Alexander Mashkevitch

Please bear with me since I don't fully understand Wikipedia policy and how to deal with problems like this. I am having difficulties with the reverts made by the user Sbakuria ( User talk:Sbakuria ) to the Alexander Mashkevitch article. I have requested that they discuss their issues with the article on the article's talk page, but without consultation they revert the article to a mostly promotional and poorly formatted version (in my opinion). http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexander_Mashkevitch&diff=next&oldid=303933569 shows the version I and another user prefer, and the version Sbakuria switches to.

Could someone offer an opinion on this? 141.163.196.7 (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Bill Gothard

I am removing controversial material that is very poorly sourced from this article and removing a number of external links based on the BLP policies which say we shouldn't include links to sites that don't obey WP's own policies on neutrality or verifiability.

Midwest Christian Outreach and Personal Freedom Outreach are not reliable sources of information on Bill Gothard. Reliable sources for information would be used by other 3rd parties if they were indeed reliable. MCOI and PFO are not known in the Christian Studies scholarship field for being unbiased sources of information about Christian leaders. No other reliable source would ever think to use the unreferenced self-published claims in the MCOI or PFO weblogs to back up a claim made in their reputable news source or scholarly work.

I have made other comments on the talk pages in the past to get this stuff removed like I did in the Fred Phelps article a long time ago. In both instances I was consistently battling with a group of editors that insisted on keeping in all critical claims no matter how dubious and biased the sources of that information. Eventually the Fred Phelps article was fixed according to the arguments that I made years prior. It is now time for the same logic and reasoning to be applied to the Bill Gothard article.

And since many people have accused me of being a shill for Gothard, I must let you know my background. (Luckily, I was never accused of being a shill for Phelps when I was trying to get poorly sourced material removed from his article). I am a non-religious athiest (in more of the weak atheism sense). I don't believe in Christianity although I was a Catholic as a child. I do not believe in any personal Gods. I have immense dislike for many religious leaders, particularly ones that seem to be "in it for the money". I have done edits to Scientology related articles and discussions mainly in an effort to make sure that critical information about Scientology is presented. I have also done edits to some Christian churches and leaders trying to get clearly biased information from poor sources removed. I am all for critical information about churches and individuals being presented, even in BLPs, but I feel that it is very important to make sure the information comes from very reliable sources and not groups with a clear interest in repudiating the individuals or churches involved.

My only ban from WP came a few years ago in this article, back before the conscientious effort to improve BLPs was started on Wikipedia. There were two editors/admins that continuously worked to make sure that WP:BLP was not followed. Since the policy at the time said that poorly sourced material should be removed immediately regardless of 3RR, I kept doing it, even though the one editor that disagreed with me had an admin friend that he could message to get me banned. I finally just detailed the problems on the talk pages with the hope that future admins would finally get around to fixing it.

Now that things have changed at Wikipedia (with the removal of articles on Sollog, Barbara Schwarz, and repair of Fred Phelps) to remove poorly sourced material from BLP articles-- I now think its time to encourage other editors and admins to look at the history of this article and the sources that are trying to be used. Vivaldi (talk) 04:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Armando Quintero Martínez

This one is totally unreferenced. All of the sources on news.google.com that discuss him are in Spanish; since I'm not that good at Spanish, Spanish-speakers need to ensure Armando Quintero Martínez is referenced. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Gillian Tett

Resolved

Taylor Lautner

Resolved

I have to revert edits on the Taylor Lautner article two or three times a day, mostly about how cute he is, who he's dating, his (undocumented, and apparently non-existent) criminal record, and his ethnicity. I don't think it would do any good to semi-protect it, since it would probably have to be protected permanently, but the article does need more eyes, if that's possible. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done--Watchlisted. Unitanode 22:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

In the past, multiple other editors have thought semiprotection necessary. I agree and have semied for 3 months. There's nothing useful coming in and way too much intervention necessary by others.--Slp1 (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I definitely support this, though I may have gone for a bit longer, perhaps SP-ing it until he's at least of the age of majority (a bit less than 7 months, in this case). I think three months is fine, though, as we can see what happens after that, and perhaps semi- it again if the same issues arise. Unitanode 22:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought about it, but like to increase protection lengths gradually if possible, and the last one was for a month. Maybe by the end of 3 months nobody will care whether he is or is not dating Selina or whoever, and there will be blessed peace. One can always hope! And if not, protect again!--Slp1 (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll never understand the fascination some have with celebrities and who they're dating.  :) Marking this resolved, now. Unitanode 22:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Félix Malpica Valverde

The factual accuracy has been disputed with the Félix Malpica Valverde article. I just added the WikiProject BLP tag to the page to mark him as a living person. Someone please look into this article. Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 06:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

He seems to be a real notable person and there is nothing negative in the article. The only problem is the language barrier between the sources (and it seems editors) in Spanish and potential readers in English. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

BLP-related discussion at ANI regarding Sam Fuld

Just a heads up, as we have had some discussion here about this article. Unitanode 05:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The main problem seems to be that there is way too much information for an encyclopedia article on this baseball player, as nice a guy as he seems to be. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I also didn't know that baseball players had this kind of template on their articles: Template:Chicago Cubs roster navbox. I think that's a bit against WP's style, which is to be about subjects of lasting importance not a baseball team's current roster which could change from day to day. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Clarence Thomas

Our article on the Far right confirms what common sense tells us: the term implies, to most readers, "that someone is an extremist." When numerous reliable sources exist that offer all sorts of descriptions of a judge, thereby allowing us to choose between several descriptions of that person for which a citation can be offered, should we choose the needlessly inflammatory one ("far right"), or should we select a more accurate (and more NPOV) description from among the available sources (such as "conservative")? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

There are several reliable sources calling Clarence Thomas a member of the "far right" of the Court, and many more calling him the "most conservative" member of the Court. The WP article doesn't say he's far right in general (though he is); it just says he's on the far right of the Court. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
And there are other reliable sources that describe him in other terms. You and MastCell want to present this into a dispute about sourcing, but it isn't: it's about content. You want to describe Thomas as being an extremist, so you've found a reliable source that describes him as being "far right," but the existence of other reliable sources means that it can't be the end of the debate that such a source exists. You have to defend your preference in terms of content, and that means defending your desire to have the article insinuate that Thomas is an extremist. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Thomas' description should reflect what all RS say, with careful attention paid to weighting using reliability. I have less of an issue with describing someone as "far right" (or left, or up, or down) if enough good sources say so than with the idea that the article on the term Far Right might have too much soapboxing/OR in insinuating extremism. I know my opinion doesn't count as an RS, but I can think of people at both far ends of the political spectrum that I would not consider extremist, in the sense you (SD) are objecting to. Rafael's comment regarding scope of far rightness (within the Court) would significantly temper the problematic connotation of extremism. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
As an involved party: let's be clear on what the sources actually say. Oyez.org summarizes Thomas' position on the Court: "Since becoming a justice, Thomas has aligned closely with the far right of the Court." PBS on Thomas: "While on the high court, Thomas has been a solid member of the far right wing bloc, commonly voting along with Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia." I know of no serious contention that these are unreliable or unencyclopedic sources. I don't think that reliable sources should be excised simply because their wording offends the sensibilities of one editor, but yet this is a recurring theme at the article. I will refrain from further comment here, and I'm not willing to be quite as free with imputations of malice as Simon has been above, but to cast this as a BLP issue is seriously misguided. I invite any and all curious parties to Talk:Clarence Thomas, since I think there are serious quality issues with the article that can probably only be resolved with additional eyes. MastCell Talk 17:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
When read through the lens of the article on Far Right, then you are correct. The problem is, however, that I think the article on Far Right is wrong in many of its connotations. Reading that article, you get the impression that "Far right" means the next coming of Naziism. This is not an accurate portrayal of what Far Right now means in the US. The articles needs to be revamped and updated.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
(ec)"Far right" is obviously an inflammatory phrase. Common sense tells you that. Simply because we can find normally reliable sources who happen to have shown their bias on occasion, that does not mean that "far right" is the commonly accepted, widely accepted, consensus term for Thomas' philosophical stance. It isn't. Anyone with any familiarity with common coverage of the court already knows that. It doesn't do Wikipedia or its readers any good to take a source's inflammatory language and use it as if it were the uncontroversial mainstream view. And doing that is offensive. It is certainly a BLP issue because it is an attack on Thomas, who's been attacked -- rabidly -- quite a bit over the years, a situation that should make us more sensitive to bias on Wikipedia's part. There are dozens of alternative descriptions that would avoid inflammatory phrasing, and yet one of the most inflammatory is put into the article. It's simply bizarre to think that the inflammatory nature of "far right" is drained away by being cute in referring, on the surface, only to the court. To say "far right wing block" or "far right of the court" somehow makes it fine to treat the phrase this way in the article just doesn't hold up under scrutiny. The court is a controversial, politically sensitive topic. When we run across those, we need to take extra care to not only be neutral, but to look neutral. If I put a phrase like "child lover" into the Michael Jackson article, claiming I was only talking about his well-sourced affection for children and not referring to the pederasty allegations against him, it would be obvious that I was either stupid or trolling. Barack Obama, according to a reliable source (which I believe Wikipedia still cites), was one of the three most left-wing members of the U.S. Senate. That would not justify a Wikipedia article stating that "After he was elected to the upper chamber of Congress, Obama aligned closely with the far left of the Senate." or "Obama was a solid member of the far-left block in the U.S. Senate, commonly voting with Socialist Bernie Sanders." No one trying to be neutral would write that way. -- Noroton (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
You're making a content argument, and one to which I'm somewhat sympathetic - I'd rather we have a more rounded reflection of what reliable sources actually have to say about Clarence Thomas in our article. But a content argument isn't a BLP violation. Believe me, I take BLP seriously - but citing multiple independent, entirely reliable secondary sources, verbatim, with in-line attribution (e.g. "The Oyez Project described Thomas as..."), to describe a major public figure's political orientation is in no way a BLP violation. In fact, it's reasonably good editing practice. Perhaps we should add additional reliable sources, or alter our presentation of them - that's an issue for discussion on the talk page, but not a BLP issue.

As an aside, if an independent, reliable source has described Obama as a "solid member of the far-left block in the U.S. Senate", then that might be reasonable for inclusion, verbatim, with in-line attribution, as I've argued here. That would be an issue for discussion at Talk:Barack Obama, but not a BLP violation. MastCell Talk 18:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(redent) It is absolutely a BLP violation. Reporting on criticism of subjects who fit into WP:WELLKNOWN is justified, even a duty for Wikipedia under WP:NPOV. But "far right" is just name calling. Please read through the WP:BLP policy again. Here are the relevant passages:

Upon his appointment, Thomas was generally perceived as joining the conservative wing of the Court, voting most frequently with Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Scalia. The Oyez project reported:
Since becoming a justice, Thomas has aligned closely with the far right of the Court. He votes most frequently on the same side as the conservative camp of Rehnquist and Scalia. When Thomas began his tenure on the Court, many observers perceived him as a junior version of Scalia. Since then, Thomas has emerged from Scalia's shadow offering hints at his own conservative thinking.
-- Noroton (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Let's be clear: I would never write, as a Wikipedian, that Clarence Thomas was at the "far right" of the Court. You can see, in your blockquote, the wording I chose: Thomas "was generally perceived as joining the conservative wing of the Court." I think I have respected BLP, and chosen neutral, respectful, and reasonably sensitive language. On the other hand, when quoting an actual reliable source, I feel somewhat constrained to do so in a way which honestly reflects its content. Why should we bowdlerize specific sentences out of reliable sources because we don't like them? By deliberately leaving out the parts of the source that you find overly "inflammatory", you're altering the meaning and content of the source, and actively misrepresenting it. MastCell Talk 20:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree. We have numerous reliable sources saying Thomas is on the "far right" of the Court, and we phrase it as such. The article in general, if anything, is biased in favor of Clarence Thomas, relying heavily on using his own words and frequently letting him define himself, so using some reliable sources to characterize his position on the Court relative to others is completely acceptable. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Rafael: We have numerous reliable sources saying Thomas is on the "far right" of the Court my point is that this one is presented as providing neutral reporting or analysis, a point which you're not addressing. As a matter of fact, you've ignored all of my points. -- Noroton (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec):::MastCell: Misrepresenting it? How so? If the factual, neutral reporting that this source is presented in the article as providing is the only thing being conveyed by the sentence Since becoming a justice, Thomas has aligned closely with the far right of the Court. then what ideas are not conveyed by starting the quote with the next sentence rather than with that one? In addition, the article language just before the quote also conveys the idea. Again, if this were presented as one of the important opinions about Thomas, I'd be fine with it. But it's presented as reporting from a neutral observer, and it implies that the conservative wing of the court is "far right" in American politics, when that phrase is reserved for (a) mainstream accounts of people to the right of the Republican Party and (b) use by opinion writers to stigmatize people they disagree with. Do Google News searches of "Clarence Thomas" and "far right" or "Sotomayor" and "far left". All you find are opinion pieces in the first hundred results. Normal news coverage doesn't call SCOTUS justices "far right" or "far left". MastCell, you can be unfair and violate WP:BLP in other ways besides the words you write in an article. This is one of them. when quoting an actual reliable source, I feel somewhat constrained to do so in a way which honestly reflects its content. As I said, the only "content" reflected in "far right" is the source's biased opinion-mongering, apparently masquerading as neutral reporting or analysis. What you should feel constrained to do is avoid misrepresenting to our readers someone's opinionating for reporting or neutral analysis, and protecting living persons from unfair attacks from Wikipedia. Those come first. Anything you owe the source is a distant third, and exercising editorial judgment over what's notable and relevant to include in a BLP article won't violate any duties you have to the source. I'm all for reporting major opinions or criticisms held by any but a tiny minority, but that doesn't include simple name calling or presenting those opinions as neutral analysis or reporting. I've said everything I need to say, so I'm going to walk away, at least for now. I respect your motives, but articles on controversial subjects are difficult to edit neutrally. So please take some time out consider what I've said. -- Noroton (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's the problem - liberals think that all conservatives are "far right". Conservatives think that all liberals are "far left". As liberals vastly outnumber conservatives in the media, there will always be an abundance of MSM sources happy to brand conservatives with the "far right" moniker. --B (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I haven't found news reports from reliable sources that do that with Thomas. If they exist, they're such a tiny minority that we don't need to cover that. Of course there are plenty of opinion pieces that call various people "far right" and "far left". As long as it's labeled/treated as opinion, and as long as it represents a significant point of view, there's no BLP violation there, either. The problem is treating opinionated statements as acceptable factual reporting or neutral analysis. That's biased and, when it involves a BLP, against BLP policy. I think I saw "left wing" twice in the Sonia Sotomayor nomination article, both times labeled as opinion. -- Noroton (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to belabor this any further, but perhaps the quote bears repeating in full. It states that Thomas has aligned with "the far right of the Court" (emphasis mine). The Court is 9 people. At any given time, someone will be at the far right and someone (probably John Paul Stevens at the moment) at the far left. That doesn't mean that Clarence Thomas is a neo-Nazi, or that Stevens is an anarcho-syndicalist. It simply reflects their relative position on a Court of 9 individuals. I don't think anyone is suggesting that Clarence Thomas be labeled a member of the "far right", only that his position on the Court has been characterized as occupying the far right of that particular spectrum. MastCell Talk 23:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
The full quote exacerbates rather than ameliorates the problem: it implies that there is a far right group on the court with which Thomas caucuses. Now, of course, one can make the argument that the description is merely relative, that we are simply describing the position of Thomas vis-à-vis the other Justices. But that isn't how the article will be read. It's a strained interpretation of the phrase, and for good reason: That just isn't how that phrase is used or understood. No one would describe Hillary Clinton as being on the far right of the cabinet, or Olympia Snowe as being on the far right of Maine politics. And it is an interpretation of the phrase, one that we cannot explain in the article without raising WP:OR problems. The simplest answer is to use the source I proposed the other day: say he's on the right of the court and be done with it. Your insistence on retaining that one word is the stumbling block here.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Simon Dodd is right. The way I'd put it is that "far right" could reasonably be understood to mean "Thomas is far right in terms of American politics and one of the representatives of the far right on the court". We don't need to use words with emotional undertones like this because it isn't the "conservative" language that WP:BLP wants us to use. On a court of nine members, "far right" and "far left" just aren't appropriate. Something like "most conservative faction on the Court" (or the language that's on the page right now) does the job without the pejorative implications, which are always coveyed when we read "far right" and "far left".
Incidentally, discussion is now continuing on the Thomas talk page. -- Noroton (talk) 01:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd never heard of this chap before I saw this. I don't know if that makes me neutral or ignorant. Anyway, I thought I'd chip in a view from across the water.

IMO, the term far right, when used in the UK with no qualification, identifies someone whose views are likely to be somewhat akin to those of the BNP. Many people (imo) see the BNP as an extremist organisation, though it had success in recent elections and represents two UK constituencies in the European parliament. Yet everything depends on context. While maintaining essentially the same world-view across several decades, former Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, Roy Hattersley has found himself shunted from far right to left. He would probably agree that he was on the far right of 80s Labour Party, and would probably have agreed so at the time. Labelling him far right in that context would be neither inaccurate nor inflammatory. There's a huge difference between saying someone is on the far right, and saying they're on the far right of X. One could plausibly say of someone that they are on the far right of the Communist Party, the Labour Party or the BNP.

The description used should be whichever most closely represents the views of expert opinion as expressed through RS. Conservative isn't inherently neutral and far right isn't inherently inflammatory. Accuracy is important only insofar as it pertains to accurate representation of the opinion expressed in the sources. We don't try to accurately represent our own world-view; we try to accurately represent the world-view expressed in the sources. --MoreThings (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you MoreThings. Clarence Thomas is very famous in the U.S. for very important reasons to Americans and very unimportant reasons for anyone outside America. Outside of news reports and some news analysis, there are hardly any sources in the U.S. that are neither for nor against Thomas or his judicial philosophy. Discussion about him is extremely partisan. The news analysis and news reports simply don't use "far right" or "far left" in relation to Supreme Court justices (or other high officials in the U.S.) because it simply isn't factual. Commentators will do so all the time, and everyone (one can hope) understands that they're exaggerating for rhetorical effect. That's the way the reliable sources (all of them, or all that I know of) write about U.S. politics in the U.S. I've addressed the issue of whether "far right of the court" is fundamentally different from the usual meaning of "far right" -- once more: the language doesn't clearly state that; also, the use of the red-flaggy, hot-button, sly-jab of a phrase is not the "conservative" language WP:BLP wants. -- Noroton (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
That there is heated partisan debate surrounding his judicial philosophy suggests to me that his position is likely a long way away from the middle-ground. People in the centre don't generate heated partisan debate. Indeed, it sounds as though you agree that it's possible to discern a position for him, and that some sources are describing that position as far right. The question is: are they RS?
I can't buy your opinion that anyone using the term is "exaggerating for rhetorical effect" because it's simply that--your opinion. Might be right, might be wrong, but it shouldn't carry any weight in the debate, nor should mine nor any other editor's. Regarding commentators: there's a fine line between news analysis and comment, yet you're defining one as reliable and the other as unreliable. I'd say it depends entirely upon who is doing the analysing and the commentating. I also feel that you're coming quite close to arguing that any source using the term far right is, by that very usage, disqualifying itself as a reliable source. I would suggest that we should approach it from the opposite direction. We should look at the sources, and decide whether they are reliable by referring to policy and precedent. Using those criteria, I have no opinion on which of the sources being cited are reliable, but I do think that's the way to address the issue. --MoreThings (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
No, it isn't me making the distinction between news and opinion, it's WP:RS#News organizations (emphasis in origional):

News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact, and should be attributed in-text. In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations may be used.

As for "my opinion", it's based not only on the experience of paying attention to public affairs reporting and commentary in the U.S., but on a little research into just this. Look at the first 100 results in Google News for "Clarence Thomas" + "far right" [1] -- it's all opinion pieces and comments at news organization websites, same with "Sonia Sotomayor" + "far left". The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage and the Associated Press Stylebook don't mention "far right" or "far left", but they both say that "ultra-rightist" and "ultra-leftist", which amount to the same things as "far right" and "far left", should be reserved for radicals. AP states Ultra-rightist suggests an individual who subscribes to rigid interpretations of a conservative doctrine or to forms of fascism that stress authoritarian, often militaristic views. The Times says, "Because it suggests excess, ultra- can be pejorative and must be used with care. Mrs. Manley is ultraconservative, for example, can in some instances seem to mean that she is more conservative than anyone should really be." What applies to "ultra" applies to "far". -- Noroton (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Yet, no matter how well-informed it might be, yours is the opinion of an editor, and as such carries no weight. Where I can go along with you is when you start investigating the weight of opinion among RS. If you can make the case that no RS describe him as far right, then I agree that we shouldn't, either. Going back to the example I gave of Hattersley, he would agree that he was on the far right of Labour Party in the 80s, so would everyone else, but he didn't carry a card saying "Member of the Far Right"; there was no induction ceremony. It can never be a fact in that sense. But it's a fact that the weight of opinion among RS is that he was on the far right. So that's all I'm saying; if the RS say that Thomas is on far right, so should we. The debate is about which are the RS, and about what are they saying. --MoreThings (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Sam Fuld

Resolved

--Unitanode 19:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Is his religion adequately sourced? Second paragraph says he "is Jewish." "Personal" section, based on Q&A with the man, says he is "half-Jewish." I'm out of patience with an editor who keeps reverting back the contradiction, so a fresh viewpoint would be welcome. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This has not been resolved, as the issue that I raised remains. To recapitulate, it says in the second paragraph of the article, unequivocally, that Fuld is Jewish. But in that section that you moved (correctly) to the talk page, it says he is of Jewish-Catholic extraction, based upon statements Fuld himself made. For all I know, the sports publications cited in the second paragraph could have been assuming his religion based on his name. I think that, in the absence of better sourcing such as Fuld himself saying what his religion is, we should not take it upon ourselves to make that statement based upon contradictory sourcing. There is no earth-shattering need to declare this person's religion, and I believe that BLP requires that we deal with such things cautiously.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I have made this series of edits to the article, based upon your concerns. Does this take care of the problem, in your view? I've marked this unresolved, until I hear back from you on this. Unitanode 15:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, definitely resolved now, assuming these changes (and one's I'm about to make on categories) are not reverted. Thanks very much. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Marking as resolved, and reiterating (from my talk), that I don't bear strong opinions as to the removal or retention of the categories. Unitanode 15:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
My mistake. The categories were previously removed. Definitely resolved now. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

There's been some edit warring by an editor who keeps reverting Unitanode. The article has been stable for a few hours, but that editor posted this[2] recently. So I am not sure at this moment that it has been resolved. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been directed to this discussion now for the first time by a third user. I presume from the above that the reference above by Johnny to "I'm out of patience with an editor," was to me, though if I am wrong he should feel free to correct me (only he knows). I also gather that Unitanode may believe that the editor referred to was me, as he indicated on my talkpage that he left me a warning because of the issue raised here, but again I could be wrong and he should feel free to correct me. In any event, this is an issue that I've been involved in recently, so I'm happy to engage in discussion on it. I do not believe that it has been resolved.
First, I disagree with the characterization that I have been edit warring. I have consistently asked that this be left in the form in which it was, as a stable article, for a long time. The response by Unitanode has been to ignore my entreaty, and to revert me 3 times in a short period of time. I have sought to have this addressed not my reverting him again, but rather (again) through discussion, with the help of others.
Unitanode has raised an ANI at [3], the main focus of which appears to be not the substance of this issue, but rather his annoyance with me asking him if he might be one and the same as an editor who wikistalked me as recently as this week. I gather now that he was not that editor (had he pointed me to this page, I would have better/earlier understood that without asking the question), and I apologize for the question.
The discussion of the substance of the question is now taking place primarily at the ANI begun by Unitanode (see [4]), my talkpage discussion begun by Unitanode with what I now understand was his reaction to this entry (see [5]), and an edit warring report that I made (see [6]). Rather than reiterate the relevant discussion here, and require those following the discussion to go to yet a fourth location to follow it here, I would point interested persons to those locations.
I will only say, in short, that as is discussed at length in those entries,
  1. I believe that Unitanode's deletion of an entry in the text of the article (rather than a category) was innapropriate, as it was based on a guidance relating strictly to categories;
  2. It also made no sense given that, as he states above in his July 25 entry, he did not "bear strong opinions as to the removal or retention" of the categories",
  3. ) It is even odder, given that he reverted my deletions of reference to the religions of Fuld's parents, insisting on retaining those references, since the references to the religions of Fuld's parents would meet the (incorrect, I would argue) standard that Unitanode had applied to Fuld himself (and clearly Fuld's religion is more notable than that of his parents, for the purposes of Fuld's bio); and
  4. ) As to Johnny's question, I detail in the entries I refer to above why the authors of the citations are reliable sources.--Ethelh (talk) 00:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"out of patience" referred to another editor. See edit history of article. Issue here is BLP, not edit warring. Simple issue: Fuld does not declare his religion, says he is of Jewish-Catholic extraction. Sports columnists calling him a "member of the tribe" notwithstanding, we don't call him of one faith or the other under such circumstances. He's a ball player for heaven's sake, not a existential philosopher. His religion is irrelevant to his notability anyway. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I knew that you complained about an editor, and since Unitanode indicated to me that he "warned" me because of this posting, I thought that the reference might well have been to me, but I understand now that it was not. Had there been some reference to this posting on the article page, that might have led me and/or others to participate in responding to your question, but that is now water under the bridge.--Ethelh (talk) 01:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

As to notability, the this has long been discussed elsewhere on Wikipedia, and the notability of the intersection is demonstrated by the fact that there are three articles devoted to it (in Fuld's case) and countless articles, books, a baseball card set of Jewish major leaguers endorsed by Cooperstown, Major League Baseball "Jewish ballplayers" day at Cooperstown, etc.. It's not a subjective test (do I think it notable), but an objective one (do others write about it). And just as major league baseball treats the intersection as notable (see "Jewish players celebrated at Hall", MLB.com, and "Jewish baseball players have their day(s) at Cooperstown", USA Today), and the American Jewish Historical Society with permission from Major League Baseball and the Major League Baseball Players Association, and the support of the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum joined in the production of a set of baseball cards of Jewish ballplayers"Tribute is in the cards for Jewish ballplayers: Set documents their contribution", The Boston Globe, and books have been written about the Jewish ballplayers "The big book of Jewish baseball" By Joachim Horvitz, Jews and Baseball: Entering the American mainstream, 1871-1948,” By Burton Alan Boxerman, Benita W. Boxerman, Martin Abramowitz and Ellis Island to Ebbets Field By Peter Levine, all manner of recognition by major league baseball, the hall of fame, article writers, and book authors point to the notability of the intersection.--Ethelh (talk) 01:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, except that I started going to those websites to which you link and Fuld isn't mentioned. Did I miss him somewhere on those websites? Do you have a source in which he makes reference to him being Jewish?
I'm not suggesting that we necessarily need a declaration from an article subject on every occasion re his/her religion. Maybe we do, but we don't need to reach that point. Here we do, because of the Q&A in which he states that he is of Catholic and Jewish descent, with a Catholic mother that to a large portion of Judaism would indicate he is not Jewish.
It's not for us to say one way or the other. This is a BLP.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 01:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Fuld is a rookie. Therefore, articles/books written more than a year or two ago are unlikely to mention him. The above listing of the books, etc., was in response to your question as to the notability of the intersection. I would suggest that from the above, the intersection is clearly notable.

At that point, the only question is whether we have reliable sources indicatin that he is Jewish. Again, I believe this has been covered in detail.

Once again, it is only the category guidance (not the text guidance) that calls for a reference by Fuld himself, and even then only when the reference in the article is to him saying "I, Sam Fuld, believe in the Jewish religion." There is no requirement whatsoever that there be a statement by Fuld for the text reference. If there is such a requirement, I've missed it ... please feel free to correct me and point me to it.

The Q and A does not conflict with him being Jewish -- unless you are synthesizing to suggest that having one non-Jewish parent makes him non-Jewish (which is not true, in any event, and btw the Reform movement is a very large portion of the Jewish population, especially in the US ... but we need not go there, as the fact that he has one non-Jewish parent does not contradict him being Jewish, and we have reliable sources stating that he is Jewish). This was all rehashed on my talk page and the article talk page.

This is like disputing that someone might be Jewish because they are Swedish ... and we all know that most Swedes are not Jewish. Well, even if most Swedes are not Jewish, some are -- and all you would need would be reliable sources supporting the statement that he is Jewish. Just as a minority of Swedes may be Jewish, but that would not lead to the creation of a higher standard (i.e., we would not then need a statement by him), so the fact that most Jews have two Jewish parents (most likely) does not conflict with the statements by reliable sources that Fuld is Jewish. We have precisely what the guidance calls for, and there is no conflict.--Ethelh (talk) 02:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:SYN applies only to article space. People "synthesize" in discussion pages all the time. The Q&A very much does conflict with the other sourcing, which is why we are here. You're just factually incorrect, because having a non-Jewish mother definitely does make one non-Jewish according to all branches of Judaism but the Reform. Given that significant contradiction, all we need to do is to simply state his dual parentage (if that; I'm not totally sure it is all that relevant to a ballplayer anyway) and not declare his religion for him. If he says somewhere "I'm Jewish" then it goes in. Right now it isn't clear, and it may well be he is not in either faith. People calling him a "member of the tribe," probably based on a Jewish-sounding name, are of little weight.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 12:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

John Parascandola

John Parascandola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recently created by (I guess) himself or a close friend. Subject seems to meet notability. The article as it stands includes the subjects real life signature (as a picture). Now this guy is not exactly a head of state, should we be including signatures of people for privacy reasons? (e.g. ID theft), and what if the subject were to consent to having their signature on wikipedia? Martin451 (talk) 00:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the sig image and MOSified the article a little. Sorely in need of some references though. – ukexpat (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Images not obviously of the subject

I posted this to Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy yesterday, but the user restored two of them in the meantime so I figured it best to bring it here.

Gmacnroll (talk · contribs) has uploaded some images of people to Commons where it's not obvious it's actually of the person claimed. Is there a guideline/policy in regards to this? All of his images are supposedly a younger version of the subjects, see his contribs for details. Thanks, --aktsu (t / c) 23:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The articles in question are Pat_Sullivan_(American_football) (image currently up), Graham Kavanagh (up) and Jake O'Brien (down, see here for a rev. where its up). They might be the persons claimed but when comparing them to the results of a google images search, I was far from convinced. --aktsu (t / c) 09:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe better to remove the images and contact the people via email (with a direct link to the images asking confirmation). Images aren't of the quality one would expect from someone who knows the subject personally (as claimed by this user). —SpaceFlight89 11:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted the other two and left the editor a note. Quite simply, they're removable as failing WP:V absent a showing to the contrary. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 18:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Bernard Madoff

Sometimes I feel like people forget the fact that we have policies around here, especially WP:BLP, which is one of the ones that is most important to avoid running afoul of. I would appreciate some additional eyes on Allegations the sons knew about the fraud, all the way down through and including Arbitrary break #2, to achieve an understanding of policy. It may be that I am the one that is misunderstanding and mis-applying policy; if that's the case, I can take it, but the way this article is going lately, I think it has the potential to be a big WP:BLP issue.  Frank  |  talk  14:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The question devolves around whether we should qualify a bit the assertion that he confessed to his sons. I've suggested we attribute that statement to the criminal complaint. How this is a BLP issue escapes me. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Madoff, his sons, his brother, his wife, and a whole slew of employees all fall into the living people category.  Frank  |  talk  14:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but I believe the issue here is about a passage word User:Stefanson added referring to lawsuits against his sons asserting knowledge of the fraud. While maybe he could have worded it differently and/or in more abbreviated form, some reference to that belongs in the article. Rather than remove it completely, as you just did, it would have been better to rephrase and place it elsewhere if you felt it didn't belong where he put it. (Also there is the question of attribution of the confession to the complaint, clearly not a BLP issue.)--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I just struck out my last comment because I misunderstood the Stefanson edit which you had reverted. It involves adding the word "contested" to the reference to the confession and then some text to a reference. Is that the BLP issue or is it the attribution of the confession to Madoff's lawyer or the complaint? Either way, I don't think there is a BLP issue for anyone. The confession is indeed contested, in lawsuits that have been widely reported.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Lenny McAllister

I ran across this article going through AFDs (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lenny McAllister, which will likely be kept as notable). It is completely unsourced with what I believe to be some contentious and controversial information which I think needs to be removed. I'm not that well-versed with regards to what needs to be deleted from the article pending reliable sourcing, but if I could get some input as to what (doing a quick spot check, almost the entire "Controversies" and part of the "Personal life" sections) should be removed so I'm not deleting too much information that would unambiguously be considered harmless. Thank you, MuZemike 18:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Mike Duke

Mike Duke is the CEO of Walmart. The article had a poorly sourced "controversy" section which was referenced to a blog post and a piece on The Advocate's website which talked about the blog post. According to the blog, Duke had signed a petition in support of placing Arkansas Proposed Initiative Act No. 1 (2008) on the ballot. The implied bias is that Duke is homophobic. The section seems to clearly violate WP:UNDUE, and WP:BLP guidelines about sourcing contentious material. I posted my reasoning on the article talk page and removed the section from the article. An editor has reverted my changes, including one which merely replaced a dead link with a functioning one. Since I have a pre-existing conflict with this editor, I would appreciate it if someone could take a look at this. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed the content from the article. IMO, it doesn't belong there as per WP:BLP. I'll mark this as resolved but continue to watch the article.
Resolved
 – -shirulashem(talk) 01:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, but take a look at the references. How can I put this? There has been an extremely sneaky effort made to use the Advocate article as a reference for Duke's starting date, rather than any number of business articles, and to use a copy of a petition from the previously mentioned blog post as a reference for Duke's birthdate, which is WP:OR in itself. Can I suggest that you restore the article to the last version I edited? It also has a fix for a broken link to Wlamart's official bio of Duke. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Resolved
 – I've changed those as well -shirulashem(talk) 01:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for not informing of this discussion. There is no BLP vio in the content. It's sourced, validly, to a national magazine, a national web site, and a government document signed by Duke himself. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 05:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I posted my intentions and rationale on the article talk page. You simply reverted without discussion (or apparently looking closely at what you were reverting since you restored a broken link). You have just done the same again. If you were any other editor, I would have reverted and asked you to discuss on the talk page, but given our history I brought it here so that you wouldn't feel like I was "harassing" you. Unless you were solely responsible for the addition of that section -- I haven't looked -- the issue is with the article, not with you. Two editors have now disagreed with your contention about BLP violations, and there are other issues as noted above. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it's two editors and one admin. -shirulashem(talk) 13:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The petition source can NOT be used as per WP:OR. The reason, as I pointed out in my revert, is that even though it is a certified legal document, it was not PUBLISHED by a reliable source. It was published by a BLOG. If you can get the same document from a reliable source, I think it's ok. -shirulashem(talk) 13:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Even if we have a source that verifies he signed it, is there a source to say that there is a 'controversy' over it? --Onorem♠Dil 14:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Since people don't seem to getting it, here's what's wrong with this section - the Advocate's website (which is a fine magazine and reliable source) is simply reporting what the blog (an unreliable source) said. The blog is using a copy of a petition to include a an initiative on the ballot. We can't know if Mike Duke was the signer, even if the address and birth info appear to be correct, hence the WP:OR problem. Even if he was the signer, we don't know that how he voted on the ballot. Even he did support the inclusion of the initiative on the ballot and voted for it, this isn't controversial. Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of the measure, according to the WP article on it, the initiative was agreed to by a majority of voters in Arkansas. Including these suppositions, even if it were possible to prove them, is clearly in violation of WP:UNDUE. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the most asinine flaunting of BLP just to whitewash an article I have ever seen on Wikipedia. It's a certified petition for christ's sake, it doesn't matter if it was pasted to a toilet stall wall, it's an official document accepted by the State of Arkansas. I'm not even going to discuss this because this is so absurd, I'm just dumbfounded by the ridiculousness of it all. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 20:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

We're all trying to do the right thing here, and I'm hoping that there's still hope in keeping this civil, so I'm trying again. I've done something to illustrate my point. Take a look at this file. Look familiar? Now look at signature number 6. You see, anybody can manipulate an official document. So since the petition was PUBLISHED by a blog, just like my version was published by me at my picasa site, it cannot be relied upon. -shirulashem(talk) 21:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
(cross posted to the article talk page) The "original source" of a reliable source is not our concern. We could not have verified the accuracy of what Deep Throat was claiming forty years ago, and it wouldn't have been our job... It was the job of The Washington Post. When The Advocate, a reliable source, reports on or publishes something, we rely on their editorial judgment, not our own. user:J aka justen (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Is it established that The Advocate is a reliable source? -shirulashem(talk) 00:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I would say that it is, but it's a moot point. Simply having a generally reliable source say "this blog says..." doesn't magically make it acceptable. In any case, as I took pains to point out earlier, it is a clear violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Allstarecho, in what way is this "whitewashing" the article? Why is it important for WP readers to know that Duke may have signed that petition? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
The idea that including a verifiable, notable position (in either direction) of the chief executive officer of (one of) the largest corporation(s) in the world is certainly not wp:undue. It would be preferable if we had a much fuller biography of Mike Duke, but that is not grounds to remove a notable, verifiable, and reliably sourced biographical fact. We have a reliable source reporting his position, using whatever fact checking they have in place. Once we establish that the publication is a reliable source and is verifiable, it isn't our job to say "Well, that magazine didn't use good editorial judgment in covering a blogger's opinion." That's not our job. user:J aka justen (talk) 02:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
There is no "notable, verifiable, and reliably sourced biographical fact" being removed here. Re-read what I wrote earlier. We actually don't know anything about Duke's beliefs or actions based on the blog report, even if we accept it as fact. Someone signed a petition supporting a ballot initiative. We cannot know that it was Duke.
You seem to have a misconception about sourcing. Reliable sources often report on what unreliable sources have said. This doesn't lend any validity whatsoever to the original report. The Advocate isn't "fact-checking" or taking responsibility for the information, it's simply saying "that blog says...". Feel free to take the discussion to the RS board if still you don't see that this is a very common situation (please post the links). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
"We" don't ever "know" anything. The only thing "we know" is what reliable sources tell us. The Advocate is a reliable source, nobody is disputing that (at least thus far), so wp:rs/n would be an unnecessary bounce of the discussion elsewhere. You're attempting to expand wp:rs to cover the editorial discretion, on a piece by piece basis, of a reliable source, and there's nothing in the policy that supports that. Can you directly quote something at WP:RS that supports your position that we can question the editorial judgment of reliable sources? user:J aka justen (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
(See below for follow-up.) user:J aka justen (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Post appearing on article talk page: There's of course nothing wrong with disagreeing. As I wrote in my previous post, the problem I see here is that there are editors who feel that this content could violate BLP, and other editors disagree and proceed to just put the info back in. All I'm saying is that while there is such a disagreement on any article, especially on a BLP, we all must be patient and wait until the matter is resolved. I never said that we have to be unanimous ... I wrote consensus. And since part of BLP is "When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic," we need to keep the content out of the article until the consensus is reached either between us or through some kind of dispute resolution. Here's what I propose that I think might be helpful. Let's work on two things: 1. Try to find at least one completely neutral source for the petition, and 2. Let's try to build more content about other things to address Delicious carbuncle's WP:UNDUE concern. -shirulashem(talk) 12:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Allstarecho, in what way is this "whitewashing" the article? Why is it important for WP readers to know that Duke may have signed that petition? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

(←) I decided to go back to both wp:rs and wp:blp to figure out if there was any specific direction for an issue like this, and, indeed, there's this helpful test at wp:blp:

  1. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable,
  2. whether the material is being presented as true; and
  3. whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject.

There has been no suggestion so far that The Advocate is anything but a reliable source, and I don't believe there's been any suggestion thus far that this would not be a relevant issue for the biography, so I think there's a general consensus on one and three. The question is with the second point: some editors believe that there is a possibility that the "Mike Duke" in question might not have been the person to have signed the petition that created the "controversy." The issue here is whether or not we accept the reliable source in question relying on public records as indicative of the "truth."

Forging or signing a petition, or making a political contribution, in a name other than your own is a crime. Typically speaking, newspapers and other reliable sources regularly report on the political contributions of notable living persons... I don't know of any instance in which we have ever said "Oh, well, that might not be true" in any other case. Which brings me back to the fact that The Advocate vetted the story and believed the underlying facts to be truthful (it seems unlikely that they would have published it otherwise). The Advocate is a reliable source. I'll accept that the underlying "fact" is either truthful or fraudulent, but we have no evidence to the latter, and a reliable source reporting it as the former. user:J aka justen (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know which parts of this you aren't getting. I'll give it one last try.
(1) In my opinion, The Advocate is generally a reliable source. (Let's ignore the fanciful idea that newspapers, magazines and other news media can be counted on to vet or fact-check information, just for the sake of simplicity.) The Advocate is not reporting that Duke signed the petition, it reporting that a blog says that Duke signed the petition. In the very first sentence of the article it says "...reports the group KnowThyNeighbor.org". The Advocate reporting on that blog posting does not make the information reliably sourced.
(2) People forge names on petitions all the time - that's why in cases like this someone "officially" certifies them by checking a sample of names against voters lists or addresses, etc.
(3) This is a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. I've said it several times, and other editors have said it also. Even if it were reliably sourced, this would still be the case. That Duke may have signed that petition isn't something that needs to be included in the article.
(4) The implication of the "controversy" section appears to be: "Mike Duke, CEO of Walmart, is homophobic (and therefore so is Walmart)". Read the comments on the Advocate article. Look, I'm not one to defend Walmart or its CEO, but there's some obvious POV-pushing going on here.
That's my last ride on this merry-go-round. I hope someone else will step up if required. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
"I don't know which parts of this you aren't getting." That would be these parts... The Advocate is a reliable source, the rest of your argument on point one is grandstanding. On point two, people forge names like "Mickey Mouse." Forging the name, signature, and address of the chief executive officer of a company would be a much bigger deal; nevertheless, the Secretary of State and The Advocate accepted the petition as accurate and truthful. As for wp:undue, we include things like poor HRC diversity rankings on company articles, controversial positions on politician biographies, and so forth all the time. Finally, on your last point, the assumption of whether Mike Duke is or is not homophobic is up to our readers, we can only write about what reliable sources report. As for Walmart, the company has an extensive non-discrimination policy, so your assumptions are your own. user:J aka justen (talk) 03:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
And I'd like to drive what ought to be the last nail in the coffin of this concept that we get to judge the journalistic and editorial standards of otherwise reliable sources on a piece by piece basis... Know Thy Neighbor is an organization. They reported on something on their blog. At least two third-party, otherwise reliable sources picked up the story. This is no different from when Focus on the Family or the ACLU harp on something... We typically would not accept either as reliable and verifiable, but once a third-party, reliable source pick it up, we can then consider including it. Blogs, themselves, are not (usually) reliable sources. Once a third-party, reliable, and verifiable source reports on whatever that blog is saying or doing, it becomes reliable. user:J aka justen (talk) 03:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to address another issue ... why is this material included in the first place? Assume for a moment that it's true, does it warrant inclusion in the article? Is it really important that the CEO of WalMart signed such a petition? It's not like he signed a petition that supported re-instituting slavery. Suppose a big CEO signed a petition supporting gay marriage. Should that necessarily be in his article too? Again, assuming that he really did sign the petition, I haven't seen anything that shows that his position on gay marriage is anything but his own personal opinion. It's not like he fired employees for supporting gay marriage. (If he did, it would certainly be relevant). If we include this, then there's no reason why we can't include the positions on affirmative action, gun-control, the Palestine/Israel conflict, stem cell research, abortion, global warming, etc. on every single bio on WP. Maybe this is why we still have not produced even a MENTION of this in any mainstream media news source. While the Advocate might be reliable, it's stated purpose is to provide news relevant to the LGBT community. -shirulashem(talk) 02:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure we differ between "mainstream" or, umm, "non-mainstream" reliable sources... In any event, it's not uncommon to include notable political or personal positions of chief executive officers... It's relatively rare for chief executive officers to take controversial political positions of any variety (on either side in this case), executives tend to be relatively apolitical, at least publicly... But, for example, see articles like Meg Whitman, Steven Reinemund, and to a lesser extent, Michael Dell, Sumner Redstone, or Alan Ashton. user:J aka justen (talk) 03:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'll bite: what's the "notable political or personal position" here? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
That would be a position on LGBT adoption, among other things. You can see the article there to better understand why it's a notable political or personal position. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Here's where you may start to understand the problem - what is Mike Duke's position on LGBT adoption? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
According to a petition accepted (and heretofore unchallenged) by the Secretary of State of Arkansas, and as reported by at least two reliable sources, his position was that the voters in Arkansas should consider prohibiting cohabitating LGBT couples from adopting children or serving as foster parents. Did I miss something? user:J aka justen (talk) 06:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
We don't actually have any reliable sources for this, let alone multiple sources. Even if we did, the most that you could infer from Duke signing the petition is that he signed the petition. That isn't a statement of his beliefs. Are you spending all this time arguing so that we can include in the article that "Duke signed a petition for a voter initiative indicating that he believed the voters in Arkansas should consider prohibiting cohabitating LGBT couples from adopting children or serving as foster parents"? And this was labelled "controversy"? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
The tone of your questioning could best be described as "incredulous"... Do you have a personal viewpoint on the matter that might be preventing you from being objective? The reliable sources say what they say. You believe the underlying sourcing for those reliable sources is questionable, but there's really no basis in Wikipedia policy allowing us to decide that on a case by case basis, as I've stated before, and as I'll state again until you show me where -- anywhere -- in our policies you find support for your position. user:J aka justen (talk) 14:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
J, the onus to make a valid argument would seem to be on you, not on me. You been told by multiple editors that this is a WP:BLP violation. I don't think anyone has agreed with your contention that this is reliably sourced. If your question about my personal viewpoint is really asking if I'm homophobic or anti-LGBT then the answer is no, I'm not. Neither am I pro- or anti-Walmart. I believe I am being objective here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
The onus is on every editor to make a valid argument. I am, by no means, the only editor advocating the inclusion of this content, but most people have given up trying at this point, I believe. Not because they agree with your position, but because they aren't willing to engage in a revert war with you to include the content (and, neither am I). I've made numerous points, none of which you've refuted; instead, you've posed numerous rhetorical questions, and you've yet to quote any policy supporting your position. user:J aka justen (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I've refuted all of your points multiple times now, but you just keep repeating your assertions about reliable sources as if nothing had been said. If you don't want to take my word for it, go and ask at the RS noticeboard, as I suggested much earlier. My questions weren't rhetorical. When I asked if you were spending all this effort arguing to include in the article that "Duke signed a petition for a voter initiative indicating that he believed the voters in Arkansas should consider prohibiting cohabitating LGBT couples from adopting children or serving as foster parents", I actually hoped for an answer rather than an attack on my motivations. If you're done arguing, so am I. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I've always viewed wp:blp as sort of sacrosanct. If folks believe there's even the hint of a concern along those lines, then I'm going to try to figure out what the motivation is behind it, which I tried to do here with you... Do I believe this is notable? Yes. Do I believe the source is reliable? Yes. Do I believe including it would be overly undue? No. Still, you have shown you'll use undo to keep the content out regardless (admittedly from trolls hijacking the discussion). But, here, we're at a standstill. I may bring up the issue at another appropriate (and more trafficked) noticeboard (and I'll mention that on the article's talk page if I do), but I don't think wp:rs/n is the proper venue (given that most folks, excluding yourself, have accepted that The Advocate is an unquestionably reliable source). It is safe to say, though, that yes, I'm done "arguing" with you.  :) user:J aka justen (talk) 03:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Been watching this debate, and I have to say that Delicious Carbuncle is way off base in his reasoning. If a person signs a petition it is implicitly understood that they believe in the measures being petitioned for. Either that, or they are mentally incapable of understanding said measures. If there were a petition for the withdrawal of Pepsi from store shelves, I would not sign that petition. Why? Because I enjoy Pepsi. If I were impartial on the subject, I wouldn't sign the petition to begin with, as it would imply that I have an opinion on the matter. When high-profile figures are thrown in the mix, they would be careful not to put their name to anything they did not believe in as it could blow up in the media (as indeed this has). Thus, Mike Duke would not have signed that petition if he did not believe in and support its cause. Drew Rindahl (talk) 00:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Drew, there are two problems with your argument - first, we cannot verify that it was Duke who signed the petition. Second, at issue is a petition to include an initiative on the ballot, not a vote on the initiative itself. Your assumption is not an unreasonable one, but it is just that - an assumption. Duke may have signed the petition because he felt that voters should be heard on this particular issue, not because he agreed with the initiative itself, but I'm not suggesting that was his reason because I don't know. And neither do you. It's a moot point, given that we don't have any reliable sources for this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Except the one included in the revision history? The Advocate is a reliable source. Multiple editors above, including those advocating your position, agree. I'd encourage you to review wp:rs if you're not familiar with what is or is not a reliable source. user:J aka justen (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I have said The Advocate is a reliable source, 3 or 4 times now. It's not a source for this particular story for reasons which I've also repeated about as many times. Feel free to get the last word in, but please don't use it for any more attacks, thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I can't speculate as to what you've misinterpreted as an "attack" (but please do see wp:agf). However, again, wp:rs doesn't support your theory for piece by piece subjective treatment of the editorial decisions of reliable sources. user:J aka justen (talk) 06:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
This is an insane forecast! Are you genuinely suggesting that ol' Dukey (we went to high school together) should be branded a homophobe in a significan section of his article because he may have signed a petition?! That is the reason Wikilapediataia has the BLP policy in the first place - to prevent people from making unsourced (or badly sourced) allegations! And to lead from the signing of this petition to make him out as anti the gay, that's the actions of a crazy man! I'm sure many people sign a lot of peti-t-itions, sometimes contradicting each other - I'm sure politicians do! Just because someone signed a petition deploring the act of murder (or even requesting an inquiry about murder), this does not mean they are in favour of eg: stiffer sentences for murderers, hanging's too good for them! I'm so full of ink right now I'm swelled up like a balloon! Or say if a little chinese guy came up to you and wanted to put a tube in your ass and fill you full of custard? Just theoretically. You'd be shocked. But it doesn't necessary make you distrust the chinese - especially all chinese! That would be the act of a froth-mouthed madman. Seems we're dancing round in circles here - and I'm the one who's going to break through the steely walls and push forwards to a true resolution - like I said, I knew ol' Dukey when we were at school, and he never made any kind of advance on me, and I never made any advance on him. Like I said, we were friends - not "special friends", especially not in a gay way, but I won't have him treated like some kind of "burn the gays" "god hates fag sweden" church burner! He's a good businessman and the idea that you're making this kind of slur about him is sheer brutality. And it would be fine if it was written in a newspaper that he hates the gays - but SIGNING A PETITION?! This is goof-loonery of the highest treaty! I am disgusted. I will be discussing this with my wife and some of her friends. Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh and I might also say that this is why I have signed up to the Wikipedia. I used to think it is a fine reference but now the idea that it can be used as some system of slander disgusts me. Please be assured I will not rest on this issue. Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Eh? I don't know of anyone that's called him a "homophobe," and such language has never appeared in the article. At least two reliable sources say he signed a petition, that's all we can say. On the other hand, the company he leads has a very progressive non-discrimination policy. If you (or anyone) believes the reliable sources published "unsourced (or badly sourced [allegations]" against Mr. Duke, you should contact those publications and ask for a correction. user:J aka justen (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

OK buddy, here's an idea then. What text were you going to put on the page based on the evidence that he signed the poetition? Is it going to read that "Mike Duke" once signed a petition about letting the gays adopt, but on the other hand he has a very progressive non-dis policy? What's the actual words? Where are they? What do they look like?

I have been talking to my wife and her friends and they are in agreement. Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You can see the language, created by other editors, in the revision history for the article. user:J aka justen (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so our suggested text goes:

Duke was the subject of controversy when it was revealed that he and his wife signed a petition to place an initiative on the Arkansas ballot in November 2008 to ban adoption and foster parenting by gay couples.[1][2]

  1. ^ The Advocate magazine: Wal-Mart CEO Backed Gay Adoption Ban
  2. ^ KnowThyNeighbor: CEO of Wal-Mart Found On Arkansas Anti-Gay Petition

There doesn't seem to be any mention of this "progressive non-discrimination" policy here. Is there, perhaps, a better way to phrase this that doesn't make ol' dukey sound like some kind of gay bashing Nazi? Because I don't think anyone here is, and at the moment, with such a short article, that section is going to be a good 1/3 of the article. About one petition signing? If I signed a petition saying I was for reducing the time up until someone can have an abortion, (ie 24 weeks down to 20 weeks), would you be able to call me a pro-abortionist on my article (if I had one, as by agreeing with 20 weeks by signing it I was sanctioning the act of abortion), or an anti-abortionist (making the amount of time to have an abortion shorter, thus making it harder to get abortion)?

Or would you just think that I'd signed a petition and it's hard to make too much assumptions about someone because they put their name on a list. If I made a speech about abortion, you'd be damn sure where I stood in the end.

I'm going to go have some food with my wife and her friends. Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 21:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Just thought this article is also worth a read. 1You may have seen it or something similar already. Right I'm really going to get some food now. I'm so hungry! Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The correct place for this discussion is probably the article's talk page, rather than here. This page is for acute wp:blp flareups. That said, the company's progressive nondiscrimination policy would more appropriately be mentioned in the Walmart article, unless Duke specifically had a hand in crafting or implementing it. I mentioned it above to further my personal hunch that it wouldn't be fair to label him a "homophobe," not to (specifically) suggest it for inclusion in his article. user:J aka justen (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Mr Hands, I suggest the most appropriate place to carry on this discussion would be at J's user talk page, since no one else, even the originator of the "Controversy" section, seems willing to voice their support. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I would be more than happy to discuss the issue with him further, but the appropriate place remains the article's talk page. user:J aka justen (talk) 06:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Mr Carbuncle, you come across as a just man. I was talking to my wife about you over dinner, and she would certainly plant her flag in the lawn in front of your house any time! I tell you now, sir, I don't entirely know what that means, but I've certainly had a good impression of you. If you're ever in the area, I'd love to have you over for lunch with me and my wife and her friends.

Mr J, I saw what you wrote on Delicions Carbuncle's talk page, and what do you mean calling me a new edior like it's a bad thing? Ive as much right to discuss this as you do, sir! I can understand an old hand looking down at the new boy with an air of disgust, sending him off on missions to discover impossible objects, but I haven't spent the last 30 odd years in business without learning a thing or to, and I knwo that that's some kind of crazy tricks you're trying to pull there. I can show my mettle, whether it's in a war of words, or of great weapons! I was talking to my wife about you as well - she said that you'd learn in time. Either way, I'd love to chew the fat with you, although you can't come round for lunch. I can come to your talk page if you like - or we can meet up in the Mike Duke lounge. Hey, I like that! A lounge named after ol 'Dukey! Sorry, but this all seems a bit absurd at times, talking about ol' dukey on the web. I remember when he was just a boy of 11!

Anyway, enough jaw from me... We should get down to business on the controvercy section. It's your call!

Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems I'm Swamilive :) Did you miss me? Drew Rindahl (talk) 03:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Seems you are now blocked. :) Enigmamsg 06:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Matt Drudge

Has a very extensive section (25 footnotes, 14 lines of text, making it have 40% of all the footnotes for the entire article, and the second longest section in the article) on "sexual orientation" which is almost entirely sourced to gay publications, and to an article retracted by the Toronto newspaper. At what point does such a section run afoul of BLP considerations? Do a large group of gay publications form a reliable source about the sexual orientation of a person the articles oppose? Is the section too lengthy as to be UNDUE? Does use of such a group of related sources adequately prove a contentious fact? I am not an edotor on the page, so am asking this only because it appears to be an issue which should be discussed. Collect (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Jamie Doran

Request for Administration / Deletion of Jamie Doran Wikipedia page

I seem to be being reluctantly drawn into an “edit war” with the editor, RetroS1mone, over the Jamie Doran page. RetroS1mone has stated that she believes it is a vanity article. This suggests that she believes it should be deleted. As it seems that we will not be able to reach a consensus, I concur. I am seeking third-party administration, and the deletion of the page or, at the very least, its protection from repeated attack by an individual who appears to have a grievance against Jamie Doran.

RetroS1mone has repeatedly vandalised this page by removing numerous facts that were substantiated with references to notable publications (please see the page’s history and discussion forum). Her edits indicate that that she is attempting to further a personal agenda. In summary, she removes virtually all but negative information about the page’s subject.

I admit that I have been editing in Doran’s defence; however, I believe that I have been doing so as objectively as possible. Apart from one obscurely sourced article, I have not attempted to remove the references that RetroS1mone has used to back up her edits. I have not attempted to resist RetroS1mone’s removal of the synthesised citations, and have tried to find high quality references to verify the facts that I have listed.

I have also attempted to engage RetroS1mone in dialogue, and to reach a compromise with her. She has ignored these efforts.

I refer administrators to the detailed justifications I have posted for my edits on the page’s discussion forum.

Thanks for your help,

Biggerpicture (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I've had a look through the article. I don't think deletion is an option, because he is notable, but I will keep an eye. --JN466 19:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Cashis

Yes, I'd say delete the whole unsourced section. JN466 10:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Freddie Scappaticci

This whole article is a major BLP violation as it takes the side of a book that was widely reported on, that Scappaticci was paid informer which he denies. It implicates him in the murder of 63 people and claims that Martin McGuinness the deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland is to this day a paid informer. It is far from neutral as I said these are charges that are denied by him. Some eyes would be appreciated over on it thanks. BigDunc 17:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts

Okay, this article is simply not a BLP, but even though the conflict involves more of intellectual property, would this article have to comply with the BLP policy? Someone in the AFD keeps making bizarre arguments that conflict with the wording of WP:N saying that because its subject deals with a BLP, the sources that report the same information can only be counted as limited sourcing and all that, but I just don't know how to explain it. Could we have an opinion here? ViperSnake151  Talk  19:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If possible, please could we have any observations as comments on the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/National_Portrait_Gallery_copyright_conflicts page? That will help to keep everyone in synch. Thanks. - Pointillist (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

David Miscavige

Needs ongoing attention. Placed here so it will enter the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Watchlist. --JN466 20:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

John Yoo

Needs ongoing attention. Placed here so it will enter the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Watchlist. --JN466 20:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Devendra Banhart

I have reverted to your version. It is a real pity that an IP is engaging in an edit war over this article, by adding un-cited stuff, as this in a well written and very well cited article. If it were not for the edit war, it would be worth nominating as a good article. Martin451 (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Alessandra Stanley

I'm concerned about the sourcing of this article and the amount of space given over to her inaccuracies. Is there a BLP issue here? There is no question that she has gotten some bad press for inaccuracies, but that dominates her article.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I've reduced the size of the section but it still concerns me that this article focuses on her "controversies," and thus may be a fundamental violation of BLP as an "attack page." Any thoughts on that? Is this article salvagable in its current form? See [7]--JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
The majority of the press about Alessandra Stanley is specifically about her errors and only about her errors (including the Columbia Journalism Review, CBS News, and Romanesko). I'm not sure if it's a bad balance given the notability of the mistakes and the press they've received. --NellieBly (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not unsure at all. With many of the sources being about her mistakes, perhaps the solution is simply to have a short (one paragraph or so) stub that mentions (perhaps two sentences) that she is notable for having made many mistakes in her career. Having such a long article, where 2/3 to 3/4 of it is found in a section called "Controversies" is just unacceptable, in my view. Unitanode 21:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
It has been cut down significantly at this stage, but I still wonder if this article serves mainly to disparage the subject per CSD#G10. She is definitely not a public figure. On the other hand, NellieBly is correct. Not sure she'd be notable at all were it not for her errors, which are reliably sourced by the newspaper's own corrections page and by Columbia Journalism Review.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
As a regular columnist for the New York Times she is both notable and a public figure, even were she error-free. --CliffC (talk) 12:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Not notable in the Wikipedia sense - WP:CREATIVE
  1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
  2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
  3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
  4. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.
Martinlc (talk) 12:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it should be deleted? The only attention she gets in the press is because of her errors. She doesn't seem to meet the standards for biographies otherwise. Unitadone has done a great job of stubbifying this article, but I still have my doubts about it.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I think that an AFD here would -- and probably, should -- fail. She's BLP-notable (in my view, at least) for having received wide coverage, in multiple reliable sources, for more than one event. Unitanode 14:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Then I guess that's about all we can do.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Stephanie Courtney

The Stephanie Courtney article could use a few extra eyes. I've had to revert mention of her "death" several times from the article today from IPs registered in such disparate places as Virginia, Arkansas and Finland. I can't find anything online (news, blogs etc) to determine where the rumour/hoax may be coming from...I can watch it for about another hour, but then I'm off on holiday, so if a couple of you helpful souls could watchlist it that would be great. Cheers, ponyo (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I have semiprotected the article due to the incorrect reports of her death. EdJohnston (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
All the vandalism happened within about a 45 minute window 2 days ago. I'm not sure protection is needed now. --Onorem♠Dil 13:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Birth dates of minors

Should articles about minors include their birthdates? I'm thinking specifically of Cayden Boyd. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Kinda hard to verify they're a minor without a birthdate! Awesome Face — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Good point.  :) Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Patricia Cloherty

The Patricia Cloherty article is beset with edit warring between a dizzying array of SPAs and IPs in the US and Russia, a number of which identify themselves as the subject's representative. Admin Nancy tried semiprotecting for a month, but that allowed one (autoconfirmed) combatant to continue, and now that the semiprot has expired the IPs are back again, and no discussion has taken place in the meantime. I'm at a loss as to what we should do; the subject is probably notable, but it's hard to find a worthwhile version that's properly sourced, or references that aren't someone's PR release. -- Finlay McWalter Talk 14:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

South Park Mexican

South Park Mexican (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - While this specifically refers to the issue in this article, it can be expanded to include all articles in similar categories. The question is, is it appropriate to use descriptions such as "Convicted child molester, convicted rapist, ect. We also have categories for these individuals, which would indicate that the use of the terms is not considered derogatory. IMO, they are legal terms that accurately describe a person. Some consider them to be Pejorative terms. // Sephiroth storm (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

He was convicted, his conviction has not been overturned, and this conviction is reliably sourced. Having said that, no need to call him any nasty names--encyclopedic descriptions of the crime of which he was convicted is sufficiently condemning, and rises above name calling, however justified it might be. Jclemens (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Consider the following:

Now select the most neutral presentation:

1. "Dhabihu'llah Mahrami was an Iranian civil servant and apostate..."
2. "Dhabihu'llah Mahrami was an Iranian Bahá'í and civil servant. In 1996, the Islamic Revolutionary Court of Yazd charged him with apostasy from Islam and sentenced him to death..."
1. "Karl Gorath was a German nurse and convicted homosexual..."
2. "Karl Gorath was a German nurse. In 1938, he was imprisoned by the Third Reich for acts of homosexuality..."
1. "Susannah Martin was the wife of a blacksmith and a convicted witch..."
2. "Susannah Martin was the wife of a blacksmith. In 1692, she was convicted of witchcraft by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and sentenced to death by hanging..."

Sensational labels that are dictated by moral relativism have no genuine encyclopedic value.   — C M B J   22:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You argument is reasonable, but it would be inappropriate IMO to change this one instance unless an effort were going to made to change all of the articles, and the categories. I think in this case, the lesser of two evils is to allow them, until such an effort can be made. Sephiroth storm (talk) 12:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll nominate the categories for discussion over at WP:CFD.   — C M B J   17:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Can you send me a link? Sephiroth storm (talk) 03:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 July 29#Criminal categories implying POV   — C M B J   17:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

John Angarrack

Joowwww keeps removing the fact that the subject of the article's real name is John Wilton and the name "Angarrack" is a psuedonym. The name Angarrack has been extinct for centuries, but Wilton adopted it to sound "more Cornish" (he is a regional separatist and conspiracy theory writer). On the talk page Serpren (talk · contribs) discovered that the subject of the article is a washing machine repair man by trade[8] with his washing machine repair company using the same location in Bodmin as his pressure group Cornwall 2000. Joowww wants to keep this relevent info out of the article. I feel that Joowwww is attempting to manipulate Wikipedia to push his personal fringe views on regionalism (I used to be in a similar situation before I reformed and stopped). He is also clashing with BritishWatcher (talk · contribs) on the same issue of pushing fringe POV in articles. - Yorkshirian (talk) 13:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Under WP:MOSTM we should use the form most commnly found in sources. If there is a WP:RS for being also knaown as John Witon, then that can be added, but the artcile should use Angarrack. The precise employment of a political activist/author is Not Notable.Martinlc (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
He's not a separatist, reading the page's references will prove that. What his real name is, is irrelevant, WP:UCN (sorry I wrongly gave WP:COMMON) states you should use the name he is most known as, and WP:BLP states that you should only provide the information most relevant to the article, with regard to the subject's privacy. That you even claim he is a washing machine repairman is pure WP:Synthesis, the reference given on that talk page does not specifically state that John Angarrack is a washing machine repair man, just that someone in that house by the name of Angarrack repairs washing machines, or that a business is based at that address. <offtopic>"Activist" doesn't exactly put bread on the table does it, how else do you expect people to live?</offtopic> Questioning my motivation for editing Wikipedia is a violation of WP:AGF. Also, calling my opinion as "fringe" is your POV, and not one that many people in Cornwall would share. You don't seem to have much grasp of even the most basic Wikipedia policies. --Joowwww (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
If somebody is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia, then they're clearly notable enough to have their actual name included in the article (even if not specifically in the title) and what they do. Somebodys own name is relevent to an article on them. This in no way violates BLP. The public domain business address which Serpren gave for the washing machine company is the exact same business address given for pressure group Cornwall 2000. It also puts into context that this person is not a professional or academic author, but a washing machine repair man who does this as a hobby. In any case, I think BritishWatcher put a "notability" tag on the top and I tend to agree that its questionable whether a washing machine repair man should have an article in an encyclopedia. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Yorkshirian is assuming that the status of 'being a professional or academic author' is worthy of comment in a BLP article, and wishes to discredit the subject. Even if there were Reliable Sources which gave birth name and occupation, their inclusion would be dubious since they are unrelated to his Notability, but as it is there is only WP:OR or unsourced assertions. The Wikipedia article on a controversial figure should be NPOV and not part of the controversy.Martinlc (talk) 07:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thio Li-ann - quotefarm and other issues

Thio Li-ann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There appear to be at least 2 editors who insist on keeping a major quotefarm on a politicized hiring kerfluffle at NYU, without reasoning or discussion. At the least, I believe this quotefarm is a violation of WP:UNDUE, with a side helping of WP:COATRACK. Also troubling is the use of blogs such as Above the Law as sources, giving WP:RS issues.

Thoughts are welcome. RayTalk 17:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The quote could simply be linked. Both lengthy quotes could be summed up easily, referenced of course (which they are). I think WP:QUOTE is good to follow here, specifically when not to quote. (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 20:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

John Derbyshire

Someone might want to take a look at this. –xenotalk 20:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking makes my head hurt. As misguided / newbie as he is about how Wikipedia works, he's right about the state of his article and his reaction is understandable. The article seems to be a near complete loss, a coatrack without even a rack to hold it up. I don't even know where to begin, maybe write a biography to hit the main points before launching into all the controversies and incidents. I removed a WP:NAVEL problem having to do with his blog entry, moved the personal life stuff out of the lede, and dropped the "Chinese wife" thing he complains about because the relevance and importance wasn't supported by a reliable source. Wikidemon (talk) 07:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
<joke>As he is a Mysteron maybe we should enlist the help of Captain Scarlet?</joke> – ukexpat (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
This is a problem with lots of controversial writers. WP editors feel that their every opinion on every topic must be brought into the article. How about just the basic facts on the person him or herself? That's what readers of an encyclopedia are looking for. If they wanted a debate they would go to Usenet. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Paul Franklin

Most of this article is unsourced. Some material is potentially libellous, hence it should be removed immediately.Xekseq (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Wince. Most of this article is without citations, but the sources at the bottom seem to bear out most of the claims. In definite need of cleanup. I don't know if I'll have the time today. RayTalk 21:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Most of the article is at least without citations. A complete rewrite is needed, imo. I'm not inclined to do a rewrite, so I suggest speedy deletion. Just one man's opinion.Xekseq (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe we delete articles due to poor sourcing do we? --Tom (talk) 00:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Debbie Jaramillo

The article Debbie Jaramillo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is completely unsourced and consists almost completely of negative information. The negative information seems to have been accumulating since the original article in 2004. I considered deleting the negative material, but there would only be one sentence left. I suggest that we delete this article and let someone start over. Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I have boldy stubbified it per WP:BLP. – ukexpat (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
There's lots of good sources out there about Debbie Jaramillo, whose administration provided material for lots of academic writing, as well as plenty of national as well as local news coverage. I've taken a stab at starting a new, sourced article to replace the unsourced and POV content that was there previously.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Nice job! – ukexpat (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Józef Glemp

A user who has an apparent history of adding accusations of anti-semitism to Wikipedia has reverted several times on Józef Glemp. His sources are very weak -- Alan Derhsowitz, who was in a lawsuit against the Cardinal, and then a misuse of anoother source, expanding a statement about multiple members of an organization into a statement about the subject. Both would appear too violate WP:BLP. I have left in the one somewhat reasonable source. It seems to me that an accusation of anti-semitism is itself something like a blood libel and should be subject to high standards of proof. Malay Agin (talk) 05:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

IronDuke has a tendency also to make the accusations worse by stripping away relevant context. The entire paragraph of the book reference reads: "[Glemp]... warned Jews not to 'talk to us from the position of a people raised above all'. The Cardinal, Poland's leading Churchman, seemed to be presenting anti-Semitism as a legitimate self-defence against Jewish 'anti-polonism'. Deploring the attacks of 'world Jewry' on the poor nuns at Auschwitz, he admonished Jewish leaders in terms that seemed to echo the words of the pre-war national Democratic leader Roman Dmowski (one of Glemp's heroes): 'Your power lies in the mass media that are easily at your disposal in many countries. Let them not serve to spread anti-Polish feeling'."Google Books link, p273 IronDuke's selective quotation: Glemp "seemed to be presenting anti-Semitism as a legitimate self-defence against Jewish 'anti-polonism'." Rd232 talk 06:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd add that relying heavily or even exclusively on sources such as Dershowitz is highly problematic. A couple of seconds of Googling turns up things like this NYT article on Glemp's attempts at interfaith relations and an apology, plus some context for the nun/Auschwitz episode. [9]. Glemp may or may not really be anti-semitic, but we cannot be ludicrously selective both in the choice of sources and in the choice of what to take from them. Rd232 talk 11:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
RD, if you'd like to include the whole paragraph, you're welcome to. And feel more than free to add more sources, positive or negative. As for Dershowitz, he is noted for his feelings about antisemtism. He has detractors, to be sure, but that doesn't mean his views aren't notable. They assuredly are. And again: please comment on content, not contributors. IronDuke 01:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand IronDuke's comment. He isn't commenting on the content at all. Malay Agin (talk) 05:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, I think if anything IronDuke's edits were kind to the guy. The more "context" I read, the more anti-Semitic it sounds. The guy gave a sermon in which (according to the New York Times) he "spoke of Jewish control of the news media, said Jews had spread alcoholism in Poland and suggested that Jews protesting establishment of a convent near the Auschwitz death camp might have killed nuns had they not been stopped." ([10]) I would submit that most thinking people would characterize that as anti-Semitism. It may be most useful to adopt the tack used by the Times - don't tell us the guy is an anti-Semite, but describe his utterances and let the reader draw their own conclusions. Sure, Glemp "recognized that his widely publicized homily might have caused pain among Jews, and he expressed regret." Some Jewish groups accepted this as a near-apology, while others found it unsatisfactory. That's probably worth mentioning too. It's all in reliable sources. I would prefer to cite the New York Times rather than Dershowitz, because Dershowitz was apparently involved in a lawsuit against Glemp and thus may be somewhat less than objective on the topic. That said, I'm not really seeing a BLP issue here. MastCell Talk 07:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Quite. Grabbing an "X is anti-semitic" comment without including sufficient context isn't very helpful and looks WP:BLP-problematic. Context explains why those accusations were made and allows readers to draw their own conclusions. As the saying goes, "show, don't tell". And really that's what an encyclopedia should be doing. Rd232 talk 10:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for comments. I have made some changes per above. I hope the mention of the lawsuit within the article makes it clear that Dershowitz is personally involved. IronDuke 17:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't alter my comments. The point is that one notable person calling another notable person an "anti-Semite", when the first notable person is or was engaged in a lawsuit against the second is a violation of BLP. Your two Dershowitz sources are both Dershowitz himself, not a reliable source quoting Dershowitz (the Jerusalem Post piece is written by Dershowitz), so there is no reliable source for "anti-Semite". Glemp is a nasty man, to be sure, but you can not just label people with "anti-Semite" because they say controversial or even hateful things. If we labeled every BLP in here as "racist" using the logic, few would escape. Malay Agin (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

As you are more than likely a sockpuppet, I will feel free to alter your comments when they attack me. Other than that, I am going to try, as much as practicable, to no longer "feed" you. A consensus is forming here; you're welcome to join it/discuss it -- with your main (and disclosed) account. IronDuke 03:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Chip Pickering

Resolved
 – Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Dr. Watson was a single purpose account that existed solely to insert inflammatory BLP violations into Chip Pickering. The user uploaded file:Chickpickering.jpg (and a duplicate named file:nonvet.jpg) with the claim that these were from Pickering's congressional website. Note the name of the image is Chickpickering rather than Chippickering. In both the image descriptions, there were clear BLP violations. The file nonvet.jpg (now deleted as a duplicate) was added to the article with the caption of The above photo previously appeared on Mr. Pickering's official Congressional website. It was removed from Congressman Pickering's website in 2003 after critics charged the photo was intentionally deceptive. This is because Mr. Pickering is not a military pilot and has never served in any capacity in any U.S. military force. (Other images inserted into the article by the same user included this picture of flying monkeys.)

The nonvet.jpg image with the BLP violating caption appears to have been added and removed several times since then. It was tagged with a ((fact)) tag in May 2008. A few days ago, User:Collard removed the image with the edit summary "rm picture with randomly libellous caption". User:Allstarecho restored both image and caption. I reverted, since the caption is a clear BLP violation and the origin of the image is questionable. Following another cycle of reverts, we end up with the chickpickering.jpg image being in the article with a caption of "This photo previously appeared on Pickering's official Congressional website".

Here is my concern: we have an insultingly named image, uploaded by a POV-pushing and BLP violating SPA, inserted into an article where it seems to serve no illustrative purpose. As Allstarecho states, free public domain photos don't have to have a point, but I have my doubts about both the origin of the image and its purpose in the article. Any opinions? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest the image be deleted as a copyvio. It is up to the uploader to provide sufficient evidence of the alleged license. This has not been provided since no trusted editor has verified it was available at the alleged website under the license provided and it's not possible to verify that now. Furthermore, the person making the claim doesn't even appear to understand copyright issues since he/she says 'it was on a .gov website' ignoring the fact that this is hardly sufficient evidence in itself since it doesn't guarantee the images are the work of the US federal government Nil Einne (talk) 11:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Well I found the image here [11]. This would likely be sufficient to allay copyright concerns if it can be clearly established all images there are in the public domain. I can't see a clear copyright statement anywhere. Perhaps other people will be more familiar with these issues, I would presume the more general issue of whether an image at house.gov can be presume to be in the public domain without clear information to the contrary Nil Einne (talk) 11:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
In any case, I agree the image doesn't belong and have commented as such at the talk page. If the other editor persists, it may be wise to upload some other image, perhaps that will be enough to convince him/her to stop. As I mentioned there I'm not going to do it, since I'm not convinced of the copyright status of any of the images and I've frankly wasted enough time on this already. Nil Einne (talk) 09:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
There is already an image of Pickering in the article, so lack of images is not the problem. Thanks for your efforts. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
The image in question appears to have been deleted. I'll mark this as resolved. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ron Paul

The second paragraph on Congressman Ron Paul's page contains vandalism. It does not appear in the edit this page tab, so I assume the site has been hacked.

It's not there now, and the reason is probably that it was removed by someone else inbetween you seeing the page and seeing the wikitext. Rd232 talk 04:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
          • It has been removed, but I went back and forth between the page and the wikitext several times within a ten minute or so period and found it displayed, but uneditable. So, I assume there was something more to it than awkward timing...

Jeremih

For a few weeks now, despite semi-protection, IP users and new users have continuously added a birth date to the article Jeremih with no sources or sources that don't back up the claim. Due to varying dates (July 6, 1987, July 16, 1987, July 17, 1987, July 17, 1988, etc.), I've kept the birth date off the article until it can be verified. I would appreciate some extra eyes over the article until a source comes up. — Σxplicit 07:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Lisa Lazarus

Lisa Lazarus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am concerned about the sourcing of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.187.136 (talk) 12:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment refacted to remove BLP vio and format. Martin451 (talk) 13:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

David Rohl

The subject of this article is "absolutely livid about the bias of this page.". Although he has his own account, he was edit warring on the article last night and I reported him for 3RR (not at that point realising who he was as he was using an IP address) and he was blocked. He's posted on the talk page both from his IP address before he was blocked and from his own account since. I want the article to follow our NPOV and BLP policies as much as anyone, and to use good academic references (including probably better ones than the ones I found last night). Meanwhile we have a very angry editor now using his accout while his IP address is blocked, asking for his article to be deleted, etc. I don't know what to do myself right now because of the attacks he's been making (a shame because I would have been happy to help him), so I'm hoping someone can help him with his BLP concerns. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

On his talk page, (User talk:David Rohl) he is claiming he had immunity from 3RR so should not have been blocked (the edit war was about his books/ideas). Dougweller (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not seeing that claim on his talk page. Am I looking at the correct page? Please link, thanks. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC) nm, sorry KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Natalise

The article on Natalise seems to be "policed" by a very particular set of users concerned with her birth year, despite strong evidence and arguments provided in the article's discussion page pointing to a different year. It probably doesn't help that the subject of the article has had very little new information about her in recent years, but that which is on the discussion page seems more valid to me than anything else I've been able to find about her. If there exists a better way to either reach a compromise or weigh the validity of sources, it would be very much appreciated to see. 98.210.151.12 (talk) 01:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hank Skinner

This one needs some serious attention - it's full of unsupported statements and reads as though it were written by somebody intimately involved in the case. 98.248.32.178 (talk) 23:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I've taken my machete to this mess, whacked out all the soapboxing, all the arguments about the evidence, accusations against third parties and such, and created what I hope is a short, plain, summary of the case. There's stronger evidence for notability now (national press using the case as an example of the failure of the justice system in Texas). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Edge Games and Tim Langdell

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

An Internet hate campaign appears to be brewing against Tim Langdell and EDGE Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and it's spilling onto wikipedia. I don't think anything too bad or undeserved has been added, except for poorly sourced allegations of a stalking conviction which were quickly removed by myself and other editors, but I think there's a risk the article will turn into an attack page. I only started editing in an effort to tidy up some basic errors in trademark law and am walking away from the article now before I get caught up in what I think could be a nasty confrontation. Perhaps someone with more patience than me would be willing to put it on their watchlist to watch for potential BLP violations. GDallimore (Talk) 18:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

As a note, I have this page on my watchlist so that attacks, vandalism, and BLP issues can be quickly removed (and it certainly gets its share). That said, other sets of eyes on the article are certainly welcome. In addition to the attacks, this company (and the CEO) are basically only notable for their enforcement of their trademark (as they don't actually produce any products any more), and the negative coverage they get from this enforcement. As such, the tone of the article may seem negative. But what do you do when someone is only notable for their negative coverage? I, for one, would welcome any input. --Transity (talk • contribs) 18:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Paul Krugman

Paul Krugman has been accused on various internet websites (no print sources so far), of having advocated for a housing bubble in 2002, hence causing the current financial crisis. Relevant portion of the article below:

In August 2002, Krugman argued that because of Alan Greenspan and the Bush administration's economic policies, the economy would not recover quickly, and wrote that, "To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of PIMCO put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble."[1] Also in August 2002, he further noted that, "If we do have a housing bubble, and it bursts, we'll be looking a lot too Japanese for comfort" (referring to the Japanese 'lost decade' of slow growth in the 1990s).[2] When accused in 2009 of having advocated for a housing bubble,[3] Krugman stated that his earlier statement was economic analysis and not policy advocacy.[4]

The author of these articles for the Mises Institute ([12], [13]) argues that they should summarized and included in that paragraph. The articles essentially argue that although he said he didn't, Krugman really did advocate for a housing crisis in 2002, contributing to the current financial crisis. I oppose their inclusion, as I think inclusion would violate WP:UNDUE, WP:RS and WP:BLP. What do the people here think about this? Thanks --LK (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on-going at Talk:Paul Krugman#Use of Mises website articles in BLPs. Thanks, LK (talk) 10:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I am the author LK mentions.

Regarding "hence causing the current financial crisis", my articles do not claim that. In fact the first article explicitly states that it is not claiming that.

As I wrote in the talk page, my second article[14] includes a detailed exegesis of Krugman's quote. It is highly relevant to a matter that has been intensely discussed regarding Paul Krugman. The quotes are a two-sided issue: "did he call for a bubble or not?" The quotes alone are not an argument in themselves. The article now presents the issue (the quotes) and one side's argument regarding the issue (Krugman's own explanation). In all fairness it ought to include the other side's argument as well. My article is currently the most complete statement of that side. By not including it, the Paul Krugman article is currently very unbalanced on the issue. I ardently hope this matter of balance is given due regard.

--Lilburne2 (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

While a BLP issue, I wonder if WP:RS/N might be a better place for this. I'm not convinced the Mises Institute articles are reliable sources. In any case, I have a question for Lilburne. Since according to you this matter has been intensely discussed regarding Paul Krugman. Can you show us some clearly reliable secondary sources demonstrating this? In other words, sources that are not blogs, and not from the Mises website. Since this has been extensively discussed, this should be trivial Nil Einne (talk) 09:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, I have posted at WP:RS/N#Use of Mises.org articles in BLPs for an opinion about the use of Mises.org articles in BLPs, so that we can establish a guideline on this issue. Thanks, LK (talk) 10:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Those "articles" look and sound like blog posts. They do not merit inclusion on what is already an over-discussed non-issue, and the attempt of their author to promote may not actually be spam but is certainly graceless and tacky. (Non-issue because only a non-economist could think that what Krugman wrote could possibly be a policy prescription). Rd232 talk 10:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Niel Einne,

Thank you for your response. Unless Wikipedia has gone completely establishment, I don't know why the blogosphere would be omitted when considering whether an issue has been "intensely discussed". When Stephen Colbert's roast of Bush was blacked out in the mainstream media but lit up the blogosphere, would you have said that was not intensely discussed? With that in mind, besides hundreds of blog posts, the matter has been discussed by, among many others, such prominent public intellectuals and journalists as Arnold Kling (a prominent economist), Megan McArdle, Matthew Yglesias, Brian Doherty and Paul Krugman himself. If it wasn't being discussed widely, why would Krugman feel the need to respond on the New York Times web site?

Rd232,

Thank you for your response, brusque, summary, and dismissive as it was. My articles are not blog posts; although in them I write with humor and aggression, I carefully analyze the text of Krugman's words and come to rational conclusions, backed up with fully expressed arguments, including integrating a highly relevant passage from the General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money by John Maynard Keynes. Since you are insulting me by calling my actions graceless and tacky, I invite you to explain how I am being so, instead of merely asserting it. (To others: I am new here; are brusque insults a matter of course on Wikipedia Talk Pages?) And it is a matter of fact that several PhD-holding economists do think what Krugman wrote was a policy prescription. --Lilburne2 (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Since the source is an Op-ed piece (written under a pseudonym) on a website and this is a BLP that there are multiple reasons why it should not be used. See: Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Statements_of_opinion:

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers. When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion.
There is, however, an important exception to sourcing statements of opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs (see: WP:BLP#Sources and WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source).

The Four Deuces (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The Four Deuces,

My articles are not self-published. And Mises Institute articles are not billed as op-ed articles. They include, among other things, whole chapters of economics treatises. So the form cannot be construed as "op-ed". Neither can the content be construed so, since my textual analysis was not a mere expression of opinion; it was an exegesis, which argued from the words of a text toward a rational conclusion, just as any exegesis of Adam Smith's writings which tried to discover through textual analysis what he meant when he wrote something would.

Regarding my pen name, Lilburne is my name in regards to my writing career. I have written four articles under that name, and I will continue to write under that name. The only "identity" that is relevant to my writing is my other writing, and perhaps my profession, which I disclose in my author bio. I don't see why any more information would be needed, when other authors who use the name that also happens to be on their driver's license aren't required to disclose personal information. Does Wikipedia have a policy against pen names? Would Cato's Letters or Mark Twain not have been cited by Wikipedia? --Lilburne2 (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The Mises Institute violates WP:RS, particularly with regard for use in a BLP. Scribner (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Your article presents an opinion that Krugman called for a housing bubble. I have no way of knowing if this opinion is true, but let us assume it is. Someone else may have taken the same sources and arrived at a different conclusion and published them at another think tank. How could WP determine which analysis was correct?
Ideally the opinions you expressed should be presented in an academic peer-reviewed journal. Then others could either affirm or rebut the analysis and we could report both as the opinions of the writers. If you want this exegesis included you must first publish it in such a journal.
We also must be especially cautious when discussing a living person. The standards set here are much higher than what is acceptable in the U.S.
BTW I know the article is not self-published, but its source is a website so the same rule applies. (Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person...) Also, Cato and Mark Twain would not be reliable sources either even if they were not pen names.
The Four Deuces (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

TFD,

Regarding "How could WP determine which analysis was correct?" With a contentious issue, it is WP's job to report the main arguments of both sides of the issue; it is not to determine which side's analysis is correct.

Do you seriously think the question of what Krugman meant when he wrote something is appropriately discussed in a peer-reviewed academic journal? That claim is so outlandish, that it really seems like you're bending over backward to find reasons to silence something you don't want heard. I would really like to assume good faith regarding you, LK, and Scribner, but the wall of obtuseness I keep running into here makes it really difficult to do that. --Lilburne2 (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your first paragraph, your entry to the article was presented as a fact, not as one side of an issue. However there is only one side because the analysis has not entered mainstream academic literature. That is one of the many reasons it should not be included. Incidentally this type of discussion comes up all the time. If you look at the Evolution and Global Warming articles there are numerous attempts to insert studies that are not peer-reviewed.
If you think that the discussion in a peer-reviewed academic journal of what Krugman meant when he wrote something is inappropriate and outlandish, then that argues against inclusion in the Krugman article. No one is trying to silence you. The issue is whether or not your article meets the criteria of Wikipedia policy.
The Four Deuces (talk) 11:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

@ Scribner,

Again, I must ask, are unbacked, bald assertions a matter of course in Wikipedia Talk Pages? --Lilburne2 (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

What you're being told yet refuse to hear is that Op-Eds and political leaning think tanks aren't considered a reliable source in biographies of living persons. Scribner (talk) 19:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Scribner,

I have quite evidently "heard" the "Op-Ed" argument; had I not, then how do you explain my responding to it directly in my above explanation that the piece is not an Op-Ed piece? As for refusing to hear something about "political leaning think tanks", your mention of that particular objection is the first one made in this discussion, so how could I have heard something that wasn't said?

Moreover, the policy which The Four Deuces cited says nothing about "political leaning think tanks" regarding biographies of living persons, which is in keeping with the fact that the Center for American Progress is cited in an article on George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_George_W._Bush#cite_note-7). --Lilburne2 (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Perfect example. If there was only that one cite and you felt the information was false or biased then it should be removed from the article. Scribner (talk) 19:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the information provided by the Center for American Progress is false or biased. So I don't think it should be excluded simply because the CAP is a heavily-left-leaning think tank. If you exclude every source that commits the crime of actually believing in something, you play right into the hands of the faux-impartial establishment, and make Wikipedia no better than establishment media. I cannot tell you how disappointed I am in what all this implies regarding what Wikipedia has come to. Wasn't the whole idea supposed to be that more information is better than less, and that the proper remedy against "harmful" ideas is not the stifling of their expression but rather a free-flowing exchange? Please, do the right thing, and don't let your economic and political opinions cloud your judgment on this matter.

--Lilburne2 (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Considering that CAP is deemed a reliable source for the Bush article, then Mises Institute is obviously a reliable source for the Krugman article. By the way, Rd232 stated that "Non-issue because only a non-economist could think that what Krugman wrote could possibly be a policy prescription". He shows himself to be an ignoramus because of Krugman's following statements ""A new bubble now would help us out a lot even if we paid for it later. This is a really good time for a bubble. There was a headline in a satirical newspaper in the US last summer that said: 'The nation demands a new bubble to invest in' and that’s pretty much right." (2009) and "Economic policy should encourage other spending to offset the temporary slump in business investment. Low interest rates, which promote spending on housing and other durable goods, are the main answer." (2002) Perhaps Rs232 should read Lilburne's articles and then he wouldn't make himself look so silly. EconExpert (talk) 03:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
EconExpert compares low interest rate policy (in a recession) with intentionally creating a bubble. And he accuses me of looking silly because he has a video (which won't load for me) of Krugman apparently calling for a bubble (which as any ful economist no by definition leaves you ultimately off worse unless you've got some fairly heterodox increasing returns going on). Rd232 talk 05:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
(kinda off-topic) RD232, what you say is true assuming full employment. However, a small bubble that pops at the right time, can be welfare improving if it increases Aggregate Demand during a deep recession, and if government policy has not been sufficiently stimulative. LK (talk) 06:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
CAP is not deemed a reliable source for the Bush article. Remove the material if you think it's false or biased. It does have another cite you'll want to check out before tagging or removing. Scribner (talk) 06:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
(off-topic) Rd232, please consult: http://mises.org/story/3530. Krugman makes it very clear that "the only way the Fed could get traction would be if it could inflate a housing bubble." So either 1) He did not support inducing a housing bubble, and wanted the Fed to not fight the recession. or 2) He did support inducing a housing bubble. Anyone even somewhat familiar with Krugman's attitude toward Fed activism should know that proposition #1, that Krugman supported a do-nothing policy, is preposterous. Also, it seems to be that most of your comments erroneously assume a homogenous capital structure, and thus do not take into account the need for the structure of production to adapt. You state "EconExpert compares low interest rate policy (in a recession) with intentionally creating a bubble" which is false - the conclusion that Krugman wanted to create a housing bubble is buttressed by many other quotes and deductive logic, as aforementioned. EconExpert (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Regarding CAP, I think Lilburne2 and me agree that CAP should be a okay source, as long as the text is clarified with, "According to the Center for American Progress". If this is not current standard, that's too bad. I think Wikipedia is worse off for it. EconExpert (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
EconExpert, that is beside the point. There are many poorly sourced or unsourced statements in these articles which anyone can challenge. The CAP cite would not hold up. However the statement it supports is uncontroversial, which is no doubt why it has not been challenged. Note also that there are two sources given. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The blogosphere is indeed mostly omitted when deciding if something has been widely discussed. So far, I see little evidence this issue has been widely discussed since it seems like if this issue was widely discussed, some media organisation would have picked it up. The media are quite good at picking up things that are widely discussed even if it's only after it hits the blogs. It's obviously received some discussion, but that's quite different from being discussed widely Nil Einne (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Park (author)

Resolved
 –  – ukexpat (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Shaky entry--Neither the author nor the publications register on Google, Amazon, or AddAll, and the references are flimsy, if not spurious. If it's determined that this fails notability, and may be a hoax, then there are a lot of peripheral edits in which the subject has been added to numerous articles as a 'notable' that will need to be addressed as well. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 03:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It has been speedily deleted as a hoax. – ukexpat (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Park (author)

Resolved

Kevin Park (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is up for deletion (see here) but it has become apparent that this is a hoax possibly directed at some living person. The supposed person indeed seems to be changing around. It's obviously going to be deleted but it would be expedient to have it deleted and salted promptly. Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It has been speedily deleted as a hoax, but has not been salted. Maybe a request to WP:RFPP? – ukexpat (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The problem here is that the author created at least 3 hoaxes, with different page names. Martin451 (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The editor has been indefinitely blocked User talk:AmyBuckBooks Nil Einne (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Kira Takenouchi

Kira Takenouchi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Katsumasahiro (talk · contribs) has repeatedly added controversial information to the article citing a website that has nothing but a flash app stating that the website is "Under Construction".[15] --Farix (Talk) 14:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Miranda Kerr

Resolved
 – Poorly sourced edits reverted.

I don't have the tools to put the article back the way it was conveniently, so I hope some admin will do that. Someone keeps inserting a string of ethnicities, previously without reference, and I caught it early, but this time repeatedly with an attempt at a reference that messed up the page. The "ref", by the way, is to Zimbio, a "wikizine" where users write articles, and this one was written by a Sri Lankan male, by his own account, who may well be our editor, maybe, I don't know. Anyway, please restore the article and warn this editor. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Rebecca Quick

Evidence that CNBC anchor Rebecca “Becky” Quick was previously married

Undisputed in Quick’s Wikipedia entry is that she is “currently married to a Squawk producer.” The source is Gawker.com, dated Jan. 19, 2009, which mentions Quick “recently married” the producer. Gawker.com’s likely source for this information is Richard Johnson’s column of the same date in The New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/seven/01192009/gossip/pagesix/squawking_season_at_cnbc_150882.htm). Johnson writes that Quick married the producer a few months ago. AND that Quick was previously married to a computer programmer.

The Wikipedia entry also cites a 2006 profile on Quick in The New York Times. In that report, the Times writes that she was married at that time to a computer programmer.

Is the above good enough now to note in Quick’s Wikipedia entry that she was previously married? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.6.97.3 (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Kim Thomson biography

Kim Thomson was not born in London in 1960. I have repeatedly removed this inaccurate information, but it is always replaced. One source had this information years ago and it has subsequently been repeated elsewhere. I would appreciate this inaccurate information about me removed permanently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellenthom (talk • contribs) 17:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about inaccurate, but it was certainly unsourced. I have removed the date/location as unsourced. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Paul Krugman (again)

An on-line blog, Carpe Diem, rated Paul Krugman the second most partisan American political columnist in 2003.[16] That ranking was then reported in an op-ed ("Face Value: Paul Krugman, one-handed economist") in The Economist.[17] Is the following statement fair to put into the Krugman article: According to The Economist, in 2003 Krugman was ranked as the second most partisan American political columnist, behind only Ann Coulter? The Four Deuces (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This is under discussion at Talk:Paul Krugman#Op-Ed material used to cite defamatory/negative material of BLP. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not, and I'd be embarrassed to be behind the inclusion of a six year old Op-ed mention of an obscure website's methodology. This is the second worst example of political POV pushing I've seen on Wiki. The number one worst example cited a bumper sticker. Take note of those pushing for the inclusion this ridiculous and obvious smear. Scribner (talk) 00:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I'ld like to note that this is only the last of a series of dubious edits made by User:Vision Thing to the Paul Krugman article. His edits have persistently changed the article to reflect badly on Krugman. If one considers the sum of his edits, nearly all of the edits introduce material designed to reflect negatively on Krugman, few if any are introduced to merely improve the article. I think this is problematic. LK (talk) 05:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


I fail to see how it be "defamatory" to cite the Economist calling him liberal when his own blog [18] is titled "Conscience of a Liberal" <g>. Nor do I see it, per se, as "reflecting badly on Krugman" to have such a RS cited. Collect (talk) 11:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Collect, the disputed text does not even use the term liberal. The question is whether a blog about a living person becomes a reliable source if it is mentioned in an op-ed. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Scribner here, the op-ed mentioning some strange website's methodology, which from what I can tell no one else has ever referred to should go. Describing him as a liberal is probably okay although the position in the article is a valid issue of debate Nil Einne (talk) 13:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Heinz Nawratil

There is a discussion at the Expulsion of Germans article whether Heinz Nawratil may be attributed as "extreme far-right" and "nationalistic" (i.e., since he is German, a Nazi), if there is only one source that says so. The source [19] is a translation of a paper written by a reliable scholar, who says Nawratil "is associated with the extreme far-right". A book search showed no further sources availabel at google books say so / turn out in the search. I believe the claim is too strong to be sourced like that, another editor says that the source is good and in the same source, another scholar is cited to have a similar view of Nawratil.

Comments appreciated at Talk:Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II#Nawratil. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


The scholar who calls Nawratil "extreme nationalistic far-right" is Martin Broszat, who was one of the most respected German historians of the 60's, 70's and 80's. His statements are presented in an article by Ingo Haar, who is also a very much respected German historian (the only reason I'm mentioning these historians nationality is in case someone tries to make comments about a "Polish POV" or something).
Furthermore, it appears that the person in question, Heinz Nawratil writes for the Institute for Historical Review - "an antisemitic "pseudo-academic body" with links to neo-Nazi organizations, and (one that) assert that its primary focus is denying key facts of Nazism and the genocide of Jews and others.[1] [2][3][4][5] It has been described as the "world's leading Holocaust denial organization."" He apparently has written in support of "Dr. Schickle" who founded what "has become one of the leading centers of Historical Revisionist scholarship in West Germany"(Historical Revisionism meaning what it always does - denial of Nazi crimes and the Holocaust) - Nawratil's words. I think this is a pretty clear cut case.radek (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that there is only one source, a translation of Haar referring to Broszat, who per the source makes the association. And that the book search revealed no additional source. And the connection that "appears" to be to the institute with the links to neo-Nazis is also very much indirect. Let's wait for a comment of one of the regulars here.Skäpperöd (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
What you mean the connection is "indirect"??? He's writing for the an antisemitic "pseudo-academic body" with links to neo-Nazi organizations, and (one that) assert that its primary focus is denying key facts of Nazism and the genocide of Jews and others.!!!radek (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

In addition to how Broszat describes him and to the fact that Nawratil writes for THE major Holocaust-denial group here's a few more sources: [20] which calls him "nationalist" (in the context this means the same as "nationalist extreme right wing") Here [21] his writing is described as having "distinctly revisionist flavor (with, again, "revisionist", meaning Holocaust and Nazi crime denial)radek (talk) 00:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

In the Journal of Historical Review Nawratil refers to the Holocaust as the Bundesrepublik's regnant taboo, the extermination myth [22]--Woogie10w (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Betsy McCaughey

Betsy McCaughey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Several users have been describing, in the encyclopedic voice, certain statistics promulgated by David Gratzer, and other, apparently similar statistics published by Betsy McCaughey, as "false and misleading." While there is no doubt that criticisms along these lines have been leveled at these subjects, and that the statistics are hotly debated, I believe that it is inappropriate to use the encyclopedic voice to continuously reassert these claims, in some cases in multiple places in the same article. See the following pages for more on this:

// DickClarkMises (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, DCM is attempting to frame a clear falsehood as a "debate" - which is as much a "debate" as Intelligent design is a scientific debate - a few fringe ppl do not make for a debate; it has become impossible to improve, discuss, or work on the verbiage, as DCM reverts wholesale, claiming NPOV and BLP for removing well sourced and accurate content. While I concur that the content should be framed and phrased judiciously, it should not be presented as a "debate" or as though the information, now proven to be grossly inaccurate, is "in dispute". KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Dynamic IP user adding large amounts of dubious and unsourced material to actor BLPs and related film articles

There's a user, who apparently edits only from IP addresses geolocating to Lima, Peru, adding a ton of unsourced, dubious information to actress and actress-related articles. The information typically involves roles the actress didn't get, but supposedly auditioned for, was "considered" for, etc, etc. Some of the information is obviously wrong (the first edit that caught my attention had Kim Basinger auditioning for a film two years after its release); some is conspicuously dubious (Meryl Streep and Alyssa Milano competing for the same role); some more subtly dubious (Legally Blonde originally envisioned as a "dark" comedy vehicle fo Uma Thurman); but much of it is superficially plausible as individual items, but visibly problematic when dozens of names have been added to the article. Today the editor has inserted an unsourced and implausible claim into the Daryl Hannah article ("narrowly missing on" in the lead in Coal Miner's Daughter [23]). Some randomly chosen exsmples of the IP's work include this unlikely list of roles rejected by Melanie Griffith [24]; Molly Ringwald up for Uma Thurman's role in Pulp Fiction [25]; and the deeply weird suggestion that David Lynch tried to cast Cher, Meryl Streep, and Goldie Hawn in Blue Velvet before having to settle for Isabella Rossellini [26]. Is there any way to track down these edits that's more efficient than trolling through film-related articles checking to see which IP addresses are associated with Lima? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Doubtful. Some of this "crap" will probably stick and go unnoticed/challenged/ect. until some article is written about how Wikipedia has been bamboozled yet again. It sucks to put it mildly. This is by far the worst type of vandalism since it flys low on the radar, unlike the run of the mill dick size nonsense. Remove/tag said material and do your best to follow this where it takes you would be my advice. I am sure there are more formal ways to deal with this and hopefully better advice than mine. Good luck. --Tom (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
This is really WP:ANI territory, not WP:BLPN. Please take it there, you should get better advice and help and maybe a technical solution. Rd232 talk 20:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I did that the first time I spotted the problem, with no response. [27]. Any suggestions on a more effective way to frame the issue, or should I just cut-and-paste what's here? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Copy-paste - the new title and text should be more effective. Try putting your question (Is there any way...) in a new para, for readability. "Help, please!" at the end wouldn't hurt either :) Rd232 talk 22:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Alessandra Stanley (again)

We now have a user attempting to reinsert controversial material at Alessandra Stanley, after discussion both here and at the talkpage decided against it. The user has not participated in any way in these discussions, and is insisting on the material being in the article, and that we should "discuss at talk" before removing it. This controverts both WP:BRD and WP:BLP. I don't have the stomach for another BLP argument right now, so if someone else wants to step in and help this user understand, I'd appreciate it. UnitAnode 20:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the "public editor's" piece in last Sunday's Times changed things drastically. I don't ever remember the Times publishing a piece like that about a journalist who hadn't committed fraud, and Hoyt's information about the way the Times handled Stanley's writing should be incorporated into the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent Deletion On Wiki Talk Page Josip Broz Tito

Dear reader just recently my thoughts on talkpage Tito have been deleted and it seems it’s going to stay that way. Since I am faced with the fact that my opinions are being suppressed and then eventually will be blocked, I’ve decided to put this out there so these events may be known to the wider wiki community.

The article in question is Josip Broz Tito (the former Dictator of Yugoslavia- East Europe). He was commander of the partisan forces during world war 2 and later a Stalinistic style dictator of the former Yugoslavia. The Wikipedic article is biased and does not mention crimes (Bleiburg massacre & foibe massacres)) against humanity that were committed under his leadership. I registered that this should be part of the article and as a result I have been deleted. One writer was very abusive and deleted my writings on talk back pages. His name is DIREKTOR. He was supported by Ruhrfisch ><>°° I would like to quote some of the Direktor’s statements regarding this article just to inform you of what we are dealing with here.

“Find yourself another one of your crappy "forums" to talk about your presumptions. Just forget about this, Luigi/Brunodam, you're not annoying anyone - you're just turning out amusing. I think I'll file a checkuser in an hour or so, you'd better believe it when I say I'll delete everything you wrote if you're a sock. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)”

These events are not some conspiracy. They have been part of the western media since the break up of the former Yugoslavia. They have been presented as TV documentaries, on talk back shows and in general writings in England, other parts of Europe and USA, Australia and other parts of the free world. They are backed by eye witness accounts by people who were actually caught up in these events.

The Croatian government is addressing these issues with investigations and financial reimbursement is being given to the victims. These are facts and should be present in the article and not deleted when someone points them out. These actions mirror the attitude of the regime that I am trying to expose.

The Josip Broz Tito article is a dangerous biased piece of writing. It would fit perfectly in any article of the old the Yugoslavia or the old Soviet Union propaganda machine (Cult of personality). Why is it there? The only answer it seems is that Wikipedia has some writers of extreme views (Stalin Style) who don’t tolerate being questioned.

Regards Sir Floyd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.104.34 (talk) 03:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

David Gratzer

I would welcome a quick look by someone of a dispute emerging at the David Gratzer page. I do not not normally write at Bio pages but I think I started this article and have contributed to it on and off and now a dispute has emerged with another editor deleting material citing BLP SYN and OR. It seems some third editor had been adding POV and weasel words and these were used to make more sweeping changes. I have added back the main text without the problem text but now I am being told that the material breaks BLP.

Comments welcomed.--Hauskalainen (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

My issues originated with these edits by User:DickClarkMises which seemed to me to remove material which rightly belongs in the article. They did however contain some very strong worded elements which I think have been added recently by another editor. I reverted the deletions but took out the objectional elements as I saw them. However User:DickClarkMises has deleted again claiming breaches of BLP POV and OR.


here User:DickClarkMises claims there is a synthesis of sources. However, in the earlier reference, Gratzer points out that Goodman had made the connection and the element which has been deleted merely traces one example of this. This is not really a criticism of Gratzer but somehow backs up what he has been saying. I personally believe that this is worthy of retention in the article and does not constitiute WP:SYN. I don't think that it really matters WHICH earlier piece by Goodman made the connection but I think it is fair to show that Gratzer was being honest when he said that Goodman had made the same connection.

here User:DickClarkMises claims is about the use of the term "embroilded". However, the element that has been added back is that the issues below are all about his alleged misuse of statistics. But the first dispute in the article is not about a medical dispute and indeed Gratzer was not the source of the disputed statistic. The second dispute listed is again about another person's misuse of a medical statistic. Guilliani is not an expert but his people have Gratzer as the source. Gratzer did not deny this but said Goodman had made the same connection. (my previous point refers). The third dispute was about Gratzer allegedly misleading a congressional committee. For these reasons I think "embroiled" is a good word to cover all three incidents as it does not imply that Gratzer was misleading in all three disputes even though he was personally involved in all three.

here User:DickClarkMises deletes the entire substance of the dispute about misleading the congress. The reason stated was "transcript of a cable news exchange is not encyclopedic". But we have the words in the video. Again, the words when orginally put in the article were substantially from the video. It seems that someone else has modified them since I orginally placed them in the article here.

It seems that another editor User:Apatens has been making edits which seem unhelpful such as this one which removes relevent material from a lead paragraph, and this one [28] which is ostensibly about whether the article was peer reviewed. However, I had already addressed the point with this edit which put the text in without reference to "peer review". User:DickClarkMises again deleted the para again here, now claiming WP:OR.


A pair of neutral fresh eyes to reviiew what has been going on here would be welcomed.--Hauskalainen (talk) 09:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have time to go into detail now, but the Allegations of misuse of statistics clearly has WP:UNDUE problems (most obviously with the long media quotes), and the list of "selected" publications is far too long. It may be that Grazer is particularly known for this episode, but it still has to be summarised appropriately in a reasonably brief way, not fisked to death. Rd232 talk 16:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article may have lingered too long on the dispute about prostate cancer survival but because the error was pointed out by experts and Gratzer continued to defend his position it seriously calls into question his value as a source of reliable information. Similarly in the argument with Kucinich, he clearly tried to present a false picture to the congressional committee and answered questions he was not asked and failed to answer properly the questions that Kucinich put to him. As he was there as an EXPERT WITNESS it is clearly important that his testimony should enlighten and not mislead. Now User:Apotens has removed any reference to the reliability of Gratzer as an expert witness and the Kucinich accusation has been reduced to the single word "clash". IMHO that is in itself a clear distortion of what happened. And the reference to Goodman as a source for the identical source has gone altogether and the only reference to Goodman is a puff piece from his book on the people who helped him write his book. --Hauskalainen (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The changes made in the last 2 weeks have completely transformed this article, mostly for the worst. --Hauskalainen (talk) 11:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

A further dispute has arisen. The article in the opinion of two editors reads more like an advertisement for the gentlemen, listing sequentially all his academic achievements (which are not notable) and his writings (again, most of which are not notable). This has effectively buried any criticism of his mis-use of statistics in the U.S. political sphere (for which he has become notable) much harder to see and even what was there has been watered down to the point that it is almost invisible. Some of the edits, quite frankly, look as though they must have been made by the subject of the article (though perhaps not the more reent ones). Frankly, the article now reads more like the man's resumé than a proper WP article about a minor bit player in U.S. politics.--Hauskalainen (talk) 10:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This has topped the list for a while. How does one get attention here?--Hauskalainen (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Bob Ainsworth

Source: The Minister and the IRA fan club by Peter Hitchens in Mail Online, last updated at 1:17 AM on 19th July 2009

Bob Ainsworth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A defence minister in Britain's Labour government, Bob Ainsworth, has been the subject of an article in the conservative Mail on Sunday News of the World by Peter Hitchens, who edits here as Clockback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The article sites an unnamed spokesperson for Ainsworth confirming that in 1982 he attended two meetings of a left current then inside the Labour party, the International Marxist Group. Discussion on the Talk page concerns the relevance and balance of referring to Clockback's article in the article, especially since the source is unnamed and is cited only by that article. Clockback is a newer contributor and, while other editors have pointed him to Wikipedia's policies, he feels that bias by other editors is preventing his article from being cited. He intends to add the reference to the article without winning consensus. Others' opinions are welcomed. --Duncan (talk) 15:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Er, not the conservative "The News of the World" actually, but the "Mail on Sunday", a regrettable but telling example of Duncan's imperfect grasp of the argument and facts I've been putting forward for some days now. Is he paying attention? What the politics of the newspaper have to do with it, others may judge. The Minister's spokesman, a government employee, is unnamed because of a normal journalistic convention governing the making of such statements. The statement has been published in a national newspaper and not denied or challenged by its subject, since it is an accurate account of what was said. I have offered to provide the spokesperson's identity on the same basis to Duncan, should he wish it. The issue is not over the citation of my article, which in any normal circumstances would be unproblematic. I would actually much prefer it if someone else rather than me would insert the fact. It is over the objections of Duncan and another editor to the inclusion of this fact about Mr Ainsworth in the article. These two editors have also agrred on the removal of other material on Mr Ainsworth, which I argued should not be removed until it could be replaced by the accurate and verifiable information I seek to include. The other editor unilaterally removed the earlier material, without any substitution, against my clear objections. I have not myself so much as touched the article. I have attempted for several days to achieve consensus and been met with an utter unwillingness to compromise, combined with various peremptory warnings. I have therefore given a fortnight's notice of my intention to include the disputed fact, and sought to involve other editors as widely as possible, believing my case to be sound. Others' opinions, as many as possible, are indeed welcomed. hence the fortnight's notice. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction Clockback. --Duncan (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
The statement must be verifiable using a reliable source, and I don't think rumours mentioned by columnists have the same status as news stories. If the spokesperson were named and directly quoted in a story by a national newspaper like the Mail on Sunday—or if the newspaper story unequivocally repeated the allegation as a fact (not as a rumour)—it would be a different matter. If their lawyers don't want to take that step, why should Wikipedia? - Pointillist (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Please pay attention, and stop trying to say this is not what it is. It's not a 'rumour mentioned by a columnist',(please try to avoid personal attacks, such as the implied slur on my competence in this expression) but a direct factual quotation obtained by me through an official statement on a government e-mail made by the taxpayer-financed spokesperson of the Secretary of State for Defence, who made it after consulting personally with that Secretary of State. By long convention, such spokespersons are not named. This has no bearing on the value of the story. Had the story been an unverified and untrue claim, it would have been denied ( as it has not been) . This is why newspaper stories (with the sole exception of this one) are used as verifiable sources on Wikipedia. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Being a columnist isn't a bad thing—Bernard Levin, Woodrow Wyatt and Hugo Young did it pretty well—but that sort of writing doesn't get the same pre-publication scrutiny as news stories. In The Daily Telegraph, for example, Con Coughlin sometimes writes as a journalist and sometimes as a columnist, Boris Johnson is always a columnist and the old Peterborough column was an unashamed step or two below that. This isn't rocket science: if you can find a rock-solid verifiable reference in a proper news story that has had real editorial/legal clearance, then there's no risk to Wikipedia in repeating it. - Pointillist (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Pointillist still appears not to have read the item with any care, and is simply mistaken about the way journalism works. It is an implied personal attack to suggest that someone is retailing an unconfirmed rumour, and I suggest he withdraws this baseless suggestion. Also, I think I know more about newspapers than Pointillist, though he is welcome to cite experience if he has it.. Every word I write ( and I have been a newspaper reporter since 1973, having served the indentures then required, studied newspaper law, learned shorthand, reported trials and public bodies, been deputy political editor of a national daily newspaper) is subject to exactly the same editorial process, oversight and legal constraint as the rest of the MoS. The opinions expressed are my own. The facts I produce are facts and must be substantiated. Since (unlike many columnists ) I am a reporter by trade, I regularly obtain and research my own facts. It is perfectly true that columnists sometimes hint and insinuate, without offering facts. Hints and insinuations cannot be used as verification. At other times they can state confirmed facts, as I do in this case. It is not the vehicle that decides the nature of the contents. The contents must be judged on their merits. I repeat, this is a statement given on the record by the official spokesperson of a Cabinet Minister. I might add that none of the information on Mr Ainsworth currently given in his political biography appears to have any referenced verification at all. Yet my opponents, whose rigour appears selective to me, are not proposing to remove this material. Peter Hitchens logged in as Clockback (talk) 07:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
"none of the information on Mr Ainsworth currently given in his political biography appears to have any referenced verification at all". Assuming you're referring to the WP entry and not something else, almost all the info is in fact referenced. Rd232 talk 11:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

One of the problems here is that Hitchens is (apparently) both the Wikipedia editor wanting to add a fact, and the external source on which that fact draws as a (hopefully) reliable source. This wouldn't be so bad if he could firewall the two (editor/source), and only draw on the public information. But instead he is drawing on his private knowledge of how that source was produced (having produced it), to provide non-published context and detail for the published source, in order to make the source appear more credible than the published information suggests. Some of this shades, inevitably, into WP:OR territory, and this complicates matters. For me, too, the fact that Hitchens' article [29] seems to raise the IMG link primarily to smear Ainsworth by linking him (without, seemingly, any evidence other than attending a couple of meetings at the behest of a friend) with IMG's support for the IRA ("The Minister and the IRA fan club" subheadline!) obviously can't violate WP:NPOV, but it makes me uneasy, especially as no other press appears to have picked this up. Finally, there is the WP:UNDUE issue - it's all very well for Hitchens to make columnistic hay out of "a couple of meetings", but is that significant enough to merit inclusion in Ainsworth's encyclopedia entry? It has to be noted that Hitchens has demonstrated precisely zero significance for these meetings (indeed the only evidence is that they were insignificant, merely confirming Ainsworth's view that he wanted nothing to do with the IMG. (Hitchens blog, which doesn't work in Firefox but does in Internet Explorer - [30]). Finally - I almost forgot - another troubling aspect of this is that hitchens apparently came across the story from reading Wikipedia (his article and blog refer to "stories", which he's declined to identify), where a completely unsourced assertion on the subject was found until I removed it, leading to the present debate. This, again, is a troubling interaction between Wikipedia and a published source, this time going the other way. Words of wisdom, anyone? Rd232 talk 09:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not use the original reports as a source rather than Hitchens' column? If these stories are on wikipedia, then, I think they're very shady. But if they're in other news outlets then they're probably OK. DrKiernan (talk) 11:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK the trail stops at the Peter Hitchens column. Is that correct, Clockback? - Pointillist (talk) 11:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've read some of the talk page discussion: it strikes me that this isn't an argument over sources. Clockback wants to remove the "candidate member" bit and add that he attended a couple of IMG meetings. That's fine. The source does support that he attended a couple of meetings, whether the spokesman was named or not is irrelevant. As rightly pointed out, this is just a standard journalistic practice. The question is over whether that is notable enough for his biography: as the biography is very short and requires expansion, the answer to that question is yes. I think the sentence suggested should be added. DrKiernan (talk) 11:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, but the text in Hitchen's column doesn't make any statement about the relationship of the spokesperson to the subject. "I was interested to see stories ... so I asked a ‘spokesperson’" is all we get. It isn't enough, IMO. If Clockback is really Peter Hitchens the solution lies in his hands: publish more concrete allegations in the Mail on Sunday. - Pointillist (talk) 12:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I see that you mean. It's probably unfortunate for Hitchens that he chose to put spokesperson in inverted commas. It does reduce the force of his statement. I'm coming around to your view that it is less solid than we would want. DrKiernan (talk) 12:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I think that because the biography is short the issue of balance is important. I'm sure Ainsworth has attended several meetings of several organisations. If we select one fact, about not-notable two meetings in 1982 which are not notable to any other source, then that seems to me to be an innuendo pushes Peter Hitchen's POV that the cabinet is under the influence of revolutionary Marxists. If the statement from the "spokesperson" were in the public domain, and we had a primary source, then we could assess it. That said, there's no echo in the media or civil society from the 'revelation', and it's not notable. If Ainsworth's biography is written, there can't be more than a few sentences on it even if the work is hundreds of pages. --Duncan (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
A standard I often apply is whether something would be mentioned in a person's (reasonable length - a page or two of a newspaper) obituary. Something only a book-length biography would mention is WP:UNDUE for a standard WP entry. (For very long WP entries - people about whom loads is known - a standard somewhere inbetween can be applied, but that's not the case here.) Rd232 talk 13:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, honestly, there we were on the verge of sense, and the fact that 'spokesperson' was placed in inverted commas is dragged in. This is not a serious point. Think a moment here. What exactly could this punctuation possibly mean, that would in fact detract from the verificational nature of the quotation? Let's not get tangled up in inverted commas. I put 'spokesperson' in inverted commas because I disapprove of 'inclusive language' and so I think it's a stupid word, and that's what I do with stupid words. As a columnist, I am able to do so. It is, however, the word the person involved specifically asked me to use when we agreed the use of the quotation. Please do resolve this. I'm off now till 9th August. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I thought that's what the inverted commas meant. But there is the alternative meaning too that they're not really a spokesperson. The author of a source coming here to tell us how to interpret it is one of the problems I alluded to above. WP conversations are not normally citable sources (also, while I have no reason to doubt it, there is no external evidence I'm aware of that Clockback is actually Hitchens; that WP identities aren't verified is one of the reasons on-wiki statements can't normally be sources). Rd232 talk 06:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Then assume that 'Clockback' is not Peter Hitchens and you still have a MSM reference for the info 'Clockback' seeks to include in the article. In assuming 'Clockback' is simply a third person/WP editor it removes one of your objections to his edit, namely that he is the author of the source. Simples! The other objection, that the info will be taken as this or that by a reader should, IMHO, be dismissed - we should not presume to know what a reader will make of info, we should simply provide it. Peter Hitchens was himself a member of the International Socialists if memory serves me well. He declares this and it's up to me what I make of it. Ainsworth is a prominent politician, this info should be declared, it's not like he's an ordinary person with no defence. We should state relevant facts about politicians and this is a relevant fact not that he once dated Joanna Lumley or picks his nose (I made those up). That politicians attend such a meeting more than once as an adult should be noted. That 'Spokesperson' is in quotes could be easily dealt with by Peter Hitchens mentioning the fact again in his sizeable column without quotes. But would that confirm to you that 'Clockback' is in fact Peter Hitchens and confirm an objection? I'm familiar with Peter Hitchens' work and a more fussy person with regards to words and grammar I think it would be difficult to find. So what does 'spokesperson' mean? I put 'Clockback' in quotes because it is a username not a real name. But he exists and I can quote him. It seems to me that 'spokesperson' is in quotes because the poor woman sending the email in question is probably not employed under the job title 'spokeperson' but under some other title, yet has been charged with this duty. That happens a lot. The difficulty therefore is whether WP is prepared to accept the statement by Peter Hitchens writing in the MoS. It's MSM and a creditable source. Include the info. Mimi (yack) 09:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Miamomimi is quite right about Clockback's identity: it's irrelevant for BLP RS purposes. Personally I don't like this source because it isn't specific enough. It looks like someone trying to make bricks without enough straw, and I don't think it should be repeated in the Bob Ainsworth article. If/when the original press story is followed up in the MoS or other newspapers, we'll know whether it fails the WP:UNDUE test. - Pointillist (talk) 10:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
You drag me back from my holiday with this unending assumption of bad faith on my part, combined with pettifogging, quibbling and straining over gnats and inverted commas. Excuse me? Not merely is it barmily suggested that I would for unfathomable reasons pretend to be someone I'm not (if I were pretending to be someone, surely I'd pick a more popular person?). An immensely specific and clearly sourced piece of definite information is airily dismissed as 'not specific enough' and accurate information diligently obtained using the proper channels is described as 'bricks without straw'. What would satisfy these people? An affidavit? Probably not, is my guess. I've said it before, and I'll now say it again, so exasperating is this pettifogging becoming. If a left-wing newspaper columnist, using exactly the same wording, did so to say that a spokesperson for a member of the Conservative front bench had confirmed that this politician had attended BNP meetings in his 30s, the fact would go into his Wikipedia entry without question or quibble. If Pointillist says the story is not specific, then what is not specific exactly? The spokesperson of a government minister says on the record that her employer attended IMG meetings. Where's the non-specificity? In what way is the straw absent from the the bricks? The whole debate (with a couple of notable exceptions) is infused with a refusal to assume good faith on my part. Please stop this. Meanwhile, is there (please, please, oh please) anyone else out there prepared to give the matter impartial consideration? By the way, the historian Andrew Roberts says in today's (July 30th) Daily Mail that Mr Ainsworth "flirted with Marxism before becoming a city councillor in Coventry".http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1203111/It-better-boys-Defence-Secretary-Bob-Ainsworth-stayed-holiday.html ?ITO=1490 Does that satisfy my detractors' demands for a follow-up? Shouldn't think so, but thought I'd mention it. Peter Hitchens, yes,really, signed in as Clockback (talk) 16:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I do not think this should be included on ground of undue weight and POV pressing. If it receives further attention then it should be included. Quantpole (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's an article in the mail which states that he was a 'candidate member' of the international marxist group. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1203382/We-failed-Armed-Forces-Iraq-Afghanistan-Defence-Secretary-Bob-Ainsworth-admits.html To those that say that this would represent undue weight, how can you until it's actually included in the article? I think that it is significant enough to include a sentence in the 'early life' section. After all, infomation about Alistair Darling's connection with the IMG is included in his article. So is the personal political history of most politicians. Tiberius Curtainsmith (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I've read it three times and still cannot see anything about it. And even if it does, why should that receive any more precedence than the many other bits of information about him in the article? Quantpole (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The info at issue here has today been published in the MoS without the punctuation that caused an objection. See Peter Hitchens' latest column. The only objection that remains is one of 'balance' which I dismiss for the same reasons Tiberius Curtainsmith gives above - the personal political history of most politicians is included in their WP entry. To have a 'balanced' political history is the reposibility of the subject, not the reporter. Don't shoot the messenger. I agree this info could be included in 'early life'. Mimi (yack) 16:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This info that he is supposed to have gone to a marxist meeting a quarter of a century ago (but didn't inhale) adds nothing to the article of any worth. It look like an attempt to push a marxist label onto him, he is not a marxist is he? Are there any reports of this from the 80's? What does it add to the article? He went to a marxist meeting in 1980? and what happened there, what is notable about that? (Off2riorob (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC))

Off2riorob - why do you put 'info' in italics? 'Info' is short for information and this is information we are discussing here, is it not? Information about Bob Ainsworth. And 'didn't inhale'? What's that supposed to mean? I have no idea whether Bob Ainsworth is a Marxist or not, do you? It's not for us to label him but to report the facts. Let's do it. This is a relevant, confirmed fact in a politicians political history - we're not discussing his favourite colour. Mimi (yack) 19:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
To answer your queries, I put info in italics to draw attention to it's worthlessness and therefore lack of real info (imo), didn't inhale is a ref to Clinton saying he tried hash but didn't inhale..as in comparison to this situation where Ainsworth went to a marxist meeting but didn't become a marxist. I hope you don't mind if we disagree, I see it as undue weight to an irrelevant non event. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC))
Then, Off2riorob, you could have simply said so, nicely. But I thank you for your reply. IMHO the information about Bill Clinton and the information in discussion about Bob Ainsworth do not compare: we are not discussing drug use when a student but attending more than one specific political meeting as an adult. And I see no reason why that fact should not be included in the main article. Mimi (yack) 18:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, when I posted the article there was initially a list of facts at the bottom which mentioned Mr Ainsworth's candidate status. These have since been removed, for reasons unknown to me. This editorial in the mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1199283/Political-cowards-true-heroes.html?ITO=1490 also mentions that he was once a candidate member of the IMG. To Off2riorob, perhaps inclusion in the article of "Mr Ainsworth was a candidate member of the International Marxist group but never became a full member?" I'm not sure how membership of the IMG worked but I think being a candidate member is notable enough to include in the article. You haven't responded to the fact that we include information about the past for all public political figures. I would argue that being a voluntary candidate member of the IMG at 30 is more notable than the Pope being conscripted into the Hitler Youth when he was 14. The information about the Pope is included, as it should be. In the article on Alistair Darling his sympathies for the IMG are stated and sourced. To Quantpole, it should receive precedent in that Mr Ainsworth is a politician and his personal political history is important background. Tiberius Curtainsmith (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Lets see that discussed in more impartial pieces than the 'debate' section of the Daily Mail, which includes quotes such as "Mr Ainsworth is a political lightweight who has never taken a real risk in his life, and his appointment to such a crucial ministry is an unmitigated scandal". To my mind that qualifies as an attack piece, and not something we should be quoting from. If this receives sufficient interest from a broader range of sources then it may well become notable. At the moment however it has received pretty much no coverage apart from a couple of attempts in the mail to disparage the subject, which cannot be viewed as reliable or notable. Quantpole (talk) 08:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Um, it's not an opinion from the Daily Mail that's being proposed here, but an on-the-record supported fact in a politicians political history. And the source is the Mail on Sunday which is editorially seperate. I really don't see the difficulty and agree with Tiberius Curtainsmith above. Mimi (yack) 11:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
You see no reason why this fact shouldn't be included in the article. I see no reason why it should be included. This 'fact' is being stated in the Mail in a clear attempt to disparage the subject by associating him with IRA sympathisers. We do not know any of the context of his attendance at the meetings. We do not know his personal opinions on the IRA. It is a clear attempt at 'guilt by association' (just see the tone of the Mail piece above). If this receives some broader coverage, or there are signs of it causing a bigger furore than just a couple of opinion pieces then we should look at it again. Quantpole (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Herre's another source http://www.politics.co.uk/mps/party-politics/labour/ainsworth-bob-$451964.htm. There is no talk of saying that Bob Ainsworth has any sympathies for the IRA. It is pretty clear which parts of the pieces are fact and which are opinion. There is an obvious difference between Bob Ainsworth was a candidate member of the IMG and that he is an incompetent bungler. The first is obviously a verifiable fact, and has been verified by the other article in discussion. The proposed debate is whether we should include the sentence 'At 30, Bob Ainsworth was a candidate member of the IMG, but never became a full member' The other side of the debate does not think this is notable. Will they then delete similar information from the article on Alistair Darling? Perhaps a useful contribution would be if we are able to understand how membership of the IMG worked, that would make it easier to decide if it were notable or not.Tiberius Curtainsmith (talk) 12:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
The politics.co.uk source has convinced me, and that's what should be used in the article, given that it presents the information without the rhetoric. Quantpole (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Summing Up


I am now preparing, as promised, to add to the entry on Bob Ainsworth MP. In doing so, I will try to sum up the argument so far in its essentials. But first, to avoid all misunderstanding, these are the words ( and attached references) which I intend to add on Sunday 9th August unless a good reason is supplied for me to refrain, or unless someone else does it. I propose to place them in the ‘Early Life’ segment, after the sentence ending ‘Branch President’. I would, as I have repeatedly said, much prefer it if another editor could place it there. Arguments for doing so follow the suggested entry.

“In the early 1980s Mr Ainsworth attended ‘a couple’ of meetings of the International Marxist Group, but has declined to elaborate on this. [5][6] [7] [8]”

1. What is the dispute not about? It is emphatically not about whether Wikipedia can say that Mr Ainsworth was a ‘candidate member’ of the International Marxist Group (IMG). The traceable source of this claim is a Wikipedia editor who emphatically declares that he will remain pseudonymous, and who has declined to reply to separate questions from editor Philip Cross and from me, asking him to verify the information he placed on Wikipedia some years ago. 2. What is it about? It is about whether the brief statement above can be included in the entry. First, is it factually correct? Yes. Mr Ainsworth’s own spokesperson at the Ministry of Defence has said on the record that Mr Ainsworth attended ‘a couple of meetings’of the IMG. The references ( two from my ‘Mail on Sunday’ column, one from my blog, one from a ‘Daily Mail’ article by the historian Andrew Roberts which says Mr Ainsworth ‘flirted’ with the IMG) have been chosen because they do not refer to the so far unverified and possibly circular claim that Mr Ainsworth was a ‘candidate member’. The ‘Daily Mail’ (editorially separate from the ‘Mail on Sunday’) and the ‘Morning Star’ (even more editorially separate from the ‘Mail on Sunday’) have published stories making this statement . Let us assume that they have their own sources, apart from Wikipedia, for saying so. But they do not cite them. Until they do, this doesn’t seem to me to count for verification. 3.Is the inclusion of the information in Mr Ainsworth’s entry undue? Those who say that it is argue that it is a) trivial, b) a long time ago and c) not indicative of anything about Mr Ainsworth’s current politics. I ask them to apply the following simple test, which will recur in this argument. Would they say the same if we were discussing information (confirmed on the record and published in two newspapers of the Left) that a member of a Tory Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet had attended National Front meetings in the same period? If so, then they can continue to insist that the matter is undue. If not, not. We are urged by Wikpedia rules to adopt a ‘Neutral Point of View’. I personally think this impossible, as we are all inevitably influenced in our selection and appreciation of facts by our own opinions, sometimes consciously, sometimes not. But we can choose to make a deliberate effort to set this influence aside as far as we may. I think on this occasion those who have opposed the inclusion of the information are the ones who need to make this effort of generosity and open-mindedness. I also think some editors may, unconsciously, have allowed themselves to be influenced by the fact that the information appeared in newspapers they do not like under bylines they do not like, in a fashion they do not like. The mirror image of this would have happened had it concerned a senior Tory who had associated with the NF. It would not have made the information any less valid or worthy of inclusion. They need to show how the nature of the source is relevant. The proposed addition contains no expression of opinion on the significance of Mr Ainsworth’s contact with the IMG. Those who check the references will find the words of Mr Ainsworth’s spokesperson, belittling the significance of the contact, cited in full. They will also find the list of the questions submitted to Mr Ainsworth about the matter, to which he chose not to reply. Readers may choose (as several editors do) to believe it does not matter if Mr Ainsworth attended these meetings. However, Duncan’s comment (on the discussion page on 22nd July, 23.56) that “What I do know is that the reply of Ainsworth's people is accurate. You have to recall that at that time IMG meetings were normally for members only. The only basis on which one could sit in on a couple of meetings was to become a candidate” is helpful to those who wonder if it matters. It is not, repeat not, verification that Mr Ainsworth was a ‘candidate member’, but it seems to me (especially as it comes from an opponent of inclusion) to support the view that IMG meetings were not, like those of conventional political parties, open to all comers, and that attendance at them is considerably more significant than past attendance at Labour, Tory or Liberal Democrat meetings. I should add that Mr Ainsworth was a mature adult at the time. The IMG was not a current within the Labour Party, as one contributor inaccurately assumes. It was a ‘Democratic Centralist’ disciplined organisation with its own rules, programme, leadership and structure, which from time to time encouraged its members to work within the Labour Party, and from time to time maintained a wholly separate existence. Readers may equally choose to believe that it matters a little, or a lot. That is what factual information allows us to do. Not displaying it at all, when it exists, involves a political judgment that editors of Wikipedia are entitled to decide on behalf of others what established facts might or might not be important to them. Mr Ainsworth is by profession a full-time politician. He is a Member of Parliament, whose vote can alter the fate of Bills, make and unmake the law of the land, send soldiers into battle, influence the spending (or non-spending) of billions of pounds. He has been an important mid-level member of the Blair and Brown governments for some years. He is currently a Cabinet member who can influence policy at a far higher level than most of us can dream of. He is a Privy Counsellor. He is Secretary of State for Defence, a responsible and contentious office. If he were a dentist, a road engineer or a space scientist, perhaps his political actions and associations in his late twenties or early thirties would be of no interest or significance. As it is, I think it would be very hard to maintain that they are of no interest at all. Nor can I see how the reference could be any briefer or plainer than I have made it above.

The question of reliability of sources has been raised. Here is what Wikipedia itself says about this : “Wikipedia articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources (although reliable self-published sources are allowable in some situations - see below). Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made.” Opponents of inclusion on these grounds need to state clearly and precisely what makes the sources quoted, and their authors, unreliable. It is no good just saying you don’t like them.

The discussions, on the Ainsworth entry and in BLP/N, have attracted several different points of view. That is why I am placing this suggested text in both those places. They have been discussed elsewhere on the web, though not by me, with one Wikipedia editor suggesting that my interest in this is obsessive. I think a concern to ensure that accurate facts are displayed on one of the most important research resources in the world is quite reasonable, myself. If we are not allowed to take such things seriously without being called names, what kind of society do we live in? Neither side can claim overwhelming support, and some editors with borderline views may revise their position if they read my second reference to the subject. I submit that in any enterprise devoted to knowledge, the presumption must surely be in favour of the inclusion of any fact, rather than in favour of its exclusion. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 09:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You want to put “In the early 1980s Mr Ainsworth attended ‘a couple’ of meetings of the International Marxist Group, but has declined to elaborate on this." But your own blog ([31] - requires Internet Explorer) quotes Ainsworth's spokesperson as saying "Bob Ainsworth has never been a member of the International Marxist Group. In the early 80s he attended a couple of their meetings, at the request of a colleague, which reinforced his firm view that he did not agree with anything they had to say." Sounds pretty elaborated to me - and as something that's WP:UNDUE to include. Rd232 talk 09:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's something. I am delighted that RD232 appears to have abandoned the attempt to argue that there is no referenced verification for the information showing that Mr Ainsworth attended these meetings, in the face of the references provided above. I have answered the claim that inclusion is allegedly undue above, at some length. If RD232 has any response to that, in facts or logic, let him make it. Mr Ainsworth's spokesperson did indeed say what RD232 quotes her as saying, and I faithfully reproduced it, in full, as was only proper. As it happens, it is quite baffling to me ( and may be to others) how anyone could go to one, let alone two, meetings of a revolutionary Marxist organisation if he did not agree with anything they had to say. Why would he? These gatherings didn't come under the definition of fun. It is also startling that he did not agree with "anything" they had to say since the policies of the IMG were in many (though not all) cases close to (if not identical to) those of the Labour Party in 1983. Is there a spot of over-protesting going on here? The quotation used by RD232 is of course supplied by me in the Mail on Sunday. Further, the questions which I submitted to his office in response to this are the point at which he declined to elaborate. Even so, to show my willingness to compromise in the pursuit of truth, I would be willing to shorten the entry to say "in the early 1980s Mr Ainsworth attended 'a couple' of meetings of the International Marxist Group'. Those interested could then follow the references and form their own view of the significance of the information, and the significance of Mr Ainsworth's unwillingness to answer questions about it. I really am seeking consensus here. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget though that the truth may not always be verfiable. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. – ukexpat (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
What a lot of hot air about a worthless little non event, seems a bit excessive to me, it looks like a case of mountain out of a mole hill. I say it is an irrelevant fact and adds absolutaly nothing to ainsworth's biography. Off2riorob (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
He went to not only one, but two marxist meetings, he must be a marxist. sorry...they were revolutionary Marxist organisation meetings.that means he must be a revolutionary Marxist! Off2riorob (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
This is the typical type of point pushing that makes it very hard to keep a political biography neutral. Editors in the political section seem unable to edit in a neutral way Off2riorob (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Resolved to be utterly Eirenic, I respond as follows: to Ukexpat that the statement is both true and verifiable, that there is no longer any question about its verifiability and suggest he looks once more at the references provided. If he thinks it is not verifiable, then could he please explain why (referring to my posting above if possible, as it is nice when people respond to opposing arguments)? To off2riorob, nobody is saying that Wikipedia should make any statement along the lines of 'he must be a Marxist'. Some people will take Off2riorob's view, that the information is not interesting. Others will take the view that it is interesting. Some (me included) will take the view that it is very interesting indeed. That is what facts are for, to allow people to draw their own conclusions from them. It is simply not possible to say that it adds 'absolutely nothing' to Mr Ainsworth's biography. It plainly adds something. The question is what, and how important it is. The barest, briefest mention is proposed, not some vast history. Now, it is perfectly plain that your idea of its importance could be influenced by your political opinion. But Wikipedia does not cater for people of only one political opinion, and in the hypothetical Tory shadow cabinet case given above I have asked opponents of the inclusion if they can honesly say they'd take the same attitude in such a case. Well? Would they? I have also provided a strong rebuttal, above, to those who say the inclusion is undue. If off2riorob, or anyone else, disagrees with what I say, then can they explain why they do so, using facts and logic as I have done. Simply asserting, with sarcasm and a belittling tone, that I am wrong does not help. How can I possibly argue rationally with that? How can I possibly be persuaded by that? Could the users of such techniques be persuaded in this way? To off2riorob's final point, surely neutrality in political biographies (if attainable at all) does not consist of leaving out parts of politicians' biographies that are controversial. It consists of presenting the whole person in such a way that a reader may form an independent judgement based upon verifiable, true and complete information. I stress the word 'complete'. Supporters or sympathisers of politicians or political parties should certainly not be allowed to patrol their entries to keep inconvenient facts from slipping in. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Re WP:UNDUE - do you honestly think the issue would make it into a newspaper obituary of Ainsworth? Rd232 talk 18:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Clockback, as we are all here to improve the article, I was wondering if you have got a free to use photo of him? Off2riorob (talk) 19:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

In answer to RD232, all my thoughts are honest, and I really do wish you would get round to assuming good faith on my part, as it would make the necessary agreement so much easier to reach. Don't you realise the attitude implied in such formulations? No - then how would it sound to you if I rephrased my reply as "Do you seriously believe that any obituary would leave it out?". As to the question, I have no doubt at all that some, probably all obituaries of Mr Ainsworth would contain references to his political past, including this element of it. It would depend, of course, on the newspaper, how extensive and how prominent the mention would be. But as it's the most interesting thing anyone has ever found out about him, I would be amazed if it were missing. I have no idea why anyone who has read this discussion should imagine that I possess a picture of Mr Ainsworth. Perhaps Off2riorob is making a joke. If so, ha ha. Jolly funny. If not, so sorry. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The "honestly" adjective was merely intended to nudge you to think substantively about the question, nothing else. It's a common expression. Sorry if you inferred something else, but that's kind of what WP:AGF is for. I keep telling you I'm assuming good faith on your part about adding these points; I just disagree. Rd232 talk 08:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
No, it is not a joke. You claim to work for the daily mail, don't you? They have a lot of pictures of people, don.t they? You are an editor here at Wikipedia editing for the benefit of the encyclopedia, so what is so funny about me asking you a simple question?

Your mission here to insert this twaddle is getting a bit WP:POINTY. And there is no obituary that would say...he went to two marxist revelutionary meetings in the 70's.. they would say he came from humble a background and rose up to hold one of the highest positions in the goverment and he was a good man.(Off2riorob (talk) 22:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC))

May I once again ask for reasoned and non-abusive responses to my 'summing up' above? It is time we reached a sensible consensus. If we cannot do so, and this matter ends up in some higher dispute procedure (as seems increasingly likely) I can hardly see such behaviour helping the cause of those who resort to it. To Off2riorob, I am sorry to have misunderstood your post. I genuinely thought you must be joking. I must also ask people to stop using such expressions as "you claim to work for...". This is a basic and straightforward breach of the general Wikipedia plea to assume good faith, without which no progress can be made. Unlike many Wikipedia editors, I choose to identify myself, as I don't believe in anonymity on the web. I really don't see why my openness should be treated with suspicion, while anonymity is treated as in some way superior. I can't imagine why. Why do my opponents think it is all right repeatedly to cast doubt on my declared identity? (I work, as it happens, for the Mail on Sunday, which is editorially separate from the Daily Mail. But that does not give me any special freedom to use picture libraries). On the general question of obituaries, these are often compiled from private information which for various reasons has not been published during the subject's lifetime. Even assuming that this would not be the case with Mr Ainsworth, a comprehensive and properly researched obituary would certainly note that he "flirted with Marxism" as Andrew Roberts put it. The exact treatment which they would give to the known information and to Mr Ainsworth's explanation of it would presumably vary, according to the newspaper. I would personally prefer the Wikipedia entry to me more explanatory than the wording I am proposing. But I am, as I keep saying, trying to reach a consensus with opponents who argue stoutly that that the political history of a major politician is not important. It's a bit much to be chided for my own willingness to compromise. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 07:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I rebut completely the allegation that my attempt to insert this fact through consensus is "Pointy". If Off2riorob would care to tell me which of the listed offences I have allegedly committed, then I can at least defend myself in detail. But I would point out again that in several weeks of discussion I have yet to touch the entry, that I have followed dispute procedures, and I have continued to try to reach consensus through reasoned debate. I have given notice of my intention to insert the proposed wording on 9th August because I can see no other way of persuading my opponents to seek consensus instead of flatly telling me I am wrong, and ignoring my facts and logic. I do not want an edit war. I am quite happy to go to the next stage of arbitration instead, if any experienced person would care to tell me what that is. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 07:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
An ultimatum is not a way to reach WP:CONSENSUS. The next step in dispute resolution would be an WP:RFC. Rd232 talk 08:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
"opponents who argue stoutly that that the political history of a major politician is not important." - mischaracterising your opponents is always helpful... your opponents are arguing that based on the available evidence this is not an important part of this person's bio - not important enough to include in his encyclopedia entry. I mean for all we know he was dragged to 2 meetings by a friend and sat in a corner reading the newspaper. There is just no evidence of significance - only evidence of insignificance (see full quote from spokesperson above). (BTW, it's irrelevant how major or minor a politician he is.) Rd232 talk 08:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
My opponents just won't debate the substantive facts and logic ( and no wonder, since they are against them) , now relying purely on their own subjective insistence that it doesn't matter that a Defence Secretary once attended the meetings of a Marxist revolutionary organisation. Mr Ainsworth is a major politician. This argument concerns the inclusion - or non-inclusion - of information about his political history. My opponents say this should not be included. I cannot see what 'mischaracterising' is involved here. On the contrary, I think it an entirely accurate description of my opponents' attitude. Speculation on Mr Ainsworth's behaviour at these meetings, and his attitude towards them is limited by our lack of knowledge of what took place. I could speculate in the opposite direction, but such factless musing would be as valueless as Rd232's speculation is in this debate. The principal source for such information declines to discuss it. The quote from the spokesperson cannot be considered in isolation from the supplementary questions which the spokesperson refused to answer. Nor is it irrelevant that Mr Ainsworth is a Cabinet Minister. He wouldn't even be in Wikipedia if he were a Parish Councillor. The whole reason for the entry is his importance in national life. The greater the importance, the greater the need for full knowledge. And I notice that none of my opponents is prepared to deal with the Tory Frontbencher-National Front hypothetical parallel which I repeatedly raise. Would they treat that hypothetical frontbencher's spokesperson with the the generous respect they give to Mr Ainsworth's, if that spokesperson explained his attendance in such a fashion and if the Tory himself refused to answer valid supplementary questions? Would they say it was too long ago, too unimportant, that he might have been "dragged" there (twice, forsooth. How did the alleged dragger make him do that?) or read a newspaper while present, unaware of the passion raging all round him? If so, let us hear them say it, and let us be sure to hold them to it if and when such a thing happens. If not, then let them accept that their reluctance here is motivated by political partisanship, not a desire for editorial purity. They have lost this argument, on facts, verification, importance and everything else, they refuse to assume good faith on my part, rudely cast doubt on my veracity while accusing me of all kinds of Wikipedian crimes, but remain unwilling to offer any compromise. In that case, let's go to Dispute Resolution, as soon as possible. How is it done, anyone? I'll postpone my addition until it's complete. Peter Hitchens logged in as Clockback (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I have now referred this for comment and postponed my planned addition of the information until there has been further time for dispute resolution. Alas, new contributors and editors have yet to notice. What ( as another contributor to this section asks ) does one have to do to get the alleged Wikipedia community to pay attention? An edit war? I really do not wish to get involved in such a thing. Peter Hitchens logged in as Clockback (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
New contributors are unlikely to be attracted to the current restriction placed on the RFC of reading all prior discussion. Without an agreed summary, this is now an eyewateringly mammoth task.—Ash (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ Krugman, Paul (2002-08-02). "Dubya's Double Dip". New York Times. New York Times. Retrieved 2009-06-17.
  2. ^ Krugman, Paul (2002-08-16). "Mind the Gap". New York Times. New York Times. Retrieved 2009-06-17.
  3. ^ Ransom, Greg (2009-06-16). "Pulling Back The Curtain On Paul Krugman". blog.mises.org. Retrieved 2009-08-02.
  4. ^ Krugman, Paul (2009-06-17). "And I was on the grassy knoll, too". New York Times. New York Times. Retrieved 2009-06-17.
  5. ^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1200583/PETER-HITCHENS-How-long-abort-old-too.html
  6. ^ http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2009/07/the-defence-secretary-and-the-international-marxist-group.html
  7. ^ http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2009/08/harry-patch-didnt-go-to-war-so-plodder-bob-could-give-the-orders.html
  8. ^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1203111/It-better-boys-Defence-Secretary-Bob-Ainsworth-stayed-holiday.html
More