List of Unification Church members

There is a section on this list for former members. A discussion has come up about a fairly well known artist whose WP bio does not mention his former church membership, yet for some reason he is on the list. Are there any standards about lists of former members? In this case why, out of millions of former Unification Church members, only 6 or 7 are selected to be on the list? Steve Dufour (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, those 6-7 appear to have (assuming at face value the citations are adequate for BLP purposes) reliable sourcing. I would expect most of the rest of those millions of former UC members do not. It appears that RS citations are the de facto inclusion criteria for former members, which is probably a good thing, regardless of whether the event is mentioned in the person's actual article: Their significance to the UC may be greater than the UC's significance to them. Jclemens (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It is best to keep referencing for lists and blps distinct. Even at the risk of repetition of sources, both should be sourced independently. Otherwise the danger is that the sourced material is removed from one and remains on the other. If there's a source include it on the list, if not remove it. Only use the bio for comparisons.--Scott Mac 10:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both of these comments by Jclemens (talk · contribs) and Scott MacDonald (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)5
I would think that the main value of List of Unification Church members is to provide a resource for people who are interested in learning more about the history of the church. How is listing artist Tim Folzenlogen, whom no one denies was a member of the church and is now not, relevant to that? His church membership is not mentioned in his own article, nor is he mentioned in any of the other articles on the history of the church. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Would Mr. Folzenlogen's being on the list harm him in any way? Kitfoxxe (talk) 07:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I suppose it could affect someones's decision to buy one of his paintings or not. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Eh, the "would it harm him" question is given too high an implied priority, Kitfoxxe. If it's reliably sourced that he was and now is not, why do we care if it might harm him to report the truth in a non-sensationalist way? Too many people skip over that "unsourced" bit of BLP, IMHO. Jclemens (talk) 07:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
As I mentioned on the article's talk page there is nothing remarkable about being a former member of the Unification Church or any other church. The other people on the list were notable as church members or else became notable after they left in some manner related to their former membership, for instance by becoming notable critics. Tim Folzenlogen's UC membership seems to have very little notability since it was only mentioned in passing in a newspaper article about his paintings. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
BTW when I removed his name from the list I wasn't intending to help him (and certainly not to harm him!), I was only trying to clean up the page by getting rid of some trivia. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
So that editorial decision is really not something governed, either way, by BLP. If it's got a reliable source and it doesn't contribute to the article being an attack page, no reason to delete it. On the other hand, if no one objects to its removal, there's no problem with removing it. Jclemens (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  1. The individual entries on the list should all be independently notable, that is, they should each have their own existing Wikipedia entries.
  2. All entries on the list should satisfy WP:V and WP:RS, that is, they should be verifiable to reliable sources.

This particular entry satisfies both of these points, and should not be removed from this list page. -- Cirt (talk) 12:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I took off the entry because I counted only one keep and 3 removes. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Some of those are previously-involved editors, a couple of which seem to have a singular focus within the subject of Sun Myung Moon and promotion of that organization. -- Cirt (talk) 15:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how taking the name of a respected artist off the list would promote the organization. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't see why taking off the name of a notable individual from a list, an entry backed up to WP:RS sources, is in any way appropriate. -- Cirt (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Say what? Suppressing the names of high-profile former members inherently benefits any religious organization. Jclemens (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, agree with this comment by Jclemens (talk · contribs) here. -- Cirt (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
On the other hand, if his success with his art is based on his experiences in the church that could be good for its image. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Clive Doucet

I query compliance of the following passages with policy.

Doucet lives in Ottawa, Ontario, where he is an weak city councillor for Capital Ward, which includes The Glebe, Old Ottawa South, Old Ottawa East part of Riverview Park, Carleton University and Heron Park. He has never worked in his life so is disconnected from the lives of ordinary people. Central to his political platform are communist ideals. He is a proponent of the creation of a light rail rapid transit system across Ottawa manifested to date with the Ottawa O-Train project that is barely used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhryan7 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the inappropriate material and reporting the article here. I have given warning to User:Peter Milken, who has, over a period of time, three times added similar negative claims. I have also placed the article on my watchlist and encourage others to do the same. --Slp1 (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The National Enquirer

The source is The National Enquirer's website. The edits in question have been removed exclusively by Morenooso. Sososos321 (talk) 03:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
External Opinion: I honestly don't know if BLP is being violated here in this corner case (basically whether or not "The Enquirer reports that Obama [is doing something bad and naughty]" on the Enquirer page, but I'm pretty sure WP:UNDUE is being violated, given that there's nothing in particular to distinguish this story from any of the other Enquirer stories as of yet. Of course, when it comes to WP:3RR there's a real difference on what's being violated. As an aside, the "noted stories and lawsuits" section is kinda dangerous overall. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be kept, but things in there must be more notable than the usual Enquirer story. I'm going to delete the line about Dubya as WP:UNDUE in the same way, as it's just "hey a Bush story" rather than the other stories which are either subjects of lawsuits or instances of the Enquirer actually scooping the news (probably unintentionally, in my view, but that's not for Wikipedia to decide). Yoshi348 (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Nigel Griffiths

I would like to raise a Request for Comment on Nigel Griffiths. Essentially the issue is, in recent days, user: Little Professor has repeatedly re-inserted a section that was previously agreed on this noticeboard in February not to include as the primary sources of it were deemed unsuitable for a biography of a living person (namely the News of the World tabloid newpaper and the Guido Fawkes non-neutral political blog). There are other issues with the section in my opinion as there are ongoing legal procedings concerning how the information in the section was originally disclosed, the proportionality of having a whole section on the matter in a relatively short article and the wording of the section after re-drafting by user:Little Professor.

The user who is insistent on re-inserting this section has chosen to ignore these concerns and has alleged I have a COI as I have been open in my political support for Mr Griffiths. I have read WP:COI and, as I understand it, this does not prohibit me from editing. WP:NPOV takes precedence and I believe the nature of this user's insistence in re-inserting the section demonstrates clear POV on his part.

My motives in raising concerns about the section which are not primarily out of political support for Mr Griffiths but rather a desire for balance and fairness in the article in line with Wikipedia policies. The user concerned has not made any case for inclusion of the section beyond saying it is well sourced by secondary sources that merely repeat what was in the primary sources deemed unsuitable in February. Rather than engage in discussion, he has left threatening messages on my talk page which give rise to concerns under WP:Civility.

I would like to add that I am not attempting to censor mention of this matter on Nigel Griffiths' page, I'm simply asking that there is level-headed discussion of what is fair to include on it.

Many thanks, B626mrk (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You don't get "balance and fairness" by wholesale blanking of an entire section that covers a subject you'd rather not appear on your friend's Wiki page. If there are specific points in the article that you feel are not supported by the sources then feel free to edit those. But what you have been doing is blanking the section simply because, in your opinion, "It seems manifestly unfair for an unfortunate private matter to be persistently raised in relation to his professional life."
Wikipedia is not censored WP:NOTCENSORED and it is not your call to decide that this information should be blanked solely on the basis of it being detrimental to Griffiths' public image. A serving Member of Parliament, having extramarital sex in his office in the House of Commons, is certainly notable and warrants inclusion in the Wikipedia article. There has been no commentary, analysis or critique offered in the section, it has purely stated the facts of the matter. The section is well sourced with multiple reputable third party news outlets, including The Times, The Telegraph, The Scotsman and The Guardian. You claim that these sources are "merely reprinting what was in the original News of the World story". This is simply not true. The articles have independent reporting on this story, leading from the original incident, to Mr Griffiths attempted court injunction, the involvement of the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, and Mr Griffiths' eventual acknowledgement of the veracity of the allegations and his subsequent public apology. This is not rumour or innuendo. It was a clearly documented and well-reported notable event that Mr Griffiths has acknowledged to be true and apologized for. To try to blank out any mention of this on his wikipedia page is blatant POV-pushing, and your conflict of interest in this has been well established. Little Professor (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I take issue with you describing Griffiths as "your friend" as this makes assumptions about my supposed closeness to the subject of the article for which you have no conclusive proof and is contrary to WP:COI and WP:Civility. It also completely disregards WP:Assume Good Faith. I have been honest in declaring my interest in the article. WP:COI clearly states this does not prohibit me from editing as you have wrongly claimed, possibly in an attempt to subdue me.
On the other hand, you have not declared what your specific interest is in the article. The circumstance of your going to the lengths of re-inserting the section knowing it was agreed in February not to include it, research and redraft it in an attempt to make it comply with wiki policies and your persistence after I sought to uphold consensus previously reached and to raise points for discussion implies that your interest goes beyond merely editing Wikipedia. As I have said on your talk page, I am unhappy about your conduct in relation to this matter: your heavy handed use of threats to block me and generally arrogant tone when addressing this issue without engaging in any meaningful discussion or attempting to build consensus, contrary to WP:DR. Furthermore, you used arguments that are untrue (on legal proceedings and on WP:COI) and when I pointed this out you simply ignored it. I put it to you that there is obvious POV and possibly COI behind your edits.
I also point out *again* that I am not attempting to censor mention of the matter in the article, I am simply trying to achieve what's fair, in line with Wikipedia policies. The disproportionate inclusion of a lengthy two paragraph section containing excessive and lurid detail on this matter on the relatively short biography page of someone with a 30 year political career clearly is not and I doubt I would be alone in holding that opinion.
I am going to raise a wikiquette alert to try and address your conduct while taking advice from other editors on how the article can be improved. B626mrk (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I take your comments with good grace however I disagree. The secondary material cited by the insistent user was available in February and was not raised by any of the editors as means of addressing the concerns. The reporting of later aspects of the matter when there are legal proceedings contesting whether it should be been disclosed to the public in the first place is also a concern. As the later events all arose as a consequence of the NotW article, I'm not sure if the argument that they are "well documented and notable" really stands as relevant.
I accept what you say about the blanking and I will endeavour to improve the article without deleting everything. Hopefully consensus can be reached. Thanks for your advice and input. B626mrk (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

D.C. Douglas FreedomWorks controversy

I have tried ti fend off vandalism of a page about me. A page no one seemed to care about until I sent out a press release about the unethical dealings of FreedomWorks. Apparently there are editors who may be more politically conservative than I who have tried to enter a simplified version of events that become misleading to the reader. I understand that it needs to be in my page, but I can't stand by why people let their own political agendas defame me and hurt my career. I have entered what I believe to be a well-sourced and level-headed recounting of said events. Events that no one will care about a year form now. But it's there for all to see. Please look at my last entry prior to more conservative editors throwing their spin on it. I think I was quite fair in my presentation. And please ask Mookie and Dwain to back off. The Tea Party folks already cost me a lucrative contract and inundated me with 100s of hateful emails, and phone calls and death threats. What more do they want? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterdc (talk • contribs) 05:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, it seems to me that User:Dwain, who I'm going to boldly assume isn't a reliable source, needs to stop voicing their opinions about the real world on an article talk page immediately per WP:TALK. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Orly Taitz

Orly Taitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There are a series of issues I'd like wider comment on regarding this article. All involve primary sources:

Thoughts on these issues?--Chaser (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That primary this primary source needs removing, personal details, why is it that editors think it is a good idea to add such stuff is beyond me. I just removed a scribd citation from the article.http://www.scribd.com/doc/21451147/Lucas-Daniel-Smith-10-12-09-new-Declaration-SACV09-00082-DOC-Anx (uploaded by Patriot 1980). The idea is that we report what other people have reported about something notable. Off2riorob (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The recent revisions to the BLP policy on primary sources are entirely wrongheaded. Primary sources come in a variety of different sorts:
  • Establishing that she has a real estate license from a government database? No big deal.
  • Dealing with a complaint about a living person that hasn't been substantiated or facts alleged as part of an indictment? Not acceptable.
  • Dealing with the subject's notability, as in Taitz' own allegations against Obama? Perfectly fine.
The "all primary sources are bad in a BLP" mantra simply doesn't hold water. It's a local consensus driven by some highly opinionated people that ignores WP:5P. Jclemens (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
A primary source with an address in is a BLP issue, uploaded primary documents to scribd by patriot 1980 are also not reliable. If editors of BLP articles think to themselves, I am here to write a decent encyclopedic article using reports of notable things that have been reported in reliable citable sources then they will be doing ok. There is nothing driven or opinionated about that. 21:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk)
An address is a BLP issue? Sorry, but a public record is a public record. Putting the address in the article is unnecessary, but simply linking to a government document that contains the address is not a problem. Or to be more specific, if it is a problem, it's not Wikipedia's problem. Primary sources are great for facts, secondary sources are for analysis and opinion. And no, I wasn't referring directly or primarily to you with that comment, Rob. There are plenty of other people who are taking an expansivist view of BLP. Jclemens (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Clearly adding an obscure citation revealing the address of the subject of a wikipedia BLP is a major issue, whether you agree with it or not. Whatever is an issue to a living person is an issue to wikipedia and BLP policy in particular. We are not here to collect obscure details in primary legal documents and present them to the world, journalists do that and then we as wikipedian editors report what has been widely reported in reliable citations. Off2riorob (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
If the address is public record, by which I mean published by a government organization that is required to do so by its own laws or rules, it's not Wikipedia's problem, and any version of BLP which claims that it is our business to try and suppress access to it by forbidding even linking to it is illegitimate and should be ignored. Doesn't mean we have to include such a link wherever possible, but if it makes sense to do so, censorship of public records is not a remotely good reason to not include such a link. Jclemens (talk)
The policy says: "Do not use ... court records ... to support assertions about a living person, unless a reliable secondary source has published the material. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as ... home or business addresses." It's clear enough that her allegations about Obama are notable from coverage of them in reliable sources. But writing about cases that is only cited to pleadings and court orders doesn't comply with BLP.--Chaser (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I know what the policy says. It happens to be wrong, modified to say that by people who want it to be prescriptive rather than descriptive. Jclemens (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Except for the fact that the line about not using court cases was there in the end of 2006, so it's hardly new. All this time, BLP has been wrong and cited over and over, but only you, now, have noticed how practice differs from policy? Unlikley. Hipocrite (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The way it's being used in this case is certainly not that old, nor within the previously anticipated scope of BLP. Are the court cases being used against the subject of the article? No. Note further that the version of BLP you just noted explicitly allows the use of court records in relation to notable cases. Jclemens (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
BLP has been used to supress home addresses released in court cases since 2006. Hipocrite (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Which is fine.... but is that the issue here? If not, then the claim that a legacy consensus exists for an entirely different usage of court records is unsupported. Jclemens (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we're confusing the two. The issue with the court cases is that they haven't been written up in secondary sources (or at least the ones I removed had no references or citations to coverage in secondary sources). Lots of notable lawyers representing plaintiffs file suit all the time. That doesn't mean we write them up. Not unless those cases are also covered in secondary sources. "Do not use ... court records ... to support assertions about a living person, unless a reliable secondary source has published the material." The issue with the address is unrelated to the court filings. The address was in the citation to the real estate database, the first of my bulleted points in my initial post in this thread. "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as ... home or business addresses."--Chaser (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

...Of those two, it doesn't appear anyone has objected to the removal of the court cases, but that still seems iffy to me. The court cases have clearly been written up in non-mainstream press, so the removal on BLP grounds seems a pretextual way to censor content contra WP:NNC. On the issue of the address, I don't buy that either. A real estate license is a public record. To the extent that Taitz has security concerns with that address being public, she has probably already moved from that location, put in a fictitious home address (my employer "thinks" I live in a PO box), or taken appropriate security measures. Taitz is not a low-profile individual and I would only limit suppression of public records in Wikipedia to such individuals. Public records of public figures should be presumed to be widely distributed and not protected information per BLP. BLP is a limitation on our content, narrowly drawn to avoid harm to living people. Where there is no harm, there is no BLP problem, regardless of what the current text really says. Jclemens (talk) 05:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I think BLP trumps WP:NNC.--Chaser (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Indeed it would, if it were applicable and that particular clause had the long-standing support that the rest of the policy has. Avoiding ALL primary sources is a recent innovation that lacks anything but a local consensus. Jclemens (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Ángel Di María

Ángel Di María (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) So as Wikipedia is not a sports daily, I want protection on this page because is being constantly bombarded with transfer rumours.--B.Lameira (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This board seems to be mostly inactive at the moment, so you are unlikely to find an admin here. I am not an admin, so I can't help you. I suggest that you try WP:RFPP, where you can expect a quick response. Hans Adler 14:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hank Skinner

[2], which is anonymous, unsourced, libelous and uses the same templates as the faking the defense site. This user has appeared only on Wikipedia in the purpose of twisting the article about Hank Skinner, so far he has almost no contribution to wikipedia. // --Adumoul (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added the .org back, per WP:ELYES. Not sure if the .com should be linked as well, with appropriate description. Rd232 talk 12:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
It's hard to say without knowing a lot more about the case than I do. Skinner's own site clearly belongs there. The anti-Skinner site is of course an attack site and would as such not normally be linked from a BLP page. The fact that he has been convicted makes the site somewhat more acceptable, but the fact that he apparently didn't get a fair trial (at least not by European standards) negates this to some extent. Overall I tend towards not linking the anti-Skinner site, just to be on the safe side. Hans Adler 14:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Bill Moyers 2

Problems on article that have moved to talk page. Characterization of Moyers comments as "Ad Hominem attacks" [3], which the editor reverted after they were removed [4].

After it was removed again, the topic was then brought to the talk page [5]. The section title was changed [6] and discussion started, culminating in accusations against Moyers [7] which the editor repeatedly restores [8] [9] [10]. --Ronz (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not exactly what happened. Ronz keeps deleting and refactoring editors' comments without discussion. If there is a problem with something I've written, I'm happy to delete it on my own. But I don't see where Ronz has a the right to summarily act on his own. He's offered no discussion or explanation about why he believes these are BLP violations. This is a matter that can be easily solved on the article talk page.Malke2010 20:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Without discussion? [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] --Ronz (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
You did not use the article talk page to explain your claims of WP:BLP violations. This belongs on the article talk page and not my talk page.Malke2010 20:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
[17] [18] [19] --Ronz (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
As I said, you did not use the article talk page for discussion.Malke2010 20:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Admins: I hope it's clear that this is about the article's talk page and not the article directly and that Ronz has been deleting my comments on the article's talk page. That is why he's here. He's doing this without discussion or explanation. He's claiming my comments are a BLP violation, but he's not engaging in discussion or offering any explanation for his behavior. He's not using the talk page appropriately.Malke2010 20:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
BLP applies to talk pages, but it's usually used to justify removing rank libel. Anyway, do you have a source for the claim at issue? If not, and we're not discussing whether the claim is appropriate for the article, then this just amounts to speculating about the subject, rather than the article.--Chaser (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for the clarification. Yes, I do have a source. [20]. On his, "Bill Moyers Journal" Moyers attacked Rove's religious beliefs. He used an unsourced blog as his source. The comments apparently upset Karl Rove enough that he complained to the PBS Ombudsman, who agreed with Rove. This was well sourced in the article and Ronz removed that. I mentioned on the article's talk page that I thought the other piece on Rove by Moyers was also ad hominem and I said it needed a counterweight. But Ronz said that was not necessary and that would violate BLP. He then proceeded to leave messages on my talk page, etc., and deleted my comments on the article's talk page. I don't think he should have done that. But as I said, if any of my comments were BLP vios I would remove them myself.Malke2010 21:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

How do two attacks on Karl Rove amount to ad hominen attacks on "people"? Anyway, you'll need a source saying so "ad hominem" or words quite clearly to that effect to describe them that way in a BLP article.--Chaser (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC

It's been taken out of the article. No problem there. It's the fact that Ronz is deleting my comments on the article's talk page that is the issue here. He claims my comments are BLP violations. No discussion, just deletes, etc.Malke2010 23:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
No, that's not what is at issue. If you feel it needs to be, start a new discussion, or at least a subsection.
I'm interpreting this change of subject as acknowledgment that there is no support for the statement from any sources. --Ronz (talk) 01:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly what this is about. Read the rules here. You are violating the talk page rules by removing my comments just because you don't like them. The rules apply to you too. Read here: [21]. 07:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Malke2010
I'm glad we've settled the BLP problem [22]. --Ronz (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Sean Coffey

Sean Coffey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This is a one-sided campaign PR piece consisting exclusively of glowingly positive statements about the candidate, with no citations to support many of the most sweeping claims, thus violating both neutrality and verifiability.

This page is full of dazzling statements which are not objective, and coincidentally are not supported by citations either. For example, the first sentence, which is both extremely positive and entirely unsupported: "John P. ("Sean") Coffey is a retired Navy Captain and former federal prosecutor recognized as one of the most successful trial attorneys in the United States." Almost the entire article is written in this fashion, violating both the NPOV policy and the Verifiability policy.

Actually, this page does not seem to contain a single non-positive statement: everything in the page is either direct praise of the candidate, or "background" information designed to cast the candidate in a favorable light to voters. For example: "His father John, from County Kerry, was a union carpenter and his mother Mary, from County Cork, was a homemaker." I.e., Humble beginnings, achievement through personal hard work, etc. This statement is also unsourced and unverified.

More tellingly, 99% of this page was written solely by 3 Wikipedia accounts, each of which has only been used to write this page and link other pages to this page with favorable comments. For example, by linking other candidates' pages to this page--for example, by saying "one of his competitors is Sean Coffey, a former prosecutor" and without linking this page to the other candidates' pages. I.e., the writers are one-sidedly advertising for Sean Coffey's campaign, without any regard for neutrality. This is a violation of the COI policy. While I recognize that candidates need to campaign, Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral, unbiased encyclopedia, not an advertising platform.

-Pegasus-BSG62 (talk) 04:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This board is not very active at the moment. I have opened a discussion at WT:WikiProject New York#Sean Coffey. Hans Adler 14:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Ryan Burge

Wonder if someone could have a look at this diff. I assume it's the subject of the article (or his representative) who made the edit, he/his rep has edited the article quite a bit in the past. Even if unpublished private correspondence was a reliable source, I'd have thought the sender would have to agree to its publication, which is unlikely to happen. And I'm not comfortable with the sender being named in the edit summary. thanks, Struway2 (talk) 12:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted with an explanation. I don't see the name in the edit summary as a big problem, though. Hans Adler 14:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
The editor has reinserted the material twice more, suggesting we email him for proof. The first time, I left a message on the talk page referring him to WP:BLPHELP, and then repeating that suggestion and also mentioning this thread. Don't know what else I can do. Struway2 (talk) 08:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Peter Holmes à Court

It looks to me as if Everton Dasent is on a mission to publicise the so-called "most spectacular fraud in Australian history", sourcing of which mainly comes down to the work of one investigative journalist. The controversies take up virtually the entire article and some of the sources are neither impartial nor secondary; much of it is cited to the Firepower book, asserting as fact the contents of that book, which seems to me to be problematic. Guy (Help!) 17:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I've removed what looks to be the worst two sections. The content was obviously problematic and skewed towards an unduly negative focus on Holmes à Court. In particular, use of the words like "Fiasco" in the subject headings is a red flag that presenting a neutral view of the subject wasn't the aim of the writer of those bits. That said, these events can be covered, just not in the minute and lopsided way that they were. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC).

Apollo Quiboloy‎

http://www.dailymirror.ph/Mar-2010/Mar2010/index.html
http://article.wn.com/view/2010/05/03/Arroyo_welcomes_cult_leaders_poll_support/
http://gulfnews.com/news/world/philippines/arroyo-welcomes-cult-leader-s-poll-support-1.621899
[http://www.icsahome.com/logon/elibdocview_new.asp?Subject=Couple+who+tried+to+free+daughter+from+cult+jailed Off2riorob (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Steve Thompson

Steve Thompson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Twice I have edited steve thompson into the disambiguation page, he keeps being removed!!!! There are 2 steve thompsons in the music industry, one in the usa and one in the uk. As i put a link to the uk website, iyt can easly be verified. In fact a search thru wikipedia shows that this steve thompson is being wrongly linked in articles. Unfortunately I don't want to write an article about steve thompson (several reasons), but I think he is significant enough. It can eassily be seen here;

see this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consett

scroll down to Notable People - it links to the WRONG Steve Thompson

and this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ne_me_plaignez_pas

mentions st uk but used to link to a page about st uk but now it does not

and how about this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wreck-Age

"Dave Donaldson - Bass"

Nope - his face is on the sleeve but it's st uk on bass

NOW ANOTHER ANNOYING WIKIPEDIA TRAIT IS TO DELETE THINGS FROM DISAMBIGUATION PAGES just because there is no article in that language written. So I wrote a note in the discussion, that talk has also been deleted, as I did not swear and was giving simple facts, maybe someone with more time can look at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.231.182.113 (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

If you don't want to write it yourself, your recourse is really to get another editor to do so. Disambiguation pages are pretty much one bluelink per line. Jclemens (talk) 03:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Reid Stowe

Reid Stowe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In Feb 2008 a Wikipedia editor (Regatta Dog) was interviewed by a journalist, contributed to an article in the NY Daily News [23] and was identified by the journalist in the article.

"Stowe and Ahmad's trip has been criticized by many other sailors who consider it ill-conceived, dangerous and irresponsible. "Everyone ... no matter how critical they've been about the cruise, is expressing relief that she's off the boat," said "Regatta Dog," a member of Internet-based sailing group Sailing Anarchy." R Dog then used in Wikipedia's article a quote from the tabloid article to which they contributed, [[24]] however, the citation was incomplete and no link was provided. The quoted tabloid material remained in the lede of the article for more than 2 years. I delete it, but it was repeatedly reinserted by an IP without discussion. [[25]]

The same IP also reinserted [[26]] Original Research based on a primary source (an official document) and a blog (the Gothamist). The disputed paragraph included hyperbolic tabloid material that was written by the same NY Daily News journalist a few weeks after quoting and naming the wikipedia editor R Dog. The tabloid headline, "Deadbeat Dad Sez State" is probably legally actionable because the contents of the subsequent article demonstrate that it is factually wrong. R Dog and the IP have indicated their wish to reinsert this or similar material.

An edit war is now in progress over R Dog's removal of properly sourced and relevant material from the lede. I cannot now revert without exceeding the 3 revert limit. The Stowe article is start class. It generally suffers from a lack of hight quality sources. Hopefully that situation will be remedied in the near future when Stowe completes his voyage. IMO, some of R Dog's edits have genuinely improved the article.--Zanthorp (talk) 07:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Article has been semi protected and has stabilized and disputed content is out of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 11:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Marius Jonker

Marius Jonker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The opening statement in the article, that the person in question is a "poor referee" is purely subjective opinion and conjecture. The following statement that he is a top ranked international referee by the IRB is also clearly contradictory to the opening statement. So which is it? In general, this is a churlish and unnecessary article, and a clear case of libel. Please amend accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogspotblue (talk • contribs) 08:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done Removed and watchlisted, the article is pretty well written and well cited. Off2riorob (talk) 10:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Rashad Hussain – The Al-Arian controversy

The Rashad Hussain article has recently been the object of an edit war between two editors, centering around content of the Al-Arian controversy section of that article. In short, the controversy involves statements make by Rashad Hussain (a public figure) made during a hearing in 2004, which reportedly included a statement "politically motivated persecution". Over time, there appears to have been conflicting reports regarding the statement in question, adding to the controversy. (A related article Rashad Hussain's comments on Sami Al-Arian, covers the topic in exhaustive detail.)

Existing material, mostly developed by Ism schism (talk · contribs), appears to be well sourced, although I am not certain of the neutrality of the sources (The Politico and Cybercast News Service, among others). User Idahoprov (talk · contribs) has made many attempts to add material and references to an article that questions some of the conclusions. However, the reference is a blog entry on The Long War Journal, and internet publication of unknown (to me) editorial oversight. On the other hand, the author, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, might be considered a qualified authority on the subject.

The question is: Should this material be be included in the article as an alternative point of view to add balance to the article, or should it be excluded as a fringe theory or as not supported by a reliable source?

I have temporarily protected the article to stop the war and have asked the editors to discuss the issue on the talk page, but am not confident that the issues will be resolved without outside input. Therefore, I would like to solicit some input from those experienced in BLP and RS issues. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem that I have with the addition of the blog, The Long War Journal, is that it is used to add Idahoprov (talk · contribs)'s reading of this blog, which is not accurate. As multiple reliable sources show, Hussain has stated that he did make the comments that Idahoprov says he did not - “politically motivated persecutions," please see Obama’s Envoy to Islamic Bloc Admits Controversial Statements About Supporter of Terror Group. This is a clear case of OR. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The most important thing is that more than a couple sentences outline issue in NPOV is WP:UNDUE. The fact that there is a whole article on the subject is even more absurdly so. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

George Alan Rekers

Pls review, esp. in light of [27]. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Another source to consider: [28]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Lulzy articles, but why it this posted here? Any violations or BLP or NPOV? Pcap ping 12:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately there is now. There are two parties in this story, George Alan Rekers and the gay prostitute, "Lucien", that he hired. Rekers' version of events is described in the article. However, Off2riorob (talk · contribs) doesn't want to add anything describing "Lucien's" version of events, or even mention "Lucien" by name/pseudonym (instead referring to him throughout as "the man"). It seems to me that this is a gross violation of BLP and NPOV - in particular I can see absolutely no good reason for suppressing "Lucien's" side of the story and even his chosen name/pseudonym. Some outside input would be appreciated at Talk:George Alan Rekers#ChrisO's desired content. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, there has been a fair bit of desire to add such content, presently the content is imo pretty neutral reported and conservative and compliant with all BLP policy. The discussion on the talkpage is worth a read to understand what the story is, its a claim that a man who opposes homosexuality has been involved with a rent boy, it is pretty much a breaking story and open to change at any moment, the BLP subject has strongly denied any impropriety and referred to the insinuations as libelous, the rent boy initially said there was only as a travel aid and now today the report below says claims he also gave him massages and he liked his cock stroked and such titillating comments, as I said imo we should be taking a lot of care with this and we can allow the dust to settle and see what remains, we have all the major points in the story presently in the article written in a conservative manner, Cris O has a desire to add the content below....Off2riorob (talk) 01:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

where his profile advertised his "smooth, sweet, tight ass" and "perfectly built 8 inch cock (uncut)" and described him as "sensual," "wild," and "up for anything"

The comedians Stephen Colbert and Jay Leno made the news the subject of monologues on their shows. The Miami New Times followed up its exposé with an interview with "Lucien", who told the newspaper that Rekers was "a homosexual who paid him to provide body rubs once a day in the nude."[9] He stated that he had met Rekers through Rentboy.com and described him as a man who "likes younger guys to hang out with. http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2010/05/george_rekers_is_a_homosexual_says_escort.php

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2010-05-06/news/christian-right-leader-george-rekers-takes-vacation-with-rent-boy/1 Off2riorob (talk) 01:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

On a point of form, other editors involved in editing this article should have been notified that this was lodged here. Mish (talk) 08:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I am not surprised this article was posted here, had I not already requested protection, I should most certainly have done so.

There are several difficult questions surrounding this article which are independent of the varying "NPOV" of the editors involved.

There is also the, to my mind, enormously more troubling problem that this article is being edited - in a whirlwind - at a time when Dr. Rekers is caught up, nolens volens in a tremendous scandal. The information about this matter changes constantly in the press (serious and not). The "facts" change, even those which at the time given, seem serious.
We should not be working on this right now, at all, in my opinion. Better to give it a rest for a bit, let the dust settle and then come back to the matter.
Unfortunately, the semi-protection (and I am grateful for that, don't get me wrong) has left this article wide open to being edited, re-written, edited, re-written and so on. There are several different styles now in the article, and they clash (even though several are quite good written English).
There are several disputes among us (I am sticking to my principles of not editing the article in the heat of the scandal, but have firm opinions). Some of the more pressing:
Names. The male prostitute. The rentboy. The young man. The luggage handler, etc. Puhlease!
Real names versus trade names.
The approach to Dr. Rekers as a decent man, led astray by that no-good hooker of the homosexual persuasion! Come on, folks, do we really want to get into the who is more "moral" - the customer or the small business man? Don't laugh, there has been more than enough tainting the descriptions and discussions of the male prostitute.
Sources. I am aware of the low-priority wikipedia currently grants blogs relative to more "serious" journalistic sources. That said, it's 2010 and ranking two blogs which have won the prestigious GLBT blog of the year awards and whose writers are routinely invited to meetings with administration officials as being on the same level as "alternative newspapers" doesn't cut it.
Regarding sources, several of the, er, professional and Christian groups to whom Dr. Rekers once belonged or even helped to found seem to have discovered the joys of Stalinesque photo-shopping lately. To what extent is going through their publicly archived websites original research?
Legal issues. At the moment, at the very least, Dr. Rekers and FRC and NARTH are lawyering up. The male prostitute has been taken under the wing of several GLBT and Christian (not all Christians hate gays) organizations, at least one of which is staffed with lawyers and money. Can we just go on writing whatever we feel is "sourced" right now? I am not interested in the philosophical truth versus verifiability guidelines (which, like most wikipedia guidelines quoted in this discussion have been used more as weapons to silence other editors than to ensure a high-quality article, written from a NPOV ('nother guideline, but one I happen to like, so it's ok).
Finally, like all battles in the culture wars between people of GLBT and so-called Christians, this one is being fought out in the article. Does not exactly enhance credibility.
To cut it short, we have no business editing this article right now. We should have left it alone until the dust settled. Now that it is in the state it is in, I think we should revert to status quo ante 3 May 2010 and not touch it until things settle down, maybe in a week or so.Panthera germanicus (talk) 11:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Disagree, apart from the reinsertion of some material in the lead, and the speculative material tagged on at the end, it is OK as it is. Things that shouldn't be there need to be taken out, that is all, and if somebody keeps putting them back in, they are edit warring, and there are mechanisms for dealing with that. As long as BLP policy and guidelines are adhered to and applied, when things have settled it should be easy enough to to re-write with hindsight and tighten up the prose. If you revert to before 3rd May, then you will simply have to go through all this stuff again - because somebody out there will want to ensure something is said about this. You cannot lock this out of the encyclopedia, but you can make sure that what is in there does follow relevant policies and guidelines. There is no policy that 'bad news' about somebody should be excluded from their BLP if it is reliably sourced - quite the opposite, in fact. What we do need to do is deal with that news in a neutral and unbiased way. Mish (talk) 10:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Malcolm Rifkind

I am concerned about this page and think the best thing would be if some neutral person would have a look at Talk:Malcolm_Rifkind. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Peter Holmes à Court redux

Peter Holmes à Court (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

More eyes on this one please. User:Stifle and I appear to be in disagreement with User:Edasent over the latter's recent edits to this article, which appear to have thrown WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT out of the window. – ukexpat (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Immediate problem dealt with, user blocked for 72 hours. – ukexpat (talk) 01:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

List of Jewish American entertainers/List of Jewish actors

I removed a series of unsourced and/or dubious items from these two lists today. My position is that no-one should be added to this list unless there are actual reliable sources indicating that these individuals are Jewish. In many cases, the articles of the individuals themselves give no indication that they are, and in any event, the claims are completely unsourced (or improperly sourced) in these lists. User:Hmains has reverted these deletions twice, insisting that I have to "challenge and discuss one by one", and that "BLP is about article content; not listing a name in a list". Are such lists exempt from the sourcing requirements of BLP? Jayjg (talk) 03:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmains argument here "BLP is about article content; not listing a name in a list. If a person meets the list inclusion criteria, they get included. If any one of them is to be challenged as to meeting the inclusion criteria, then that fact needs to be documented. Otherwise, the deletion looks arbitrary and POV" is plain wrong.
Wikipedia:List#Listed_items is absolutely clear.
"The verifiability policy states that if material is challenged or likely to be challenged, it is the responsibility of the editor who adds or restores the material to an article to cite sources for that material. Inclusion of material on a list should be based on what reliable sources say, not on what the editor interprets the source to be saying. In lists that involve living persons, the Biographies of living persons policy applies."
Sean.hoyland - talk 03:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with both comments above and have shared my thoughts on the subject with User:Hmains on his talk page. There's nothing that suggests that these lists are exempt from BLP sourcing requirements—quite the opposite, in fact. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

BLP is for good faith challenges to specific content, it is not an obstacle course for those opposing mass deletions. We just had a couple RfCs and several ArbCom actions, and they did not in total support use of tools in such cases. So a threat to use tools by a self-interested editor here could be seen as abusive. It is up to the denizens of a list to decide whether as an inclusion criterion each list item needs a citation. Gutting a list article to the point where it becomes useless, in an attempt to change the inclusion criteria, is not constructive. If the article the list links to contains adequate verification that a person is Jewish, then the information is verified. A better approach if you want citations would be to take those citations and add them to the list, and only challenge specific list items where there is a bona fide concern as to accuracy or verifiability. There is a separate concern of whether the list itself is manageable in scope, or whether it is better dealt with through smaller lists or through categories. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

But it isn't up to the denizens of a list to decide whether or not they want to comply with mandatory policy.
"If the article the list links to contains adequate verification that <something is the case>, then the information is verified." is not policy. Many editors might think that but they have no policy based reason to think it as far as I am aware. WP:V compliance isn't inherited across articles for lists or any other kind of article. Articles are standalone and the content of the article has to comply with policy. That makes sense because changes aren't synchronised across articles automatically. There is no basis for assuming that WP:V compliance for X in article A will always be provided by X in article B because X in article B can be changed or removed independently. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
There is no mandatory policy here, and there is longstanding and widespread practice here that lists do not have to require citations for individual items. It is indeed cleaner to do so, but mass deletions are not a good way to change content practice. Your sync argument is a little off target - content is assumed to be good unless reasonably challenged, not assumed to be unverifiable until specifically supported. Wikipedia articles are not a reliable source, but they are a good place to find verification for things - better than google even. Anyway, looking this over further, this edit[29] was particularly unhelpful, and the edit summary crosses the line abuse-wise. The prior RfCs seem to resolve this issue - do we need a new sub-RfC on this? I'll restore for the short term while I sort this out, and within a few minutes I'll make sure all the claims are either cited or removed, something that would have been a lot more productive in the first place than making threats and bringing things to noticeboards. - Wikidemon (talk) 11:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
But there is mandatory policy here, see Wikipedia:List#Listed_items, specifically stating that lists 'are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies' together with the section I already quoted above. I realise that there is a longstanding and widespread practice of ignoring this policy along with many others in Wikipedia but it doesn't make the policies go away. "content is assumed to be good unless reasonably challenged, not assumed to be unverifiable until specifically supported." is quite a bold assertion when it concerns living people. The bottomline for me is that the consequence of Jayjg's actions, whatever anyone's personal views on them are, together with the actions of other editors that followed will be that the degree of policy compliance for the article will have increased significantly. That's what matters. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
My claim about WP:V is routine. Content, BLP or otherwise, remains unless reasonably challenged. It's not removed wholesale until sourced. The list already complies with this policy. It's a difference of interpretation - interpreting policy as permitting a widespread practice is a lot different than ignoring policy. The onus is truly on those who want to overturn the apple cart to find consensus for their proposal, not make conflicted threats of administrative action on established good faith editors who think otherwise. Mass deletion and block threats are no way to encourage article improvement - article editing is. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Considering that several editors have disagreed on this, citing clear policy, it seems absurd to keep arguing for including people without proper sourcing. Perhaps some of them are not Jewish or do not choose to be identified as Jewish. (Not to mention some Jews might object to them being described as Jewish without verification.) Wikipedia editors are not supposed to make that choice for them, only WP:RS can do that. Someone should take this to the next level, whatever that is. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
There is proper sourcing, and clear precedent from longstanding practice and other discussions on this very topic that the policy does not apply here. Questions of self-identification, and what an RS is, are important but they aren't at issue here. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Enough of this ridiculous policy-violation. WP:V applies to every article, as does WP:BLP, as has been made very clear above. You've restored a whole series of names without proper attribution, or with none at all. And WP:BLP is very clear that people who continue to do that can be blocked. You want to improve the article? Comply with WP:V and WP:BLP! Find sources for every claim, and make sure the sources say what you claim for them - some of the ones you provided didn't even do that. Jayjg (talk) 00:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
That was out of line. However, since you've forum shopped this to WP:AN I'll respond there. I am reverting your edit as disruption, however. Please seek consensus if you have a content disagreement at this point, and do not threaten to use tools in a self-interested manner. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm assuming that Jayjg isn't saying that he would block you himself, since as you point out he is an involved sysop and therefore is not allowed to do that under wp:admin. I assume he is suggesting that if another sysop sees things the way he does, they might take that action. I would continue to suggest that a dubious tag be used in lieu of deletion if anyone indeed has a question in this regard -- this doesn't rise to the level of libelous disparagement which must be deleted promptly (although, I will point out, that even with that there was little support on this page last week when I sought to delete nine such entries at once). Really -- rather than deletion, a dubioius tag (if necessary) should do the trick.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
There's nothing colorably blockable here, so I cannot tell if Jayjg is being spiteful or simply careless. Jayjg deleted a bunch of verifiable claims about Jews that they are Jewish, merely for the citations to that fact being in the wrong place, something unsupported by policy. Although it would be within policy to simply revert the deletions, I took the most constructive and conciliatory approach I could, which was to restore only those claims I could support with a citation, and delete those I could not support. I spent well over an hour doing this, one by one and carefully. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Wouldnt the bigger problem be "what the hell is a Jew?" (pardon my bluntness and I am a Jew btw) If I go to the State of Israel and apply for the Right of Return, I would have to show my documentation of my bris (and lucky for me it was done by an Orthodox Rabbi), since my mother was not Jewish and therefore technically neither was I until 8 days old. On the other hand someone who has never attended synagogue since bar mitzvah and doesnt consider themselves Jewish, whose father is and never was Jewish, but who's mother converted to Judaism right before he was born, CAN get citizenship and is considered Jewish from birth even though I have half my genetics descended from Abraham and that hypothetical person doesnt have one Jewish gene in their body.
  • So this that brings me to this- what is a RS for someone being Jewish? Is it simply a statement from that person in an interview, etc.; is it some editor/author saying so in an article; can it be a RS that states "xy's mother was Jewish"? or is it synthesis to say that therefore the actor xy is Jewish; is someone who's a quarter Jewish still Jewish? (such as some of those mentioned in Adam Sandler's Hannukah songs, and would Sandler's songs be considered a RS?!). Doesnt the entire topic violate our policies that an article be on a concrete clear concise topic, if we cant even define what a "Jewish actor" IS, how can we legitimately have an article on it?Camelbinky (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
As far as Wikipedia is concerned, someone is a Jew if reliable sources describe him that way. Jayjg (talk) 01:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Jayjg is exactly correct. The whole reason Wikipedia relies on reliable sources is so that we editors don't have to try to divine out what 'the truth' is. ← George talk 08:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
That's way too simplistic an approach for ethnic categorizations. There are many reliable sources that will describe someone as Jewish if they have significant Jewish ancestry such as a Jewish parent, or are brought up in a household that practices some Jewish customs or religion, or went through some themselves such as a Bar Mitzvah. There are reliable sources to say that people who practice Judaism as a religion are not in fact Jewish if someone in their ancestry converted without the right rabbinical blessing. And others to say that anyone with a matrilineal lineage tracing to Jews is Jewish. This scattershot approach is not encyclopedia. To look at a simpler but analogous situation, we also categorize people by geography (e.g. Category:People from Boston, Massachusetts) based on a sourced connection to having lived in the place, rather than requiring a source that directly states they are from Massachusetts. Perhaps this whole issue is a matter of definition. The question isn't whether this stuff is sourced, but what the sourcing means. If person A is sourced to have one Jewish and one non-Jewish parent, and person B is sourced the same, it is arbitrary to call person A Jewish but not person B, because there happens to be a source that describes it in that way. Instead of debating whether to call someone Jewish, we can simply and correctly say that they are of Jewish descent. The problem may be in the premise of the article itself, not the individual items. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
You're trying to answer the question of who is Jewish. We should not be trying to answer that question, we should only represent what reliable sources say. If reliable sources say someone is Jewish, then we can list them; if not, not. It's not an arbitrary distinction—it's what Wikipedia's policies demand. ← George talk
Indeed, this noticeboard is not the place to decide who we can call Jewish. It is the place to establish whether we can make claims of fact. How to categorize people by ehtnicity, based on the facts we can cite, is a matter to discuss elsewhere, preferably among editors who know and are involved in the subject. You seem to be making a common mistake about the distinction between claims requiring sourcing, and descriptive categorizations. The Boston example should make that clear. To say someone is a "person from Boston, Massachussets" one need only source that they were born or spent time residing there. We do not look for an exact turn of phrase. Anyway, like I said that is a matter well beyond the scope of this notice board. The specific matter that sparked this discussino was a claim that living people on a list article about Jews were not sourced as being Jewish. Those sources have been added at this point. Making fine lines between whether someone can be "half Jewish", or of Jewish heritage but not Jewish, etc., is not something we can decide here. Just as we can't decide here whether Barack Obama is African American. Ultimately, consensus has to develop in the appropraite place, not on whether it is sourced, but what the sources mean. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The Boston example doesn't correlate. Being born in Boston or having spent time there is never a personal decision - you were either there, or you weren't. Being Jewish, on the other hand, can be a conscious decision - someone can choose to be Jewish, or not; other's may consider them to be Jewish, or not. For Boston, we would need a source saying that they were there. For Jewish, we need a reliable source saying that someone considers them to be Jewish. Trying to interpret who is Jewish, based on their name, their parents, or anything short of reliable sources, is pure original research. We should not try to interpret if someone is "half-Jewish" - ever. If a source says they are Jewish, they are Jewish; if not, not. You failed to provide the sourcing for those you listed as Jewish. ← George talk 07:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I recognize that you're grappling with some issues of identity there, but that's not really a very apt summary of Jewish identity. Of course I provided sources, in every BLP instance. The quesiton, again, is whether the sources allow us to call them Jewish. Although self-identification is one among the many overlapping issues, one can indeed be Jewish despite one's wishes or claims to the contrary. The sources establish the facts of a person's ancestry, parentage, upbringing, beliefs, ethnicity, and so on. They may or may not choose to call them Jewish after all that, which is often a matter of opinion and analysis. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I take that back in part. Your comments about the nature of Jewishiness are spot-on, and I do appreciate your challenging me on things. The rub is the decision on how to translate the myrad of writers voicing opinions and repeating related facts into articles in a consistent encyclopedic approach. Hunting and pecking for relialbe sources that happen to say so-and-so is Jewish, or not, is not a good guide. Original research relates to first-person observation or recollection of facts that one then tries to assert as encyclopedic content. Having an opinion on how to use and interpret sources is not original research. I hope that helps... - Wikidemon (talk) 08:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

As to the focus of the mass deletions, here are my thoughts. 1) We do operate by consensus, and certainly different lists have take different approaches, much as different wikiprojects have, as to the application of policy. I agree with Wiki that quite a number of lists -- actually, most that I've worked with, operate under the application of policy that he describes. 2) If an editor believes that some entries are incorrect, he should feel free to tag them as dubious. Mass deletions are rarely called for where matter is not disparaging and there is reasonable liklihood that the matter is true, and can be expected to inflame (or so I have been told, of late). Anyway, that would be my suggestion.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That issue was the subject of at least one RfC, which did not establish consensus for mass deletion of BLP content on that basis. No rehash of that question here and now can invalidate that. Deleting material known to be verifiable, merely for being uncited, is considered by many editors not to be a good faith challenge. Further, calling Jewishness an inherently contentious issue takes us in a very different direction. Anyway, I did provide sources for all the list entries I restored about living people, yet Jayjg deleted many of them nonetheless. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Can you provide a link to the RfC in question? Your comment flies in the face of Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines. WP:V "...requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged... The policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace... without exception, and in particular to information about living persons: unsourced contentious... material about living persons must be removed immediately." "Known to be verifiable" is a completely arbitrary, personal conclusion, and, again, is counter to Wikipedia's policies. I didn't call Jewishness "an inherently contentious issue", I called religion inherently contentious, and I believe that to often be the case. Can you provide a diff of the sourced list entries Jayjg removed? ← George talk 08:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
There is no flying in the face of anything. We're talking about calling Jewish people Jewish. Challenges must be based on a good faith concern, not mere lack of citation. Although the text of the policy is clear enough on this, the two most immediate RfCs on this are WP:BLP/RfC and Wikipedia:RFC/BLPContent. As may be apparent from a full reading there is a lot of dispute and wikidrama, and ArbCom action, behind all this. Jayjg does not appear to have participated in either RfC. Although the inclusion standard is verifiability, not citation, here there are citations... initially in the linked articles, and in the latest case in the list itself. Jayjg (improperly) edit warred (3-4RR) a mass deletion on claim of lack of sources for BLP. I added the BLP sources. Then Jayjg deleted again on the same claim. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
This is hardly a mass deletion. If he was going round deleting content from every single list then you might have a point. Finding sources for 10 or so entries really should not be that hard, and the burden is on you to do so before you restore the content. A few months ago someone pretty much cleared out List of people from Leeds. Rather than going around complaining about it, I sourced the list. In doing so there were a few entries which I could not find sources for or should not have been on the list. Now we have a fully policy compliant article, so we've all won. Basically, suck it up. If Jayjg goes on a crusade on this across multiple articles then you may have a point but at the moment you are the one who is flouting policy and being disruptive. Quantpole (talk) 09:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, now, being from Leeds is a whole other story. That is clearly disparaging, and all haste should be taken to delete all such questionable entries -- rather than dubious-tag them (which would make the job of attending to them infinitely easier for future editors, especially those who have not watchlisted the list). But we're not talking about people arrested for prostitution, or child molesting, or who have AIDs, or who pick their nose. Or - like the cases I raised this week on this noticeboard, without anyone thinking mass deletions were called for - statements saying that people mentioned in BLPs called for peopled to be murdered, or made racist comments, or made sexist comments, or made anti-semitic comments, or made libelous comments. I don't see a need for an editor to get his/her undies in a wad and delete the entries, rather than tag them.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
To quote your friend, Jimbo: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." For what it's worth, and as I stated in that earlier discussion, I think you would have been in the right to remove those unsourced statements that had been tagged as needing a source. ← George talk 10:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Tx. But it seems that Jimbo and I were the only ones speaking up, and Anon was reverting despite what Jimbo said (because, as he explained, Jimbo was wrong).--Epeefleche (talk) 02:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Wrong Wikidemon. You're talking about calling people, who may or may not be Jewish, Jewish. Find me the policy page that says that "challenges must be based on a good faith concern," and then explain why you feel that Jayjg's challenges were not made in good faith. The first of your RfC links is a broken link; the second appears to show consensus that religion is indeed a contentious issue. This is the diff of Jayjg's last revert. He removed 11 names in that edit. One was poorly sourced (it doesn't say the person is Jewish), one is in the wrong location (cited for their job, not their religion, though I found religion mentioned elsewhere in that same book, on a page other than the one cited), and nine of the eleven have no sourcing whatsoever. As far as I can tell, your claim that Jayjg removed your sourced additions is simply untrue. Regarding edit warring, Jayjg appears to have reverted one article twice in the last few days, and the other once, making your accusation of edit warring appear equally untrue. ← George talk 09:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

This is absolutely amazing. Why would anyone even want to add a dozen or so people to such a list without having reliable sources that say so? Is it because you know all these people personally? Or is it because there are some rumours on the internet which you have chosen to believe? I would be very careful with that. In the extreme far right in Germany they even claim against all evidence that Helmut Kohl is Jewish. Hans Adler 09:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

George -- you were in the discussion I refer to above. I pointed out all manner of BLP contentious "he said x should be killed", "he made a racist/sexist/antisemitic remark" types of diffs, all lacking RS support. I made those deletions. I was reverted. I brought the issue to you and the other editors. You failed to speak up on my behalf. You (and everyone else) also failed to deleted the offending material yourselves. And hear, as to this, you are speaking up in support of deletion? What's going on? That makes no sense.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Had you deleted the material, I would have supported it. At the time, I was focusing on whether the source was reliable, more than if it was a BLP-violation. A well sourced negative opinion is very different than an unsourced label. ← George talk 10:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I had deleted the material. I was reverted by Anon (primarily). Instead of edit-warring, I took it to the RSN discussion you and I were in.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
You've got it backwards. I spent quite a while - perhaps more than anyone else participating in this discussion - adding sources to the article to meet the BLP complaint. Beyond that, material that is blindly deleted for lack of citation does not magically achieve a higher than normal sourcing standard. It's simply a verifiability challenge. Jayjg /perhaps/ had a right to remove material seen as contentious. Other editors had a right per WP:BRD to revert and ask for consensus. There being no clear BLP issue at hand (or being charitable, a reasonable dispute as to whether BLP applies), editors making disputed changes need to follow consensus. Anyway, as I've said a few times we've been through this again and again on Wikipedia in a variety of forums and contexts. Material challenged in good faith as being unverifiable needs a citation. Verifiable content deleted on the mistaken theory that every fact needs a citation can simply be reverted. You're free to think otherwise, but BLP/N is not the forum for that argument, and it is neither a behavioral matter nor an occasion to use tools. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, at least we agree on some things. Yes, not everything needs a citation, but material which is challenged needs a citation. Jayjg seemed to have removed them under BLP, and BLP trumps BRD, so the onus would be on you to reinsert them. And I don't really get what the big deal is. Are there not sources that say the actors in question were Jewish? ← George talk 10:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Jayjg he not only didn't recognize Ron Silver as being obviously Jewish (which would warrant a cn tag rather than deletion), he didn't even know Silver's been dead for a year and BLP is irrelevant. I have to conclude that Jayjg is incompetent to be working on this particular subject, and should find something else. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree. I assume we are speaking about circumstances where (as I assume is the case when cats and templates are used) it is in the underlying article.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • In that case we are in the grey area where everybody just needs to be a bit flexible rather than try to push through a principle that doesn't exist.
  • However, I note that Colin Thomas doesn't even have an article (it was deleted) which could hold the source. Ditto for Gabe Sandler. According to Louis C.K.'s article he is "of Mexican Catholic and Hungarian Jewish ancestry". Is that reason enough to put him on lists of Mexicans, Hungarians, Catholics and Jews? According to Cathy Silvers' article she is a Latter-day Saint. Is that compatible with being Jewish? These were just the first four names involved in the last round of the edit war. [30] Under these circumstances I think it also makes sense if some editors think we are discussing the case where no sources at all are present anywhere. Hans Adler 10:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

For some reason, this subject is also being debated on WP:ANI. The fact that the editor would delete Ron Silver from the list, who's as Jewish as the day is long, demonstrates that he's incompetent to be working on this particular subject, and he should go find something else to do. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It's by no means as clear as you are trying to make it, given that the list contains people whose article was deleted (so the sources must be in the list, if they are even notable enough), someone whose father had "both Hungarian Jewish and Mexican Catholic roots" according to sources (since when is this enough to make you Jewish?), and a Latter-day Saint. Anyone edit-warring to restore that crappy information is obviously wrong and deserves being reported. Hans Adler 11:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
As to recognising Jews by their names: Most people get their name from their father. The most common way to become a Jew is by having a Jewish mother. The idea of an encyclopedia is that people can look up information there that is more reliable than their own conjectures. We don't make claims based merely on a rule of thumb. Would Obama belong on List of Muslim leaders and politicians because of his second name if he were president of a secular country where his real religion would have played no role and would not have been reported about? Hans Adler 11:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
There was absolutely no excuse for chopping Ron Silver from the list. Not only ethnically Jewish, but an activist for Jewish causes. And Judaism is not just a religion, you know. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Why focus on only one name, and ignore the dozen others Wikidemon re-added? ← George talk 11:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Because if he's so ignorant to not know that Silver is both Jewish and not a living person, he's not competent to be working on this subject. You have to look at them case-by-case rather than taking a meataxe to it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Excellent idea. To make sure we don't accidentally miss a Jew, let's just copy all American entertainers into the list and then discuss them one by one, on a case-by-case basis. Of course, whenever we have absolute proof someone's father and mother both don't have any Jews in their ancestry and they have never been to a synagogue or visited Israel, then we will remove them. After all we want to get the list right. Is that an acceptable approach? Hans Adler 11:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Here's another excellent idea: Before swinging the meataxe, look at what you're deleting. If Jay had bothered to do that, he could have avoided lengthy debates on two different pages. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Do I have to repeat the point about breaking a glass while washing the dishes here as well? It appears that many of the questionable entries were added by user Hmains in this huge edit (which increased the article size by 110 Kilobytes) in February 2008. Many entries were sourced, but for many there was just some explanatory text making them plausible. (Such as a link to a Jewish father.) Now the same Hmains has edit-warred here against removal of the unsourced stuff, and others are defending him with the argument that things have to be done slowly, on a case by case basis.
By the way, the material came from List of Jewish actors. See this edit. Hans Adler 12:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
If an entry is questionable, then tag it, or remove it if it's obviously bogus. But don't delete entries where there's a reasonable chance that it's accurate, just tag it and/or look at the article and observe that it's accurate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
WP:BLP and WP:V are quite clear here, as has been explained to you several times already here and on AN/I. If you want to ignore or violate policy, that's your own business, but please stop pretending it advises the opposite of what it actually says. Jayjg (talk) 02:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Jayjg here. Per BLP, any time there is contentious information about a living person, such as his religion, if it's not extremely well sourced, it should be removed immediately, without discussion. In the case of inclusion in list of X, which implies religion X, the entry for that person must be removed unless extremely well sourced, ideally to the subject identifying himself with that religion. Crum375 (talk) 02:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

(after EC - addressing Jayjg) You're free to have that opinion but that's not what BLP or WP:V say. Other very experienced editors clearly have a difference of opinion, and as I have noted this very issue has been discussed many times on Wikipedia. It is disingenuous for you to make a patronizing statement describing your disagreement as having "explained" the truth. The aggressive attitude is not helpful, and not going to win any converts to that position about things. If you would care to lobby for the inclusion criteria for this particular list to include a citation next to each link you're free to try to gain consensus for that, and the most appropriate place would be the talk page for that article. Better yet, if you want to try to improve Wikipedia's content rather than edit warring to delete things or trying to sanction those who disagree with you, the article is there waiting for you. Anyway, this horse is dead. I added the citations even though it's not really necessary, and others have responded to sourcing that they think is still inadequate - so you're talking about a moot issue at this point. I hope there's not much more horse beating to be done. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikidemon, you're free to have an opinion, but you must also abide by what WP:BLP and WP:V explicitly say. So far SlimVirgin, AniMate, Active Banana, George, Fram, Jayron32, Deor, Hans Adler, Quantpole, Atlan,, Off2riorob, John, Sean.Hoyland, Good Ol’factory, CarolMooreDC, and Crum375 have agreed with me here and on the related AN/I thread. If you want to change policy, feel free to try to get consensus for that on the relevant policy pages, rather than aggressively edit-warring, which won't win you any converts to your position, and certainly won't make policy say what you would like it to. Please accept the multiple and strong admonitions given you here, reflect on your error, and stop beating this dead horse. Thanks. Jayjg (talk)
I am under no admonition. You're resorting to rather immature language parroting. You're advocating for a change to status quo regarding lists of wiklinks that do not have citations after each entry, which is fine, but you're way off base to claim the your new position has consensus. If you would like to argue, rationally, why it does, that's fine too, but warnings, behavioral reports, threats of tool use, and mocking behavior are not rational argument. Give it up already, as I've cautioned you at the AN/I fork you started. I believe you've issued your WP:INVOLVED warnings, such as they are, for editors not to undo your content deletions. Other users have cautioned you about use of tools. We're not going to get any farther by repeating this endlessly. Deep breath time, cup of tea, wikibreak, and all that. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Seriously, Wikidemon, policy is clear on this, as many editors have already pointed out to you. You've been admonished, and consensus is overwhelmingly against you. Accept it with good grace and move on. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 03:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, you're flat wrong here on policy, the edit history, and the state of consensus - your combative approach does not leave much room for productive discussion on the subject. I will move on and gracefully continue my productive editing as before. Please stay out of conflicted situations. If you have a content proposal I trust you will take that to the appropriate venue. We're done here, no? - Wikidemon (talk) 04:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Please review the discussion above. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 04:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
RON SILVER IS DEAD. BLP DOES NOT APPLY. And if you had spent even one second checking, you would have learned that he was not only Jewish, he was a Jewish activist, and that deleting him from the list was unjustified. Ah, but that would slow down your zeal for deleting stuff. Can't let anything get in the way of that! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
As you've been told, repeatedly, Ron Silver was one of a dozen entries that was unsourced or poorly sourced. Please stop trying to derail the discussion by ignoring the elephant in the room, and hiding behind a single, minor piece of the dispute. ← George talk 06:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
As you've been told, repeatedly, there was NO EXCUSE for deleting Ron Silver other than the incompetence of the user deleting him. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
(out of sequence) Oh, that's just a glaring example, but the vast majority of Jews removed from the list are actually Jewish, most sourceable, many actually sourced already. The most blatant errors just underscore that indiscriminate deletion is not helpful. What was the last big blow-up here, someting about unsourced BLP articles? They deleted some prime ministers, famous actors, filmographies, lists of publications, people who were in fact sourced. A couple years ago it was trivia sections, and some editors were deleting anything unsourced that had the word trivia or pop culture in the section - massive error rate there too. Also very similar behavioral issues on the part of deletionists... who turned out to be socks, incidentally. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, George, don't forget, Ron Silver's father was Irving Silver, which ain't exactly Irish, and he worked in the garment district. and A guy named Silver, with a father named Irving, is likely to be Jewish, and should be tagged rather than deleted. I believe that's pretty much all the sourcing Wikipedia requires. Jayjg (talk) 07:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
You should tag it rather than deleting something so obvious. Try not to make wikipedia look stupid. And then there's Taylor Mays, who's not obviously Jewish, but had you bothered to look at his article you would know he is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
It's not a missing "Jew" on the list that makes Wikipedia look stupid. It's entries such as Fred Astaire on the list. According to our article his parents were Jews converted to Catholicism. According to other sources his father was Catholic and his mother Protestant, while he was an Episcopalian. In other words, he was either blatantly wrong on the list, or one would have to defend his inclusion using racial criteria. That's what makes Wikipedia look stupid.
And in case you want to reply by pounding on Ron Silver for the umpteenth time, please use the section I have provided below for your convenience. Ron Silver has been mentioned often enough (almost always by you) to deserve his own section, right? Hans Adler 09:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
So fix the Astaire problem. And note another ignorant removal, listed below. The trouble is, you guys are abusing the "challenged or likely to be challenged" concept. The thing to be challenged is the fact, not that it's missing a citation. You're abusing the rules in your zeal to delete stuff. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I have done that. I have removed several problematic cases after examining them. But then I ran out of time and had to stop. As a result no doubt numerous problematic cases are still on the two lists. Missing entries are not a problem. False entries are a problem. But of course only removing entries in bulk is "arrogant", while restoring them in bulk without looking at them is perfectly OK. Everybody is a Jew until proven otherwise. Very interesting attitude.
I just learned this metaphor on Strategy Wiki: Inclusionism is like factory production, and deletionism is like quality control. Both are needed (and should not be in the hands of the same people). These two lists are a case of production pouring out of deficient products at a totally unacceptable rate. And a would-be manager (probably the best description in the metaphor for non-admin who spends 10% of their edits on ANI telling others what to do) is complaining about quality control sending a few perfectly fine goods back to production along with the trash.Hans Adler 12:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Can't be bothered with the indenting, but has anybody pointed out to bugs and others that "jewishness" passes through the female lineage? Citing X is Jewish as their father is is thus a false argument. Minkythecat (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

removal of Ron Silver and Taylor Mays

Section provided for the convenience of Baseball Bugs and anyone else who wishes to debate exclusively that single entry. Hans Adler 09:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Also the removal of Taylor Mays, whose article mentions he had a bar-mitzvah, which apparently wasn't enough to persuade Jay that he's Jewish. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
There's little point in discussing policy with someone who thinks this website is a reliable source for the purposes of WP:BLP, now is there? Jayjg (talk) 12:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
That is very clearly not a wikipedia reliable citation. Off2riorob (talk) 12:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
It's equally clear that Jay is not a reliable editor of this information. He doesn't know a Jew from a Gentile. Also, he said on ANI that it is a reliable source, so I don't know what he's thinking at this point. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
If you didn't get that Jayjg's reply was sarcastic, then that's too bad. The worrying thing is that you believe(d) that that source is reliable and that someone seriously would consider this to be a good source for BLPs. Fram (talk) 12:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
No, the worrying thing is that Jay didn't do this work competently in the first place, thus spawning arguments on at least 3 different pages. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Washington state Craiglist murders

Could I get some extra pairs of eyes on Washington state Craiglist murders? As far as I can tell the entire article in its present form, including the title, are BLP / BLP1E violations. Though it seems likely that a murder took place, and that the people arrested did in fact do it, this is only a few days old and we're covering recent news. We cannot reasonably report criminal allegations as if they are true - an allegation is not a reliable source as to the truth of what it claims. We could possibly report that a murder took place and that certain people have been arrested, but that would be a different article and we could then deal at that point with whether or not it is notable, whether to go with sensationalistic journalistic terminology like Craigslist killers, etc. I blanked the content and changed the title out of BLP concerns but the article creator has revived it with what looks like an ineffective attempt to address the BLP concerns. Any thoughts? Help? - Wikidemon (talk) 05:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

If it's a BLP violation, we have processes to delete it. Moving it to an arbitrary/random title in the mainspace is disruptive and screws up all kinds of maintenance tasks. Blanking a page citing BLP1E makes absolutely no sense, if you feel that it does not meet WP:N, then take it to AfD. If it was completely unsourced and negative (it is sourced to two news organizations), then you could have tagged it as a g10. Instead you did some random pagemove and blanked it with absolutely no policy-supported reason.--Terrillja talk 11:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Please don't call good faith edits disruptive - that clouds the issue. WP:BLP is the policy. Clear BLP violations require immediate removal, not waiting for process. It is hard to imagine a more contentious claim than a murder accusation. If you do want to look at editors rather than edits, please that I'm an experienced editor, and the one who brought this here for procedural help. I'm at a bit of a loss, because looking at their contributions overall the creator of the article, who did the revert, seems to need a good deal of gentle guidance on Wikipedia editing practices. - Wikidemon (talk) 11:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I'm at a bit of a loss as to why an experienced editor such as yourself would do as you did, then take no further action. If it was a BLP vio that required immediate action, then it should have been tagged as g10 and blanked using ((courtesyblanked)), banking it and moving it, then doing nothing makes absolutely no sense.--Terrillja talk 12:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing me to the template. Perhaps WP:AGF could be your guide regarding my approach. Do you have any substantive thoughts on the matter at hand, whether this is a BLP violation and if so, what to do about it? - Wikidemon (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I had good faith, but your approach didn't make any sense given the fact that we already have procedures for this. I don't see a BLP violation, it is sourced and does not contain original research. As long as it does not speculate or assign guilt, I see no problems with it. The title could be changed to something like Washington State Craigslist killings or something similar to encompass the whole story and not just the killers, but I don't see BLP1E as this is getting covered by the national media.--Terrillja talk 13:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts. The procedure when coming across what one considers a clear BLP violation, as I'm sure you're aware, is to blank such content, and then decide what to do next. The next step isn't clear to me for a number of reasons. In brief, it has to do with my concern over this particular editor's approach (which is why I haven't yet given a courtesy notice, though it's about time), and also my thought that retitled, rewritten, properly sourced content could be viable here even if the article in its present form is not. Thus, better to give editors some time to fix things than to invoke process too soon. Regarding BLP, the article asserts in Wikipedia's voice that a number of things happened and that the four suspects did them, when in fact the sources say only that police made that claim. Peppering the article with "allegedly" a few times does not change the fact that the article is an assertion by Wikipedia that certain things happened. The gray area, which I'm curious about, is how to treat the sourceable fact that police make allegations of murder. Do we mention murder suspects, and what is the threshold? Reporting every last murder and murder investigation at real time isn't Wikipedia's job, but that's a WP:NOT#NEWS issue, not BLP. There's another non-BLP problem in repeating the more sensational journalists' dubbing something as a "craigslist" event simply because it relates to craigslist. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
It looks like it is going to be a blow by blow report of a trial, with alll the inherant BLP issues that such reporting will create. Off2riorob (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to monopolize my own thread here, but if we assume that this will, eventually, be a notable subject that deserves an article or a section in some other article, is there any way to steer this in the right direction? Perhaps a guideline or an essay on how to deal with emerging criminal matters? - Wikidemon (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Will it really be notable to the wider market? or just local? It will need eyes . My essay writing is poor, I get clammy about essays as if back at school, but if someone wanted to that is a good idea. Personally I don't think we are here to write blow by blow court reports so I would userfy it for the time being untill a result was reported, but thats just me. Here is one Nancy_Kissel_murder_case I cleaned up of excessive commentary and primary court reports after she got a retrial and a thread was opened here in regards to the article possibly having a influence on the possible outcome. Off2riorob (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Malik Zulu Shabazz

An editor expressed a BLP concern at Did You Know? that "a wholly negative opinion is one of the three sentences in the lead". I would appreciate other editors' thoughts on the article. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Moved it to a lower section. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Alison Redford

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

The "Political Career" portion of this article contains what looks like a personal diatribe against the subject. Not neutrally written, and largely un-sourced. Also contains all sorts of allegations against other persons not the subject of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.138.195.251 (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Article watchlisted. Disputed content trimmed and article semi protected for two weeks by User:Steve Smith . Off2riorob (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Kevin Boyce

Karan Gera

Prodded. Aditya Ex Machina 12:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Nawaz Sharif

Can some knowledgeable/neutral editors keep an eye on this high visibility article on Pakistani politician and former Prime Minister, which currently has many unsourced defamatory claims ? Examples (from the lead alone!):

Unfortunately I could not even find a problem-free version that I could revert to. Most of the edits over the past month seem to be by IPs and new accounts. I have semi-protect the article for a month to provide experienced neutral editors some room to get it into shape and at a minimum, compliance with WP:BLP. Regards. (I have also left this message on the Pakistan project noticeboard) Abecedare (talk) 22:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Ick, what a problem. As well as the defamatory stuff, there's also a lot of uncited gushing about his achievements which probably has to go as well. I've started on the article, but it's going to take a fair bit to bring it up to shape. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC).

Chandana Prasanna


Army of God page, Associated Individuals

Army_of_God_(USA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The page at Army_of_God_(USA) contains almost no references whatsoever. Several references don't even support what they're supposed to support, one repeatedly used link has been dead for over a year (I removed it), others do not provide online links so they can't be verified, and with a minimum of research on Troy Newman I found he is actually being criticized by the Army of God, and does not appear affiliated. Authors of section may have pro-abortion bent, and using section to criticize pro-life individuals. Discussion on page appears to have ended in 2008 with criticism of this lack of citation, which never was followed up on. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I nuked the section. There's insufficient justification for all but one of those places, and in the case of Tiller's killer, the guy's former roommate (queue the Spaceballs jokes) told CNN they were both members. SPS's are not allowed to assert BLP material about third parties. The article as a whole appears woefully neglected, and taking out those unsupported BLP issues appears to have taken about 1/3 of the text out. Jclemens (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for the help! I did some research on the talk page to serve as a starting point if there's consensus about redoing the section, but am glad to see the section gone for now, as a number of the names on there, even after doing research, did not appear to have much basis whatsoever. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
That's backwards: when it's BLP material, remove first, ask questions later. Jclemens (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Maurice Strong

Maurice Strong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Glenn Beck has just issued a call for "everyone" to research Maurice Strong (currently semi-protected). Beck's claim is that "they" are going to sanitize the internet of information on Strong. I suggest that more eyes are needed to ensure a Neutral Point of View in that article. Recent activity in the article may or may not be related, and I do not know if it is currently NPOV. Abductive (reasoning) 19:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Fiona Russell-Powell

Michael Winner

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

I am making some changes based on an OTRS email from Mr. Winner's assistant. Please look over the following points and see if I have corrected them all; also the article has many ((citation needed)) tags dating back to 2008 and appears to be cut from whole cloth, it is possible that there is a copyright problem or original research issues.

The comments are:

1. Mr Winner was the Film Critic for the New Musical Express.

2. Mr Winner’s first director credit was not on a cinema short entitled Floating Fortress. He was billed on that as the Associate Producer. His first director credit was on a film called The Square which he made with his own company.

3. The Billy Fury film Play It Cool did not follow The Cool Mikado. It preceded The Cool Mikado. They were both made in 1962.

4. The comedy short Behave Yourself was made in 1961 not 1962.

5. It is incorrect to say that Mr Winner’s first American film was with Dino de Laurentiis and was called Lawman (made 1970 released 1971). Mr Winner made Lawman for United Artists for whom he also made Chato’s Land (made 1971 released 1972). The film he made for Dino de Laurentiis which took Dino into America was the Charles Bronson’s thriller The Stone Killer (made and released in 1973).

6. It is not true to say that Winner made no films in 1975 he made Won Ton Ton The Dog Who Saved Hollywood, it was released in 1976. In 1976 (released 1977) he made the Sentinel. He made the Big Sleep in 1977 (released 1978) and Firepower in 1978 (released 1979) with Sophia Loren, James Coburn and OJ Simpson. In 1981 (released 1982) he made Death Wish 2. In 1982 (released 1983) The Wicked Lady with Faye Dunaway. In 1983 (released 1984) a thriller called Scream for Help for Lorimar. In 1985 (made and released) Death Wish 3. In 1987 (released 1988) he made Appointment with Death. After that in 1988 (released 1988) he made A Chorus of Disapproval.

7. Michael Winner did not “help establish” the Police Memorial Trust. He founded the Police Memorial Trust himself and runs it himself. No-one else is or has been involved.

8. In 1991 he starred in his own TV series Michael Winner’s True Crimes and in 2010 in his own TV series Michael Winner’s Dining Stars.

9. You say that Mr Winner said he thought his father died from trying to repay all the money his wife (Winner’s mother) lost which came to £35million. This is nonsense. Mr Winner’s father died before his widow had incurred serious debts. After he died she gambled recklessly and sold all the paintings and furniture left to her only for life but to Michael thereafter. This story has often been told many times (accurately) in the media. She sold in the 1970’s about £10million worth of art and other works which today would have been worth well in excess of £50million.

10. On your list of films Behave Yourself was not made in 1962, it was made in 1960 well before Mr Winner’s first feature film Play It Cool.

Thanks, Guy (Help!) 17:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I made some of the requested minor changes concerning the filmography and removed a duplicated word. It took me quite a while to understand "furniture left to her only for life but to Michael thereafter", but now that I have understood it I can't think of a better way to phrase it succinctly. Hans Adler 14:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

There have been additional exchanges of email which I have merged together under VRTS ticket # 2010041710014178. This includes an official biography which I copy by permission at Talk:Michael Winner/Bio. This is, of course, not presented with inline sources and the style is not compatible with our manual of style, but I would appreciate it if people could cross-check for factual inaccuracies since Mr. Winner's office is (perhaps understandably) unwilling to spoon-feed us with specifics and I currently have jetlag having just returned to the UK from NYC. Guy (Help!) 14:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon

The infamous David Duke has apparently praised Gilad Atzmon; (who is an ex-Isreali also known for being extremely critical of Israel). I am arguing that the former Klu Klux Klan leader David Duke is a "fringe view", and should not be included; his views are only included to smear him by association, see Talk:Gilad_Atzmon#David_Duke. Comments, please? Huldra (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

For clarification (I personally don't see why Duke should be in the article) David Duke praises Atzmon because he refers to himself as a an "ex Jew and proud self hating Jew" not an "ex Israeli" Drsmoo (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
The fact is, we don't know why Duke praises Atzmon, and a pair of editors are trying to smear Atzmon through guilt by association. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I took off the sentence. It was sourced by Duke's website. I don't know if I have ever seen a more clear violation of several important WP policies. If we let that stand then all Duke needs to do is praise people on his website and people who don't like them will post that on their WP bios and give Duke some free publicity. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
...and I had to remove it, yet again, as some "new" editor insists on inserting David Duke´s views. Apparently arguments are simply not getting through. Any suggestions as to next move? Huldra (talk) 01:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I have reinstated the Duke quote, which is relevant and verifiable. WP:RS says that a person's website is a reliable source when it comes to that person's opinions, as long as those opinions are not being taken for fact. If X says on his own website, "I think Y is Z," you can't use that statement to support "Y is Z," but you certainly can use it to support the statement "X says Y is Z." This is what the entry does.
Nothing in the article attempts to explain why Duke thinks Atzmon is brilliant. Nor should it. The quote is apparently being attacked for a WP:SYNTH it doesn't even make; if that is the new editorial principle -- any editor can delete anything from any article at whim based on whatever implicit conclusion might be drawn from it -- then no article on Wikipedia is safe from gutting. RT-LAMP (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
..and I have undone it. RT-LAMP: you have about 50 edits in all on wp; almost all of them edit-warring to insert David Dukes opinion on Atzmon. That you want to use wp to smear Atzmon through guilt by association is now quite clear. But that does still not make David Dukes opinion noteable, least of all in a BLP-article. Huldra (talk) 01:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Anyone who's read the history of the entry knows that quite a few people have complained about how Atzmon's entry is so airbrushed as to represent not any actual Atzmon but some sparkly-unicorn supersanitized Disney version, the one where he doesn't go around distributing Holocaust denial essays and getting praised by David Duke. I am reading all sorts of nonce pseudo-rules being used to excuse that sanitizing. When the most important single representative of organized racism in America has something to say about your racial writings about Jews, that is indeed significant. Embarrassing maybe, but again if there is a rule saying that no BLP should contain information readers might find negative, maybe you could point me to it. RT-LAMP (talk) 02:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I guess you missed the part where it said self published opinions cannot be sourced to their website if they concern other living people ('it does not involve claims about third parties'). If it is 'indeed significant' then other reliable sources would have picked up on it. The fact they have not suggests it is not significant in the opinion of those that matter. And as always, neither your opinion nor my opinion whether it is significant or not is particularly relevant. Nil Einne (talk) 11:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no serious policy based reason to keep the Duke quotes out. They meet WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR, as required by WP:BLP. The only reason some people want to keep the quotes out is because they think they're protecting Atzmon's reputation. Now that's POV. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that's quite correct. I think some people are more interested in the sparkly-unicorn version of Atzmon than they are in the real guy, with his real controversies and his real missteps. Any complete entry on Atzmon that really addresses his problematic reputation is going to have to deal with both the antisemitism allegation and his apparently accelerating segue into Holocaust denial. But that would knock the sparkles off the unicorn, and must therefore be sanitized away. You are quite correct that an entry that consciously evades significant and verifiable controversies is by its very nature [edit:] not NPOV. RT-LAMP (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

<- How does this material even comply with WP:V ? Which RS has published this opinion and established that it merits inclusion ? Editors are supposed to be building an encyclopedia based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, as the policy says. Is there a plan to include Duke's opinions about everything in the appropriate articles, his favourite breakfast cereal, which brand of shoes he finds most comfortable etc ? How about Oprah's opinions ? She says all sorts of things on her twitter site. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe Duke is a RS for his opinions. He could also be described as an expert on being an anti-semite. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree, but Duke says he admires Atzmon's honesty and bravery. Is Duke an expert on honesty and bravery? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk

The effort to link Atzmon and Duke has been made at David Duke's article as well. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Duke admires Atzmon's "honesty and bravery" regarding his statements about Jews. It's not an "effort" to link Duke and Atzmon. Duke isn't really shy about it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Duke admires Atzmon's "honesty and bravery" regarding his statements about Jews. That's not in the source, is it? That makes it original research. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
this seems pretty clear. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
What do you think the Atzmon article Duke's praising so ecstatically is about, Malik, hangnails? RT-LAMP (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
David Duke is not merely "some crazy blogger"; he is, more than any other single living figure, the personification of racism in America. As such it's disappointing to have this significant comment sanitized out. However, I'm prepared to accept the entire section as it now stands. RT-LAMP (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Atzmon's column is primarily about AIPAC, and Duke doesn't say anything about admiring Atzmon's honesty regarding what he (Atzmon) says about Jews. He praises this column about "true Jewish extremism". Remind me again why Duke is an "expert" on the subject of honesty and bravery. Because he sees "Jewish extremists Axelrod and Emanuel at [Obama's] left ear and right ear"? I guess you're right: Duke must be honest and brave to write that.</sarcasm> — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
It's a shame you are willing to whitewash both Duke's and Atzmon's words like that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I quite agree. And I am willing to work with other editors to craft an entry that contains that information in a way others find satisfactory. However, there are others whose only acceptable solution is to completely sanitize it away -- the 100% solution. RT-LAMP (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
It's a shame you are willing to disregard so many of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in your effort to link the two men through guilt by association. There have been enough things written about Atzmon by reliable sources that can be used to write his biography in compliance WP policies without sugar-coating his views. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

To spell it out, because apparently it's necessary, here's Duke: "The speeches at AIPAC by Democratic leaders show clearly though, that Obama and Clinton are fully prostrate at the feet of the Jewish extremists." Duke calls AIPAC "the Jewish extremists." He is not attacking Zionists but Jews. And so is Atzmon: " every Jew is a potential little God or Goddess. Gilad Shalit is the God ‘innocence’, Abe Foxman is the God anti Semitism, Maddof is the God of swindling, Greenspan is the God of ‘good economy’, Lord Goldsmith is the God of the ‘green light’, Lord Levy is the God of fundraising, Wolfowitz is the God of new American expansionism and AIPAC is the American Olympus where American elected human beings come to ask for mercy and forgiveness for being Goyim and for daring to occasionally tell the truth about Israel." Please find anything defensible in that paragraph from Atzmon. RT-LAMP (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Please explain what that paragraph has to do with WP:BLP, WP:NOR, and guilt by association? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
RT-LAMP, using your reasoning, anybody who called, say, members of the John Birch Society American extremists would be being anti-American (that is, attacking Americans)? By the way, I think that Atzmon was attacking "Holocaust religion", not Jews (of which he's, obviously, one) per se. I'm in the process of reading A Report on the Banality of Evil and have noticed that Eichman approved strongly of Zionism. Now, if somebody who was, perhaps, trying to smear Zionists was to mention that in the Zionism article, or the articles on individual Zionists, what would your reaction be?     ←   ZScarpia   22:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for being blunt, but are you people for real? "If you wonder why Jewish politicians repeat exactly the same mistakes time after time, the answer is easy. Jews do not know their Jewish history for there is no Jewish history". Spin that to be about AIPAC or "Holocaust religion" or whatever other whitewash you can come up with. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The meaning of the sentence is explained clearly in the paragraph which follows it in Judea declares War on Obama and in the article it links to, Truth, History and Integrity. Perhaps it is summed up well by the sentence: in the Jewish intellectual ghetto, one decides what the future ought to be, then one constructs ‘a past’ accordingly. Is that supposed to be so shocking as to earn Atzmon a comparison with David Duke?     ←   ZScarpia   23:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Did you seriously refer me back to Atzmon's article and quote him approvingly when he made some more hostile comments about Jews? The new quote is supposed to explain why "there is no Jewish history" is not a racist thing to say? If you don't get it, I can't explain it to you. At this point I have to doubt if you'd recognize anti-semitism if it landed in your lap. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Your personal opinion of Gilad Atzmon is irrelevant.
  • Your opinion of me is your own business; keep it off this noticeboard.
  • If you want to portray Atzmon as a racist, find a reliable secondary source which supports your viewpoint. Don't use a primary source stating David Duke's approval of one of Atzmon's articles to hint it.
  • Don't quote a sentence and ask others to "spin" its meaning without taking the trouble to read the author's explanation of the meaning.
  • Don't take somebody's explanation that the meaning of something you have quoted is clearly stated in the source as "approval" for the thing quoted.
    ←   ZScarpia   02:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I think you know what you can do with that list. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Ran HaCohen: Israel, a New Decade (comments on racism and anti-Semitism).     ←   ZScarpia   15:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
My reaction is that you would only be walking in the footsteps of Atzmon, who already says things like that -- things I'm glad to see you acknowledge as a smear. RT-LAMP (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
So, you would criticise somebody for trying to smear Zionists using something said by Eichman? Shouldn't you criticise what looks like an attempt to smear Atzmon, by using guilt by association, too?     ←   ZScarpia   00:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Of relevance: Guilt by association as an ad hominem fallacy. Also: Reductio ad Hitlerum. I think that somebody has missed a trick; I see that Duke quotes Shlomo Sand too.     ←   ZScarpia   21:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The David Duke wikipedia article doesn't even mention allegations of antisemitism against him until half way down the article, while the Atzmon article has them in the lead and as a whole section. The former brief description of his views has been repeatedly gutted. Why does Duke get more respect than Atzmon on Wikipedia, I wonder? CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Yet the Duke article mentions Duke's racism in the very first sentence, right after name, birthdate, and nationality. Right across the front bumper in big letters. RT-LAMP (talk) 04:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually looking at it more closely it says: Duke describes himself as a racial realist asserting that "all people have a basic human right to preserve their own heritage".[5] He speaks in favor of voluntary racial segregation and white separatism.[6][7][8] Considering that Atzmon accuses Israeli Jews of practicing something similar, I'm surprised Duke carries him at all. Anyway, the issue is extreme bias by editors like yourself who constantly attack Atzmon on the talk page and here. When an article has a preponderance of such editors, editors who might consense to have the article actually follow wikipedia policies may be intimidated into failing to edit. (At least there are not the blatant accusations of antisemitism against editors which had to suffer through in past years.) Anyway, in protest I've stopped editing because of constant POV reversions, though I do threaten to start again from time to time. But as long as wikipedia cannot control biased editors who engage in POV attack editing on BLPs, more NPOV editors will be discouraged from editing these, and other, wikipedia articles. I have cut my editing down mostly to maintaining old articles and have not started or cleaned up a number of articles on a number of topics because of the eroding wikipedia process. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
WP does not recognize the idea of an NPOV editor; that's an impossibility. Texts, however, can be NPOV. In the particular saga of Atzmon and Duke, the entry has now hit a point which is neither as hagiographic as some might like nor as condemnatory as some might like in its treatment of the Duke material. All in all, therefore, I'm willing to let the treatment of Duke stand as it is currently; Duke's direct praise of Atzmon is out, but Duke's repeated publication of Atzmon's essay stays in. RT-LAMP (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
WP does recognize that an editor's constant exposing a POV vs. the subject on the talk page discredits their insertion of questionable material or deletion of other WP:RS material. Unfortunately, the person who brought the Duke WP:RS issue to WP:BLP should have brought it to WP:RSN where it would have been quickly and thoroughly trounced because board members don't want to see this kind of precedent. (If a WP:RS commented on Duke publishing his material, that might be relevant.) My issues of POV Bias which originally was its own section is more appropriate for this page. I don't think it's too late to bring it to WP:RSN now. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

<- Deja vu Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive70#Jonathan_Cook Sean.hoyland - talk 17:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, David Duke has been publishing Gilad Atzmon's articles for over 3 years. This isn't a single article in discussion Drsmoo (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Irrelevant. What WP:RS makes this fact notable? Please read excellent link to past discussion Sean Hoyland suggested above. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually I meant deja vu on blatant attempts to smear a living person through guilt by association and ride roughshod over mandatory policy compliance. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
And once again I am caught wondering exactly how it benefits the Palestinians to attempt to disguise or efface Atzmon's blatant and well-documented antisemitism.RT-LAMP (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
And I'm caught wondering what that has to do with policy based decision procedures related to Wiki article content and why benefiting or not benefiting Palestinians would be a valid reason to do anything whatsoever in Wikipedia. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
And I'm wondering why a particular editor has a habit of posting new headline every time he/she wishes to make a comment(despite its relevance to the rest of the discussion or its degree of redundancy) I have yet to see any other editor behave in this way on a noticeboard. Drsmoo (talk) 00:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm disappointed that you didn't ironically post a new headline to make that point. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Extreme bias

Because Atzmon is a popular musician and writer worldwide who criticizes Israeli and Jewish ethics as well as Zionism, his article attracts extremely biased editors out to prove he is an antisemite. In the lead and writing sections they constantly delete information from neutral sources that do not support their "attack agenda," use Atzmon quotes from such articles out of context in a WP:OR fashion, present various attacks on Atzmon, while deleting defenses from Atzmon or his supporters, etc. Currently several are engaged in guilt-by-association references to the fact that David Duke’s website reprints some of his articles and have reverted a couple editor's attempts to delete these. See recent discussions on the talk page.

It is impossible to make constructive edits (which are usually reverted) or build a truly neutral consensus with such extreme bias. Before bringing these editors to Wikipedia Arbitration Enforcement under 2008 Palestine-Israel articles arbitration, I thought I would give this noticeboard a shot. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Carol. See the discussion above. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Do you share Tony Greenstein's views (please excuse my curiosity)?     ←   ZScarpia   22:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes,,as he notes in the discussion. RolandR (talk) 07:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Looks to me as though Atzmon, in his philosophical pilgrim's progress, in avoiding the wild beasts on one side, has got himself into a swamp on the other (or vice versa).     ←   ZScarpia   14:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Also my view. It's essential to understand that Atzmon's loudest critics are not the right-wing Zionists whose work Atzmon makes simpler but the legitimate critics of Israel whose job Atzmon makes more difficult by affiliating them in an unwanted way with antisemitism and Holocaust denial. RT-LAMP (talk) 15:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
But still, WP is not a court of law. It's not our job to present evidence to determine if a person is a good or bad guy. Even if it were guilt by association would still not be admissible. In this case the plain facts, and opinions by reliable sources (not KKK websites), are more than enough to give the information on Mr Atzmon's views so that readers can decide for themselves. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Roland, you don't know of anywhere where Atzmon has given a defence of his articles being published on the Duke site do you (I haven't had any luck finding anything using Google)?     ←   ZScarpia   19:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Editors' comments expose extreme bias

The comments above just prove the point that anyone trying to enforce BLP policies on this article will be tarred with guilt-by-association because of the attacks on Atzmon by editors in the article, its talk page and various personal talk pages and recent noticeboards. All of which should prove useful evidence in an arbitration enforcement case.

I would like to note in the past there were versions of the article that were far more balanced in at least discussing what Atzmon's views are (only allegedly antisemitic ones are noted in the current view) as described by one of several WP:RS which take a balanced view of him. Past versions also balancing specific criticisms of him with factual replies or defenses, most of which have now been deleted. Check out this version for comparison. Not perfect, but a lot more in compliance with both BLP and NPOV than what we have today. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, I just checked the discussion page from the time when that edit was made, and just about every post you made was attacking and threatening editors over various things, accusing them of bias, and calling the article "original research" and a "coatrack." Looking at it now, I don't see how it was an improvement over the current revision, which is quite good in my opinion. Also I think this subsection should be moved into the "Gilad Atzmon" section, along with the other subsection, as it seems quite different from every other discussion noticeboard discussion Drsmoo (talk) 01:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I think the one thing that the version Carol points to has that the current version needs is a direct engagement with Atzmon's recurring problems with the Holocaust denial issue re the "Holocaust Wars" essay which was so damaging to his reputation, which ignited a considerable conflagration of protest among anti-Zionists who didn't want to be associated with that kind of raw antisemitism, and which Carol has failed to acknowledge even once. It continues to be strongly POV that this issue, the point at which the antisemitism issue boiled over in Atzmon's life and from which Atzmon has never recovered, is not treated in his entry. RT-LAMP (talk) 03:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
To answer Drsmoo, talk pages are the place to point out policy violations. When an article is being as abused as this one is, to the point that one feels one cannot even edit anymore because of the constant POV edit warring, one has little option but to remind people of sanctions. I just have been hoping this BLP process would bring such editors along to article so I would not have to proceed.
To answer RTLamp, I have not commented on the topic because it surely would be presented in as biased a fashion as everyone else, as opposed to a less biased fashion in that version that allows readers to draw their own conclusions as to whether the accusations are over blown.
If one looks back to the editing and talk of the period right after the version I linked to in April 2009 - when neutral administrators last took a serious look at the article:
  • User:Sandstein wrote 4/17/09: Covering this antisemitism issue at length, in addition to an already very unwieldy "Politics" section (itself mainly about his anti-whatever-views), would give these matters undue weight, in addition to being redundant and inelegant. I submit that it suffices to mention somewhere in the "Politics" section that he has been accused by such-and-such notable figures of being an antisemite for saying this and that, evidently with good sources.
  • User:JzG (aka Guy) wrote a whole section arguing that all the material should removed. See here and he then did so at this diff writing in edit summary: This whole section is seriously problematic, taking to Talk for RFC. Please do not restore, discuss and wordsmith instead. Of course, editor warring editors ignored him and put back some questionable version which remained when the article was locked for 4 months. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
For over a year you've been threatening to have banned every editor who disagrees with you on the article (or edits it in a way that you disapprove of). Despite every noticeboard you've gone to disagreeing with your assertions, you continue to threaten and attempt to intimidate the article's editors. Drsmoo (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
No, I think you were the only one I have said should be banned under WP:ARBPIA since last year, after another editor quit wikipedia because others' complaints led to multiple blocks. (Though someone else recently has been added to the list.) But I don't have the power to do that. Only to complain and ask that it be done. Which I will do shortly, since this discussion seems to have petered out with no satisfactory resolution. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
What is the problem here? The lead already mentions that some have accused him of being an antisemite and there is a whole RSd section devoted to it. Is Duke needed to pile it on? Let it go until there is some good secondary coverage.Cptnono (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that there's a SPA who is determined to load up the article with every stupid thing Atzmon has ever said and any other negative things that can be written about him. If the editor in question keeps it up, soon the article may qualify for speedy deletion as an attack page under G10. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Seda Pumpyanskaya

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

This page contains inaccurate information, with serious mistakes, and it is a self-congratulatory text, with the purpose of self-promotion. It does not show sufficient evidence to support the statements made. The person described should not appear in an encyclopedia, as she is not worldwide renowned.)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srrrrr (talk • contribs) 22:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. From what I understand the page was set up to politically smear a former mid-level bureaucrat who has no real need of a separate Wikipedia page of her own. It is hardly self-congratulatory or self-promotional though, especially when the text of the article was not written by her and was written to promote her in a bad light. It is obviously a source of much unwarranted vandalism and special attention from various anti-semitic individuals. Btw, is the IP of user Srrrrr, the same as the IP of user Brrrr who was banned for vandalizing the page a few days back? It seems an amazing coincidence that the usernames are so similar. PaulRaunette (talk) 01:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I had a little look and think she has a bit of notability but the article needs improving. Removed speedy and added BLP refimprove and added a couple of citations. Off2riorob (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Pola Illéry

Pola Illéry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Proposed move to Possibly living people. The external page cited as an indication that she is still alive is essentially a summary of blog information from that website. It has 4 links for Pola Illéry: IMDB (which merely lists date and place of birth), wiki and 2 blog entries from 2007 one of which is an unanswered question as to whether she is still alive and the other briefly mentions her career and nothing else. In short there are no reports, reliable or otherwise, that she is still alive merely a lack of confirmation that she has died. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, Category:Possibly_living_people I can't find anything either. Off2riorob (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Artel Kayàru

There is an image being used on the Artel Kayàru article that could be cause for concern. Editor Drgreative (possibly Artel or someone affiliated with him) has strongly disputed that the image is that of the actor and repeatedly removed it as well as details of his place of birth. Ultimately JzG deleted the article due to it being unsourced, contentious and for not meeting notability criteria. The next day Phrasia recreated the article and included the contentious photo. I removed the photo and left a note on the talk page that it should not be restored unless it could be determined that the image is accurate. Phrasia has now restored the image with the note "The photo is him. I uploaded the picture so I think I should know if it is him or not". Note that the image page does not identify the person as Artel, and Phrasia did indeed upload the photo. I'm strongly inclined to remove the photo again as unverified, but would like some additional input from this board to determine consensus. Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 14:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Judging by his pictures on imdb and Google images, that image is definitely not Artel. You guys can be the judge of that. However until we know for sure that the photo is authentic, it should be removed to avoid BLP issues. I've gone ahead and removed it. Aditya Ex Machina 15:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Added and removed again....--Tom (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I have the feeling that an IP will be along shortly to add it back in. Is the upload of the photo itself valid? I don't really understand where it even came from. Phrasia has uploaded many troublesome images including screen captures and his/her talk page is littered with fair use warnings and deletions. I think there is an all around non-comprehension regarding copyright, WP:V and BLP policies. Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 16:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard Goldstone

Richard Goldstone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm concerned with what appears to have been going on with the article on Richard Goldstone, a distinguished South African judge. I read this article for the first time earlier today and was dismayed to find that it had some major BLP problems - focusing heavily on recent allegations from an Israeli newspaper and prominently featuring quotes from apparent fringe figures comparing Goldstone to Josef Mengele and Nazi war criminals and accusing him of committing crimes of "moral turpitude". A substantial amount of material was sourced to blogs and thoroughly unreliable sources such as WorldNetDaily. This issue has already been raised at Talk:Richard Goldstone#Proliferation of poorly sourced material on Goldstone as judge in South Africa. The conduct of Tallicfan20 (talk · contribs) causes particular concern (e.g. diffs: [32], [33]), as does that of Gilisa (talk · contribs), who introduced this material in the first place.

I've responded by rewriting the section in question to give a much more comprehensive expanded overview of Goldstone's career in South Africa, working in material from recent reporting without unbalancing the entire article to focus on one allegation to the exclusion of everything else. (See diff). However, it would be helpful if uninvolved editors could provide some feedback on this rewrite at Talk:Richard Goldstone#Major BLP concerns: South Africa section rewrite. I suggest that the article could also benefit from being watchlisted and/or reviewed by BLP regulars so that these problems don't recur. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleting long paragraphs of perfectly sourced and perfectly valid information under the excuse of BLP is unacceptable. There may have been issues with pieces of the text. That doesn't mean you delete it all and rewrite it with information that makes him look like a saint, just because you personally feel that he is a "disguished" judge. Other people think the exact opposite of him, and you should not be deleting text just because you disagree. Check out WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Breein1007 (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I think editors of that article need to read Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Editors_counseled and ask themselves honestly whether they are complying with the sanctions. If an editor sees something negative about Goldstone and feels absolutely compelled to add it to the article simply because he has said bad things about their favourite country they need to walk away. At some point, editors need to recognise that dragging Wikipedia into the latest information war shitstorm/character assassination campaign is inconsistent with what we're supposed to be doing here. The mandatory requirement that this cannot be a battlefield isn't that difficult to understand. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
It's worth noting that Goldstone has been the target of an extended smear campaign in the press. It's obvious enough that Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a vehicle for it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Yep, it's been going on since March last year and there's no reason to believe it's going to stop. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Anyways, ChrisO deleted entire paragraphs justified by a very weak rationale. While I do agree WND is not a reliable source, only a fraction of what Chris0 removed was supported by that source. Most of the content meets the general requirement of BLP and the sources are reliable (jpost, ynet, haretz, etc..). It seems ChrisO removed both the negative and supportive sections, and replaced them with very basic cherry-picked facts that don't help the article very much. there really is no need to turn this into an epic battle. I suggest Chris0 restore the major edits and work towards a consensus in talk on the disputed paragraphs. Sound good? If any of you see the article as a victim of a smear campaign please be explicit. I don't think its right to infer other editors are somehow part of a campaign to vilify Goldstone. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I think it's in the interests of the project to openly acknowledge that over an extended period, several editors have repeatedly dragged Wikipedia into multiple shitstorm/character assassination campaigns to vilify Goldstone, Kenneth Roth, Joe Stork, Sarah Leah Whitson, Marc Garlasco, Desmond Travers and many other people. There are 2 common factors, 1) the BLP subjects have criticised various actions by the State of Israel as part of their professional duties and 2) the editors adding the material (often poorly sourced) consistently make edits that can be characterised as 'pro-Israel' (although I would dispute that description personally). This is inconsistent with the discretionary sanctions and it needs to stop. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Sean, that isn't particularly relevant at this point. We are talking about ChrisO removing entire paragraphs (cited with reliable source) about Goldstone's history in South Africa. Now are you seriously accusing me of contributing to a smear campaign of Goldstone because I have a problem with ChrisO' deleting paragraphs that contained criticism of Goldstone's reputation as a lawyer in apartheid South Africa? Sounds like fear-mongering to me. Just follow the rules. Restore the edits and keep the dispute relevant.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs)
What we had here was basically allegations of questionable accuracy from a non-South African newspaper being used to present a revisionist view of his South African career that simply isn't supported by contemporary sources. As I've said on the article talk page, the material I removed was not in any way "responsible, conservative or disinterested" and grossly unbalanced the article, focusing on one issue - Goldstone's sentencing record - out of context and to the exclusion of almost everything else about this period in his career. Its division into opposing criticism and support sections - with criticism going first - is a classic sign of bad, biased writing. The excessive attention paid to this one issue is also clearly a distortion of the historical record; in researching his career in South Africa I found no evidence that his conduct as a judge was the subject of controversy or criticism at the time. Note that none of this is about whether sources are "reliable." BLP requires much more than that, as the first section of WP:BLP states: biographies "must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." -- ChrisO (talk) 09:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
In other words, you want to censor his well sourced and easily verified sentencing record because you think it portrays him in a bad light. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Consider making complete paragraphs more concise instead of flat out removing them.Cptnono (talk) 11:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Not at all - his sentencing record is dealt with in the revised version of the article. The difference is that it's dealt with in context and without undue weight. It's not a matter of presenting him in a "good light" (how about assuming good faith some time?) but of presenting a balanced overview that isn't distorted by recent controversies and is consistent with the broader historical record. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, when you remove most of the information (reliably sourced of course) that would put his actions in question, and at the same time put his explanations in the encyclopedia's neutral voice, it would seem you're trying to present him in a good light.
For example, I see that the issue of him upholding Apartheid law through death sentences, lashings, putting children in jail for disrupting school, etc, has been excised from the article. On the other hand the article now states in the neutral voice that "he had always been against the death penalty" (despite sentencing 2 people to death himself and rejecting the appeals of 28 more). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

(unindenting) The context that you are omitting is that - as the article now states - he swore an oath to uphold the law. He wouldn't have been a judge if he hadn't, but by becoming a judge he was able to undermine apartheid from within the system. There's no doubt that he was against the death penalty - another South African judge, D. Curlewis, said in 1991 that he was more likely to impose the death penalty than Goldstone because the latter was one of several judges who were "at heart abolitionists for one reason or another... Obviously, and for that reason, they cannot be sound on the imposition of the death penalty" (7 South African Journal on Human Rights, p. 229). And indeed when Goldstone became a judge on South Africa's Constitutional Court, he voted to abolish the death penalty. I've not yet looked into the "28 appeals" claim you mention in much detail, but my impression is that none of the sentences were carried out because executions had been suspended in 1989, before Goldstone became an appellate judge. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources reported Goldstone did some controversial things. The article should reflect that. It should also reflect the context and other pertinent information. Currently the article reads like a fluff piece. The lead didn't even include the fact he was a judge under Apartheid until I added that a few days ago. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Let's just review the situation for a moment, shall we? Goldstone has had a long and extremely distinguished career. If you review the sources in detail, it's soon apparent that he had a stellar reputation in South Africa. He was supported and trusted by both sides. Nelson Mandela himself hand-picked Goldstone to sit on the Constitional Court. There is simply no significant controversy and a huge amount of praise in the sources about his role.
As against that, we have a piece published 11 days ago in an Israeli newspaper that makes lurid claims about his past, which contemporary sources and his peers in South Africa do not support, and quotes from fringe figures on the American right that compare him to Josef Mengele and Nazi war criminals - grossly over-the-top and insulting, particularly considering that he's Jewish. You apparently believe that this material is more important than everything that's previously been published about Goldstone. On the contrary, it's classic red flag material - "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons." The "Goldstone as Nazi war criminal" line is an extreme fringe view far removed from the established view of his career.
As I've said before, the fact that something appears in reliable sources does not mean that we should include it or give it more weight than it deserves. BLP isn't just about reliable sources - it's an intersection of multiple policies and a conservative approach to biographical material.-- ChrisO (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Copy and paste from original discussion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm not following you here. You are saying that the fact, reported by a reliable source, that he sentenced a 13 year old Black kid to jail because he was disrupting school in an anti-Apartheid protest should not go in the article because...? What exactly is your policy based argument here? How would presenting this to the reader be a violation of BLP? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Who cares about that? This person has probably made 1,000s of rulings. Why is this one notable? Because somebody with an agenda said so? How widely has that been covered by reliable sources? I have zippo knowledge about this guy and give less of a dam about him. What does concern me is what are editors agenda's for introducing any contensious/agenda driven material into a BLP. Having seen ChrisO works before, it seems that he to really doesn't care about "sides", but is more interested in complying with Wikipedia's policies and trying to deal with BLPs "fairly". Anyways...--Tom (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I also support User:CrisO's comments. I don't know about this person but the selective use of controversial issues giving it undue weight in the life story of a BLP subject is something I also strongly object to. Off2riorob (talk) 18:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
It is notable because he is a prominent human rights activist. Human rights activists usually don't tend to put people to death if they can help it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid that's completely inaccurate. Goldstone was a judge who supported human rights, not a human rights activist. To become a judge, he had to swear an oath to uphold the law as it stood. South African law at the time gave judges no discretion to avoid imposing the death penalty in certain cases (in this instance, murders with no mitigating factors). I've certainly found no contemporary evidence to suggest that Goldstone's sentencing record was any different from that of any other liberal South African judge. If anything, as the words "liberal judge" might suggest to you, he seems to have had a far better record than the judges who were supportive of apartheid. This whole business of his sentencing record wasn't even an issue until an Israeli tabloid raised it just 11 days ago. It's a textbook example of recentism and undue weight. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
He is now a human rights activist. He was a board member of HRW. How many HRW board members sentenced people to death? Your explanation about the oath he took, while very interesting, is not a reason to keep notable information out of the article.
He obviously was not a human rights activist in the 1980s. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure how exactly a couple of sentences about this are UNDUE or how something that happened in the 1980s is RECENT. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

could you present these two sentences here for discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Steve Jones (musician)

Steve Jones (musician) is getting hit by a lot of vandals. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Barack Obama, proposed controversies

Could we get some eyes at this page? A recent closed section, Citizenship conspiracy theories, is being accused of a BLP violation for providing some dirty laundry on Barack Obama; namely that he opposed bills to stop children who survived abortions from being left to die (including the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act passed in 2002), that he disqualified all 4 candidates in his first election via petition rule technicalities using a team of lawyers, and that he struck a deal with Illinois Senate leader Emil Jones to get himself appointed head of legislation worked on by other senators to raise his political profile.

The problem is, those three controversies alone were sourced with 19 Wikipedia pages already mentioning the controversies, and 33 independent sources from major media organizations like CNN, the New York Times, Time Magazine, the Chicago Tribune, FOX News, the Boston Globe, FactCheck.org, PolitiFact, National Review, MSNBC, ABC News, the Washington Post, the Chicago Sun-Times, and the New York Sun. Additionally, 2 Illinois Senate transcript pages were included showing Obama's words verbatim concerning the 1st controversy.

Therefore, I am concerned that this is unfairly being labeled a BLP violation. It's not a BLP violation if there is overwhelming proof that this has been addressed in the media, right? After all, they don't need to be portrayed as accurate, it would be enough simply to point out these have indeed been major issues in the media, and what was reported on. Right now, the discussion is on whether these can even be mentioned on the page at all, and despite overwhelming sourcing showing these to be major issues, there is also adamant opposition from a select group of editors who have been frequently involved in past disciplinary action on the page. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Whether the discredited "birther" and other stuff about Obama as a BLP violation (as some people would term poorly sourced / unduly weighted / POV / fringe stuff about major political figures), or simply material rejected by consensus on any of a number of other content policy grounds (as I would put it), or simply material that the community has decided through editing process not to include, is a moot point. There is no consensus to add any of this stuff. Further, the editor bringing this seems to be having some major problems with civility, attacks, forum shopping, edit warring, tendentiousness, etc., and appears to be on a flame-out at this point. I've given what should be understood as a final warning on the topic. A serious discussion of this here would be redundant, and frankly, a waste of time. If anyone believes this is a legitimate, sincere editor who may be able to adopt a constructive approach, I strongly suggest they act quickly - if this continues, given that they are renewing the behavior for which they were recently topic-banned for a month, it's probably headed in the direction of a longer term or indefinite separation here. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
'Birther'? Isn't that typically used to refer to the suggestion Obama was not a U.S. citizen? Your use of the term seems disingenuous at best. I would invite anyone to examine the page themselves to see whether the material in question was 'poorly sourced' (YEAH RIGHT) and thus unduly weighted/fringe stuff, as Wikidemon would like to label this. I would even post the sources here to disprove this erroneous lie, except I can assure you Wikidemon would have it closed. I have a problem with thread closings of potentially valuable contribution to the article when it is well-sourced; and this admin, Wikidemon, allowing insults and attacks against conservatives to go unstopped, while using any little excuse (like using bolded red font formatting) to close threads. He would like to portray this as a recent topic ban. The incident in question occurred in December. All of his points are through and through misportrayals of what's actually going on here, and his own problematic actions, and in some cases inaction, as an admin. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
This highlights the problem with really enforcing NPOV: even if something is reported in RS, folks who don't like it can manufacture a consensus to reject it. Does NPOV trump consensus? UNDUE, as I read it, and YESPOV, demand that unpopular views be included. FRINGE is inappropriately cited in some cases to suppress minority opinions and beliefs as if they were scientific assertions about reality. Is it any surprise that those who want to see "fair and balanced" representation of what RS'es say can become frustrated? Jclemens (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
All I would like is for the material to be examined by the merits of its sourcing, rather than an alleged consensus that seeks to silence all who get in its way. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to escalate this to AN/I at this point. Could someone please close this as vexatious and unlikely to lead to any constructive resolution? If there's any hope for the above editor, it isn't by continuing a discussion like this here. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

American Airlines Flight 614

Resolved
 – poorly cited content removed-speedy deleted at AFD

I redirected and protected this article, since it seems to have numerous blp allegations sourced to blogs. I have also voted "delete" on its pending AfD, but I feel that this being a BLP violation, it should be removed immediately. Any admin is welcome to review and possibly reverse my actions. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

AFD is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Airlines_Flight_614 seems to be an issue with format as the template has not appeared on the article, if someone know how to add one belatedly that would be appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah I see, Crum has deleted and redirected the title to the main American airlines article, here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Airlines_Flight_614&diff=362892774&oldid=362889341 is the content pre deletion, it seems strange and unnecessary to AFD something you have blanked on BLP claims, speedy would have been cleaner, now there is an AFD about removed content? Off2riorob (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I should have protected the redirect originally, but assumed it would just go away. I was then directed to the AfD, where I voted delete, then realized that per BLP the article should be stubbed or redirected. I did this, and this time protected the redirect. Crum375 (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, yes your actions are all totally within policy, it just took me some time to work it out and then I see it is all explained an the AFD. I was tempted to snow close and speedy the redirect any objections? Off2riorob (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I certainly won't object, go ahead. Crum375 (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I cleaned up this leftover... MastCell Talk 23:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Good catch! I have deleted the redirect from the flight number, mostly to get rid of the previous revisions. A new redirect can be created in future if so decided. Crum375 (talk) 23:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
While I agree that the article (looking at its Google cache) is stupid and should have been deleted, I see absolutely no reason why it needs to have been revision deleted. It alleged unbecoming behavior on the part of one flight attendant, who was not uniquely identified (i.e., full name not given) Let's be a bit more sensible here, please: NOTHING in what I see in the Google cache demands pseudo-oversighting. Jclemens (talk) 06:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard Blumenthal

Richard Blumenthal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a U.S. politician in upcoming elections. It appears the subject has one or two problems, but surely headings like "Lied That He Did Not Accept PAC Money" are not compatible with WP:BLP? If someone would care to make an edit with a summary referencing BLP I will try to join in, but I suspect that articles like this should either be left to the two warring camps, or protected. Johnuniq (talk) 23:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Sant Singh Chatwal

Further to Ticket:2010051310049011, can someone take a power hose to this article? Looks like someone who doesn't like him very much has stuffed it full of scandal. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Cleaned. I don't see anything good ever coming from the Biography myself, it was an awful POV attack piece, personally I support deletion.Off2riorob (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

A couple of IP 74.210.40.55 and and 74.210.48.142 added all the attack content, one editor same location different IP addresses, same POV. Off2riorob (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

More