Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive38

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. To enter additional comments edit the current main page and link to this page for context if needed.
Archive
Archives
Archive TOC


Contents

Lon Horiuchi (closed)

Jan McRae plagiarism allegations

User:Joie de Vivre, since retired from WIkipedia, seems to have spread rather widely across the bios of fantasy illustrators allegations that one Jan McRae plagiarized the art of various illustrators. All of these various allegations are referenced to a single website: xfamily.org which does not meet the criteria of a reliable source. I removed the allegations from the bios of Rowena Morrill and Boris Vallejo, but they still remain in the bios of Keith Parkinson, Clyde Caldwell, Michael Whelan, Larry Elmore, Julie Bell, A. Andrew Gonzalez and in the article Children of God. A superficial look suggests that the only other references to this on the Internet are on sites that scrape data from WIkipedia.

These allegations seem to have been up on Wikipedia for about a year. What should be done here? --Pleasantville (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It might just be notable enough for the Children of God article but it's hard to see how it's anything but a coatrack anywhere else. Given that half the Children of God article is sourced to that website, it's probably worth checking whether the subject itself reaches standards of notability, because there don't seem to be enough sources for the discussion of it if that site is removed. Adam Cuerden talk 13:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I removed the material from the other articles above per poorly sourced material. Thanks for the heads up! --Tom 15:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Marcus R. Ross: Selected Bibliography

Take a good long look at the past editing of Goo2you before commenting on this particular issue. That being said, the section is entitled a selected bibliography, not exhaustive. The material you are trying to add is not noteworhty enough for inclusion. Baegis (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
My past editing is irrelevant to Hrafn's tendentious and disruptive edit warring, any more than his past personal attacks against me that he had to apologize for are relevant. Please stick to the issue here. No one is calling for an exhaustive bibliography; but papers, posters and presentations at RS scientific conferences are certainly notable and "noteworhty" enough to be included in this article. Goo2you (talk) 05:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Discussion demonstrating how ludicrous Goo2you's position can be found at Talk:Marcus R. Ross#Posters & similar ephemera. None of the deleted items are of the slightest substance -- they are very short, unpublished, unpeer-reviewed, outside the article-subject's area of expertise, and in two of three cases co-authored. HrafnTalkStalk 07:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Hrafn shows a, perhaps inadvertent, ignorance of academia here. Papers, posters and presentations at RS scientific conferences are not only considered "of substance," they are ALL considered as "publications," e.g. in tenure decisions. Thus, they should be included in any encyclopedia worth its salt, and especially one intent on sharing "the sum of all knowledge." Goo2you (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Does Goo2you have anything to back up these claims, or these just more in his long line of baseless (and on occasion demonstrably fallacious) assertions? I could as easily "pound the table" with an equally unsubstantiated assertion to the exact contrary, but that would serve as little purpose as his own statement. HrafnTalkStalk 16:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
At the risk of tempting certain individuals to wikilawyering, and without attempting to give a full lesson on the path to tenure and how it varies across academia, try [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]... the list could go on. As can be seen when you go through these references with a fine-tooth comb (as I'm sure some will), some importance is attached to other outlets for scholarly research, such as presenting "nonrefereed reports" every year, besides just papers published in refereed journals. Of great import are "other research activities" like "participation in invited scientific and clinical symposia, meetings and lectures" and "presentations at regional and national meetings," presenting "new ideas, approaches, discoveries and paradigms that open lines of further inquiry." This should be enough to show that these references belong, as has be repeated stated. Goo2you (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
How odd, not one of Goo2you's citations even mentions "posters", and when they do mention "presentations" they typically indicate something more substantial than Ross's ephemera (e.g. "Presentation of research papers at professional meetings" -- whereas the Ross pieces under discussion contain no original research and are outside his area of research expertise). It is not "wikilawyering" that I will be accusing Goo2you of, but repeated, flagrant tendentious editing: "Your citations back some of the facts you are adding, but do not explicitly support your interpretation or the inferences you draw." To be blunt I am getting tired of having to continually rebut such flimsy and nonsensical arguments. HrafnTalkStalk 04:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Not much significance frankly. And Wikipedia is not a tenure decision committee. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

sigh No it's not one, Filll, that's true. But this is an article about an academic, and the tenditious and disruptive reverts are being made contrary to both WP policy and academic standards. In fact, the reverts are just plain silly, and if one didn't AGF, one might begin to suspect that there are some other factors at play here than the goal of improving Wikipedia. But I wouldn't begin to suspect that, myself. Goo2you (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Leslie Ash - do you think I was right to do this?

This fact that I removed part of was mentioned by the BBC, an obviously reliable source, but per WP:HARM (just an essay, I know) it's not necessary to mention that particular detail. Do you think I was right to do this?--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 00:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I added back the material, but edited it to match the cite. Has she claimed that she is a virgin, or does not have sex with her husband? If so, then maybe this can be addressed, otherwise, married people having a "love session" isn't really a big deal. Better than if her husband threw her down the stairs, opps, better not even say that in jest :) Cheers, --Tom 15:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Jim Rogers - Continual vandalism

This article is continually vandalized by some person or persons. In the section detailing books written by this economic commentator, a fictitious book has been repeatedly inserted. The fake book is listed in the same manner as the others, complete with a (presumably, imaginary) ISBN number. The fake book is usually titled # A Bear in America: How I Predicted 11 of the Last 3 Recessions (ISBN 1400133479).

I and others have removed this material repeatedly in the past few days; but I'm tired of acting as a watchdog for this material. Is there any way to secure this article to prevent this from happening again? My first instinct was to suggest that we limit contributions to this article to those from enrolled Wikipedians--but even that won't do, as the vandalism seems to be coming from both signed and unsigned "contributors". SteelWheel (talk) 09:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I've put a warning on the anon IP's talk. In addition to reverting the vandalism you should take the step to also warn those who vandalize so if they persist administrators can see that they were indeed warned and continued after warnings. It would also help if sources were added for other material and improving the article overall could also help as less helpful edits stick out more on better sourced articles. It looks like anon editors are not vandalizing at such a rate to warrant semi-protection but if it increases that could also slow things down. In essence the answer is to improve the article so that vandalizers get tired of being reverted and move on. Benjiboi 02:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thomas de Waal

This is my second request for review of this article for BLP compliance. First one was in October 2007: [9] While there was no discussion at the BLP board, one month later User:FCYTravis removed partisan attacks: [10] However, recently User:Andranikpasha restored criticism from blatantly partisan sources to the article. [11] I would like to ask for a third party take on this issue. Thanks. --Grandmaster (talk) 11:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have shortened quotes all aroundand clarified the affiliations. See talk. DGG (talk) 02:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

John Gibson (media host)

Template:Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John Gibson (media host) - John Gibson's page is filled with "criticisms" in an attempt to portray him as racist. The "criticism" includes multiple OPINIONS from Keith Olbermann, multiple OPINIONS from Media Matters for America..followed by links to criticism from salon.com, F.A.I.R., and Media Matters. All of these "sources" (MM, Olberman, Salon, FAIR) are all highly partisan. Their OPINIONS are featured on a FACT-BASED encyclopedia entry. Each of these liberal entities has accused Gibson of racism. Gibson's comments to not rise to the level of notability if the only people complaining about them are LIBERAL OPINION websites and commentary.

The page has declared in violation of the non-POV rules, and the Media Matters talking points were scrubbed from the page. But they have returned. My attempts to edit out the blatant opinions are met with an autoresponder accusing me of potential vandalism and the edits revert right back to the page being nothing more than hit piece on Gibson written by liberal attack dogs.

The edits referred to were deletions of entire paragraphs and references with no edit summary. These were reverted by several editors, but I see no sign of bot involvement. The material in question casts the subject in a negative light, but seem on the face to be well-sourced. I was one of the editors who reverted the anon changes, mainly because it smelt like vandalism. I have not explored the issue in depth, and have formed no strong opinion. To my knowledge, this is the first attempt by this user to engage in discussion regarding these changes. Bovlb (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Aha! I see some talk page discussion. Bovlb (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

David Howe (claimant to King of Mann) (closed)

James Hansen

A request for resolution of issues on James Hansen) is requested. In short it is regarding a rather inflammatory quote from Hansen, and the context in which it should be presented.

  • One side wants the quote with a short introduction to context, and then links so that the reader can determine the background themselves.
  • And the other wants to have more context if the quote is to be added, so that the quote doesn't stand as implicit POV.

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This noticeboard is provided to report violations to WP:BLP. I would suggest that, if you cannot reach consensus on the matter, that you pursue dispute resolution by means of a Request for comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm - maybe i got this wrong, but in this case the specific content is a potential violation of BLP. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Another editor/Wikipedia administrator has also stated he doesn't feel this is a BLP issue --
see William M. Connolley, 2nd to last comment now: James Hansen. Pete Tillman (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

We are now at the point where i believe that BLP has been broken. The "wrong version" :) was on the page at protection time.( protect) I believe that the following cherry-picked quote on James Hansen, is a violation of BLP:

  • When testifying (as a private citizen) against construction of new coal-fired power plants lacking CCS technology, he stated "If we cannot stop the building of more coal-fired power plants, those coal trains will be death trains – no less gruesome than if they were boxcars headed to crematoria, loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species." [1], [2], [3].

There are a few reasons for this:

  • The quote is incomplete (ie. cherry-picked) - it is the very last part of a sentence.
  • The quote is incentive and by itself without context and explanation is a vio. of NPOV.
  • Hansen has appologized for that specific wording. [12]
  • It is not a good example of neither Hansens style - nor of his opinions.

Hopefully you will take a look at it now. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

A few small clarifications might be in order:
"...it is the very last part of a sentence." It is a complete sentence, but the last part of a paragraph of his remarks.
"...without context..." - reading the edit above, "against construction of new coal-fired power plants lacking CSS technology", seemed to me to provide an accurate context.
"...has apologized for that specific wording." - Following the link provided, the apology is to people who might be offended at the comparison with the holocaust. He then goes on after the apology to compare glacial melting with Krystalnacht. I didn't get the feeling at all that he backed down from the remark, in fact he reinforced his remark with his argument as to why he felt so strongly about the topic.

This quote appears to me to be notable in that it received enough publicity that he felt it necessary to further comment. In that further comment he did not recant the remark, but apologized if people took offense at the specific metaphor. To say that it is not "Hansens style" appears to need some backing up with what his style is. But it looks to me more of a dispute over "I don't like it" and ownership of the article than BLP. Can you provide a suitable example from WP:BLP that you feel applies? Crmanriq (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, i don't believe that the quote is notable - i haven't seen any evidence for it being widely discussed in reliable sources, a small Google search seems to indicate that it has been discussed some in the blogosphere - but not seriously anywhere else [13].
Perhaps you missed this article in the New York Times? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/science/earth/04comm.html Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
No i haven't ignored that one - it doesn't repeat the quote, but mentions that Hansen has said something about coal and "death-trains" in passing - and it also includes a mention that Hansen appologized for it. [14]. Overall very much more neutral than what you are proposing. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's the NY Times article: "he likened coal trains that serve high-emitting power plants to “death trains.” --with a link to the full Hansen quote. And Hansen's "apology" isn't much of one -- here's his proposed alternate metaphor: "Can these crashing glaciers serve as a Krystal Nacht [sic, emphasis added], and wake us up to the inhumane consequences of averting our eyes?" So much for Nazi name-calling not being Dr Hansen's style. Pete Tillman (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

What exactly are you trying to prove here? That Hansen is an idiot? That might (since i don't know the answer to the first question) be your point of view (and even the reality) - but it is not something that we can safely insert in a biography of a living person without exceptionally good sources. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
No comment. But even Congresscritters, when caught slandering someone, generally manage to stay on-message for the duration of their apology. You'll have to admit, this is extraordinary. Not to mention, entertaining {G}. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
In the WP:BLP guidelines we are cautioned to be "neutral and factual avoiding both understatement and overstatement" - this is not. We are also cautioned to uphold a strict neutral point of view and this one is not neutral - neither implicitly or explicitly.
Hansen said this - there is no doubt. But people say all kinds of stupid things once in a while, that doesn't mean that it has encyclopedic value - nor that it is material suitable for a biography. What i am asking for - and have been all of the time, is that the contributing author takes the time, to describe in a neutral fashion the context and the reasons for Hansen's statement, using reliable third party sources, if he insists that the quote should be in the biography. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I appears that you've cherry picked "neutral and factual avoiding both understatement and overstatement:. That is a fragment of a sentence under the heading "Writing Style" and the beginning of the sentence is: "The writing style should be". I think you are misrepresenting what BLP says. Under the heading "Well known public figures" is "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.". So BLP does not preclude negative material, only a negative writing style. Is the incident (Hansen's statement) notable? The NY Times felt it was. Was it relevant? It was a statement made by the subject acting in a field that he has direct interest or expertise. It wasn't Hansen giving fashion advice or movie reviews. So it appears to be relevant. Is it well-documented by reliable published sources? NY Times would fit that definition. It is also backed up by his own later "apology". The fact that he later apologized for the comparison that he made reinforces the notability of the statement. Was it an incident that the subject would dislike? Probably, but BLP says that does not matter. If you go over to David Hasselhof's entry, it mentions his infamous drunken video. This is in no way neutral. It's highly negative for the subject, but the _writing style_ is neutral, and the incident met the test of notable, relevant, and well-sourced. Crmanriq (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe that i've cherry-picked here, the sentence is repeated in various forms all throughout the BLP - the very first sentence/rationale in BLP seems to enforce this. As for the quote being notable, i don't believe that a passing sentence/paragraph in an article in the NYT makes it notable. This is not something that has been picked up by media as significant. But lets assume for a moment that it is notable - does this negate NPOV? No. We are required to present the information negative or positive in a way so as not to present a specific point of view either indirectly or directly. Frankly i have no interest in Hasselhof and your argument seems to be of the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS line of argumentation. And i have to point out that a lot of your comments are original research that are not found in any of the reliable sources that have covered this.
Again: I'm not opposed to including the information (if its notable), it just has to be presented in a way that doesn't explicitly or implicitly present a POV. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but it seems absent obvious vandalism, that the best compromise would be either to let it stand, or modify it yourself to carry a more neutral viewpoint. It appeared that Tillman made a good faith effort to accommodate your demands, but that you still were unsatisfied. The revert that you made even reverted a typo correction (I know I made that point already, but that was the flag to me that this was somewhat odd.) My suggestion would be that either you step back and let the edit stand, or at least take the time to make a constructive edit. Take a step towards a middle ground. Crmanriq (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I do not doubt that Tillman is in good faith and i've never indicated that there is any vandalism involved. I corrected the typo after you pointed it out (so why are you continuing to point this out?). It is the contributor's onus to present information neutrally - not the other way as you seem to indicate. From my point of view the quote isn't relevant or notable enough to merit inclusion, so if Tillmann or you want to add it - then present it neutrally. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully request that KD Petersen's complaint of a BLP violation be dismissed. It appears, from third-party comments above, that she simply misread the BLP requirements, and no such violation occurred. User:Crmanriq 03:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC) ably summarizes the situation. Thank you, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Michael Bloomberg, philanderer?!

The first line of Michael Bloombergs biography states that he is an American businessman and philanderer, instead of philanthropist...Come on! Was that intentional? When you go on the site to try to edit it, the word does not even come up in the editable text... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.94.7 (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The article does not say this now. Perhaps you were looking at an unfortunately cached version? --Slp1 (talk) 03:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama media controversy

Resolved.

I have no involvement with this article and not a great deal of knowledge of the subject, but I feel that it could do with some oversight from BLP regulars. It's essentially about those "Obama is a Muslim" smears that seem to have been going around lately. Some editors plainly want to use the article as a coatrack to propagate the smears - see e.g. [15] from a user who's now banned. To be honest, I'm uneasy about whether we should have an article of this sort at all - is it really encyclopedic to document smear campaigns, given that WP:IINFO#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll take took a look. The article needs a much better lead to present the fact that these rumors have been thoroughly debunked, as well as to make the article rather than a piece that repeats the innuendo and rumors, concentrate in the media controversy around these rumors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Please note that this article has now been nominated for deletion (not by myself) - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama media controversy. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

T._U._Kuruvila

This article appears to be referenced, but contains allegations that may be defamatory, therefore it probably needs to be inspected more closely by someone who's familiar with the subject matter (Indian Politics). It didn't have a Living tag on it until a few minutes ago, so it's been escaping living person patrol until now. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 12:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Examining it. I'm familiar with the situation. Relata refero (talk) 12:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Marr

A Blog recently posted a story about his private life. I don't think that it counts as a reliable source so I have been removing it from the article whilst others put it back. Could we have a few more eyes on the article for a couple of days? --RicDod (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have put it on my watchlist.--Slp1 (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I resent not being considered a reliable source and suspect you will have to eat your words very shortly. Guido —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.211.141 (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, my comment was badly phrased. Please have a look at the Verifiability policy which explains it better, especially the bit about self-published sources. Basically any negative information about a living person needs to be very well sourced in order to be included. --RicDod (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Now semi-protected. --Slp1 (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

John Yoo

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

John Yoo is an individual associated with the US government who is accused of being responsible for government wrongdoing. There is a section of two paragraphs (War crimes accusations) that is being re-inserted that only cites a court-related document at the Center for Constitutional Rights web site (which is currently an invalid page) and (indirectly) a book called The Terror Presidency. One of the editors used a minor edit summary to re-insert the paragraphs, and one of the paragraphs was written by a user whose edit history consists of two edits: one to John Yoo, and one to Talk:John Yoo. As a side note, is there a Times v Sullivan style exception for BLP? Thanks, Andjam (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

We may not like it but WP:V allows us to add information even if it is uncomfortable to certain individuals. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

At the time that the issue was raised, there was no citation for the "uncomfortable" information. Andjam (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Andjam what is your specific question for us? That John Yoo was sued should probably be more properly cited *first* to a newspaper account (of which a quick Google shows there are several mentions) and then further illuminated by citing the Federal court case number. This allows a secondary source to introduce the issue, and a primary one to add specification. Perhaps you have a different question. Citing a court case is fine, but shouldn't be the main source of information on the paragraph.Wjhonson (talk) 02:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

American Jewish Congress

American Jewish Congress (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - The material about allegations against Israel Singer goes much further than the Israel Singer article does, and, I think, beyond the sources cited. Please see the article's talk page. David in DC (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Heath Ledger

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Y Done. Fixed and corresponding template protected. --slakr\ talk / 22:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Since he reportedly just died, tons of vandalism has occurred. It'd probably be best to either lock it or limit the editting. 24.211.23.77 (talk)

Indeed - the current entry says high levels of heroin were found in his bloodstream, which is impossible to determine considering his body was only found 1 1/2 hours ago. A toxicology report can usually take weeks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.64.143.2 (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

And now there's a penis. Fun times.143.246.7.155 (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

offensive

please can you remove the offensive comment following heath ledgers death "WHO CARES HE PLAYED A GAY GUY" cheers, Rhee

NEW VANDALISM- huge penis!

Vandalism removed. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE LOCK THAT THREAD, THERE ARE ALL SORTS OF RUDE AND TYPICAL SOCIOLOGICAL DISTORTIONS BEING USED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.44.37.167 (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

heath ledger

Someone has posted a rather large picture of their penis on the heath ledger page!!!

Heath Ledger

Someone has put a picture of erect male genitalia on this page that pops up when you enter it.

Erect Penis Image on Heath Ledger page

Ah the joys of the internet. Just wanted to make people aware that the page has been vandalized with an image that covers the entire page.

Someone has edited the Heath Ledger wikipedia page so a large-size photograph of a penis scrolls with the screen. Please remove this, it is extremely inappropriate, especially for any young females who may be looking at the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.120.179 (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Viktor Kozeny

There is never a dull moment with this article. See previous reports at: at COIN, and on this noticeboard back on 17 October. The subject of the article, Viktor Kozeny, has been chased by various courts and governments due to financial misdeeds that were widely covered in reliable sources. Last time around, someone promoting the interests of the subject insisted on reverting to his preferred (innocuous) version. That editor was eventually blocked. This time, an IP editor who wants to gild the lily insists on adding nasty and defamatory wording to what is already there, without adding any new sources. I have reverted his latest change, but would appreciate if others can keep an eye on it. If he reverts back, I suggest that semi-protection or a block might be considered. (Naturally, you should take a look at my change to ensure that I didn't overdo it). EdJohnston (talk) 04:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sir Edmund Hillary

Sir Edmund Hillary, more affectionately known as Sir Ed has passed away this morning at 9 AM at Auckland City Hospital, his wikipedia page has been changed to announce his death in New Zealand Time but people have been changing the dates and times from what its supposed to be (11th January 2008 9:00AM) to Hawaii time or even other time zones, ppl have been warned in the article discussion not to do so but i think it happened a couple of times. In respect to this great man i wish for his article to be semi protected or protected against changes made to any details of his death. Thank you.

203.109.215.123 (talk) 06:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably will settle down when January 11th arrives for more of the timezone unaware. -- SEWilco (talk) 06:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

After Everest "Hillary climbed ten other peaks in the Himalayas on further visits in 1956, 1960–61 and 1963–65. He also reached the South Pole..." would be more correct to say: "Hillary climbed ten other peaks in the Himalayas on [later or subsequent] visits in 1956, 1960–61 and 1963–65. He also reached the South Pole..." He was an adventurer and as such understood the distinction between distance (as in further) and time (as in later)! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdowd108 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I was mistaken about further.

These two words are commonly used interchangeably, but there is a difference between them.

"Farther" refers to physical or geographic distance.

Example: The apartment I want is farther from my office.

"Further" is more abstract. It refers to time or degree or quantity. It's another way of saying "additional."

Examples:

I have to look further into the question of moving farther from my office.

There was no further discussion.

ladyjane | Sep-28-05 10:24AM

Use farther when you're talking about physical distances.

Farther down the road.

They're further along in their plans than I expected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdowd108 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Lyor Cohen

Resolved.
I'm taking a look at it. As a first step, footnoting seems a valuable way of quickly determining if the sources are up to par. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I've done what I can for it. :) The controversy is properly sourced. I've also watchlisted the article for a while, and if improperly sourced material reappears will attempt to deal with it or return it here for further input. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Mary-Kate Olsen

Resolved. It's been protected. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 07:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Due to Heath Ledger's death, this page is undergoing frequent vandalism and the frequent addition of unverified rumors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahecht (talk • contribs) 23:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Alfred Strom

Claudio Teehankee, Jr.

This looks like a clear case of WP:BLP1E. There doesn't seem to be anything else notable about this person other than being a relative of a famous person. If this had been any other crime, there wouldn't be an article here. Opinions? Corvus cornixtalk 03:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Bobby Fischer

Icelandic media is reporting that Bobby Fischer has died. Could we have some experienced eyes on that article for the next few days? Haukur (talk) 11:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this an attempt at black humour? BLP noticeboard might not be the place to raise this. Lobojo (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe that BLP policy can still apply to the recently deceased and therefore Haukur was entirely correct?Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
It seems reasonable that it might since it would be unseemly if all the information that could not previously go on due to BLP was dragged up while the body was still warm. But where does policy say this? Lobojo (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
It appears the BLP policy doesn't explicitly mention it at the moment. Apparantly there isn't consensus although, as you say, it seems reasonable. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we need a WP:BDP. —Ashley Y 00:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama

Page has blatant untrue information throughout it. Please fix ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hornet2934 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I will look at it, but, if you know what is wrong with the article, be bold and start fixing it yourself. Jons63 (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I have read through it and do not see any blantantly untrue information, maybe you could point out some of the problems with the article Jons63 (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Organized crime articles

As a result of the userspace issue mentioned above, I looked over a few of the Wikipedia articles on organized crime. These articles are terrible, an absolute hotbed of blatant BLP violations. In less than 5 minutes I found the following: Colombo crime family — unsourced allegations that specific named individuals are "capos," "leaders," "soldiers" and so forth; Genovese crime family which includes a long list of names sourced to a Geocities page; Chicago Outfit with 50 to 100 unreferenced names. Frankly, some of these articles are so bad that they should probably be deleted entirely and started over. At the least, I think they should be stubbed and all BLP-infringing content removed. *** Crotalus *** 23:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Marcel Schlutt

Template:Http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marcel Schlutt&diff=prev&oldid=184593509 – The user Aussie2 changed the content of the Wiki article three times without featuring any new facts and sources! Repeatedly Aussie2 writes that Marcel had won several prizes at equestrian sports at an early age of four but he never shows any references to proof it. In an interview for a tiny privately-operated homepage in Berlin, Marcel just claims to have won those awards but he was unable to proof it. In addition, Aussie2 erased the known facts about Marcel’s various jobs! Marcel is very well known in Germany’s gay scene because over many years he loved to appear in public jobs. He worked successfully for a Pay-TV’s gay sex show, several porn companies and escort websites. But Aussie2 repeatedly erases the proven job descriptions ‚escort’ and ‚porn actor’ because he only likes to mention the more accepted jobs, like i.e. ‚fashion model’, ‚author’ and ‚photographer’. In reality, Marcel never wrote a book, he only wrote several short articles (columns) for a gay magazine. Marcel never made a living as a photographer but a few of his snapshots were printed a compilation book about skaters. Since 2004, Marcel announced twice to end his porn/escort career but even though he appears in new adult videos; the last one so far in 2007. Therefore Berlin’s biggest gay city rag Siegessaeule and Europe’s gay sex rag Erexxion already made fun of this bizarre farewell/ comeback/ farewell/ comeback career. Aussie2 obviously tries to eliminate Marcel’s real profitable money-making professions by emphasizing the little part-time jobs. It looks like Aussie2 is trying to smoothen Marcel’s biography. Wiki better should stick to the facts! Thank you very much.// Germany2799 (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. This may not yet require intervention, and, if it proves that it does, this may not be the best board to seek it. This sounds like a content issue (although lack of sourcing is problematic). The dispute resolution policy recommends that you civilly discuss the issues on the talk page with the other editor to see if you can form consensus on what material to include. That policy lists several different avenues for seeking wider involvement if the two of you cannot come to an agreement. If only the two of you are involved, you might seek a third opinion. If there are more, you might wish to file a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies or ask for feedback at the talk page of a related article or WikiProject. Many of the volunteers at this board (me included) are more used to resolving issues where the subject of the article is having controversial information added without sourcing rather than the other way around. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Frank Howson Autobiography?

User:MichaelBergman when uploading Image:Website_shots_036.jpg on 00:32, 6 January 2008 stated "I, Frank Howson, own this image of myself as it was a self-portrait." thereby claiming to be Frank Howson! Since User:MichaelBergman has been a major contributor to this article (and an editor to numerous other Biographies of living people associated with Frank Howson) this may present significant problems: Autobiographies tend not to have a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) and contain Conflict of Interest (COI) issues. Since 09:41, 12 August 2007 I have also contributed significantly to this article wikifying it and providing references. I have also edited other articles visited by User:MichaelBergman and so do not feel sufficiently unbiased to resolve issues involved. I request intervention by a suitable Administrator. I suggest also considering contributions by User:124.190.242.6 and User: 124.190.244.2 as possibly by same author. I have placed this same notice on User talk:MichaelBergman page and Talk: Frank Howson but believe that User:MichaelBergman may not read these pages (numerous notices seem to have gone by without any response).Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have tagged the article with {{COI2}} and left template {{Uw-coi}} at the talk page of the editor. I am unfamiliar with the subject, but as a regular contributor trust that you will be keeping an eye on it. :) If you feel the problem persists, you may have better luck addressing it at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard where volunteers are more accustomed to dealing specifically with this issue. I know it recommends at the top bringing BLP issues here, but I do see other autobiographies addressed on that page. I suspect (though I'm not sure) that they mean a COI where an editor is deliberately defaming the subject of the article rather than promoting him. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Patriarch Alexius II

Patriarch Alexius II (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). This article had reach an equilibrium, in which accusations about Patriarch Alexei's past involvement were documented in a manner that was in mostly in keeping with NPOV and WP:BLP, although an administrator had noted that too much of the article was focused on accusations against Patriarch Alexei, and that it needed to be more balance, however, Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) decided to expand the article by expanding the accusations into the rest of the Biography, and asserting them as biographical facts. I attempted to deal with it via edits and the talk page, but am taking it here as the only alternative to an edit war on the matter. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed at WP:COI noticeboard here. Biophys (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
No it has not. That thread has been in regards to an accusation of a conflict of interest against me. This thread is in regards to the violations of the WP:BLP policy, and more specifically to your edits.Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Biophys has inserted yet more negative rumours/controversial information, this time into the 'Career' section rather than the 'Controversies' section, certainly a violation of WP:BLP IMO. The article is indeed a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP as about 90-95% of this article is devoted to negative rumours.--Miyokan (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I did not inserted anything yet since the posting of this message by Frjohnwhiteford. Perhaps the article is one-sided. Frjohnwhiteford and Miyokan are welcome to add more sourced and presumably positive content about the person to improve the article. I only object deletion of well sourced (supported by multiple reliable sources) materials they do not like, which would be against WP:NPOV.Biophys (talk) 04:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Information about career must be in section "Career". Let's use article talk page for discussion.Biophys (talk) 04:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
"..yet more" referred to your latest additions to the article, I did not say since the posting of Frjohn's message here.--Miyokan (talk) 06:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that you assert things as fact that are in dispute, and which were already covered in the controversy section. If you take a look at the Encyclopedia Britannica, you will find that these accusations are not even noted... much less asserted as biographical facts. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 14:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the information Biophys added to the 'Career' section has already been covered in the 'Controversies' section. It is totally unnecessary to repeat it in the 'Career' section. Even if you say it is "supported by multiple reliable sources" (the reliability of these sources is dubious), it is still fringe theories and rumours that are heavily controversial. By doing this, it is an attempt to assert it as biographical fact.--Miyokan (talk) 06:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
At this point, I am not sure whether the view that he was a KGB agent is fringe. controversial yes, butnot fringe.DGG (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I would not argue that this is a fringe view. But it certainly is, as you say, controversial, and should not be asserted as biographical facts when they are disputed facts. This controversy should not permeate the entire article... particularly when, as I said, respected encyclopedic sources not even find such accusations worthy of note. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The remedy from the Admins I would request here is this: Roll back this article to this edit. And ask Biophys to engage in constructive edits that do not violate WP:BLP and which provide a fair and balanced treatment of the subject. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, while we are waiting for some outside intervention, the article is only becoming less balanced, as more slanted and biased. Is there an Admin in the house? Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 00:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I am going to review the article at this time. Jeepday (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, here is another example of Biophys engaging in POV pushing and clearly violating the WP:BLP policy from an article I have had nothing to do with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yevgenia_Albats#Edward_Kennedy_as_a_KGB_collaborator

Interestingly, once again painting people with the KGB broad brush is the subject. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Jay-Jay Johanson

there is a controversy in the article about j.j. johanson. it says that "there is a change in his music with the album relased in 2002". on the contrary the same album is shown as been relased in 2003 at the bottom of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.243.222.24 (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've tagged the problem at the article so that the editors who maintain it can straighten it out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Monica Bellucci

There's conflicting evidence regarding Monica Bellucci's age and date of birth. It's being discussed on Talk:Monica Bellucci#Age, sort-of, but anon IPs keep reverting and there is no agreement from sources on the accurate age. Note this statement at the NNDB, which I don't think is incredibly reliable, but it's the only explicit discussion of this I've seen. Help! WLU (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If the changes to the page reach the status of edit warring, you may wish to request page protection until consensus of how to handle it is reached. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately it's not, every couple days someone changes it, then someone else (usually the same IP address) changes it back. I'd really just like to know what can be said, based on the sources we have and the limitations imposed by BLP. WLU (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
If it's a small group of IP addresses, you can drop a friendly note on their talk pages alerting them to the conversation at the discussion page and inviting them to join. You might also consider addressing the date discrepancy within the article itself, perhaps in a footnote, with the more reliable date in the parenthetical introduction with a "c" as recommended for uncertain birth dates at the MOS and the note indicating something along the lines of "Year of birth is given as 1964 by blah and blah, while blah and blah assert 1968". If no agreement can be reached at all on which year of birth to use, you can indicate a range, c. 1964-1968. It may forestall the constant reversion (which may constitute edit warring even if quite slow :)) if rather than choosing one of two (or more) uncertain options, the article simply notes that the uncertainty exists. This seems more a matter of content dispute than a BLP issue, since there are sources for multiple sides. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the only source I have for this is the NNDB, which I don't believe is reliable. Still, I'll have a gander and try your ideas on the talk page. Thanks for your suggestions, it's very appreciated! WLU (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Crime family primary research in userspace

Onorem asked me about this. That took me to Special:Contributions/Little Joe Shots, which in turn took me to all of these (Special:Prefixindex/User:Alexbonaro/):

    There's nothing wrong with using userspace as a platform for article development. Indeed, that's one of the things that userspace is there for. But the way that this development is being done, by the users themselves and by editors without accounts, is somewhat troubling. This appears to be less article development and more a collection of primary source materials, being written and collected by Wikipedia editors directly and hosted in Wikipedia userspace as a supposedly "reliable resource" for people to consult.

    The pages appear to be collections of accusations that specifically named people are criminals, or dead, sourced solely to discussion forum postings by people known only by pseudonyms such as "Pogo", or obtained directly by primary research. Particularly troubling are things such as the notice at the top of User:Alexbonaro/Bonanno crime family circa 1991, the I-got-this-information-from-a-guy-named-Jiggy statement on User talk:Alexbonaro/LA chart circa 1954, and the responses to accusations of inaccuracy at User talk:Alexbonaro/Timeline of Detroit mob murders and User talk:Alexbonaro/present day Milwaukee crime family.

    Alexbonaro (talk · contribs) hasn't edited since September 2007. Little Joe Shots (talk · contribs) hasn't edited since November 2007. Various modifications to the pages, including some that dispute the pages' contents (example), have been reverted as vandalism since. My first inclination is to just blank all of the pages. Please discuss and take appropriate action. Uncle G (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

    User:Irvine22

    Can someone please talk to Irvine22 (talk · contribs) regarding his BLP-violating and counterfactual edits to the Wikipedia article about me, David Eppstein? Thanks. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

    I've left him an {{Uw-npov2}} and have watchlisted the article in case escalation is required. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

    Marcos_Baghdatis

    Would somebody take a look at Marcos_Baghdatis#2008_Australian_Open_controversy? It needs a POV-ectomy. Corvus cornixtalk 03:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

    As of its current reading it seems balanced and sourced. Is there anything specifically that still needs addressing? Benjiboi 01:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

    Bill Rancic

    Resolved.

    An I.P. is insisting on inserting the adjective "struggling" into this article to describe the show that Rancic hosts. Initially, the I.P. was doing so without references; and I reverted it as a blatant WP:BLP violation. References have since been inserted, and I'm at my 3RR limit anyway. My opinion is that, even sourced, this information violated WP:BLP, but I told the I.P. that if she/he provided references, I'd try to solicit some other editors' opinions (and, like I said, I'm at my 3RR limit anyway). Eyes would be appreciated - the conversation between the I.P. and me is centralized here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

    Oops - he/she just cleared her/his talk page. Here's the last pre-blanking version, which includes our entire conversation. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    The IP editor did finally provide multiple references that supported, what would appear to be a true description of the show. But on review only one reference is close to meeting WP:RS and that being www.nydailynews which was from 2006. I made a couple changes and am leaving a note at User talk:70.108.122.10. Jeepday (talk) 12:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

    Steve Clemons - Porn site link

    Link #4 goes to an internet porn site where a copy of an article on Clemons from the Bartlesville, Oklahoma Examiner Enterprise has been placed.

    The link to the original article: http://www.examiner-enterprise.com/articles/2006/01/25/news/2578.txt

    I'd change it myself but assume those responsible for the article would rather do the deed.

    207.68.209.19 (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

    Done, but another time do feel free to be bold yourself!!--Slp1 (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

    Primal Therapy

    • Primal therapy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Since my recent edit of the article ([16]), which removed a link to a website, the presence of which represents a BLP violation, in my opinion, an edit war has been raging. A key page on that website which would make any link to it a breach of BLP is here [17].
    • It was the removal of the last remaining link to this website by me (after I read that recently added page) that seems to have triggered what appears to be a coordinated counter assault notably by an unregistered user, 76.90.103.220, and others including Randroide who was involved in an earlier BLP issue in the same article. I have not yet had time to see who appears to be defending the article, if anyone, other than Twerges. A few of the edits appear to be valid neutralisation of language which may be worth retaining but the majority appear to be either the adding of links and text to the Criticisms section or, most importantly, restoring of the links to the website in question, even to related articles I had removed them from months ago. There are many paragraphs of external links added to the Criticisms section many of which would never measure up to Wikipedia's standards even without invoking BLP policy.
    • I now believe that the links to the website [18] and the links to Tom Werges' web pages have no place in the article or the related articles because they don't meet Wikipedia's standards especially the more stringent requirements of BLP that apply here. Without these links being removed and the people who deliberately engaged in destructive editing being blocked from the article and all the related articles, about Arthur Janov and his therapy, I can't see how any constructive work on it can happen from this point on. // GrahameKing (talk) 07:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    • In actuality Grahame King has consistently been removing criticisms of primal therapy and adding advertising material. His attempt to label a critical website as libellous or of violating BLP rules are merely attempts to give him power to remove criticisms from the page. The said links to criticisms are sourced and often more reliable than official primal therapy books or websites. The claim that grahame king makes that there have been destructive edits are in fact reversals of attempts to remove criticisms. the real vandalism is by those trying to erase criticisms or links to critical information. Not only has grahamking vandalised criticism, but so has twerges, always for bogus , but impressive sounding, reasons.

    Zonbalance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonbalance (talk • contribs) 05:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

    Statement by User:Randroide

    I present edits removing sources and sourced information made by User:GrahameKing in Primal Therapy:[19] [20][21][22][23]

    I challenge User:GrahameKing to present a similar list of (IMO) destructive edits performed by us, those other users User:GrahameKing is asking to be blocked to edit Primal Therapy. Such list does NOT exist.
    User:GrahameKing even blanked a whole Talk Page [24], by far the (IMO) weirdest move I have seen at Wikipedia. GrahameKing insisted in blanking discussions and sourced chunks of data from the talk page, over and over again [25][26][27].

    Please note that User:GrahameKing express allegedly WP:BLP-related worries only in case of criticism against Arthur Janov. On the other hand User:GrahameKing is extremely liberal inserting lines of criticism made by Janov against other living persons, calling them "charlatans", "would-be practioners", "inexpert", "abusive therapists" and "lacking the empathy and technical knowledge necessary" [28].

    • I -UserRandroide- think that both sourced sides (pro and anti Janovian) should be present in the article. Therefore, I think that the edit by User:GrahameKing linked above is a very good edit.
    • OTOH, User:GrahameKing seems to think that criticisms against Janov should be erradicated from the article, and those Users who add those criticisms (like me) blocked. I disagree vehemently on this point.

    Unlike him/her, I am not advocating the block from the article of User:GrahameKing (he/she made very good contributions to the article, despite some destructive edits). I am only providing the whole picture about User:GrahameKing, whose statements -IMHO- should be taken cum grano salis.

    See also that User:GrahameKing is not shy of adding unsourced blocks of text [29][30], flagrant POV "appropiation" of the term "Primal Therapy" [31], his/her own speculations about the future [32] and lines that sound in my ears like unsourced Janovian sales pitchs [33][34] Randroide (talk) 10:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

    This is obviously a complex, long-running dispute. Whatever the history of the participants, I am inclined to agree with GrahameKing that linking to debunking primal therapy is problematic. The site does nto meet reliable sourcing requirements, which would not necessarily eliminate it as an external link, but the subpage mentioned specifically (here) certainly contains unverified negative allegations about a living person. That said, I tend to think that more constructive work on the articles might happen with more open-minded, cooperative conversation about them on the talk page. The issues here go beyond BLP into content dispute, and, if the warnings about edit warring issued to the two primary editors of the article do not take effect, I would be inclined to recommend seeking page protection until the dispute can be ironed out properly at the article's talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

    Please correct me I did not get you right: "DebunkingPrimalTherapy.com" can be linked as long as we abstain to link (much less quote) the contentious "_former_trainee_interview " page.
    Did I get you right?. If not, could you please be more specific?. Thank you.Randroide (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    Hi. Linking to the site at all is problematic per WP:BLP, which specifies that "External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies and external links guidelines." WP:EL specifies that with regards to biographical material about living persons, "material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links". The website may provide links to reliable sources with editorial oversight, but it does not boast the same for itself, and it contains a subpage that is derogatory and unverifiable. I think it would be far better to mine the website as a source of usable material—by which I mean looking for links to published journal articles or tips to books—and leave it out of the article altogether. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks, Moonriddengirl, for your time and your careful consideration of what may appear on the surface, as I presented it above, to be a complex problem. I have explored the page protection option you recommended and regret that I can not follow it just on principle, at this time, as it would make me an accomplice to locking in clear BLP violations of the worst kind (inadequately sourced, potentially libellous claims) - and I do use my actual name. I noticed someone has already given page protection to the main article but not to the related articles. I reported on this noticeboard as it appears to offer adminstrative intervention where my efforts to uphold BLP policies had been to no avail. The only intervention that I can see that would be consistent with BLP policy would be to immediately and unconditionally remove all links to the two websites which contain references to the potentially libellous claims ([35],[36]) and to block those who added these links (76.90.103.220, Twerges, Zonbalance) from editing the relevant articles (Primal Therapy, Arthur Janov, Scream therapy, The Primal Scream, and also Debunker vandalised by Zonbalance) because they are not properly registered users (who would only be subject to formal warnings if they were). It was I who added the link at the end of Types of patients treated to his website long before Twerges himself made me aware of the problematic interview which he was preparing to rebut - so ironically it is thanks to him that we discovered this problem. Once this report is history, any links to it such as the link to it placed on Talk:Primal_therapy by Randroide (and any others that may be found) should also be removed of course, preferably by an admin, not me (I've sworn off edit wars) - though maybe such links would just get broken by archiving. I do think page protection is a good idea. Someone should make a bot to seek out and remove links to sites that have been identified as BLP-unfriendly etc. Thanks for all your help. Let me know if you need anything from me. GrahameKing (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    Moonriddengirl asked me for my opinion. I partly agree with her. I think the site is usable in some manner for the purpose of the article on the theory. We do not avoid a site because some small portion of it is unsuitable. We shouldn't link specifically to an unsuitable part, but using it as an external link as a whole is indirect enough. the safest way is an external link. As she says, there is no shortage of unimpeachable materials to use at references for criticizing the theory. DGG (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    Don't be taken in by the attempts of editors to remove criticism on primal therapy by labelling criticism as libel. For criticism to become libel it actually has to be false. The destructive vandalism was actually the removal of criticisms, NOT the reversal of those deletions. We may be dealing with editors who have a financial stake in primal therapy, so don't get taken in. I also second theidea to have grahameking banned due to the destructive edits. Although twerges and moongirl also seem to want to suppress any criticism too, and are equally destructive and clever at explaining their deletions.

    Zonbalance Zonbalance

    I'd like to bring to the attention my comments in the arthur janov section further down this page, which belongs here too. There I detail some reasons why the link discussed above should stay. I agree with Randriode in that the history of the editing of wiki primal therapy involved the invoking of the BLP rules in order to try and remove criticism of primal therapy and janov's theory. Criticizing Janov's theory or even pointig out inconsistencies or contradictions is not personally derogatory to a living person, and is an expected consequence of inventing a theory and submitting it to the scientific community or by calling it science. The discussed website (debunking primal therapy) link is not derogatory realy, and the violation of BLP is stretching the interpretation too far and is subjective. I'm glad there is some consensus that the link should not be deleted, however I don't agree that a small proportion of the site is unsuitable (as an external link). It seems relevant and if you think deeply enough about it, everything on there comments on primal therapy efficacy or primal theory, and is not meant to personally atack any person or persons. I submit that one of the main reasons why the initial request for removal (it was grahameking who removed it) was really due to the websites comprehensive criticism of primal therapy, and the biography of living persons argument was the vehicle used (incorrectly in my view) to affect that deletion of criticism. Aussiewikilady (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

    Arthur Janov and others

    A question was raised above at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Primal_Therapy regarding the appropriateness of this external link under BLP policy. This subpage includes unverifiable contentious claims regarding living persons. I have opined above in response to the question that I feel its inclusion is inappropriate, as BLP requires that ELs be fully compliant with WP:EL, which states that "material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links". The link is offered as a source or an EL in each of the above articles. I would appreciate feedback from others as to whether it presents a significant enough issue as regards BLP to warrant immediate removal, particularly as one of those articles is protected against edit warring. Pretty please and thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

    Still hoping for feedback on this. I'm considering asking at the help desk. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    on the narrow question of including the subpage, or maybe even the main debunkingprimaltherapy.com page, I'll say no it shouldn't be included because it is not a well-known reliable source. However it does seem to have a wealth of reliable source linked to.
    There is a question on a talk page about whether Discover Magazine is a reliable source. While it certainly is not a scientific journal, for purposes here it should be considered a reliable source. Being a scientific journal is not a requirement for being a reliable source - even for scientific topics.
    My main comment is that this is probably best handled under WP:fringe. There is a question of whether Primal therapy is psuedoscience. It looks like some editors are SPEs. I've listed Primal Therapy at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism, but not sure that this is the best place. The main issue should be in deciding whether Primal therapy is psuedoscience. From there, the rest should take care of itself. Smallbones (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    Thank you so much for your response and for listing the Primal therapy article in a good place for further review. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    Bear in mind that this is an attempt by moonriddengirl to remove criticisms of primal therapy or arthur janov from wiki, by using bogus arguments and labelling sourced criticism as libel, even when it is far from it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonbalance (talk • contribs) 05:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    I remind you again to be civil and assume good faith. Given your contribution history, it's obvious that you have strong feelings about Janov and primal therapy. Conversely, my contribution history rather suggests I don't. Not everyone who disagrees with you about the appropriateness of this source is part of a conspiracy. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    It was not a personal attack. I was trying to alert people to the fact that it appears that in the past the editing of primal therapy has been compromized by editors with an obvious stake in primal therapy. If you look back in detail at grahame kings edits, you will see a pattern. Not only has grahame king done that, but he/she also started the ridiculous argument that debunkingprimaltherapy wa libelous or didn't mean BLP, which is a bogus argument but one that influenced a few people who didn't take the time to look up 'libel'. In fact it is a sourced critical website that grahame king wanted an excuse to remove. It would be a tragedy if it was removed, and due to idependence, it may well be a more accurate assessment of primal therapy than Janov's himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonbalance (talk • contribs) 21:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    <reset indent>The requirements of WP:BLP are a bit more stringent than the requirements of libel. As I mentioned above, I believe the source is inappropriate because it does not meet the requirements of sourcing at the verifiability policy. BLP requires that all ELs comply with WP:EL, which states that "material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links". (For Wikipedia's definition of questionable sources, see here.) This website in particular is self-published, and as WP:V notes, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable". (There is a footnote at that policy setting out the exceptions; this is not one of them). This website clearly does not meet the requirements of WP:V; however, User:DGG did not feel that the specific subpage represented a serious enough concern to warrant immediate removal under WP:BLP. Lacking clear consensus that it violates BLP, its removal is no longer imperative. I stand by the suggestion offered above (where you called me "destructive", though I suppose there's some consolation in being also "clever") that the editors who want this material included should seek sources that do qualify. It seems like, if the material in it is accurate, that there should be plenty. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    Hello, I don't want to get involved in the personal arguments of the previous contributors. What I do want to comment upon is that the mentioned site debunking primal therapy seems to crticize the therapy and theory, and is not derogatory to any living persons. Although some of the content of the website in question would not be appropriate to quote in great length directly on the wiki page (although some of it could), it does not actually violate wiki BLP rules for external links. The argument that it violates BLP rules is very subjective and open to interpretation. I think the links should be allowed to stay. Compare with the scientology wiki entry (where criticisms are also found) and compare with other pseudosciences wiki entries. Primal Therapy is a widely criticized mode of treatment that is seen as invalid in the field of psychological science, and in fact is rarely mentioned in the field except for examples of pseudoscience (in the same way scientology auditing is rarely mentioned in said literature). the website mentioned does not go into Arthur Janov's biography and focuses on criticizing the treatment which sometimes involves discussing outcomes that directly shine light on contradictions to the theory, it also discusses some contradictions that are essential to the argument but that may seem contentious to those uneducated in the subject but is actually important evidence. Whatever is mentioned on the site seems to be relevant to primal therapies efficacy, and is never just mentioned to personally attack anybody. I'll go into more detail if somebody disagrees with this and they still think the link should be removed. Aussiewikilady (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

    Matt Sanchez

    Resolved.

    This article needs a good hard look at it, due to possible non-neutral point of view sources, undue weight, and BLP violations. The result of a recent AfD on this article was that the subject had satisfied the notability criteria for membership, but there were numerous expressed concerns about the article and possible BLP violations. Could everyone give this the proverbial once-over (if not three or four times over) to determine what needs to be in the article, what is superfluous to the article, and what needs to be relentlessly scourged from the article? ArbCom member FT2 stated that this board would be able to effect any changes needed to comply with BLP, even though the article is part of a case currently before ArbCom. Link to diff. Thanks. SirFozzie (talk) 06:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

    Can you clarify your perception that each individual source must itself be neutral or rather, is our mission that *our* complete articles remain neutral? That is, can we not cite two contradictory sources to show that a conflict of opinion of fact exists. Or is your point that no conflicts can appear within a living biography? Thanks. Wjhonson (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    Many editors now closely monitoring the article and Arbcom case as yet in process. Benjiboi 10:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

    Amy Macdonald - false info

    Someone is repeatedly trying to add a section to Amy Macdonald(singer) wikipedia page. The section 'controversy' has been removed by many various times as the information is poorly sourced and reflects badly on Amy Macdonald.


    Could you ensure that this section is never added again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.134.65 (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

    The information is solidly cited by a national newspaper article. So is neither false or poorly sourced. The only possible problem I can see with it would be its notability and the slight exaggeration in heading it "Controversy". --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

    Don Black

    Minor vandalism adding dubious claims with unverifiable refs. Likely a sock or troll of some sort. If other could watchlist, please do. Benjiboi 04:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

    I imagine you mean Don Black (white nationalist). The other Don Blacks seem quite peaceful at the moment. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    Correct. sorry about that. Benjiboi 23:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

    Samantha Bee

    Several edits like this Diff have been made by different editors tonight I removed it twice suggesting that a written references was required for BLP. Please give me a reality check. Jeepday (talk) 04:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

    I don't know what the policy is on the Daily Show as a news source, but would we cite something like NBC's Nightly News as a source on something? If so, then the specific episode (airdate, etc) could be cited as a source. I can find one blog that confirms that she did announce it on the show, but that's a blog. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    If the person herself uttered the statement then I would consider writing "on January 30, 2008 Bee announced _____ on The Daily Show." Benjiboi 23:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

    Jimmy Page

    Pistolpierre (talk · contribs) who has numerous blocks for trolling/soapboxing and edit warring has been re-adding WP:BLP vio accusations on the article for Jimmy Page. He keeps labelling Page as a pedophile because he dated a fourteen year old girl. His relationship with the girl is already mentioned in the article. It's a well documented fact. But another well documented fact is that Page has never ever been charged... or so much as questioned about his relationship with Maddox. Pistolpierre is persistently re-adding his POV skewed content(he is up to 6 or 7 reverts by now) and labelling a living person with a crime that the living person was never charged for. He is also trying to add original research that Page wearing a Nazi General's hat during a single performance in Chicago has some sort of derogatory hidden meaning or implication about the artist. He wore a hat. He was pictured wearing the hat. But the fact is... beyond that simple fact... 'he wore a hat'... there is no verifiable evil misdoing that Pistolpierre keeps trying to imply. 142.167.87.205 (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

    I have protected the Jimmy Page (it expires 00:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)) to prevent further edits by either party. I have left a message on Pistolpierre's talk page noting the previous blocks, asking him to read over Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and consider if he is being genuinely Neutral.--Alf melmac 22:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

    Unreliable BLP sources and libelous reports on joss stones page

    hello

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

    it says at the top of the talk page of joss stone's Biographies of living persons page that no libelous things to be posted and report any if people see some, 'the brit awards' section really has nothing to do with the biography of someone which wikipedia is about this is the meaning of libel: a malicious publication printed for the purpose of defaming a living person. look up malicious and defaming if you don't understand, and i and many other people belivie this is and libelous thing i read the Biographies of living persons and i like it said their this is an encyclopedia not a tabloid paper and the things written down are from sources like gossip magazines and websites and tabloid papers and if you read the talk page for that acticle the users on their seem to gossip and things that have nothing to do with joss stones biography and carer information and are really personal and not actual facts nor are the comments on "the brits awards" awards section they and opinons of someone and is words badly.

    i did many times try to change it buy rewording it but it people keep changing it back so please can people thing about changing or removing it as it's really just peoples way of defaming her and on the talk page before it edited it people was gossiping about her and said things that sounded like they were writing that on the perpose of daming that person.

    thank you for reading and please send me message back or delete it or change to wording alease please thank you

    Please sign your posts by striking the tilde key four times. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

    Eddie Ho and Air France Flight 358

    User:Eddiehosa removed a paragraph discussing Eddie Ho's photography of the AF358 evacuation and the controversy surrounding taking photographs during an evacuation. See: Talk:Air_France_Flight_358#Eddie_Ho_and_the_picture_taking_controversy WhisperToMe (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

    I have suggested a compromise on the article talk page where we put the section back in but do not name the photographer. --RicDod (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)