Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive30

A user has called Tariq Ramadan a "bigot" who "preach[es] mass murder of Jews" and accused him of "antisemitism" and "glorification of mass murder" as part of a content dispute on Talk:Banu Qurayza.[1], [2] None of these allegations are sourced, but they are made on the talk page, not on the article. Tariq Ramadan is a living person.

Is this behavior appropriate? Given WP:BLP says "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages..." (emphasis added) should the user's comments be removed, or allowed to stay?Bless sins 02:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No. It is not appropriate. See WP:NOT#FORUM. Talk pages are for discussing the article and not to assert our opinions on the subject, and regardless if these opinions are correct or not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

So is it a violation of BLP or is it just a violation of NOT#FORUM? That's the issue. Also, note that the claims are not "poorly sourced" but sourced and included as criticism in the article about Mr Ramadan. Str1977 ^(talk) 03:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It does not matter. Wikipedia talk pages are not for engaging in polemics. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It does matter indeed, as there has always been some room for stating opinions not diretly relevant to the article as long as it is not overdone. And I know what a realy soapboxer reads like. But here this is not the case. However, BLP is a much stricter policy. Here I feel it is invoked to restrict discussions. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Should such comments be "removed immediately"?Bless sins 04:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages are meant to discuss the article. My comment was an explanation why a certain edit that cited Tariq Ramadan, an academic widely accused of antisemitism and providing support to terrorist, as a source was not appropriate. So, it has nothing to do with WP:NOT#FORUM, let alone WP:BLP. Beit Or 10:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed that part of my comment that was not immediately relevant. The rest, however, is important and topical, and so will stay. Beit Or 11:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael J. Devlin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Discussion centers around the use of what appears to be a personal blog [3], first as a reference to a nickname the subject is reported to have, and when challenged, as a straight external link. Another (more reliable) source was found to support the nickname assertion. The question now is whether the link to the blog, in which the author expresses personal opinions linking pedophilia with homosexuality, constitutes poorly sourced contentious matierial that should not be added; or if there is a less strict interpretation of this section when it is being used to support the addition of an external link rather than being used as a reference source. Risker 14:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

At a glance, this seems pretty clearly inappropriate per WP:BLP. I'm about to take a closer look. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Have taken a closer look and removed the link. I've left a note explaining my actions at Talk:Michael_J._Devlin#Use_of_Blogs. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I'll keep an eye on it in case the other editor requires further clarification. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The other editor is persistent in believing the blog is appropriate. Additional opinions would be appreciated. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Changes to the article began when User:Gorkysfc removed information from the article, according to him/her, by request from the earl himself. After discussion, we both agree that none of the information he/she removed is libellous or defamatory, but one of the user's reasons for doing so was "an attempt to reduce [the earl's] web exposure in this context" (Talk:William Villiers, 10th Earl of Jersey). Granted, I've made added references and links since the original edits by the other user, but if neither of us regard any of the content as libellous or defamatory, then I fail to see why the information should be removed and so ask for some outside help. Note: Discussion found on mine and user's talk pages. Thanks, Craigy (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I will weigh in at the article's talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a dispute in this article related to the use of an affidavit as a source for claims in this BLP. The affidavit in its entirety was copied and made available in a pertisan/advocacy website quackwatch.com, which seems legally involved with the subject of the article. My view is that it violates BLP, as the affidavit has not been described in any secondary source besides the aforementioned advocacy site, as as primary source, cannot be used as a source for a BLP give that Wikipedia is not a first publisher of information. Others believe that is borderline and that Quackwatch is a reliable source for this BLP. See previous discussion in the noticeboard: #Hulda Regehr Clark ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Alex Kulbashian (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Would someone be kind as to have a look at this article. I am not an expert on the subject nor am I an expert in BLP but the article had incorrect claims and unsourced claims which I did my best to clean up. It's hard for me to determine if I've missed anything as I do not have access to some of the sources. Pocopocopocopoco 03:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to add, user:UnionPride keeps reverting back unsourced WP:BLP information that I have removed. These unsourced claims are quite serious, referring to someone as a neo-nazi without proof. On one of his reverts, he made a personal attack against me in the edit summary (calling me Pooperpooperspoopypoop) and on the other he said he was fixing grammar when he was reverting back the entire article. [4] [5] Pocopocopocopoco 00:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, but I was under the impression that it was a fairly accepted fact. I'll obtain the required sources and do updated where needed.UnionPride 19:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to add another point, I think it would be prudent if all the articles in Category:Canadian_far-right_figures would be looked at as a quick glance has revealed many unsourced and poorly sourced claims. Pocopocopocopoco 00:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[[]]' article has a lot of information which is either unverified or poorly verified. It also has a lot of fluff and pumping up in it. For instance, the second sentence of the article reads " While noted for his writings on Cuban socio-economic and political systems" however the source is simply an article written by Martinez for a student newspaper. There's no evidence that his wrtings are have been "noted" by any third parties. There's also extensive information about Martizez' journalism but no evidence that he's actually a paid journo. Most of his articles have appeared in student newspapers or small alternative publications.

Most of the "references" for the article are either unverifiable or unreliable. I've tried to prune it but two editors, who look like they edit all the same articles in the exact same wayu, are being very protective of it and have accused me of being a "fascist" for trying to remove poorly sourced material[6].

Can someone take a look at the article? Cheap Laffs 18:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheap Laffs has already been confirmed as being someone with an agenda to cause more Wiki-drama on here. His "complaints" come at a time when investigations are ongoing into the vandalism of the Shane Ruttle Martinez and Richard Warman pages. The Shane Ruttle Martinez article has long been settled, as can be seen here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shane_Ruttle_Martinez#Protection http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_August_23#Shane_Ruttle_Martinez

Entertaining the outdated whines of a fascist determined to upset our Wiki-community serve no purpose. UnionPride 19:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Any article could always use reworking, but Cheap Laffs is clearly editing specific parts of the article with the intent to belittle the individual, user is not editing in good faith. --Mista-X 23:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Must say I agree with Mista-X. By all measures this work of Cheap Laffs seems to be insincere in purpose, and malicious in intent. Petty suggestions, and bad faith all around. Frank Pais 00:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Resolved. To AfD]

Earl Washington Jr. - article about an innocent man. Probable COATRACK, but the large payout might make the case significant. violet/riga (t) 00:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD'ed. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earl Washington Jr. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This artical pushes a point of view and therefore is biased. It is obviously written by someone with a grudge, who i suggest is at IP address 85.43.58.100, Lazio in Rome, and I have a good idea who this person is also. The artical was written in a manner that tries to twist every action of the Bishop to reflect badly on any of his efforts. I have attempted to correct this several times but 85.43.58.100 keeps reverting the changes. Can the page please be locked? many thanks - Truthsayer101

I tidied it up some. It needs inline references, reliable source references, and a review of the external links to make sure they are not blp violations. The article needs work. --Rocksanddirt 15:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I request an opinion about the item "a statue by Daniel Edwards" in the "popular culture" section of the Paris Hilton article.

Is the item popular culture or obscene exploitation?

Is it "notable"? Putting this item may give it far more publicity than it deserves.

Here is the link: Paris Hilton#In popular culture

It involves what seems a particularly crude and unnecessary bit of information to include.

The following item, about the band Rush, is not as bad but also questionable. Wanderer57 21:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Notability only applies for whether an article should be here, not whether something is worth mentioning in the article. Obscenity is illegal portrayals of sexual conduct, generally graphical or video. If the sculpture were obscene that's a matter for the local police. I seriously don't think the sculpture is obscene. It's merely provocative. Paris Hilton is a public figure who thrives on celebrity. Her very notability is the scandals she creates. This is one of them. It is relevant to her public persona, and it comments legitimately (though crudely) on her well documented drunk driving and carelessness. Her entire notability is as a popular culture icon, so everything in the article is necessarily a pop culture reference. This is simply part of it. Daniel Edwards did something you don't seem to approve of. However, on Wikipedia we cover the whole world, the good, the bad, and the ugly. I don't see any BLP violation in a factual mention of a controversial piece of artwork. We don't censor here. Wikidemo 23:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It's only obscene in the sense of hyperbole, and not by any modern legal definition. Not even close. Quatloo 17:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Any other opinions on this? Wanderer57 01:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed of bad taste, IMO, but that is no grounds for not including it, unless it is not a notable sculpture. Has the sculpture been reported in the mainstream media and art journals? if not, that would be grounds for exclusion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, very bad taste. And sophomoric. And stupid. And not very insightful. Plus, not a very good sculpture. But the guy seems to be a genius at getting press, and just like with Paris herself, with enough fame comes notability. Sadly, the world described by Wikipedia is not always a pretty one.Wikidemo 02:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both for the input. I've removed the item on the grounds that the current source is the website of the gallery that exhibited the sculpture. Wanderer57 02:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced the item, sourced to a feature article in a New York City arts magazine. FCYTravis 03:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I would like to bring to your attention the article on Vladimir Tismăneanu, a Romanian and American scholar, Professor at the University of Maryland, College Park, and head of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Communist Dictatorship in Romania, who has been routinely attacked by sections of the Romanian press and political sphere for various reasons. The controversy is complicated enough, and the claims made about him have been generally unsubstantiated, and in some cases, according to third-party assessments and his own, racist. The enwiki article on him currently references all the positions, and puts them into perspective - feel free to look through it and related talk page. Past versions of the article were scandalous, featuring claims made by anti-Tismăneanu newspapers without attributing or presenting them as allegations, and, in one instance, without making it clear that the claims were retracted by the source (with an apology).

Now, I was involved in the discussions, and actively took part in cleaning it up. In the process of looking for sources, specifically the manner in which Tismăneanu himself responded to allegations, I found (just recently) a Romanian-language interview in which he discusses the incidents and makes a statement about Wikipedia. The interview, which actually centers on a death threat Tismăneanu claims to have received and reported to American authorities, is published by the respected Romanian journal Observator Cultural, and the journalist asking him questions is Ovidiu Şimonca. The article is also made available in the same version from a Eurotopics link, with a summary that does not feature the detail on Wikipedia.

Here is the full article (it does not carry a date, but the Eurotopic link gives June 13, 2007). The relevant Romanian-language section is here (I left out the diacritics, which were not present in the online version I'm quoting from): "Nu am tinut sa raspund la valul de calomnii (care au infestat si articolele despre mine din Wikipedia, atit in engleza, cit si in romaneste) pentru ca am urmat preceptul „You do not dignify them with an answer“". My translation follows: "I did not care to reply to the wave of calumnies (that have infested the articles on me on Wikipedia, both in English and Romanian) because I followed the principle 'You do not dignify them with an answer' [English as used in the original]".

The main problem here is that the rowiki article he is citing has not only failed to go through a process of cleaning, but the edits which served to tone down its blatant bias have been removed by certain editors. Furthermore, the English article itself is coming under periodic attacks to remove virtually all edits that are anything more than simple attacks on the article's subject (most recently, this was attempted here).

As we stand, the problem on enwiki seems to under control, and I am discussing with other editors the possibility of adding yet more reliable sources that identify many of the arguments raised against Tismăneanu as "antisemitic", "extremist", "neo-Securist" etc., and in general as "biased". One of these is the Washington Post - just to give you insight into the fact that this controversy has reached an international level, and that the more prestigious sources there have no difficulty in clearing up Tismăneanu's name. More details on these issues are available on the article's talk page (specifically, in the last three-four sections there), and I am willing to provide more sources and diffs to explain the nature of the controversies - I'm sure that several Romanian contributors would also like to add their insight.

In short: what past versions of this article have done is to portray the man, whose standing and expertise are a given, in a negative light, to ignore/marginalize all other comments about him (either positive or neutral), and to present even the most ludicrous allegations as indisputable facts. I hereby stress that this sort of editing is still happening on the Romanian version (and also involves a series of related articles, such as the one on his father, who, despite having Romanian citizenship, is presented, due to his ethnicity, as a Jew, and whose supposed "moniker", "The Cripple", is presented alongside his name; for instance, a timid attempt to renounce at least part of this problem was swiftly reverted). Given that Wikipedia's reliability was implicated by the person to whom the articles refer, I think this warrants extra precaution from the community at large.

I think it is also telling that, just recently, controversial edits promoting a non-reliable site connected with the journal Ziua have been made by a Ziua-related IP (see here). The journal and the site are identified by many as anti-Tismăneanu campaigners - for this, I direct your attention to the article, which references those sources, and I am also willing to translate other third-party sources saying it. This should add to the perception that Wikipedia was (and probably still is) targeted by a controversial lobby. (As a side note, the web site in question references past versions of the two wikipedia articles for its biographical information on Vladimir Tismăneanu).

I leave it to you to assess the implications of this issue. Dahn 06:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I moved the above here from User talk:Jimbo Wales.WAS 4.250 07:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You didn't mention anything about the lawsuits. --Thus Spake Anittas 07:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, from what I can tell from the source I cited, the claims which are currently subject to a lawsuit have all been removed from the English article, and the press organs cited have also been removed from the ro:wiki article (though one cannot tell for sure if the information based on them was also removed). Presumably, in the interview quoted above, Tismăneanu does not refer to those tidbits, but to other information (anyone can assess that at least three wikipedia guidelines are trespassed in the ro:wiki Tismăneanu article as it is at the moment). However, it may prove that the article on his father still uses info from the sources cited in the ongoing lawsuit - but I cannot tell for sure since, at the moment at least, all sources on the legal case speak in very broad terms. Dahn 07:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I will add this: at least some of the edits on one of the ro:wiki articles belong to a user who has promoted anti-semitic content, promoting the notion of a Jewish conspiracy against Romania. Despite the recent and praiseworthy efforts by many editors, the issue of antisemitism is, as I am writing this, still prominently present on ro:wiki (a step down from "endemic"). If it should be considered relevant for this discussion, I am willing to provide ample evidence for this comment (as I already have in other similar contexts), and, if given permission, I will use the comments made by other respected and reliable editors in support of this view.

Since raising this issue was met with considerable resistance by a group of editors who have otherwise been involved in producing controversial material on Tismăneanu and other such articles, and since, as a consequence, it was implied that I am "campaigning against ro:wiki" (mainly because I proposed some extreme irregularities there to be brought to the attention of people managing this entire project), I will only expand on this point if called to. Dahn 08:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I want to have an outside editor address this as I'm now the main contributor to the article. An anon IP has seen fit to target this bio as well as Hot House Entertainment (where Roma works) by deleting nearly all the content and tagging non-notable (first edit). Needless to say both articles have been semi-protected. Now that same anon (they have a floating IP so blocking doesn't seem to work) is now accusing me of various unsavory things on multiple talk pages but my specific request is for someone to check out this talk page edit on the article. And address it however they see fit; my specific concerns are calling the subject a "fag" and accusing me of various things. Benjiboi 18:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Benji, do you ever tell the whole truth? I referred to the subject as a "drag fag," not a fag. There's a difference.72.68.30.122 20:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

User has been warned about aggressive cross-posting. If he persists with personal attacks, a post at WP:AN/I would be a better approach. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. User has been extremely persistent so I imagine that will happen. I feel leaving the slur as is and personal accusations comments unanswered is in error or is that feeding the trolls? Benjiboi 19:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

In checking the appropriateness of using large sections of "quote" in the references section of these and other articles, at the help desk and the citations talk page, I was also urged to bring the question up here, so here it is:

I've come across an issue with another editor who simply insists on including a quote in each and every reference that he puts in. At times, these quotes can run into 2 or 3 sentences, or complete opening paragraphs/bios. This is done for even a very minor reference such as one for Ben Affleck, reference #5, Encyclopedia Titanica, or all of the references on the Dan Antonioli article. His explanation is two-fold: a) the reader needs to see the reference as it appears in situ (which makes no sense to me since to see the reference in situ requires one to go to the site to view it) and b) the citation template has a space for a quote (although the editor doesn't always use the author space, despite the author's name being available).

My issue is that this practice is usually unnecessary as well as functioning to bulk out the page with unnecessary information in the reference section. In some cases, the references end up having an excessive amount of info in the citation yet leaves the article bereft of content. And then there is the copyright problems with it. Hoping someone has some suggestions. Wildhartlivie 03:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Conversation about this topic seems to be active at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Quotes_in_references. To avoid duplicating ideas, I'd suggest that any editors here who want to weigh in on this discussion should probably do so there. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

On an aside, I'm pretty certain Encyclopedia Titanica does not qualify as a reliable source. Quatloo 12:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Are recent edits to this page adequately sourced? Sam Blacketer 22:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

People are adding and removing sources, so it is difficult to say. As it is right now the article is not adequately sourced, but the one source that is there for the most controversial piece is Reuters. There is personal information (family names) that should be removed per WP:BLP if sources are not found. Quatloo 12:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Y Done
I don't know how to do it myself, but somebody may like to remove the paragraph about Cliff being cryogenically frozen once a year. Quite funny, but untrue I imagine

Richard Gibson142.179.185.10 23:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to our attention. :) It was reverted by User:Jwy. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't find a policy at the intersection between WP:BLP and WP:IMAGE. What happens if a private person is featured in an image and decides that he doesn't want his face up on WP as an illustration? Does it matter if he was the one who uploaded the image (and thus relinquished all rights to it) and has now changed his mind? --BlueMoonlet 04:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The issue of "rights" isn't really an issue - he's in a public place. But the photo's of low quality and is unnecessarily duplicative of an existing, much-higher-quality photo. We have a photo of picketers with clear anti-Mormon signs - this photo is three people lined up smiling at the camera. That image says absolutely nothing - there's nothing in the photo to indicate they're attempting to convert Mormons. "Repent" could mean anything. There's no reason to antagonize the contributor for no good reason at all. We can get along just fine without the photo. I've deleted it. FCYTravis 08:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your decision, but I'm still curious about the general case. Does a person have recourse if he finds himself in a WP photo and doesn't like it? Does the answer change if he was the one who uploaded the photo? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No, there is no legal recourse under either case. First, there is no right to privacy in a public place - anyone can take any photo of anything, publish it, redistribute it, sell it, etc. If you're out in public, you may be photographed. That is established law. Furthermore, once someone uploads and releases a photo under the GFDL, that licence is not revocable and the author may not demand that his work be taken down. However, he may ask that it be deleted, and if there's really no good reason to keep it, then removing it will avoid needlessly antagonizing the contributor without really affecting the quality of the encyclopedia. The latter is the case here, I believe. It's not really an encyclopedia photo, more of a family photo, and it doesn't tell the story as well as the existing picture. FCYTravis 15:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Thanks. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Question - if one takes a photograph of someone in a non-public location (say, at a party, or in their house), is the photographer entitled to upload that image for use in an article? Neil ☎ 16:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

He or she is certainly entitled to upload such a picture. However, a civil tort may exist if there was an expectation of privacy, and that is a separate issue. Quatloo 16:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

And of course, Wikipedia cannot take the place of an attorney in advising you on these matters; and local laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction; etc., etc..... --Orange Mike 17:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

But, to my thoroughly non-expert knowledge, the general rule, at least in the US, is that if the subject knew that he or she was being photographed and consented, there is no cause of action, even if the photographer later publicizes the image in an unwanted way. If the subject didn't know he or she was being photographed (for example, a hidden camera), it gets trickier. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia probably needs an amendment to WP:BLP covering inappropriate uses of images in articles. If I take a GFDL-licensed free image of Michael Jordan and insert it into the Nigger article, factually captioning it as nothing more than an example of a "black" person, then I have still done him some harm. Same goes if I take a person's image from Microsoft Office clip-art and widely publicize it in a campaign for/against abortion or some other hot-button issue - that person would have recourse against me for the inappropriate association of their identity, despite it being kosher from a copyright perspective. I am proposing such an amendment at talk for WP:BLP now. Reswobslc 16:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Article consists of nothing but accounts of alleged crime. Corvus cornix 22:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The allegations are from a reliable source, but is this guy otherwise notable enough for an article? --Rocksanddirt 20:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say no. His name gets 13 ghits, all of which are in connection to the allegations.--Sethacus 20:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest an Afd then, maybe speedy deletion?. --Rocksanddirt 23:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

And here it is again, this persistent edit war that leaked in from German wikipedia. I'm sure some of you know all the details; for the others, here's a brief summary: Atze Schröder is a German comedian. The name is a pseudonym; the artist never uses his real name in public, and does not want it to be published, neither on Wikipedia nor in newspapers, etc. There are actually some legal proceedings around that before German courts.

In my opinion, by WP:BLP, we should "do no harm" and not mention the name. Note that this is not a legal question, it's one of Wikipedia policy. Further, since the artist does not perform under his real name, the name is of little (if any) encyclopedic value.

The real name keeps being inserted into the article at irregular intervals, by different users (anons, SPAs, but also some others). I have reverted quite a few times now, but it seems that this warrants a larger discussion. --B. Wolterding 11:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive249#Atze Schröder. --B. Wolterding 14:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• • This is a difficult one. I looked up the trade mark registration and in fact the name assumed to be the real name of the comedian is given only as the rights holder; it's simply an assumption that the rights holder is one and the same. WP:BLP#Privacy of names is however a rather nuanced policy. This clearly counts as an intentional concealment of a name but all the policy says is "it is often preferable to omit" the real name, and then says that the loss of context is the issue by which it is judged. In this case, the fight to preserve the confidentiality of the name is an issue which is relevant on both sides: it shows both intention to conceal, and that the real name is important and adds context. The Tron (hacker) issue is worth considering but the fact that the German court did find that the real name should not be disclosed is a strong factor which leads me to think that we should not have it in the article at the moment. Other people's judgments welcome.

    It might be a good idea to expand the article so that it doesn't get overladen by this issue. At present it does not give much context for people unfamiliar with Atze Schröder. Sam Blacketer 15:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

    • • Regardless, the German court system's verdict does not apply to a server hosted in Florida. As a public figure he has no valid claim for anonymity, he's made himself public, if he wished to remain private he should have reconsidered becoming an actor. BLP very clearly does not apply in this circumstance.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 18:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
        • It's not a legal issue, but it is a moral one in which our community policy is involved. I disagree that BLP does not apply. BLP policy does cover the real names of people known by a pseudonym, and says that there are circumstances in which real names should not be given even if known. Given that we only have biographies of notable people, all biographies are of people who are not entirely 'private'. I also think there is a case for deferring to what is acceptable in the culture to which Atze Schröder belongs, and German culture is more restrictive on publishing personal information than is the US or UK. Sam Blacketer 21:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• • • I understand that there is a decision pending by Berlin's court of appeals whether mentioning Schroeder's real name in a newspaper was correct or not. Schroeder also sued German wikipedia and then withdrew the suit. The court in this case pointed out that Schroeder is not a private individual but someone clearly adressing the public and appearing publicly. Therefore he can't request being treated like a private individual. The public's interest in Schroeder is justified because Schroeder himself has sought their attention. In short: Schroeder cannot appear publicly and at the same time request anonymity. This is also valid for this article. Btw, WP:BLP#Privacy of names clearly refers to private, living indviduals whose identities might need to be protected. It is not about people in showbiz using a pseudonym. Generally the real name behind an artist's pseudonym is revealed/mentioned in related articles. See for example John Wayne (dead) or Prince (musician), Björk (living). --Catgut 17:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
      • The difference may be that the real names of those people have been widely published in the press and literature, while this artist's name has not been. As for the court case, I'm not a lawyer but one should note that the court in this case did not decide on whether the real name can be mentioned or not, it just decided who will bear the fees for a case that had been withdrawn. On the other hand, there was a court ruling which did decide whether it's permitted to publish the name, negatively (this is now at the appeals). Anyway: The criterion for Wikipedia is whether the name has been widely published, and whether it's relevant to the article. Both questions have a negative answer here, I think: Schroeder's real name has not been widely published in the press (while it has been published in a storm of blog entries, but that's an entirely different issue). As for relevance: While the controversy about the name may be relevant (maybe more to Wikipedia than to the artist?), the actual name is not - unless you want to contact Schroeder privately. (And I think that's what he wants to avoid.) By the way, who says that the privacy of showbiz people does not warrant protection? His name has not been "widely disseminated" in reliable sources. If he doesn't make his private life public, we shouldn't cover it. We're not a tabloid. --B. Wolterding 18:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
        • As an irrelevant aside, Björk's proper name is "Björk", see Icelandic name. Studerby 22:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I tagged the article as non-notable. It has no secondary sources and, as far as I can see, nothing that would be of interest to an English speaking reader. Steve Dufour 02:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Mike Huckabee (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Copied as posted to COI/N, who referred it here.

Yesterday, new editor User:Shogun108 arrived, stating his declaritive intent to clean up the article[7]. I tried to clarify things about how we work via citation and consensus, but he was adamant that most o the stuff should be folded into 'political positions' or lost because it was negative about HuckabeeTalk:Mike_Huckabee#New_Editor_on_a_mission.. This AM, I found the following section, Talk:Mike_Huckabee#Regarding_new_editors, which explains that Shogun108 is one of a group now actively campaigning to 'fix' the article. They were solicited to fix it. One editor actively solicits peopel to become editors to game consensus: "Better yet, since edits run by consensus at Wikipedia, the best case scenario is for SEVERAL editors to keep the Huckabee entries honest. If only ONE editor from "here" changes things, the trolls will gather support and beat the one editor down. The rules are very loosey goosey over there. I've fought the good fight on several issues, and unless I get support, the lefties will gang up on you. " That editor's comment match this edit[8] by User:Mactogrpaher right down to the rationale and comments on the message board. Although Shogun108's comments seem less absolutist, he is still here as an SPA whose only edits are about Huckabee, and who came here specifically to 'clean up' the Huckabee page after solicitation off-wiki. Further, mactographer's comments indicate a generally dismissive tone about WIkipedia, so it is unlikely he will actively work to conform to our standards, and again, a solicited editor. I further wonder if Mactographer's open call to flood the page doesn't count as recruiting Meat Puppets. Thanks for reviewing this. Additionally, two editors at COI/N found this report credible, as seen here Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Specific_off-wiki_campaign_to_purge_Mike_Huckabee_of_criticism.. Shogun108 is proving to be a SPA as well, please see his contribs: Special:Contributions/Shogun108. // ThuranX 20:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a point of caution here, these editors have not shown to be overly pushing a POV without discussion. They're participating and seem to be following the process. I only say this as it seems a couple editors have jumped in defense, without actually taking the time to read some of the debate, which creates a anti-cabal-cabal. And no such cabal as feared above has yet to surface. We need to AGF and let this process move forward, which it seems the approach here is to assume bad faith. Anyway... just think we might be jumping the gun. Morphh ^(talk) 2:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer this be evaluated by the BIO/N regulars, or over at AN/I, where I also posted it after nothing happened here. We've had one ridiculous vandal User:Huckabee08 alredy banned for vandalizing the pages, and would prefer some level of protection or at least acknowledgement that this represents a real concern. Morphh is dismissive of the problem, but I read that message board to be active CANVASsing off-wiki. ThuranX 20:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The agenda pushing continues; an IP tonight tried blanking a great quantity of critical material [9]. ThuranX 05:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

can we PLEASE get some help on this? today we had an IP come in, blank stuff, erase and reword other stuff to whitewash criticisms, and then changed (diff) the 'official forum' to Hucksarmy. The assault on this page by HucksArmy editors is slow but steady, and this report's been up for 11 days with NO action. ThuranX 23:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

A user is citing dodgy statments by professor Johan Galtung I have never seen. There are no publications of his either that supports the claim. The claim is that Galtung is against western democracy and freedom in general, and that he was a strong supporter of Soviet opression of European nations. They got ONE source with is a 'news' site with a heavy politcial agenda Nastykermit 18:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

One of the cites -- not sure if it is to the one you refer -- is to a publication by title only. At the very least the issue should be identified in order to track down the quote(s) if necessary. I'd say WP:BLP would require a full citation, not a broad reference by title alone. You might include pointers to the edits in question. Quatloo 15:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The 'source' in question is city journal. The article author writes "and his views on World War II suggest that he’d have preferred it if the Allies had allowed Hitler to finish off the Jews and invade Britain" witch is nothing less than absurd. I also suggest that an article written by a journalist citing no sources should not be validNastykermit 18:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There is one source to a Criticism section. It is an article by Bruce Bawer, published in City Journal, and subsequently reprinted in an abridged form in the Los Angeles Times. Links to both articles are given, and I have checked the statements the editor who entered the material made: they are indeed made by Bawer in the article. User:Nastykermit is correct that Bawer does not give his primary sources. But Bawer is notable, and both City Journal and the Los Angeles Times are reputable publications. In fact, this section of the article has better sources than the rest.

User:Nastykermit has persistently deleted this criticism section, claiming that he "knows" that it cannot be true. I have persistently restored his deletions, and suggested that he add sourced material to the article if he finds it unbalanced. We've spent several days on this, with fruitless exchanges on the talk page and revert warring. Involvement by a few more editors would probably help settle this. --Anthon.Eff 15:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Ann coulter is published in several magazines but that doesnt make her crazy ramblings any more credible. Bawer is NOT a journalist but a mere literary critic. Fact is, the burden is on YOU to verify rather me debunking it. Just by reading 'the peace rakcet' you should have the common sense to see it for what it is...trash. Spending 5 minutes on your 'source' will show just what type of site it is. It's a strongly conservative leaning site while the article is supposed to be neutral.Nastykermit 16:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[cross-posted from Talk:Johan Galtung#POV rubbish since Anthon.Eff insists that someone comment on this issue in this forum]

I'm an outside editor that has a history with Anthon.Eff (he likes to call me name, such as "communist", regarding another issue), so I'm not entirely impartial. But I have read the comments here and the article in question. In my opinion, the article is very strongly opinion based since the author, Bruce Bawer, cites a lot of quotes that Galtung supposedly made but doesn't say where the quotes have come from. I have done a quick Google search and have not found corroborating evidence (other than people citing Bruce Bawer.) Unless there is another source that shows that Galtung has in fact stated these claims, the text clearly violates WP:BLP and is defamatory and derogatory. Until someone takes the time to find corroborating evidence, it should be removed from the article immediately. If Anthon.Eff continues to replace the derogatory text in the article, he should be reported to WP:3RR.

I would appreciate it if someone else could also look into this as Anthon.Eff has chosen to disregard my comments. –panda 00:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

By "involvement by a few more editors" I guess I didn't mean you panda, since you are clearly stalking. But heck, if no one else shows up, and you really want to participate, maybe you could start off by enlightening me where in policy you can find the support for your assertion that one needs two sources ("Unless there is another source that shows that Galtung has in fact stated these claims, the text clearly violates WP:BLP"). And just to keep this short, here is a link to what I think is the relevant policy. --Anthon.Eff 01:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not an entirely impartial person as now Anthon.Eff is accusing me of stalking, another typical bad faith accusation that I've been getting from this editor... –panda 01:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Anthon.Eff your abusive comments in the edit history speaks for themselves. You have no valid sources and are violating WP:BLPNastykermit 18:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This issue is still unresolved. I've removed the text for now, but I expect that Anthon.Eff will revert. Anyway, the text in question can be found in an older version of the article. –panda 19:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

José Galisteo

Resolved.

I'm listing this here because the subject himself has emailed me, demanding we remove material saying he is gay, that he has performed at gay venues, and that he has gay fans. Every fact has a reliable source, including quotes from him himself discussing gay sex he has had and that he has never had sex with a woman (though I didn't feel it necessary to include all of this information). This is the Spanish Google, which has tons of gay content about him, a lot of it reliable sources. It has been vetted by several people, including an administrator. Still, I thought it best to list it here for review. I am massively disappointed in his reaction, since I wrote it (though in a NPOV manner) because I am such a big fan of him and his music. Jeffpw 21:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how reliable the sources are: they appear to be online-only publications? If so, they might not be good enough for redflag claims like this. --h2g2bob (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, 2g2bob, Gay magazine seems to be both "real world" as well as web based, from what I can tell on their site. Anodis seems a reliable source to me, as well. They have a radio program, a podcast and their website. They also post on their site a journalism code of ethics, which includes the assertion that they have sources for all material and can provide them. The other sites are his own official fan club site, the website for Telecinco, (Spanish National Television station 5) and the blog of the program he appeared on, Operacion Triunfo (Spanish Idols, for lack of a better word. The references are not what concerned me. My concern was Galisteo making trouble for me or Wikipedia in spite of the sources. To be honest, coming here was sort of a CYA for me. By the way, I have given Galisteo the addy for OTRS to contact if he feels it necessary. He is also now planning to edit the article himself, if I read his last email to me correctly. Jeffpw 19:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Just being online only does not mean a source is unreliable - New Advent exists only online and is a extremely useful source for Catholic references. The sources on the article have been checked out by both English and Spanish Wikipedians, both when the article was first written and now, and there is nothing wrong with them. Jose Galisteo has made no claims to the effect that he is *not* gay, he simply doesn't want that information in the article, which is both white-washing and unacceptable. This issue is of someone wanting to hide his true self to make more money, and I for one am not going to allow him to do so at the expense of our integrity as an encyclopedia. Removing true, verifiable, and more importantly, cited facts from a BLP because the subject wishes it wasn't true is something we should never allow to happen, or we would have no content at all. And if I may say so, h2g2bob, responding to such a situation by merely slapping a garish label to the top of the article in question is unhelpful in the extreme and only pisses off the people who have devoted time and energy to getting this article right. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't find the results of the Spanish Google search very convincing. These all look like blogs or personal websites. Is the matter discussed in any newspaper accounts? If you have reliable sources, please list them explicitly here. The blogs that claim to be him surely lack all credibility and should not be kept in the article. Also, the question of whether he is gay seems to take up a large fraction of the article, which is surely disproportionate to what interest he may have as a musical performer. If he has performed in venues thought to be gay, that can be neutrally stated and some of the names of the clubs given. EdJohnston 22:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

There is only one blog listed in the article, and that is from the show he was on. The rest are news magazines. Did you actually look at the article, Ed? Jeffpw 22:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

One has to follow the sources. If a disproportionate number of sources discuss his sexuality rather than his work, then to take it upon ourselves to skew the article to what we consider more appropriate is worse than to just write the article and wait for the sources to balance themselves out. And I second what eff said about reading the article - merely checking Google is somewhat pointless given we didn't just pick up random crap from the front page of Google and just drop it in. May I ask if you read Spanish? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Why did you check the Spanish Google? Why didn't you check the article and see the refs there? I assure you, we did our very best to provide reliable sources. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 22:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Edit conflict

Now that I have looked at the article more carefully, I think it's getting close the point where BLP-aware administrators might just swoop in and delete it. Please be aware that this part of our policy is very seriously enforced. Either remove the improperly-sourced assertions that appear to 'out' him as gay, or consider the possibility that the article will be deleted. At a minimum, since User:Jeffpw has received an email from the subject challenging the truthfulness of the article, the assertion should be immediately removed while this discussion continues. EdJohnston 22:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It would seem not only do you not read the article, Ed, you do not read the posts here either. Jeff has never stated that Galisteo has chellenged the truth that he is gay, only that he doesn't want it on the article. The information in the article pertaining to Galisteo's sexuality has been cited from approximately five different sources - all of which are reliable. This article will not be deleted just because the subject is sexually ashamed. Please do not make empty threats just because you are using WP:BLP to do so. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Now don';t put words in my mouth, Ed. I flat out asked him if it was libelous or untrue and he replied that it was "is not interesting and I dont want to see it there". That's not the same thing at all. He also said he doesn't want it written that he was i the military, a very innocuous statement, and sourced. Should we pull that, too, because he doesn't like it? Now, I have asked User:SandyGeorgia to look at it, and s/he has said that will happen tonight, American time. Given his/her long term work on WP:FAC and WP:FAR, I trust her implicitly to check for factual accuracy. Further, s/he speaks fluent Spanish, something you haven't said you could. I would ask you and others to wait until s/he checks it out before you "swoop down and delete it". That sounds like a real threat, to me. Jeffpw 23:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec x2)The subject has given interviews to a number of Spanish gay publications in which he stated that he is gay. BLP does not require a whitewash - the article has been worked on in partnership with editors of the Spanish Wikipedia. The sourcing is there. The fact that someone is unhappy with their biography does not make it incompatible with BLP. As a matter of interest, how much Spanish do you speak? Even my limited knowledge of the language confirms that the sources back up the article's content. WjBscribe 23:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

BLP is clear - we don't describe anyone as gay or lesbian unless they clearly self-identify as such. If he does not self-identify as gay (and his apparent retraction of his statements indicates thus), then we don't call him gay. Sexual identity is a personal matter which cannot be imposed upon someone.

From WP:BLP: "Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless... The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question.

If he does not identify as gay, we don't categorize him as such. FCYTravis 23:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted you because he has not any point retracted his statements regarding being gay, which I believe is why you removed the cat. I think he would rather he hadn't said it, but it doesn't change the fact that he did. Obviously if he denies being gay this is a different matter but as I understand it from what my Spanish counterpart tells me, he has not done any such thing. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If he does not currently self-identify as gay, we don't categorize him as such. It's that simple. The policy is black and white. Category tags should not be used unless the subject publicly self-identifies. He is not publicly self-identifying. We can and should discuss whether or not he is in the article, and the controversy over his statements, but we cannot use those categories. FCYTravis 23:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be pushing BLP to an extreme it was never intended to cover. If someone decides to give interviews to one segment of the media claiming X and to other claiming Y, that is something that should be related if a NPOV article is to be created. There are clear sources where the subject has self-described himself as gay - that's something our article is going to need to address. We have recieved no corresponce that has claimed the article is unture, only that that someone claiming to be the subject wishes it said something else. There has been no OTRS contact - where we could at least confirm who we are dealing with and request clarification of the material points. WjBscribe 23:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting that the matter should not be covered in the article as a controversy. We certainly should include the public debate, speculation and conflicting reports on his sexuality, to a limited extent so that they do not overwhelm the rest of the biography. But we cannot categorize him as gay or bisexual unless he has made a clear, unretracted and undisputed statement that he is gay or bisexual. A category is black and white and cannot be applied to situations which are in shades of gray, as this one is. We don't have a category called "Might be gay depending on which interview you read this week." FCYTravis 00:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for not reading the cited sources carefully enough before my previous comment, and I went overboard calling it a serious violation. Nonetheless, I'm still puzzled by how important this should be considered in such a short article, and outing somebody who writes to Wikipedia and asks for it not to be mentioned (for whatever reason, even if slightly hypocritical) seems unnecessary. The fact that he performs in gay clubs is still germane and can be mentioned with no problems. EdJohnston 00:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

That still presumes the email writer is Jose and not some fan aggrieved by the tone of the article. The categories may not be justified if there has been a public retraction, but the controversy from making strikingly different claims in different media seems someothing that can be validly covered. WjBscribe 00:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm just now getting around to looking at this, having read all of your posts at AN/I and here at BLP. If I'm understanding correctly, there are several issues here wrt how we interpret BLP, but the question is coming down to how reliable are the sources that identify him as gay; more specifically, according to BLP, does he self-identify as gay in any reliable sources? Is that a correct summary of what I'm looking for? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Sandy, that's a correct summary. I ran the articles through Babelfish, and got a general sense of them, and then went to Spanish members to translate for me. After they read the paragraph they told me the refs supported it, and helped me to find the right articles for each assertion. From what I heard from the other members, and from my own translation (not only of the articles but also the site's background), I came to the conclusion that the refs were reliable enough for a BLP article. It was a collaboration, but I am ultimately responsible for the content and refs. Jeffpw 00:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I approach an article kind of linearly ... hard to read it until I clean up the minor MOS stuff :-)

The first source, José Galisteo en el Festival Europride´07 is published by a bank, Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria S.A., and appears to be mostly a gimmicky page for generating revenues. If you trace back to their main page, you'll find a tiny pop-up at the very top of the page, under Aviso legal. The wording there does not inspire confidence as to WP:RS:

• (a) La información facilitada por BBVA debe ser considerada por el usuario a modo de introducción, sin que pueda estimarse como elemento determinante para la toma de decisiones, declinando el Banco toda responsabilidad por el uso que pueda verificarse de la misma en tal sentido, y de forma específica ha de entenderse que dicha información, sometida a la normativa vigente en España, no va destinada a aquellos usuarios que actúen bajo otras jurisdicciones de Estados que exijan el cumplimiento de requisitos distintos para la puesta a disposición, divulgación o publicidad de servicios y/o productos financieros.
• (d) BBVA no responde de la veracidad, integridad o actualización de las informaciones que no sean de elaboración propia y de las que se indique otra fuente, así como tampoco de las contenidas en otros websites mediante hiperenlace o vínculo desde www.bluejoven.com, facilitados al usuario como fuentes alternativas de información, que se regirán por los términos y condiciones de utilización que a tal efecto resulten exigibles por los titulares de dichos sitios web, por lo que BBVA no asume responsabilidad alguna en cuanto a hipotéticos perjuicios que pudieran originarse por el uso de las citadas informaciones. En ningún caso, los mencionados hiperenlaces serán considerados como recomendación, patrocinio, o distribución por parte de BBVA de la información, productos y/o servicios, o, en general, contenidos de titularidad de terceros, ofrecidos por éstos o en cualquier forma por los mismos divulgados.

It's not the kind of site I'm comfortable with, but it's not being used to cite anything controversial (so I won't translate all of that).

On the second site (his Fansclub, which has a bio page), I could find no info to verify the antipathy to the military. I linked directly to the bio page on the site, and moved the ref to the info it verified. The military info is verified in the GayMagazine site.

GayMagazine presents the requisite credential page,[10] but I can't speak to their fact checking or editorial oversight. Same for ANODIS.[11]

oops, still digging through here, but it's not looking good. I'm going to ping Jossi, who knows BLP and who speaks Spanish, for another look. We have two sources (GayMagazine and ANODIS, La Agencia de Noticias sobre Diversidad Sexual) reporting the story.GM ANODIS But. They quote it in a way that it's not clear to me that they're quoting *him*, or if they are quoting what was found on the internet, and the place where it was found on the internet seems to be reported in blogs and not at all reliable. Fotos: Video:José Galisteo. I'm not comfortable with what I'm finding so far. It's not clear to me that they are quoting *him*, so I can't say he has self-identified. I can say it's possible it's all a blog-fueled story. If they are quoting him, the relevant quote is that at the age of 22 he's never had sex with a girl (the tias) but has with men (the tios) at 19 (first penetration). "Yo todavía soy virgen... con las mujeres... Yo nunca me he tirado a una tía. Una vez a los 22 lo intenté con una amiga, pero iba tan borracho que ni me trempé. Con los tíos mi primera vez con penetración fue a los 19 años." ANODIS and GM are reporting the same story, and their source isn't clear to me. Because of the way they write it, it is not clear to me that those words can be attributed directly to him, and the blog is dubious. The way I'm reading ANODIS, it specifically says he has *not* self-identified (rather has been forced out), but I'd like Jossi to take a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, I appreciate all your hard work. I have to go to bed now (2:30am here), and will return tomorrow to see what Jossi says, if s/he has replied by then. Thank you very much. Jeffpw 01:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No prob; it's not at all clear reporting to me. Also, if Jossi (or others) read the sources as I do, we may need to BLP delete "In an interview, portions of which were reprinted in the Chilean Gaymagazine, he admitted he was gay,[3] but later claimed he was forced into saying that." I'm not clear that it's an interview, or just those magazines repeating what was found on the internet. If Jossi doesn't pop in soon, I'll ping Tito or Joelito or someone else. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

One can also have sexual relations with other men, yet not self-identify as gay, just as you don't have to have sexual relations with other men to identify as gay. Thanks for doing more digging - I do not speak Spanish, unfortunately. FCYTravis 02:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I speak Spanish and will take a look at these sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I read these sources and it is clear to me that it is just speculation being voiced in these sources, which do not meet the threshold for reliability on this subject. I have removed the material in question. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Given that there are some editors that keep restoring the material in question, I have protected the article for 2 hours, to give others the opportunity to review the material as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Having only a limited knowledge of Spanish I'm not in a position to evaluate the sources. I agree with Sandy above that one of the key distinctions in whether the subject gave interviews to the cited publications or whether they merely quoted web content (now it seems challenged as a hoax) as if it were an interview. It really would have been better to get an uninvolved admin to protect the page though... WjBscribe 04:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, are the sources reliable enough to say there's been speculation about his sexuality, without labeling him as gay? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see it there, but that's why I asked for another opinion. My Spanish is fluent, but I'm not a native speaker, so I was afraid I'd missed something (although my spouse, a native speaker, didn't see it either). The *way* these sources report is very shady, so I'm not sure they're reliable. I didn't see the sources clearly stating it was an interview, they hedged with how they set up the paragraphs in terms of what they were saying, and they both read as if they were passing along innuendo encountered elsewhere, without clearly specifying the source of the information. And I didn't find the same info in any reliable source. On the other hand, there was wording in ANODIS that did make it clear he had not self-identified. I'm comfortable that we did the right thing. I also searched in Spanish for some of the other phrases found in GayMagazine attributed to Galisteo, and they didn't show up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is the specific reason for my concern, from GayMagazine. They provide a lot of quotes, but never say it was a direct interview. What they do say is:

• Los rumores que terminaron sacando del closet a Galisteo dieron pie a la prensa del corazón española para indagar sobre el. Es así como se ha dado con un foro sobre rascacielos skyscrapercity.com en el que opina sobre la vida, el ambiente gay, su novio o las pruebas de selección de OT, con lo que se construye el perfil de un hombre maduro, con pareja estable; Karim de 33 años, DJ, afincado en París, preocupado por la naturaleza y aficionado a la arquitectura.

... which is quite wishy-washy, but it leaves the impression that they claim he is the anon poster of those quotes at skyscrapercity.com bulletin board (made five years ago). They don't establish that he made those posts, so this is the worst kind of reporting, and what Wiki should specifically avoid. On the other hand, I can see how it appeared legit to Jeffpw, because the reporting is quite vague and tricky. This is why we demand the highest quality sources on BLP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, all, for your help! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm kind of late to the party, but the sources are essentially hearsay. I can't find anything that says that the dude himself says he is gay. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Though naturally I am disappointed when content I have added is removed, I am always pleased to see Wikipedia improved. Sandy, Jossi and all others who have participated in this review: thank you so much for helping out, and thanks for caring so much about the project. Jeffpw 08:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, Thank you as well from receiving feedback in a constructive manner. It is not always the case, you know? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni di Stefano (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) which has long been a contentious article, including intense involvement by both the subject, a prominent European lawyer and Jimbo Wales, is being impacted by the actions of Privatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), who has created an alternative article in his userspace. The problem in the past has been repeated insertion of material which casts the subject in a bad light but avoids addressing his underlying status. This material originates in the mainstream British press which, in order to avoid legal exposure, are careful to imply without specifically setting forth the implication. Faced with the prospect of litigation, Jimbo and I have been quite conservative in our editing. Privatemusings, on the other hand, an alternate account of Purple (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) which has focused on controversial issues, is now campaigning to reinsert controversial poorly sourced information. This is a difficult matter, due to recent controversy involving an abortive block of Privatemusings, but assistance would be appreciated. Fred Bauder 14:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The article seems OK now, and devoid of material as you describe it. I will add the article on my watchlist and keep an eye on it for a few weeks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Xi Jinping and Newsweek

Resolved. Deleted Personal Life material that violates Wiki: BLP, NPOV, Verifiability

I'm including this here under "other issues" -- and serious they are.

The November 5, 2007 issue of Newsweek includes a reference to the Wikipedia article on Xi Jinping, who is one of the high leaders of the People's Republic of China. On page 15, Newsweek staffwriters Melinda Liu and Jonathan Ansfield wrote about Xi that one of his assets to Westerners is that he is perceived to be a "bumpkin." Liu and Ansfield then add that "clodhopper" is the phrase used "by his Wikipedia entry," which is in fact the case. That is exactly the word used to describe Xi in a comment attributed, without a source, to his wife.

The article has already been flagged with a note that it lacks references, and the section that includes the "clodhopper" word has no citations at all. The overall article has four links; one is in Chinese, one is a dead link to CNN, and the other two have nothing to do with Xi's personal life. Accordingly, the section violates BLP requirements as well as the being non-Verifiable. The section is also patently POV.

Moreover, the section puts all Wikipedia in an extraordinarily bad light. I do not believe that under any circumstances Wikipedia should simply be a gossip column about world leaders. We are not talking about Joe Shmoe, whose garage band somebody doesn't like; this article is discussing a man who is likely to become the next leader of China. I do not believe that Wikipedia's mission includes gossip and insult about world leaders. This has nothing to do with our politics or whether we like Xi or not. It is, instead, central to the principles of objectivity and neutrality that underlie Wikipedia.

I have therefore removed the section.

It can, of course, be found on the history pages, and has therefore not been lost to the archives. But we cannot have this kind of garbage -- a strong word, but that is what it is -- giving all of Wikipedia as bad a name as this does. If you want to revert, please be aware that you will have to defend putting back a section that (a) has NO references or citations, (b) violates Wiki: BLP; (c) violates Wiki: NPOV and Wiki: Verifiability; (d) is pure unadulterated gossip; and (e) has been quoted, to our disadvantage, in Newsweek.

Timothy Perper 17:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes Timothy, unfortunately this happens quite often. Not enough eyeballs on some BLPs mean this problem is not going away. What would be interesting is to find out who added that material and check other contributions to BLPs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It is this user: 71.106.171.102 (talk · contribs), which has been adding dubious and unsourced statements to several articles related to China and its leaders. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

In checking out Category:Political sex scandals, I found this article. Does anyone else think the tone of David Wu#Controversy (link to version discussed) more suited to opposition campaign literature than to an encyclopedia? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The current version does seem like it is in opposition to the campaign. Oysterguitarist 20:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Moved to talk, since they are sourced; BLP does not require total removal. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

A user, Bepperson, is planning to add Original Research to this article. His choice of words in both the dicussion page and the article itself suggest he is also somewhat hostile to John Forester. >>I have replaced the two missing paragraphs that Tomasrojo vandalized by removing on October 25. I am not writing Foresters unofficial biography, I am writing his official biography. [...] Thomasrojo no doubt removed the paragraphs because, while not pointed out in the article, the information contradicts biographical information contained in Forester's C.V. In addtion, the introduction of certain biographical chracters is necessary because I have conducted interviews with these persons and they have comments on Forester's life and career which will be added as I go along. As I have previously noted, through his career, Forester has made himself a public figure and thus his life is subject to any scrutiny that is supportable by the facts and is not libel<< Tomasrojo 11:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have done some cleaning on this article and addressed some of its sourcing concerns with inline citations, although it needs more work, particularly beginning in the John_Forester_(cyclist)#Cycling_advocacy section, where I was when I ran out of time. :) I'll try to get to some of that later today, although I may not make it. Meanwhile, I've put the article on my watch list for the time being. If inadequately sourced material is added in the near future, I'll join you in addressing that on the talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for doing that. I tried to clean it up in a similar fashion, but my edits were all reverted. I didn't have any citations either, so thanks a lot for those.Tomasrojo 09:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

User "Buster Friendly" continue to use libel and slanderous language about Amir Abdul-Malik Ali which I will inform the individual personaly. I understand there is two sides to debates and subjects, however agreement on nuetral lanquage not misrepresenting and causing libel on a person should take place, if there is any questions of possible misunderstanding they can be appeased by questions not blanket indictments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imhotep5 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 3 November 2007

See #Amir Abdul Malik, five threads down. –panda 04:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC) (Conversations merged. See immediately below for referenced thread.)

I recently attended a conference in which Abdul Malik was an invited speaker. Not once did he mention the subject of zionism or make any references to jews. The wikipedia entry which portrays Abdul Malik as a vehemenent "anti-zionist" is a flagrant misrepresentation and character assassination of a living person. Furthermore, the term "Black Muslim" used to describe Abdul Malik is a misused political context. The term implies a political ideology of black separatism established by the Nation of Islam movement founded by Elijah Muhammad. Abdul Malik is a sunni muslim. The wikipedia entry suggests that Abdul Malik is a Black Muslim ideologue simply because his skin is black. This is indeed libel and racist to say the least. Characterizations which describe Abdul Malik as anti-jew or anti-white mislead the public and should be immediately removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.84.197.183 (talk) 04:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I did some research on this Abdul Malik, and he is indeed a racist bigotNastykermit 13:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The correct article is Amir Abdul-Malik Ali and the text is definitely verifiable. I left some references for the quotes in the article on the talk page. –panda 03:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

There may also be some confusion about the subject of the article. In one of the references I found it states:[12]

(Malik is also referred to as Abdul Malik Ali, Abd Al-Malik and Amir Abdel Malik Ali. Note: This individual is not Imam Abdul R. Malik Ali.)

This should probably be clarified in the article. Cross-posting to the talk page. –panda 03:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

In the last few days, multiple editors are reintroducing unsourced information (some of it plain silly, other likely defamatory) to this article.

These are User: The Cite [13] (since blocked as a vandalism only account,) User: Yellowbilby [14], User: Fatkidjumps [15], and User: Timsdad [16]. Each has added more or less the same material once, getting one warning each. Any suggestions?--Slp1 13:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I will take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Not much to do at this point. Will keep the article in my watchlist for a while. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Slp1 22:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Internet Infidels is an organization best known for running the Internet Infidels Discussion Board, a large online forum. A recent incident involved the ousting of a board member named Janice Rael, and the controversy that arose regarding this on IIDB and other message boards. Recently anonymous IPs and new users have been hitting this article adding unsourced and poorly sourced original research about the incident.

Most concerning is links to petitions calling for the ouster of "one of the board members involved", whose identity is obvious to anyone either remotely familiar with the forum or anyone who follows the links provided. Would appreciate more eyes on this, as attempts to clean up the article are being reverted. - Merzbow 06:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed some of the stuff, the main contributor to the article is 71.225.187.87. Oysterguitarist 14:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. - Merzbow 18:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)