This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

I've been trying to clean up the 'ching chong' section on the Rosie O'Donnell article so feel I am not as objective to help on ching chong, specifically the 'Modern usage' section. The article laboriously details the incidents to what I feel is an WP:Undue amount and it feels soapboxy. I have no sympathy for those who actually use offensive language to belittle others but in the O'Donnell case I know she didn't and all reliable sources confirm that.

In addition every citation includes unneeded quotes, so the full quote is in the article and then repeated in the reference. I've only known this in the context of where a source is not readily available and editors need to know exactly what was said because the items are not online and available. I feel this is pulling quotes out of context and giving them further weight which may be pushing a point of view. Could other editors take a look and see if my take on the situation seems accurate? Or even clean-up the entries? Each time I've tried it has been undone. Jnast1 (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Quotes are acceptable for WP:linkrot. Poster did not mention lengthy discussion I found at Talk:Rosie_O'Donnell#Restoring_.22Chinese_parody.22_section. I'm ok with the comsensus there with Notability by quality and variety of reliable sources 166.205.136.177 (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Michael W. Allen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I prodded this article in January and it went to Afd. There I voted to delete - and it would have been deleted but one person offered to rescue it so I reversed my delete. He has done nothing since - seems he's a strict inclusionist - and I cannot now prod it. I say it's promotional and only notable as such. Opinions please - should it go back to Afd? Mark^Dask 14:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If you take it back to AFD, I will vote "delete". It is basically a marketing brochure full of WP:PEACOCK language. A quick Google search found no confirmation of notability in independent third party sources.Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I asked the user in question and he is busy but still intents to improve the BLP when he can get the time, so I have redirected it to Macromedia Authorware and then when he finds the time he can get on it easy. Off2riorob (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Off2riorob - job done. Mark^Dask 15:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries, the user has also commented that he is happy with that. Off2riorob (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Mehdi Hasan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This chap is a British journalist, senior political editor for the New Statesman, a political magazine associated with the Labour Party and left wing politics. During the past month or two I notice that somebody has been posting a Youtube video in which someone identified as Mehdi Hasan addresses some Muslims and quotes the Koran on non-Muslims (calling them cattle, etc). No context is provided but the person inserting says this has been controversial. Perhaps because he wants to stir up controversy! I've removed the reference for now because no evidence that this has driven controversy is provided. --TS 17:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Good call. – ukexpat (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan Safran Foer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

in the article it says "he raises his kids vegtarian." this according to foer himself is not true though in an interview he stated"i want my children to be well informed so they can make their owan choices."he then says he occassionally makes meat dishes for them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.21.155.162 (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Well we can't use a reference as vague as "an interview" as a source; however the statement about how he raises his kids is also currently unsourced in the article (although one has to do a bit of digging to find that out), so I'm going to remove it until and unless someone can provide a source. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Kellyanne Conway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Violates NPOV and verifiability in that the only references are the subject's own website and that of one of the subject's clients. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.77.167.202 (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The article reads like an advertisement for Conway. I removed some of the worst puffery and then tagged it as lacking sources and advert.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I also updated, trimmed and tagged. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 03:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's an RfC on the talk page asking whether the first sentence should say in Wikipedia's voice that Lyndon LaRouche "is an American political activist" or "an American political activist and economist" (emphasis added). Both versions of the lead end the first paragraph with "[he] has written prolifically on economic, scientific, and political topics, as well as on history, philosophy, and psychoanalysis."

Uninvolved eyes would be appreciated as this has been raised several times over the last few years, so it would be good to get a clear consensus.

Arguments in favor: several reliable sources call him an economist, and he reportedly became known as one in South America. Arguments against: he has no qualifications in economics, has never been employed or independently published as one, and most reliable sources describe him in other terms.

The RfC is at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche#Should the lead say in WP's voice that Lyndon LaRouche is an economist?. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche 2

SlimVirgin posted a thread here (and at at least three other locations) pointing to an RfC in progress without advising editors on the talk page where the RfC is located of her actions. The effect has been one of WP:CANVASSING, because what she posted above, although she tried to word it neutrally, is factually incorrect. LaRouche has in fact been independently published as an economist.

LaRouche, under the pen name Lyn Marcus, authored a book, Dialectical economics : an introduction to Marxist political economy (1975) (entry at archive.org), published by D. C. Heath and Company (Lexington, Massachusetts), which was reviewed [1][2] in the American Economic Review, published by the American Economic Association. The review states,

That doesn't sound like they're thrashing it as the work of a rank amateur. The book has citations in Google Scholar and in Google Books.

According to King, who's written a book-length (and fairly hostile) study of LaRouche, he became known in Latin America as "a serious economist and political strategist". That's repeated in a Department of Defense document (which cites King). He had meetings with multiple presidents in Latin America, advising them to take a course against the IMF, which they did to some extent. His writings had an influence on the Malaysian government in 1997/1998, according to the Wall Street Journal, and that government then also took a course against the IMF. If you are reviewed in the AER, and end up influencing multiple governments' economic policy, that makes you an economist, in my book. --JN466 05:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Why not just add this to the existing thread, above?   Will Beback  talk  05:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Merged. Off2riorob (talk) 12:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not canvassing. This is informing people on relevant noticeboards of an RfC that needed uninvolved eyes. It needed uninvolved eyes because of the large amount of advocacy and FRINGE editing that's going on in that article. So I posted it, laying out the arguments advanced to that point in favour and against. I find Jayen's reaction to this disturbing. He's been posting on the talk pages of people who responded to the RfC, trying to persuade them to change their minds, and in general relying on LaRouche publications to a worrying degree.

The function of an RfC is to lay out the arguments calmly, inform people in neutral locations in a neutral tone, then let them review the arguments for themselves on the page without being badgered. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 13:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I don't know how it is that you built this rod for own back, probably sentence by sentence over six years, but the problem seems to be that there is far too much about LaRouche than is in any sense warranted.

Just for fun I had a look at what another encyclopaedia had to say about him. Which seems to be an adequate and fair summary and about all you would wish to know. however, once you have started slinging everything you can into the pot, as it were, there is no stopping. All you have provided is sentence after sentence of coatrack, which people can attack and defend, and attack again. The article is a monster that needs some serious culling, all the rest is just more polishing and tarnishing. --John lilburne (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It's just unfortunate that you said, in your posts to the four noticeboards, that LaRouche had never been independently published, because that turned out to be wrong, and it wasn't part of the RfC statement. After you posted your note to the various boards, five editors turned up in quick succession at the RfC, all commenting in the same way, based on the info you'd provided. Had you notified editors at the LaRouche talk page beforehand, that mistake could have been ironed out before disseminating it to various locations. But it's water under the bridge now. --JN466 22:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

And please stop saying that I rely on LaRouche publications, because it's patently untrue. --JN466 23:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• User:Volunteer Marek has checked the AER issue in question. The Google Books snippets are in fact from an advertisement in the back matter, rather than a review of the book, so that is different, and I've struck the relevant comments above. --JN466 22:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

"Death of ..." sections in Lyndon LaRouche BLP

SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) yesterday reintroduced longstanding section wordings in the Lyndon LaRouche BLP that strike me as potential WP:COATRACKs; both sections are related to suicides by people associated with the LaRouche movement. The sections in question read like this a couple of days ago:

• Kronberg section
• Duggan section (last paragraph)

After SlimVirgin's edits, they read as follows:

• Kronberg section
• Duggan section

I felt concerned that this presentation of these incidents in LaRouche's BLP was uncomfortably close to presenting the BLP subject as personally responsible for these deaths, and was incompatible with BLP policy demanding that we edit conservatively.

Talk page discussion: Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche#Death_of_..._subheadings

It should be noted that the Death of Jeremiah Duggan, which happened in Germany, went all the way to the German Supreme Court, which denied appeals for further enquiries. The German authorities gave a verdict of suicide, based on eyewitness testimony, which according to them ruled out any third-party involvement in the death. On the other hand, there have been British coroner's inquests over the past few years investigating allegations of foul play raised by Duggan's family; one is currently still underway. None of the sources, to my knowledge, present any evidence linking LaRouche to this death.

Subsequent edits to these sections: [5][6][7]

SlimVirgin has asked me to point out that similar or identical versions of these sections had been present in the BLP for a long time (see e.g. this version from late February) until I started editing the article three weeks ago.

LaRouche is a person widely considered to hold repugnant views. He has earned this reputation. At the same time, a BLP policy is worthless if it is only applied to people about whom there are only nice things to say. While I have no problem with the other articles we have referring to these incidents—I've previously done work on Death of Jeremiah Duggan with SlimVirgin and think it's at least a GA-level article—I am uncomfortable with the way SlimVirgin wishes to present this material in LaRouche's BLP. Implying that someone is responsible for two deaths, in the absence of any legal decision attributing such responsibility, is a weighty matter in a Wikipedia biography, and to me that is what the current presentation does.

Am I being oversensitive? Are SlimVirgin's edits fully in line with the letter and spirit of BLP policy? Comments welcome. --JN466 14:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I support as more npov and less undue the version without the death in the header - there is nothing at all to connect this living person to those deaths - nothing at all. Off2riorob (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. What do you think about the wordings of the sections in this BLP?

• Kronberg section
• Duggan section (last paragraph)

vs.

• Kronberg section
• Duggan section --JN466 19:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Jayen recently changed that section to remove the header, remove much of the text, remove the sources, and bury it in another section without making clear what the issue was. I therefore restored a version of the previous text. I have no problem with the header being as it currently is (without the word "death" in it). The text is understated, and doesn't elaborate on what the High Court heard might have happened. BLP was never intended to stop us repeating what multiple high-quality sources say about public figures.

I also object to the forest fires of discussion Jayen keeps starting about this article on multiple boards and user talk pages. It's good to ask on boards for fresh eyes, but the discussions should take place for the most part on the article talk page. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It was yourself who initiated discussions at three noticeboards and one WikiProject a week ago: [8][9][10][11] I did respond to these other threads, but this is the only noticeboard where I have initiated discussion of a new issue related to the article. This issue is quite distinct from the one you raised previously here and at these other locations. I have therefore moved this section back to where it was and restored its title. It is an important matter that can do with input from multiple editors, and I don't want it hidden near the top of this board in among days-old stale discussions. Please leave it in its own section. Thanks. --JN466 19:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I asked only for fresh eyes for an RfC being held on the article talk page. You, on the other hand, are starting discussions on multiple boards and multiple user talk pages, so that no one can keep up, while failing to address issues on the article talk page itself. Please reverse that focus. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyone looking at the LaRouche talk page history can see that I have answered each and every one of the points you have raised there. I did follow up on the noticeboard discussions you started a week ago (without advising us on the LaRouche talk page) and made editors who had commented in the RfC in response to your posts aware of both an error of fact in the statement you posted, and new information that came to light after they had voted. I advised them indiscriminately both of information that strengthened my argument, and of information that invalidated my argument.

Before I started this thread, I advised you of my intention to do so on the article talk page. I did so a day and a half ago, at Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche#Draft_for_BLPN_post. I posted a draft for your review on the article talk page, and made the changes to the wording that you requested before posting it here. So you have had ample notice of this thread, and had an opportunity to check and correct its wording before I posted it. --JN466 20:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

There's an outstanding question from me about what looks like your inappropriate use of academic source material—where you used a source to imply wrongly that LaRouche's absurd alternative theory about HIV-AIDs had support in peer-reviewed journals—so I'd appreciate a response to that here. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I hadn't seen your latest response yet. Replied. --JN466 20:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

This post should also note previous discussions: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive22#Worldwide_LaRouche_Youth_Movement_and_Kenneth_Kronberg. It may also be relevant that HK's socks have twice tried to get both articles deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremiah Duggan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremiah Duggan (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Kronberg, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Kronberg (2nd nomination). The Duggan article was also raised by HK in two ArbCom cases, and the ArbCom found no problems. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2. It's important for uninvolved editors to know the history of this material.   Will Beback  talk  19:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

As I've stated above, I don't have a problem with these other articles. This thread is about the presentation of these materials in the LaRouche BLP. In the Kronberg case, it should be noted that the authorship of the memo which some have said is likely to have triggered the suicide is disputed; some sources say it was written by LaRouche, others say it was written by an associate. Dennis King has a copy of the memo up on his website; it says it is by Tony Papert, a LaRouche associate. While we can speculate that LaRouche may have had a hand in writing it, this is speculation, and as such not conservative. --JN466 19:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the current version of the text of the article which even speculates that LaRouche wrote the "morning briefing" in question. However there is probably sufficient sourcing connecting it to LaRouche to justify mentioning the briefing in the article.   Will Beback  talk  20:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

If he didn't write it, why do we even mention it? We have a perfectly good reason to mention Kronberg's death in LaRouche's BLP: the suit brought by Kronberg's widow. This version does that. I don't mind adding Main article: Kenneth Kronberg to it. But that is all the LaRouche BLP needs. The rest can be and is covered in LaRouche_movement#Members and Kenneth Kronberg. --JN466 22:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

We have one reliable source that says he did write it and another that says it was written by his top aide. Further, it reflects views about Baby Boomers that have been expressed by LaRouche and his movement many times before, so it isn't an exceptional claim to say that he wrote it or was responsible for it. But the issue of this material has been discussed many times before, including on this noticeboard. I don't see any new issues here.   Will Beback  talk  22:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The new issue is that we are discussing how to present this in LaRouche's BLP. Can you live with this wording, with Main article: Kenneth Kronberg added? --JN466 23:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche is a public figure who has stood in eight presidential elections, and who whenever he gets a chance pushes himself in front of the media. The BLP policy was never intended to mean that we can't repeat what multiple reliable sources say about such figures, and indeed it's that sort of extreme interpretation that has caused the policy to acquire a bad reputation with some editors. BLP is for the most part simply the application of V, NOR, and NPOV with extra care and common sense; and with additional sensitivity when it comes to borderline notable people, or the private lives of public figures, neither of which applies here.

And if you're concerned about BLP violations, I'd suggest not using the header "Deaths related to Lyndon LaRouche," which I've tried to change but you (Jayen) keep restoring. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The point is that you're not just writing in these sections what reliable sources have said about LaRouche. You are writing about events whose connection to LaRouche personally is tenuous and unclear. No source to my knowledge states that LaRouche was even aware of Duggan's attendance at the event in Germany. The German authorities point to eye witness statements from multiple members of the public who observed the suicide and who categorically state that no one else was present. The German Supreme Court considered the theory put forward by Duggan's family, that he was killed elsewhere and then taken to the road to make it look like he died there, absurd ("abwegig"). The authorship of the memo that LaRouche critics on the Internet have said must have triggered Kronberg's suicide is unclear, and it is signed by someone else. Now I wholly agree that these events should be discussed in the articles on the LaRouche movement. But I am uncomfortable with the way you are discussing them in his BLP. --JN466 20:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The reliable sources say Duggan became vulnerable because LaRouche fears being assassinated by a British person, dislikes or fears Jews, and also has a conspiracy theory about people who received psychotherapy at the Tavistock Institute being brainwashed spies. Duggan happened to fit all three criteria. Yes, I know it's insane, but these ideas come from LaRouche himself. See for example here. As recently as 1999, he said the British royal family was plotting to kill himl; see here. Into that madness walked Jeremiah Duggan in 2003—British, Jewish, who once had counselling at the Tavistock—to attend a LaRouche conference in Germany that LaRouche and his wife attended. Days later he was dead, having thrown himself in front of three cars "in a state of terror," according to the coroner. The day after his death, LaRouche's wife told the other members there that he might have been an agent sent from London to harm LaRouche, according to the Sunday Times. [12]

You won't allow it to be explained the article, then you use the lack of explanation to claim the connection is too remote. But the connection to LaRouche's ideas about brainwashed Brits is direct. And the only point that matters here is that the connection has been made by multiple reliable sources in the UK, U.S., and Germany, including the Washington Post, BBC Newsnight, the Guardian, the Observer, the Telegraph, the Independent, and the Sunday Times, over several years; and a coroner recently handed new evidence about it to the London Metropolitan Police's Serious Crime Directorate, and asked them to look into it. What you or I or any other Wikipedian thinks about it is irrelevant. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The present article version is, as you acknowledge, your preferred one, which you restored. It doesn't make LaRouche's personal involvement in this death clear at all. I have certainly not prevented you from adding sourced material stating that LaRouche thought Duggan was a brainwashed assassin sent to kill him, and had him killed instead. I am pretty certain no such sources exist, but I'll look through the above sources, thank you. --JN466 21:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

No one has said that. I don't see the point in starting forest fires of discussion, then misrepresenting what people say so they have to keep correcting you, then raising straw men. It means people have to keep posting and posting pointlessly. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You have twice now moved this thread to the top of the board, after an editor had alredy replied to it, even though its content is unrelated to whether we should call LaRouche an economist or not. [13][14] I'll not revert again, but I think it's unhelpful for getting the best out of this noticeboard for this issue. I've changed the title of the thread in line with your concern. --JN466 20:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It is clearly completely unconnected to this living person and has not place at all in his BLP actually. I just don't understand all the intricacies regarding this person but I think the last thread was a good comment about this la rouche person - our coverage of him is bloated and very likely opinionated. As I understand there are users with very strong personal held feelings about this person which has from what I can see created a similar situation to the Scientology section of articles - undue, bloated and opinionated coverage. As to a solution, I doubt if there is one, multiple users with lengthy historic input with a desire to keep the content reflective as developed over that period. Off2riorob (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

For a long time, the Kronberg section was illustrated with a picture of Kronberg and his wife: [15] This more than anything gave me the impression that the section's point was to say, He did this. --JN466 21:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that everyone connected with this has made their views clear. Let's let uninvolved editors give their input.   Will Beback  talk  21:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

In such situations imo such articles benefit from users that have created a lot or most of the content over a period of years stepping back, taking the article or section of articles off their watchlists and allowing fresh eyes to work on it. Off2riorob (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I've given my view so there's not point in repeating myself. Here's the Duggan section Jayen objects to, in case anyone else wants to comment:

LaRouche came to widespread public attention over the death in March 2003 of Jeremiah Duggan, a British-Jewish student, at a LaRouche movement cadre school in Germany. The German police ruled the death a suicide—a verdict rejected by a British coroner—and the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany turned down the Duggan family's request to reopen the police investigation. Because of continuing controversy over the death, the High Court in London ordered a second inquest in May 2010; the coroner opened and adjourned the inquest, inviting the LaRouche movement to attend later hearings as an interested party. LaRouche has said the controversy originated as a "hoax" perpetrated by supporters of Tony Blair and Dick Cheney.^[1]

SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The type of wording that we had here (last paragraph of that section) is more appropriate in the BLP. It links to the Death of Jeremiah Duggan article, and focuses on the things LaRouche can rightly be held responsible for: the nature of his movement. The full discussion of Duggan's death can be and is provided in the other articles, i.e. LaRouche_movement#Europe and Death of Jeremiah Duggan. --JN466 21:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

That section is in the entry about Lyndon LaRouche? Why? LaRouche, as an individual, appears to have no direct connection to this event at all. We have a separate entry on Lyndon LaRouche movement, which is clearly more appropriate for the mention of Duggan. Also, there is an entire entry dedicated to Duggan's death, which makes this, and all other longer treatments of the event in LaRouche related entries seem like coatracks. That's my outside view. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The outside views on this issue appear to be unanimous and completely agree with Jayen. Cla68 (talk) 01:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what I said. Thus, agreed. Silverseren^C 07:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I see only one independent, uninvolved editor in this thread, Griswaldo. It'd be nice to get more input, but I realize LaRouche-related topics have been noticeboarded to death, so to speak.   Will Beback  talk  07:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

With respect Will, how do you claim that User:Off2riorob and User:Silverseren are "involved" here? I looked through the talk pages and edit histories of the relevant entries and see zero editing by the former, and the only "involvement" by the latter coming days ago, in response to an RSN post about this very issue. When someone responds to a question on a noticeboard without any prior involvement editing or discussing the entry they are by definition uninvolved. They don't magically become "involved" because a similar question is posed again on another noticeboard days later. To echo Cla68, there are three uninvolved editors who appear to agree with Jayen, and zero uninvolved editors who agree with you. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Cla68 and Silverseren have been involved in the topic - there's more than one talk page. Off2riorob and Jayen can describe their connection themselves. But everyone's welcome to comment here. As for "agreeing with me", I don't think anyone has significantly disagreed with my point about the briefing, the only comment I've made in this thread.   Will Beback  talk  17:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not mention Cla68. Do either of those editors edit the article? Are they often on the talk pages arguing for content changes? Please provide evidence of their involvement. I'm not saying you're wrong but from a cursory glance I cannot see it. As an outsider I'd like to know, because to me it looks like you're just trying to dismiss their opinions. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Cla68 and SlimVirgin seem to have some kind of long-running personal feud, to the point of Cla68 opposing SV's activities in ways that sometimes make no sense at all (e.g. the HK/Obamacare nonsense from a few weeks ago). I'd therefore consider Cla68 "involved" in any dispute where C68 comments on SV's editing, whether C68 has directly been editing the affected articles or not. I've had better things to do than follow their interactions closely, so if both of them say there's no such feud, I'll roll my eyes and believe it. But to this distant observer, the acrimony between them is a hundred feet tall. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

IP, I don't have any personal acrimony towards SlimVirgin. She recently helped me and others out with writing this essay, and I really appreciated her efforts. I've supported her ideas at times over the last year or so in some policy discussions, in expanding a BLP, and attempting to NPOV a certain article which is notorious for long-running NPOV problems. Sometimes me and her agree and sometimes we disagree. Cla68 (talk) 06:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that, and maybe I had the wrong impression. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I am reading the Washington Post article and will comment on the disputed paragraph after I finish. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Working on response. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 04:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC) Getting sleepy, response partially written, complicated, need to think a little more and probably post tomorrow. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 06:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• - I am completely uninvolved in this topic user Willbeback's comments are without value at all - I have assessed the issue as an uninvolved reviewer his attempt to assert I am involved are misleading. As he has chosen to claim I am involved - completely falsly , it is well known that user willbeback is an opponent of the living subject and has over years built this BLP into the opinionated bloat that it currently is and he is one of the people that as I said our article about the subject would benefit from him removing the BLP from his watchlist. The days are over that opinionated users came to wikipedia prior to BLP and created attack articles about living people that they are opposed to in real life. Off2riorob (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I am not an opponent of the subject in question. You're making a lot of unfounded assertions which verge on personal attacks. Number of edits doesn't have any relation to quality of edits, and I haven't seen anyone point to specific problems with my editing of this or any other article.
  • I did not say you were involved with the topic, but rather that you have a connection with the editor who started this thread. I was under the impression that you shared an off-Wiki history with Jayen466. If I'm wrong about that then I apologize. Being "involved" does not mean one is acting in bad faith, or that one's opinion is worthless. I suggest we stick with the issue at hand and avoid getting into tangential topics.   Will Beback  talk  21:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It is well known on wiki and also discussed off wiki that you are an opponent of this living person, there is no denying that, please stop attacking me and others and move along, take it off your watchlist and allow new contributors to balance the article up. Off2riorob (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh? Where is this discussed "off-wiki"? Are you a participant in these discussions? How about other contributors this thread - do they participate in discussions of the LaRouche articles off-wiki and decide who is an opponent? Please provide relevant diffs to support your assertions, or stop making them.   Will Beback  talk  21:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Will, is that really the reason you call Off2riorob "involved"? That is indeed disingenuous. I see Off2riorob consistently commenting on BLP issues on this board and elsewhere. From what I know his treatment of this one seems 100% on par with his general BLP MO. You can ask anyone who frequents this board. I'm quite disappointed in the aspersions you are casting his way, particularly because you did so to invalidate my own perspective as if it was only one lone uninvolved perspective. That's clearly nonsense. Perhaps you're too close to this subject to be objective. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't cast aspersions on anyone here nor did I try to invalidate your input in any way. Please re-read my comments. Let's try to keep this thread on the topic rather than the editors.   Will Beback  talk  22:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe Griswaldo's and Off2riorob's concerns are valid, so I'm going to start a thread on it on Will's user talk page. Cla68 (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who's involved and who isn't. I would count as involved anyone who has edited the article, or discussed it on or offwiki, so I'll leave people to decide that for themselves.

I do know that the aim of LaRouche's employees since 2004 has been to drive away from Wikipedia anyone very familiar with the source material about the movement. They drove away Dennis King, a published expert on LaRouche. They drove away Chip Berlet, a widely cited expert on the far right in America. They tried to drive off Will and me, as we got to know the source material better over the years. They've done this via on and offwiki attacks, some of them vicious, just as they do with anyone they see as an opponent. The movement is well known for this behavior, so I hope no Wikipedian would consider supporting them in it. That's all I'm going to say about it, because even the existence of this thread will delight them.

What matters is this: LaRouche stood for president of the United States eight times. You don't do that if you're a shrinking violet hoping not to draw attention to yourself. As a result, major newspapers, and a few academics, have written about him a great deal for over 30 years, including long investigative and analysis pieces. We therefore base our article on those articles, giving attention to the issues they give attention to, and summarizing in the way they summarize. So long as we continue to that, there are no BLP issues. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

So, essentially, you've just said that anyone who adds positive information to the article is "supporting them" because positive (and, really, even neutral) information is the kind of things that supporters would add? Thus, in order to edit this article, you should make sure to only add the negative, controversial stuff?

And, no, the issue is that you are summarizing the sources in the wrong way, sometimes paraphrasing sources in a manner that completely obscures or omits the full meaning of the source. Just a look at the talk page brings up this fact. Jayen has done a good job on the talk page with pointing out sections that have totally misrepresented the sources. Another issue is that, as I say initially, you are only allowing negative sources to be used. Anything that is positive is either unreliable, though only according to you two, or is connected to LaRouche and thus can't be used, even if the connection is a flimsy, transient thing. Also, at the same time, you ignore the Communist, and thus direct, connections between the critics and LaRouche and also try to keep out any information that points out this connection to readers, since that would discredit the critics that harshly attack LaRouche (oftentimes these attacks are valid, other times they are purposely exaggerated and distorted by the critics) Silverseren^C 02:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The article contains many positive assertions and is probably as well-balanced as any LaRouche biography in existence. Vague accusations against other editors don't help. If there are specific issues you think need work then this is a good place to discuss them. Which particular secondary sources have been left out that you think should be used?   Will Beback  talk  08:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

What matters is this: LaRouche stood for president of the United States eight times. You don't do that if you're a shrinking violet hoping not to draw attention to yourself. screaming Lord Such stood in every General election and pretty much all the by-election too. He even had a political party dissolve itself, and Thatcher changed the law to curb his activities. The point being that the LaRouche articles are far too excessive that they do not reflect on the actual significance of the guy. What you have done as I said before is create a monster, something that now has a life of its own, a target for supporters and anti-supporters to attack alike. IMO the editing activities of 466 and others are doing no good in this article they are simply expanding it and adding further words to argue over. The article should be reduced back to bare bones, giving the essential details and references whether anyone interested (damn few) can go for further research. All the rest of the trivia and crap that happened decades ago removed. John lilburne (talk) 10:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If there's a problem with the article then let's fix it. SV and JN have been working busily on it, stripping it down to its bare bones and fleshing it out again. The current version bears little resemblance to last year's.[16] I'm sure next year's article will look different too. That's Wikipedia. ;)   Will Beback  talk  12:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Well you could strip out practically all the 1970s and not lose anything of importance or interest. That section seems to be documenting the internecine wars between various parts of the hard left. Trotskyite splinter groups are called splinter groups for a reason, they are forever undergoing fragmentation, the result being they get into fist fights on street corners and in pubs, some would argue that their behaviour is what split the socialist left in Germany in the early 1930s. That aside non of it is of any interest to anyone except the participants themselves. And yeah the various factions tend to erect a personality cult around the leader. Do yourself a favour and junk the navel gazing. John lilburne (talk) 13:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that input, but that's not how encyclopedia articles should be written. The secondary sources generally devote considerable space to the activities of the subject in the 1970s, so that period receives its due weight in the biography. OTOH, the subject received relatively little attention during the 1990s, so the article devotes less space to that decade. The subject received more attention again in the last few years, so that is covered more fully even at the risk of recentism. Weight issues are never easy to resolve, but the most important factor is the prominence of coverage in independent secondary sources, per WP:WEIGHT.   Will Beback  talk  23:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Just my two cents: Leaving aside for a moment those flaming edit wars, the personal attacks and those never-ending internecine (Thanks to John lilburne btw, I did not know this word before) 40% of the article on Larouche are actually very good. To be honest, I do not think that there is anywhere in the world such a massive collection of secondary sources about LaRouche. Yes, ALL of you have contributed something very valuable and I would like to sincerely thank SlimVirgin, Jayen, Will Beback and last but not least HerschelKrustofsky and everyone that has been labeled "HK" for doing this. All of you did a great job in creating the best reference list for LaRouche one can imagine. THANKS! 81.210.206.223 (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

that's not how encyclopedia articles should be written really you would know that how? Whatever you think you are doing you aren't building an encyclopaedia biography here, you are documenting the internecine infighting of splinter groups. The media may well have had an interest in their goings on, particularly as one of them was running for president, that doesn't mean that it actually had any real relevance then, and 40 years on it is of no interest to anyone other than the participants (were you one?), or historians of the left. John lilburne (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you really suggesting that EB page as a template? You said above that we shouldn't bother with material from the 1970s, yet that only covers the subject's life up to 1984, and it spends many of its few words to saying he's know for spreading "bizarre economic conspiracy theories". The article in question is from the Britannica's student's encyclopedia.[17] Is that the best model for Wikipedia? I don't think so.   Will Beback  talk  23:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The EB article is enough. Try this experiment: walk into your local Starbucks and ask for a show of hands as to how many people know who LaRouche is. If anyone raises their hand check that they aren't confusing him with the fellow that won the War of Independence. Of the others tell them just how important he is to the history of American society because he thinks that "Queen Elizabeth II was the head of an international drug-smuggling cartel, and that the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing was the first strike in a British attempt to take over the United States." Try to get out before they have you sectioned. John lilburne (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

If we followed the "Starbucks" test we'd have to delete 99.999% of the articles in Wikipedia, including John Lilburne. ;) People come to encyclopedias to learn about topic they don't already know about.   Will Beback  talk  00:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

If you'd walked into a London coffee house in 1680 they'd have known who John Lilburne was. There you have it - 30 years on and not only don't the coffee house clientèle know about LaRouche, even when you tell them about his 70s exploits they won't care. None of that expanse of newsprint from 30 years ago, was about anything of any lasting significance. Determine the bits that were significant and you have your article. All the he said, she said, they said, we said from 30 years ago is one big SO WHAT? John lilburne (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW I have a number of books that mention John Lilburne they are full of the ins and outs of the events of the time, the arguments, rows, and pamphlets, interesting stuff for sure, but that isn't what you want to brain dump into an encyclopaedia article. John lilburne (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

If it would help, I can offer an outside opinion since I have no special sympathy or antipathy toward LaRouche, his movement, or any of the editors engaged in this discussion. My opinion is that the deaths should not be mentioned in the LaRouche bio. Accusations or insinuations of complicity in someone's death ought to meet a very high standard for any BLP, regardless of how public or controversial the bio's subject is. If there were an unambiguous resolution of the allegations, and those allegations or their outcome had turned out to significantly impact the narrative of the subject's life, then they would be worthy of treatment in the bio. (An example of this might be O.J. Simpson.) But from what I can tell, the allegations remain in doubt to some extent, as officials from two different countries disagree on the question of LaRouche's involvement, and the allegations do not appear to have altered the fortunes, public behavior, philosophy, or notoriety of LaRouche in a significant way. Thus the informative value of mentioning the deaths in the context of LaRouche's life narrative is low enough to fail to meet the BLP standard. However, I agree with earlier comments that the deaths and circumstances surrounding them are appropriate to address in more focused articles than the main LaRouche biography. alanyst ^/talk/ 03:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• Note: I have removed both sections in line with comments from outside editors above. --JN466 09:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Should Lyndon LaRouche contain a paragraph about Jeremiah Duggan?

Uninvolved eyes would be appreciated here on Talk:Lyndon LaRouche to decide an NPOV/BLP issue.

The issue is whether the Lyndon LaRouche biography should contain a paragraph about the death in 2003 of Jeremiah Duggan. Duggan died in disputed circumstances after running down a busy road, apparently while being recruited to LaRouche's organization. The High Court in London recently ordered a second inquest into the death.

The article has contained a paragraph about this for several years—currently the third paragraph in this section—but there are now objections to including any reference to it. Arguments against inclusion are that LaRouche is not personally involved in whatever happened to Duggan, and that BLPs must err on the side of caution. Arguments in favour are that multiple high-quality sources have linked the incident directly to LaRouche's ideas, and he has several times responded to the allegations personally. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Editors please note the thread above, where this has been discussed.

Slim, when I started that thread, you insisted it should be integrated as a subthread of the existing Lyndon LaRouche thread, above. Do you have any objection if I now so integrate this thread, adding it to the existing thread, above? --JN466 16:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine with me. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

comment Round, and round, and round we go, and where it will stop, nobody knows. John lilburne (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This question has been answered by several uninvolved editors now. Unequivocally no, Duggan does not belong in the entry for the person LaRouche. Perhaps in the entry for the movement, but not the entry for the person. How many times does this have to be asked?Griswaldo (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Then I guess we should personally let all of the users that have been involved in this discussion know about this RfC and direct them to the talk page. Comments here clearly aren't going to dissuade Slim, but if it's done firmly in the RfC, then that's that. Silverseren^C 19:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Wissam Tarif (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page was created & written by the same person whose name is in the page title. The resources & citations are extremely poor, in addition to various mistakes and mis-information. Kindly omit this page to avoid any misuse. Thanks JB — Preceding unsigned comment added by JBlumenstein (talk • contribs) 21:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

We have no hard-and-fast rule against editing your own article, although it is discouraged. I agree the article seems a bit self-serving; that is a matter for cleanup. On a quick glance there are certainly enough citations to cover an article this size; whether they actually support the statements made is something which only examining each source carefully will tell. I suggest you either edit this article yourself to clean it up and trim it, or you can WP:PROD it or nominate for deletion if you feel the person is not notable. Assertions of notability are made; therefore it cannot be speedied so don't bother trying to tag it for A7. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – User:KillerChihuahua deleted "Churchill Dass Prince" ‎ (WP:A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content)

I strongly believe that this article is baseless with no evidence and most of the information this article provides are misleading with no valid proof. Thus, this illogical article make Wikipedia readers to believe that Wikipedia is providing these misleading information.So please, kindly allow me to modify the same to make it look more real.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Muthusamyvelu69 (talk • contribs)

I have speedy deleted the article as A7, no assertion of notability. The article - more of a curriculum vitae - had three sources. All three said exactly the same thing: Mr. Churchill Dass Prince M, National Law School of India University, Bangalore attended the "Biofuel: Challenges, opportunities and legislation" technical session of the two-day International Conference on New Frontiers in Biofuels. Participating in a technical breakout at a two day conference is not quite sufficient to guarantee notability for inclusion. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – discussed and improved

Minhyong Kim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article was created by my children without my knowledge, and then, it seems, edited by others. When I found out, I let it stand a few days for their amusement and even made a correction or two. But having thought about it, it clearly violates conventions on creation of biographies by people involved with the subject. I would like to have it deleted, but do not know the procedure. Are there some administrators who can help with this?

Minhyong Kim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.56.118 (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Dang it - likely notable enough for an article. [18] , [19], and so on. I see no special problems with COI. Are you sure you wish it deleted? Collect (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes there looks like there may be notability enough, ..notable chair at...to perhaps rise above Wikipedia:Notability (academics) - - if the editor requests deletion we can nominate it, but to get more weight they should self identify to the foundation and provide verification which will give the request additional weight in any WP:AFD discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

It may not be the standard recommended way of creating an article :), but from having had a quick look at Google Scholar and Google Books, it's possible that you may be notable enough for Wikipedia to have an article on you. For reference, the notability guideline for academics is WP:PROF.

On the other hand, if you would rather not have an article on yourself here, for reasons of privacy (and worrying what anonymous people might add to it), then I don't think your notability is such that your request for deletion would be refused. Are you sure you want the article gone? --JN466 15:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The subject does appear to be of marginal note in their field, but recently over the last year at AFD discussion I have seen a rejection of weight towards such requests from unverified editors. As the notability is minimal I recommend the subject contacts info-en-q@wikimedia.org with a link to the article in question as such a verified request will carry more weight. Off2riorob (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I've done some formatting work on the article. I note his co-author John H. Coates has an article. --JN466 16:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh well, I have no real objection to the article. I'll leave it to the discretion of readers and editors, then. MK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.191.229 (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – subject expired, article has been updated, thanks

Keith Fordyce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

On 24 March 2011, claims that Fordyce had died were inserted into the piece. The sources for this information were unedited British media message boards, and as of 2330 UTC on 24 March there has not been any such death notice issued by a credible British news organisation. Consideing Fordyce's prominence in British radio and television for several decades, mere message board claims are extremely poor bases for such information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingDaevid (talk • contribs) 22:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

How reliable is The Daily Express? They put out a piece saying he died: [20] NW (Talk) 23:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – article is not hosted on this wikipedia - advice given and a menu of helpful links added to the new users talkpage

Over a long period of time, some editors of the article Aura Urziceanu repeatedly added information poorly sourced about the alleged ethnic origin of the artist who is a living personality. The artist denied publicly and was offended by such allegation.

While the article is in Romanian, I do request assistance from the larger Wikipedia community because my repeated attempts to ensure the WP policy for this article is respected failed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gigi marga (talk • contribs) 13:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you send an email to OTRS (info@wikimedia.org) and/or bring this up on meta. The English Wikipedia controls only the English Wikipeida. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Can you please let me know what (and where) is "meta"? Thank you. Gigi marga (talk) 06:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• - Here Wikipedia:Meta is our article about Meta which explains what it is, and here is the the main page of Wikimedia, Meta-wiki. - Off2riorob (talk) 11:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Ken Ring (astrologer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article as it stands is not impartial and wrongly denigrates Ken Ring, who has thousands of loyal followers and admirers. A dispute between scientists and alternative theoreticians should not enter the pages of Wikipedia, and the public should be able to make up their own minds, not being told what to think and believe by someone dedicated to the criticism of someone for personal reasons. It is better to say nothing rather than slant the posting negatively. Someone reading the posting for the first time will not form a good judgement. For instance Ken Ring saved many people's lives by warning successfully of the 6.3 earthquake in Christchurch on 22 February, 2011, a week before it happened. That result is fact and has been wrongly omitted. His advice has also saved many farmers from financial ruin. Ken Ring has been Channel Seven's longrange forecaster and presenter for the past 4 years. (Seven is Australia's biggest TV network). Some fairness please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanola51 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's see if I correctly interpret what you're asking: you want to remove sourced criticism of his "predictions" and simply let Wikipedia state that he can predict the future? Do I understand that correctly? Chillllls (talk) 01:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I never heard of this guy, so I went and read the article. In my opinion, it clearly fails the "smell test" for neutrality. To cite three examples:

1) The statement that Ring believes that weather is caused "solely by the Moon" contradicts the source, which states that weather "is caused mostly by the Moon in its partnership with the Sun."

2) The speculative and dismissive statement that Ring's predictions "may be shown to be less accurate than random guess" is unsourced.

3) The unsourced statement that Ring's successful March 20 earthquake prediction "was not outside the scientifically expected pattern" appears to have the sole function of downplaying or dismissing Ring's prediction, and the statement that the prediction "caused significant unwelcome stress amongst local residents" seems to be poorly worded.--Other Choices (talk) 08:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• - note - article has been at AFD for six days and looks like a clear keeper. I resolved via editing the three issues above Off2riorob (talk) 11:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I nominated this for deletion so was waiting for its outcome before getting too involved in its editing. As Rob points out this is probably going to stay. I have added some sources and info to back up point 3 and will work on bringing the rest up to scratch over the next few days. AIRcorn (talk) 12:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Ring (astrologer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Resolved

 – link fixed

Pat O'Connell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pat O'Connell, surfer, born 1972 is NOT the Pat O'Connell who was a member of the CND Committee of 100. The LINK from the list of committee members to Pat O'Connell is wrong. It should go to and show a female, born in Ireland in the early 1900's and who died in London England in the early 2000's. This Pat O'Connell (Pat, short for Margret?) deserves, in my oppinion, a biography in her own right. Yours John Seager. email redacted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.46.250 (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed the link. See WP:DAB. If the other Pat O'Connell deserves an article, you should register an account and write one! Thanks for pointing out the mislinking. The Interior (Talk) 09:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I have been dealing with lot of BLPs relating to Indian Politicians. The problem is that (as with any other BLP), IPs come and insert criticism (mostly allegations) into the article. The thing is that their additions are usually well sourced. However, many additions are kind of trivial. If we allow such additions, then it will become nothing but a huge collection of political allegations, many of which are politically motivated. Politician BLPs are very sensitive, probably more than other BLPs. Is there any policy specially addressing these kinds of additions? I have also raised the issue at the Wikiproject politics. Yes Michael? •^Talk 15:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE means that if something is trivial, it may not be worth remarking. The thing to ask is, is the allegation the type of thing that simply makes a news cycle or did it have enduring significance.--Scott Mac 16:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. WP:UNDUE does say that, but it is not always easy to judge what is trivial, and what is not. Another problem is that most of these political stories are allegations, and nothing more. Do these deserve a place in the articles? Yes Michael? •^Talk 16:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It depends on their notability. Some allegations are so much part of the story of the politician that yes they will warrant recording. But the fact that someone has alleged something, does not make it notable. I think it is easier to look at a particular example rather than generalisations here.--Scott Mac 16:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

That's true. I guess we can keep a timeframe of sorts; Like if a particular story is in the news for say, 10 days or so, it could warrant a mention. This could help filter out the chaff. Thoughts? Yes Michael? •^Talk 17:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Look, I always err the side of excluding material entirely. However, I don't think this can be reduced to some "rule". It would depend on what we meant by "in the news" as well as the time. Is it in major newspapers? Quality or tabloid? Is it a footnote or a front-page? All we can do is examine on a case-by-case.--Scott Mac 17:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Yes Michael? •^Talk 17:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

"Political silly season" is the worst time for political BLPs on Wikipedia. ome folks seem to feel that the more dirt they can find on a politician (heck, anyone they do not like), the better. I am quite unsure that such is the best policy at all, and prefer to keep all BLPs written as even-handedly as possible. Collect (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with you. I'm also trying my best to integrate criticism into main body of the article, so there's less chance of what I call "polarisation of POVs"! Yes Michael? •^Talk 17:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Reliable source inserted by User:Gran2.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Diana Wynne Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Neil Gaiman, a highly reliable (and individually notable) person has reported via Twitter that Jones died overnight [21] , authenticity confirmed by John Scalzi, president of the SFWA [22]. There don't appear to be any reports from conventional news outlets yet, but a death report has been added to the article, and a non-free image added on the basis that Jones is no longer a living person. I believe the information is accurate and appropriate for the article, but bump up against BLP/RS, which read technically prohibit sourcing any information concerning living persons, including death notices, from self-published sources nor controlled by the article subject. I think it would be best to retain the death report and to add a reference to Gaiman's post to the article, replacing it when a more conventional report is available, and am looking for further input on the point. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

We haven't got a reliable source, seems like its all from the twitter post - from Neil Gaiman - He lives in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and the article subject lives in the UK, perhaps he got it from twitter...I agree with your comments but right now the claim is uncited in the article completely. The death does not appear to have been officially announced perhaps they are informing family and suchlike. Seventy people have re-tweeted it....Off2riorob (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

In fact the tweet from Gallman links to our article and was tweeted after the death had been added to our article and even links to our article [23] suggesting that he got the detail from here. It hasn't been disputed but I wouldn't add it myself without a WP RS. Off2riorob (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Gaiman is apparently in the UK right now [24]. He'd been posting/tweeting about visting a "sick friend" in hospice and had reported she was on the verge of death. Folks who know Neil recognized who he was talking about (there are recent references to her in the tweeter history); he just didn't report her name publicly until her death was added to the WP article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah ok. I went for the halfway house and removed the death dates and left the picture and added a comment about the claims to the lede and added the two citations you presented here. I also had a look and couldn't find anything RS additional. I see you are well informed but without us having a WP:RS, what do you think to my edit? Off2riorob (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with that. We don't need to rush to update the article, but once a report like this starts spreading in public, I think it's very helpful to have a carefully phrased statement like your text to deter editors from adding unverified statements as factual. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Cool, I was reading the rest of Gaiman's recent tweets and it is clear that he has been visiting a friend that was in a hospice close to death and he has now named the friend as Jones so I am also happier removing the uncited claim and including the comment in the lede sourced to those two selfpub sources. Off2riorob (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Asma al-Assad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Chowbok is having a problem with bullying here. I have tried to work with what the article originally covered, I have offered alternatives in organization (such as a separate article for the Syria Trust), I have tracked down official sources, and I have discussed all these things on the Talk board, trying to show a sense of humour to diffuse the hard sarcasm being used. In return, I feel I have been kicked in the teeth by those with ownership issues who appear to think it's their 'job' to insult everyone in the public eye, as well as insult other Wikipedians. You can read the earlier insulting language which was used to 'improve' the article (I referred to it in the Talk page as well). There seems to be a misunderstanding of what POV means: neutral, as opposed to insulting. This is not a politician or world leader, this is simply the First Lady of Syria who people are curious to know something about, particularly now. She is Chairperson of the Syria Trust which works with young people and such, pretty innocuous stuff imo and pretty similar to Laura Bush's reading program for kids, or Michelle Obama's exercise program for kids, or Nancy Reagan's anti-drug program for kids. Baseball, mom and apple pie stuff - it's what first Ladies do, and apparently she puts a lot of time into it. imo Chowbuk would be better suited to limiting his contributions to crooks and liars, as that seems to be his world view of everyone. If you don't want bullying at Wikipedia, you need to put a stop to this sort of thing, both his words and his actions. I am spending most of my time on the Cabinets and Ministers of MENA countries, along with the protests, and I really resent having to deal with drive-by attacks on an article which doesn't deserve this sort of attention at all. (I hate to think what he would do to an article about puppies or kittens.) Clearly some Wikipedians tried to create an article for this woman because they admire her. Instead of being helped with sources, the article was mostly deleted and they were insulted. I tried to help them out, whoever they are, so they wouldn't think all Wikipedians are jerks. So much for that idea. (btw - while notifying Chowbuk, I see he's been invited to be an Ambassador for Wikipedia. I can only hope that's in some alternative universe.) Flatterworld (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I dunno, I think you're overstating the bullying issues. I read through the Talk comments, and although they are occasionally a little strong, I wouldn't call them bullying.

However, I do think the article reads like an advertisement for its subject and for Syria. It's terribly written and terribly cited. I've removed some of the most obvious puffery, but it really needs some significant cutting. All the stuff about projects seems to be just an adertisement for the projects and only peripherally related to Asma. I removed one paragraph that was a verbatim copyright violation. Too much of it comes from the project websites and is therefore naturally couched in the most flattering terms. There needs to be third-party sources and justification that the stuff is relevant to the subject, and not just because she's married to the president, but in her own right. Wouldn't leave much left in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

iow, you totally missed my point. Yet another 'drive-by' who just can't be bothered to make any effort at all. Flatterworld (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave to others to judge whether I was being insulting, bullying, teeth-kicking, etc., but I would like to point out this part of Flatterworld's comment: "Clearly some Wikipedians tried to create an article for this woman because they admire her." Exactly. You shouldn't be able to tell that an article was written by admirers, and if you can, then the article is not NPOV and needs to be fixed.—Chowbok ☠ 03:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Chowbok, if you think these 'improvements' you added are at all defensible, you don't belong at Wikipedia, imo. That was insulting, malicious and hateful to the newbies who created the article. Unlike you, they didn't try to write a hit job. I expect the Wikipedians who created the articles about Mozart and Beethoven admired them, too - why on earth would you consider that a problem and some breach of NPOV? Or have you added language like that to those articles, too? Flatterworld (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

You know very well that wasn't the version I wanted, or have been trying to get to. My initial attempts to make the article NPOV were all reverted, so I made it flip-flop both ways as a compromise attempt. And you are clearly missing the point. You may "expect" that the Mozart article was created by an admirer, but the point is that you can't tell that by reading it. That was emphatically not the case with this version you seem to be so fond of.—Chowbok ☠ 04:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

RUBBISH. That is the version you left "03:02, 10 March 2011 Chowbok". Anyone can see you didn't return until 26 March, 16 days later. Your 'language' is exactly what I found. You purposely trashed the article. You couldn't find any sources with 'dirt', so you made it sound like a sleazy tabloid article, full of innuendo based on...what, exactly? Your personal feelings? Which don't belong in an encyclopedia. Flatterworld (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Bbb23. Since there have been several reversions lately, the two basic versions being debated appear to be the stripped down version and Flatterworld's version. He was asked to provide valid sources before restoring material but he has not, apparently believing that his sources are sufficient. I started a section to discuss sources and he has not provided constructive debate there and has stated that he refuses to engage me further. Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 04:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Viriss1 has refused to read the applicable guideline, making any discussion impossible. (bttw - I linked the 'Chowbok version' above, which Viriss1 no doubt thinks is wonderful.) Flatterworld (talk) 04:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't defend that version. I only did that after my attempt to make it neutral by deleting the irrelevant information was rejected. I'll admit I was being a little POINT-y with that. My original edit, which Flatterworld conveniently ignores, is this.—Chowbok ☠ 04:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Stop ignoring your gap between 10 March and 26 March (see above). You refused to engage on the Talk page when the others disagreed with you, so you threw a tantrum and tried intimidation by trashing the article. And it worked - for 16 days until I happened to see it. Flatterworld (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the three versions, I think the current stripped down one should remain and be expanded, if at all, very carefully, using independent third party sources. The other two versions are an unsourced piece full of "peacock" words and (the one the author acknowledged as "pointy") a complete critical synthesis, also unsourced. A very quick Google search found some third party sources such as this Vogue piece and a critical response in Slate. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Chowbok's removal was needed. If editors want to insert material, each piece will have to be reliably sourced and relevant.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jonathanwallace about the Vogue piece - mainly because I added it to the External links. (I left the Sun and fansite links alone as I didn't want to discourage whoever added them - I've seen much worse, and generally "the good drives out the bad" as more sources are found.) The idea at Wikipedia is collaboration, and I was attempting to get others involved (and re-involved, in the case of those chased off). I think the Syria Trust should be a separate article, as I suggested in the Talk page, and I added the sourced material from its official website to encourage at least a discussion of that option as it wasn't clear from the existing article just what the Trust included. Chowbok, of course, blithely ignored all that and instead immediately imposed his 'personal preference', once again, on everyone else. And none of you see any problem with his behavior at all? You consider that 'compromise'? 'Consensus building'? Really? I call it attempted intimidation. Just what do you think the Talk page is for? Or are you so certain you're so brilliant and every other contributor is so stupid they should be pathetically grateful when you 'correct' them, and you're angry your unilateral decisions (aka bullying) aren't greeted with groveling praise? If you're that clueless on how to actually work with people, then don't do it. There are lots of activities which don't require collaboration with others. Flatterworld (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

And I might add that Flatterworld's accusations of bullying are remarkably hypocritical. Just a taste of some of his comments on the Talk page:

• you just detest the subject, so everything's 'puffery'. (directed at me)
• You won the Vampire Award. (directed at Veriss)
• Cut the teenage sarcasm. (directed at Chowbok)

--Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Yet another rubbish 'comment'. All of you have refused' to look at the facts of what Chowbok actually did, but instead circled like vultures (you like that better than vampires-biting-newbies?) attacking the 'outsider'. You want to excuse Chowbok leaving an incredibly sleazy version in place from 10 March until 26 March, go ahead. imo it was despicable behavior, un-Wikipedian in the extreme, certainly meets the 'contentious' bar (which Veriss pretends means something else entirely), and should have been universally deplored. Yet you continue to defend him and are incredibly critical of my reaction to his 'work' and to your 'responses'. I expect anyone reading this can connect the dots here. Flatterworld (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

As usual, these kinds of disputes have a complicated and checkered history. However, as far as I can tell, the first edit by Chowbok to the article is on March 6 here, where he essentially stripped out all the material that has now been stripped out again. After that, two different editors (FunkMonk and Zozo2kx) battled with Chowbok and restored the material. Giving up at least for the moment, Chowbok then tagged the article. Not being at all sure what you consider to be the "incredibly sleazy version", the puffed-up, unreferenced version (in my view) remained in place contrary to Chowbok's editorial judgment. Then ensued the argument on the Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Bbb23, apparently what I consider 'sleazy tabloid' is what you consider 'NPOV' or 'harmlessly POINTed' as Chowbok put it: THIS, which I've linked to already, is my definition of 'sleazy tabloid', aka "contentious material which should be removed at once": As First Lady, putting a glamorous face on Syria's dictatorship and distracting Syria’s population and the world from the nature of its regime is central to al-Assad’s work. She is portrayed...Underscoring both challenges is the inherent difficulty in increasing the standard of living of the nation (or at least appearing to do so) without simultaneously increasing demands for political freedom. Ha ha ha. Syria's in the middle of an uprising, people are getting killed, and you find it absolutely hilarious to pour gasoline/petrol on the fire. "Yeah, let's insult Syria's First Lady! We'll show those Syrians who's boss! We don't need no stinkin' sources!" And then you try to cover it up, make excuses for Chowbok, and intimidate me. As if. You're a real piece of work. Flatterworld (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

For those following along at home: IF one has doubts about an acceptable source's objectivity, one can simply preface it with "As stated by (x)..." or "As reported by (x)..." But to delete a whole section based on "I don't like it" isn't acceptable. We have plenty of articles about CEOs which don't omit everything about their job "because it's a whitewash, all puffery, and they're only figureheads." Of course we reference the official site of the business and their official biographies, along with whateevver else we find that's from a reputable source. This is the first time I've seen that ridiculed. You're assuming a lot, stating it as fact, and providing no basis for that. Flatterworld (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, I concur with Bbb23 about the hypocrisy of Flatterworld complain about bullying. I don't know much about the debate history of this article but in the 24 hours or so since I stumbled onto the scene and removed the poor quality sources and trimmed out the unsupported assertions, Flatterworld has attacked and insulted me personally three times, Bbb23 once and Chowbok once. While posting these less then helpful comments, not once has Flatterworld posted a constructive argument to discuss interpretation of any BLP policy points. Many of these posts are since he complained about Chowbok here which is pretty incredible in my view. Flatterworld's deportment on the talk page in the last 24 hours has been disruptive and I'm sure has discouraged other reasonable editors from joining in the discussion less they be attacked as well. Please see the last two discussion sections on the article's talk page. I didn't want to go here, but on further reflection, I request that an uninvolved admin take a look at this. Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what you're asking for. If you want an uninvolved admin to look at the content of the article, that's not really necessary. You could ask for uninvolved editors to look at content issues, but that's really already been accomplished. If you want to have an admin look at Flatterworld's behavior, this not an appropriate place to make such a request. You could do so at WP:AIN, for example, but, honestly, although I'm not an admin, I don't think his behavior rises to the level of justifying administrative action. You might take a look at WP:WQA.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd just as soon let this go. The article's been fixed, and I don't mind Flatterworld insulting me if it means he won't re-add the problematic material to the article. Let him blow off a little steam.—Chowbok ☠ 20:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't care about the insults either, was more concerned about the disruption to the talk page. I struck out the part about admin review. We'll see how things progress. Veriss (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Linda McMahon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

[25] appears to use a primary source and asserts the term "Ring Boy Affair" whioh is not even found in that source in a BLP. The edit summary directed at me there is nothing wrong with the source, find some other victim) shows the nature of the editor's attitude. I seriously dount that http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2010/10/vince-and-linda-mcmahon-file-march-1993-lawsuit-against-wwe-employees-and-tv-show.php?page=1 qualifies as RS in any case, or that the link to a copy of a court document qualifies as proper in any BLP in the first place. Thus the "Ring Boy Affair" bit is fully unsupported by any reliable source. This article has long been a dumping ground for contentious claims, as multiple BLP/N sections show. Collect (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a WP:COATRACK with significant WP:UNDUE problems--could possibly remain in the article if significantly slimmed down and reliably sourced. The link to the court doc has to come out per WP:BLPPRIMARY which says " Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Now tell it to the editor who seems intent on treating this as a personal battleground :). Thanks. Collect (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I took out the document. I do not see why a factual document like that would not be acceptable, but the policy on trial transcripts is very direct and I will not make an issue of it further. My apologies.--Screwball23 talk 02:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

There was previously discussion about this subject at BLPN here and here.

In a nutshell, part of the article Line_of_succession_to_the_Ottoman_throne was being used to provide poorly sourced info about non-public figures who are living descendants of emperors of the now-defunct Ottoman Empire. The decision was to remove that info, and it was removed. But then a POV fork popped up, and it was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession today.

Today, the editor behind all this stuff complained at the long-closed AfD page, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession today. Additionally, this editor restored all the info about living descendants to the following articles: Mehmed V, Abdul Hamid II, Murad V, Abdülaziz, Abdülmecid I. Not sure what to do about this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I reverted all the large disputed uncited additions and left the user a note to come discuss the issue here, same as the recent same raised report. Off2riorob (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Why did you delete everything? Those are interesting articles - you ruin everything, I do not understand. The members feel discriminated against by. I have you posted the official home of the family.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilek2 (talk • contribs)

You appear to be repeatedly adding what amounts to uncited not notable content - this has been pointed out to you on more than one occasion but you are continuing to insert the content, please stop re adding it until discussion and consensus to do so is clear. Off2riorob (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

http://www.ottomanfamily.com/ Here,this is the official Homepage of the Ottoman Dynasty...Dilek2 (User talk:Dilek2talk) 21:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a nice web site but it's promotional. There's also no indication that the living people who are being promoted want to be promoted. See WP:RS for more info about why promotional web sites are not good sources for Wikipedia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Then you have to delete the Iranian dynasty

Because these are yes, no heir apparent or more? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilek2 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

If there's an article about the Iranian dynasty, then it's okay if it uses reliable non-promotional sources. Also, there's no problem saying who the children of the Shah of Iran are, but listing grandchildren and great-grandchildren is much more unusual and questionable. It could be unsafe for a person to be promoted as royalty in a country that long ago overthrew royalty and no longer has royalty.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Why did you as a successor, Bayezid not deleted? Strange...He is also a Prince they was born in Exile... [Osman] Bayezid III, 44th Head of the House of Osman (2009-present), great-grandson of Sultan Abdülmecid I.?????

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilek2 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Because there is a reliable, non-promotional source for Bayezid: 'Osmanoğulları'na insanlık şehadet edecek'", Zaman (newspaper) (2009-09-27). Additionally, as the person who would now be emperor, Bayezid is much more notable than other people in his extended family.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Much More Notable? Well this is the story from ertogrul in your Link,...not from bayezid...and...the next Heir is not much notable? well the next are all the shezades they was listed...but you deleted The Heir...HA HA HA Just I know where you are....OMG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilek2 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

You are correct that the Zaman article is not primarily about Bayezid, but it mentions him. Translating into English: "The new head of the Ottoman Dynasty, Osman Bayezit (85), was unable to attend the funeral." You would need a similarly reliable source for all the other people you want to mention.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

This Article is not more reliable as the Ottoman Family link,that I have posted...They are all the living descandents... So what is your Problem with the others?In Yout Tube are many Video's about the Ottoman Dynasty. And hhh do you said there is nor more Ottoman Thron so why the name of Bayezid is listen? Crazy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilek2 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

An article in Zaman is considered much more reliable than a promotional web site. Please see WP:RS. I'm sorry if that seems crazy, but those are the rules here. I've tried to explain as best I can, and will now let others try. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

"There is no Ottoman throne anymore, so this article is necessarily a historical description of the line of succession, except where other info about the subject is well-sourced and inserted by consensus. There is now yet another discussion at BLPN at WP:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Ottoman_descendants.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)" This is your's...Forget it? aha the official Members Homepage is not true? WOW you said;all the Members are Liar's???oh oh...Strange but Bayezid is listen too in this Homepage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilek2 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Bayezid falls within the exception I described: "except where other info about the subject is well-sourced and inserted by consensus."Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The next Heir is:Şehzade Dündar Aliosman Efendi (1930) (II. Abdülhamit) So He is a Liar? He is a not real Person? WOW...what a Mr.Superman do you are... Look at this Video...They are many Video's about Ottoman Dynasty in the I-Net.

Sehzade's... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCSxG3szB1A&feature=related — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilek2 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Dilek2, I have no doubt that there is a lot of information "out there" on the internet about the Ottoman succession -- it's a naturally interesting subject, just as with other countries that got rid of their kings. The problem here, as Anythingyouwant has been trying to explain, involves specific wikipedia policies about (1) what sources can be properly used, and (2) what can properly be discussed in an article. Sometimes these policies can seem arbitrarily restrictive, but some kind of general rules are necessary to avoid chaos. I know from personal experience that there are grey areas where editors have disagreements about how to apply the rules. In a situation like that, consensus among editors becomes important, and sometimes I don't get my way concerning an issue that seem obvious to me, because the other editors involved disagree. That can be annoying, but sometimes that's just the way it goes around here.--Other Choices (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Michael McGinn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I object to the overall tone of this biography as being biased against Mayor Mike McGinn. It reads to me as if written by a detractor. Many more negative citations and references are included than are positive ones, and I suspect the editorial work of a political opponent. Please mark this article as biased and in need of more balance. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.239.111 (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Without specific examples, it is hard to assess your complaint. In any event, without a specific BLP violation, you should take this up on the Talk page of the article first before coming here.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Another editor has facilitated matters by putting a POV tag on the article and starting a discussion on its Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Geoffrey Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"Costly Program" section completely unsupported by citations and tone is questionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmkeating (talk • contribs) 22:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It was a copy-paste from the New York Times, I've reverted it as a copyright violation. January (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Death of David Kelly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is a book review, which is for the most part hidden behind a paywall, and written by an author who is known to be critical of Tony Blair, an acceptable and verifiable source for stating as a fact what happened at a meeting attended neither by the author of the book being reviewed nor by its reviewer? Is it reasonable to state the claims as a proven fact when they contradict the findings of a judicial inquiry, and the evidence given by Tony Blair? (There is no exception in WP:BLP for accusations against Prime Ministers.) Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

This has now also been posted on the reliable sources noticeboard.Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

As invited by Nishidani. I was resistant to do so lest it provoke accusations of forum shopping. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. But I'd hardly ask you to raise it there, and then challenge you for forum-shopping if you had! Even more humorous is you asking a question on this page, and not notifying me!Nishidani (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Quick comment without having sifted the underlying material. Articles in the New York Review of Books tend to be much more than reviews--in fact, many of them are highly interesting, deliberate coatracks where the book is used as the mere excuse for a disquisition on the topic. I think a lot of references to NYRB would stand either on the grounds that this prestigious, long standing publication is a reliable source, or, at worst, by analogy to WP:SPS because the authors are almost universally recognized experts in their fields. That said, I think contentious material about living persons sourced only to a NYRB review should either be better sourced or deleted. (I distinguish the smaller number of NYRB articles which are presented as actual reportage of the "letter from Cairo" ilk). Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I spent a little more time reading the thread on the article talk page. If Wheatcroft in NYRB is citing one of the books he read, it seems incumbent on anyone wishing to preserve the content to identify which one and to find and reference the underlying book (assuming it independently is a reliable source). References which state "X says in a book review that Y claimed in a book" are not encyclopedic. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I often endeavour to do this personally, where possible, as a matter of good practice. But where is the wiki ruling that supports your opinion?

This is amazing. I edit an article on a dead person, David Kelly, and the content of my edit is then construed as offending a living person! Let us stick strictly to the details. Sam is asserting that I or Wheatcroft makes an allegation. Neither I as editor, nor Wheatcroft as cited, or Rawnsley, make allegations in the edits. My edits have carefully chosen only those two elements of the review which provide us with details on what Mr Blair said on an airplane, and what took place on July 8. There is no allegation, there is only Sam's allegation that the inference he draws from these two details constitutes an allegation that is on the page! Come now, gentleman. This is really straightforward.Nishidani (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't like the way this unverified opinion is being presented as if a fact. One journo in his titillating book says this and another journo says is is true - its a double unverification presented as resulting in a positive guarantee of fact. Off2riorob (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me. What 'opinion' is unverified?

Neither Andrew Rawnsley nor Geoffrey Wheatcroft can be casually dismissed by the slightly pejorative slang 'journo'. They are both historians, qualified at respectively at Cambridge and Oxford in modern history in addition to writing for their living. Wheatcroft makes part of his living reviewing historical books from firstrate university presses. It is not customary for the TLS or the NYRB to engage hacks with a slipshod approach to work to review historical books. Both have letters to the editor columns where protests are made if the reviewer misrepresents facts. Nishidani (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

George Melly used to tell of Geoffrey Wheatcroft having accused him of whilst at Stowe School "having expertly seduced poor little Peregrine Worsthorne". George Melly points out that he was two years younger that Peregrine and wouldn't have dared approached him, "expertly seduced" though he liked. You might find a YouTube interview of him relating that tale, could have been Parkinson. John lilburne (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't say I've read the NYRB but I've always had the impression that it is pretty much like the London Review of Books. If so the articles are indeed opinion pieces where the reviewer rarely focuses on the book itself, but instead uses the book to trot out the pet hobby horse. John lilburne (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Deleted - speedy snow close at AFD

Claire Khaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

New article Claire Khaw needs checking for BLP / negative content, RS, etc.  Chzz  ►  23:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I stubbed the article, eliminating all matter not reliably sourced, and it emerges as a one event wonder based solely on the Facebook shenanigan. It has been nominated for deletion and should go. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claire Khaw (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wade Rathke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I was asked to come here to seek a third opinion on the article "wade rathke. The argument stems from a dispute based on several issues and it might be best for anyone interested to go to the subjects discussion page for a brief overview. Thanks. Knucklehead Dojo (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Xenophrenic is an experienced editor and appears to be offering you good advice, I would suggest you attempt to come to a compromise with the editor, its not recommended to repeatedly insert disputed content, best is to first resolve the issue on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

He is making the case that the content cannot be added because its not allowed under the policy. My own reading of the policy in question has not led me to this conclusion but he seems rather unwilling to engage in any kind of constructive debate about the issue and I came here hoping an outside party could look a bit deeper into it. Thanks for the reply. Knucklehead Dojo (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Ajaxyz indefinitely blocked.  Sandstein  19:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Meghnad Desai, Baron Desai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I think that the behavior of Ajaxyz (talk · contribs) is inappropriate, and what they are adding to this article may be a BLP violation. Ruslik_Zero 12:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

At a quick glance, there is a huge WP:COATRACK here about Said Khadafy's PhD thesis. This needs a lot of pruning. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I trimmed a bit that was mostly duplicated and poorly written undue allegations of wrongdoing. Article needs some copy editing wiki style improvements as it is quite low quality at present. Off2riorob (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Did some more general cleanup on the article. Should it be moved to Meghnad Desai? The Baron Desai designation should be in the first sentence though. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Going by Ruslik's logic, there can be no crticism section on wikipedia. Off2riorob needs to improve reading skills to understand long and complex sentences — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajaxyz (talk • contribs) 03:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Ajaxyz is edit-warring to reinsert this BLP-violating "Criticism" section. Saif al-Gaddafi's thesis is already covered in an appropriate section, from top quality news sources. I have issued a final vandalism warning to Ajaxyz, who has also been warned by another. I have also done some copy-editing per Off2riorob and have raised the question of the article title in the relevant wikiproject, where it is being discussed amicably. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Anousheh Ansari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I work on WikiProject Spaceflight and related articles. The current lead infobox for Anousheh Ansari (as of 2011-03-28) summarizes her career/life as "Space Adventures Tourist". While it is the case that this woman paid for the means to go to space on a Soyuz rocket and stay 10 days on the Space Station, this strikes me as a bit narrow. This woman is clearly both a quite successful businesswoman and also someone who went to space. I looked at the BLP guidelines and did not find any useful guidance on how one ought to think about these sorts of Infoboxes that summarize an entire life into a few words. Can anyone point me to guideline? Or offer assistance? Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, she is a multi faceted person. Her family is in partnership with the Space Adventures company , and she is CEO of another major company, businessperson, CEO, Engineer, Space tourist. I am not well informed about infoboxs so someone else might know better but imo she is not primarily an astronaut and so she could use a different infobox than Infobox astronaut.. Off2riorob (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe if you use infobox person, for example, although you get a lot more useful parameters, you'd lose the astronaut-specific parameters. It's essentially a trade-off.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy on a BLP is not something we trade. If the infobox gives a misleading picture, change it. Period.--Scott Mac 16:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. And I concur with the change that has been made in the article to replace the space-related infobox with the standard person infobox. Thanks for the help everyone. N2e (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Iain Baxter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The artist legally changed his name to IAIN BAXTER& in 2005 -- the main heading of his wikipedia entry should be edited to reflect this change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alauder (talk • contribs) 15:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source for the name change? That's required. Yworo (talk) 16:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, as I just identified, the artist's official catalogue raisonne <http://archives.library.yorku.ca/iain_baxterand_raisonne/> hosted by York University, his dealer <http://www.corkingallery.com/?q=node/50>, the Museum of Modern Art <http://www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?criteria=O%3AAD%3AE%3A397%7CA%3AAR%3AE%3A1&page_number=1&template_id=1&sort_order=1> and many other print and electronic sources since 2005 <http://www.amazon.com/Passing-Through-Baxter-Photographs-1958-1983/dp/0919837751> , <http://www.moma.org/visit/calendar/exhibitions/971> identify the artist as IAIN BAXTER& -- this is his legal name . . .contact him directly if you wish <ibaxter@uwindsor.ca>, but until you institute this change you are unfairly representing him in wikipedia and damaging his reputation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alauder (talk • contribs) 17:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You can't use implication for a legal name change. There are just as many sites which use his birth name, so a collection of sites using an apparent pseudonym don't prove anything. However, I've found an explicit statement in his C.V. which is adequate. Nobody is damaging anyone's reputation by using their birth name in an encyclopedia article. Calm down. Yworo (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Generally we use the name that is most prevelant in the media and reliable sources. If the person changes their name later, then this should be noted in the first sentence of the lead.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Sarah Douglas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I just want to point out that 'Sarah Douglas' is the stage name of MARGARET PILLEAU, so saying that she is the daughter of Edward and Beryl Douglas is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Estelle65 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source to cite? Ian.thomson (talk) 14:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we'd need reliable sources to confirm that. We don't have an article on Margaret Pilleau, but the one on Sarah Douglas seems to confirm her parent's names - her own website makes no mention of stage names [26]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I did a bit of Googling on this, but didn't find anything definitive - it is possible that Douglas and Pilleau are one and the same person, working under different stage names, but I've got no real proof of this. I think for now we will have to leave the article as is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

William Connolley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The section on the subject as a wiki editor seems disproportionate compared to his biography as a whole. I've had a go at rewriting part, but the balance issue needs attention. The fact we know more about this troubled area, does not mean it's appropriate to write an unbalanced biography that gives it undue weight. Do we not know more about the rest of his life? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

One problem is that he has achieved far more press coverage for his WP exploits than for anything else. As long as the material about WP is kept in some reasonable balance (favor/oppose proportional to sources), it is difficult to ask for much more - his notoriety is substantially due to that topic. If he were actually notable other than for his online existence (that is, for having a notable family life, notable research attributable to him, other facets than being online) then the weight issue within the entire article would be usable. WP:PIECE applies. Collect (talk) 11:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Denis Healey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article has been edited stating this prominent retired British politician has died; however no source is provided and a Google news search does not yet show anything. Can someone do an independent check? Timrollpickering (talk) 11:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I've undone the revision per usual practice. It's not the first time I've undone his alleged death[27] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Its been reverted by Zzuuzz - Uncited death claims should be reverted on sight, you can always then go and look for a reference and revert it back in later. Off2riorob (talk) 11:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – 30 March 2011 User:Shell Kinney deleted "Darcey Freeman" -‎ (article discusses living people with no sources, likely problematic for being notable only for a single event, trial is still ongoing and perhaps there will be enough for an article later but even then article would not appear at this name)

Darcey Freeman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've seen this newly created article on a pretty tragic story that I'm sure Australian editors will know well. Anyway, I know this noticeboard is for BLPs and the subject is no longer living, but I couldn't find a more appropriate place to ask for help. If someone knows of a better place for this to be discussed feel free to move it. Basically the article in question is about a 5-year-old girl that was killed by her father in 2009 and has received a lot of coverage in the Australian press. The father's trial is currently ongoing. The article is newly created and unreferenced, although it doesn't seem horribly POV or anything like that and I'm sure most, if not all, of the article could be referenced. So I'm honestly unsure what to do about an article like this. I doubt it would survive an AfD under WP:1E, but does this need to be speedily dealt with (though no CSD criteria fit)? Any advice would be appreciated. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 11:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Really it needs to vanish. Perhaps an article after the trial if a case can be made that it is an especially notable murder for some reason, but there is no reason to have an article under that dead girls name and we should be a rolling trial report either. Death of Darcey Freeman is it already Murder of Darcey Freeman - Off2riorob - note - its been prodded - Irregardless of the spelling mistake in the title, we don't have articles on four-year-old (murdered) children even if their demise received some comment in the press - (talk) 11:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, sorry I should have mentioned that the article name is incorrect. I also agree that should an article exist, it should be titled something like Death of Darcey Freeman, but it should probably not be created until the court case has been concluded. The article has just been PROD'd and then moved after I raised the issue on WP:AWNB, but I'm not sure if waiting seven days is the way to go here. Possibly a speedy with a customised reason would be appropriate? Jenks24 (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I've corrected the spelling so that if it is deleted, then it is traceable in the future.The-Pope (talk) 12:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Now an A7 tag has been placed on it -- not sure that'll fly with the reviewing admin, but I guess we'll see what happens. Jenks24 (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I thought of WP:A7 - lets see. Off2riorob (talk) 12:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Cameron Reilly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Request deletion due to non-notable individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrVerbatim (talk • contribs) 14:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I mostly reverted your edits, you removed sourced content and added potentially controversial information without sources. If you feel the article should be deleted you will need to take it to WP:Articles for deletion. GB fan (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Unsure about "non-notable" as he is mentioned at [28], [29], [30] etc. which appear to make him "sufficiently notable" for Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Michael Fishman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No citations for an elaborate biography. Written in a biased and personal way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.7.171 (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The article needs additional references, I have tagged it for additional references. I haven't done much of a review of it yet. GB fan (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The article was expanded in a single edit on August 10 by an IP with three edits in this diff - much was a duplicate cut and copy from his imbd bio - I can't see if the content was moved from here to there or there to here but as it was anyway a large uncited expansion with the sort of personal commentary they could well be uncitable I suggest reverting back to the previous version. note - trimmed back, subject appears of minor notability, a redirect is a possible option as presently its uncited. Off2riorob (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – WP:COI explained and understood by the user

Alison Cork (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Paid editing at Alison Cork: Over the past couple of months there has been a large promotional push at the Alison Cork article. This morning a very large amount (multiple paragraphs) of original research was added. I removed the prose as it was completely unsourced, POV and obviously promotional and left a note on the article talk page. The new editor User:Jackswain88, who has only edited this article, restored unsourced info and noted in his edit summary "I have been hired to revert this". I have to log off for a couple of hours, so I'm hoping someone may be able to watch the article to ensure that the information added is sourced, unpromotional, and neutrally worded. Additional follow-up with the SPA account will also likely be needed. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Did a bit of depuffing in any case. Collect (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Nikko Briteramos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Blathery argumentative run-on article with profound BLP issues, in the midst of an edit war. Perhaps stubbing needed? Semiprotection? Edison (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Stubbing or at a minimum cleaning up - pending protection would stop them and allow experienced users to clean it up to something worthy of defending - is he actually notable? we will only find out by having a good look at it. From a quick glance the content has some contentious claims - fully protect - warn and report the offenders for edit warning ??? So many options. Off2riorob (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

A mess - there are obvious COI concerns regarding the major contributor's name too. And what is with all the bold text? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I got rid of some of that to see the wood for the trees - yes - COI clearly. I think he is a person that infected someone with HIV but there seems a dispute or a claim of inocense...We have an article were I recently moved a HIV infector that was not notable enough for his own BLP but I forget the exact title - this person may need to be moved to a couple of lines there. Off2riorob (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• - note - it's been stubbed back (this version) and I agree the expanded version should be reverted out if it is replaced until we have chance to have a better look at it. - Me I think if he is wiki notable is a couple of lines here Criminal transmission of HIV and protect the redirect. Off2riorob (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you Rob and Andy. The present article is way more encyclopedic than the one at the time I posted my concerns. Good job! Edison (talk) 04:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• The disruptive editor has now edited the article again, restoring some of the features of its earlier unacceptable form. I have reverted, and blocked the editor for 72 hours for edit warring. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

David Gayle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

He is currently in a relationship with Rachel Palin, an Oscar winning actress, after his heartbreaking relationship with Claudia Camacho, who notoriously cheated on him with his close friends.

Hardly dispassionate??

And if RP has won an Oscar, how odd that she doesn't have her own page!

• Unsourced, no source found, deleted. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Watchlisted - uncited contentious, revert , warn and block any repeat offenders. If need-be protect the BLP also. Off2riorob (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Ronn Torossian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

BLP edits were made which are inaccurate (Drive people out of Jerusalem never stated), not which he is noteable for (owns a PR agency), and not well sourced given BLP issues. Pls assist with cleanup as user is very agressively harming this live active person. --108.21.128.55 (talk) 13:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The criticisms in that article were attributed to the New York Times, the Forward (considered a reliable newspaper), The Atlantic, the Haaretz newspaper, and Ad Age. One quote was attributed to Herbert Nolan, a writer on the Gawker website. I would not consider Gawker to be a reliable source for information, even though it is highly respected within the PR community. However, I did not rely on that source for information, but only quoted Nolan's opinion. Nolan himself is well-known and a respected media critic.

The anonymous editor 108.21.128.55, in the article 5W Public Relations has used an interesting tactic - he has removed all the footnotes from the section critical of 5WPR, so that he can now contend that the information is unsourced and removed it. I am wondering if he used the same trick at Ronn Torossian. This editor has since been blocked for sockpuppetry. --Ravpapa (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

(... or block evasion - take your pick.)

To echo the comment I made on Talk:5W Public Relations, I would suggest writing ultra-conservatively in this instance. Although the NYT tends to be used as almost the definition of what a WP:RS is, it also sometimes manages to host editorial pieces ("op-eds") that are definitely not the sort of material we want to be basing negative BLP content on. I would also consider leaving out the Gawker material unless it was itself discussed in a WP:RS. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to punish the sockpuppets by our even subconsciously allowing non-neutral negative material to enter articles that we believe the sockpuppets had a COI with. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I was, perhaps, carried away by my anger at someone trying to make a mockery of this noble institution. On the other hand, we have to take into account that the only really notable thing about Ronn Torossian is the controversy he stirs, both because of his aggressive tactics and because of his fringe views on Israel. If we excise those from the article, we might just as well delete it, as what remains is a mediocre PR hack with a crewcut. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Ernst and young named him a semi finalist to ent of year pr week ad age 40 under 40. His clients (who may or may not be right wing) are for his firms webpage not for personal stories on him. He's been featured in ny times and business week feature stories none of which mention Israel. Your personal political bias are apparent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.72.4 (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The avatars of babasalichai and associates continue to surprise me with their inability to compose a simple English sentence, and their complementary inability to read and comprehend the written word. Here is what the New York Times profile has to say about Torossian's involvement with Israel:

While leading a group called the Coalition for Jewish Concerns, a 20-year-old Mr. Torossian protested at a presidential rally for Pat Buchanan in New Hampshire.

In an oft-told story, Mr. Torossian said he persuaded the speaker to tour the settlements along the West Bank, despite the controversy surrounding their status. "There's no Arab voting bloc in New York," Mr. Torossian recalled telling him. "What's your downside? Who are you going to alienate?" A meeting was arranged with the mayor of the West Bank city of Hebron. "When we got out of the car," Mr. Torossian said proudly, "there were 40 reporters waiting."

In other words, the New York Times, while focusing primarily on his PR career, does indeed mention his commitment to Israel. Moreover, dozens of other sources discuss this aspect of Torossian exclusively. I am sure that Torossian himself considers his commitment to Israel an important part of his persona, and would consider a profile of himself that did not include that to be incomplete. Perhaps, 66.65.72.4, you could ask him yourself. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

What I don't get is the incessant need to write just the controversy. This Ravpapa editor seems ti believe that Gawker is the end all of genuine news, when in fact it is a blog that thrives on controversy. As for the Gawker writer writing about him being smart or not, is this writer a Mensa tester, a Regents adviser or other? Why is that quote relevant or treated as more than hearsay? Please be balanced and be fair.

Also, the Pistons piece - is that all there is in the article? Ronn Torossian being aggressive and brash is established, why can't balance be added to the piece to reflect possibly comments from those who don't mind it as much as those who do?

Abigail7 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC).

I think one of your problems, Abigail, is with understanding the nuances of the English in the NYT quote. I am guessing from your many errors in writing that you, like NYCdan, babasalichai, and the others, are not a native English speaker. So I will explain: the quote "the consummate scrappy publicist" is meant as a compliment. The quote from Nolan is meant to balance this compliment.

By now, I have read quite a bit about Torossian, including interviews and things he has written himself. I have found no one who has not described his PR style as aggressive, brash, pushy. Some, like the NYT writer, find this an admirable aspect of his personality. Others, like Nolan, think that Torossian's aggressiveness is excessive. A legitimate disagreement, one that should be documented in this profile of him. That is what balance is all about.--Ravpapa (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm reading this too - and I am new here, but not new to news and happenings, and I see that while the NYTimes is a valid reference, the balance should be equally as strong. Gawker is not that. If you wish to argue Gawker, maybe the comment on his style would be balance (if you want to argue Gawker=NYTimes), but the part about Torossian not be that bright is just unnecessarily mean and only there for the purpose of disparaging. I would hope that other true objective Wikipedia editors would see this and realize that this while edit war it about highlighting the issues that make Torossian look as bad as one can.

--BetHillel (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Another new user who just happens to have a fascination with a particular PR firm and its owner? That's like the fourth in 48 hours.

Anyway I have trimmed out 90% of the quote, purely on the grounds that it's not Wikipedia's place to be relaying opinions about the lack of intelligence of living persons. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Don’t people love to sling mud at those who are more successful and accomplished than themselves? Torrosian has made a place for himself in the highly competitive world of PR at such an early age. His awards and success stories speak for themselves and naturally cause much bad blood which often results in his unfair criticism. But Wikipedia is no place to vent such negative emotions. Offensive article from Gawker which is libellous and include secondary sources and slander should be removed right away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelbstinnett (talk • contribs) 12:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

As I indicated on the Ronn Torossian talk page, I agree that Gawker is not the best source for this kind of criticism, and that I would remove it. I have duly done so, replacing it with quotes from two sources that are unarguably reliable.

I am pleased to note that the debate over Ronn Torossian and 5W Public Relations has inspired three new editors, hitherto anonymous, to create usernames and contribute to the Wikipedia. While the similarities in writing styles and in interests of Abigail7, BetHillel, and Michaelbstinnett are, perhaps, surprising, I nonetheless believe that each will bring his or her unique contribution to building the encyclopedia. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

RavPapa - you might wish to notice that I am not editing the page, but adding to the proper talk pages to help combat the spin that some people feel necessary to include. I am well aware that any change I make to the page will be promptly attacked and changed back for no other reason that I did it, regardless of what it said.

--BetHillel (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm helping out here, too. There's some critical material that needs to be reviewed, and some balance material gone from previous versions that may be reintroduced if it checks out. --Dweller (talk) 12:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Whereas Torossian began his career with Israel advocacy, he has since done a lot more. He is on the record commenting on the antics of Lindsey Lohan and Tiger Woods, and even Charlie Sheen. While he was once almost solely about Israel policy, he is now about public relations and commenting on how public figures can do it the right way or wrong way. Shouldn't his Wikipedia presence, as it is a living and evolving encyclopedia, evolve with every year he adds more notable commentary to the pool the editors seem to be choosing from?

--BetHillel (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Quoting someone else's comments from Torossian's talk page:

"There is not need for this article to simply define Torossian with a spin; it should just be an article on what makes him who he is. That is, the good, the bad and the facts - none of which should overemphasize any others. To simply leave the faux pas in a career spanning two decades without also speaking equally of the facts that his style and methods have also been received well enough by different people than he may have offended, is disingenuous to say the least.

Torossian pissed off the rabbis mentioned, but he counseled an Israeli Prime minister, has served many Israeli Parliament members, and represented the Israeli foreign ministry, ministry of tourism and a host of others. To say that the two Jews mentioned define him is just inaccurate and frankly - weighted."

--BetHillel (talk) 00:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I urge administrators and impartial editors here to look - don't gloss over Torossian's dark clouds, but don't make them the only ones in the sky.

Mordecai Tendler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am attempting to recify this clearly one-sided and biased article, that by it's very nature appears to violate the biographies of living persons policies. I assumed that it was an honest error, until my attempts to correct the article by adding newspaper sources and omitted data was blocked by editor User: Avraham. All relevant concerns and source material is posted on the discussion page. Please assist in resolving this issue. Thanks. Koltorah (talk) 04:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, the version you edited to does seem to me to not be compliant with some of our WP:Policies and guidelines, and a little messily formated, neutrality and uninvolved reporting are a core part of those guidelines. Discussion is also key to resolving disputes. Saying that this http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/06/prweb1024704.htm does look like a WP:RS and perhaps an update is required but I have only had a quick look. Although you have been reverted by multiple users as you mentioned user:Avraham I have left him a note with a link to this thread. Off2riorob (talk) 10:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

PR Web is not a reliable source -- it is merely a web site for posting press releases, with no editorial control whatsoever. This is an astonishing error on your part, O2RR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is some kind of information aggregation site, as I said I only had a quick look and does look like a RS - and perhaps its not, I will look more later, it is some kind of reliable as it is an external one thousand and four hundred and ninety six times on this wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The requirement for verifiable information from reliable sources has been explained to this editor on the article's talk page. In this case, I believe the BLP strictures are being carried out properly, simultaneously preventing unacceptable demonization or hagiography. -- Avi (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

PRWeb is a site which will publish any press release sent to it. It does no fact checking and is not a reliable source for any assertions except those permissible under the rules on self published sources. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Right thanks, I was wondering - what is his major wikipedia notability? is it inherited notability? or is it the sexual allegations, and has he been found guilty of anything? From a UK perspective, he just looks like a minor local priest of very limited independent wikipedia notability. Off2riorob (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

"Priest"??? For the love of pasta -- please just stay away from Jewish topics... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question - please stop focusing on me and discuss the actual issue, as I requested - what is his actual qualification for wiki notability - at present it appears to be - inherited and a large portion of sexual allegations that have no charges at all. Off2riorob (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah -- but you haven't answered my question either. Let me pose it again: "priest"??? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

"A Priest and a Rabbi walk into a bar ..." [31].--Bbb23 (talk) 01:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, how about the list of published newspaper articles listed on the discussion page, which is ignored completely by Avi (talk). He keeps on talking about the press releases, but simply ignores the fact that there are multiple independent newspaper articles that contradict the content of the wikipedia article. In addition, the newspaper articles independently confirm (by making refference to) the content of the press releases. I really think that Avi (talk) should be held to task for what seems to be (at best) very questionable editing habits on the article. Koltorah (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Where are these "multiple independent newspaper articles" ? I see many links to Jewish Press, is all. Tarc (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

"The Jewish Press" is a newspaper that is a reliable source according to wikipedia policy. Why is that not sufficient?

Koltorah (talk) 04:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

For a little forum shopping by Koltorah see EAR here.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Off2riorob here. Tendler's notability outside of the legal case is hazy at best. WP:PERP suggests that this case is insufficient grounds for a biog article and as is well understood, his lineage is also insufficient for more than the case being briefly referred to in his illustrious relatives' articles. And can we grow up a little and avoid red herring discussions about words like rabbi and priest. --Dweller (talk) 12:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Based on my opinions above, and the fact that the closing admin's words in the 2007 AfD haven't been heeded, and our greater awareness of BLP issues in 2011, I'm going to nominate this for deletion. --Dweller (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mordecai Tendler (2nd nomination) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dennis Genpo Merzel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am posting notice of this article here again. Ongoing BLP violations, besides a host of other problems, continue to make this article either contentious in its current state, a state which has been reverted a couple of times, or unacceptable in a previous state. Why is the latter unacceptable? Too much basic information is sourced to the subject's own website (even with dead links), too much information (on wives, children, etc) is unsourced, and many of the claims to notability are improperly verified (look, for the heck of it, at footnotes 10 through 13 in the unacceptable version. Note also, in that version, that the references to reliable sources that were there are removed, and that also is unacceptable: I have warned User:Golgofrinchian, who was responsible for that in the first place, that this cannot be: future removal of such reliable sources I will consider acts of vandalism, since they remove validly sourced information contrary to a host of guidelines--and Golgofrinchian, with over 6,000 edits, should be aware of that.

The article's talk page contains some running indictment of me, and Golgo has accused me of "unskilled" edits--I'll gladly set that aside. I have no involvement with this subject or the broader topic; what I care about is that a bunch of editors seem to be ganging up and making a mockery of our BLP policy--and one editor's ignorance of such policy is pretty evident from a comment they made on the article's talk page, in bold print, Several of the links people are pointing to are websites Merzel himself has written. How is that improper source? It is not. He wrote it, it is his website, it is perfectly acceptable as proof. I rest my case. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

This article has been "reported" on BLPN twice before this year. First here and second here. Very little discussion took place on BLPN about the substantive issues or the contentious editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, and the same shit stuff is happening all over again. Drmies (talk) 19:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's keep it civil. I have started a new section on the article's Talk page with suggestions as to going forward with this article. I believe the best approach is to start with Drmies's stripped down version and rebuild the article, keeping in mind that everything has to be relevant to the subject's notability and everything has to be reliably sourced. Rehashing of the past will not serve any purpose. Nor does it help for editors to use the word "vandalism" in edit summaries reverting other editors' changes.

I don't know if anyone will heed my suggestions, but I promised to revert any knee-jerk restorations of the article with tons of problematic, improperly sourced material. That said, I can only do so much without falling into the edit warring abyss.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Nazir Ahmed, Baron Ahmed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Sir

Lord Ahmed has not been expaled by the Labour Party. He is a Labour Peer and belongs to the Labour Party. He was jailed for 15 days and the Court of Appeal overturned the sentence and released him . Technically he has never been to the prison —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.110.101 (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

We need WP:RS reliable sources for such information. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed the phrase about expulsion from the Labour party from the lede; it was unsourced. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

According to Sky News "He was expelled from the Labour Party when found guilty". [32] The Guardian article about his appeal refers to him as a "Labour peer" though, [33] so this is unclear. This article states that he was jailed, but was freed on appeal. I don't see how this could be interpreted as suggesting that "technically he has never been to the prison". AndyTheGrump (talk)

According to this recent article he was only "briefly" expelled from Labour although I haven't found a source explaining how or why this was overturned. January (talk) 11:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Anil Kumar (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a consistent effort in the article about Anil Kumar to downplay his guilty plea in the Galleon insider trading case. Any efforts made to provide balance to the article are imm.ediately deleted. The overwhelming focus of the article is a glowing treatment of his illustrious business career, with his guilty plea for receiving 2.6mm in exchange for providing insider information treated as practically a footnote — Preceding unsigned comment added by SDPearson (talk • contribs) 01:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I edited the article in an attempt to create a more neutral version. I re-added the mention of his arrest and plea to the lede where I believe they belong, removed both some tendentious and peacock material from the body, eliminated an unreliable blog source and added a couple of "citation needed" tags. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Wes Mannion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Someone has registered the URL wesmannion.com (already black-listed on meta) that redirects to this rather nasty version of our article. Please revdel that revision and preferably also [34], [35], [36] and possibly more. --Wasell^(T) 07:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Done and semi-protected indefinitely. CIreland (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --Wasell^(T) 18:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Incorrect material removed from article.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Henry Kissinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The first sentence:

"Henry Alfred Kissinger (pronounced /ˈkɪsɪndʒər/;[1] born May 27, 1923, dead April 2, 2011,[2]) was a German-born American political scientist, diplomat, and recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize."

Henry Kissinger did not die on April 2, 2011.

Is this an April Fool's joke? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.233.106 (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

"Joke" or not it's puerile vandalism and has been reverted. – ukexpat (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Lara Logan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Comment on whether these details of her sexual assault are encyclopedic and compliant with BLP guidelines. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lara_Logan&action=historysubmit&diff=421189231&oldid=421163799 Mindbunny (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• My opinion: delete Mindbunny (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
• I'd delete the information, but only because it seems to imply that the attackers were protesters. If the information was to be retained, I would at least delete the last sentence about the Times with the long quote, simply because it's too much information vis-a-vis the noteworthiness of the event.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I went into the article, and all I did was correct a date error and move a sentence up to the paragraph above. An editor reverted me, apparently believing I was removing the information. How he could believe that is beyond me. Meanwhile, another editor then actually removed the information. I then made the mistake of looking at the Talk page. The issue of what to put in the article about the assault goes on forevever, and I can't figure out what the conclusion was or whether there even was a conclusion. One thing stands out is the heat of the discussion. I'm withdrawing my comment above, if for no other reason than Mindbunny, who was a participant in this extended discussion, could have alerted us to the contentiousness and history of the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Hm? It's a contentious issue. That's why I'm requesting outside views (again). If outsiders refuse to get involved in anything contentious, it removes a basic way of resolving contentious issues. Just to be clear: the page has been fully protected more than once over this matter, although the main issue was actually different from what seems to be the issue now. (Previously, it was mainly, but not exclusively, shouts of "Jew" whose appropriateness was contested.) Mindbunny (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The page has been fully protected several times because there has been ownership issues and edit warring. [37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53] Previous votes and consensus efforts have been deemed irrelevant by Mindbunny. This is a part of the continuing effort whose objective is made clear by the above diffs.V7-sport (talk) 04:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

There has been never been consensus to include the material. While there was a poll, with respect to the material under discussion, the result was 6-6, no consensus, which means in a BLP that the details should not be included. Note that the "partial keep" vote specifically states that the 'stripped, punched, slapped, beaten with poles' stuff should be left out. That means that with respect to the specific material under discussion, which is precisely what is quoted, the "partial keep" vote is actually a "delete" vote. That's 6-6 and doesn't include me. I'll go ahead and add my !vote, even though 6-6 is no consensus anyway. Yworo (talk) 04:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, to wade through all that talk page discussion would take a full-time scorekeeper and hours, if not days. Give us an executive summary of the over all dispute. I think in most cases when a professional international journalist, her colleagues and her employer assert that she has been sexually assaulted, she most likely was sexually assaulted. How much more detail do we need to know? I don't care which orifice, if she was fully or partially stripped or bitten rather then pinched. I do care about the level of violence and any racial or national overtones if they are well sourced and most especially that she is receiving care and there is some hope of an investigation. The diff posted by the complainant does not on its surface appear to be overly graphic or lurid, even though it is more info then I personally care to know, I don't see much harm in that diff though I am a male so may be missing something. Beyond that, what exactly does V7-sport (no, I'm not sloshing through your 17 diffs to figure out your issue without some direction, give us a summary) insist must be published and what exactly does the privacy sensitive group apparently led by Mindbunny wish to keep private? I suspect that there is much more to this debate then the diff provided in the complaint. Veriss (talk) 05:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

There's no value in just transferring the arguments from there to here. I was hoping for uninfluenced views. The basic concerns are that these details haven't been authorized or confirmed by the victim, the ultimate source is anonymous, and whether this much detail about a sexual assault violates due weight principles. Mindbunny (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Authorized? Is that the criteria for inclusion now? And no, the sources are not anonymous, there is the NY Post, the London Times, Fox, CBS, etc. etc.

Your ideas of "due weight" have resulted in an article that devotes more space to the "Michael Hastings controversy" and the utterances Glenn Greenwald and "Matt Taibbi (who) wrote a Rolling Stone blog entry titled "Lara Logan You Suck"... As the article stands now the reader has idea what happened there or any insight into the reasons why she has been off the air for 2 months.

And when you, several times, write things like "There is an obvious agenda among a surprisingly large group of editors focussed on Judaism and the Middle East who are intent on pushing a POV" as another excuse to cleanse the article of anything that might reflect badly on the people who sexually assaulted her it makes it difficult to believe that you are just interested in "due weight principles". V7-sport (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Just back up , and stick to the content issues or move along, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Re Veriss, I agree with you that the minute details of her assault needn't be posted, however I also agree with I do care about the level of violence and any racial or national overtones if they are well sourced and most especially that she is receiving care and there is some hope of an investigation. That material has been purged from the article. V7-sport (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The "level of violence and any racial or national overtones" simply aren't pertinent to the subject of the article being discussed. They should be integrated into Egyptian revolution of 2011 where they would actually add something to the article! Yworo (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The level of violence and any racial or national overtones are pertinent. It establishes what she was doing and the level of risk involved in doing it. Funny how we can devote space to Glenn Greanwald and Matt Taibbi taking potshots at her from the safety their rec-rooms but no mention of dangerous environment that she put herself into in order to get a story or the consequences there of is permissible. It's a sliding scale of what is "on topic". V7-sport (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

"Beaten and sexually assaulted" is sufficient to establish that. Yworo (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

To reply to Mindbunny's original query, I suggest that WP:BLP be interpreted to mandate that we don't include highly specific details of a sexual assault of a named living person unless she herself has disclosed them.Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

She could have been "beaten and sexually assaulted" in Cleavland. What is sourced is that she went into a highly charged crowd, was mobbed, stripped, beaten with flag polls as the crowd chanted "Jew Jew" and "Israeli". The way the article stands gives the reader no idea of any of that while, for instance, it does go into detail on the opinions of her various detractors because she reported something they disagreed with. V7-sport (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the article is quite clear about where the event occurred and the general conditions present. You started a poll and the !vote went against you. Now you need to honor it. Yworo (talk) 23:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

My name isn't Berean–Hunter and no, the article certainly isn't clear about the event or the conditions therein. V7-sport (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "authorized", yes. The details of the sexual assault of a named living person should be restricted to what the victim has confirmed, as a general rule. I can imagine exceptions, but I see none here. I certainly don't see grounds for an exception in the publication by the New York Post (voted the least credible publication in New York) of details that are anonymously sourced. Mindbunny (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion is not "confirmed by the victim" and that an assault occurred isn't even in question. V7-sport (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Logan's privacy should trump even reliably sourced details under WP:BLP and WP:NOTNEWS. Off2RioRob, any thoughts here? Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not Rob, but I agree with Jonathan. It's a blend of policy and editorial judgment. In addition to the privacy issue, the details are simply not necessary to document the event. A line needs to be drawn. Wikipedia is not a tabloid of gratuitously graphic material.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

"In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." -WP:WELLKNOWN Jonathanwallace, I'm not advocating inclusion the details of this assault above and beyond that it was sexual in nature. The actions of the crowd however are important to the understanding of what transpired. V7-sport (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in this case there aren't a "multitude of reliable published sources". There's a multitude of unreliable sources and perhaps *one* reliable source. So WP:WELLKNOWN doesn't apply. Yworo (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The inclusion of details about the sexual assault is the only thing this thread is about. That's the text of the diff I brought here. That's the text that has been re-inserted and re-deleted recently. So, what does V7-sport mean when he says he doesn't advocate it? He reinserted it [54]. Mindbunny (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Just trying to stop you from paring down the section to insignificance, which you have succeeded in doing.V7-sport (talk) 02:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

So, as long as unneeded lurid detail is kept out of the article, you do not object to edits pertaining to this phrase "I do care about the level of violence and any racial or national overtones if they are well sourced..." I think addressing the level of violence and any racial/national overtones issue is most definitely relative to her situation, her career as a woman international journalist and why she has been absent for over a month. Racial and national overtones of the assault illustrate how terrifying the experience was for her and the intent of the mob assaulting her. Was she a symbol? That matters in this case. Logan apparently spent more then a few days recovering in a US hospital. I am not a doctor but it seems to me that injuries requiring that much hospitalization must have been serious and the level of violence must of been extreme. The article as it stands makes no mention of her extended hospital stay, the level of violence, what the overtones were, the fact she was overwhelmed by a group of "200" (that is a significant and terrifying amount) according to one NYT article, that it is was serious enough for President Obama to telephone her or that the incident has affected her career as she now has a new position. She is not a waitress in some restaurant, she is a high profile, notable, international journalist. The other unanswered questions need to be addressed. Are there concerns addressing the non-lurid issues as well? Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 04:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with giving it a paragraph. Reputable sources gave it some space. 1 paragraph is not going to give it so much prominence that nothing else in the article is noticed. It might be lurid but we are not here to censor material. If reputable sources didn't censor it we certainly shouldn't.Cptnono (talk) 04:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

So something like this? [55] or this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lara_Logan&diff=416991271&oldid=416981775} Losing the part "and red marks on her body initially believed to be bite marks turned out to be the result of pinching"? V7-sport (talk) 23:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No , nothing like that, this is getting tendentious, such additions have been rejected for the last month - its old hat, I suggest you take down your tent give it a rest - thousands of bytes here and there and still good faith objections from experienced editors and no vision of a consensus on the horizon - the incident is already in the BLP and well written according to BLP guidelines. Off2riorob (talk) 23:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, as it stands now it has been sanitized beyond BLP guidelines. V7-sport (talk) 01:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The current version is unsatisfactory on many, many levels. It does disservice to her as a professional international journalist and the risks she and other journalists, male and female, face daily. It makes no mention of the affects the incident had on her health or career and it completely sidesteps the issue of if she was a 'symbol' and whether nationalist or racist remarks were chanted while she was raped. As it stands this section of her article is a travesty. "Jew, Jew, Jew" and "Israeli" were sourced and chanted while she was raped while she is apparently not Jewish nor Israeli but is blonde and of South African descent. These political overtones are very germane to the discussion. Is this information left out due to lack of interest or opposition which may be politically driven in nature? I have seen a glimmer of the latter in this discussion so far. Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It would help if you got your facts straight. No reliable source states that she was raped. No reliable source states "Jew" was chanted while she was assaulted. No reliable source states what effect the incident had on her health or career. The sexual assault is recent and she has not yet commented on it--which is natural. The question of interpreting her as a symbol hasn't been discussed. The "information" is omitted because the one company originating it (various News Corp companies) ultimately has not named any sources, because it is not confirmed by the victim, because it is about something deeply sensitive and private, and BLP requirement stipulate high quality sources and sensitivity. Mindbunny (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – all issues raised resolved through editing and discussion - thanks to all.

Burning Spear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

To Whom It May Concern, Sir/Madam. This email is to inform you that the information you have is incorrect with regards to my Date of Birth- recording History. I Winston Rodney Aka Burning Spear want no mention of MRI/Mega Force with regards to Distribution your article is very misleading. I ask that you remove this article from Facebook. Thank You. Winston Rodney. <<redacted email>> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.205.170 (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

On general principles, depuffed and removed material which would be of marginal importance in any case. Added cn to date of birth. Collect (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I think if Winston was to tweet or blog his date of birth as he would be making himself three years older and that is not something people usually do for vanity reasons then we could consider accepting the date as self published. Off2riorob (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Collect: You added a cn tag to the birthdate in the infobox, however there are two citations already included for the info in the lede (ref 1 and ref 2). There are a large amount of music compendiums via Google Books that also confirm the 1948 date as well as the San Diego Tribune (here). --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Noting that the DoB has been changed to 1945 - the cn was absolutely spot-on. TYVM. Collect (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

What I had been attempting to point out to you was that you had added the cn tag in the infobox, but not in the lede (which already included two refs). It was confusing for a cite to be requested in one area where there were already two listed for the same information in another area. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I added the tag to "first mention" of the questioned fact. Which rather seemed like a good idea at the time. I know of no WP policy saying "add cn template to second appearance of the claim" to be sure. Collect (talk) 21:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The first mention as far as the reader is concerned is in the lede. Citations in the infobox should not be necessary.--Michig (talk) 10:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I would be happy to have the 1945 dob if some means of verifying it could be provided. I would be happier if properly-sourced details of the MRI deal and subsequent dispute could be included (why is it misleading?), but can live with it being removed if that's the consensus. Removing mention of which Marley the article talks about and of the influence of Marcus Garvey, who is obviously a major influence is, however, definitely not an improvement.--Michig (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the 'citation needed' tag from the infobox, given that the date is supported by two citations elsewhere, and restored the deleted content about Marcus Garvey and Bob Marley, as it is necessary for the article to make sense. Not controversial, I hope.--Michig (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No , not controversial as far as I can see, perhaps the subject will tweet or blog a selfpub update for us to consider, thanks all. Off2riorob (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I've done some further digging, and a book by Colin Larkin from 2002 states DoB as 1 March 1945 where an earlier book by him from 1998 stated simply '1948'. Given this apparent correction by Larkin I have changed the DoB in the article. I trust this is satisfactory to all.--Michig (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Kudos for the extra research - my only suggestion would be to add a note to the talk page in case this crops up again. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. By the way, a message on my talk page ([56]) indicated that the original request here came from Winston Rodney's wife.--Michig (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

An anonymous user who keeps hopping from IP address to IP address keeps adding unsourced personal opinion into the Richard Pipes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. Corvus cornix_talk 04:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected for one week. Gamaliel (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Bill Nighy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This actors page was moved incorrectly today by a user who has been inactive for over a year. The page4 move as been entirely inaccurate. I am about to log off. If someone could report this to the right page to get fixed that would be deeply appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 05:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This has been reverted but seems like it was a good faith attempt to resolve some naming issue. Bill Nighy 2 not to be confused with Bill Nye - Off2riorob (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – nothing to see, at least not at this noticeboard

Paulo Nozolino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please view a page of one of Paulo Nozolino's book: http://www.steidlville.com/books/140-Far-Cry.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgomezphoto (talk • contribs) 10:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no WP:BLP issue for us to take action on here. Also, the link you've provided would not be suitable as a source or for establishing notability, since it is just a website trying to sell one of Nozolino's books. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – as per below - protected

Dave Hensman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Ponyo has suggested that I raise an issue relating to the Dave Hensman article here. The article has just been protected for the second time this year as a consequence of one or more contributors inserting an extremely verbose disciplinary ruling that relates to what seems to be a sideline activity of the article's subject involving real estate management/investment.

The questionable content is referenced to a pdf (pages 18-19) but it has been queried by me and others whether:

1. including it at all is relevant, since the infringement appears to be technical & the punishment imposed appears to be a small "rap on the knuckles" in the scale of things. It is not even certain that Hensman actually did anything wrong as the issue could well be a consequence of his titular position with the business rather than direct involvement. So, is it even a notable event in the Wikipedia scale?
2. including the full text of the ruling in the article amounts to undue weight and contravention of BLP policy

There seems to be a degree of sockpuppet and/or meatpuppet activity going on and to my mind there it is also POV-pushing and possibly COI by a disgruntled investor. The contributors seems to be single-purpose accounts.

I know nothing about this guy and am involved purely at a policy level. For this reason I have been reluctant to try to edit the additions down into something that might be acceptable to WP and have instead been reverting them. There have been attempts to discuss with the major contributor but they hit a brick wall & consequently umpteen vandalism notices have been issued over a period of time.

Thoughts would really be appreciated here. - Sitush (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless its been reported by independent reliable externals it shouldn't be included at all, never mind the whole text of the ruling as it was presented - nothing in the article to assert its notable at all, no independent reports to assert any notability to the issue, just keep it semi protected for the foreseeable future. Off2riorob (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The relevant contributors have recently introduced the sourcing cite mentioned above. That is an official bulletin, but I can find next to nothing else about it - hence my summary that it is a minor technical infringement rather than a significant event. - Sitush (talk) 15:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, should have added: is semi-protection going to stop this happening? Some of the contributors are named accounts and have > 4 edits already, just by their work on this article. Am a bit clueless about what to do, as you can see. - Sitush (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thats a primary report with no assertion of notability - irt is not our job to report such issue unless other reliable sources have established secondary notability. Block them all as quacking sockpuppets of the indef blocked original account - add pending protection to stop the additions being continued to be visible to the public and block on sight. Off2riorob (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a plan. Thanks for your help. - Sitush (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hm....User:Katsmeow777/Legal Suits and Dave Hensan(this is an attack title and could/should be sent to WP:MFD)...User:Jlcharger(needs blocking indefinitely as a sock of an indefinitely blocked user} - User:Katsmeow777(needs blocking indefinitely as a sock of an indefinitely blocked user} - User:Tiredofdavehensman??(blocked) - User:Stratawatch(blocked) - article created about his company - "Teamwork Property Management" ‎deleted (WP:G10: Attack page or negative unsourced WP:BLP ... you can be too polite, the user has been pointed to policy, reverted, warned, blocked and still they are creating multiple accounts to attack this living person using en wikipedia.. This is the user under an IP:70.70.16.233 from Langley, British Columbia (city) - it is highly likely to be disruption from a single user. Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed#Autoconfirmed users is ten edits and four days which if all the users accounts they have used so far are blocked will at least slow them down and will either force then to discuss or make them very easy to spot and block when new accounts make nine edits to mickey mouse and then add this cut and copy post to this BLP, I have found the case is that they usually realize the game is up and move along. Off2riorob (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not often accused of being too polite! My problem is that, despite being registered for years, I've not done a lot here until January, although since then have clocked up a fair mileage. I'm basically not as experienced as some might think/it might appear. I'll take the various accounts to SPI and the page (didn't spot that at all) to MFD. Got to learn sometime. - Sitush (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I would leave it for a few days and see what happens, a passing admin might block them as quacking socks but if not I have them all watchlisted and there should be enough eyes to deal with it if the user returns. Off2riorob (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but I'll do the MFD. Might be wasting everyone's time but I could do with knowing the process (done SPI before, but your point makes sense). - Sitush (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Out of interest here - does anybody have any evidence that it's the same David John Hensman who runs the company & recieved the disciplinary action as the DJH that the articles about? All we have is a link to 'Teamworks' webpage identifying the companies president as A DJH, suggesting that they must be the same is blatant OR and a massive BLP vio. Someone needs to either take this claim down or provide some evidence, especially since his websites official bio makes no mention of it. If anyone can show it's him, then maybe we can discuss the relevance of this action. Bob House 884 (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

He mentions it in the bio on his official website, in Ext Links of the article. - Sitush (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Dave is the president of Nex Gen World Leadership, a ministry focused on training young Christian leaders. His Kingdom focused company, Big Sky Ventures has three components: Big Sky Management, Big Sky Music, and Big Sky Motivational Presentations. In 2003 he purchased one of BC’s leading property management companies: Teamwork Property Management, which enables him to fund missions around the world. He pastors and teaches bi-weekly at The Bridge, a church he planted with his friends Dean Richmond, Brian Doerksen and Irv Esau. - Sitush (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up Bob House 884 (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The whole thing is totally undue, he was disciplined for a case of professional misconduct and fined by the council under some subrule section and fined jointly 2500 Canadian dollars, even if had been widely reported in WP:RS it wouldn't warrant inclusion, a single line at a push. Off2riorob (talk) 17:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Jlcharger and User:Katsmeow777 as sockpuppets of indef blocked User:Stratawatch. Same edits, same harassment crusade. User:Katsmeow777/Legal Suits and Dave Hensan has been deleted under G5 criteria (created by a blocked user in violation of their block). Did I miss anything? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Possibly ip 70.70.16.233 ? - Sitush (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The semi-protection will bar any IPs from adding the contentious info to the article, so no need to block unless they start editing disruptively elsewhere. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thank you to everyone who has co-operated here & on the related pages. - Sitush (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Cool, wikipedia should not become the primary vehicle for such content. Off2riorob (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)