriously not on. For two reasons.

1. Whilst an article may indicate that some people have called the individual x, and the reader can then assess the importance and credibility of the name-callers for themselves, a decision by wikipedia to put them on a list or template is binary. In effect we are saying they are or they are not. That's POV unless they self-identify as such. To try to get round that by saying "Reported Dominionists" is weasel wording. Can I create a list of "Reported idiots" and include George Bush - I'm sure I can find a reliable source to say someone reported him to be one?
2. We require controversial claims to be a) attributed and b) directly referenced on the article itself. Putting the claim on a template fails both of these criteria. It may be that the claim is referenced and attributed on the biography, but someone reading another biography with the same template doesn't know that, and there's always the danger that the claims on the template and the claims on the article become different.

--Doc^g 19:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Nom it for TfD. •Jim62sch• 20:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Nav templates are there to provide a navigational aid, not to assert a certain POV or give undue weight to certain viewpoints. Same applies to categories. See Wikipedia:Categorization of people. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The template is in AfD, and I have removed the WP:BLP violations in the meantime. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of court records being used in this article to defame the subject. The claim is that these don't constitute a primary source because they have been republished on another. 1) I don't think that mere republication on another site changes the status to a secondary source 2) The site on which these court records have been republished (Quackwatch) is a legal opponent of the subject.

You will find the use of these court records (a probable cause affidavit and a declaration) in the Legal issues and the Criticism section.

Further, as these documents are essentially just witness testimony and not a court ruling, I don't believe it is proper to cite these as a reliable source.

Please note that I have removed these passages twice and each time got reverted. I discussed the matter, but was lambasted with much incivility. I thought when BLP is at question, removing the offending passages is standard practice.

Anyhow, a pre-thanks to any and all for an outsiders opinion on this matter. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Not an outsider, as I've been involved on this article before - but some of the specific sources under contention, for reference, along with my 2 cents:

• [28] This is an evaluation of Clark's claims by one of the foremost naturopaths in the U.S., hosted on and cited by quackwatch.org, which is a secondary source. I don't see a BLP violation here.
• [29] This is sworn testimony from a deputy attorney general, a primary source but again hosted on and cited by quackwatch.org, a secondary source. This is perhaps slightly more iffy but I still don't see this as a BLP violation. MastCell ^Talk 18:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Not an outsider but it's been awhile since I've been to this article. What I am seeing though is outright deletion of Quackwatch on this site and other sites that Levine has been editing. ARB, Barrett VS. Rosenthal keeps being used as a reason for the deletion of Quackwatch which ARB didn't say. The court case and the Quackwatch verification needs to be put back in to stop POV editing. Of course this is just my opinion but I see nothing wrong with the way it was written and there was a lot of us working the article back when these were added to the article. Thank you for listening to me. The history of the article will show all that came to the consensed about this information. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Without any real discussion of this issue, Shot info (talk · contribs) continues to restore this content which may be a BLP violation. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Without any real discussion of the issue, you continue to remove the content which is almost certainly NOT a BLP violation. I would go so far as to say that, without including the information in question, the article fails WP:UNDUE. If the BLP argument were to be valid, Clark must be deleted.

I guess I mean the article must be deleted from Wikipedia, although I wouldn't be that upset if all traces of her were deleted from Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I contend that I am practically the only one there discussing the issue. Aside from MastCell, most users have evaded the issue. Some have resorted to incivility. Please go to the talk page and address why you feel that the use of primary sources without any secondary sources is valid. Because this seemingly goes against WP:BLP as I understand it. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I received an answer at ANI which I find satisfactory. I consider this matter which I opened here closed. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the answer you received at ANI is not correct, while the answers given above are. I have explained once again at ANI. Forum shopping is unnecessary anyway: WP:BLP including its finer points has been explained to you dozens of times. Avb 00:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Witness testimony should not be used in BLPs unless the witness is the subject of the article. Applicable policies are WP:SPS and WP:BLP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed... if the witness testimony is taken from a self-published source. The dispute here seems to center on the question whether or not Quackwatch is a self-published source for the specific information removed by Levine2112. I note that you view it as self-published while quite a few others view it as a reliable source. FWIW, I do not wish to edit articles also edited by Levine2112 for reasons explained elsewhere so cannot participate in building a consensus on the SPS/RS question on the article's talk page. Avb 00:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

PS I've just read your new BLP/N entry on the subject which makes my comment above superfluous as we agree on the nature of the dispute. Avb 00:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)