• Rosalind Picard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A crisis is brewing about Rosalind Picard. The basic dispute revolves around whether the New York Times is a WP:RS and WP:V source, and involves appearance on the Discovery Institute Dissent from Darwinism petition. User:Moulton is now threatening to publish in the outside media at least two articles which are critical of Wikipedia's handling of this matter. I have rough drafts of these articles as well as contact information for Moulton, and a large number of emails on this subject. Several administrators have already been involved in trying to resolve this. I need someone to assist and look into this matter.--Filll 14:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I've offered to mediate on the talk page. THF 22:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The "Dissent from Darwinism" article is a great example of the obsessive coverage of the "creation/evolution controversy" here on WP. This is a petition with 700 signatures yet its article is much longer and better referenced than many on genuine scientific topics. On Ms Picard's article half of the space is taken up by the "controversy" about her signing it. The point of the controversy in her case is that her field is computer science, not life science. Steve Dufour 02:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There are reasons for this, obviously. For example: (1) When I first came to Wikipedia, and tried to help on evolution, it was very clear to me that with the creationist trolls constantly attacking the real science articles, we would not be able to make progress unless we built up the articles on the creation-evolution controversy to deal with this onslaught. And so I helped make subsiduary articles and articles on various aspects of the controversy. (2) The articles are actually not so high quality if you look at them, except for one or two exceptions. The creationism article and the creation-evolution controversy article are in pretty sad shape for major articles. Intelligent design barely managed to make FA and this was through tremendous efforts. The other articles on intelligent design and creationism are in general not so high quality. (3) In addition, people are interested in this controversy, and therefore there is more input and more people helping. (4) It is an area where people are confused, and are badly in need of careful documentation. There are many good books on Biology or Genetics or Physics. There are very few that organize and sort through this confused mass of information on the controversy, and most of those are quite partisan and show only one side or the other, and it is something that is important in people's lives and something people are confused about. Conclusion There are obviously many other reasons. I suspect strongly that the progress made in the last few months on the evolution article and related articles is due in large part to the development of more and better articles about the controversy itself, deflecting attacks from the main science articles. A similar thing was done at dinosaur and creationist perspectives on dinosaurs. Without dealing with the creationist issues in another article, it would have been impossible to make progress on the dinosaur article. I will also note that there are many many articles on obscure parts of religion and philosophy on Wikipedia. These are just things that people are interested in, so they get articles and develop. Eventually the holes in our coverage get filled in...--Filll 02:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the perspective. I would like to see better coverage of real science here. On Ms. Picard's article, I still think 50% is too much of it to be taken up by her signing a petition that has nothing to do with her field of notability. Steve Dufour 03:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't write that and it is now being looked at. Certainly the discussion in her main areas of interest should be expanded considerably. I might also note that people are drawn to controversial subjects; look at how much effort went into the Creation Museum article when it was first opened. I also might note that just a couple of months ago, before I and a few other editors busted our butts, the assorted petition articles dealing with the controversy were in disgusting shape. Look at the histories. They were all expanded drastically in the last couple of months. And they could stand a little more fleshing our and opposing views and citations in some cases. This is hard work, but I think it will pay off to have a suite of articles documenting this controversy, which in itself is an interesting sociological phenomenon. Could I edit in my areas of expertise like mathematical physics and physics and applied mathematics and statistics? Yes I could, but I wouldn't be learning so much, and then I would be butting heads with assorted morons who didn't know what they were talking about and who were over-ruling me. So I mostly avoid areas that I know something about. A friend who is an editor here and a surgeon has ended up being completely frustrated trying to edit medical articles; it is too awful to fight the people who do not know anything but revert everything you put in the article and use consensus to put in nonsense in an article. So I edit these things that I don't know much about, and I can learn and still contribute a little.--Filll 03:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Keep up the good work. (p.s. I have noticed that most of the people whose articles come up on this page are creationists, scientologists, or republicans. :-) ) (p.p.s. I forgot alleged closeted gays.)(p.p.p.s. I think the critics of creationism would be more effective if they focused more on scientific debate rather than criticism of individuals. There is already beginning to be a backlash against that.) Steve Dufour 03:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

What the assumption here is, is that being identified as a creationist is a bad thing. Not to most of these people, actually. Look into this a bit before you make that unfounded POV claim.--Filll 15:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

In some cases being identified as a creationist could be harmful to a person's career. Being identified as an evolutionist might be too, for instance for a professor in a fundamentalist Christian school. So we should be careful how we identify people. Steve Dufour 04:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that both sides are giving way too much importance to "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism", a 32 word petition with 700 signatures which has its own article and a category for its signers. Steve Dufour 22:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Steve's observation that disproportionate weight is placed on both the petition and the NY Times story in relation to relevant biographical content for scientists like Rosalind Picard and James Tour. Perhaps the NY Times story itself should have a section within the main article on the Dissent Petition. See this (overdone) first draft. Moulton 18:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Given the information that has been released by our editor with the WP:COI-violation problem, Moulton:[1] and on various talk pages, it is clear that there is no WP:BLP problem here, only the actions that are consistent with malicious trolling at this point. All the evidence published in WP:RS and WP:V sources, the statements of Moulton, the private email conversations etc strongly argue that Picard knew what the petition was when she signed it, knew what the Discovery Institute was, no fraud was involved, Picard meant to stay on the Dissent petition, Picard is proud of being on the Dissent petition, the "Do No Harm" provision of WP:BLP is not relevant in this case, etc. I am sorry for having wasted everyone's time with posting this notice here. Please feel free to close it if you feel this is appropriate.--Filll 16:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I take exception to the conclusions which Filll draws from the E-Mail exchange (which is not in evidence). I propose that Filll and I agree to release our private E-Mail exchange to a mutually agreeable trusted referee or Admin to render an unbiased opinion as to what conclusions can be drawn from the E-Mail. Moulton 18:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that there could be major problems if people are trying to use WP to put pressure on people to take their names off of the petition. Steve Dufour 01:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have no objection to Filll or anyone else offering such a suggestion, but making that a condition of easing up on them in a WP:BLP seems a bit heavy-handed to me. In any event, only one person is known to have ever gotten off the list, and no one seems to know what it took. I have seen editors assert that it's "easy" to do, but I have seen no reliable evidence to support that notion. Moulton 18:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. However, this case is more likely just a troll trying to jerk us all around. I am not happy about it. I no longer feel obligated to AGF in this case.--Filll 01:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be more of a case of a (self appointed?) go-between for someone who supports the petition but thinks ID isn't anti-evolution, so wants WP to apply higher "journalistic standards" than the NYT without any published source. .... dave souza, talk 16:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It's true that I acted independently. Picard had no idea I had attempted to correct the inaccuracies in her bio until Filll sent an E-Mail to an MIT staff person presenting his view that Picard should take the initiative to get her name off the list. I can't say this for certain, but I believe the reason Filll took the initiative there was because I had declined to disturb Picard with this issue.

I think WP should have higher standards than the NYT. Steve Dufour 18:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Different standards – see WP:NOR, and remember that we are not journalists. ... dave souza, talk 20:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree with that. The issue in question is calling the petition an "anti-evolution petition", as the NYT did in a headline but not in its story. Steve Dufour 03:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

A single ill-chosen word in the headline of a single story is not a very good basis for elevating that kind of label to the status of fact for the purposes of publishing an encyclopedia quality biography of a living person. The term "anti-evolution" (which is both inaccurate and inflammatory) did not appear in the article itself, nor did it appear on the web site that the story is about. It may or may not be Chang's personal opinion, or some headline writer's personal opinion, but that hardly elevates it to objective fact. Moulton 18:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

After what I know now, this is a ridiculous claim, in every sense. It does no harm. It is not at all inaccurate. There is no fraud involved and there never was. There is NO and I mean NO evidence that the New York Times got anything wrong here. And this business about having higher standards than the New York Times is ludicrous.--Filll 21:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The NY Times is a daily newspaper. One daily newspaper carried one story. That's not a very good basis for what appeared in the biographies of James Tour and Rosalind Picard. Moulton 18:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think "anti-evolution petition" is fine in a newspaper headline. It gets people's attention and gives them an idea what the article is about. However we can't use that headline in WP (if we are going to be really strict about our standards). For instance the NYT might have a headline that says: "Red Hot Mets Win 5 in a Row", but we can't start an article by saying: "The Mets are a red hot baseball team from New York." Steve Dufour 22:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Take another example. I wrote an essay in a blog on Media Ethics which I blandly entitled, Wikipedia and Ethics in Online Journalism. When it was picked up and reprinted in a university newspaper published by the School of Journalism and Communications, the senior faculty editor (who is also the Department Head) rewrote the headline to read Wikipedia makes for a nightmare in online journalism ethics. I had no idea he was going to do that. Nor did he ask me if it was OK. He simply exercised his prerogative to craft a headline that suited his notions of what a newspaper headline should look like. Moulton 18:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, it is clearly obvious that the Dissent from Darwinism petition is anti-evolution. People on all sides characterize it this way: For example,[2]--Filll 22:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The reference you provided seems to say the the petition itself was not anti-evolution, but the way it was mentioned in a series of newspaper ads was. Unless I missed something. Steve Dufour 00:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Calling the petition "anti-evolution" is both inaccurate and harmful to the 103 scientists. For one thing, most of the technical criticisms apply to the models for macro-evolution, not to the models for micro-evolution. That's because there are better mathematical models for micro-evolution, since those models are more directly governed by the laws of physics and chemistry. Moulton 18:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Then use that as a reference, not a NYT headline. (I also think the expression "anti-evolution" is kind of vague. Some people might think that the petition is against evolution itself and wants us to go back to being chimpanzees.) Steve Dufour 23:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The term "anti-evolution" appears in the title of the NY Times article, and therefore appears in the reference citation. Let the onus be on the NY Times to defend the accuracy of the headline. Moulton 18:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh? One can find lots more... But you have produced very revealing comments. Thank you.--Filll 03:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Then find a source that says the petition is anti-evolution if you want to say that in the article. Even so the whole question has very little to do with the person who is the subject of the article and shouldn't take up such a big part of it as it does, even though that has been improved. Thanks. (p.s. I still think the expression "anti-evolution" is not going to mean much to the average person.)(p.p.s. I was joking about us being chimpanzees. They are humans (family Homininae).) Steve Dufour 03:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If chimps are human are you going to put BLP tags on their articles?Redddogg 21:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That might not be a bad idea. The Bonobo article puts undue weight on their sex lives. Steve Dufour 02:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, sexual behavior is probably the most notable and unique trait of the species. - Crockspot 04:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they are "persons" anyway, even if they are in the human family. :-) Steve Dufour 06:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not the time or the place for such discussions. However, you are welcome to any of your own personal views, and you are welcome to try to build consensus for them, but maybe not in this space. I believe these sorts of controversial and extreme minority views are markedly flimsy and unsupportable for a number of reasons. But I will decline to engage you further on these issues.--Filll 14:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I still have a problem with the expression "anti-evolution." I think most people reading that would think that a person who is anti-evolution thinks the universe was created in six days. This is not at all what the petition is about and probably not the view of Ms Picard. Steve Dufour 15:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Not that my personal knowledge means anything here, but Steve's hypothesis is closer to the ground truth than Filll's. Moulton 18:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW the word "anti-evolution" is found on 166 WP pages. Steve Dufour 16:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

<undent> The creation-evolution controversy is rife with terms that mean different things in different contexts, not least creationism and evolution themselves. Use of "anti-evolution" seems to be not uncommon in recent news articles[3], and indeed is [4] used by a Grauniad journalist whose bio describes him as "an international finance and human rights lawyer." Its meaning is clear, even if it's as ambiguous a term as Darwinism which you'll have noted is used in the petition. ... dave souza, talk 16:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I still think that labeling a person a "creationist", an "evolutionist", or an "anti-evolutionist" could have an impact on their careers in some cases.Steve Dufour 17:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for an encyclopedia to attach a label like that to a living person, especially when there is no reliable published information on that. And attaching the wrong label can not only harm a living person, it can potentially leave Wikipedia open to liability for defamation. After all, there are 101 more scientists on that same list. If you label one, you've effectively labeled them all. Moulton 18:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It's over 700 signatories, stop with the 103.

These 700 folks signed of their own accord and knew what they were signing. Besides, it's a matter of pulbic record, not of digging anything up or making anything up or implying anything that is false, etc, etc, blah, blah.

Third, if signing the petition and thus being labled as anti-Darwinian, hence by extension anti-evolution or creationist has "hurt" their careers I suppose these shining lights of scientific knowledge should have used a small portion of their brains to ponder that possibility before signing.

Enough, this grows tiresome. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The very use of the word "evolutionist" in this context reveals that you have a POV which is probably inappropriate for editing these articles on this topic. There is no way that any BLP on WP written by someone in the mainstream would ever label someone who subscribes to the modern synthesis would ever call someone a "evolutionist". Outrageous. Absolutely outrageous and completely telling. --Filll 17:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The example I gave above was that it is possible that labeling a professor in a fundamentalist Christian school an "evolutionist" might be harmful to his or her career. I will admit that this is not going to happen very often. Steve Dufour 17:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

MIT is not a fundamentalist Christian school. Moulton 18:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely astounding and outrageous that this comment was completely misunderstood. I would ask you, for the good of the future and in the interests of NPOV, to please voluntarily sequester yourself from any further discussions or editing of anyone who falls in one or more of the categories of "creationist", "intelligent design" supporter, "anti-creationist" or supporter of evolutionary biology.--Filll 17:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Choosing to sign a petition then continuing to give it tacit support by not publicly dissociating oneself from the use of the petition to attack evolution theory and teaching might affect someone's career, perhaps positively with well funded foundations looking to fund such positions. The claim that "anti-evolution" means Young Earth creationism is similar to the tactic used by intelligent design proponents who deny being creationist while defining "creationism" as insisting on a young earth / biblical flood. It is not supported by the Grauniad link above, which is about the old earth creationist Harun Yahya, or this link about Stein's intelligent design martyrs movie. .. dave souza, talk 18:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note that saying, "she signed the petition and didn't retract her signature" and drawing the conclusion that she therefore supports everything the petitioners support would be OR. Maybe she didn't withdraw her signature because she doesn't like bullies and thought police. Steve Dufour 19:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I draw no such conclusion, but do note that her name and position provide support for intelligent design every time the Discovery Institute refers to the current petition. Who are these thought police? Are they people who demand religious commitment? .. dave souza, talk 19:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. So to "stick it" to some potentially-fictional "thought police" (do you have any source for the existence of such an organization?), a person signs and maintains their name on a petition for over 6 years supporting a cause they disagree with, in the face of potential damage to their career? Somehow does not make a very convincing story. In fact, it sounds like a psychotic delusion. However, you are welcome to champion this view of reality. I believe you might find some difficulty gaining consensus for this viewpoint.--Filll 19:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to gain consensus. Besides, wouldn't everyone having the same opinions and thought processes be a bad thing, evolutionally speaking? Steve Dufour 06:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I am against the thought police on both sides. I do have to say in fairness that the pro-evolution thought police have not burned people at the stake. Steve Dufour 20:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, the 32-word statement calls for individual critical examination. It doesn't say what, if anything, to believe. It says to examine the evidence with a skeptical eye, so as not to adopt an erroneous belief. That's a core feature of the scientific method. Moulton 18:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

And we needed a 32 word statement signed by barely notable people just to remind us of this? Please, that dog just ain't gonna hunt. Hell, it don't even git off'n the porch. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I made the observation that this petition (A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism) is way over-covered here on WP. It has its own article and a category for its signers. Steve Dufour 04:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

So far I have not done any work on WP's articles on evolution. I will continue to take part in discussions on BLP issues. Steve Dufour 18:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Your concern for people's careers is appreciated, though I'd hope that employers would realise that Wikipedia is an unreliable source. More to the point, a signatory to Project Steve might find difficulty in getting a job at the Biologic Institute, or for that matter the Creation Museum, but by signing a petition you put your support for opinions on public view, and if you feel your own opinion is misrepresented by the promoters of the petition the onus is then on you to make that public or, of course, to provide an explanation to your prospective employers. Hardly a good reason to censor mention of properly sourced information in Wikipedia. .. dave souza, talk 19:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not about employers. It's about cranks who read all kinds of crap in the media and then send hate mail (and worse) to people. Moulton 18:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. Wikipedia's mission is to compile what is in the RS and V literature. If we followed the suggestions made here, we would REMOVE all BLP from Wikipedia. With no exceptions. Remove all information. Birth places, dates, career information, pictures, biographical material. All of it without exception. Which is clearly ridiculous and something for which no consensus exists.--Filll 19:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You would be safe if all BLP's received a stamp of approval from the subject, saying there was nothing in the article that was both false and defamatory. Moulton 18:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Or their POV or self-promotion was presented to their satisfaction. That's not how encyclopedia's work. Your idea is too easy to game so will never fly. FeloniousMonk 04:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

de vivis nil nisi bonum dicendum est ? Uh, no. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 11:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I just found out that Wikipedia:WikiProject intelligent design has 170 articles on the subject. That seems like a lot to me. Steve Dufour 02:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• The biographies in List of signatories to "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" should be checked for compliance with blp and due weight. Some of these look like coat-hangers for debunking creationism. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that advocates of evolution should not feel the need to make personal attacks on the handfull of people who disagree with them. Steve Dufour —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Dufour (talk • contribs) 15:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Noting that someone signed the petition is not an attack on them. In fact, if you checked, you would find, for example, that articles like List of signatories to "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" were actually created by a creationist here. One has to realize that this is not some sort of slur on someone and in fact is a badge of pride for many. Why do you think this is bad necessarily? Consult the information about the staff at the Biologic Institute, and the fellows of the Discovery Institute and the fellows of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design.

It is also a bit silly to claim that people who sign a public petition should not have their endorsement of that statement mentioned because it is potentially harmful to them. One cannot have it both ways; alignment with certain public political movements and publicity campaigns, and then claim that their participation is harmful to them so it should be hidden. By this token, we should hide all mention of people's Jewish heritage, and remove all lists of Jews from WP. By this standard, we should remove all mention of atheism or humanism or skepticism or religious or ethnic affiliation from WP biographical information, and all lists of atheists, humanists, skeptics, pseudoscientists, republicans, democrats, communists, socialists, etc. Followed to its illogical conclusion, we should remove all biographical material whatsoever, and all names of all living people (or even dead people, since they might have living descendents).--Filll 18:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it is just as bad, or maybe worse, for the creationists to use the people on the petition for their purposes. Steve Dufour 01:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I just found out that the petition has another article: List of signatories to "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism". Steve Dufour 06:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Ted Nugent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Happened across this while doing RC patrol. The section on the Vietnam War is very troubling. The first paragraph appears to draw a synthesis between two unreliable sources (newshounds and nndb), or possibly newshounds is basing claims on an nndb entry. The middle part about crapping his pants is uncorroborated, and the last paragraph appears to be original research. It says he "appears to insinuate" something in an interview that apparently aired tonight. It is using the secondary source as a primary, and drawing a conclusion about it. I think this entire section needs to come out. I would prefer not to be directly involved, as my NRA life membership may leave a perception of a COI. // Crockspot 03:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not a member of the NRA, and I commented out the section until it can be more reliably sourced. THF 15:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, this is troubling even without the crazy scatological part. Even if true, what does his military service have to do with his artistry, fame, etc? It would be a witch hunt to find every liberal, conservative, or apathetic person who took steps to avoid Vietname service, even those people outspoken on the subject. It's just not relevant, and worse, it seems to be an attack section that violates BLP. If someone can establish that it is relevant it should be merged with the "outspokenness" section and renamed "controversies" or something like that, and pruned heavily to avoid WP:Weight problems. Most likely, the only relevance is to show that he's an opinionated, crazy acting rebel, something that we can easily do without subjecting his specific acts to that kind of criticism. Wikidemo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs) 00:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's been reinserted. I'm not going to edit-war. We need admin intervention. THF 00:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I just deleted again. The person who wrote and inserted it has mentioned Talk:Ted Nugent#Why does Nugent.'s avoiding military service during Vietnam keeps getting deleted here that he did it by way of disparaging the artist. It's a pretty clear case IMO. He seems to be a newbie, and acting in good faith, so I think prospects are good for getting him to understand short of an edit war why it's not cool to use Wikipedia in this way. If he reverts again, I agree, someone ought to intervene. Wikidemo 00:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've mentioned on the subject talk page that the entire section shouldn't have been commented out. A judicious edit would have been well received, I think. There is at least one reliable source referenced (and commented out) and this reliable source can be used to establish the reliability of some of the other claims in the section. Undue weight cuts both ways. This appears to be a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Ossified 02:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The bathwater is still in the tub. Anyone can edit the commented area and add back whatever is appropriate. Meanwhile, attacks against living people should not just sit there while waiting to be cleaned up. If you can clean it up so it's acceptable either be bold and just do it, or be meek and propose a revised version here or to the article talk page. It shouldn't be a big deal. Wikidemo 03:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how it's an attack against a living person when the quotes used are from the person himself, and without taking them out of context. So, that being said, anything based on anything Nugent has ever said, or has been directly taken from his own website or any reputable article, should be erased from the page I suppose? Evets70 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evets70 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Because it's Undue Weight. There's not a celebrity alive that we couldn't find direct quotes from if we wanted to use them and amplify them to make them look bad on Wikipedia, but we don't (in most cases). wikipediatrix 16:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If Nugent was a musical artist and solely a musical artist then the 'crazy scatalogical part' might be an undue weight issue. In the case of Nugent, however, we have someone who has used their notoriety as a soapbox from which to declare a particular political philosophy. It isn't an undue weight issue to provide context regarding how their actions may not be congruent with their words (that's a nice way of calling someone a hypocrite, I think). The fact of the matter is, some of that section needs to be removed and other parts kept. Moonriddengirl has provided a good jumping off point for the worthwhile part on the Nugent discussion page, and I think that it will be possible to have a consensus for a re-write within the next 48 hours. Ossified 16:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That amounts to synthesis, to deliberately juxtapose two discrete elements to make an argument. Find more reliable third-party sources who comment on the perceived hypocrisy rather than making the voice of Wikipedia's omniscient narrator do it. Should be easy enough to find. wikipediatrix 16:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)=

Do you feel that something along the lines of the proposal that I made at the talk page for handling the material is appropriate? It draws no conclusions about Nugent's motivations or character. It's getting hard to navigate that section, so I've bolded the words "it might be appropriate to say something like" to make it easier to locate first draft suggestions, if you or someone else would care to take a look. :) --Moonriddengirl 16:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) I'm also at the talk page attempting to reach consensus. I believe that the material may be appropriate for inclusion if carefully crafted to maintain Wikipedia:Neutrality. --Moonriddengirl 16:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Closing. Consensus consistent with BLP has been reached at talk page. I am closing this incident. I have not closed an incident before, and I would appreciate help and information if I have done it incorrectly. --Moonriddengirl 13:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – no BLP issue

• Bruce Bartlett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Over the weekend the Wall Street Journal printed an opinion piece by Bruce Bartlett that was almost totally incorrect. Nearly every paragraph in the article was factually or logically inaccurate. It has brought serious negative attention to the FairTax movement, creating a situation in which grassroots FairTax supporters have to compete with the WSJ about the FT's link to Scientology and other blantant faslehoods. I added a section about the article in the current works section, and while I was doing that someone else added a quote from the article. Since then, Jimintheatl and I have gone back and forth re-editing the same two sections. He never leaves any sort of commentary, he hasn't responded to my post on the discussion page, and I honestly don't know what his beef with the truth is. I can only imagine he is one of the rabid Anti-FairTax people that have no problem intentionally misrepresenting fact in order to promote their position. I added an external source from the Atlanta Journal Constitution that verfies my position (namely, that the article was poorly researched, and that the FairTax has nothing to do with Scientology), and even with this evidence, Jimintheatl continues to re-edit the article to match his expressed bias. I hope there is some way to resolve this issue accurately.

Thank you, Justin in Oklahoma Aug 30, 11:15 CDT

This is really an NPOV dispute, rather than a BLP dispute. I question the WP:WEIGHT of a single op-ed about a proposal that doesn't have much in the way of mainstream support, but I hope I resolved the edit war with a neutral account of the dispute. If the two of you have further disagreements over the text of the article, please use the Template:RFCpol to get further input. THF 16:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your changes, jimintheatl does not. I've undone his last edit to your changes. Thank you, sir.

I disagree with your suggestion that the FairTax doesn't "have much in the way of mainstream support". It was a topic that helped decide the Iowa straw poll, several presidential candidates are in favor of it, and it enjoys the largest number of bi-partisan co-sponsors in the house and the senate of any tax reform proposal. But, as you suggested, those are just facts that support my POV.

With Bartlett's resume and his forum (the WSJ), I submit that he provides all the weight needed on any economic topic he chooses to broach. A man with 4 years as a top presidential advisor writes his opinions in the most widely read econ/business media outlet... that's about as much weight as you can place on something. 66.210.187.162 17:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Justin in Oklahoma.

That Bruce Bartlett criticized FairTax in the WSJ is notable wrt FairTax. It's not one of the ten most notable things about Bartlett. Please go to WP:RFPP and ask for full page-protection if there is continued edit-warring, especially if it is without discussion on the talk page. At the moment, I am avoiding participating in any edits that may be controversial. THF 18:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Well, no wonder he ended up on this page. He is a Republican and someone said he was a Scientologist. :-) Steve Dufour 05:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I do hope you are not referring to me ending up on this page. I am neither a Republican nor a Scientologist. I am a FairTax supporter, and I don't like the idea that people will willingly lie on Wiki about situations in order to promote their own agenda. If you are referring to Bartlett ending up here, it's only because some people aren't willing to accept facts.66.210.187.162 17:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Justin in Oklahoma.

Sorry if I was misunderstood. I was making a joke about articles about Creationists, Scientologists, and Republicans being the ones most often mentioned on this page. Steve Dufour 01:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Sacred Heart University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An anon keeps adding salary information for the University's President, something that is surely a BLP violation. Corvus cornix 23:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• While the anon's edits were unsourced and not 100% accurate, private nonprofit universities such as Sacred Heart are required to disclose their top officers' compensation on IRS filings which are publicly available. (See GuideStar for information about a web site which makes such filings publicly available for free.) The president of this university's salary has been referenced in reliable sources such as the Chronicle of Higher Education. So it's not necessarily a BLP violation to mention it in the article. --Metropolitan90 01:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Sourced or not, it seems undue weight which would be a violation of BLP, to mention the salary of the president particularly when there is no noteable, sourced, controversy or relevance about that salary. It's the same as adding a statement someone made because some editors perceive it as controversial even though there is no sourced information demonstrating the statement is important or controversial Nil Einne 11:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    • This article has gone from bloated to boney, so in its current condition the salary of the president may well be undue weight at this stage. But note this: Anthony Cernera must be one of the longest-serving college presidents in the U.S. (18 years is a long time for these guys) and in that time he wasn't just a figurehead: he's vastly increased the school's endowment, budget, campus, range of programs, enrollment, geographic range of incoming students, etc., etc. Cernera, for instance, went down the road a piece and got General Electric CEO Jack Welch to help the university in multiple, major ways over the years (culminating in the business school name). When the article grows into something closer to what it should be, there's no way that Cernera won't be mentioned in a prominent way. At that point, it would be absolutely proper to mention his salary as well. Noroton 18:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• John Stossel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hoofheartedinthewinnercircle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Edit-warring to insert unsourced WP:OR BLP violation after warning. The article as a whole suffers from WP:WEIGHT problems that are being discussed on the talk page. THF 06:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the article is being improved. Still too much weight to "he said something and someone else disagreed" type stuff. Steve Dufour 07:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hasn't reinserted the material since Will's warning. For good measure I warned him quite forcefully. If he reinserts the material let me know and I'll block him instantly. (The article as a whole is poor and needs serious attention from an editor without an ax to grind on either the left or right.) Raymond Arritt 22:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• The eXile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Strange section on strange newspaper. The intent seems to be to humiliate Michael Wines. Reverted by editor who called me a "gentleman from New Jersey." (What does he know that I don't?) 24.127.156.41 01:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, just noting your IP address, I have no idea as to whether you are in fact a gentleman. :) Regardless of what you think "the intent" of the section is, it does conform to WP:BLP. It is verifiable from previously published news sources, and obviously not OR. If you think it's not NPOV, rewrite it without removing info. I have initiated discussion on the relevant talk page. Dsol 08:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This reasoning is pure nonsense. The only reference cited is the eXile itself - which is not reliable - it is a libel factory. 24.127.156.41 10:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Note the references to yahoo news (which I already noted in my edit summary), and regarding the bure case, the Moscow times and pravda. Please read before you blank. Please assume good faith. This discussion should continue at talk:the eXile Dsol 10:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"two vaginas", "equine sperm" "We shit on everybody equally" (sic). Please don't pretend that this is anything other than a classic BLP violation! 24.127.156.41 01:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The sources cited do not use such a tone. I suggest you consult previous discussion at talk:the eXile to familiarize yourself with previous consensus on what sources are valid. I am now reverting since you refuse to engage in a real discussion. If you continue to revert without discussing at the eXile's talk page, you will be promptly reported. Dsol 08:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that it is citing sources, but not giving a specific source. It's not enough, especially for such a grievous problem to say <ref>New York Times</ref>. It will be necessary to give a specific URL. The Evil Spartan 21:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, there is no policy that references to print media require URLs, simply none whatsoever. Second, both references do have URLs at the bottom of the eXile's page, presently numbered 10 and 11. Third, I copy-pasted direct quotes from both articles onto the talk page of the eXile, with links.Dsol 21:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

from WP:BLP "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,^[1] talk pages, user pages, and project space.

An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons (BLP) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.

This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material." Three people, including a long-term administrator, have now deleted this garbage - Why don't you just give up re-inserting it? 24.127.156.41 02:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Because it's not "unsourced or poorly sourced." References 10 and 11. Direct quotes are available on [talk:the eXile]]. The two other users made brief edits believing the material not to be sourced, and have not edited for over 3 days after I noted the two sources. Dsol 09:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I have read up on the source, and it appears to be better than I thought. It does have a specific URL for the Yahoo news story, which should be enough. The link to the Medialife story is a bit more sketchy; I know nothing of the Medialife website, and it doesn't exactly strike me as the kind of website that would go out of its way to ensure the inviolability of its content. At the moment, I think we could probably include it in the article, but we most certainly ought to say allegedly until we can get better confirmation. For all we know, they could be making this up, and the Entertainment talking heads are just blissfully repeating it without concern. The Evil Spartan 19:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, reinserting and modifying as per your suggestions. Dsol 20:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is a name needed here? The article is about the eXile, not about the target of its attacks. Remember "do no harm". The last sentence you reinserted is simply false 'Media Life also alleged that the attack was retribution for Wines' "fawning coverage of president Vladimir Putin."' The eXile said that the attack was retribution - and why should this accusation be repeated here? - Media Life was simply paraphrasing what the eXile said, as was obvious in their article but not obvious in our article. A reader of our article might think that Media Life said that xxx been fawning. And why should we repeat a paraphrase of a single unreliable source? Please remember "BLP must be written conservatively" 24.127.156.41 20:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I am glad you are finally beginning to see that value of discussion.

• Since you didn't see fit to respond the the arguments I made on the article talk page, let me repeat them here. Wines' identity is highly relevant to the stunt, it wasn't like they just threw a pie at a random person or a random journalist. Both the eXile article and the media life magazine made it clear that the reason he was attacked was because the eXile thought he was a bad journalist. Repeating this obvious truth here is obviously not an endorsement of the eXile's views.
• I don't see how anyone could read "ML says eXile threw the pie because eXile believed his coverage was fawning" and understand "ML says his coverage was fawning," that's just a nonsensical argument.
• You also didn't explain why you removed the additional sentence and link to Freedom and Accuracy in Reporting, which was also directly cited as a reason for the attack in the eXile article.
• Finally, "do no harm" is being observed, does not mean painting public figures in a positive light. Wines is a public figure, and we are not publishing any information that is not already published elsewhere. If you do a google search on his name, this story comes up on the first page of results. We are only including what has already been published elsewhere, and I have followed the advice of user:The Evil Spartan and included "allegedly where necessary."

It seems you are less interested in observing policy or improving the article than you are in censoring information related to a particular person. That doesn't fly here. Dsol 21:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Salon also provides an additional source for the stunt[5], and the New Zealand print publication "Critic" names Wines specifically[6] Dsol 21:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Your sources state that the MW article was an example of "vicious personal attacks on reporters" (Salon) and the New Zealand student paper (is this the best you can do for reliable sources?) "The eXile: a Moscow-based English-language newspaper that transcends the boundaries of 'decency' ... The eXile has made itself (in)famous for its vitriolic attacks on Western journalists." Please do not pretend that repeating this type of personal attack in Wikipedia passes the BLP "smell test." Why is it necessary for you to re-insert a claim that A____ K_____ has 2 vaginas? I'll remove this material whenever it appears without further comment. 24.127.156.41 11:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep it up and you will get yourself blocked. Dont' question my motivation, follow policy and follow consensus. Your personal opinion that it doesn't "smell right" is valueless. We now have 4 sources, if you like we can add more. If Salon says it was a vicious personal attack on the reporter, well Salon is a reliable source, so that can be included. So add it instead of blanking. Dsol 11:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Also from WP:BLP: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Dsol 12:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's "do without the salacious details." Also, do you really have sources that say "A_K has two vaginas?" or that "M_W_ was smashed in the face by a horse_sperm pie?" No, you have sources saying that a tabloid (the exile) said that. There's no reliable source for any of this, no need to include names. Nothing here but sensationalism.

24.127.156.41 10:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok:

• First of all, let's stay on topic: we're discussing the Michael Wines incident here. I'll leave Kournikova's name out of the article for now, and we can come back to it later.
• Next, both myself, the Evil Spartan, and Kuru agree that the Wines incident should be covered in some form. What we need to establish here by discussion and consensus of those interested is what form the section should take.
• The exact thing that Kuru said is "Honestly, we could probably do without the salacious details, but that's something you two should continue to discuss." According to him our task is now "finding some language that both illustrates the events and does so responsibly."
• I insist you defend your repeated claim that "sources [only said] that a tabloid (the exile) said that." Do you really believe this? Then how do explain the passages:

1. "Times spokesperson Katherine Mathis confirmed to Media Life that Wines was hit by a pie, but se could not verify that the pie contained horse semen." This is not relying on the eXile, Media Life actually names their source reached by telephone at the NYT.[7]
2. From the Salon interview: "After I told Taibbi I read the paper, he excitedly pulled from his bag a foul-looking photograph of a man with pie all over his face."[8] Again, the writer saw the photo for himself, and is not relying on the eXile as a source.
3. The other sources, namely the New Zealand student paper and the NY Post, do not name their source. It could be the eXile article, or something else. In general there is no policy at WP requiring secondary sources to have bibliographies.
4. The photos, of which there are at least 5 showing Wines and other NYT employees, are still available here. Are you saying they are fakes? That the person in them is not really Wines?

• Obviously, Wines identity is highly relevant. One of the main things the eXile does is to criticize Western journalists' coverage of Russia, and it had extensively criticizsed him in the past, along with other organization such as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting[9]. Wines' work as a public journalistic figure is the reason he was targeted.
• I have already provided a version which you did not like. So please write one, that includes all relevant information, and we can work on it together. Remeber that (from WP:BLP) "The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral and factual avoiding both understatement and overstatement."

Awaiting your reply Dsol 11:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting other editors, e.g. "the Evil Spartan, and Kuru agree that the Wines incident should be covered in some form." This is simply not true.

The AK and MW sections should be discused together - they are both clear violations of BLP. They both contain "salicious" material, as User:Kuru put it.

Your documentation re: AK is one chatty "entertainment" piece in the English-language website version of PRAVDA. "Poorly sourced" would be a compliment to this article.

In the MW section there are 4 references, 1) from 1990 that doesn't refer to the incident at all. Otherwise, 2) a cite from the eXile, a completely disreputable tabloid, which says they attacked a reporter; 3) an article that includes as a sidelight, a paragraph on the incident, on Yahoo, headed "Entertainment and Gossip" and 4) a short piece from media life that quotes the exile, and got confirmation from the NYTimes of only that MW was hit by a pie.

The Salon piece and the Otago (New Zealand) University Student Criticism "Journal" haven't been listed in the article at all as far as I can tell. A brief look at their contents tells you that they think the exile is totally disreputable.

Beyond the poor sourcing, the material is salicous and irrelevant to any encyclopedic purpose. Wikipedia is not a tabloid (see both WP:NOT and WP:BLP) 24.127.156.41 12:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said above I'm just adressing Wines right now. Pravda is fine and I will add more sources for Kournikova later but till then it can stay out, I'm not disputing that removal at present.

• The media life reference alone is enough to source the whole incident. You mention that it doesn't confirm the contents of the pie except by quoting the eXile. True, but why did you remove the whole section, instead of just the claim that the pie contained horse sperm?
• Also, note the extensive photo evidence of the horse and its sperm on the eXile site. Look, this obviously happened, lots of sources confirmed it, and no source has denied it. What more do you want?
• For the 4 sources I wasn't counting FAIR or the eXile itself. The 4 sources are the yahoo link, which is actually a syndicated new york post article if you follow the links, the media life link, the critic link, and the salon interview. Yes, two of these were not in the version you blanked, but we can put them all in now. To call the incident poorly sourced is just ridiculous. How many independent sources do you need?
• You mention that these sources think the eXile is disreputable, but that is 100% irrelevant to our using them as citations for some factual event that happened. If you want to add to the article that many people think the eXile is disreputable, go ahead and use these as sources if you think they support that claim, but that is not relevant to this discussion.
• Wikipedia is not censored. You can't remove something just because you or someone else thinks it's "salacious." The only question is whether the section relevant to what the eXile is/does and well sourced.

Please explain if/why you think the material is still poorly sourced with these 4 references. Do you still advocate removing the whole section, or just Wines identity, or just the that the pie allegedly had horse sperm in it?

If you think the material is well sourced but not relevant to the article, please explain why. Dsol 12:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• (Dsol asked me to comment.) I don't have a strong opinion on this—the sources are not the best, but I don't think they're unreliable, either. I don't really see the potential for libel here: is anyone claiming that the material is false; that the pie attack didn't happen? They published photographs, it was confirmed by the NY Times, etc. The context should make it obvious that the eXile's claim of it containing horse semen is not to be taken as fact. (Although probably there's no need to mention the alleged contents.) For comparison, our page on Noël Godin prominently features his pie attack on Bill Gates, which I don't think anyone considers to be defamatory. — brighterorange (talk) 16:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It's good to see that Dsol has given up reinserting the A_K_ double vagina nonsense. The reinsertion of the material on the attack of M_W_ is fairly easy to deal with.

From Brighter Orange above. The context should make it obvious that the eXile's claim of it containing horse semen is not to be taken as fact. (Although probably there's no need to mention the alleged contents.) If it's obvious that it isn't a fact then it should be left out. User:Slim Virgin has removed this material before and User:Kuru has called it "Salacious." It's tabloid sensationalism that has to go under WP:BLP policy. (Note that WP:BLP goes beyond WP:Verifiability)

There's also no need to mention the victim's name (following Slim Virgin).

Given the "sources" which clearly are just repeating the tabloid's claims, if they are to be included, then the context in which they mentioned the claims should also be included, e.g. them citing the tabloid's 'Vicious personal attacks on journalists." Rough cut on these needs will follow in the article. 24.127.156.41 15:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't "given up" on including AK's name, I'm just not contesting its removal right now.

• Wines identity is 100% relevant to the incident, he was targeted specifically for the journalism he publicly signed his name to, and for his equally public position as Moscow bureau chief. The criteria for notability and inclusion in articles is what secondary sources found notable; if he had been some random schmoe it would not have been news. I keep making this argument and you keep ignoring it.
• The pie did have sperm in it. You can see photos on the eXile website of the horse, the bag of sperm, the baking of the pie, etc. Even if we don't use the eXile's photos as a source for this 100% true fact, we can absolutely include it as an unproven allegation. It is established policy to use sources of questionable reliability as sources about what they have claimed or published, see WP:RS. This issue has already come up in past discussion regarding the eXile and was decided by consensus, please see the archive of the eXile's talk page and read that discussion before arguing about this further.
• Regarding notability of the fact that the pie had sperm in it, again secondary sources have judged it notable, in 2 cases even referring to it directly in the headline (NY post and media life).
• I have already explained about 5 times that at least two sources, and possibly more, are not merely repeating the eXile's claims, but had other verifications as well (phone call and photos sen in person). The other sources state the incident as a fact, and do not disclose whether they read it in the eXile or learned of it some other way, it is not common practice for journalists to divulge their sources. The text of the article makes this clear as well. Stop repeating this totally false claim.
• As I have said, the criteria for inclusion is notability and verifiability. Stop repeating lists of other WP editors and their statements and make and actual argument based on WP policy, or stop reverting. The only time other editors even slightly agreed with you is in making subjective value judgments that info is not necessary to an article, not that an actual BLP violation had occurred. BLP policy is very specific about what is forbidden, and everything is well sourced. If you think the tone is not neutral, rewrite it without removing info. If you agree with myself and others that BLP is not being violated but it's your judgment that the information detracts from the article and is better off out, let's continue this discussion at the article's talk page, since it is no longer a BLP issue but merely an editorial issue.

Dsol 16:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If you insert either name, that edit will be reverted per WP:BLP quoted above, without discussion.

I think I need to repeat this loud and clear: WP:BLP is not just about verifiability. It requires, in part, a conservative presentation of material about living people, "do no harm", no tabloid sensationalism, AND exceptionally reliable sources.

Your reading of WP:RS is very inclomplete, in particlular please reread the following:

"Exceptional claims require exceptional sources

.... Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding ... material about living people.

....

Biographies of living persons

See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Sources

Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims.

Extremist sources

Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution."

(end quote from WP:RS)

24.127.156.41 18:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I made extensive and specific arguments, and you have not adressed them even in passing. Copy-pasting from policy pages is not real discussion. Dsol 13:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope you can help me here, I have recently added updates to a British actress based on a CV provided to me by her agents, and I have left a copy of this in the talk page. The CV itself is not online. Is this an appropriate method of adding info? Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 20:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, cancel that, I've just Googled again and her CV IS online! It wasn't when I posted this. --Rodhullandemu 11:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone took off the BLP tag from this article: Category talk:Signatories of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism". As far as I can tell all people included in the category are living persons. Steve Dufour 01:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

But, the category isn't a biography. Is there any reason it should be there? ←Ben^B4 02:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The BLP tag does not say that the article that it is added to is a biography, just that it is subject to WP policies on living persons. As I said, all the people in the category are living persons. Their signing of the petition could be a sensitive issue with their careers, so I thought it was worth putting the tag on the category. Steve Dufour 02:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Blp says the tag can be used on lists, but doesn't mention categories. Steve Dufour 02:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Jean Godden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jean Godden - Mikesmash, a campaign worker for the opponent challenging Jean Godden, keeps inserting irrelevant and controversial material about Jean that is either not sourced or sourced to improper sources (blogs, "community weeklies" produced by supporters of Jean's opponent, etc). He has been called out on this and the material has been repeatedly deleted, but he simply reinserts things verbatim. His insertions are just simply of no consequence and have no business on Jean Godden's wiki page. I'm asking for some help as he simply reinserts anything that is deleted. Thanks. // Landsfarthereast 05:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the other editor in this dispute. Yes, I've volunteered with the Szwaja campaign, but Landsfarthereast is the Godden campaign manager and he's consistently edited out any criticism of said subject, even when it's been well-cited. He's even tried to edit out the names of the three primary candidates challenging his opponents, while posting increasingly condescending messages on his edits and on my discussion page. The instance that he's talking about was recently looked at by a neutral third party. He is speaking of two quotes criticizing Godden by a prominent housing activist (Google his name "john fox seattle" if you like.) who is mentioned not in a blog, but in two local community papers with editorial oversight. The statements are put into a balanced context and set against the contrast of statements in the subject's favor, as in an endorsement list of local organizations.

Fox did endorse her opponent, but isn't uncritical of him in said editorial. Another editor: Lawrence Cohen said the following:

The sources that Mikesmash is adding to Jean Godden appears valid for reporting criticism of a politician. Real Change News and Beacon Hill News are both valid news sources with full editorial oversight. • Lawrence Cohen 13:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

While I've done volunteer work for Szwaja like doorbelling and some sign making, Landsfarthereast as the campaign manager represents a huge Conflict of Interest and continues to edit out well-cited comments that are unflattered to his candidate. I request a neutral third party review of the situation. Mikesmash 06:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Warned Landsfarthereast regarding incivility in edit summaries. Raymond Arritt 06:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Joe Szwaja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Landsfarthereast (talk · contribs)
• Mikesmash (talk · contribs)

I have no idea what this all is. I added a few newspaper sources that a trivial Google search reported to this page, now these fellows are debating rather angrily (mostly Landsfarthereast) on my talk page and Landsfarthereast put this on this political canidate's talk page:

because he is a woman beater, mike, and that hits close to home. maybe shattering a place in a woman's face is no big deal to you, but it disgusts me. so much for you being a progressive. i guess you're only a progressive when it's convenient. when it comes to calling out domestic violence, you're nothing but an apologist.

i've known a number of good friends whose lives have been tremendously affected by dv, and it is not something to gloss over. his son, who was 7 at the time of this incident, will live with this for the the rest of his life. shame on you for diminishing its importance. it is also something that TOTALLY DISQUALIFIES anyone from ever holding public office.

Could an admin check this out ASAP? Thanks. I don't think I want to be dragged futher into this in any way, and it looks somewhat out of control with anonymous users referring to political canidates as wife beaters, and people apparently trying to out each others' anonymous handles. Thank you. • Lawrence Cohen 06:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Lawrence, I apologize for dragging you into this. I honestly didn't expect it to get this heated. My contention in the debate is that this isn't worthy of a full section the size of which dwarfs everything else on a person's site. I never edited mention or citation of the incident out of the article. I merely condensed it to a size to match its relevance to the subject's life. The other editor has posted derogatory things to my Talk Page which I invite Admins to check out where he taunts me in an off-topic way. It's gotten really old and I would like Administrator intervention. Thank you and I apologize to everyone who's gotten headaches over this. Mikesmash 07:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

User:201.240.31.236, IP that had earlier been blocked from editing this page because of a vandalism revert war with several editors has come back and is expanding the coverage of a negative lone incident in the subject's life to a ludicrous degree. He's already shown that he's incapable of neutrality. Please block him from making further edits. Mikesmash 18:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• List of Christians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - // Crockspot 19:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Christians has been nominated for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christians (2nd nomination)) partially because of BLP concerns. violet/riga (t) 16:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This is kind of a weird list. I can not imagine anyone using it to find an article. It also looks like a big waste of time since Christians and anti-Christians seem to be contending with each other by adding "good" and "bad" professed Christians to the list (including Adolf Hitler!). Steve Dufour 04:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It also might be mentioned that most notable people in an English language encyclopedia are going to be Christians in some sense of the word. So the list could get kind of long. :-) Steve Dufour 15:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• John Amabile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - // Crockspot 19:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The article's See Also section contains details of his supposed agent, including a contact phone number, which contradict information earlier in the article. The formatting makes me suspicious of its veracity, and in any case it seems inappropriate to both the section and perhaps the article as a whole. There is also unsourced information about his brother. Gholson 09:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Those problems seem to be taken care of. The article does have notability problems however. Steve Dufour 15:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

While the article doesn't do a good job of asserting it, the subject seems notable in the UK. I have posted ten news hits (most from Highbeam) on the talk page. There are a lot more hits, but this seemed like enough for a good start. - Crockspot 21:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Colleen Hermesmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - // Crockspot 19:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This article concerns a woman who established a legal precedent by successfully arguing that potential criminal conduct was irrelevant in a specific civil matter. However, it is important to understand that Hermesmann was never actually charged with a crime to the best of my knowledge--the civil court simply established a precedent that, had she committed a crime, it would be irrelevant to the civil proceeding. The legal precedent clearly makes the subject notable IMHO, but I have concerns under the BLP about referring to Hermesmann as a criminal, as she legally is not such. I have made some changes to be more neutral, but I am still concerned about the discussion page which categorizes her under WikiProject Crime--is this acceptable via BLP given that Hermesmann is not legally a criminal?--Dash77 10:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually on further reading it does appear that the criminal courts got involved--and Hermesmann stipulated to a particular offense. However, I still think there is a need for care here, as the crime she stipulated to is less serious than what this article originally claimed. Furthermore, Hermesmann was herself underage at the time of the offense, and so was considered a juvenile offender--it is not clear that she is now, as an adult, legally considered a criminal. So it still seems care needs to be taken here.--Dash77 10:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The article has a notability tag now. I think it should be deleted. Steve Dufour 15:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I've incorporated a portion of the article in the page for Hermesmann v. Seyer and redirected Colleen Hermesmann to it. I don't think the page should be deleted, because I think her contributing to a precedent-setting case makes her something likely to be sought on Wikipedia, but I do agree that the notability is in the case. --Moonriddengirl 22:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the talk page (not being a lawyer however), it seems to me that the civil case was about the relationship between her child and the child's father, not about her. Steve Dufour 02:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I only disagree with you insofar that admitted criminal misconduct on the part of the mother is what causes the case to be groundbreaking. Without that, the case would itself lack notability. I do agree that the language in the original article was unacceptable, and I hope that I have neutralized it enough that it is not a concern. --Moonriddengirl 01:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Article deleted, CSD A7

• Mitchell J. Habib (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - // Crockspot 19:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The last paragraph of this wiki stub is badly sourced. The comment about employee morale is opinion, not fact. To uphold BLP policy, I am removing the paragraph immediately. This is the second time that potentially libelous information has been posted on this biography.

13:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)13:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)13:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the first time the IP, or a similar one, has done this, though not for over a month. If it becomes more extreme, I'd say we have a problem. All that can be done now is revert, warn, move on.--Sethacus 15:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I put a notability tag on the article, since it doesn't really say anything about the person -- just that he has an important job. Steve Dufour 15:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Another editor has placed a CSD A7 tag on it, which I tend to agree with. His only notability appears related to Global Business Services, so possibly he merits a mention of his name in an article about the company, but a bio seems inappropriate. - Crockspot 19:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Already deleted. That was fast. Steve Dufour 20:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Bruce Hyman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - // Crockspot 19:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Matthew Stannard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - // Crockspot 19:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

There is some nasty editing going on on the talk page of this person. He's been found guilty, but someone else involved is being pretty much libelled by User:Matthew Stannard. This page needs close watching. Podder8 15:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The editor in question has announced his intention to stop soapboxing. I'll watch the page for a time in case that is a resolution he decides to rescind. --Moonriddengirl 14:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Romila Thapar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Romila Thapar is a renowned Indian historian. However, her approach & promotion of her ideology has made her a hugely controversial figure among Indian communities worldwide.

Please note that the current article on Romila Thapar does not throw any light on the criticism she faces or the grounds on which allegations are levelled against her. The only mention is that of an online petition which protested against her appointment to Kluge's Chair and even here the cause behind the opposition is not mentioned at all. All the more strangely, a political commentrator's views denouncing her opponents have been incorporated.

All attempts at putting a NPOV regarding the criticism she faces, have been negated by a few editors on what I feel, untenable grounds.

As of now, the entire article reads like a bio of a lady with huge achievements and strong liberal views at some point of time inconvenienced by a loony group who had no cause except that they had nothing better to do. Ankush135 13:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I tried putting the tag of NPOV thrice. The same was reverted all the times. Even discussion on this topic is being prevented now Ankush135 15:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Author of this complaint persists in inserting OR critical commentary or discussion sourced to non-RSes in a manner that would overwhelm this very short article. Talkpage discussion has pointed this out several times.Hornplease 18:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The response does not address the issue that any attempt to bring light to the fact that Thapar's approach to history has been subjected to heavy criticism by a large piece of intellectual opinion on the right-of-centre. All attempts at pointing out that rather than sitting on judgement on the truth/verifiability of each of such allegations, a profile needs to mention that the person is also subject to criticism from large quarters, have been stonewalled under the pretext of reliable sources, which has boiled down to passing judgement on the controversies.

A perusal of the talk page, under the heads of 'NOPV' & 'Is it Romila herself' and all other previous comments, would indicate that I have repeatedly attempted to bring about a semblance of balance in the profile by mentioning that the renowned historian has attracted a lot of criticism. My intent isn't or for that matter, never was to prove that Romila is wrong/incorrect in her approach. However, any notes which indicate that Romila has been subject to controversies is edited/reverted. My contention again is that the author is not a subject matter expert that he decides on the strenght of allegations, particularly when such criticism has only been reported from newspaper reports and articles and not displayed as a fact.

Even in that page, the heading 'Views on Revisionist history' itself does not sound very neutral, as this again is an issue which put all Indian intellectuals into two camps.

Finally, all my attempts to put the NOPV disputed tag on the page has been reverted by the responsee. While finally it may be decided that I have all along been totally incorrect, I do submit that till the issue is sorted, the tag should have remained, for the dispute about neutrality hasn't been solved till date. Hence, post this message, I am again putting the tag back on the page. Ankush135 05:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Somebody please explain to this chap what reliable sources mean. I have linked to the policy, explained that BLP in particular requires the best of sources, and he persists in this. Note that this historian's relatively peripheral engagement in public causes has been mentioned in the article, and the best-organised protest has been mentioned. I don't see how adding the substantive details of criticism of her academic work by non-reliable sources is permissible under BLP. Hornplease 07:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Are you serious? The fellow was on a proxy server yesterday. He knows all about sock templates. He is just an impersonator. 59.91.254.33 08:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You are shooting off your mouth without basis. I use a remote access card for accessing internet when I am not using the office network. And if you are not technologically challenged, you will know that Remote Access Cards provide a different IP each time they get connected. I have always signed whenever I have made any edit or insert. Anyways, a crony/sock of yours has already blocked me from Wikipedia on pretext of being the Sock of some South Asian Troll. On what basis have I been declared a sock of some South Asian troll? Simply the fact that my opinion on one page differs from some administrators here? And what language? What does DaGizza think himself to be? A beauty queen? If it doesn't register, please note that Ankush 135 is the only profile I have. It is disgusting that dDaGizza has simply blocked me and all ips I access (automatically) from contributing without even attempting to verify? Is this fair play or is this the way Wikipedians promote knowledge sharing by way of healthy debate? Is this what Wikipedians are all about? Shame

Also, while now I cannot sign my name, you, o sock, what prevented you from signing your valuable comments on this page?

I appeal to Wikipedia to save objectivity from clutches of the likes of Doldrums/Hornplease and their many socks, for not only do they revert any objective insert or stop at removing 'neutrality dispute' tags from pages, they don't bat an eyelid while abusing their admin rights to block users who have an opinion divergent from them. Ankush (unfortunately, cannot sign —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.161.19.165 (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• List of Latter Day Saints (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This largely-unsourced list contains large numbers of entries for living people whose religious affiliation is not substantiated by an inline citations from reliable, published sources. I have attempted to begin removing all such entries in stages (it is time-consuming to go through each entry to establish that which entries involve living people, so I have not sought to do it all at once), have restricted my removals thus far only to living people (where the problem is more acute and the issue more cut-and-dried). I have explained the rationale at length here, but have been met only with resistance, reversion and a measure of abuse.

I've posted the problem here to encourage wider participation, and in particular to avoid an edit war with a particularly pugnacious editor. I should also mention that since my first removal of unsourced entries, no attempt has been made on the part of objecting editors to find reliable sources to justify the inclusion of the offending entries. --Rrburke^(talk) 14:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Warning placed at talk. If the user persists, drop a line her or in my talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The list does have some value. It directed me to the article on Helmuth Hübener. I had never heard of him, but he was a German Mormon teenager who was executed for protesting against Hitler. Steve Dufour 15:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

The crime bio of Dominick Cirillo seems to be completely unsourced while claiming its subject is a member of a crime family.--Pleasantville 22:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for finding this. I've added a half dozen sources, and can add more if necessary. The subject was indeed the head of a crime family for several years and his history was thoroughly reported in New York newspapers. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I searched on "rumored", which i how I came across it. The allegations seemed likely to be true. --Pleasantville 23:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Deb Marlowe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

What is the policy on listing the real names of people who use pseudonyms? I created an article about author Bess Marlowe, and listed her real name, which I found in a listing of authors and pseudonyms. She sent me an email asking me to remove her real name from the article. I know that other articles (such as Nora Roberts) list the real name of the author as well as her pseudonym. I'd be happy to remove references to her name if that is the policy here, but I don't want to remove it if we normally include that information. Thanks for any guidance. Karanacs 23:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have (and do you actually reference in the article) a reliable source (or multiple sources)? If so, I don't see the problem with including the name. --ElKevbo 13:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• • IMO, the subject isn't widely known (but notable enough to pass muster), so the information wouldn't be widely known. If it's a name she publically uses or her name has been printed (with her consent) in an article or biographical sketch, include it. If not, and if the subject has privacy concerns or other genuine BLP concerns, I don't think it belongs in the article.--Sethacus 16:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The article for this female golfer contains malicious content in the first paragraph. At first, the paragraph explains the controversy over an incident in which she may have cheated. However, the next few lines are very inappropriate. The article first asserts her guilt in the matter. Then the article proceeds to make some prejudiced and racist remarks regarding Asians. In particular, the comments about being "bloodthirsty" and "communism" are particularly malevolent and misleading considering that she hails from South Korea, a democratic country.

Sdk82 17:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This content has now been removed from the article. PC78 19:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is being vandalized by user 124.188.225.58 who is reverting it to previous versions which includes non-factual and irrelevant/potentially libelous information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Priyanfernando (talk • contribs) 08:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• That's not the only problem with this article. It's been tagged for lack of references (2 that I can see, one about him brawling with a ref, the other a woefully outdated stat sheet--The stats on the wiki are as of May 2006.)--Sethacus 15:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – user warned

• Ron Littlefield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Qmax (talk · contribs)

External link to an anonymous blog negative about subject that has been discussed and removed per BLP continues to be added with no or little justification. The talk page includes a current discussion of a recent news article citing the blog, but the article was more about the mayor's and others' reactions than its validity, and included a quote from a local news director about its lack of credibility. There's little information on the article page, with only one reference and three external links, so even adding the article as a reference or external link would stand out, and I have no desire to try to expand the article. The talk page contains discussions about the links (the first two were copied a while back from other talk pages. Keeping it or removing it is fine either way with me, I just would like it decided. Thanks. Flowanda | Talk 09:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this link is borderline, and could stay only until something better is found. One option would be to replace it with the news articles linked in the blog itself, e.g. [10] Dsol 09:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• User warned by user:FCYTravis. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Tim LaHaye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Talk:Tim_LaHaye#Gay_Son - There is an edit war occuring at this page, but that is not what caught my BLP-eye. There is material included that "outs" LaHaye's son as a homosexual based solely on a pair of blogs. This needs some BLP oversighting. Something to note is that the editor who keeps including this material threatens to "wikiscanner" those opposed to the inclusion of this BLP violating, WP:UNDUE material. LaHaye isn't particularly notable for his stance on homosexuality, unlike a Dobson or Fallwell, although prior to becoming notable for his fiction this was his main claim to fame. Regardless, it is not a key to his personal notability and should be saved for an article on his son himself, not the one for the father of the adult being, potentially, libeled. // Kyaa the Catlord 09:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have added a statement in support of your reading. Let's see how its received. --Moonriddengirl 11:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :) This one should be a no-brainer. Hopefully she'll understand easily. Kyaa the Catlord 13:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

(Another Republican) About half the article is taken up by a criticism section for opinions of people who don't like his books and/or don't agree with his religious beliefs, some from people who don't think he is fundamentalist enough. :-) Steve Dufour 00:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Joseph Jett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Two paragraph bio, completely unsourced, all of which discusses accusations of criminal activity. Corvus cornix 17:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

A quick Google search finds plenty of sources. This can be closed. FCYTravis 17:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Rauljulialevy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Raul Julia-Levy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• User:Rauljulialevy who may or may not be the subject of the article (Raul Julia-Levy) has blanked the article several times (latest diff: [11]). As this may be a good faith attempt by the subject of the article who may not be too familiar with the Wikipedia procedures to edit the article in question, I will report the issue here. The latest revision [12] cites references from NY Times, LA Times and Court TV which I believe are reliable sources and has a neutral POV in reporting the participation of Raul Julia-Levy in the recent Lana Clarkson murder trial. Even though it may be a conflict of interest for the subject matter (if User:Rauljulialevy is the same person) to edit his own article, I leave it to the admins in this board to decide if his changes (blanks) are permissible // Eqdoktor 17:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• I cleaned up the article a bit and asked the user to provide corrections if any. The concern is that most of the material in the article is related to a controversy about paternity, as well as claims made in a lawsuit in which he was supposed to be a witness. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• More help is needed from BLP patrollers in this article. The article itself was referred to in the press: Detectives noted that a Web site, Rauljuliaofficial.com, was removed July 11 and entries on Wikipedia describing his ties to Raul Julia and a wealthy Mexican family were scaled back. [13]. The article about this person may need to either be deleted and slted, or scaled down considerably and protected. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• As of this moment, the article doesn't look too bad. Rather than delete, I would suggest full protection, and deletion of the edit history up to this last version. It's a little harsh, but less harsh than deleting the article. We'll just have to watch it when the protection eventually comes off. - Crockspot 23:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that your idea is a good approach. Go ahead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Wish I could, don't have that bit. - Crockspot 02:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed a statment about a man he says is his father. This is clearly a BLP problem, unless the guy is dead. Steve Dufour 00:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Raul Julia has passed on, I believe. - Crockspot 02:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is permissible to leave that in (and the widow's rebuttal) - with citations and sources. On his website (and his dealings with the press) - he makes a claim of notability of being Raul Julia's son hence it should be included in his Wikipedia entry. --Eqdoktor 09:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know the elder man had died. I still tend to think the information about a claim is too trivial for WP. Steve Dufour 10:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you are right on reconsideration. Its better to err on the side of caution on BLP issues. Reverting to your edit. --Eqdoktor 12:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)