Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive6

[edit] David A. Yeagley David A. Yeagley (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

We could use some help at David A. Yeagley, where at least two anon IPs have repeatedly blanked the entire article and substitute a "hatchet job" bio containing negative unsourced statements. It's been going on for some time now and has escalated to the point of edit warring. I have left messages on the discussion pages of the anons, but in vain; they refuse to use "discussion" or edit in good faith without blanking the original text.

The offending editors are 64.238.136.39 and 216.177.172.11, with very similar edits having also been made by User:Brent Michael Davids, User:Verity Truth, and 162.83.249.112. An IP check is probably in order due to possible sock puppet activity to avoid 3RR or repercussions on the registered user names.

Thanks in advance for your help, Badagnani 02:02 2 December 2006 (UTC)

129.115.102.13 has just joined in with the same behavior. Badagnani 22:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This report was almost four months ago. (For future reference, {{userlinks}} are more helpful than redlinks and user pages.) Edits in the following list refer to edits of the Yeagley article or its talk page):

• 162.83.249.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (last edit November 2006)
• 64.238.136.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (one edit November 2006)
• Brent Michael Davids (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (last edit November 2006)
• Verity Truth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (last edit November 2006)
• 129.115.102.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (last edit December 2006)
• 216.177.172.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (last edit 19 February 2007)

Although there are six user/IPs on this list, they are probably far fewer than six individual editors and may actually be one or perhaps two. All but the last (who is also Daveyperson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) with two edits only to 216.177.172.11 and User talk: 216.177.172.11 in December 2006) have stopped editing. The article is temporarily protected through the third week in March. Anything else for this board to do between now and then? — Athænara ✉ 10:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anne Milton Anne Milton (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Anne Milton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). A constituent, Tim Ireland, has an attack blog on Milton. This has been repeatedly reinserted and edit-warred over. As it stands there is a short para on coverage of the Ireland dispute in the press (fine by me) but the blog itself keeps creepong back in (not fine, per WP:EL, links to avoid). I have removed the link. Guy (Help!) 23:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• That's an WP:EL thing though, not a WP:BLP issue. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ilan Pappé Ilan Pappé (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Several new users, including User:RanceRol, User:RanceRot, and User:Greenran have been adding defamatory remarks to this article. They are clearly sockpuppets for banned User:Fumigate and his many other banned sockpuppets -- see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/IP_check#Fumigate and Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Szamuels. When one article is protected, this vandal apparently seeks another place to add his defamatory comments about both the subject of the article, and Roland Rance. Is there any way to prevent this continued harrassment and vandalism? RolandR 01:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] J. Edward Anderson (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

This article has been created by Ken Avidor. Ken Avidor is a known opponent (with few scruples) of Dr. Anderson's lifelong goals. I scanned the article and found at least one case of taking a quote out of context. The article focuses on local Minneapolis politics, which is not necessarily appropriate to a discussion of Dr. Anderson's achievements. In order to prevent a minor recurrence of the Siegenthaler incident I suggest a rigorous review of this article. Bob 04:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC) (moved from WP:AN, Patstuart^talk|edits 05:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC))

I saw this while lurking AN/I, and took a look. Not only does the article suffer from a number of mis- or non-contextualized ironic statements, which standing alone present the appearance of a man who changes his opinion on his life's work with the wind, but it also features a large amount of redundant linking, which initially served to look like there was a LOT of opposition to his ideas. I took a whack at cutting the fat, and contetualizing some of it, but one quote absolutely had to go. I have NEVER heard of this guy before, but it's clean there's a LOT of POV-pushing going on at that article. ThuranX 05:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to block someone for willful POV pushing by creating an article about their enemy? I know there was the famous case where Wikipedia had to block the whole House and Senate because people kept on defacing their opponents' pages. Patstuart^talk|edits 06:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a long (one year) history with Ken Avidor, both here (see Talk:Personal rapid transit/Avidor) and off-wiki. He is virulently against PRT, and he has ridiculed PRT proponents on his web pages and blogs ([1] [2]). He commonly refers to Anderson as a "PRTista" and the "wacky professor". His anti-PRT campaign is so famous and widespread among the PRT community that there are two blogs devoted to debunking Avidor's claims ([3] [4] - this one created by yours truly).

Having said all that, I've read the Anderson article and, compared to Avidor's typical work, it's actually not too bad. His opinions on this topic are so extreme that I honestly believe that this article is about as neutral as he is capable of producing on someone like Anderson. This is not to say the article is acceptable (ThuranX has already improved it significantly, and it still has a lot of issues), but rather, I don't think the POV pushing was necessarily "willful", or a sign of bad faith. I think it's entirely possible that this is his idea of neutral.

The question now is, will he fight changes to the article? He has already predicted (off-wiki) that "PRTistas (will) take a meat-axe to it...". So I think it would be best for those of us whom he views as proponents (User:Mr Grant, User:Dunning, and me) to avoid editing the article - maybe someone not associated with PRT can work on it instead? There's actually a lot of information there, and most of it seems pretty accurate, so it's really just a matter of toning it down.ATren 09:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Jeremy Ron Jeremy (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

This article contained many potentially libelous statements with no sources. I have removed everything but a single sentence so that properly sourced material can be added back. Frise 15:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Can I get this closed out? Article has since been fully rebuilt with properly sourced material for all statements. Tabercil 20:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Prem Rawat Criticism of Prem Rawat (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

One contributor (Gstaker (talk · contribs)) thinks that information sourced to an article in the Washington Post should be removed because he thinks the Washington Post is not a reliable source.

Another editor (Momento (talk · contribs)) asserts that allegations of anxiety and heavy drinking can only be made by a qualified doctor if not, as is the case in this article, the article, according to him, violates WP:BLP policy.

I disagree with the reasoning of these two contributors. Andries 00:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that we are citing quite selectively from that article. For example, the reporter describe some outrageous claims made against Prem Rawat by Mishler such as that he engaged in practices to "subdue the ego" that included "stripping devotees, pouring abrasive chemicals on their bodies, and into their mouths, administering drugs, having them beaten with a stick or thrown into swimming pools", that are obviously sensationalists lies (and that even the most staunch detractors will attest to these being lies). I would say that the reason why, whoever added that selective quote did not add the other sensationalist material, may because undoubtedly demonstrates the lack of credibility of these protagonists and of the source. As exceptional claims require exceptional evidence, one could argue that this one-only source is in this case a "poor source" as per WP:BLP. Also note that these sensationalist allegations were never described in any secondary sources, probably because of lack of credibility. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The claims that you classify are as exceptional are not in the entry nor does anyone currently wants to add them, so I think that your comments are irrelevant. I omitted adding that part of the Washtington Post article to the entry because I could find no corroboration, in contrast to the claims of heavy drinking. I cannot know whether the excerpts that you quote are sensationalist lies or not because I was not there, though again, I do not intend to add them to the entry. Andries 00:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Good original research, Andries. Selective quoting from one article, based on your presumption of lack of corroboration for the part you did not quote, but omitting the fact that there is lack of corroboration for the part you did include, is violating NOR and demonstrates a lack of good editorial judgment in assessing the reliability of a source. Any editor reading the whole quote will know that this is sensationalist BS and will avoiding touching that source in a BLP as being "poorly sourced". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

In contrast to what you state, there is corroboration of the heavy drinking allegation that I included both in reputable sources and non-reputable sources. For example in the book by Spohia Collier Soul Rush that is also used as a source for the article Prem Rawat. Andries 03:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, I do not know whether what is written is sensational bullshit and I do not know how to find out. Andries 03:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

(ed conflict)Sources, Andries, sources. An editor can make the assessment that as these extraordinary allegations are not reported in any other source, and given that there are hundreds of scholarly sources on the subject that do not mention any of that, these cab be assessed to be extraordinary claims that do not have the necessary support to be considered anything than a "poor source", in particular given the context in which these were made. As editors we have some responsibilities that we cannot skirt by playing the "I don't know" card. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

In contrast to what you write, there is not a single scholarly biography on Prem Rawat. In contrast a lot has been written about the related subejct Divine Light Mission. Of course, I can say write that I do not know when I really do not know and have no way to find out. Andries 04:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, please stop disingenously stating that there is no corroboration of the heavy drinking allegation. Apart from the already mentioned reputable source, somewhat doubtful or non-reputable sources for this are Dettmers statements, and Mishler radio interview. Andries 03:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your statement that I engage in Wikipedia:original research when I use my knowledge and my common sense to assess whether sources are reliable in a certain context. Assessing sources is the right and duty of contributors. Andries 04:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The source we are talking about describes the radio interview, so I do not understand what you are saying. There are no other sources corroborating any of these sensationalist claims. Who is the disingenuous here, Andries? Or is it that you believe that it is OK to selectively cite from an article based on an editors' presumptions based on "somewhat doubtful or non-reputable sources"? You may need to refresh your memory on WP:NOR and WP:V, Andries. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sophia Collier wrote in her book that Prem Rawat and his brother got slushed during Millenium '73. Andries 04:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, a 13 year old having some fun maybe?. But that is very different than saying that he "had tremendous problems of anxiety which he combatted with alcohol" alongside saying that he engaed in "stripping devotees, pouring abrasive chemicals on their bodies, and into their mouths, administering drugs, having them beaten with a stick or thrown into swimming pools", don't you think? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you please stop mentiong off-topic quotes? That latter quote is not in the article nor does anyone intend to add to the article. Andries 04:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Because if you did add the quotes that you selectively omitted, it will clearly destroy the credibility of the other statement and of the person that made them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you want me to add it? Andries 04:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

A thirteen year old having fun by drinking a lot of alcohol during an event that he himself described as the "most Holy and significant event in human history will take place in America." is not innocent. Andries 14:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is okay to quote selectively from a reputable source based on common sense, personal experience, corroboration form other reputable sources, or non-reputable sources etc. Again, assessing sources is the right and the duty of contributors. You can quote more from the article in the Washington Post if you think that I have omitted something important. Andries 04:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

No. Not OK, Andries, as per my arguments above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you please explain? I do not understand your reasoning. Andries 04:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I will try: The article describes the opinion of Misher, saying that in a radio interview he said that PR "had tremendous problems of anxiety which he combatted with alcohol". The same article describes him as saying that PR engaged in "stripping devotees, pouring abrasive chemicals on their bodies, and into their mouths, administering drugs, having them beaten with a stick or thrown into swimming pools". These explosive allegations are not mentioned in any other source besides this article. None of the scholarly sources describe these traits even these sources that containing highly critical material, such as these from your favorite Dutch scholars. So, as a responsible editor, and given this is a BLP, we can safely assert that this source does not meet the threshold for being a high quality reference: Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives, WP:BLP advises us. And we should listen to that advise, not dismiss it on the basis of one's knowledge of "somewhat doubtful or non-reputable sources". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Apart from the reputable source the Washington Post the allegation of heavy drinking was also reported by Mishler and another inner circle member called Dettmers in an article by John Macgregor Blinded by the Light that appeared in Good Weekend - the colour magazine shared by The Age (Melbourne) and The Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney) August 31, 2002 (Page 38-42) and in The West Australian (Perth) dated Septembre 21, 2002 Andries 04:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure. You forgot to disclose who exactly was the journalist that wrote the article, his trial for conspiring to steal data to harm PR and his students, the judge comments, and the affidavits he signed in which he says that "because of my media connections [...] I was supported by the Group to publish articles that furthered the goal of defaming Prem Rawat and his students" and that "based on no factual evidence, I arranged to publish in two Australian print media publications", etc. So, these sources are as unreliable as these can be. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, the media articles were never retracted by the magazines. And there is another person who signed a similar affadivit in the same affair i.e. Tgubler (talk · contribs) who has not stopped being critical about Rawat. All this suggests that these affadavits were signed to get rid off a nasty litigation instead of a genuine change of heart. Andries 05:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean the person that was the co-conspirator about which the judge said to "suffer from a credibility handicap" when he tried to retract his testimony? In any case, you are just speculating. Let these affidavits speak for themselves. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, you do not convince me when you assert that the Washington Post is not a reliable source. Please note that the wording of Washington Post article suggested that Rawat's anxiety was not just a detail of Rawat's private life, but relevant for his notability because of Rawat's claim to bring peace. I admit that the Washington Post would not be the most suitable references if there were multiple scholarly biographies of Rawat, but there is none. Andries 04:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC) amended for grammar 04:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There are abundant scholarly sources about Prem Rawat, see the article itself, and none of them support these statements, even the most critical ones. The arguments are all laid here for other editors to comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Untrue. The subject of these scholarly sources is Divine Light Mission or Elan Vital (organization). Not Prem Rawat. Where is the scholarly biography of Prem Rawat? Andries 05:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Untrue? These scholarly sources describe him, his youth, the succession, the arrival to the West in the 70's, his marriage, the family rift that ensued, the evolution of the presentation of his message, etc, etc. So again, there are substantial scholarly sources that describe Prem Rawat's life. Do these have the title "Biography"? no. But that does not mean that we do not have sources about him. We do, and plentiful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, untrue. If you think otherwise then please show me one scholarly article that has either an extensive description of Rawat's life or has Rawat as its main subject. Andries 16:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You can keep saying "untrue" until you get blue in the face, Andries. But the fact is that there are many notable individuals about which there is abundant sources describing their life-work, and do not have a biography with an "extensive description of their lives". That does not mean that there is no material about their lives to serve as the basis for article about them in Wikipedia, and furthermore, that does not mean that we should use material that is unsuitable (as per the arguments I made above), just because there is not such biography available. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I have observed that you have made the same argument in the pasts in other biographies. These arguments are in contradiction with WP:BLP, in particular when BLP asks asks to be very firm about the quality of our sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

How is the Washington Post not a high quality source? Andries 17:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That is a straw-man argument, Andries. I am not disputing the quality of the Washington Post. Please go to to the beginning of this section and re-read the arguments provided. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

(unindent)As one coming fresh to this dispute, I see the Washington Post as a fine example of a reliable source. Further, there is absolutely no requirement that an associate of the subject be a medical doctor, psychiatrist, or psychologist to observe that he was anxious or stressed and that he drank a lot to deal with it. We as the readers can note that the quote is from a former associate and not from the man's doctor, who would in any event be forbidden from releasing such information by the strictures of medical ethics. The quote should be attributed to the person who said it, and should be complete enough that it is not taken out of context. Claiming that it is a "minority view" violating Wikipedia policy since most of the man's other followers have not described him as anxious or a heavy drinker is a red herring. The quote appears well sourced and should be included. If the other editors have a quote wherein a follower said in a reliable publication that he was not a drinker and was not anxious, they should add that. That is how a NPOV treatment of a subject works. Edison 00:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Jossi is mistaken when he writes as I may sunmarize his way of reasoning that a reputable source completely stops being a reputable source if it makes an uncorroborated implausible statement. Yes, may be he is right that we should omit mentioning in the Wikipedia entry the uncorroborated statement that he considers implausible (which I did). But of course, we can still use the corroborated statements from the reputable source for the Wikipedia entry. I think Jossi's reasoning "demonstrates a lack of good editorial judgment in assessing the reliability of a source", to use his own words. Andries 14:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You summarise Jossi well - "maybe he is right that we should omit mentioning in the Wikipedia entry the uncorroborated statement that he considers implausible (which I did)". Exactly!. Be true to truth.Momento 15:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Edison, for your comments. Note that the discussion was not about about if the Washington Post is a reliable source or not, or if the comment made by these persons in the article can be attributed to them. The question was about the selective quoting from that source to avoid giving readers the possibility to understand the context in which they made these comments. Any sensible reader will most probably dismiss these outrageous allegations, if the have the opportunity to read all what they said. Andries decided to just add a specific allegatiion that in his opinion is plausible, while omitting others that are, in his opinion, implausible. My contention is that when you cite you cannot make these "editorial decisions", as you are engaging in a clear attempt to enhance the reputability of the source by selectively omitting material that shatters the credibility of the source. So, either we, as responsible editors do not use that source in a BLP, or we cite the comments of these people without selectively omitting other material. My opinion is that we should not use that source on the basis of it being "poorly sourced" in a BLP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, I consciously added only material from the Washington Post that is corroborated and omitting that is what uncorroborated. I often leave out uncorroborated statements from reputable sources or statements that I consider implausible. I am not going to change my habit in this regard of making good editorial decisions. Feel free to add more information from the Washington Post that will allow the reader to make an informed decision about the accusations. Andries 09:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

An exceptional, sensationalst claim that is negative and uncorrororated from a biased, ex-employer who died in the 70's is unacceptable in a biography of a living person. That a newspaper reproduced this claim doesn't excuse it from failing every other test for inclusion.Momento 08:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I think it is a non-exceptional claim voiced in a reputable source (Washington Post) that is more or less corroborated by other reputable sources such as Sophia Collier's book Soul Rush and by another inner circle member i.e. Dettmers (in among others an article by John Macgregor Blinded by the Light that appeared in Good Weekend The Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney) August 31, 2002). In addition it is corroborated by yet another inner circle member in a non-reputable source. Here Momento admits more or less that it is a non-exceptional claim [5]Andries 08:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Straw man argument, Andries. The Washington Post article includes material from the same person that is my all means and "extraordinary claim". You decided to "censor" that material and leave other material that you consider to be not extraordinary, when it is when taken as a whole. John McGregor's legal imbroglio, and subsequent ruling by a judge coupled with his apology renders that source to be of the same quality: "poorly sourced". As per BLP, that material has no place in a WP article. Your continuous efforts to keep a partially censored reference to that Washington Post article, without addressing other editor's concerns about that material is a case of WP:POINT. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Extremely unconvincing Jossi, if you want the full story to be told to the readers then feel free to add more material from reputable sources. I have no problem adding it myself though you never answered the question whether you want me to add it. Do not censor well-sourced material from from reputable sources. Andries 20:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ask yourself this question Andries. If a 30 year old exceptional and sensationalst claim that is negative and uncorrororated from a biased, ex-employee who died in the 70's turned up in a local paper about (insert any notable person), would you include it in their autobiography?Momento 20:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Non-exceptional, corroborated claim voiced in a national newspaper from one of the few persons who could know. Andries 20:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

MIshler is not a reputable source and no scholar or journalist has corroborated his claims. Jossi, could you please block Andries from the PR article?Momento 19:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You omitted some of material, because they shatter the credibility of the source. When taken in their totality, that material violates WP:BLP. You cannot cite only what you perceive as credible ands omit what you perceive as plausible. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I only wrote down material from a reputable source that is corroborated but I have no problem to cite more even if this what you describe shatters the credibility of the source. Can you please explain how this violates WP:BLP without repeating your unconvincing arguments? Andries 21:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No reputable source corroborates Mishler. He is a biased source, making exceptional and sensational claims that are not corroborated by any of the scholars who have written on PR.Momento 23:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Untrue. Again, there is not a single scholarly reputable article let alone book that treats Prem Rawat extensively. If you think otherwise then please provide such a source, as I had already requested to Jossi without result. In the absence of such sources, it is perfectly okay to use secondary source material from reputable newspapers, such as the article in the Washington Post. I would agree with Momento that if multiple scholarly reputable biographies are available, like in the case of Adolf Hitler then it would not be okay to use secondary source material from newsapers. Andries 19:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Untrue? There are nearly 100 notes and nearly 50 references cited for the Prem Rawat article and not a single one repeats Mishler's claim. We know Melton was aware of Mishler's sensationalist claims (and probably all PR scholars) but he quite rightly ignored them. Your suggestion that in the absence of any negative evidence from the dozens of reserarched and scholarly articles, editors should include negative material from a biased, ex-employee would turn Wikipedia into a gossip column.Momento 21:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, untrue, again show me one single scholarly reputable article that treats Prem Rawat extensively. Andries 23:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not my responsibility to provide you with a scholarly article that supports your claim. I say they don't exist. You find one. Wiki policy is The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim.Momento 20:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There are hundreds of sources used in that article, making it one of the most extensively and meticulously sourced in Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop evading my question Jossi. You motivated your exclusion of the Washington Post article by saying that there are many reputable scholarly sources on Rawat. I am still waiting for the title of one reputable scholarly source that extensively treats Prem Rawat. Andries 00:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron Proctor

75.8.103.125 had inserted an uncomfirmed bulletin board posting into the References section. -- 19:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Dealt with those silly myspace references. MER-C 09:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Debbie Schlussel Debbie Schlussel (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

More unsourced "controversies" being added. Need some extra eyes and perhaps someone who's better at working with newbies to deal with this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I have left a message on the user's page referring him/her to relevant policies and guidelines. It seems like the additions in question are message board posts, which are not verifiable anywhere. --BigDT 04:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Cohen (spiritual teacher) Andrew Cohen (spiritual teacher) (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

In Andrew Cohen (spiritual teacher) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), several editors seem intent on adding information from and a link to an anti-Cohen blog. It has been repeated pointed out on the talk page by several other editors that blogs are not reliable sources and may not even be linked to in external links, but these editors persist in resinserting these unreliable sources. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 16:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Read the entire discussion related to the blogs, Ekajati, not just what you want to read. You claim Cohen's blog is inherently permissable because he is the subject, but what is being said is that to the extent Cohen's blog and associated blogged statement of "Integrity" in response to critic's charges, which does really not meet the criteria for use because it contentious; unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing; and makes claims about third parties and their motives for criticism; and whose claims are to be treated with caution per wikipedia; is being cited, then a critical blog containing responses to those charges by named subjects of Cohen's criticism should be referred also to retain NPOV. If as an alternative material from neither blog is mentioned, or the mere fact that Cohen and named critics have both established blogs advocating their respective positions without further information is mentioned, then you do not have, as you try and suggest, an issue with WP:LIVING that justifies your claims here. Your actual statment that:

"Also, please note that the use of the subject's blog is permitted, but only in an article about the subject. Do not attempt to retaliate by removing reference to and links to Cohen's blog. That could also result in administrative action."

not only mistates the actual policies for when a subject's blogs are not suitable, but does not adequately justify keeping reference to Cohen's blog entries based on wikipedia criteria just because you desire to retain the blog, and does not justify your a priori assumption of bad faith and "retaliation", and threats of adminstrative action based on claimed "retaliation". It is not "retaliation" to respond to your assumptions and POV editing. --Dseer 06:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Your assumption that I am working from a POV is incorrect. I have nothing to do with Cohen whatsover. I am attempting to apply WP:LIVING as written and intended. It is you who have a POV issue, and don't seem to be able to allow WP:LIVING to take precedent over your apparent need to smear the subject. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 19:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You openly consider editors who disagree with you to be apparently motivated by "smearing" the subject, an admission of a biased and unsubstatiated judgement which proves the POV you deny. Ekajati, Wikipedia has three content policies: WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Since the policies complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. Your POV edits do not take this into account. It is you making personal attacks, issuing threats of blocking and talking about "reprisals" when your one sided, POV edits are challenged. Your repeated explanation for your edits, that "blogs are not permitted per WP:EL", is not what WP:EL actually says, and therefore your edits will be evaluated accordingly. --Dseer 02:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"Information found in self-published ... websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject (see below)." "A blog or personal website written by the subject may be listed in the external links/further reading section, even if the subject is not used as a source."

In summary, his own blog is permitted as an external link, and his own blog may be used as a source for NPOV biographical facts. No other blog may be, for BLP. DGG 02:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I assume from this summary you may not have read the full discussion here and in the article and considered it carefully as it is written. What I object to is use of selective cites from WP:LIVING and applying them to WP:ELwithout considering all applicable guidance, the impact on NPOV, and the discussion of other editors who already know all that. Per WP:LIVING, if it were true that "information" from the blog was was being cited in the article, it would not be permitted. And per WP:EL, if were true that Cohen's blog did not include "information" including criteria that WP:EL sites as an exception to using material from Cohen's self-published blog, that is being contentious, self serving/aggrandizing, and making unsubstantiated charges about third parties, it would be permitted, either if information was used in the article as Ekajati proposes, or simply kept as a link. But that is not the case. And, this does not mean as Ekajati alleges "links to blogs are not permitted per WP:EL". Rather, WP does not prohibit links where the blog is authoritative and when the link improves the overall article (in this case NPOV). It does not mean Cohen's blog and/or statements from it MUST be referenced or links or face charges of "retaliation" when it skews NPOV and is not really biographical in nature. Further, none of the proposals we were current disputing were to cite information from the critical blog in the article, but simply to identify the existence of (relative to Cohen) the best critical and authoritative link on a reply to Cohen's assertions, whether to provide the link or just reference that it exists, thus WP is not providing derogatory information in the article. Whereas Ekajati proposes to leave as information not even just that Cohen has responded to critics on his blog, to which there is no objection, but that he is quote "setting the record straight" regarding his critics which is a matter of judgement, not fact, while excluding even the fact that critics have responded to his claims when there was no attempt to include information on what those responses were. WP also says both the claims of religious partisans and their critics are to be considered carefully. The intent here is not to put WP in the middle of the dispute or cite poorly sourced information in the article, but simply point out in neutral language the NPOV fact that the dispute exists, and leave it at that. Ideally, true NPOV considers both sides cautiously, and since both sides are using blogs, NPOV would be crafting a way of simply saying something along the lines of Cohen makes assertions on his blog about his actions and critics, and named critics have made assertions about his actions and responded to his assertions about critics on their blog, which keeps to the verfiable facts and without implying Wikipedia has taken a position on this particular issue, which omission of either side would. The only concern here of the editors in question preserving NPOV within the framework of BLP, and avoding liability, of course. --Dseer 03:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Exaggerated unsourced criticism keeps being added to the article. Andries 20:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree, and since citation not provided, your deletion was justified. --Dseer 07:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This case should be closed

Ekajati, who brought this unjustified complaint against other editors here rather than engage in dialogue, has been banned for repeated sockpuppetry. Ekajati, A Ramachandran, and Hanuman Das, who have been tag teaming in making similar complaints about editors in various articles, are in fact the same person, along with other "socks". A Ramachandran and Hanuman were confirmed to be sockpuppets of Ekajati. See [[6]]. --Dseer 07:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Brandt Daniel Brandt (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Isotope23 claims at Talk:Daniel Brandt that "I'm about 2 reverts away from protecting this article from editing because of the constant flipping back and forth between having this section and not having it" refering to the section I delected that has been restored (see the deleted paragraphs at the bottom of this diff). Anyone have an opinion on how the BLP policy applies to the material I deleted? WAS 4.250 22:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph concluding that "Since November 19, 2005, the Wikipedia Watch site has included a page" is original research and should be deleted from the Daniel Brandt article. The site http://www.wikipedia-watch.org generally may not be qualify as a reliable source. Even if wikipedia-watch.org generally were a reliable source for other articles, it is not independent of the Daniel Brandt subject itself and thus any material in the Daniel Brandt article that cites wikipedia-watch.org as its source should be deleted from the Daniel Brandt article. As for BLP policy, Brandt probably is a public figure, so Wp:blp#Public_figures would apply. -- Jreferee 16:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Norah Jones

So sorry, I'm not sure where to write this, or how to fix it.

It says "norah jones is a crazy indian lady who makes lots of music that puts people to sleep... shes a fuckin pimp!!" on Norah Jones' page.

I couldn't find it when I tried to edit it out.

• It was removed by another editor within less than 1 minute after it had been put in, which explains why you couldn't find it any more. --Metropolitan90 01:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Shields (Bear Search and Rescue) Scott Shields (Bear Search and Rescue) (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Scott Shields (Bear Search and Rescue) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Apparently the subject of this article, a Sept 11 Ground Zero volunteer, is under an investigtion about his finances and about claims he made in the Sept 11 aftermath. The article began as a criticism of the subject. I've made one stab at removing uncited defamatory material, but it is back into a one-sided, uncited mess. Anyone want to straighten this out? // Kla'quot 17:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Cash, Jr. David Cash, Jr. (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

This has been changed a few times to libel another person with a similar name. An admin has removed these changes once (Thanks FCYTravis), but the anonymous user has reinstated libelous claims. Can you prevent this sort of libel permanently? It is clear that the anonymous user is just doing this for sport and not out of a genuine belief in these unsourced claims.Bollobas 19:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John F. Kennedy John F. Kennedy (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

Unsourced information is being added to this bio based upon videos and papers that are out of print. In addition, the tone is not one that is in the style of an encyclopedia. Ronbo76 04:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you know that John F. Kennedy isn't alive? Voretus 19:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chevy Chase Chevy Chase (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

• Template:Chevy Chase - There are a number of edits being made to this page regarding his death, which is untrue. Source of vandals is this YTMND site // Coolgamer 04:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised we're not copping more crap from YTMND, check the date. MER-C 08:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected - for two weeks - hopefully that will be enough time for it to boil over and for the vandalism to stop. --BigDT 13:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Justin Trudeau

The Justin Trudeau entry has been vandalized. His surname was replaced with the word "RectalItch" in all locations on the page. I changed it back to Trudeau with the 'Find & Replace' function. Lcorriveau 22:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doug Gottlieb Doug Gottlieb (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

There have been several editors vandalising this article and placing defamatory information. A number of editors have been trying to revert the vandalism. We need help. Orangemarlin 04:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harlan Ellison

• Harlan Ellison #Self-incriminating account of sexual assault in 1962 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I tried removing the offending material because the source is from a work of fiction, and there is considerable doubt as to whether the event actually took place. Other editors have also tried removing the text for the same reason. Yonmei continues to insert the libelous account, which is undoubtedly a personal attack on the biographical subject. The confusion lies in that Harlan touts this story as being true, as often fiction writers are want to do.

The source for the libelous account is from the story SCENES FROM THE REAL WORLD: I, THE 3 MOST IMPORTANT THINGS IN LIFE, which appeared in a collection of fiction from STALKING THE NIGHTMARE copyright © 1982 The Kilimanjaro Corporation. From the dusk jacket of that book: ".... For the first time the author has embodied his belief that fantasy and reality have switched places in our time by including four essays he calls SCENES FROM THE REAL WORLD...." From Stephen King foreword from the same book: ".... one can almost see 'The 3 Most Important Things in Life' as a stand-up comedy routine (it's a job, by the way, that Harlan knows, having done it for a while in his flaming youth)...."

If we cannot be sure the events took place from a likely work of fiction, then how can we include this fictional anecdote as fact? The entire entry should be removed. 70.81.7.65 00:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Conclusion:   No discussion for nearly three months. — Athænara ✉ 09:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Rick Ross (consultant) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

An anon contributor is removing whole sections of this article that are properly sourced on the basis that the material removed is too critical. Could some non-involved editors advise this user? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I presume you mean Rick Ross (consultant) since this is the one you appear involved in. Nil Einne 11:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Jonathan Sarfati (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I am following the procedure:

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

The following in the article has been repeatedly reinserted.

I have to report it here, since the rule is being violated by two admins, FeloniousMonk and JoshuaZ, who have a strong ideological bias against the subject of the article, and are breaking this clear rule and the one against original research, and are hiding behind arbcom diktats to punish editors with opposing ideologies. How can we expect justice when it's admins who are guilty and heavy handed, unless we go above their heads?

He also accuses many origin of life researchers, such as David Bartel of MIT and Gerald Joyce of the Scripps Research Institute, of having a religious kind of faith,[19] [OK this is sourced, just provided for content]

although those scientists do not demonstrate any manifestation of religious faith. [This is not sourced]

He also misrepresents the work of ribozyme evolution. [This is is a blatantly POV accusation and unsourced] For example, he argued that the mutagenesis of those experiments employed high error rates, which would cause error catastrophe, but high mutation rates were needed in those experiments simply to reduce the amount of time it would take to satisfactorially mutate a population of ribozymes to a significant extent, as opposed to using normal PCR techniques.[20] This link is just an ibid, so refers to [19] which is Sarfati's own article, which would not support this critical paragraph. So this paragraph is unsourced and counts as original research as defined:

"Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. ... It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;" Wikipedia:No original research. 58.162.2.122 15:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Nelson Rockefeller (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Despite repeated warnings user Tvoz has repeatedly violated the WP:Living rule regarding the Nelson Rockefeller entry. At the time of Rockefeller's death in 1979 there was much speculation, but no facts, regarding what happened. Tvoz had made multiple attempts to add salacious rumors to the effect there was a young women (he names her) involved, she had an adulterous relationship (this story follows details on his marriage), she helped cause his death from heart attack during sex, she had a motive for seeing him dead (named in his will), and she tried to cover up the episode and mislead police. There was no official report or criminal charge or lawsuit and no witnesses--it's all gossip--and it clearly violates our policy about negative statements and insinuations about living people (the women is in her mid 50s now). Rjensen 06:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The above was posted to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I originally recommended the user post it here, but I copied it myself after finding out the user has been blocked for 24 hours. Please note I am not endorsing the summary, there has been some discussion on the talk page which provides a different view Nil Einne 20:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

In my attempts at mediation, I have addressed these concerns on the article's talk page. However, I believe that Rjensen is not representing the case accurately. A quick flip through the history of this article confirms this: the user in question, Tvoz, has inserted citations from reliable sources to document the controversy that arose after Rockefeller's death. She has not made the claim that Rockefeller and Ms. Marshak were sexually involved, nor has she said that she had "motive". (The fact that Marshak was named as a beneficiary in Rockefeller's will shows only that they had some kind of relationship: it could very easily have been a platonic one.) Her edits have been to improve the neutrality of the information and to provide sources for the claims, and thus I do not believe that it is in any way a violation of WP:BLP. I will continue to monitor the situation. -- Merope 14:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen's comments above amount to a malicious personal attack on Tvoz, as she did none of the things described. Take a look at what Tvoz did add to the article: [7] (her subsequent edits have added even more references and refined the text). Nelson Rockefeller died under unusual circumstances, something that gained wide press coverage at the time (for example, it was the subject of a Saturday Night Live skit [see snltranscripts.jt.org/78/78kbelushi.phtml]). Note that although it was widely assumed that Rockefeller died during sex with Marshack (such as in this CBC editorial [8]), the Wikipedia article has never said so, and has followed an editorial line similar to that of Time magazine, among others ([9]), scrupulously adhering to WP:LIVING in regard to Marshack. Rjensen's sterile revert warring and willingness to throw wild accusations about show little understanding of consensus or Wikipedia's core policies, such as WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 21:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Clive Bull (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Helper1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), a new account, is repeatedly inserting this edit, which among others claims that the subject (who is married) seduced a woman via his late-night talk show. The edit alludes to various podcasts which Helper1 has claimed are publicly available - I have asked for him to be more specific as to where to find them, and I don't believe that the current references to them are adequate verification - at best they are too vague. Helper1 continues to revert. The article has been a focal point for hoax vandalism in the past, and I would like some more eyes on this. I have tried a Google search and found nothing relevant on the web. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Do as I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - This book, published by Doubleday and written by Hoover Institute research fellow Peter Schweizer, contains chapters entitled things like, "Hillary Clinton — Greedy Speculator, Corporate Shrill, and Petty Tax Avoider" and "Ralph Nader — Bourgeois Materialist, Stock Manipulator, and Tyrannical Sweatshop Boss". Is listing these titles a violation of WP:BLP? // Lawyer2b 03:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

In general, reporting "X said Y", if, in fact, X did say Y and either (a) X is a reliable source of information about Y or (b) your article is about X is ok from a BLP standpoint. But good grief ... this article needs help. It should not be giving WP:NPOV#undue weight to the author's claims and it really needs to cite SECONDARY sources of information about the book. BigDT 03:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The article is essentially a recapitulation of the book, with a lengthy quotations for most chapters (that is, for each liberal person being attacked by the author). For example, the section (in the Wikipedia article) that discusses the book chapter on Barbara Steisand is over 500 words long. It contains sentences like Although she claims that the working men and women of America deserve higher wages, her production company, Barwood Films, usually films in Canada, where she can pay lower wages and receive tax breaks that she cannot get in the United States.

I don't think that the article about the book could possibly be considered NPOV unless it summarized each chapter in three sentences or so; what's there is way too much like mini-articles that present only one point of view (the author's). John Broughton | Talk 22:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

An article about a book should be primarily based on secondary sources. It should talk about the impact of the book, about what people have written about the book. It should not be an opportunity to present the POV of the author without balance/context, and it should not violate content guidelines. Guettarda 22:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I have examined a few dozen WP articles about controversial and non-controversial non-fiction books, and almost all of them consist primarily of of a description of the contents. I make no claim that this is a proper study--just what is known as "range-finding". DGG 23:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the original poster has a good point. I have seen quite a bit of this kind of thing, from both the liberal and conservative sides, on WP. Steve Dufour 20:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Would someone mind checking this out? I've read a reasonably reputable synopsis of this dude, so can't bring myself to remove stuff I know is accurate, but I suspect it is in a poor state. If not, let me know so I can stop worrying. Thanx 68.39.174.238 06:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC) (PS. I don't have on hand the source I'm referring to, so I can't use it to source this... ARGH!)

Periyar Ramasami (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

It is potentially libellous allegations without any any citations which I have asked for.The wording are not encyclopedic. 1: Periyar being likened to Hitler is potentially libellous as Hitler was responsible for millions of deaths whereas Periyar was not guilty of even one.Further no evidence or citation is given this comment.Periyar turned the offer to become the head of the Madras Presidency in 1939 after the Congress quit but he turned it down now to compare Hitler is wrong.

2:Brahmins:comments like The population of Brahmins in Tamil Nadu, which was about 10% in the 1920s, is today less than 3% as a result of persecution by EVR and his followers are strange as not even a Single Brahmin has been killed in the entire Dravidan movement. Further Rajaji,Jayalaitha and Janaki who were Chief Minsiters were Brahmins and ruled Tamil Nadu longer than any other single community and these statements are not backed by citations or evidence which are required.Jayalalitha is the head of a Dravidan Party

3: And the wording should be encyclopedic none emotional and contraversial lines like Within a span of 20 years, the Brahmins of Tamil Nadu, who had been living there for more than 2000 years, were turned into alien immigrants by the DK's propaganda. The speeches called for the elimination of Brahmins from Tamil Nadu, and the enslavement of Brahmin women. The speeches harkened back to an ancient Tamil glory, similar to Hitler's revival of ancient Germanic culture are not abcked by citations or Evidence

4:Further some one blanked His Childhood and Education.Even today there was mass deletion by 192.223.243.6 which was reverted

5:Only 1 name needs to be used either Periyar or EVR not 2 creates confusion to readers particularly foriegners.Periyar is how he is known.Tamil Nadu Government refers to him as Periyar.http://www.tn.gov.in/government.htm.He is refered as Periyar in Tamil Nadu Government. Periyar University is called named after him and Also, convention suggests that the most common name be used as far as possible in the text of the article Vandalism is done by 80.195.10.170 who vandalised the page 3 times .Harlowraman 10:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not the place for disputes about deceased persons. Please following Wikipedia:dispute resolution. Andries 00:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)