Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Fred Newman Fred Newman (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Cberlet has been, for close to 2 months, incessantly been attemting to insert large chunks of his highly POV, politically motivated and obsucre article from 1987into Fred Newman. The article already has extensive and more than adequate amounts of criticisms included already, including reference to Berlet's writings. Yet Berlet incessantly tries to insert multiple paragraphs from his own largely unknown work into the article, and refusing all that time to address numerous issues about his work, which he feels he has a right to include without needing to discuss with other editors. And despite countless requests, he continually uses the derogatory phrase "Newmanite cult" in the talk pages and in edit summaries. BabyDweezil 04:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a fantastic misrepresentation of what is a lengthy campaign of apologia by BabyDweezil, who has refused formal mediation, to delete any serious mention of the copious published criticism of Fred Newman as a cult leader, among other claims. I welcome intervention.--Cberlet 15:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Interested parties are invited and encouraged to peruse Fred Newman and assess the amount of criticism currently included in the article, including references to Berlet. The most recent attempt to violate WP:BLP was Cberlet inserting three paragraphs from a 20-year-old letter to the editor in a defunct obscure magazine.
The title of the source Cberlet continually attempts to include substantial sections of is "Institutes for Social Therapy and Totalitarian Cultism." The term "Totalitarian Cultism" is an invention of Berlet's, and will not be found anywhere in social scientific literature outside of Berlet's employer, Political Research Associates and a handful of fringe web writers. As such it is original fringe research with no standing in the academic community, and not acceptable per WP:BLP despite it's being "published" on the highly politically partisan PRA website. BabyDweezil 16:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
We note the criticism, and identify and cite the critics. It is presented as one part of a balanced account. I do not see a blp problem here. Tom Harrison Talk 17:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Per WP:BLP, as it applies to this source:
Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject.
This completely applies to the quotes from Berlet's partisan and obscure "publication.BabyDweezil 17:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I do not see how. Political Research Associates is not obscure, the material is not published without editorial oversight, and they are no more partisan than National Public Radio. Publiceye.org is routinely cited as a reliable source for material within their research expertise. Tom Harrison Talk 17:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Show me a source in the literature on therapeutic modalities--(a journal article, a statement from APA etc) that cites Chip Berlet and/or his claims in a discussion of Newman. The only mention to be found anywhere in the scholarly literature is in a review of a Newman book (Nissen M et al Theory & Psychology, Vol. 9, No. 3, 417-426 (1999) where the Berlet report is mentioned and dismissed. Berlet's "expertise" is self-proclaimed, and not recognized with respect to Newman. His terminology ("totalitarian cultism") is invented, and has no corroboration in sociological or psychological literature. Please show me a countervailing view if you have one. Likewise, the so-called "editorial oversight" of PRA is self-proclaimed as well, and partisan. It is not suitable as an encyclopedia article. BabyDweezil 17:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is about Fred Newman, not therapeutic modalities. I do not see why criticism may only be included if it comes from a critic on some approved list. Beyond that, you are no more likely to be persuaded by repeated assertion than I am, so I see no point in simply contradicting each other. Tom Harrison Talk 18:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia seems far more enthralled with Chip Berlet than the world at large. Oh well, the old one eyed man is king sorta thing I suppose....BabyDweezil 19:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Kerry Bolton Kerry Bolton (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

  • Kerry Bolton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - The subject is a New Zealander who may have been a proponent of occultism/satanism, fascism, and Holocaust revisionism. We need help fleshing out this article with proper sources and neutral POV. The subject has complained repeatedly about the contents, so it's been reduced to a near stub. There are reliable sources available including substantial references in two books. -Will Beback · † · 03:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe a near stub is all that is needed. Is he all that important? It sounds to me that the only thing notable about him are his shocking opinions. Steve Dufour 08:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
If we don't include the shocking opinions the there's reason for the article at all. Omitting his chief notability unbalances the article. -Will Beback · † · 06:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. What I meant to say is that all we need to say is that he is a person with such and such opinions and include links where his opinions can be read and others where they are discussed and criticized. The near-stub article does this. Steve Dufour 16:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
BTW one of his shocking opinions is that Hitler was too democratic.Steve Dufour 17:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The current stub does not include reference to his most notable opinions, and for some reason the bibliography of his books has been deleted too. It also fails to mention the various organizations that he's been associated with or started.
The reason I posted this notice is to help decide which sources are sufficiently reliable to document his biography and opinions. -Will Beback · † · 19:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I found that the links gave me a pretty good picture of where he is at. I agree that a bibliography of his writings would be in order, without taking out the links to the critical articles of course. Steve Dufour 17:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
We shouldn't expect readers to view all of the external links in order to get the basic information. -Will Beback · † · 17:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
To me it seems that the basic info about Mr. Bolton is that he lives in New Zealand and has some really "out-there" opinions. If I want to read his opinions the links are there for me to follow. Steve Dufour 06:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Mark Rathbun (1) Mark Rathbun (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Mark Rathbun was a top official in the Church of Scientology. Now it seems he has become a "non-person". I think he is notable enough. However about half of his article is taken up by someone's conspiracy theories about him. Steve Dufour 08:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Landmark Education Landmark Education (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Describe the dispute using the following format:

Adminstrator William Connelley referred me to this section BLP for an organization "Landmark Education" as BLP is supposed to handle organizations as well. One of the sources used for a major negative, defamatory statement is a forgery. Here is the quote first from Admin William Connolley:

I think the crucial point here is the apparent forging by the AmPats. And I don't understand what Sme is doing by adding *both*. The fact that the official one doesn't have Landmark Education suggests at best that Smeelgova hasn't read it. Adding the non-official AmPats, which is near identical apart from the (presumably deliberate) false insertion of Landmark Education, only makes sense if Smeelgova is aware of the difference. In fact I can't think of a way to interpret this that makes sense os Smeelgova's behaviour - you may have a case for complaint William M. Connolley 22:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The article on Landmark Education has a section on a classification by the government of Austria of Landmark Education being a cult/sect. The section gives two references: one from the web site of the US State Department and one from American Patriots (an unoffical site with advertisting on it). Both sites purport to have the same "status of religious freedom in Austria 2006" report, and they differ by two words: "Landmark Education." Request: I request that you redact the whole section on Austria labelling Landmark Education a cult. Sm1969 04:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is the statement in the Landmark Education article, together with the real US State Department reference and the forgery: In 2006 the government of Austria listed Landmark Education as a Sekte (cult), along with the Church of Scientology, the Unification Church, and other groups:

The vast majority of groups termed "sects" by the Government were small organizations with fewer than 100 members. Among the larger groups was the Church of Scientology, with between 5,000 and 6,000 members, and the Unification Church, with approximately 700 adherents throughout the country. Other groups found in the country included Divine Light Mission, Eckankar, Hare Krishna, the Holosophic community, the Osho movement, Sahaja Yoga, Sai Baba, Sri Chinmoy, Transcendental Meditation, Landmark Education, the Center for Experimental Society Formation, Fiat Lux, Universal Life, and The Family. [1]

Also note that not only has User:Smeelgova re-added this forged-source report, but also put termed "sects" by the Government and Landmark Education in bold. Smeelgova has repeatedly re-added this redacted material, even after being warned of the forgery. Sm1969 04:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Tried to check: the American Patriots version doesn't seem to be a forgery; in fact, the official German language version of the same US government report, hosted by the US Embassy in Vienna, agrees with it and lists the group. ([2]). Also, here is the original German text of an earlier version of the Austrian government's report, the Sektenbroschüre of 1999: [3]. It lists Landmark Education under "Psychogruppen" (psycho groups) - Other sources: The Roman Catholic church in Austria lists it as a "Psycho-cult" ([4]). Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC) [That's just Oberoesstereich, not all of Austria.] and it comes with a warning as well: Der Begriff "Psychokulte" wurde ursprünglich geprägt, um Gruppen zu kennzeichnen, deren hauptsächliche Wirkung in der Veränderung der menschlichen Psyche besteht. Diese Definition läßt trotzdem keine klare Einordnung von Gruppen unter dem Begriff zu.
I guess then there are several things here. First it is possible that Landmark Education wrote to the US State Department to redact the material becuase LE *never* had operations in Austria. There is a world of difference between being a "Psychogruppe" and a "Sekte." Further, even the Vienna Embassy version merely states that it is an "other group" not a "Sekte." Sm1969 10:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
There were court hearings on the subject in Germany where a similar Senate committee was forced to retract the position that Landmark Educaiton espoused a world view. Sm1969 11:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The other thing I noticed is that: A) This is a publication of the US government, not Austria. B) The German language version of it does have Landmark Education, whereas the English language version of the exact same report does *NOT* have Landmark Education. My guess is that Landmark Education wrote to the US government to remove Landmark Education and only took into account the English-language version. In any event, I don't see any source that Austria ever called it a "Sekte", but a "Psychogruppe." Sm1969 11:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Please note that this is not a "forged report", that is an assumption made by User:Sm1969. In fact, please see the User:Will Beback's comment at [5], and also please see the International Religious Freedom Report 2005, in which Landmark Education is actually termed a "sect". Yours, Smeelgova 21:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC).

Sergei Kovalev Sergei Kovalev (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Could you please take a look at the article about Sergei Kovalev including Discussion of the article? A group of Russian users started making libelious and unjustified claims (the "Critique" section) about him and other people from Moscow Helsinki Group who are trying to protect human rights in Russia. All references provided by these people can be found only in unreliable sources that were not translated to English. I tried my best to accomodate some of their concerns and follow NPOV policy. But it seems to make them only more angry. When I tried to incorporate an alternative reliable reference to Dr. Baiev, they simply deleted it. What would you suggest? I am a new person in Wikipedia. That was a fair article just a couple of days ago, in my opinion. Biophys 21:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Aysel Sengün Aysel Sengün (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

  • Aysel Sengün (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - about a Turkish-German woman who dated one of the 9/11 hijackers and had to testify in a related trial. Given the sensitivity of the topic, the fact that the person involved has had to go into witness protection, and the corresponding fact that the article has absolutely zero prospects for future development, I thought a redirect was the best solution. Unfortunately, the author is rather attached to having the article in its current form. --Michael Snow 17:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this article is one of the worst things I yet seen here on Wikipedia. What is the purpose? The poor girl's life could very well be endangered, as well as the lives of her family. And for what? Someone's "right to know"? Steve Dufour 18:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Barbara Schwarz (2) Barbara Schwarz (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Barbara Schwarz is the subject of her own article, against her wishes, and is also featured in the article on Mark Rathbun. On the talk page of her article one of the regular editors there wrote to me: If you are genuinely "someone [who] cares about her", then recommending a course of psychotherapy by a qualified and licensed practitioner would appear to be a more practical extention of this sentiment than quibbling over words in an article you say "has almost no importance." If this is true do you think that a person in need of psychiatric care should be the subject of a Wikipedia article? Thanks. Steve Dufour 17:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Not again. Barbara Schwarz has been discussed here before. Plus, if you have to delete people who need mental help, we would have to delete El Presidente George Bush too. :-) --Tilman 18:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to keep discussing her. You do not have to however. Wishing you well. Steve Dufour 18:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Her psychiatric condition should have no bearing on the matter. I could easily compile a list of Wikipedia articles about mentally ill (or allegedly mentally ill) persons. However, I do think that it should be tightened up - for instance, is reference #3 supposed to account for the claim that "She says she lived in a submarine village beneath Great Salt Lake as a young child until she was kidnapped and taken into Germany at age 4 by Nazi agents"? It's unclear from the article, and the link goes to a newsbank article that can't be directly accessed. wikipediatrix 18:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I still have a problem with an article whose main purpose seems to be to make fun of someone's alleged mental illness. Steve Dufour 16:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't get the impression from the article that it's making fun of her at all. What specific sentences are you referring to? wikipediatrix 16:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
How about the one about the underwater submarine base? Steve Dufour 05:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC) p.s. If you are not making fun what are you trying to do?
The article makes no evaluation of that statement. However, it is a fact that she publicly claimed to have lived her childhood in an underwater submarine base. Readers may or may not agree with this. Some may think this is funny. Some won't. --Tilman 07:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I still don't see why she is important enough to have her own WP article. Steve Dufour 08:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
You know very well that this "argument" of yours has been discussed several times already. You're wasting people's time by bringing it up again and again and again and again. --Tilman 18:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
You have the right to ignore what I say all you like. I'm sure the vast majority of people here already are. Wishing you well as always. the real Steve Dufour 03:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Georgina Beyer Georgina Beyer (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Georgina Beyer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Not a dispute, just something worth looking into. She holds public office in New Zealand. The article gives no references as such, but following up one of its external links I confirm that her own official web site caller her a "transsexual and former sex-worker". It doesn't specifically say "prostitute", though (as does our article), and "sex-worker" can cover a lot of ground. Someone may want to look into this one in terms of improving citation. - Jmabel | Talk 04:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Jack Schaap Jack Schaap (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Asking admin to look at this page - there are about 5 entries citing his book (note, the link is dead/invalid) that appear to be an attack. I know nothing about him, but hestiate to do rollbacks, as appears to be a protruded attack "war" going on between several users. SkierRMH 04:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I discussed this issue today with the editor who is adding them. I have found off-wikipedia verification that the quotes, though weird theology, are accurate quotes from the book in question. I would suggest, though, that the article should be expanded as it currently gives undue weight to the individual's sexual philosophy. This same user was adding essentially the same paragraph to other articles, for example, Independent Baptist and Eucharist. I have explained to him that WP:NPOV says that we should not give undue weight to minority viewpoints and he has read the policy and agreed. BigDT 04:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I've got this one on my watchlist. Schaap is an "interesting" character, there's a lot of history here some of it related to the Gastroturfing arbitration. I'll have a look-see. Guy (Help!) 10:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Mwai Kibaki Mwai Kibaki (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Mwai Kibaki (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) has already been listed here but received no response. An anonymous user 160.83.64.83 (talk · contribs), Patch77 (talk · contribs) and various other IP addresses (possibly all the same person, but that doesn't really matter) have been claiming that the article is biased against its subject and have been repeatedly removing content from it. I don't think that it is and neither do various other editors who have reverted. There was some discussion early on in the process, but that has now ended with neither party managing to persuade the other. All that is happening now is one paragraph (reporting on recent media revelations of a secnd wife, I think in a NPOV manner) being repeatedly removed and then reverted. The user has been warned but I'd like someone else to take a look at it to make sure I'm not completely wrong here. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 14:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: An editor is now discussing the possibility of taking legal action over the article. --Cherry blossom tree 17:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Legal threats are to be reported on WP:ANI for immediate action. (→Netscott) 17:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I've pointed out the policy and suggested dispute resolution. I'll wait to see what the response is before looking for any immediate action. --Cherry blossom tree 17:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Just had a look at this: The mention of the "second wife rumour" is suitably sourced and is not, in my opinion, given undue weight. — Matt Crypto 18:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. --Cherry blossom tree 22:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Michael Richards Michael Richards (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Depending on the edit of the moment, the section dealing with Richards' recent onstage racist remarks is longer than the rest of the article, completely ignoring concerns about "undue weight", as well as often being copyright-violation cut-and-pastes of the entire transcript. I recommend the article be completely locked until the throng of editors gleefully eager to overdetail every single nuance of this issue calm down. wikipediatrix 01:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is definitely suffering from recentism. I wouldn't be quick to lock it up though. That said some extra eyes on it in light of BLP would do much good. (→Netscott) 02:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Possible POV - if I've interpreted that correctly. I don't know if the people reading this are familiar with the Richards' controversy going on right now. Today (Wednesday), Richards hired a publicist who announced that Richards is Jewish after Richards was accused of making anti-Semitic comments as well as racist ones. On the other hand, The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles wrote an article specifically on that Richards is not Jewish. Since this is becoming frequently reported on in the media, I added that Richards' publicist says he is, and the Journal says he isn't. According to our article on the Jewish Journal, it's a reliable source, yet an editor claims it is not and keeps removing the bit about what the Journal said, leaving only what the publicist said. I think it's a clear case of conflicting cases and both should be put it in (i.e. this version). Am I right or does anyone have an opinion on the matter? Mad Jack 08:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Moshe Levinger Moshe Levinger (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Moshe Levinger (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Levinger only sat 2 months in jail and therefore IMO shouldn't be in the category Category:Israeli criminals. He also had a plea bargain only and on negligence, which lacks the mens rea IMO. Too much undue weight too on the incident - the person is known as a rabbi, teacher, pioneer, politican and many more aspects in life. Amoruso 20:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC) 20:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Jello Biafra Jello Biafra (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

We have something on our hands that appears to be a legal threat. This has sat unremarked for several days, I just noticed it. - Jmabel | Talk 20:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

S. M. Stirling S. M. Stirling (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

A couple of anonymous users and a newly-created account keep re-adding blatantly libelous material to this science-fiction author's biography, claiming that he expressed 'virulent hatred' of Muslims under an alleged Internet pseudonym, and that 'many readers' believe he likes to 'gratuitously insult' Muslims in his books (among other derogatory accusations). Needless to say, there is no sourcing for any of these allegations. I'm requesting that a few people add this low-traffic page to their watch list to help. - Merzbow 23:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

as the person libelled by user:Merzbow above, I feel it appropriate to respond that the comments were posted in a section entitled "Criticism" which is wholly appropriate. I editted them a short time ago so as to express a more neutral POV. As these are major criticisms of Stirling's work that reccur frequently, they are appropriate for a section titled criticism, IMHO. Unless these biographies are meant to be panegyrics or press releases? If Merzbow continues his libels against myself and his vandalism of this page, I would request he be banned from further tampering and libel. --Stampcollector 00:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
None of these criticisms are sourced. Thus removal is appropriate. Libel against you is not as big a concern here as libel against Stirling. --C S (Talk) 02:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your request to ban Merzbow, keep re-adding unsourced libelous statements and you will be banned. Policy is very clear on this. Read WP:BLP, particularly WP:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_controversial_material. --C S (Talk) 02:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Allcriticisms of Stirling have been removed. Is your intention to only have puff pieces?--Stampcollector 02:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed all unsourced potentially libelous statements. Do you know why? If not, please follow the links above. --C S (Talk) 02:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Steven Pinker Steven Pinker (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Steven Pinker contains lots of personal information which is irrelevant to the article. While this material is sourced, it repeatedly mentions his multiple ex-wives names as well as the names and occupations of other family members. This seems like a violation of WP:BIO: in favor of privacy and simply poor judgement, and poor taste. WP is not a gossip magazine. Various users (at least 3) have tried to remove this information yet user Mikkerprikker insists on adding it again, accusing the users of vandalism. KAdler 01:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba Sathya Sai Baba (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Alleged by user:SSS108 violation of prescribed writing style. Other editor (user:Andries) prefers to stay close to the source to avoid inaccuracies and to avoid omitting relevant information. Here is the diff [13] Andries 11:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, violation of WP:BLP#Writing_style. Andries is the former webmaster for the largest Anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba website on the internet and is trying to make the Sathya Sai Baba article into an "expose", not an encyclopedic article. SSS108 talk-email 07:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. You are removing well-sourced information that is relevant to the person's notability. I will revert. Andries 11:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
May be the following rewording is acceptable to all parties
The journalist Sacha Kester wrote in 2003 an article in the Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant about spiritual seekers who go to India to find a guru. In that article Kester wrote that SSB is a good example of a guru who is a swindler. Kester further wrote in the article that "the sorrow of those who after years of devotion saw through his deception is indescribable. The jewels and watches that he materializes are hidden in his chair. Followers who make large donation are given preferential treatment. He advises ill people not to take their medicine." She further wrote that he "invites good looking young boys for a private interview" and explicitly described SSB's sexual habits with these boys. (source de Volkskrant 7 Jan. 2003 Ticket naar Nirvana/Ticket to Nirvana)
Andries 19:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

William Dalrymple (historian) William Dalrymple (historian) (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

In repose to OTRS complaints, I've three times removed sections from this article for WP:BLP reasons. It is pretty clear that editors with agendas are editing this page in partisan ways. After the first removal, I warned one user, and when he reinserted basically the same material, we had this conversation [14]. When the section was replaced as a 'from the critics' title, bt another users, I protected the article. I have no personal knowledge of, or interest in, the subject, so if anyone wants to try wo work this our with the parties I'd be obliged.--Docg 15:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Natalie Merchant Natalie Merchant (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Natalie Merchant (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - long lasting (6-7 months) edit war. The article informs the name of the artist's husband as well as her children, citing an interview, but an anonymous IP continues reverting. As the IP modifies the article once or twice per day (games with the system?) it is not possible to block it for long periods. -- ReyBrujo 19:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Desmond Tutu Desmond Tutu (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Desmond Tutu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - there are some citations at the end of this page which appear to be distortions of Tutu's actual comments, and which portray him in an unfair light. Please review my comments on the talk page ("more questions for CJ" and "more comments for CJ"). I'm half-inclined to delete the contentious references myself, except that I've already made three reverts on the page today. CJCurrie 03:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Steve Yzerman Steve Yzerman (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Steve Yzerman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - someone keeps adding "Tsakmakas" to Yzerman's name at the top of the article. The source of the edits appears to come from different IP addresses. I have removed Tsakmakas three times already, and each time it is added back. There is no verifiable source to show that Tsakmakas is indeed part of Yzerman's name. If someone can come up with a credible source that says his full name includes Tsakmakas I will of course not edit it out any longer. However, as a 20+ year fan of Yzerman's, I have yet to see that name mentioned anywhere. This Wiki article is the first I've seen it. I am concerned this is going to develop into an edit war and would like it settled before it does. AuntieNancy19 19:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Leonid Nevzlin Leonid Nevzlin (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Leonid Nevzlin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs): I suspect that what is here is essentially accurate, so someone may want to improve sourcing rather than remove material, but blind external link from our text to a page on the subscription site of the Moscow Times is a pretty weak citation for an accusation of criminality. - Jmabel | Talk 22:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

this should be a good enough source for the allegations, although it doesn't report the later extradition request. Morwen - Talk 19:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Viktor Kožený Viktor Kožený (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

As above, I don't doubt that what's here is true, but I don't like it either. Because of that, however, I don't want to just wipe it out and say "...was a Czech", or something. Help? 68.39.174.238 00:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh Rush Limbaugh (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Rush Limbaugh (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) User:Caper13 and User:Dual Freq are repeatedly editing sourced sections that they admit they have not read the sources for. As can be expected, the sections now attribute misinformation to sources that those sources do not say. For example, they have removed information sourced to the Boston Globe, and then inserted their own points of view in its place to make it appear that the Boston Globe is reporting their own opinions. This seems grossly unfair to any reader who would actually come here looking for accurate information, let alone to the public figure and the newspaper. My attempts to remove such misinformation and misattribution have been greeted with threats of blocking over 3RR rules. They are also removing any sourced information that does not conform to their point of view, claiming that the sole purpose of the article is document "achievements" and any source they don't like (including prominent critics like Richard Roeper) are so biased that their reporting of basic facts can't be used. WillyWonty 04:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Gérard Royal Gérard Royal (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Brother of a French presidential candidat, Ségolène Royal. It is written that he is an "accused terrorist bomber". Is it a libel ? 193.56.37.1 13:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

As the article explains, his brother has claimed he admitted to planting the bombs in the Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior. This claim is made in a reliable source which we mention. This is widely considered a terrorist attack in New Zealand, and was apparently even labelled as such by France. As such, accused terrorist bomber is probably a fair label Nil Einne 19:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)~
There has been no justice action or indictement whatsoever, in France, New Zealand or anywhere else, therefore the term "accused" is libelous, you just have unsourced hearsay.Hektor 19:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
You don't need an indiciment to be accused of something. As per the discussion in the talk page, I feel the current wording is more informative so won't be chaning it but this doesn't mean I think it was wrong to label him an accused terrorist. If someone has been accused by a reliable source of commiting a crime, by definition he is accused of the crime. In this case, there is no doubt he has been accused by his brother of being the bomber. There is little doubt that the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior is considered a terrorist attack. Hence someone accused of being involved in it, would be an accused terrorist. You are perhaps confusing the difference between the legal term (I believe accused has a specific meaning in the legal sense) and the word. You might want to take a look at other articles like Category:Journalists accused of fabrication or plagiarism and Category:Wrongly accused terrorism suspects. In many of these cases, AFAIK no indicement or legal proceedings were ever carried out. In the latter for example, in many cases, these people were never prosecuted or indicited, simply held at Guantanomo and then released Nil Einne 11:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the goal of this policy is to protect wikipedia. The way the article is written, I think Royal could sue wikipedia with good chances of success. Hektor 13:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Kurt Nimmo Kurt Nimmo (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Delicious edits like this one. "Multiple" users repeatedly restore that version, frequently using the summary "reverse vandalism". 130.214.17.20 14:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Have reverted, left note. Morwen - Talk 19:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The BLP-violating version was reverted to again by the person I left a note to, with no attempt at explanation. I have reverted. Can people please keep an eye on this? Morwen - Talk 23:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I reinforced your note to the user. It's on my watchlist now. That user just registered a few days ago, and has only edited that article, all edits being of the same nature. Crockspot 00:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it is likely that User:Kevin9, User:Janissary3 and User:Randicity are all the same people. Semi-protection doesn't seem to be an option. Does this need full protection yet? Morwen - Talk 09:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
User:Janissary3 reverted again, after my final warning. He is now indef blocked. Morwen - Talk 13:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I have had to protect this page. Morwen - Talk 18:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Good call. Maybe do a chkuser and mark all the socks too. Crockspot 19:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Danny DeVito Danny DeVito (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

This article could use some extra eyes for the next week or so. He appeared on The View today in supposedly an inebriated state and now anon IPs are starting to have a field day. (→Netscott) 02:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Morris R. Jeppson Morris R. Jeppson (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

  • Morris R. Jeppson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Unsourced allegations of theft (as opposed to legally acquiring a souvenir) being repeatedly added by a new user, sometime also adding Category:Famous thieves. I can't revert again without violating 3RR. // Vary | Talk 08:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
It's certainly good to ask other editors to get involved, but 3RR doesn't apply in the case of reverting unsourced negative information. (Nor in the case of clear vandalism, which this is not, but I add for the sake of completeness.) John Broughton | Talk 20:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

William A. Dembski William A. Dembski (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

I responded to this complaint, which was removed from this board. There appears to be legitimate concern about sourcing and relevance. A claim is being made that is sourced by blogs, and the blogs are being considered reliable, since they are "science blogs". Yet the material being sourced is your average run-of-the-mill blog ranting, not scientific information. I don't think this is proper, and I would like some others from this group to check it out and comment at Talk:William A. Dembski#BLP Noticeboard response. There is also a key issue of relevance, since the comments were not posted by the subject of the article, but by a moderator at his blog at a different blog, if I'm following right. Crockspot 16:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Restoring complaint. JoshuaZ makes a false assertion that it is libelious. The user only says it is "potentially libelious" DLH 21:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a poorly sourced quote (personal blogs quoting an obscure personal blog) of one of the moderators (DaveScot) of Dembski's blog. First of all why is a moderator of Dembski's blog being quoted in Dembski's autobiography when the moderator's quote wasn't even on Dembski's blog to begin with and did not represent any opinion of Dembski? Secondly, why are personal blogs quoting another personal blog allowed as a source? No one can even verify that the DaveScot moderating Dembski's blog is the same DaveScot who commented on the other blog. Anyone can use any name they want for a handle on blogspot blogs. It's the most poorly sourced quote I've ever seen on Wiki and it is a potentially libelous quote. The editor doing the insertion (FeloniusMonk) is adamantly opposed to removing it even though it violates Wiki rules of reliable sources and especially the rule about immediately removing potentially libelous material in living person biographies. 72.183.101.183 08:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: Now the editors are even removing my comments from the talk page to censor notification of their egregious guideline violations. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_A._Dembski&action=history 72.183.101.183 22:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Update 2: Now editor JosuahZ has blocked my usual IP and removed the above update so I can't even go through the BLP complaint procedure. How am I expected to proceed under these circumstances? 66.61.147.69 22:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I have removed most of the paragraph relating to DaveScot, and there appears to be agreement on the talk page that my justification for doing so is proper. Crockspot 21:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Feh. Spoke too soon. There is a little reverting going on, but an admin/regular editor to the article is backing me up. Crockspot 21:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
      • The reverting has halted, but I'm getting quite a bit if pressure. Feel free to pipe in... Crockspot 02:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Oprah Winfrey Oprah Winfrey (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

We’re having serious problem on the Oprah Winfrey board with editor user:David Fuchs. He seems determined to add the following libelous information about Oprah Winfrey:

Others see Oprah as too powerful, wielding too much influence in everything from what people wear to what people buy: appearing on her show can bring greater financial success to the item, as evidenced by several books such as A Million Little Pieces (see Oprah Book Club above). Others are disgusted that Oprah is considered for a Nobel Peace Price when she has done little but thrown "excess money at poor people." These factors and others have led to several anti-Oprah sites appearing.[2][3]

It’d be one thing if he had notable sources he could quote for his anti-Oprah rant, but instead all he provides for sources are anonymous anti-Oprah web pages (which he may have created himself & is trying to use wikipedia to advertise) and a student article. It’s my understanding that the references one is required to cite in order to justify trashing a living person should be much higher. I cite the following from Wikipedia’s living person policy:

Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. In cases where the information is derogatory and poorly sourced or unsourced, this kind of edit is an exception to the three-revert rule. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.

Can someone please explain to him that this sort of thing is libelous and keep him away from this article. Timelist 20:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

André Boisclair André Boisclair (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

An anonymous user (IP=86.133.143.98 (talk · contribs)) keeps reverting the page to a previous version which contains libelous material. It also contains factual inaccuracies. I have discussed with the user on the Discussion page. However, he is absolutely certain that he is right. He is also obviously polarized against the political party (Parti Québécois) of which André Boisclair is the leader; thus, this user cannot provide a NPOV on the subject, and it shows. He has also reverted my latest version THREE TIMES, arguing that everything that he wrote is factually correct. His version also contains various typos. It also refers to an external article in the Globe and Mail; however, this article is editorial in nature, and contains information that had been later disproved. Be careful with this user, because he also tends to freely edit his previous entries on the discussion page. By the way, I have warned André Boisclair's politial team of the currently libelous article. Thanks. -- Hugo Dufort 05:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I reverted his latest edit back to your version. Some of the negative info he put in the article was not sourced at all, let alone reliabley sourced. Timelist 06:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I will keep updating the article, as the negative content still seems to outweight Mr Boisclair's achievements as an environment minister in the 1990s, and as a party leader in the 2000s. We must make sure we keep a NPOV and we also need to be respectful; this biography is still quite sketchy. -- Hugo Dufort 07:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The same user (IP=86.133.143.98 (talk · contribs)) has reverted the whole article on André Boisclair AGAIN. THIS MUST STOP. He also seems to be going on a crusade against the Cégep network of colleges (which he insists on calling "secondary schools"), as he is editing occurrences of this term in other biographies. See for instance Gilles Duceppe. -- Hugo Dufort 20:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Current content of the biography page:
- Boisclair being called a "party animal in Quebec City's night-life scene", which is unacceptable vocabulary in a Wikipedia article and could be considered libel (note: the fact that this statement was taken from a newpaper's editorial doesn't justify its presence in Wikipedia)
- emphasis on the fact (?) that Boisclair is a drop-out and doesn't have an undergraduate degree (a note about his Master's degree is buried further down on the page)
- focus on allegations (with link to editorial/opinion texts)
- lenghty discussions about purported scandals
- extensive coverage of criminal accusations against a member of Boisclair's team, despite the fact that Boisclair was never accusated ("guilty by association?" our anonymous wikipedian says so in the Discussion page)
- misleading entry about Boisclair being the leader of a "secondary school" students movement (it was at COLLEGE level)
- misleading entry about Boisclair "resigning" right after a financial scandal (in fact, he resigned because he wanted to takes a Master's degree course; the scandal happened years later)

What is missing from the biography page:
- anything about André Boisclair's achievements as a Minister of Environment
- a respectful coverage of André Boisclair's political life

THIS WHOLE ARTICLE IS FILLED WITH LIBEL.

This page has been built by somebody who publicly states that he dislikes André Boisclair and his political party. The man who wrote the page, and who personally controls the content, refuses any improvement, correction, or opinion that is contrary to his own, despite the fact that the new content I tried to add has reliable references. Instead of accepting the changes, the anonymous user simply REVERTS the whole page (he's done this at least FOUR TIMES with my changes) and then cherry-picks some minor modifications. -- Hugo Dufort 04:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced biographies of long-standing

{{unreferenced}} and a 'bot now classify unsourced articles by date. There are a significant number of biographies, including biographies of living persons, that have lacked sources for a year, now. I've ready found one article that has, sans sources, stated that someone is a war criminal for a year. Editors interested in addressing this should see Category:Articles lacking sources by month and its sub-categories. Uncle G 18:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That's an outrage. Even without knowing who the person is, I am disgusted that someone can be called a war criminal on wikipedia without a damn good source to back it up. There is far too much negative POV that gets into the bios of living people. Timelist 20:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)