Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive34

I object to the article on Public Information Research. It is nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt to avoid accountability for the defamatory and privacy-invading statements that were once in the article on Daniel Brandt.

1. Brandt is mentioned 14 times in the PIR article, which is still a "stub."

2. The Daniel_Brandt article was redirected to the PIR article after 14 AfDs, causing the PIR article to rank first in a search for "daniel brandt" without the quotation marks, on Google, Yahoo, and Live. This redirect must be deleted.

3. The PIR article is incompetent. The Wikipedia-Watch section is self-referential and should not exist. The Yahoo-Watch section shouldn't exist because that site is essentially parked, and has been that way for three years. An important site, cia-on-campus.org, has existed for almost seven years, and is missing from the article entirely. The section on NameBase in the article is so incompetent that it may as well not even be in the article, despite the fact that NameBase has existed for 20 years.

4. A section that was inserted by Chip Berlet in the original Brandt article, has been resurrected in the PIR article. This is now in the first paragraph of the PIR article, in a slightly milder form, having been inserted recently by an apparent sockpuppet of Berlet. Chip Berlet has been at war with Brandt since 1991.

5. Brandt attempted to comment on the talk page in August and again in November, in an effort to improve the PIR article. His comments were deleted.

6. Despite prior efforts to get User:Daniel_Brandt and User_talk:Daniel_Brandt deleted entirely, these pages still exist. There are defamatory statements on User_talk:Daniel_Brandt.

I will attempt to file this as an ArbCom case if the situation hasn't improved within 30 days, because it involves the behavior of various editors and administrators over a period of more than two years, who have been acting in bad faith in an effort to diss me. --Daniel Brandt 216.60.70.232 19:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

User and usertalk pages deleted and salted by me - there's no reason for them to exist, and legitimate reason for the request.--Doc^g 19:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that helps a little bit. Now the paragraph on this page should be deleted. Not only is it obsolete, but it contains a false statement. I never "provided assurances to the Community he would no longer violate policy or attempt to have his bio removed from Wikipedia." Since that statement is false, and it also implies that my word is unreliable, it is libelous. This page is indexed by all the search engines. --Daniel Brandt 216.60.70.232 00:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

All personal allegations removed, without prejudice.--Doc^g 00:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks to be fixed now? --h2g2bob (talk) 11:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand why everytime Daniel Brandt has a temper tantrum someone goes and does his dirty work by removing all legitimate criticims of Brandt and PIR from Wikipedia. Is this a real encyclopedia or not?--Cberlet 23:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

What tantrum, what legitimate criticisms have been removed? I see neither and I'm simply treating him like I would any other BLP subject, which is what we ought to have done from the start. That's not "dirty work" - unlike quite a few things that we've done.--Doc^g 23:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The section on Wikipedia Watch should go back into Public Information Research. Brandt's discussion of alleged Wikipedia plagiarism (see [1]) made it into the Associated Press, unquestionably a reliable source. *** Crotalus *** 04:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Shocking, it's almost like Cberlet doesn't have an ulterior agenda here. --arkalochori ^|talk| 03:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The photo and caption constitute both an attack on a minor living person, and original research. This should be removed urgently as a police officer is both identified and described in a libelous and pseudo-scientific fashion. Quite apart from the fact that there is no evidence that the description is an accurate portrayal of even the general facts. Lobojo 15:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's libelous at all to describe a photograph with a police officer's clearly-raised-to-strike baton as... a photograph of a police officer raising his baton. FCYTravis 18:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It obviously is. Look at what you just wrote - don't you see now that this is OR in any case? Lobojo 19:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like OR to me. If it's so obvious, isn't any description superfluous anyway? Cool Hand Luke 19:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. A photo caption accurately describing what a photograph depicts is not superfluous nor is it original research. The photo depicts a police officer wielding a baton, with the baton drawn back in a clearly threatening posture aimed at the camera. We do not need to conduct "original research" to determine this. FCYTravis 19:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The baton is behind his head. I can't tell where it's "aimed." If it's something I can't confirm by examining the sources, it's synthesis at minimum. Cool Hand Luke 19:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If that is what it said it would be fine, but not relevant to the article at the same time. It reads A Greek riot policeman aiming a reversed baton at an Indymedia photographer. Who says that this controversial (and potentially libelous) statement is correct? Where is the verifiable and reliable source that stands this fact up? Where is the source that says "baton behind the head" means "about to strike a photographer", this is all humbug. Lobojo 19:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't need a source to tell us that it's a baton behind his head. The photograph does that for us. We don't need a source to tell us that an Indymedia photographer is taking the photograph - that is supplied by the photographer. The photographer for Indymedia is a reliable source for the purposes of his photograph. We don't need a source to tell us that a picture of the World Trade Center attacks is depicting an aircraft flying into a building. FCYTravis 20:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Indymedia is not a reliable source for anything on wikipedia. Yes we do need a source to tell us who is taking the photograph, we don't need a source to tell us "baton behind his head" but we DO need a source to tell us what that means. We need multiple sources wo tell us that this image is valid and that it depicts what it claims to depict. An indymedist has no more credibility that a random protester who puts up a video of a police charge on Youtube. Lobojo 20:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

He is wielding the baton in the direction of the photographer who is standing behind the camera. That is self-evident from the photograph. Your bias is clearly showing here. FCYTravis 20:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The new wording is no better, this is completely unverified. It is simply taking the word of some random guy on indymedia that the image depicts what he claims it to depict. Can anyone say where this image was taken from? It could have been taken from 200 meters away for all anyone knows. And still the other problems remain. Lobojo 20:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Obvious NOR violation, but this noticeboard is not here for this purpose. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Its all tied up together, since the OR is being used to violate BLP on the policeman. Lobojo 20:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no violation of the BLP policy here. A photograph shows a police officer wielding a baton in the direction of a photographer. The police officer can have no expectation of privacy, as he is in a public place. FCYTravis 20:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Privacy does not come into it. Depictions of non-notable people on wikipedia need to be sources impeccably especially where some controversy is involved. Lobojo 20:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The caption has been corrected with factual information as well as the provenance of the photo for attribution. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh no it has not. It still insinuates that the the baton is being wielded at the photographer. I will change it to a languague that can be supported by the facts that can be established without sources. Lobojo 20:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved. BLP tags removed

Talk:Spinocerebellar ataxia has a BLP tag. The page is about a disease. I'm not sure that it needs a BLP tag, but I didn't want to remove it without checking in. If you think that a BLP tag is inappropriate in this instance, would you please remove the tag? Thanks, WhatamIdoing 18:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

There is an identical issue at Spondyloepiphyseal dysplasia congenita, so whatever is decided about the first page should apply to this one as well. WhatamIdoing 19:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that tags are there because the articles mention specific living people with these diseases. BLP applies even if the article isn't primarily about the person. Aleta 19:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is being edited by User:Ymbarnwell. I'm not sure if this user actually is Dr. Barnwell and therefore needs to be told about WP:Autobiography, or if it is just someone using her name. I suspect the former, but can't prove it. What should be done here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleta (talk • contribs) 19:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Post a notice at WP:COI/N. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Will do... thanks! Aleta 19:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Due to the sensitivity of BLP with regard to a U.S. presidential candidate, we need to be very cautious and make sure we're presenting the material in the most neutral way. My concerns are with the controversy section and issues with WP:BLP particularly regarding BLP criticism, NPOV article structure, and NPOV undue weight. When looking at the table of contents, the controversy overwhelms the article and gives undue weight to headers that do not reflect important areas to the subject's notability in comparison with the rest of the article structure. I've asked for an RFC, but no one has commented. Due to the upcoming primaries for the U.S. presidential candidates, I think it is greatly important that we address this. The article instantly presents a negative view of Mike Huckabee. Morphh ^(talk) 21:49, 03 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved. Page sprotected

Can someone look at Nancy Cantor? Anon added an attack on the article subject, as follows:

Cantor is rapidly becoming known as the Chancellor under whose stewardship the Syracuse University Athletics Department has gone from National Greatness to total obscurity. Cantor has presided over the disintegration of the football program, and complete elimination of the 90 year-old University Men's & Women's Swimming & Diving teams, a move which has sparked National Outrage from coast to coast.

Two links are given, the first to a USA Today sports report, the second to the site of the campaign to save the swimming and diving teams. Neither supports the staements made in the article, although I think the first (from USA Today) would be a WP:RS for the statements it does contain. The other clearly isn't independent. I've been unreverted, the first time with the edit summary These references are just fine, the second time with NO - YOU ARE A CENSOR & THIS IS FACTUAL - I TAKE THIS UNIVERSITY SERIOUSLY.

I'm not going to pursue this discussion/edit war, so I'd be grateful if someone else would take a look. AndyJones 21:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the comments are not substantiated by the references given and have removed them again, and will warn the IP. Slp1 23:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Has recurred. I have requested page protection.Slp1 02:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

User 131.247.152.4 inserted a category lable at the bottom of the article that may be regarded as a derogatory lable about living person. Possible liable.

[2]

I reverted it.Redandready 00:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

He died this morning; there's been a steady stream of petty vandalism since. Request semiprotection. PhGustaf 19:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

A issue determined editor continues to insert possibly contentious (and definitely too prominent for the scope of article) material regarding Yarrow's arrest many years ago. --Jkp212 07:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

How is it contentious? It looks to be well-cited, and Yarrow himself doesn't seem to dispute any of the facts in the article. As for prominence, I think it's given as little prominence as it reasonably could be without leaving out salient facts. About the only things I can see that could be taken out are the details of the incident; however, taking out those details would probably lead most readers to conclude that Yarrow's offense was more egregious than it actually was. I'm not sure I see your problem here. Sarcasticidealist 07:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The subject is well-known for both episodes, which are thoroughly sourced. Rather than shortening them Jkp212 deleted the material outright.[3] I restored both and trimmed one of the incidents and he just deleted them both again.[4] I'm also concerned that he doesn't seem to be assuming good faith. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The man has had a long career that has spanned decades. This is one episode that happened many many years ago, not too much information is known about it, and yarrow has made it clear in interviews about the subject that not all the facts are known, and he prefers that people not focus on this one incident. A man's whole life should not be judged by one arrest many years ago. If the article on Yarrow were MUCH longer, and the arrest was mentioned in one sentence, then MAYBE it would not violate BLP and undue weight. And yes, I believe the editors who have included the info are biased and POV based on their edit history...By the way, the subject is not that "well-known for both episodes" as commented above. In doing a google search on Peter Yarrow, one of the episodes relating to his walking into a home when he was tired (which is not relevant to subject's life AT ALL) does not come up on the first few pages, and the other episode is noted in only 1 link. So, if WIKI were to include the episodes, it would be the primary vehicle for the spread of these outdated incidents. --Jkp212 16:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It was more than an arrest, he was convicted and sentenced to three years. He received a presidential pardon. You don't think any of that is worth mentioning in his biography? But the theft of his guitar is more important? I don't think that's a correct view. These two incidents were, in fact, widely reported. He had to cancel an event recentlybecause of of concerns about the morals charge, so it's still a topic of concern to some and isn't "outdated". I'm sure he wished it never happened, but it did. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the guitar is not that important. Perhaps it should be excluded. I'm just concerned that there is a BLP problem with giving undue weight to a negative incident that happened long ago. In other words, it jumps out of the article as a prominent thing, and a man's whole life should not be judged by one incident many years ago.--Jkp212 23:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

If "weight" is a problem with reporting of an incident then the answer isn't to delete all mention of it. Instead you should trim the material to give it proper weight. Would you please restore the amterial and edit it for proper weight? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Some of the material removed (not all) was entirely unsourced. It certainly must not be replaced unless it is.--Doc^g 00:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced material should not be added, and should be removed where found. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

(removing indent) My thought is that if the article on Yarrow were MUCH longer, and the arrest was mentioned in one sentence, then MAYBE it would not violate BLP and undue weight. However, I don't see the article turning into a much longer piece, and until it does, I think the negative incident should remain out. --Jkp212 00:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't think a felony and a presidential pardon are worth mentioning? I have to disagree. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you show a sourced article that says it was a felony? This was an isolated incident from many years ago, and I believe it should only be reincluded if the article on Yarrow were MUCH longer, and the arrest was mentioned in one sentence. Then perhaps it would not violate BLP concerns and undue weight...--Jkp212 01:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, here is Yarrow himself saying it was a felony: "Peter Yarrow's Idealism Arrive". He also describes how the incident has followed him in his life. While it happened years ago so did many things that are mentioned in the article. Biographies typically include incidents from throughout the subjects' lives, not just what's happened recently. There is no rule in BLP or elsewhere that says neutral, sourced material referencing an event may be removed entirely because of "weight". If you know of such a policy please quote the text. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly notable. If you think there is undue weight given by mentioning it, the solution is not to cut it, but to add to the rest of the info. Aleta 02:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

WP Undue Weight states: "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. " This is particularly true with BLP.--Jkp212 03:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not a viewpoint, it is an incident. We should "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject". That does not include totally removing all mention of a felony conviction. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

That's right, it's not a view point, and WP:UNDUE states that it "applies to more than just viewpoints" and includes "verifiable and sourced" material. My feeling is that the weight of this incident in the subject's overall life is extremely small, especially since it happened so many years ago. So unless there is a MUCH longer article, there will be undue weight in including it. Remember the mantra of BLP is "Do no harm." By including this incident, in this way, WP becomes the primary vehicle for spreading the incident. I believe that is doing harm to the living subject. --Jkp212 18:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the "it happened so many years ago" argument: do you think we should remove all reference to things that happened many years ago? He received his presidential pardon in 1981- Are events from before that period too old to mention? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

If they are negative incidents that don't have much bearing on the subject's life as a whole, and they are given major weight in a biographical piece, then yes I would not mention them. It's better to "do no harm. "--Jkp212 21:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

`This sounds too much like only report what's good about someone. That is not a way to build an accurate, credible encyclopedia. By all means, add to the information about everything else in his life. A felony conviction and presidential pardon, though, are definitely noteworthy. Aleta 21:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I will remove my WP:UNDUE objection after someone else expands the article to the point where this one incident is not given undue weight. --Jkp212 21:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, there is still NO RELIABLE SOURCE that says he was convicted of a felony. His interview seems to suggest that it was perceived as a felony in his locale, or perhaps that he was initially charged as such.. Please find a reliable source that says he was convicted of a felony. --Jkp212 21:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

He was sentenced to serve three years. Misdemeanors have sentences of under one year. See felony. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

He was sentenced to 3 months. And, regardless, it's not true that misdemeanors always have sentences of under 1 year. Have you found any RELIABLE SOURCE that says he was convicted of a felony? --Jkp212 23:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, this page quotes Yarrow's saying it was a felony in Washington (but would not have been elsewhere). Aleta 23:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source, and besides which, he does NOT say he was convicted of a felony. He seems to say that the charges were perceived as such in his locale, or perhaps that he was charged in such a way. It does not say anywhere that he was convicted of a felony. Also, his sentence was 3 months. Please find a reliable source that says he was convicted of a felony. --Jkp212 00:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

He served three months. He was sentenced to one to three years. See Some musical careers survive, even thrive, despite sex charges, by Dave Tianen, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleta (talk • contribs) 00:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't say that he was convicted of a felony.. Regardless, it does say that the episode is a tiny one for his life, and has been nearly completely forgetten, so unless this WP article is expanded considerably, mention of the incident would still violate undue weight.. --Jkp212 01:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand Jkp's concept of weight. How is a felony conviction and a presidential pardon less important than a single performance at a private wedding? And so on down the line. How can we expand the article if we can't include material less important than the conviction and pardon? If we remove everything that's less important than his conviction we'll have shorter, poorer article. If we remove only negative material while keeping even trivial positive material then we've grossly violated NPOV too. Negative material doesn't necessarily result in a negative article. For example, many people have humble beginnings, or may have been involved in drugs or alcoholism early in life, but have triumphed over their problems. Indeed, Yarrow is now an advocate for children. That's all the more impressive considering his past conviction, IMO. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ideally the article would be comprised of thoughtful and substantive info on the subject's life, and while it's true that perhaps some other trivial info on the subject might be better off deleted because of undue weight, it is absolutely true that a one-time negative incident many years ago should not be included unless the article is much longer and the incident does not stand out as a major part of his life. In other words, BLP policy emphasizes that we must be more sensitive to the living subject on these types of issues. --Jkp212 01:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you offer some examples of incidents in Yarrow's life that are more important than his conviction and pardon that aren't included on the article now? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure: his concerts, his recordings and influence on american culture, his musical collaborations, his influence on the art of folk music, his charity work, his relationship to his religion, his family, etc, etc, etc.... --Jkp212 02:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Great. I see you've expressed an interest in writing about music, so this would be a terrific place to start. The subject deserves a well-rounded article that includes all his notable activities. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

While there's certainly room for improving the article, deleting important sourced information presented neutrally isn't the best place to start. I'm going to add a short mention of the conviction and pardon. I won't add back the WDC incident, which is just odd but not really significant. There's plenty of room to add a discography etc. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add the negative incident UNTIL the article is long enough to where the negative incident will not violate undue weight. Any mention of that incident now would violate UW, and thus BLP policy. Thank you. --Jkp212 (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed on this noticeboard for several days and several editors agree that the incident is noteworthy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Those same editors agreed that there should be more content to support the mention of this negative incident that you want included. Please wait until there is enough content so that this one incident in the subject's life does not have undue weight.. Thank you. --Jkp212 (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any editor favoring cutting sourced material entirely, except you. Who are you referring to? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Other editors have favored adding additional info, which I think would be a good idea. Until the article is thorough enough for this one incident not have have undue weight, I will continue to object, per the very clear policies favoring "do no harm" when there is any question. Why are you so adamant that this negative episode be included, and stick out when the article is so short and could cause harm to the living subject?--Jkp212 (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

We all favor adding additional information. You are the only one who demands that verifiable, neutral info be deleted. You are welcome to continue objecting, just please don't keep deleting. Here's what the article said before:

• In 1970 he pleaded guilty to charges of "immoral and improper liberties" with a 14-year-old girl. In August 1969, the girl and her 17-year-old sister had gone to Yarrow's hotel room to seek his autograph following a concert by Peter, Paul and Mary at Washington's Carter Barron Amphitheatre. Yarrow answered the door naked and made sexual advances that stopped short of intercourse. Yarrow served three months of a one- to three-year prison sentence and was pardoned by President Carter in 1981. The singer has acknowledged the incident as "the most terrible mistake I have ever made."(ref)http://www.theawarenesscenter.org/Yarrow_Peter.html(/ref)

To accomodate your concerns about weight, here's a shorter version:

• In 1970 he pleaded guilty to charges of "immoral and improper liberties" with a 14-year-old girl. Yarrow served three months of a one- to three-year prison sentence and was pardoned by President Carter in 1981.

That's half as long. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I rarely participate in these discussions, but the claim that any mention at all constitutes undue weight strikes me as sophistry. - Jmabel | Talk 02:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Read carefully: I have not said that any mention at all constitutes undue weight. I said that with the article as it is now (length, completeness, etc) it will constitute undue weight. AFTER the article is expanded considerably, I have no problem with a brief mention.. --Jkp212 (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's go ahead and add the brief mention. As the article grows we can add more. There's no support for simply deleting the material outright. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The support is in the policies.. AFTER the article is expanded considerably, I have no problem with a brief mention... BLP sensitivity trumps your desire to mention a negative incident many years ago. --Jkp212 (talk) 04:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Your interpretation of the policies does not trump the interpretation of everyone else. You brought the issue to this noticeboard for input, and you received input that the material should not be deleted outright. Despite that input you keep insisting that you're right and everyone else is wrong. And you keep deleting the material. Please don't overrule the community input which you sought. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello? I have not said that it should be deleted outright...AFTER the article is expanded considerably, I have no problem with a brief mention...I brought it to this noticeboard, b/c there were BLP violations and this is a forum to post those violations.. --Jkp212 (talk) 05:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

If you think the article should be expanded then do so. This discussion had reached a conclusion and continuing it doesn't further the project. No one here thinks there is a violation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem expanding the article, and will do so in time. After I expand the article (or if another editor does it sooner), then the undue weight will not be as much of an issue as it is now.. Until that time, please do not plug in the one-time negative incident from many years ago. Thank you. --Jkp212 (talk) 06:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Again you've deleted the material, even though no one here agrees with you. There is no BLP violation, and so there's no exemption from 3RR. Continued removal of sourced, neutral material is disruptive. You haven't made a single positive contribution to the project, and instead have pursued a position which you hold alone. You keep saying the article should be expanded - so why aren't you expanding it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I happen to believe that protecting BLP's against those determined to see negative incidents overtake the totality of an individual's biography is a constructive act. I have no problem expanding the article, and will do so in time. After I expand the article (or if another editor does it sooner), then the undue weight will not be as much of an issue as it is now.. Until that time, please do not plug in the one-time negative incident from many years ago. Thank you.--Jkp212 (talk) 07:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

In the spirit of compromise I'm willing to wait a week to allow the article to be expanded further. I've added a few items and you have indicated some items that you can add. Next week is soon enough to restore the well-sourced, neutral account of an important incident in the subject's life. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

We should probably take it to dispute resolution, because I do not believe we should set a deadline to include what I consider to be a BLP violation.. Whenever the article is considerably longer, and the one sentence doesn't stick out, then the undue weight will not be as much of an issue as it is now... But until that time (1 week, 2 weeks, whenever), I think we should err on the side of doing no harm to the living subject.. However, if you disagree, then let's please request dispute resolution. Thank you, --Jkp212 (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This noticeboard is part of dispute resolution. You are ignoring the feedback you've received here. Rather than actually resolving the dispute by enlarging the article (or accepting consensus) you are devoting your time to maintaining the dispute by arguing and reverting. If you want to take this to a different venue that's fine, but I doubt the outcome will be any different. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

There hasn't been much feedback. Instead, it was a dialogue between the two editors who disagree. I plan to enlarge the article, in time, or perhaps someone else will.. But until that time (1 week, 2 weeks, whenever), I think we should err on the side of doing no harm to the living subject If you disagree, would you request arbitration for us, or would you like me to? Thank you --Jkp212 (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Of the feedback you've received, can you point to any that agrees with you that the material should be deleted? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, one of the editors said that some of the material removed was entirely unsourced or poorly sourced, and It certainly must not be replaced unless it is. You subsequently added poorly sourced material. Another editor agreed that it made sense to add more content.. Other than that, there was just the two of us disagreeing.. I think we should err on the side of doing no harm to the living subject If you disagree, would you request arbitration for us, or would you like me to? Thank you, --Jkp212 (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The conviction and pardon are well-sourced. This isn't suitable for an ArbCom case. They deal exclusively with behavioral issues. The next step in dispute resolution would be a request for comment, WP:RFC. I'll prepare one this evening. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

ok, thank you --Jkp212 (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Here it is: Talk:Peter Yarrow#RfC: Conviction and pardon. If you've never participated in an RfC you may want to read about them at WP:RFC. It's principally intended to gather comments from previously uninvolved editors. You can post a comment too if you want. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

- 38.115.2.114 ==

This anon posted the addresses of Lori Drew: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/38.115.2.114

I told him that it was a violation of BLP. I reverted his edits. WhisperToMe 20:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted his edits from the history.--Doc^g 09:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Can one of the admins from this board watch Megan Meier suicide controversy, and in particular its talk page? There is a need for someone familiar with BLP rules to dispassionately explain how these rules are usually applied. Things seem to be drifting in the direction of editors asking that certain kinds of sourced edits not be made because of how it will make editors feel, which seems to me an inappropriate argument. News stories say what they say and sources are either reliably sourced or not. It seems to me that that should be the basis of the discussion. Also, "See also" items are being similarly handled: editors are insisting that some comparisons not be made even when reliable sources (i.e. major media) have made them.

I am a mostly uninvolved party. My edits to the entry have only involved additions to "See also." On the talk page, I have attempted to clarify what I understand to be BLP policies based on my past experience. This has provoked a strong emotional reaction from User:Jeeny who seems to feel that those who do not respect her feelings about how the entry should be edited are making her party to harassment of the Drew family.

Can someone please help sort this out? Thanks. --Pleasantville (talk) 13:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:BLP#Privacy_of_contact_information, the editor seems to be quite right that a link to a map of the Drews' house is inappropriate. It's difficult to address other concerns, since they are not specified. I agree with you that articles are not written so as to avoid discomfort in editors. I'm unsure what other edits are causing her concern, but will address this point at the talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly anything attempting to make it possible to locate the Drew family is a BLP violation, but User:Jeeny seems to be casting her net a lot more broadly, at least as far as I can tell from her remarks. --Pleasantville (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It's difficult to say until she responds at the talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Address of victim, and perpetrator

Please read this section on the article talk page and weigh in, if I've overstepped my bounds. I've removed a source and passage that essentially gives driving directions to the home address of a crime victim, and their perpetrator. Lawrence Cohen 16:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've already weighed in on the page (though not on this edit), but for the record I support your interpretation of BLP in this regards. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The subject or PR rep of this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastian_Horsley) is continuously removing material, quotes or review references which paint the artist in a negative light. These actions are reducing the veracity and reliability of the Wikipedia article on Sebastian Horsley. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.86.13.114 (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this the material to which you're referring? If so, I doubt that its removal is a BLP issue so much as it is a content dispute. That's a rather large quote presented without any real context as to its purpose in the article. If that is the issue, it should probably be addressed on a talk page, as recommended as the first step at dispute resolution. If your concerns are more widespread, could you be more specific? I don't see a pattern in the revision history of that article suggestive of conflict of interest editing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

An IP editor is crusading against this Australian news reporter. While the partisan criticisms against him seem notable enough, the editor insists on overwhelming the article and siding with the critics. <eleland/talkedits> 23:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is now semi-protected until December 13. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The Peter Coffin biography is entirely inconsistent with the one featuring on his New York gallery. Compare: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Coffin_(artist)

With: http://andrewkreps.com/coffinBio.html

Date and place of birth, education, biography section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.122.5 (talk) 10:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Quite right you are. I'm looking it over to see how I can help. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have done my best to restore order in that article, although there is one section that is disputable that I tagged for improvement rather than remove. The article seems to have been subjected to some questionable editing in October of this year, when single purpose account Nico Tepreff first "corrected it" to allege that the artist was born in 1912 in Nebraska, transferring his college to Kentucky, and then decided he was born in 1963 and attended college in Germany. I've watchlisted the article myself, but if you see questionable information inserted without reliable sources, please feel free to revert it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

As of 11:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC) I found a questionable/dubious statement concerning this person [5], the objectionable content is under the "other appearances" section. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 11:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to start to remove the unsourced/questionably sourced material, and there is alot of it. Also removed the youtube and blog stuff. This bio could probably use a full NUKE and rewrite but maybe can be reworked as is? Anyways, --Tom (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

A new editor Violeto is making extensive edits to the article on Sophie Fiennes. The user has not contributed to any other article. It looks to me like a perfectly good article is being reduced to something less good. Many things are deleted, others added (without sources). I have asked the editor to explain the edits, but all I get is "more concise, relevent & accurate biography" (sic). I have reverted a few times, but as I do not really know anything about the subject of this article, I hesitate to do more, because the edits may be legitimate and also I do not want to unduly harass a newbie. I would therefore appreciate if somebody else could have a look at this, too. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to copy edit but the article needs major help. The wording is very "flowery" with no sourcing. Help :) --Tom 19:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Bernie Ward (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Ward has been indicted on federal charges today. I've been reverting unsourced edits and added a single-sentence blurb with a reliable source, but I need more eyes to make sure this stays in BLP order. Corvus cornix_talk 23:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the latest edits [6] and some prior ones are in line with WP:BLP requirements. Independent review is required. Thanks. Grandmaster (talk) 11:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That diff you posted seems to be for a different article. Could you clarify the issue? Thanks. FCYTravis (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

My apoologies. The correct diff is this series of edits: [7] Also, the article needs a general review of compliance with blp requirements. Grandmaster (talk) 07:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to report this whole article which is a link to the main Pete Doherty biography article. All the article consists of is tabloid driven, negative personal information on Doherty. My question is Pete Doherty's controversies suitable for a so-called neutral biographical article? Sue Wallace (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No, creating a 27-kilobyte page listing every single time a person with a 30-kilobyte biography has ever been arrested or been in the tabloids is right out. That's pretty much the definition of sensationalism and undue weight. I have redirected the page to Pete Doherty so that any suitable content that should be merged back into the main bio, can be. After that, it should be deleted. FCYTravis (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Common sense prevails. Many thanks. Sue Wallace (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Additional eyes on this would be appreciated. FCYTravis (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No point, on the controversies article itself, it shouldn't exist. I redirected it to Doherty's main article just now (I saw you had left it oddly blanked). Lawrence Cohen 17:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not delete the page rather than redirect it? Apart from talk pages, there are no links to it. It's not a likely search.--TJRC (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to assume good faith that we can work to merge certain content from the forked article back into the main biography. Some mention of his extensive legal history/drug abuse is warranted; just not an entire day-by-day accounting. FCYTravis (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've only just found this - I thought there wasn't much support for FCYTravis' change given only one other person had been involved in the discussion on the talk page - shouldn't this be linked on that talk page? Kirkburn (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This article has a BLP tag on it. Considering the article is clearly about the murder of two people, isn't it kinda sick to put such a tag on the article? TheUncleBob (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It's an appropriate tag. The article is also about the five arrested and/or indicted suspects. Articles on a subject like this are potentially fertile ground for libel, so the warning is apt. -- TJRC (talk) 02:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think I may be the person who put that tag on there, and it was precisely for that reason. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

As I asked on the article's talk page, do we then need to put the BLP tag on the Wal-Mart article, since it talks about quite a few living people (say, Lee Scott and Tom Coughlin)? Or the article on the 2006 definition of planet which deals with many of the individuals involved with defining of the term "planet"... Where do we draw the line on articles that need the BLP tag? I'd say that (guestimate) 95% of the articles here contain "biographical material about living persons" in some fashion or another - do we need to go around putting BLP tags on every article that mentions the name of a living person? TheUncleBob (talk) 03:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If the articles on Wal-Mart, definitions of planets, or other topics include discussions of individuals who are suspected of major felonies, those articles should also have the tag, too. -- TJRC (talk) 03:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, Tom Coughlin (Wal-Mart) has had his share of legal trouble. Anywhoo, the "rules" for a BLP tag do not stipulate that the articles have to contain "biographical material about living persons with felonies"...TheUncleBob (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No, of course not. That's an example of a circumstance where the article is likely to attract defamatory edits, that's all. -- TJRC (talk) 08:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If I may quote the BLP tag:

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous.

This article had a lot of poorly sourced and ultimately incorrect information about the actions of the suspects in it at one point. It's been quite contentious as well, since many people thought the information should be included until proven false. That's not the way things work here. Obviously, the article is titled Murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, but we have to make sure that we keep any possibly libelous material about the suspects out of the article. The tag isn't there as an insult or to show disrespect to the victims in any way, it is there to protect the encyclopedia and to make people aware about what can and cannot be put into the article. Again, this is in no way meant to demean or disrespect the victims, but contributors must be made aware of the policy. AniMate 06:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see the talk page of this article for full discussion of this article's BLP violation Someone has added this section with the insinuation that Goodall was to blame for US hostages being taken by rebel militia. The ONLY source asserting that Goodall was to blame is *a reader's letter* in a magazine where it is clear that the letterwriter is merely speculating and has no actual familiarity about the incident apart from the magazines article about the incident (where Goodall only featured marginally and is not blamed for anything). The magazine editors emphasize that the article ( nor the actual hostages who were released and interviewed) does NOT say anything like what the letter writer speculates about. The person adding this section is using this single dubious letterwriter's speculation to suggest that there was a major widely-discussed controversy about Goodall's "responsibility" for hostages being taken. The person is also stalling, claiming that there must be other references out there proving the "controversy" but coming up with none. The current section is supposedly "NPOV" but actually still makes insinuating statements that suggest that Goodall was negligent and irresponsible for this incident (presumably the section-adder thinks that Goodall should have tried to fend off the rebel soldier attack with her bare hands and/or personally paid and handled the negotiation fo the half a million dollars ransom instead of the US government.... I am assuming good faith here). Please can an admin enforce BLP here. The discussion on the article talk page shows that the main editors involved are not understanding BLP and its importance properly. thanks 207.151.226.48 (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved.

In checking the bio for St Paul Mayor "George Latimer" I noticed that the hyperlink at the bottom of the entry for the preceding Mayor "Lawrence Cohen" leads one to the American screenwriter "Lawrence Cohen" and not the American politician and former Mayor Lawrence Cohen. I would change it myself but I am new to Wikipedia and just learning. LAWinans —Preceding unsigned comment added by LAWinans (talk • contribs) 05:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this is correct now but another set of eyes would be appreciated. Thanks for the note, --Tom 16:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Joke entry. Needs to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.90.183 (talk) 02:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Nah, just vandalised - now reverted.--Doc^g 03:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose I should have mentioned that, since this entry clued me into doing the reversion. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

See this diff. Users are repeatedly adding material from a far-right Israeli attack site that attacks Aviner for his acquiescence to the 2005 Gaza evacuations. They are also adding spurious smears sourced in that site which imply that he sexually abused some of his congregants. Lobojo (talk) 14:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Christopher Tookey (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - The article in question is being edited by the subject, and I think it needs looking at by people experienced in biographies of living people, given the number of templates on the article. // Hiding Talk 17:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Johnny Sutton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - User:FixtheBorder is adding POV deragotory info to the article which has been reverted at least three times, with edit summaries advising to add sources or write pieces in a more NPOV. See [[8]] and [[9]] for a couple of examples. // Jons63 (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There has been an extended edit war here, as a single editor running at least three accounts has been POV pushing in such a manner as to clearly violate WP:BLP. If anyone wants to take a look at it, likely needs to be blocked again. Last time the block lasted one week, I would recommend a longer duration this time, as the material is rather static. Brimba 05:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The derogatory information is now being placed in Ignacio Ramos by User:FixtheBorder. I am trying to figure out how to rewrite without wholesale reverting the info and starting an edit war as was done with Johnny Sutton. Some eyes on this article would help. Jons63 (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, FixtheBorder has definitely stepped over the line. Blocked for one month. It's not clear to me if this person is wilfully refusing to read our policies such as WP:BLP or WP:SOCK or whether the editor is simply trolling. --Yamla (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved.

I (and several others) have POV concerns related to a section in the article, Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria. The specific section can be found here. Also, I have raised the issue in the talk page section regarding this issue. These links already speak for themselves (I have voiced my opinion in a numerous amount of times on its talk page).

Remember, any libelous information must be deleted immediatly.

If anyone can do so, please help out.

Thanks,

• ~ Troy (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Text was removed, short stub of a section with a request to expand was left in its place. I would suggest working on the talk page to discussion how the section should be written, using highly reliable sources. Re-report if you continue to have problems. Shell ^babelfish 09:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved.

This article seems to be simply a resume for Joey Newman, who hasn't achieved anything particularly interesting, other than being born into a musical family.

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

69.230.43.242 (talk) 06:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If you believe the subject doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, what you want is a deletion discussion. Since the article asserts notability, I don't believe it qualifies for speedy deletion, so you may wish to focus on the proposed deletion or articles for deletion routes. Shell ^babelfish 08:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

See this diff. And the contributions of 202.88.229.115. Severe BLP threat. Weblogan (talk) 14:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This issue had already been raised at WP:AN earluer today. A suggestion was made that it might be useful to post here as well, even though this doesn't seem to fit the classic BLP framework: The American Boychoir School has been the target of several claims regarding sexual abuse of students. The school's Wikipedia article reflects these claims with a variety of reliable and verifiable independent sources. There have been several attempt to remove this information over the past several weeks, all of which have been reverted. A recent edit by User:Dj Downing of the article removed all details of sexual abuse claims, noting in the edit summary that "lawsuit settled, plaintiff agrees not to post this type of information on internet. Management of The American Boychoir feels this is continuing to damage reputation of schoo[l]". Above and beyond the fact that there is no information provided to support the existence of a settlement and the fact that neither I nor Wikipedia are parties to this lawsuit, the claimed terms of the settlement do not negate the fact that reliable and verifiable independent sources support an extensive array of allegations regarding abuse that may have affected the plaintiffs involved in this alleged settlement as well as others who did not take part. As such, I reverted the content deletion and explained my actions (as I had previously) on the user's talk page, noting that even under the terms of the settlement described in the edit summary, the settlement would not wipe out the past or negate the fact that these allegations had been made in the past and that removal of sourced material from Wikipedia articles is not an acceptable practice. A Google News search finds no evidence of a settlement that would meet the description in the edit summary, though this article discusses a settlement with one individual and addresses continuing efforts at litigation by other parties. What should our stand be in this situation and how should we address potential concerns that the organization's reputation might be negatively impacted by claims made against it that are properly supported within an article. Alansohn (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Michaelbusch is on a vendetta to smear Randell Mills, which he refers to as "cleanup". MB has repeatedly deleted references to Mills' scholastic honors. He has gone over the text making subtle changes solely intended to belittle Mills. And the latest (prompting this notice) is falsely accusing Mills of plagiarism, a serious charge. See discussion at Talk:Randell_Mills.

Which is it, Mr. Busch? Is Mills just too original to be taken seriously (i.e., a crackpot pseudoscientist), or is he too unoriginal and appropriates other people's work as his own? I don't think you can have it both ways.

Several scientists have issued informal evaluations of Mills' work, which are almost entirely negative. One evaluator noted that those portions of Mills' book which appeared valid were apparently plagiarized from various physics textbooks[2].

The above is in violation of WP:BLP, specifically:

We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. 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,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm".

User:Michaelbusch, in "support" of his claim of plagiarism, provides a link [10] to an article by the notorious Bob Park, which says that (unspecified) text was "lifted verbatim". There is no further reference provided there. This innuendo qualifies as "poorly sourced". By the time MB picks this up, "lifted verbatim" has become "plagiarized". User:TStolper1W tried to fix this blatant BLP violation, only to have his edit reverted by MB with summary (rv - Haas and the others aren't 'long time opponents of Mills' - they just once debunked him). Where does "Haas" come from? He has not been mentioned, and there is no link provided in either the article or the discussion. Poorly sourced again.

Incidentally, regarding Park's "lifted verbatim" charge -- Mills goes to great lengths to place his theory in its historical context and show the areas where it agrees with, or disagrees with, conventional theory. In the course of doing so, he follows customary academic conventions and does not claim credit for others' discoveries. The claim of "plagiarism" is completely bogus.

Due to the Wikipedia policy described above ("should be removed immediately and without discussion from ... talk pages ..."), this particular incident cannot be addressed in the article discussion and so must be here. Dave Fafarman (talk) 18:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Immediate removal of the offending passage is delayed until I can resolve a configuration conflict over .php files with RealPlayer. Or, anyone may remove the above quoted text beginning "Several scientists ..." Dave Fafarman (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the quote from Mills does have to be removed, because it is supported only by a posting on his web site, which is not a reliable source for anything except the details of his own career. But looking at the posting [11], it is clear it was derived from another source, which might be reliable when it is tracked down. DGG (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, the above should read ^his^Park's^ so that the subsequent "his" clearly also refers to Park. Assuming that is the correct interpretation, I agree with DGG. BTW, I love the phrase, "might be reliable." LOL! Great way to back up libel. Dave Fafarman (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Fafarman, please drop this. I have no intention of smearing Mills, only of making his biography neutral and in accordance with the scientific consensus - which happens to be that Mills' work is complete nonsense and pseudoscience. Stolper's edits violate WP:NPOV, WP:COI, and WP:OR, as I have explained on Talk:Randell Mills. Re. Bob Park - I was not aware that he was notorious. Park was not making the accusation himself - he was quoting Aaron Barth (I apologize for mis-typing 'Haas' instead of 'Barth' in one edit summary). Re. your statement that Mills was not guilty of plagiarism - unless you have a reliable source for this claim, Wikipedia cannot include it. We can merely note that he was accused. I have explained this before. I am done. Michaelbusch (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Busch, perhaps I can make it clearer to you with a shoe-on-the-other-foot example. Suppose there were a biography of Michael Busch, to which someone added a statement that he beats his wife and sodomizes his children. When confronted about this, the perpetrator offers as a solution putting in a disclaimer that Busch in fact does not beat his wife etc. -- provided that a RS (the wife, perhaps) can be cited. Is that your idea of an appropriate response?

As for Park, he is usually right. So now he thinks he is always right. See Hubris (the ancient Greeks knew all about this).

Your various accusations against your fellow editors (POV, OR, Wikilawyering) always are abuses which you are committing. I don't know whether COI also applies, but I wouldn't be surprised. BTW, why not accuse me of COI? I bought a copy of Stolper's book as well as two Mills books; their used-book value might depend on the outcome of these discussions.

Since my last post, there has been a complaint [12] that the Hydrino_Theory article (quote-mined for derogatory material and then deleted) is gone. This will require Admin attention to fix (I don't know how to do it).

I am also done (here). Dave Fafarman (talk) 17:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The subject ran for mayor of Edmonton, Alberta in 1977, while he was studying at the University of Alberta. He ran as a far-left candidate in large part to confront another candidate, Eddie Keehn, whose platform was pretty heavily homophobic. He never had any designs on winning, and finished fifth of seven candidates (behind four heavyweights, all of whom served as mayor of Edmonton at one time or another). The article currently says the following: "While earning his Master's of Education at the University of Alberta, he ran for mayor of Edmonton in the 1977 municipal election, finishing fifth of seven candidates." This information is cited. Several IPs on the talk page, and the subject in an e-mail to me, have expressed the opinion that this mayoral run was a minor affair that doesn't warrant mentioning in the article. The subject also expressed some concern that by including only the currently-included information, context is being omitted and he is made to look like a loser (my words, not his). Does WP:BLP require that we remove the mention of his mayoral run, leave it as is, provide additional context, or something else entirely? Sarcasticidealist 00:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If the cites establish his motivation for running, insert the reasoning (maybe with language similar to what you use above). I see no reason to delete it entirely; it's not something the typical grad student does. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Wiley Protocol (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – potential BLP issues complicated by COI issues on all sides, involving Nraden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)—who I was told is Wiley's husband—and another editor, Debv (talk · contribs)—who I now see is somehow involved off-Wiki. I was asked by a third editor a few days ago to look at this article in terms of sourcing, and I don't believe there's any admin on board. It appears that Raden understands the COI issues and is not editing the articles, rather discussing on the talk page. I found issues of undue weight and non-reliable sources in the articles, with self-published sources favored and reliably-sourced criticism excluded; the only reliable sources I could find were critical. I removed text sourced to non-RS, left advice about the use of reliable sources, and unwatched, thinking the editor who had asked me to look in there would continue to oversee the page (he hasn't). I just returned to check in and found some potential BLP issues on the talk page, with accusations that living people and published professionals are lying and stealing. I couldn't figure out how to elegantly exercise the BLP violations and personal attacks, so I deleted the entire exchange.[13] I'd like an admin to keep an eye on the issue, and review my deletion of their entire exchange. What is left after my deletion is at Talk:Wiley Protocol#Criticism SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Will an admin please look at this page, or should I take this to WP:ANI? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

One more time. I am not an admin, and no admin has yet helped, although I first posted here on the 4th. Is this page dead since Crockspot is no longer around? Shall I post to AN/I instead? Is anyone going to look at the AGF and NPA issues, the BLP violations, and threats being made on these articles and on my talk page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. I looked at the deletion Sandy made from Talk:Wiley Protocol and it seems to be well justified by BLP policy. Perhaps Sandy could offer examples of what she means by threats. EdJohnston (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

That's where I'm confused; I'm not clear on our definitions, but I'm not comfortable with some of Nraden's statements, like:

• " The WP threatens a lot of people, its existence and growth are a thumb in the eye to the status quo."
• "Wikipedia turns out to be slovenly captive to big media. Debv makes a lot of gratuitous statements above because Wikipedia currently serves her purposes - to discredit Wiley."
• " ... I'm warning you that those guidelines are flawed ... "
• " ... you Wikipedia editors seem to be so wrapped up in your procedure you've lost your judgment ... "

These kinds of statements from an involved party make me reluctant to participate without help or oversight. Perhaps I'm wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

When other editors make a lot of bad-tempered ad-hominem remarks it is tempting to classify them as disruptive. You could try to pursue disciplinary procedures, but in my view it is better to just get more eyes on the problem. This particular case does not even qualify for a COI posting, since both of the main combatants have agreed (for now) to stay off the article and confine themselves to the Talk page. Some admins get good results with forceful warnings asking for better behavior, but regular editors can do that too. Since this is a sort of medical article you could ask for assistance at WikiProject Medicine. Admins are more likely to jump in with blocks if something truly flagrant has happened, but I don't see that here. In fact, there have been no reverts of your edits since 30 November, so an admin probably wouldn't even believe there was an edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 02:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to get more eyes on this, to no avail. Nraden's last edit was to say that he was going to reinstate content to the article, so the COI concern is active. I have no interest in pursuing the mess at that article; I was only there because someone asked me to look at the sourcing. Since no admins have come forward to help, I'm unwatching and considering I've done all I can, end of story. These noticeboards don't work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

<undent>I believe I'm the 3rd editor SG is referring to. I edit at whim, and since this one is so little fun to edit, I do little on it besides vand reverts most days. I do watch over it, and if I see NRaden actually edit, I will revert and report. Raden has long failed to really engage on the wiki process, but does spend large amounts of time being indignant at other editors unwilling to see the greatness of the Wiley Protocol. It's on my list of things that I really should look into, but I keep getting distracted. That being said, since a series of warnings were posted on various talk pages, both Debv and Raden have been, if not civil, at least quiet on most issues. I'd say the biggest problem is that Raden does not understand MEDRS and WP:RS in general, and would like to put up 'his version' on the page. There's a lot of nuance in my mind on the pages, what sources work and what don't. It is pretty complicated because it's controversial, with no actual pubmed sources, and a medical protocol (theoretically) and COI interests from multiple parties. Oddly, it's complicated because Raden is being as restrained as he is, were he a simple POV warrior this'd be easier because he'd have been blocked, but he is keeping himself to words alone, no mainspace edits. Plus, despite having a pretty functional 'working' relationship (i.e. he listens to me about pure wiki-style, formatting and policy matters), regards content he doesn't like me too much methinks, because I object to many of his suggestions. I haven't looked at either page proper in a while, but my loose recall is that they're not attack pages, though there is some sourced criticism. This is one of the first MED-articles I've been intensively involved in where I've had to refer to the MED sources and style issues, and I haven't put in the time for a thorough read of the guidelines. (talk) 12:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to compliment WLU on his good humour, given the hard time I give him (I'm only guessing that WLU is a "him"). The issues with T.S. Wiley and the Wiley Protocol are pretty simple. Because of Wiley's unintended association with Suzanne Somers (Somers wrote about Wiley and the Wiley Protocol in her latest book), she was the target of a lot of media coverage, most of it unfavorable for a few reasons. First, Suzanne may have a loyal following, but people in the media and especially in medicine view her as lightweight, so Wiley was guilty by association. Wiley has two hardcover books published on women's health and medicine, thoroughly researched and documented, is a published, peer-reviewed scientist (see her cancer research in PubMed), a contributing editor to medical school textbooks, teaches doctors endocrinology and Darwinian medicine for continuing medical education credits (CME) and has almost 10 years of observing and quantifying clincal practice in adminstering her protocol. Little of this can be found in reliable secondary sources yet, only the negatives that have been sown in the media by the people and websites controlled by debv, who is laser-focused on Wiley's destruction (I'd like to point out that debv is not a person, it is a proxy for two organizations that are very active is waging a smear campaign against Wiley, so I don't think debv is entitled to the same courtesy that an individual should be. Perhaps I shouldn't either). So perhaps you can understand my frustration. When Wiley was asked to testify before the US Senate as an expert witness, debv contacted the committee and attempted to paint her as a fraud. There are dozens of instances like this. So this is what I'm dealing with. A few months ago, another editor, Wikidudeman suggested that Debv and I write on the talk page what we think should be in the article. I have, just a few paragraphs, with no claims as to its benefits, just what distinguished it, and it just languished. All I ask is that, if you are going to allow all of this unfounded, but reliably sourced criticism to endure, at least give the subject the courtesy of being defined correctly, if not completely.

For example, the New York Times, as well as the Today Show and 20/20 all described Wiley as "a former actress," something she has not been in ALMOST THIRTY YEARS, but in most cases, never mentioned her books or scientific credentials. So if I get a little frustrated with Wikipedia over its definition of a reliable source, forgive me. A slanted, inaccurate article is considered reliable, but the honest testimonials of women and doctors on websites can't even be cited. I think there is something very wrong with your policy. All of the TV networks and the New York Times derive a substantial amount of ad revenue from the major pharmaceutical companies, including Wyeth, who are despearately opposed to any alternative medicine, but BHRT in particular. Isn't it a little naive to assume that this subject would get a fair and balanced hearing? Shouldn't Wikipedia, when citing one of these sources, make a greater effort, not just a gratuitous opne, at getting to the bottom of it?

Now if you think this is a minor scuffle over a very minor player and is getting too much attention here, you may be right, but the issues, women's health, who gets to make medical discoveries, menopause and hormone therapy, are huge. Neil Raden (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There is much that I could say in reply to Nraden's claims, but most of it would be as irrelevant as the claims themselves, with regard to WP:RS etc. What is reliably sourced is that this self-described scientist, T.S. Wiley, lacks even an undergraduate degree.

And I cannot allow silence on my part to suggest any credibility to the following attempts to disparage me. They are categorically false.

"I'd like to point out that debv is not a person, it is a proxy for two organizations that are very active is waging a smear campaign against Wiley..." I don't even know what two organizations he could be referring to, but I am most definitely a person, beholden to no one and no organization.

"When Wiley was asked to testify before the US Senate as an expert witness, debv contacted the committee and attempted to paint her as a fraud." Also utterly false. I was not even aware of the Senate hearing until after it had taken place.

This is what I am dealing with. Debv (talk) 07:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: Sorry, I'm confusing the second quote with another recent claim that implies foreknowledge of the hearing: "In fact, you even tried to get one of your 'harmed' women to Washignton to give testimony until we got her doctor to confirm she wasn't on the Wiley Protocol at the time of her 'severe reactions.'" That simply did not happen.

After I became aware of the hearing and watched Wiley's testimony, I was involved in issuing a response to the Senate committee because her testimony was -- let's say, disputable. Debv (talk) 07:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia made the following statements:

>That's where I'm confused; I'm not clear on our definitions, but I'm not comfortable with some of Nraden's statements, like:

>* " The WP threatens a lot of people, its existence and growth are a thumb in the eye to the status quo."

>* "Wikipedia turns out to be slovenly captive to big media. Debv makes a lot of gratuitous statements above because Wikipedia currently serves >her purposes - to discredit Wiley."

>* " ... I'm warning you that those guidelines are flawed ... "

>* " ... you Wikipedia editors seem to be so wrapped up in your procedure you've lost your judgment ... "

>These kinds of statements from an involved party make me reluctant to participate without help or oversight. Perhaps I'm wrong.

I think yuo are wrong. Why is there a problem, on a talk page, with being fordeful and clear. Let's take them one-by-one:

-The WP threatens a lot of people. The drug industry hates it, as it hates all BHRT. The medical status quo, represented by the Menopause Society, the Endocrine Society and other groups, are all opposed to BHRT, not just the WP. Even the doctors who support BHRT oppose the WP because if it's right, they are all wrong and may even be harming women with their practices. So it is a thumb in the eye, what in the world is wrong with that statement, meant to be discussion?

-I've already made this point above, that what is verifiable is not necessarily true, but that's OK? I was horrified the first time WLU explained that to me. My comment about Debv was hardly threatenting, it was a counterpoint - if she got what she wanted, that was probably bad for Wiley.

-OK, maybe "warning" was a poor choice of words, but there was no implied threat in it

-And I believe it. You would allow drivel to be quoted over substance without thinking about it because to the WP:whatever. Get a spine. Challenge it. Wikipedia is supposed to be a reliable resource. Guard its credibility.

I've started to make some contributions to other areas using the tutelage I've recevied from WLU and I'm going to reck my own rede on this. You should too. Neil Raden (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

...and here's where the problem is. Nraden is challenging a fundamental policy of Wikipedia - verifiability, not truth. The fact that right now, all the reliable sources we have demonstrate problems with the Wiley Protocol, means we have to write about the problems. This does not mean that we are forever bound to this set of sources; in fact, if medical trials prove that it's the best form of treatment ever for ____, we will report that, and in fact, it'll take precedence over less reliable sources like the NYT. If you can not handle wikipedia reporting verifiability, not truth, you have two options - switch to a different venue, or attempt to change the policy. Good luck.

Wikipedia's reliability is based on, and predicated on, it's citation of reliable sources. Otherwise we might as well call ourselves 'wikiadverpedia'. Your excoriations of wikipedia for not 'having a spine' point to a fundamental flaw in your understanding of, and relationship to, the project. Wikipedia is not meant to have a spine. Everything you have said right now demonstrates that either you have not read, or have misunderstood WP:SOAP, which is non-negotiable without the entire community agreeing to realign wikipedia to become a fundamentally different project. I admit you've shown an extraordinary level of restraint given your involvement in this obviously very important issue, but as commendable as that is, it can not make up for what appears to be a very basic misunderstanding of what wikipedia is. WLU (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That isn't going to stop me from complaining about it.

Yeah, yeah, I get it and if the shoe were on the other foot, I'd get that too. It's troubling, though, that you mention medical trials. There are three that I know of spinning up, but it's going to take 3-5 years for that to be reported. In the meantime, tell me, in what venue could a doctor report their own clinical findings in a way that would be acceptable to Wikipedia? And there are some othjer things, beyond the sourcing, that are really nettlesome. Dr. Taguchi being on "the Wiley team," Suzanne Somers being a "spokesperson," - these aren't sourcing issues, they're misstatements of fact, and they have to be addressed. Taguchi has gone on record with her experience with the WP, but I get bounced everytime I bring it up. There are other issues, too, like the ACAM report. Neil Raden (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

And here is another example of why I am so frustrated with this process. WLU says above, "...it's controversial, with no actual pubmed sources." There are at least three PubMed articles where Wiley is the PI or co-PI and one of them, on progestorone and cancer, which was the bedrock study from which the protocol emerged, is further cited by no fewer than six other journals: Endocrinology, Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Biology of Reproduction, Molecular Human Reproduction and Reproductive Sciences. So while the article contains links to three or four soft pieces about Suzanne Somers, these are lacking. That's what I mean about the procedures not working. Neil Raden (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It's your right to complain I suppose, eventually if you keep it up you could be blocked for disruption (providing you escalated, right now it's still very reasonable; I'm just delimiting the extreme). I would say that any involvement of those sources would represent a synthesis, thus violating our policy on original research. Unless they mention the words 'Wiley Protocol' somewhere, which I doubt. If trials will be finished in 3-5 years, then in 3-5 years, when it is reported in a peer-reviewed journal, it will be added to wikipedia. The only venue that would be acceptable on this page would be a peer-reviewed journal. If you object to the sourcing and statements you can object at the reliable sources noticeboard, based on the reliability of the source linked to the statement made. However, you can't object because 'you know better' as you are not a reliable source, and we report verifiability, not truth. Paris Hilton can't edit her own bio on the basis of 'I didn't do that', because she isn't a reliable source; this means wikipedia may report untruthful material if the source is wrong. We can also report the correction if it occurs. WLU (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Now I am confused. Just the other day, SandyGeorga said, "No one has said you can't describe what the protocol is according to self-published sources; we agreed above that you can do that as long as its correctly attributed." Are you contradicting that with, "The only venue that would be acceptable on this page would be a peer-reviewed journal?"Neil Raden (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You may describe how it is designed to work, but you can not claim that it actually works this way (because it's unproven), or that it is effective (because it's unproven). That is my understanding. I'd say that the description should be short, and only include Wiley's words. Plus, I'd trust Sandy's word over mine any day and if there's disagreement, that's the person that you should turn to. WLU (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is what I mean about debv's snide comments and poisonous bias that have no place here:

>What is reliably sourced is that this self-described scientist, T.S. Wiley, lacks even an undergraduate degree.

Self-described is not a descriptive term, it's derogatory. Besides, Wiley is a scientist. She is published in popular, scientific and academic press, is invited to speak to scientific gatherings and teaches doctors about science. The only factual statement in this sentnece is that she lacks an undergraduate degree, a fact that Debv works tirelessly for everyone to know. It's in the T.S. Wiley article already, why continue to flog it here except to cast personal aspersions?

>I don't even know what two organizations he could be referring to, but I am most definitely, a person, beholden to no one and no organization.

Another distortion. She is the owner of wileywatch.com and intimately invovled with rhythmicliving.com the other Wiley hate site which is prominently linked on the homepage of wileywatch.com. In a previous post, she accidentally, I think, used the word we, so from that point on, when I refer to "Debv" I refer to wileywatch.com and rhythmicliving.com. I'm not even sure there is a Debv, we can't find her and believe that she actually is the owner of RhythmicLiving, too. The same person.

> After I became aware of the hearing and watched Wiley's testimony, I was involved in issuing a response to the Senate committee because her testimony was -- let's say, disputable.

This articulation, "let's say, disputable" is a veiled assertion that Wiley lied to the Senate. Is this not yet another personal attack, which she sweetly promised SandyGeorgia she would refrain from? This is how debv spends her time. How can she possibly take part in a rational discussion about Wiley and the WP? Rhythmicliving.com attempted to get a "Wiley Survivor" onto the Senate panel, but she was rejected when it was proven that her claims were false.

Having debv in this discussion is like having a chronic infection that can't be cured - it takes all of your time and the best you can hope for is that it doesn't get worse. That isn't a personal attack, it is an observation about someone who has absolutely no interest in this subject matter except to make WIley look as bad as possible. I admit I'm COI, but I'm only trying to get a few facts into the article. The latest editor managed nothing except to increase the number of fluff "sources" while adding no content. If I don't do this, apparently no one will. Neil Raden (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see what this has to do with the main article. Like yourself, debv has agreed she is in COI, and hasn't edited the page in a very long time. Since the page is based on WP:MEDRS, there's not much chance of her opinion ending up on mainspace pages. This doesn't seem like something that needs to be posted on BLP/N. I see no reason or need to speculate on her motivations or persons, and we've a policy that says comment on contributions, not contributors. I see no more reason to assume bad faith about her than I do about you. Opposing and contrary viewpoints are the norm on wikipedia, and should not prevent either of you from interacting and contributing with civility. I also see no further reason to beat this dead horse on this page. WLU (talk) 00:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Damn it, WLU. All right, I'm biting my tongue. Here.

Oh the blood... Debv (talk) 04:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me make it clear that I'm indifferent to both of your off-wiki actions, and most of your on-wiki comments (since my actions generally involve pointing out why you can't do or use a source or say something). I don't care who you are or what you do beyond awareness of possible COI concerns. Both of you have no reason to comment on each other since the pages are built around reliable sources. So quit sniping at each other, it's fucking annoying and useless as far as the page is concerned. Neither of you are reliable sources, but you can provide them. End of story. WLU (talk) 13:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Wondering what to do about 2007 De Anza baseball players rape case. The article had quite a bit of information, but much of it is salacious detail about the rape victim and the people who are accused. Charges were never filed so nobody has a chance to be convicted or have their name cleared. The details of the article are written in semi-tabloid fashion and are no more than just news. Although nobody is mentioned by name in the article, it is talking about specific people who are likely traumatized by the event and whose lives do not seem proper fodder for an encyclopedia article. I would propose the article for deletion, but I'm unclear because the incident itself may (or may not) be notable enough to deserve mention.

Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

There are so many things wrong with this article its hard to know where to start. While the references used are generally high quality, I agree that it reads like a tabloid piece. It seems to be slanted toward showing that not prosecuting the rape was wrong. The title is right out. While the incident received an initial media spurt nationally, I'm not convinced that there is any long term notability; I agree that it doesn't appear to merit an encyclopedia article. I've gone ahead and added the prod template to the article. Shell ^babelfish 09:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought that would settle it but a user removed the PROD tag in good faith, arguing that the article subject is notable. Inasmuch as PROD is only for uncontroversial deletions, I guess the opinion is not unanimous. So I nominated the article for deletion on BLP and "not news" grounds. The discussion is here. Wikidemo (talk) 12:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the prod, thinking that it was worth a discussion. I see from the AfD that opinion is divided. What I should have done was trimmed the article at the same time to remove extraneous material. Other than that, I do not see that any BLP concern are involved--it was very widely reported and names are not given. The consensus will decide on significance. DGG (talk) 23:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Subject is notable but article seems to be unsourced or poorly sourced. Pointillist (talk) 02:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to fix it as you see fit. Is there a major problem or libel ect issue?--Tom 21:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved.

In both these articles, identical language has been introduced to say that Greenwald "exposed" errors by Klein. Further, the section in Klein is far disproportionate to his career at time and is verboten by WP:WEIGHT as well as BLP.--Samiharris (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is as much of a BLP issue as Samiharris thinks it is: if it's an outright error, calling it a "dispute" does a disservice to Greenwald. I do agree that recent edits have given far too much weight to the subject, though.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 17:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I (with -- of course -- the utmost respect) disagree. It is my firm belief that the article IS proportionate because Klein has yet to issue any sort of retraction in Time Magazine itself and has been quite disingenuous about the matter on Time's website. He used his very prominent soapbox (provided COURTESY of Time Magazine) to gratuitously attack Democratic politicians. I would respectfully submit that if the roles were reversed (i.e., if Democratic politicians were to gratuitously attack Klein), then that editors would be clamoring to do document to the Nth degree all of the details.
--Nbahn (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless Klein admits error, or the controversy results in far more sourcing than is now extant, I do not believe that it is Wikipedia's role to say that he committed an error. That is a serious accusation and potentially defamatory. Let's not go there. All we have to say is "disputed" for this to be accurate and neutral. Additionally, I think that this needs to be given appropriate weight, and the version that I reverted in Klein was far, far too long.--Samiharris (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

"Committed an error" is defamatory? Then what would "My opponent is a pig fucker" be?--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 19:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Even more so, I would say! No, on second thought, less so, as one is a factual statement alleging incompetence, and the other is a barnyard epithet. Point is, Wikipedia does not want to be saying that people committed errors. We have to take a neutral stance unless there is appropriate sources. Mr. Greenwald alone is not sufficient, unless it is admitted by Mr. Klein. At least that is my take. Let's get some other opinions, please. That is why we are here.--Samiharris (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do you equate error with incompetence? And why does the committer of an error have to admit to it before it's actually an error?--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 20:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Error of the kind alleged here is a serious accusation. There must be adequate sourcing for Wikipedia stating such a thing. The terminology that is used here takes Greenwald's side and is obviously not neutral, whereas "disputed" is both true and neutral.--Samiharris (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/printedition/wednesday/chi-1128edit4nov28,0,4272704.story

"A Time magazine essay by Joe Klein that was excerpted on the editorial page Wednesday incorrectly stated that the House Democratic version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act would require a court approval of individual foreign surveillance targets. It does not."

It's an error.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 20:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It may very well be an error. The question is, do we have sufficient sourcing to make such an accusation in a BLP? It is always better to use neutral language, or to say that Greenwald "alleged error" by Klein. I hesitate for Wikipedia to say this in its own voice. Incidentally I took very much the same position when Greenwald himself was accused of improper conduct, which he denied. We have plenty of time. There is no rush. Let's stop debating it here and wait for a second opinion.--Samiharris (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

A strong (very strong, quite frankly) argument can be made that doing he said/she said ad nauseum constitutes original research in its own right.
--Nbahn (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

(un-indent) In addition to the Chicago tribune link admitting the error in Klein's column, there's also a Washington Post article by Howard Kurtz (link). Some of the more salient points include:

• H. Kurtz: " The liberal blogosphere continues to express outrage at Time's Joe Klein over an error that he made. And there is no disagreement that he made an error."
• Kurtz quoting Klein in Swampland: "I have neither the time nor legal background to figure out who's right. . ."
• From H. Kurtz: "When I called Klein to ask about this, he said: 'I made a mistake, I corrected it and it's over.'"
  

R. Baley (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Those cites clinch it as far as I'm concerned. Thanks much.--Samiharris (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)