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

Resolved

 – AfD has been initiated. Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 17:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

.

This article centers on a young woman who announced on the Howard Stern Show that she was going to auction off her virginity. The announcement was nearly two years ago and the 'event' apparently never occurred. Although there was much mention in the press which would qualify Dylan for general notability, is this not a case of WP:BLP1E? It also occurs to me that the article can only accomplish one of two things 1) give unnecessary promotion to an otherwise non-notable individual or 2) cause eventual embarassment to the subject. Thoughts? --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 18:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I think it should be nominated for deletion as per WP:BLP1E via WP:PROD or WP:AFD. -shirulashem^(talk) 18:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It might be a BLP1E case, the coverage though goes over a long enough period it isn't clear cut. I'd suggest putting it up for AfD with a BLP1E argument and seeing what happens. Hobit (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this recommendation. It's worth noting that the "Official Myspace Page" of this publicity stunt has been "set to private" which suggests that the stunt is long since over. Most of the references are tabloids of dubious value in the first place, which gives rise to questions as to whether the whole thing was ever authentic in the first place.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I followed this story for awhile and was pretty convinced that it not likely authentic. The backstory changed over time if you traced it. I do wonder what happened to her, though, I suspect a book deal was the ultimate goal.--Milowent (talk) 04:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The entry reads like an advertisement. The historical relevance of the person in question is debatable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.201.179.61 (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that the page was created by User:Ed Byrne Jazz and then moved to the current location by someone else. On the other hand, the page itself, taken at face value, suggests there is no problem here and there is sufficient notability. Just to be sure this isn't a hoax page (I have no expertise in the area) I will do some more googling now to learn more. But I think initially that this is probably fine.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's any real issue over notability, but it's a copyvio of Byrne's allaboutjazz.com entry (compilation of bio and discography pages.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I tend to agree with you. I added some possibly useful links on the talk page. He's clearly at least arguably notable (I think, but I don't have enough knowledge to judge), although actual information is fairly thin on the web.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks a bit fluffy, wrote a couple and played on some records, a jass teacher with books and such, gives lessons etc. I can't imo see much that asserts a deal of notability as a jazz musician or independent reporting in reliable citations. Off2riorob (talk) 22:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleted as copyvio. Other editors, please feel free to create a new and different page, based on independent reliable secondary sources. Thank you! ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 00:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

William Rhodes Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is not a BLP, but contains claims that strike me as original research to reach a possibly controversial conclusion about Gray Davis (who is living). I can't find a reliable source that makes the claim outright. Could someone with some experience in the area take a look? Gonzonoir (talk) 08:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the content pertaining to Gray Davis that I think violates WP:OR; would still appreciate others' input. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yea, well done. Looks like good work to me, if the user wants to replace it with a stronger citation they can. Off2riorob (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Any problem with presenting the facts this way....William Rhodes Davis's son, Joseph Graham Davis, married Doris Jane Meyer, daughter of George H. Meyer, in November, 1941. According to a San Diego Union Tribune published obituary on October 8, 2006, former California Gov. Gray Davis was her, and Joseph G. Davis's son? ruidoso —Preceding undated comment added 15:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC).

The new content is all cited, and I am reluctant to edit war over it as I don't see any reason to doubt the veracity of the sources. I'm still concerned, though, that without a citation to a single source that makes the connection between Rhodes Davis and Gray Davis, that fact itself may not meet notability standards (i.e. is not covered substantially in reliable sources). I don't know, though, whether the notability standard should be used on specific content within an article, rather than to determine the inclusion threshold for the article in general. If anyone else wants to chip in on this it would be useful. Gonzonoir (talk) 07:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

At Talk:Princess Noor Hamzah#Requested move to Princess Noor bint Asem, an article move was requested due to her supposed divorce. This divorce is all over royal-watching forums and websites, but verifying the divorce using reliable sources has eluded me. If it's true, the Jordanian authorities are probably not keen to shout about it, and the Jordanian press show a remarkable reserve compared to their Western counterparts. Comments welcome on whether we should move the title anyway (as it is her maiden name), and what to do about the 'common knowledge' of the divorce, which also affects Prince Hamzah bin Al Hussein. Fences&Windows 12:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about royalty or about Jordanian customs of naming with respect to marriage. However, not every woman goes back to her birth name, assuming she has changed it, when she divorces. Some may do so quickly, but others go on for years with the divorced husband's surname, especially if they have dependent children. I wouldn't assume a change unless it were to be officially announced. Bielle (talk) 02:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This is what I thought too. We can't bend rules on sourcing for BLPs just because the Jordan Royal family and media is keeping this close to their chest. We just have to be patient and wait for sources (for surely, if it is true, they will eventually appear). Fences&Windows 16:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

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

I have just removed an entire criticism section from this BLP, it has sourcewatch and exxonsecrets used as refs, could someone take a look please to assure me i have done the right thing mark nutley (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I have only had a first look - Exon Secrets is not reliable is it? Have you had discussions about the site and sourcewatch at at the RSN? Some of the content looks not to be perhaps in need of a rewrite. IMO total removal is a bit excessive for a first step. You could try moving it to the talkpage for discussion or just removing the unreliable citations and the worst of any negative attack type content, I notice there has been nothing on the talkpage for amost two years, but opening a tread there about the issue will allow any interested parties to comment. Off2riorob (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well exxonsecrets is an adcovacy site and there is no way that can be used in a blp, sourcewatch is an open wiki so that can`t be a reliable source either, i`ll move the lot to the talk page as you suggest and see what others have to say mark nutley (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool, always good to open discussion threads and to get feedback. Off2riorob (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Not defending what was removed, but there's now little more than stuff referenced to primary sources, non-notable websites and Caruba's letters to the editor. The two block quotes in Alan Caruba#Views are especially overkill, given the sourcing. I suggest removing the soapboxing and scary quotes might provide a more realistic article length than what's been batted around and battled over the past couple of years. Flowanda | Talk 02:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Off2riorob (talk) 03:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

A complaint has been made by an employee of the New Zealand parliament about use of images of signatures of MPs. The thread at the policy Village Pump is Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 111#Signatures. Please comment there. Fences&Windows 16:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

True/Slant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am involved in a dispute with User:Epeefleche about this article, which has been proposed for promotion to the main page via WP:DYK. The dispute involves the final paragraph of the article, about two individuals recently charged (though not yet convicted) of seeking to engage in terrorist activities.

The paragraph in question quotes a source describing the two as "America's dumbest Jihadis" and mocking a misspelled sign apparently made by one of them. The inclusion of two mugshots draws further attention to the paragraph. I have argued that the presentation of this material violates BLP, while Epeefleche, the author of the article, asserts that it does not.

BLP states that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not our job to be sensationalist ... and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgement. It also states that BLP-related content should be presented "responsibly" and in a "broadly neutral" manner. I believe the paragraph in dispute fails these guidelines as it frames these individuals in a prejudicial manner, using mocking headlines and quotes pulled from a tabloid journal. Moreover, this dubious content is superfluous to the topic of the article, which is about the journal, not the detainees. I think the use of the mugshots in this context is also problematic, per the "images" section of BLP. One user has described the overall presentation as "a classic smear".[1]

Given that this article is proposed for exposure on the main page via DYK, I feel it is important to get it right. However, Since Epeefleche and I have been unable to resolve the dispute, I have agreed to have the matter adjudicated by uninvolved third parties at this page. Gatoclass (talk) 09:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like simple anti jihadist coatracking to me, the type of which includes all the BLP issues you mention which would have included a main page link to the mugshots of two people as yet not found guilty of the charges. Off2riorob (talk) 10:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• For added detail, DYK discussion is here. Off2riorob (talk) 09:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
• More added detail - the DYK has been disapproved. Off2riorob (talk) 10:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason to be concerned about our use of mug shots of people who haven’t been convicted. The only reason we have mug shots is there are no other free-use images of these two that I am aware of. Those mug shots came from the U.S. Marshall’s office and are therefore free-use. We have plenty of images of accused terrorists, including Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki. The U.S. is busy trying to drop bombs on them and they haven’t been tried and convicted in a court of anything. If someone knows of more flattering pictures (and less grainy ones) of these two alleged terrorists that are free-use, please advise. At least they are arguably clearer than that horrible picture we’re using of bin Laden. I see no reason to poo-poo photographs that illustrate the subject in question for a reason that essentially boils down to the fact that the Marshall’s service caught them in less-than-flattering poses; we work with what we have at our disposal. I try to add plenty of illustrations to my articles; they greatly improve Wikipedia and make it a more professional product. Moreover, reliable secondary sources have frequently been using these very images when they write of this story, so we are not going out on a limb here by any stretch of the imagination when we do the same in an encyclopedia. Greg L (talk) 01:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Greg, the debate about this is over. We've had four users object to this content now, articles need a strong consensus to pass at DYK. In regards to your comments about the image, nobody is objecting to the use of these images in the article about the detainees themselves, but their use in this article is unnecessary. And of course the objections were not just about the images, but the text as well. Gatoclass (talk) 07:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

To add my 2 cents, there is nothing objectionable about the content. It simply fails to fail BLP. IronDuke 19:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Agree w/Greg and Iron. (Gato has, btw, also failed to count correctly in a past discussion of this issue. There, he argued that one sentence was not in fact one sentence.)

Gato--in his long discourse above--somehow fails to mention what the hook that is at issue says. The hook, which I am seeking to have promoted at DYK, is as follows: "... that Lisa Todorovich wrote in True/Slant that if Warren Beatty's claims to have slept with 13,000 women is true, he would have had to have slept with one woman every 1.17 days from age 14 to age 55?"

Gato sought to have the hook disapproved on BLP grounds. He failed to receive consensus support. A third-party-editor approved the hook. Gato reverted the editor!

Another editor offered as an alternative hook: "... that contributing writers to True/Slant are partly compensated according to how many times their articles are viewed?" Gato said that he does not have a problem at all with the hook(s). Which he views as "fine". But still objected to the hook being promoted. Then another editor (who has given Gato an award in the past, and since appeared at discussions defending Gato) came in and without consensus disapproved the hook per Gato having a BLP issue.

The issue is whether, where there is a completely non-objectionable hook, and the underlying article contains a reference inter alia to a spelling error, there is a BLP issue of such magnitude that the hook (not the article, but the hook) cannot be promoted at DYK.

Gato argues that that is the case. He tried to AfD an article with the spelling error reference. Pointing to what he called a "clear BLP issue". Apparently, it was only clear to Gato. He failed utterly to gain the faintest hint of support for his peculiar view of there being a BLP issue. The AfD closed "Keep".

Undaunted, he then appeared as part of a distinct minority of those who have this peculiar view. His view is not only wrong. It is a completely non-consensus view. As here, yet again. As to Off2 -- hi -- I haven't seen you since I just criticized you for what you did in defending a 6-time blocked mate of yours from an even longer block this past week. Fancy meeting you here.

As to the DYK being disapproved, it was. Under highly curious circumstances. After another editor had approved the hook (only to be reverted by Gato, a highly involved sysop)! By an editor (against consensus) who had himself put up successfully for DYK a hook where the underlying article spoke of a man being investigated for vaginally penetrating a 23-month-old. That, apparently, is fine. A spelling error mentioned in the underlying article ... not so much.

Let's take a look at "the DYK standard". One that is referred to, without a quote or diff ever being supplied, mind you. Let's see how it is applied. Not only does the "disapproving editor" himself boast among his few DYKs a hook where the underlying article speaks of investigations of a living person for vaginal penetration of a 23-month-year-old. But the DYK standard allows for hooks describing people as 10 most wanted fugitives and as be-headers (with pictures to boot). And these hooks (no BLP issues in any of those, apparently) are among those we boast about as having the most hits.

Furthermore, the "disapproving editor" was hopelessly confused. Inasmuch as he erroneously wrote "you're putting the problematic bit right in the hook". Which was, of course, flatly untrue. When the error was pointed out to him, he had absolutely no response. But stuck to his support of Gato, ne'ertheless.

The non-even-handed activity here, in which a couple of editors seek to force their non-consensus POV onto the community, is IMHO reprehensible.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

What happened to the default edit page notice for BLPs? Used to be there, now it is not? -- Cirt (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It's working fine for me. Try bypassing your cache? --MZMcBride (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Eckhart Tolle has created a series of free videos which are available for viewing on his official web site Eckart Tolle TV [2]. A link to this web site is already included in the External Link section of the Tolle article. At present these 13 (and counting) videos are also individually listed in the article, in the section titled Publications. [3] Is it appropriate to list self published videos in this BLP? Thanks for you input.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

At first glance, this looks to me as more of a regular content dispute than a WP:BLP issue. Since the article recently underwent a GA review, perhaps the reviewer would have an opinion? decltype (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

A single link would be plenty, more than that is promotional. Trimmed. Off2riorob (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I've invited the GA reviewer via his User Page to come here and comment.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed the article for GA, and I think a single link is fine. I'm not sure why it would be "promotional" to list multiple self published videos (he's a notable individual), but it creates unnecessary clutter in the article. They are technically publications, but we should avoid listing them all for the same reason that we don't list the names of every essay in a published book. Claritas § 14:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Scott Greenstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scott_Greenstein&action=historysubmit&diff=372422262&oldid=345781175 // SwedMusicFanz (talk) 17:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Watched, BLP is a bit promotional and with only a single primary citation, needs improvement. Off2riorob (talk) 10:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

As some may know, the accused spy Anna Chapman has received a great amount of attention unrelated to the spying allegations. The article currently (permanent link) has a brief section containing some rather detailed claims about her sex life. While extensively covered in tabloid sources I question whether covering these allegations are necessary for someone who's primary reason for notability is spying (even more so since she appears to have claimed they are lies) Nil Einne (talk) 03:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I've chopped out the entire section related to her sex life - we're not a tabloid and BLPs should always be written conservatively. Exxolon (talk) 10:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, good edit, pure tabloid titillation. Off2riorob (talk) 10:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

As I've noted on the talk page, I think this bio is a case of BLP1E and should be merged into the general article. I recognise that the chances of editors agreeing to this merge after pictures of this attractive woman have been plastered all over the media are rather slim. Fences&Windows 20:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I was doing some WikiGnome work on our article on Patrick Michaels when I happened to notice some controversial information that was poorly sourced. AFAIK, we're not supposed to be citing blogs or opinion pieces for contentious material about living persons unless written or published by the subject. So, in this edit,[4] I removed material that was sourced to a blog. In this edit,[5][6] I removed material that was sourced to an op-ed. Can someone please review my edits to make sure that I am correctly follow policy?

Also, I'm concerned with the paragraph that says, "Climate scientist Tom Wigley,[14] a lead author of parts of the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has stated that "Michaels' statements on the subject of computer models are a catalog of misrepresentation and misinterpretation … Many of the supposedly factual statements made in Michaels' testimony are either inaccurate or are seriously misleading."[15]" The first cite is broken. I found an archived copy of the source here.[7] It appears to be a press release. The second source is a book which I don't have access to. I wasn't sure what to do, so I left it in. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

(note I think the 2nd diff was meant to be [8]?) Both of the deletions seem ok on the grounds given (being op-eds, so not meeting blp). Re "Climate scientist..." I'd guess the American Geophysical Union is good enough, and while the book's author's opinion would need to be attributed (at the very least) given that he's only relaying Wigley's comment that seems ok. Misarxist (talk) 09:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Misarxist: Yes, that second diff was supposed to be [9]. I fixed it above. Thanks for looking at my edits. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please take a look at this? Another editor has resorted the contentious BLP material.[10] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Folks, the above does not state our policy on BLPs and blogs correctly. It actually says " Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." So what exactly is the problem here? Dougweller (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I also don't see a big issue here, attribute and move on. Off2riorob (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed this. The second column[11] is doubly problematic, as the author is basically describing a conspiracy (against Michaels and others), that in and by itself should discount it as BLP material - but there is an additional factor.... All of these accusations have been examined by official inquiries, and been found to be without basis in reality (see Climate Research University e-mail hacking incident). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that the second column is inappropriate; however, Monbiot piece seems just fine and relevant. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It's the only one I looked at, and it seems ok to me, none of the comments above seem a good reason to remove it. Dougweller (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

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

The article is full of errors and has over-inflated and exaggerated figures about Hisham Mackie's history and income. This is due to someone who has mal-intent against this person. This biography should be removed at once. Diamond exports and other data should be cited appropriately, which is available publicly through the Sierra Leone Mines Authority, the World Trade Organisation, the Sierra Leone Kimberely Process Committee, amongst other official sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.251.154.30 (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is proposed for deletion. I support that. The one source Global Policy Forum seems to be trustworthy enough but just mentions him in passing.Wolfview (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The biography describes two completely different James Ryan's -- one is an actor from South Africa now in Australia, and the other is a actor, screenwriter, and Rutgers University professor in New York. While it's a fact that the Internet Movie Database entry also confuses the two, the individual arranging the Wiki entry has actually elaborated on it ("...he returned to South Africa"), and deleted statements explaing otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roz666 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Episkopon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Living persons are named as alumni of a controversial secret society (Episkopon), but there is no citation or source for this. I think this is dangerous. I have tried to apply some tags to this article, to indicate where it needs fixing, but I am not sufficiently experienced to deal with this all myself. It's a very contentious and important topic, but the article has some serious flaws. Could someone please take an interest and help out with this? It would be so very appreciated. Thank you.

By the way, the secret society was recently implicated in the press for nearly killing a student during a hazing ritual.

As well, several of the living persons named as alumni are very prominent individuals:

Bill Graham (...a former Canadian politician. In 2006, he was Canada's Leader of the Opposition as well as the interim leader of the Liberal Party of Canada between the resignation of Paul Martin and the election of Stéphane Dion as his successor. Graham was variously Minister of National Defence and Minister of Foreign Affairs in the cabinets of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin... Graham serves as chancellor of Trinity College at the University of Toronto; chair of the Atlantic Council of Canada; and co-vice chair of the Canadian International Council. He is a director of the Empire Club of Canada and a member of the Trilateral Commission.)

Adrienne Clarkson (...is a Canadian journalist and stateswoman who served as Governor General of Canada, the 26th since that country's confederation. She was appointed as such by Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, on the recommendation of then Prime Minister of Canada Jean Chrétien...)

It appears that there is quite a bit of unsourced info and material needing referencing improvements in this article. -- Cirt (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to add unsourced information to articles on BLPs ?

I had recently removed completely unsourced information from some articles on BLPs. A few of these edits were reverted - by SQGibbon (talk · contribs). See for example, [12] and [13]. I do not think it is appropriate, once removed, for another user to add back completely unsourced material to a page on a WP:BLP. Thoughts? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it depends on the information. For negative information (or information plausibly considered negative by the subject of a BLP), it is clearly inappropriate. For neutral or positive information, I think it can be a judgment call but it is much much much better to provide a source - or at least at a bare minimum some indication that a check has been performed. Here the reason is not BLP, per se, but quality and respect for the person who remove it (who likely had some good reason, particularly if a longtime contributor in good standing).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not think it is okay to have completely unsourced information on WP:BLP articles, even if that unsourced information is deemed to be "positive" or "neutral" ... -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I checked in imdb (took only a few seconds) and confirmed the information for Michael D. Roberts, and added it back. I'm not 100% sure of how good imdb is regarding for general sourcing but for a basic filmography it seems fine, no?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. As I know, IMBD is considered reliable for basic filmography and similar but not reliable for any biographical content. Off2riorob (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Um, did you check everything in all the material you added back??? Or just that one sentence? Does IMDB verify he is "known" for that role? Or just confirm the role itself? You should not have added back this poorly sourced info to a BLP. It is one thing to use IMDB for a table filmography. It is quite another for main-body-paragraph-text. Please remove it. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I have just done the same for Marissa Ribisi. If you have a problem with the wording "known" for Mr. Robertson then I would recommend changing it? For Marissa, I did check all the information in the thing, including that she has both an acting and writing credit for one movie, and that another movie was her first major role. (Her earlier credits were guest appearances on television programs.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Please remove the poorly sourced info you added to two BLP articles, until you can find a better source than the one you used, especially for the commentary and assertions that are not backed up by that source. Please remove that info. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I have gone through Michael D. Roberts to carefully address each concern that you had. In some cases, I toned down the language. In other cases, I simply removed the fact tag. As an example of the latter, I do not think it is necessary for us to have a source for the fact that Rain Man was a hit film. We link directly to the article on the film which notes that it won 4 Oscars and was the highest-grossing film of 1988. I am beginning to be concerned that this is not about these two biographies but that you are trying to make some broader philosophical point? Why don't we discuss that directly instead of you doing strange things here to these routine biographies?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I am confused, it seems to be that Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) is attempting to put forth the notion that it would be perfectly acceptable to have an entire WP:BLP article on Wikipedia be sourced only to IMDB as a source, even in the main-body-text-paragraph portion of the article. -- Cirt (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I neither said, nor implied, nor believe, anything of the sort. What I did imply, and stand by, is that it is incredibly pointy of you to ask for a source for the fact that Rain Man was a hit film. Neither of these biographies are great - however neither are they awful, and IMDB is a perfectly good source for the basic data mentioned - even in the main-body-text-paragraph.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

IMDB is not a good source for commentary about roles in films/television. Other Wikipedia articles linked to, does not satisfy WP:RS or WP:V. Even for Rain Man. -- Cirt (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, this has been brought up before. While it may seem ok to keep unsourced neutral or positive information in a BLP, upon further thought there is a problem with doing so. Information that seems positive or neutral could still cause real-life harm to the BLP subject, because if it is false it might contradict with how the person has represented him or herself to others and could make them look like a liar or dishonest. I agree that IMDB can be used for some basic filmography information for the subject. Cla68 (talk) 01:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree with any of that. Please go review the edit histories of the biographies in question. I have not argued for anything remotely close to a blanket ok on unsourced information of any kind. But there are cases where it is clearly a judgment call. As an example, Cirt challenged with a fact-tag that Rainman was a hit film. I removed that fact tag and did not supply a source - though if someone wants to source that, I have no objections, neither is it necessary to do so. We link to Rain Man and it - fully sourced - establishes that fact without difficulty.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree here with Cla68 (talk · contribs). It is wrong to keep in unsourced material in a BLP article, simply because a particular editor deems it their personal opinion that said info is "neutral" or "positive" in nature. -- Cirt (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No, Jimbo Wales, linking to another Wikipedia article, is not sufficient sourcing. -- Cirt (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me ask you point blank, then. You are claiming that when we mention that a certain actor was in Rain Man (with a source which proves that fact) we can't say, for reader context, that Rain Man was a hit film, without finding a source for that particular claim? That this obviously true statement, positive about the subject of the article, should be removed? That linking to our article on Rain Man is not sufficient? I am asking about this particular case, not all cases imaginable.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do not think linking to another Wikipedia article is sufficient sourcing. I am quite surprised that you do. -- Cirt (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It isn't "sourcing" at all. It's completely valid.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent addendum): Policy backs me up 100% here: "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not complying with this may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article."

That Rain Man was a hit film is not challenged nor likley to be challenged. Neither is it in any way "contentious". Insisting that every fact in a BLP be sourced is absolutely without precedent in policy. I say this as perhaps one of the strongest advocates of quality sourcing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It is completely inappropriate to have wholly unsourced information on WP:BLP articles, especially for the reasons outlined above by Cla68 (talk · contribs). Insuring information is cited to WP:RS secondary sources, helps to easily avoid those problems. -- Cirt (talk) 01:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, then, I am very glad that insuring information is cited to WP:RS is precisely what I was doing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In the case of referring to Rain Man as a hit film, it's best to reword that phrasing as "hit" could mean a variety of things. It doesn't indicate if it was a hit with critics, awards organizations, box office, viewers, etc. We'd be better off specifically stating why it was a hit. In addition, unless his role was really related to the negativity/success of a film, we likely don't need to mention anything except for the plain "he played the role of Vern in Rain Man". If he was one of the main roles (or a minor notable one) such as Tom Cruise or Dustin Hoffman, further explanation could be more helpful for the reader on the impact of the film. Concerning IMDB, we should not be using it for citing materials as it is an unreliable source (outside of the news postings they provide, but even then, that is usually also available elsewhere). Information on IMDB is user-submitted and although it can be accurate, it is usually best to use it as a starting point for finding details to lead to more reliable sources. Linking to it in the external links should be sufficient for his roles in the filmography section, but not for citing biographical details. The film itself should be sufficient for mentioning the credits, but if additional citations are needed, something like this could work. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with everything said in this comment by User:Nehrams2020, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 02:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see Cirt's deletion on the Jason Lee article here. I assumed good faith and asked nicely several times for Cirt to point out the claims that he/she were challenging or thought likely to be challenged as per the very specific wording of WP:BLP "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." or in violation of any other section of BLP. The conversation went nowhere as you can read here. My feeling is that the problems Cirt is pointing out are non-BLP content issues that would be better handled via tagging ("citation needed"), brought up on the talk pages, rewritten, or some other less bold action as there seems to be some babies being thrown out with bathwater. SQGibbon (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

After reading through this thread, I must ask, is this really the place for this discussion? Isn't this notice board for incidents that need immediate attention? In that spirit though, I agree with Jimbo, that not everything in a BLP needs a source. Only information that is likely to be challenged absolutly needs a citation. Yet, citations are better than no citations.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced info should not exist on BLP articles. It would be much easier to move it to the talk page, and work on it there. There is simply no reason to be hasty about reverting and adding unsourced or poorly sourced info back onto a BLP page, instead of working on it on a subpage or the article's talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 02:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd thought I was as much a BLP hawk as anyone, but I'm certainly being outdone here. I'm in close agreement with Mr Wales on this matter, although I probably draw slightly finer lines. There are several principles that I think should be kept in mind. First, current BLP is a relatively recent addition to Wikipedia policy, and was not intended to require the wholesale deletion of content with significant encyclopedic value which does not meet its more stringent sourcing standards and does not raise issues under substantive content policies; instead, it envisions a steady process of improved sourcing. Second, not every aspect of every assertion must be pinpoint-sourced every time it appears; for example, if an article on a writer asserts that "a major influence on his work is Thomas Pynchon's novel Gravity's Rainbow," but in the reference the writer simply cites the title, expecting his audience to know that GR is both a novel and written by Pynchon, that's OK. It's often useful to make explicit what a source leaves implicit; so long as the implicit claims are well-sourced in a more germane linked article, there's no basis for treating them as potentially contentious. If every mention of "President Obama" or "Queen Elizabeth II" or similar figures required a direct citation to a source establishing the legitimacy of the title, we would soon drain the global supply of footnotes dry. Writing a useful encyclopedia requires both sound mechanical rules and the exercise of sound judgment; this is an area where the latter is more important. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree, anything is not likely to be challenged, shouldn't need a citation. The articles would be overwhelmed and monotonous with citations.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

IMDB is fine for basic filmography. That Rain Man was a hit film does not need a citation, whether the actor is a Scientologist or not. --JN466 14:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Are all of the actors under discussion Scientologists? Just curious... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The three raised above are, yes. - Bilby (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If you look through Cirt's contribution history from July 3rd and look for the edit summaries with the phrase "removed unsourced information, from a BLP article page", you'll see that Cirt took this approach with over 40 other people associated with Scientology. SQGibbon (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was removing unsourced info from WP:BLPs listed at the page List of Scientologists. Those pages are on a controversial topic, and often contentious as well, so removal of completely unsourced information from them, is the best way to go here. -- Cirt (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you have been a bit off-course here, Cirt. Take [14]. Sourcing it would have been so easy for someone with your abilities. As it is, you removed useful content. --JN466 16:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Especially on controversial topics, best for unsourced info on WP:BLPs to be moved to the talk page, and sourcing efforts to take place there. But noted, and in the future, I will not just remove blatantly unsourced info, but also make a note of it and place the material in question, on the article's talk page. :) Cheers. -- Cirt (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I hope you aren't serious, it won't be appropriate for the talk page either in some, perhaps most, cases. Dougweller (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Dougweller, I would tend to agree with you that unsourced info should not remain on article-space pages in most cases - unfortunately apparently others here have a more cavalier attitude towards unsourced info remaining on BLP pages. -- Cirt (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand how unproved and negative information can be posted on your webpage. Teh article about Rahul Gandhi is very negative. Do you have such articles on Obama, or Blair or Prince Harry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.77.0.223 (talk) 09:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The answer to your question is yes, we have criticism in articles on people such as Obama and Blair. There's no problem with that, see WP:NPOV. If you have any specific complaints about unsourced material in Rahul Gandhi then they can be examined, but I see 50 references at the moment so the article as a whole is sourced. Dougweller (talk) 10:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that specific complaints would help. To compare the quality/oversight of this bio to the Obama article is pretty silly, imho. Also, have you tried using the article's talk page? The bio does seem to have alot of "controversial" stuff, but maybe this guy has done alot of controversial stuff? There seems to be alot of praise woven into the article as well. Overall, this could probably use some improvement. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Birth date of 1967 on this bio is incorrect - probably 1957. I worked for Jalal in the jewellery biz in 1979 and he was certainly not 12 yrs old. Note also his most competitive yrs in martial arts were 1978 through 1986 - ages 21 through 29, not 11 through 19. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.81.147 (talk) 11:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Uncle G fixed it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• On the talk page of John F. Kennedy assassination (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Morrow321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to insert a lengthy tl;dr diatribe accusing a man by the name of Billie Sol Estes of orchestrating the murder along with Lyndon Johnson. Original addition, my initial reversion, subsequent addition. This is just the latest in a lengthy string of JFK-centric lunacy from this particular account, which (aside from this lovely addition to Chelsea Clinton's biography three years ago) seems to be a JFK-centric single-purpose-account. Badger Drink (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • So, I'm inclined to give this guy the boot after reviewing his contributions. In three years, he's contributed absolutely nothing to mainspace, and maligned a bunch of people in the process. Should we move this to ANI and propose a topic ban from conspiracy theories? Jclemens (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to disagree. There are many sane and rational people out there who have doubts as to the validity of the Warren Report on the JFK assassination. All this user seems to be doing is starting discussions about content. Isn't that encouraged? Why disparage someone elses opinion, just because you don't agree with it? I saw no evidence of edit warring or incivility, so for lack of any policies not being adhered to, I don't see that anything should be done at all. User is doing everything within the policies and guidelines of this site.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a CAPSLOCK INFUSED rant calling Lyndon Johnson a mass murderer and adding long tangents about Chelsea Clinton being so-and-so's lovechild is totally within policy. Do you even bother to click diff links, or are you so sure of Wiki-injustice that you feel compelled to mash "edit this page" before bothering to inform yourself? Badger Drink (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but did I wrong you in another life? I guess good faith only goes so far these days. Maybe Prince is right and its all going to go away soon.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If I directed half the stuff at you that your apparent client slings about in the direction of various politicians and politicians' offspring, you'd be trembling with such indignant rage that you'd very nearly mess up the Wikilink to WP:NPA in your no-doubt seething reply to me. That, to me, is the definition of an unproductive contributor. I'm still curious how calling LBJ a "STONE COLD KILLER" and adding completely unsourced information about Chelsea Clinton's alleged illegitmacy in article-space constitutes doing anything, let alone everything, "within policies and guidelines of this site". Badger Drink (talk) 00:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the edits made at Chelsea Clinton, then you should have brought it up 3 years ago when it mattered. Otherwise, your taunting replies have no effect on me, but your incivility and bad faith are border-line rude and will not be tolerated.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

If you can look at Morrow's contributions and still say he's a productive contributor, I don't know what to say. I guess you're the sort who still puts your hand on the red-hot stove burner just in case it's not really hot this time. Me, I'm perfectly willing to declare red-hot stovetops a Bad Thing after the second or third painful experience. My hunch, though, continues to be that you're not truly that clueless or blinded by good faith, but rather that you never really clicked any of the links I provided and instead raced to play devil's advocate and are now furiously sticking true to your guns rather than admitting your initial rush to judgement. Meanwhile, I'll be busy advocating that people not stick their hands on red-hot stovetops, much to your apparent dismay. See you in the burn ward... Badger Drink (talk) 05:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

[ BLP removed KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris ]

[gross violation of WP:BLP removed Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)]

Morrow321 (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

And as for you, Jclemons, the John Kennedy Assassination page is a fraud and a sham. It is an embarassment that Wikipedia would be carrying water for the completely discredited Warren Report ... and by extension the murderers of John Kennedy 47 years later. There are probably people walking around today who have criminal liability in the JFK assassination: George Herbert Walker Bush being just one of them. How can folks contribute to the mainpage of Wiki if it is locked down and only the discredited "lone nutters" are allowed to edit? The American people don't buy the propaganda that this page is pushing on JFK... Here is just one little nugget on GHW Bush - his response to Nixon's smoking gun transcript that references the JFK assassination (in code, Bay of Pigs): http://www.watergate.info/tapes/72-06-23_smoking-gun.shtml

GHW Bush's response was this: http://www.google.com/search?q=Timmons+asked.+%E2%80%9CHe+broke+out+in+a**holes+and+sh*t+himself+to+death%2C%E2%80%9D+was+Burch%E2%80%99s+answer%2C+confirming+that+anytime+Nixon+referred+to+%E2%80%9Cthe+Texans%2C%E2%80%9D+he+meant+George+Bush+Sr.&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=

So there I think there are MANY areas relating to the JFK assassination where Wiki can get more FACTUAL and ACCURATE. And it ain't what is on the page now. Morrow321 (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

While Jojhutton makes a good point that there are many people who can rationally and productively contribute to the dialogue on conspiracy theories, I think Morrow321 has proved my point that he's not one of those people better than I ever could. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Jclemons, you are welcome to believe anything you want to about the JFK assassination. But the problem with Wiki's entry on it is that it shows any respect for the Warren Report or the HSCA. Seriously, Wiki uses these politically motivated cover ups as "sources" for anything relating to the JFK assassination? The vast majority of Americans agree with me [they reject the Warren Report], despite the fact (or rather because of) the fact they have been lied to by killers in government, the major media and the "establishment" about the JFK assassination for 47 years. Calling Oswald as a "belligerent" on the Wiki page is a farce .. with no info on who the REAL murderers of JFK were and WHY they murdered him. Wiki needs to get up to speed to reflect the fine work that has been done by that assassination research community. Morrow321 (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Morrow321, you need to stop pushing poorly sourced conspiracy theories or you'll be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the place to try to right great wrongs: we simply reflect what is said in reliable sources. Fences&Windows 22:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. See Wikipedia:No original research and also Wikipedia:Truth for why we can't use your contributions. Tabercil (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

David Novak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Some IPs and SPAs have been attempting to turn David Novak into a book report about his books. I'm not sure if it's promotional material or where it comes from, but it's obviously copied from somewhere. (One of the versions of it they are trying to add begins with an essay on Rashi's philosophy of medicine.) --B (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

That entire BLP page appears to be blatantly unsourced. -- Cirt (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Johann Hari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There's a fairly long discussion the talk page about what seems to me to be a WP:UNDUE discussion in the article regarding criticisms by HonestReporting and CAMERA. The criticisms have been challenged by one editor on the grounds of being a self-published source, but WP:UNDUE hasn't been specifically mentioned.

My view is that this is probably, although not certainly, WP:UNDUE. The question is likely whether or not 3rd party independent sources regard this as a notable criticism. I won't be getting directly involved in editing it myself, but thought that rather I would ask for more eyes on the question.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Has there been coverage of the same material from the above-mentioned sources, in other independent reliable secondary sources? -- Cirt (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Not much. A famous blogger (blogging for The Atlantic, a perfectly fine magazine) called the criticism "smears and character assassinations" - in an opinion column. All of it seems to be opinion columns, as opposed to 3rd party reporting in a neutral or at least attempted-neutral setting. Mr. Hari seems to be the main source for it, ironically enough, having devoted a column or two to attack those who attacked him. (This is one reason why it may not be a self-published source situation, although it might not be anyway, since the two sources do apparently have some editorial oversight.)

Not much is not zero, which is why I'm unsure here. Certainly there has been no 3rd party neutral or neutral-ish news coverage of a controversy, but I wonder if that standard might be unreasonable for giving readers a good understanding of various opinion columnists and their work. Mr. Hari writes often in defense of Palestinians (with some heated rhetoric) and so of course he attracts the attention of those who defend Israel. I'd hate to say that we can't explain that reasonably well to readers, while at the same time, I think we shouldn't take one little dustup and turn it into a centerpiece in someone's life.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Nod, agreed. Seems like good practice would be a mention, yes, but due to the lacking of significant discussion from independent reliable secondary sources, not to the degree of depth currently given. -- Cirt (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Max Boisot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am having some issues with user:81.110.111.164 on the above page. Per this I deleted a reference to a relationship with Prince Philip which has been the subject of much title tattle. I did this at the request of Boisot who I know. The IP concerned has not just inserted the material, but also a "denial reference" which is in the worst tradition of gutter journalism. Boisot is a minor figure and entitled to some protection. Its made worse in the this case as the IP is playing WP:Hound after edit warring over a political template where he cannot get agreement and has failed to observe WP:AGF in his/her comments.

If I have got the policy on protection of minor figures wrong then OK, let me know and I will suggest to Boisot that he asks for the whole article to be deleted. If I have it right then can someone with the right authority levels get rid of the material?

Thanks --Snowded ^TALK 00:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• I believe that it's the case that our articles are not censored by request, and that something that the subject merely finds uncomfortable is not subject to removal. The claim is sourced (the article names the subject himself as its source), and would appear to be directly relevant in context since it forms the basis for his gaining entry to the school in question. I suggest that Snowded has a conflict of interest and his report here is an attempt to play the man rather than the ball. 81.110.111.164 (talk) 01:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Probably best to discuss this on the talk page of the article. Considering that the source is the Mirror, I'd lean towards just leaving it out. It doesn't seem very relevant.  –Joshua Scott 01:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
    • My report here is seek guidance from the community as to what is permitted and what is not. My concern is that reporting an "accusation" from a tabloid newspaper is in effect to give publicity to a minor figure which is damaging to that person. Its not a fact about the subject which the subject finds discomforting, but the unsubstantiated accusation of illegitimacy which goes with it. My belief has always been that Wikipedia has always been careful of minor living figures in this respect. I am hoping that the community can resolve this quickly. --Snowded ^TALK 01:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
      • The article didn't claim anywhere that he was illegitimate. 81.110.111.164 (talk) 04:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Disingenuous at best. The opening sentence of the Mirror article has the phrase "spent a lifetime denying that Prince Philip is his father." Its the classic tabloid sleaze, force someone to deny something so the suspicion remains that it is the truth --Snowded ^TALK 05:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
          • Continued on Talk:Max Boisot.
• My initial reaction, Snowded, is "What on Earth?". Either you or the person you are in external communication with are making a serious mistake in confusing godchildren with bastards. Either that or you are confusing what the source says with what the article itself said.

  Anyway, both the Mirror article cited and (it appears) the original source, ISBN 9781850892564, both clearly talk about Marcel Boisot as the (eventually acknowledged) father. (Page 103 says outright: "She had been deeply in love with the father, Max [this appears to be a typo, as it says Marcel elsewhere] Boisot, a French airforce officer in wartime England but he deserted her and the children, though she says they are now reconciled." My emphasis.)

  So surely we can avoid this whole issue by just having the article name Marcel as Max's father ("Max Boisot is the son of World War II French airman Marcel Boisot and cabaret star Hélène Foufounis (who used the stage name Hélène Cordet)."), sourced to article and books? (The stage name part is sourceable to page 188 of ISBN 9780385299176.) Compare Louise Cordet. That's what M. Boisot wants the world to know, after all, right? Uncle G (talk) 05:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Reporting facts is fine, using innuendo (see my response to the IP above) is not. Your suggestion is perfectly acceptable. --Snowded ^TALK 05:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
    • What weight should be given this and these? AJRG (talk) 09:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
      • My view here is that unless it can be shown that this bit of tabloid speculation is somehow notable in the life of Max Boisot (which seems unlikely) it should be left out completely, particularly since this is a relatively short biography anyway.

        At the same time, while the Mirror is clearly not a valid source for much of anything in anyone's biography, it should be at least thought about whether the fact of Mr. Boisot being Prince Philip's godchild is relevant. (I join Uncle G in wondering whether there may have been some confusion here about the term "godchild" - which does not imply anything negative about paternity at all, but is instead a completely honorable tradition.) It may or may not be an interesting and relevant fact about Mr. Boisot that his family is close to the royal family, but I'm not in any position to know about that.

        I also agree that this discussion ought to be on the talk page of the article, and therefore I'm going to copy it there now, so that it might prove useful to anyone who wants to revisit this question in the future.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Continued on Talk:Max Boisot.

Resolved

Ran across the bio of Mo Saheed while cleaning up WP:UNCAT. There appear to be some reports at the bottom vaguely connecting him to white-collar crime. I'm not clear on dealing with such issues (I just cover history and such), so bringing it here as a possible concern. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Speedy deleted on BLP grounds Off2riorob (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Buffy_Sainte-Marie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Resolved

As it is completely unsourced, I am concerned the section Genealogy Corrections might be potentially libellous. - BalthCat (talk) 05:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree and just edited the talk page to remove that section. The editor who posted it has not been active since July 2009 so I do not think any further action is warranted. Johnuniq (talk) 00:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Can some other editors please have a look at the lede of this BP, there is a weakly cited genetic claim being added to the lede like this...

Buffy Sainte-Marie, OC (born Beverly Sainte-Marie, February 20, 1941 or 1942)[1][2] is an aboriginal Canadian singer-songwriter,[3]

I have removed it and requested discussion and stronger citations and to move the genetic claims from the introduction as per WP:MOS but it has been replaced again. Please have a look and comment. Off2riorob (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. What exactly is the problem? Her ethnic identity belongs in the lead as, in my opinion it is an important part of the way people know her, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) doesn't have the word 'ethnic' in it (and WP:MOS only has it in relationship to the word Arab). Dougweller (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

See WP:MOSBIO. Yworo (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears that she is indeed Cree, and that this is significant to her notability. The lead should state her tribal affiliation, not call her "aboriginal", which though true, is less accurate and does injustice to her tribal identification. I've corrected the article. Yworo (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• It's actually pretty standard for First Nations Canadians to identify themselves by tribal membership, often for very specific political reasons (not to be mention cultural). I think it's appropriate in this instance to include her Cree heritage in the lede. freshacconci talktalk 19:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It's the same for Native Americans in the U.S. I'd personally find the use of aboriginal rather than First Nations or Cree (or in my case Mi'kmaq) to be rather offensive, even if technically correct. Yworo (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Aboriginal is a word that creates unnecessary problems. It is technically correct to use this in a generic sense but why not use the more specific and accepted terms? Is it a crude analogy to compare this to describing someone from France as European rather than French in the lede? freshacconci talktalk 20:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The lead should probably say Cree. Certainly not aboriginal. But the lead should mention her ethnicity as it is part of her notability. Dougweller (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all for looking into that, it appears to have reached a satisfactory conclusion. Off2riorob (talk) 11:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I know this is a contentious issue, but I'm puzzled by the way of handling it which has recently emerged here. Without stipulating that being a scientologist is a positive or a negative, I can imagine analogous lists - People sometimes described as gay who deny they are gay/People sometimes described as drug takers who deny they are drug takers/and so on. Surely this isn't how BLPs are supposed to be handled. Credible denial quoted in a reputable source should be the end of the matter, no?KD Tries Again (talk) 03:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Well, there are lots of refs that point to an association with scientology, but not much on actually stating they are Scientologists. In any case, looking at Talk:List_of_Scientologists I see a ton of admins and BLP editors, so I guess that's what they worked out as being best. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You forgot list of actors who have been described as having had a small rodent removed from their behind but deny it....Seriously, folks can "deny" whatever they want, they doesn't change "facts" presented from reliable sources, and whether "material" is to be included in a bio/list. The 3 folks included in that "list" have had some "interaction/dealings/whateveryouwanttocallit with Scientology. Does it rise to the level where it should be reported/covered and have them on this list? Not sure? I am sure/hope there was alot of discussion about how to handle this, and that the sourceing is reliable/NPOV, anyways, --Tom (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The way the article stood before I came to it, the denials were not included at all; Chaka Khan was listed as a member, Will Smith was simply added as a "course participant", while his wife Jada Pinkett-Smith was included in the "List of members". I researched/added the denials for Chaka Khan, Will Smith and Jada Pinkett-Smith and created the subsection for disputed cases, as there was no support on the talk page for removing these three entries. One plausible argument against removal is of course that if they were removed, editors would always come to the article with a reliable source trying to re-add these names, and it is better to have both the RS description and the denial in the article. A plausible counter-argument that was raised in discussions was that per WP:BLPCAT, "Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question", but this did not find consensus, as editors at List of Scientologists have argued that identification in WP:RS should trump self-identification as the inclusion criterion in this list article.

Current status is that the section for Chaka Khan, Will Smith and Jada Pinkett-Smith is simply called "Disputed", with the byline "Individuals characterized as Scientologists in secondary sources who have publicly disputed this characterization." --JN466 02:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Is that satisfactory to you? If not, why? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a really tough call. I personally would prefer not listing people who publicly deny being Scientologists, and/or who cannot be shown to have ever self-identified as Scientologists, in List of Scientologists. I lean towards extending the BLPCAT rationale to the inclusion criteria for the list. I would also dispense with the "Course participants" section listing people who merely tried a Scientology course or two, without ever identifying, or being described, as a Scientologist. However, the opposite viewpoint -- that we should include people who have been described as Scientologists in a reliable source, even though they may deny it, and that we should have a section for people who tried Scientology courses – is arguably more NPOV, more reflective of the amount of speculation and rumour that exists in reliable sources out there, and some of the content it generates (as in the Christopher Reeve entry, or the Smiths' entries), is not without value or interest. In a way I would be sorry to see these entries go. Having these entries also aids article stability, as otherwise we might get editors trying to reintroduce people all the time. The one thing I would insist on is that an effort should always be made to research and present the self-identification of the person before they are included -- if they deny ever having been a Scientologist, or say they just looked into it once, their statement must be in the article. So I think it's really hard, with a certain amount of tension between BLP and NPOV. --JN466 03:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

That's also how I feel, and well said. It's kind of like our hands are tied by the various sources who like to create drama whether there it exists or not. Having their self identification as the first sentence sounds like a good idea. I'm sure it's a contentious area, and edicts from this page won't mean much. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Since it's an interesting question that could theoretically affect quite a number of list articles, I've started a thread at the BLP talk page. --JN466 04:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it is interesting, because I believe it comes problematic as soon as you start replacing "Scientologist" with other (rightly or wrongly) contentious descriptions.KD Tries Again (talk) 03:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Editors at List of Scientologists are of divided opinion whether a source identifying the singer Gloria Gaynor as a former Scientologist is up to WP:BLP standards. The source has also been used in the Gloria Gaynor BLP to categorise and identify her as a former Scientologist.

The source we are concerned about is a short piece in The Guardian, published in 2006 in the Guardian's G2 supplement, under "Diversions", with the title "Listed Scientologists". The piece, which is not available online, contained no text, only an alphabetical list of names as follows:

G2: Diversions: Listed Scientologists

The Guardian (London); Oct 4, 2006; p. 29

Kirstie Alley

Beck

Sonny Bono

William Burroughs (reformed)

Nancy Cartwright

Leonard Cohen (reformed)

Tom Cruise

Jenna Elfman

Doug E Fresh

Gloria Gaynor (reformed)

Isaac Hayes

Katie Holmes

Chaka Khan

Juliette Lewis

Charles Manson (reformed)

Priscilla Presley

Lisa Marie Presley

Kelly Preston

Mimi Rogers

Jerry Seinfeld (reformed)

Sharon Stone (reformed)

John Travolta

Van Morrison (reformed)

This was the complete text of the item. It was published on Oct. 4, 2006. Some editors suspect that all the names were taken from the Wikipedia article List of Scientologists as it was at that time: status as of Oct. 3, 2006. As can be seen, all the names in the Guardian list were also present in the Wikipedia list at the time, and all the names that have "Reformed" after them in the Guardian list were at the time located in the "People who chose to leave Scientology" section of the Wikipedia list.

In some editors' minds, this raises the likelihood that using the Guardian list as a reference will be a case of WP:CIRCULAR -- using a source that copied from Wikipedia as a reference for material in Wikipedia.

The Guardian list is cited as a source for a number of entries in List of Scientologists, but Gloria Gaynor's entry is the only one that relies on this reference alone. The Guardian list has also been used as the sole reference to identify Gloria Gaynor as a former Scientologist in her BLP. [15]

For reference, the source our List of Scientologists quoted in 2006 to justify Gloria Gaynor's inclusion in the list was the website of Station Avenue Productions, more specifically, this page. It says (spelling errors are in the original):

Gloria was now the undisputed superstar in a world fueled by money, sex and cocaine; her new realities began to collide with her quiet Baptist small town New Jersey upbringing, She began a quest for some spiritual solid ground: it took her through brief associations with Scientology, Buddhism, Catholicism, Transcendental Meditation a1d Jehovah's Witnesses until she had completed 8 circle back to her beginning, In 1982, she became a born-agaIn Christian,

Beyond that, we have so far been unable to find any reliable source identifying Gloria Gaynor as a Scientologist, or former Scientologist.

The question is: Are the above Guardian list of names and/or the Station Avenue Productions website sufficiently reliable sources per WP:BLP to identify Gloria Gaynor as a former Scientologist in her BLP, and in List of Scientologists? Previous discussions on the article talk page are here and here. What are editors' views? --JN466 22:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

One possibly circular reference plus an unreliable source seems weak by BLP standards. However, three other references are cited on the internet. The Daily Telegraph 17.7.1993 (allegedly: can anybody check?), Berliner Zeitung 11.11.1995 (checked: Anders als in der Musik hatte die baptistisch erzogene Sängerin alle paar Jahre einen neuen Gott getestet: Von Scientology, Buddhismus, Katholizismus, Transzendentaler Meditation bis zu den Zeugen Jehovas. - see Ressort: Kultur - Die Disko-Queen hat überlebt) and The Scotsman 9.4.1996 (allegedly: can anybody check?) AJRG (talk) 23:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

There's no evidence that this is a circular reference. As I gather, that's just speculation. If it's not circular, then the Guardian is generally considered a reliable source. If Gaynor has been involved in such myriad movements/faiths as "Buddhism, Catholicism, Transcendental Meditation and Jehovah's Witnesses", then involvement in Scientology is not an exceptional claim. That said, if being a Scientologist or former Scientologist isn't an important part of her life then a related category is probably unnecessary. Categories, especially those for religions, shouldn't be applied to those with only slight involvements.   Will Beback  talk  23:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

As opposed to political topics, where you are free to use categories as widely as possible in order to impute guilt by association. Can I get an Amen? Erinye (talk) 03:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The sourcing doesn't look robust enough to me to use to say that Gaynor is a Scientologist. With BLPs, err on the side of caution. Cla68 (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

No evidence has been presented to back up this spurious assertion that The Guardian is a "circular" source. However, Cla68 (talk · contribs) is most certainly correct. I will do some further research, and add additional sources to the entry, in addition to the source, The Guardian. -- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done, added two additional sources. Still in process of research for further sources. -- Cirt (talk) 00:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

None of that makes "former Scientologist" an good description. What are the criteria for inclusion? Reading a Ron Hubbard novel? See Scientology#Membership statistics. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finding some reliable sources commenting on Gaynor's interest in Scientology, that is very useful. I tend to agree though that applying a "Former Scientologist" category to her BLP seems undue. By that token, given the sources we have, Gaynor should also be categorised as a former Buddhist, a former Muslim, a former Catholic, a former secular humanist, a former TM practitioner, a former Hare Krishna follower, and a former Jehovah's Witness. She says in her book, "I even tried Hare Krishna and Scientology", so perhaps she did a Scientology course, but we can't even say that with confidence from the sources currently on the table. For all we know, she may have just read a book by Hubbard and visited a Celebrity Center, and there is no evidence that she ever identified as a Scientologist (or a member of any of the other religions she looked into). In my view, the Guardian "Listed Scientologists" piece falls short of BLP standards, just because of what it is: a bare list of names, presented as a "diversion", and likely copied from us. --JN466 01:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

There is simply no evidence given backing up this spurious claim (no matter how many times it is desperately repeated ad infinitum) that the source is "likely copied from us..." -- Cirt (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The evidence is that the Guardian list contains not a single entry that wasn't in our list 4 years ago, and that every single one of the entries marked "reformed" in the Guardian was in the "People who chose to leave Scientology" section of our article 4 years ago. That, combined with the fact that it is just a fun snippet in the Guardian's tabloid supplement, next to crosswords, TV programmes and the like, called "Listed Scientologists" without saying where these names were listed, is highly suggestive, and in my view fails Wikipedia:Blp#Avoid_gossip_and_feedback_loops. It is simply not a first-rate source, and for something like this we should do better; indeed, you've already identified a far superior source, i.e. her autobiography. Why hold on to this one? Just because it is the only one to call her "a Scientologist"? We don't need it. --JN466 03:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

so your argument is that when you have two lists that list scientologists, and the names on the significantly smaller list all appear on the list four times it size, that the larger list has to be the source for the smaller list? if you have additional evidence for this claim be my guest but this is one weak argument.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Coffeepusher (talk · contribs), that is indeed an extremely weak and spurious argument. -- Cirt (talk) 11:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think we should be labeling people as things they say thay are not especially in weakly cited claims. If it was a strong claim there would not be these good faith doubts. There appears to be no evidence at all that she was a follower of this religion, and she should be removed. The Guardian cite is of no value at all and shouldn't be used to label people like that. The whole idea that some scientologist said anyone who ever came to a meeting is a scientologist it laughable and of course is nothing more than a christian priest saying anyone who is baptized in a Christian. We should allow people the freedom to express their own position especially when some people would see attachment to this group as a negative issue.Off2riorob (talk) 11:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • We should be very careful with labels, particularly those that may be seen as derogatory. In my opinion, being on the Guardian list is not enough for inclusion on the Wiki list. Other supporting sources are needed.Caution is needed here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
    • We have many similar lists, including List of Transcendental Meditation practitioners, that use comparable sources. What is it about the Guardian article that makes it insufficient for this purpose?   Will Beback  talk  13:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

we now have multiple WP:RS including the guardian which is a WP:RS and not circular unless anyone...anyone at all can come up with more evidence than the personal speculation that is the only support for this claim so far. so it is not a simple matter of labeling a person, but rather supporting WP:V which is the touchstone for WP:BLP.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The point, Coffeepusher, is that we have so far been unable to find other sources calling the singer Gloria Gaynor a "former Scientologist", or "reformed Scientologist". We have good sources now saying that say she "tried" or "looked into" almost a dozen religions, including Scientology, but that is not the same as being, or having been, a member of each of those. Would you argue we should describe her as a former muslim based on these sources? The only sources we have describing her as a former member of Scientology are our own Wikipedia article from 4 years ago, and that Guardian list of names. I honestly don't appreciate editors insisting on listing a notable person as a former member of this controversial religion based on such flimsy evidence, when BLP asks us to look for top-class sourcing for controversial claims. --JN466 18:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Catholicism and Islam are also controversial religions. I'm not aware of any specific controversy about Gaynor's religious path. The only controversy about this claim seems to be on Wikipedia.   Will Beback  talk  20:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

And it would be equally inappropriate to describe her as a former muslim, or a former catholic, based on the sources we have. We should have good, strong, reliable sources characterising her as a "former member" of Scientology (or any other religion). Otherwise, the only place where she is described as such will be Wikipedia, and an otherwise non-notable snippet in a Guardian supplement. [16] [17] [18] [19] --JN466 20:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should split her into a sublist - "Dabblers". ;)   Will Beback  talk  21:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to have high standards when it comes to BLPs, erring on the side of caution. We shouldn't be labeling people as aderents of a religion unless it is really clear in the sources. If someone suggests that a person shouldn't be labled unless they have confirmed themselves, that seems ok to me. Cla68 (talk) 22:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Adding Gloria Gaynor to a section for "dabblers" would be more accurate, given present sources. :) But adding a section for "dabblers", in addition to the section for "course participants" that we already have ("Individuals who have taken Scientology courses, but have not been identified in secondary sources as Scientologists or former Scientologists"), is a bridge too far. I appreciate Scientology gets people really excited, not to say obsessed, but we have to stop somewhere. --JN466 23:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is asserting that Gaynor is obsessed with Scientology. As for WP editors, let's not start casting stones.   Will Beback  talk  00:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

the WP:BLP only asks for self conformation in cases of categories because catagories are unable to provide contextualization, otherwise it is pretty clear that WP:V is the standard. While I appreciate that people are questioning the guardian list, the fact is that of the 20 or so names on the list only 1 is being contested...so it appears to be a damn good "list of scientologists" which it is what it is being used for. of all the technicalities that people are trying to discredit this list with, the one thing that should be pointed out is that the guardian actually produced an accurate list of scientologists or former scientologists. In addition to the Guardian list, there are many other WP:RS that talk about her taking courses and affiliating with scientology among other religions. So I think that we have WP:V covered in this case.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Where are these sources that talk about her taking courses? The sources we are currently citing aren't positive on that. Haden says, "Gaynor worked her way though Scientology, transcendental meditation, and Buddhism". (Cirt, in inimitable style, chooses to quote just the snippet "worked her way through Scientology" from that sentence.) Gaynor herself says, "I was looking into different religions: Secular Humanism, Buddhism, Islam, and transcendental meditation. I even tried Hare Krishna and Scientology, but none of it seemed to go along with what the Bible said." If there are sources saying she did Scientology courses, we can add her to our list of "course participants", but then we need to cite those sources. And trying a course is not the same as becoming a member. --JN466 23:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I consider myself to be an inclusionist, but I wonder why we would care to give information on people who have "dabbled" in Scientology or any other religion, unless it had provided some context to other events or ideas in their lives. I definitely don't understand why we would have a category for people who have "associated" or "dabbled" in Scientology. Good grief. Cla68 (talk) 23:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) the reason is that if there are sources that claim she is a scientologist, we are trying to bring all the sources together so that the readers can actually read the evidence. this will avoid edit wars where people add her because they have a reliable varifiable source which claims that she is a scientologist, and other editors remove her to keep the label off. if there is a reliable verifiable source that has her labeled as a scientologist, and other sources back that up then instead of censoring that source out we should bring it together with the other sources not in WP:SYNTH but so that the reader can see all the evidence and get a complete picture. this isn't a category it is a list, it doesn't appear on that person's page, people only see it if they are looking for a list of scientologists and the sources are elaborated on and provided to the reader.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand that, Coffeepusher. But apart from Wikipedia and that Guardian list of names, we don't have any sources that say she is, or was, a Scientologist, or a member of the Church of Scientology, and that is what we are currently describing her as. We have sources saying she "tried" or "looked into" nearly a dozen religions and religious movements, Scientology among them, but that's it. We are putting the cart in front of the horse. --JN466 00:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

But the Guardian is a reliable source which does describe her as a scientologist (reformed), or former scientologist according to our list's classification. This negates her inclusion into the "course participants" section which qualifies that they took courses but have not been identified in secondary sources as scientologists, and there is no secondary source disputing this classification. The former member section of this list does not have a minimum time of association or degree of association prerequisite, or even a minimum number of sources necessary but rather follows the WP:BLP and WP:V suggestions and allows the secondary sources to stand as is avoiding WP:SYNTH or editor opinion. There isn't even a confusion between secondary sources, the problem is that one source stated she was a former Scientologist and the other sources stated that she was at one time associated with the church of scientology.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but WP:RS isn't a reason for editors to suspend judgment. Of course The Guardian is a reliable news source, but this was a light-hearted piece of unsigned filler in the G2 supplement, very carefully headed as listed scientologists, and not as scientologists. It was a fun thing for readers to discuss over breakfast. A cartoon would not be a reliable source just because it was published in a serious newspaper. A reliable source is not a reliable source whatever it is doing.KD Tries Again (talk) 03:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

except it listed scientologists accurately. which makes it a perfect WP:RS for a wikipedia article called "list of scientologists". Now while I could go into a Foucaultian analysis of authorial intent and wikipedia WP:RS guidelines and contrast that with Leff's or Fish's ideals, I don't think that is necessary in this case. no matter what section of the guardian it was in, or what the authorial intent or intended target audience effects were, if it is an accurate list of scientologists (and since all of the members on that list had a history with the church and only one of them appears to be in dispute not because they were not associated with the church but because some editors feel that their level of association doesn't quite qualify them for the sublime degree of scientologists) then it is an excellent WP:RS for this article.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

"it listed scientologists accurately". Great, if you can just point us to a source which verifies that claim, we can be done with discussing this source. You're saying it reproduces information available elsewhere? If there is a better source, let's have it. I'm sure you're not suggesting that a poor source magically becomes a reliable source because it happens to be accurate (verifiability not truth, as I'm sure you know).KD Tries Again (talk) 05:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

KD Tries Again is correct on this, as are all those who are arguing that the Guardian piece is not sufficient sourcing. I think that's pretty obvious. None of the other sources discussed here establish nor even hint in any way, shape, or form that Gloria Gaynor ever was a Scientologist. During a period of her life of spiritual learning and exploration, she looked into a lot of things. Whether the Guardian list is circular referencing or not (though it very likely is, of course) doesn't strike me as particularly interesting - it's a space-filling bit of fluff, not an actual report. Do we imagine that the reporter interviewed a few dozen people to establish facts? No, the list obviously came from a quick look at something... could be Wikipedia, could be earlier news reports. If it's valid, then there should be some actual source to prove it (and so far no one has come up with one).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

[Addendum:] I'd even go so far as to say that Cirt's original source establishes more than anything else that she was never a Scientologist. In particular, Gaynor says "I even tried Hare Krishna and Scientology, but none of it seemed to go along with what the Bible said." This suggests that she was reading about, studying, investigating many different religions, and evaluating them based on a standard of whether or not they went along with the Bible. These are the words of a Bible-believing Christian seeking a particular spiritual home, not someone who was ever even remotely close to being a scientologist. Cirt, who professes to be a strong BLP defender, is in the wrong here I'm afraid.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree that no one's made the case to BLP standards, but special pleading for Bible-believing Christians crosses the line into OR. AJRG (talk) 10:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

When all is said and done, it appears that WP ought not label people with what another person has surmised about their associations and beliefs. This applies, IMHO, to far more than just Scientology. John W. Campbell "dabbled" in Dianetics - but he would have been quite affronted to have anyone lable him a Scientologist in any context at all. Millions have attended LDS meetings without becoming Mormons. We well ought to only label people with labels they assume for themselves - we will have far fewer biography problems that way. This strange desire to label persons and groups ill suits the project in general. Collect (talk) 11:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Update

• Coffeepusher has removed the Gaynor entry from the list, in line with what appeared to be the consensus view here.
• Pieter Kuiper has removed further instances where the "Listed Scientologists" piece was used as a source.
• Cirt has reintroduced the Guardian's "Listed Scientologists" piece under Further Reading.

How do editors feel about listing the piece under Further reading? I think the consensus view of this discussion here was that it is a questionable source. If so, then per WP:BLP#Further_reading_and_external_links, it would not qualify for use in the Further reading section. --JN466 20:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian list isn't useful for anything and should be removed. Her spiritual journey, however, is notable and sourced from her biography - it should be mentioned in the article. AJRG (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian piece has no reading in it and is not further reading at all, it is just some unqualified list. Off2riorob (talk) 20:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd propose the Gloria Gaynor BLP would be a better place to cover her spiritual journey than the List of Scientologists article. --JN466 20:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, clearly in her BLP and not in the list of Scientology article. Off2riorob (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the Guardian 'list' does not qualify as 'further reading'-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done, removed The Guardian cite, from sect, Further reading. -- Cirt (talk) 22:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Another update = Talk:List_of_Scientologists#Removed_entries. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

That is a good edit and removes the weaker claims and disputed stuff and strengthens the article. Off2riorob (talk) 23:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 23:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

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

This article has reverted to its previous state before editing by me. Mr Ceku is not married to the sister of the Serbian General Staff, and such an allegation would be considered libellous in Kosovo. He is married to Dragica Punos, not Ponos. She is no relation to General Ponos, and has only one brother who is 35 years old. Mr Ceku does not spend most of his time in Croatia but in Kosovo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.114.94.7 (talk) 08:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source? I agree that the reference cited in the article doesn't support the current wording, but it doesn't give her surname either. AJRG (talk) 09:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a pretty serious issue around this article that has been going on for a few months. Olver is a Canadian broadcaster. He hosted a children's game show in the early 1980s. His onscreen interaction with female contestants on the show has attracted some online interest on youtube and the blogosphere. There has been some coverage in legitimate sources, such as Toronto Life magazine which has commented on the internet phenomenon, such as it is. I am not convinced that the information belongs in the article at all as this has been a fairly recent thing and there is no evidence that there will be lasting notability. As it is, the article is attracting some IP and new account traffic which clearly violates WP:BLP and can be reverted. However, some established editors have included the sourced info. We've edited the section to a fairly workable version, however I am still not convinced that this does not violate WP:SYNTH in that there are some legitimate sources and there is a bit of an internet phenomenon at the moment, but including the info is a bit of a stretch as it is implying certain things about Oliver that are potentially libelous. In short, his interaction with young female contestants appears odd but given the context of the time it is more like someone trying to be cute and flirtatious for the camera. As I said, the obvious violation can be and have been reverted but the larger issue is the appropriateness of the main text. It has been discussed on the talk page but I feel some more input is necessary at this point. This information is also in the article Just Like Mom, the game show in question. You can find it easily on youtube and see it for yourself. freshacconci talktalk 00:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I've cut the section. Full explanation on talk page but essentially this was just bad implications from opinion type sources. Exxolon (talk) 12:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Biographies should include both the pleasant and unpleasant as long as its verifiable and relevant. This section is well referenced in the article with reliable sources such as Macleans, Toronto Life magazine, the New York Post and an AOL new service. Not including this side of this man would leave the biography incomplete. It happened, it was widely reacted to in the press so it is appropriate to include here.--RadioFan (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Content is under discussion Radio fan and has been removed as controversial please don't reinsert it without support. I support its removal as tabloid titillation that says more about the changing opinions of society and press reporting than it does about the subject. Off2riorob (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave it out until the discussion here is complete as this is a BLP question but contend that this information is far beyond tabloid gossip if just based on the breadth of coverage it has received.--RadioFan (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It is pure titillation and actually nothing to do with him or his life story. Perhaps add it to changing opinions in society or something like that. Basically blogs and the lower aspects of the press and worse on utube have started speculating that because he used to kiss young girls on his show 25 years ago that he is a pervert (and worse) its not the type of quality content we should be wanting to add to our BLP articles, some users would do well to actually stop reading tabloid reports and pick up an encyclopedia and see the type of issues in someones life that are worthy of adding to a life story as anyone who thinks this is that type of content belongs here is mistaken. Off2riorob (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Video montages of the original show received attention in 2010 due to his interaction with young female contestants. The videos depicted him kissing young girls and asking them for a kiss. Olver's actions were called "unbearably creepy" and "pervy."[1][2][3][4][5]

http://www.parentdish.com/2010/04/19/latest-viral-video-creepy-canadian-game-show-host-fergie-olver

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/04/15/for-all-you-fergie-oliver-fans-across-the-world

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/04/watch_an_unbearably_creepy_mon.html

http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/popwrap/mindless_minute_today_secret_word_AL4Zkoehe7frExtiJg1bHI

http://www.torontolife.com/daily/hype/pretty-young-things/2010/04/15/watch-a-game-show-host-get-to-first-base-with-children

I think we may be reading more into it that we should, especially for a BLP article. The references above label it as "creepy" but make no accusations of anything else. Accusations of him being a "pervert (and worse)" are pretty serious. Where are you seeing that in either the article or any of the references?--RadioFan (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry radio fan I know you are attached to this content as you have added it repeatedly but it is rubbish and doesn't belong in a wikipedia BLP, it is still in the moms and dads tv prograsm so at least you can be happy for that. Off2riorob (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Please dont put words into my mouth. I am not attached to this content and couldn't care less about Olver. I am attached to the neutrality of Wikipedia, it goes both ways.--RadioFan (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Why would it be creepy if it weren't suggestive of perversion? If you don't suspect perverted motivations then it's innocuous, not creepy. — e. ripley\^talk 20:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• I am wondering considering the quality of the reporting about it and the fact that it is about a living person even if it is not in an actual BLP, should be alowed to stay in the Just_Like_Mom article? A look through the edit history of that article you will see the much worse pedophile accusations and additional opinionated content that has been added and removed there. That article and this one need at least semi protection, I have removed it from Just like Mum as well, it is the same content, and requested semi protection. Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

None of the sources cut the mustard. Even the ones that are obstensibly mainstream publications fall under their "gossip pages" type of content. There's no hard reporting here and no serious articles, just a lot of unpleasant innuendo and implications. We must get our BLPs RIGHT, there's no room for error here. As I said elsewhere recently we're not operating in some kind of intellectual ivory tower, our actions here can and do have real world consequences for people. We must adhere to the highest standards of editing when it comes to the reputations and livelihoods of real people. Until these "allegations" receive serious mainstream press attention or legal processes come into play there's no way we should include them. Exxolon (talk) 10:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This appears to come down to a difference of opinion on how WP:BLP is to be used. Its primary purpose is to protect the foundation of lawsuit. The concerns about this material listed here so far include that it is "titilation", "potentially libelous", and that questions the sources as "tabloid gossip". There have been versions of this article where "titillation" and "potentially libelous" concerns are very valid, those have been quickly removed and should probably be removed from history (any admins here?). However, some editor at some point calling this man a perve, does not make it impossible to cover this information in a way that meets WP:BLP. The latest version meets WP:BLP guidelines especially in it's tone as it addresses the subject very conservatively and focuses on the facts of the situation. Any words that could imply judgement of the situation are direct quotes from the (multiple) references.

If I'm reading the above comments correctly, no one is questioning the reliability of any of these sources (which seems to be in agreement with WP:RS and its guidance that mainstream news sources, especially those at the high-quality end of the market, are considered to be generally reliable but rather their coverage of the incidents in question as "gossip". Looking over WP:RS further, there is caution of passing rumor on even if it is reported in a reliable source, but I think we can all agree this isn't rumor and is well documented in reliable sources. I see no synthesis of opinion in the latest version nor do I see any particular position being pushed. The latest version simply states that the video received attention recently and reflects reaction from reliable sources. If the New York Post were the only source here, I'd also have concerns about the information being gossipy in nature but coverage in Macleans, New York Magazine and the Toronto magazine temper that.

Accusations of the sources being "gossip" are also covered by WP:RS in the caution to always, consider the context. The context of each of the sources is that the video surfaced and is being reacted to many years after the show aired which is consistent with how the latest version of the article treats the subject mater. WP:RS also cautions editors to include information verified by reliable sources but I dont think verifiability is a problem here.

Before we disallow this side of Olver from being included in his article, consider WP:N's direction that articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This view of Olver is significant, it has been published by reliable sources, it is presented in a neutral and conservative manner (at least in the latest version), there is no synthesis of opinon and no original research. A balanced, accurate biographies will sometimes include unpleasant things. While WP:BLP cautions us from going to far, we should also not go so far in the other direction an disallow something because we WP:DONTLIKEIT.--RadioFan (talk) 12:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

We're definitely in disagreement on the purposes of our BLP policy. As far as I'm concerned the primary purpose of our BLP policy is to do no harm to real people, not to cover our asses legally. When it comes to this kind of material several sections of the policy come into play:-

"Biographies of living persons (BLPs) 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." (emphasis mine)

"Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject."

The sources in question might be part of reasonably reliable publications, but they are not good sources in themselves being blog type/gossip type posts that have picked up and repeated some pretty iffy speculation about something that is, at least until EVIDENCE emerges to the contrary, entirely innocuous. Adding in that the issue resolves around suggestions of inappropiate behaviour towards minors which is an INCREDIBLY sensitive issue we have to have really cast iron sources to use. This isn't a "he was so drunk he fell out of a nightclub" type of thing, we're far into potentially very damaging territory. At this time given the low quality of the sources, the seriousness of the subject and our overriding BLP principle of "do no harm" I can see NO way we can include anything about this at this time. Exxolon (talk) 13:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont see this as gossip, or unsubstantiated rumor. It makes no sensational accusation (again, those edits have been removed). The article is also not the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. A Google search on Olver produces pages of hits with far worse treatment of Olver on this subject, so this article is far from the primary vehicle and the current version isn't titillating. Again, it treats the subject in a very conservative manner. I'm not seeing any "iffy speculation", it happened, its being reacted to, and it becomes a part of how this person is viewed now. To leave this part of how Olver is viewed out of the biography makes the biography incomplete and violates WP:NEUTRAL by not representing all points of view here. Have you read the latest version of the section? No accusations are made, no speculation about the behavior is made, it covers only the recent reaction to the incidents. I agree that this is a sensitive issue that must be approached very conservatively but I also beleive that this has been accomplished in the latest edit. Just because its a sensitive issue, that doesn't make it impossible to cover it at all. It's easy to delete and whitewash the article. I'm suggesting we not be so hasty and do the hard thing, treat the subject in a way that meets WP:BIO and WP:NEUTRAL. --RadioFan (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The last version included the phrasing '"unbearably creepy" and "pervy."' and overly detailed descriptions of alleged activities - this really wasn't encyclopedic language, even as direct quotations. The primary vehicle argument is the fact that our articles in general rank very highly in search engines - Google currently has our article as #1 result for his name so anything we have on the article becomes highly visible immediately. We also can't point to other sites saying worse things as any justification for inclusion, they are outside our remit, we shouldn't fall into a trap of "lot's of people are talking about it so we should at least mention it". IF we can come up with better sources then we MAY be justified in a brief mention. However the most recent version is totally unacceptable - we'd need something like : "In 2010 Olver's run as host of Just Like Mom was subject to renewed interest due to allegedly inappropiate behaviour with underage female contestants"<impeccable source><impeccable source><impeccable source> - no salacious details about the exact alleged activities, no emotive language such as "creepy". However until we get impeccable sourcing even this cannot be justified. At this point you may wish to consider opening an RFC as I'm pretty sure any attempt to include this information will be blocked by multiple editors on BLP grounds. Exxolon (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If there is anything in it, reliable sources will become available. Until then, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. AJRG (talk) 13:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how WP:CRYSTAL applies here at all. No one is predicting anything.--RadioFan (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't have any reliable sources at all as of now. If you're not predicting their existence in the future, why are we still discussing this? AJRG (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not clear how you have concerns about WP:CRYSTAL here. You appear to have WP:RS concerns. Could you expand on your concerns with the reliability of the magazines and newspapers mentioned above? --RadioFan (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about the detail - you're completely off-base. But since you asked:

• parentdish.com is not a reliable source
• macleans.ca is occasionally a reliable source (for example its University rankings) but also drums up circulation by covering scandals (see Most Read on the current front page)
• nymag.com is better but your link is to an off-the-wall entertainment piece, not a serious article
• nypost.com would be fine if your link wasn't to a blog
• torontolife.com is a celebrity gossip sheet, which in this case is just rehashing the nymag.com piece

No reliable sources at all. AJRG (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• This tabloid material doesn't belong in either article, per WP:GRAPEVINE. –xeno^talk 17:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding sources - Not everything published in a reliable source is itself a reliable source - reliable sources don't operate on the osmotic principle, reliability doesn't leach into everything they publish. Things like op-ed pieces, gossip columns, blog posts from commentators etc generally fall outside the reliable sources envelope, even if the publication is otherwise considered a relable source. We need HARD news reports in reliable sources to even consider including this - not blog style opinion posts. Exxolon (talk) 17:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS allows blogs from professional journalists such as those appearing on mainstream newspaper and magazine websites. Also the editors of the 100+ wikipedia articles that link or use Toronto Life magazine as a reference will be surprised to learn that it's a "celebrity gossip sheet". Sure looks to be equivalent to similar monthly city magazines like New York (magazine), Los Angeles (magazine), Washingtonian (magazine), etc. Maclean's is compared with U.S. News and World Report. The editors of the 1000+ articles that link to or use Maclean's as a source might also be surprised to learn that it is only "occassional"ly reliable. Again, the references listed above aren't being used to source any accusations against this person substantiate any gossip, only that he was the subject of scrutiny due to the videos resurfacing. --RadioFan (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

According to Google, less than 500 pages link to macleans.ca - a lot of them are (surprise) universities. The links to Toronto Life are mostly from celebrity articles. But this isn't about the detail of the references - you're in total violation of WP:BLP. AJRG (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Stringing these gossipy articles on some youtube montage together effectively turns the BLP into a hit-piece; the result is wholly inappropriate. –xeno^talk 19:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The content & sources heavily suggest that they think it means the guy looks like a paedophile or creepy around children. I'd call that a pretty strong suggestion/opinion needed rock solid sources (i.e. in depth analysis or an authorities investigation rather than "heres a really creepy video someone made") :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 19:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. I'm failing to see how a claim that the videos were the subject of discussion recently is an exceptional claim. Shouldn't we be discussing what was written in the Wikipedia article and not what the sources might be suggesting or even on versions of the article that have been removed from public view? This Wikipedia article makes no suggestions that the guy looks or acts like a pedophile. You are also absolutely correct that rock solid sources would be necessary to include any accusations of pedophilia but those claims have been correctly removed from the article and are no longer publicly visible.--RadioFan (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I still see no compelling reason for us to become a vehicle for the spread of titillating claims that just happen to be the gossip-of-the-week. See also relevant comments at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 28#"the primary vehicle" vs "a vehicle". –xeno^talk 19:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Then I am confused what you are arguing for; if there was a substantial claim of "creepiness" or worse along with these videos then with the right sources it would be notable. But there isn't. It is just a video someone made and that someone else called creepy, and because that is a "hot topic" at the moment it made it to a few opinion blogs. The same will happen with something else next month etc etc. I see no notability in his life story... but the sources are very suggestive and linking to them is unfair to his character --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 19:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If the argument being made here is essentially that the discussion of the video is of little relevance, I can go along with that and agree that it should be left out of the article. However the discussion got widely sidetracked with suggestions that the article included accusations of pedophilia despite the fact that those had been removed. As long as we are all discussing the same thing, which I dont think we were for a while there.--RadioFan (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, reading the extended discussion I strongly support keeping this low grade titillation out, its viral rubbish. I semi protected the Moms article and the unconfirmed users are simply posting what they can on the talkpage, I will go and no-index it. If anyone is watching please watch out for BLP violations on that talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved?

Aside from Radiofan, I can't see anyone in favour of including this unless and until mainstream reliable sources pick it up, at which point we can revisit it. Can we mark this resolved in favour of keeping it out of the article? If Radiofan strongly disagrees they can open an RFC for wider input. Exxolon (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Information was added to article in proper form, IP editor has stopped editing, thanks all Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 11:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

194.80.52.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding this content to the Gordon Strachan article. The wording seems non-neutral to me. Also there were other concerns raised by other editors over the context of the inclusion. I am at the limit of WP:3RR on this --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 11:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm - sourced to a quality source and is clearly a direct quotation. Suggest you add a counterquote from the source from Strachan being "suprised and disappointed" by the comment to balance things up perhaps? Exxolon (talk) 11:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Coolio - the quote itself never concerned me. Only the wording. I never re-added it because others reverted due to the content --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 11:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking a bit deeper this seems to be part of a long running feud between the two men. Perhaps a section in the article could document this in a bit more detail to give this kind of thing some more context. Exxolon (talk) 11:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You are dead right. I added a section at the end of his managerial career section. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 12:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Jason Mohr (AfD discussion)
• Jeff Horowitz (AfD discussion)
• Melkamu Tebeje (AfD discussion)
• Josh Evin (AfD discussion)
• Jonas Raskolnikov Christiansen (AfD discussion)

All of the above biographies of living persons have been re-listed twice at AFD because of low participation in the discussions. Uncle G (talk) 13:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

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

I took a look at this article following a request at WP:RFPP ("vandal" was removing section). The section in question appeared, to me, to be largely poorly-sourced (primary sources (court documents) and The Smoking Gun...) I reverted the most recent addition, and semi-protected the page for a week.

I'd appreciate more eyes on this, and I'll accept a ((trout)) if I'm simply being paranoid ;-)

TFOWR 18:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Some users like the smoking gun we have 971 links to it. I don't like it myself a and find it sensationalist and tabloid, but I have seen it defended at WP:RSN. This content has been in and out for some time, imo we should have a simple comment about the offense and the result supported by the stronger of the citations and leave it at that. It is ongoing presently because he appears to be having issues registering correctly, it happened previously and was dropped, but imo unless there is an official punishment that is a minor issue and simply bloats the section and gives it undue weight. Off2riorob (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this is replaceable if a bit bloated, anyone is welcome to disagree.....I think the semi protection is a very good idea.If we wanted to take some weight out of it we could remove the failed issues, like the civil suit was a non event, that is not really notable and failing to register is not notable unless it comes to anything. After a discussion with User:TFOWR I replaced the majority of the content. Off2riorob (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to note that I'm more than happy with Off2riorob's replacement. Happier still that I dodged a ((trout))...! TFOWR 22:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I was the one who raised the complaint regarding people removing stuff from the J Jones article. The fact that he has been arrested & charged MULTIPLE TIMES for failing to register as a sex offender is a big deal. He is facing up to three years in prison. His child porn conviction was not a minor deal. Maybe in the UK such things are looked at differently. But in the U.S. it is a HUGE deal. Either you register or you don't, and if you don't, you go to prison. It's as simple as that. Some states, such as California, can chose to incarcerate these people indefinately, even after they have already served their prison sentence. Someone has been trying to white-wash this guy's page. That is why I bitched and asked for it to be protected.

The reason why I included the reference to Pee-wee Herman is because BOTH men were under investigation as a result of ONE complaint by a 14 year old boy. Pee-wee Herman is also a well known movie star AND a sex offender. So the fact that the two of them were involved in a child porn complaint is relevant and important.

As far as the news sources that I cited, you may not be familiar with some of their names because you are not from the U.S. For example, The Smoking Gun website is owned by owned by Time Warner through its subsidiary, Turner Broadcasting (aka: CNN the cable news channel). While I don't agree with their political bent, they are highly reputable.

To say that failing to register is a 'minor' issue is to ignore the seriousness with which Americans treat the issue of sex offenders. Your Pete Townsend of the Who was almost barred from entering the U.S. on account of his 'issue' with child pornography and the NFL took a lot of heat with regards to him being here.24.243.2.132 (talk) 05:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Peter Buttigieg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is not a notable person as per the WP:Auto standards. Buttigieg is only 28 years old and is running for his first elected office. There has been minimal media coverage sourced on the page and the coverage he has received has been obscure (the majority of the links are the party website and his own site). The information located on his page is comparable to his campaign website and is nothing more than a campaign ad. Redwngr333 (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

John Zuccarini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I've just blocked a new editor for edit warring at John Zuccarini; this guy was convicted under cybersquatting laws. This bio needs cleanup and better sourcing. Fences&Windows 01:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Message left, by another admin

• Trudyjh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Have some concerns about this user's edits at the WP:BLP article, Oksana Grigorieva. At the talk page, editors have come to a consensus regarding previous WP:UNDUE WEIGHT in the section, Personal life, please see talk page discussion subsection, Talk:Oksana_Grigorieva#Undue_weight_in_Personal_life_sect.

However, the nature of edits by Trudyjh (talk · contribs) seems singularly focused on advancing a particular concerning POV, within this particular Personal life subsection. See edits, including:

• [20] - adding unsourced contentious info to BLP page.
• [21] - adding WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to lede of BLP page.
• [22] - adding WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to Personal life section.
• [23] - POV-pushing in Personal life section, note phrasing (repeatedly added), "her senior...", etc.

I have posted multiple requests to User talk:Trudyjh, asking the user to engage in discussion at the article's talk page. The user has refused to do so. Perhaps it would be helpful for another editor or admin to attempt to bring up these issues with this user, at the account's user talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done, thanks to Fences and windows (talk · contribs)! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Danielle Staub (AfD discussion)
• Real Housewives of New Jersey#Danielle Staub

This is quite concerning. We have biographical material asserting an identification of this person, sourced to sources that, if one actually reads them, one finds carefully do not do so. We have the person concerned denying the identification very angrily. And we have public challenges to the legitimacy of the book that is the original source. Oh, and we also have a quite appalling track record of BLP vandalism, from editors both with and without accounts, in the history of both articles. I've cut much of the badly sourced content out of the second article and set the pending changes level to match that of the first. Further excision may be in order. Have a look at what is left. Uncle G (talk) 04:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I trimmed the last bit in the second article, which referenced "vague references". I don't know about the rest of that section, or even that whole article, as it seems to be loaded with negative unsourced material.  –Joshua Scott ^[who?] 06:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Mel Gibson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi. A contributor brought this up at my talk page, but given some severe time constraints I wanted to list it here in the hopes of attracting some feedback instead of heavily weighing in myself. I'm behind on my copyright cleanup. :) The issue:

• Does the "Personal life" section of the article on Mel Gibson focus too heavily on the negative, in presentation and perhaps in depth of coverage?

Please see Talk:Mel Gibson#Allegation of... and help address these concerns if you are able. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I already cleanup it up to some extent, so it's not as bad as it was. Fences&Windows 18:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow! It certainly isn't. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Fences and windows did a good job trimming the fat out. Unfortunately since his edits more has been added. I'm sorry but having these sections of 'allegations of' whatever only lets editors bloat things up again. The new section added 'Allegations of sexism and domestic violence' is for the most part already mentioned in the section titled 'Family'. If you read that section it reads and I quote, "The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department has launched a domestic violence investigation against Gibson.[62][63] Gibson has filed for a restraining order against Grigorieva to prevent her speaking publicly about the case.[64][65]" Why is there a need for another whole section? Wikipedia isn't a rags sheet and it doesn't need sections like this. The other sections are also addressed again in other articles. Braveheart#Accusations of anti-gay depictions, The Passion of the Christ#Allegations of anti-Semitism and Mel Gibson DUI incident. I think just looking at his main article which is Mel Gibson you can see that there is way too much undo weight given to his misbehaviors. I agree that he is wrong in his thought process about things but should this article be full of allegations of this or allegatons of that? I would really appreciate help from any editors who are interested especially those who really know biographies of living people policies since RL isn't allowing me the proper time to actually do this myself. Thanks for your attentions and any help I may get with this article, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Going to take a look now, hope i can be of help mark nutley (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The tabloid type commentry and the allegations could sure use trimming a bit. Whole sections are really in need of a rewrite. Off2riorob (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but it is also worth noting that the coverage has gone well past the tabloids and into mainstream reliable sources at this point. For example, the first page of today's Los Angeles Times Calendar section has two articles about Gibson's troubles, one entitled "Gibson scandal could doom his movie career"[24][25]. --21:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)(comment added by User:Arxiloxos Off2riorob (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC))

There is also a comment about their dispute in the family section, all of this his career is doomed stuff is not worthy of inclusion, as are the titilating claims from some alleged phone call. Who has he upset? (don't tell me I know the answer} Off2riorob (talk) 21:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment "who has he upset". What do you mean?Hobson (talk) 10:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

This article has been the target of myriad items the purpose of which is to bash Mel Gibson. The more that is added, the worse the violation of WP:BLP. At present the content being added takes the form of "allegations" as such is termed in even reliable sources, all based on the tape that Grigorieva "allegedly" didn't release. This is a serious issue, as far as I'm concerned. My view is that anything that is based on "alleged" should not be a part of this article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree, and the BLP is high profile and a lot of people see it and assume that is the wikipedia standard when it is more reflective of our lowest standard. I would support a quality writer re writing the article, perhaps in their userspace, to be fully compliant with policy and then we could replace what is there now and defend it from low quality opinionated additions. After reading the article it is so bad I was thinking that when BLPs are slowly added and added and become so bad as this one, that we should have a system to request its removal from the mainspace to an incubation location where it can be worked on and improved until it is of a decent quality to be replaced for public reading. Off2riorob (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I also agree, any suggestion about who should do the rewrite? I know WHL could do it if she is intersted. Also, Steve Smith does a lot of rewrites too but he may have a full plate. I don't know you Off2riorob or for that matter others here that have posted well enough to know abitlities to rewrite an article like this one. I can tell you that I'm not the one you want doing it. I'm not a good editor. I try real hard but this kind of project will be too far over my head I think. Sorry, I'm just trying to be honest. I have tried to get rid of some of the uselsss stuff and anwer questions on the talk page. Suggestions for doing the rewrite would really be nice. I hit a couple of references that were horrible for a BLP and one that actually put my computer on alert that something wanted to download to my computer locking it up. I haven't had a chance to remove this yet. They are in the Faith section. Thanks to all of you, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I saw the article linked in Google News, and then the link to this discussion on the Gibson talk page. At the present time it seems balanced and fair, without overemphasis. Figureofnine (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

now mel gibson's movie star pals are writing propaganda on the talk page about what a swell but misunderstood guy he is, all he needs it love they tell us. the guy admitted his comments had nothing to do with improving the article, he just wanted to share his feelings about old mel with us. it was the most offensive thing I have ever read on a wikipedia talk page. obvious propaganda intended to create sympathy for a man who beats his own girlfriend and threatens to kill her. yeah, all mel needs is a little love and understanding we are being told on the talk page. i deleted his grotesque comments from the talk page but I that was reverted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.36.221 (talk) 03:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually there are many more offensive opinionated attacks on Mr Gibson by POV users than there are anything else on that talkpage. Please take care not to delete others users comments just because they are against your POV, such deletions could lead to your editing privileges being restricted. Off2riorob (talk) 10:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Care should be taken on this article, but wholesale whitewashing of an issue that has received extensive media coverage by reliable outlets is unacceptable, and should and will be reverted. I know it's confusing, but this page is not the Mel Gibson fan page (nor the Mel Gibson attack page); it's an encyclopedia article. IronDuke 01:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You may want to note that the same material has also been removed from the Oksana Grigorieva article, by an independent set of editors but for similar reasons. Yworo (talk) 04:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Wholly unreferenced subsections and claims at article

• Mel Gibson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are multiple instances of completely unreferenced subsections and claims at the article, Mel Gibson, up to and including at least one identified instance of a wholly unreferenced purported direct quotation from the subject. I have tagged problems on the article page, and made notes on the talk page regarding the completely unsourced subsections. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Oksana Grigorieva

• Oksana Grigorieva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Someone ought to take a look at the Oksana Grigorieva article. It's starting to look more like a gossip column than an encyclopedia article too. Yworo (talk) 03:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I would assume that this comment only pertains to the subsection, Personal life, which is sourced to WP:RS sources. -- Cirt (talk) 03:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Since there's been no further (evident) review, I took a stab at NPOV based on discussion with User:Yworo below. Assuming that nobody objects to my edit, I would consider this matter resolved. Abhayakara

Abhayakara (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

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

• Article is repeatedly edited to add gossip about Michael Roach substantiated by a single gossip column in the New York Post. Gossip column in question quotes extensively from a single unnamed source, as well as making claims of the form "Geshe Michael has been seen wearing ..." without saying who saw this. The material is clearly intended to be salacious, and does not meet Wikipedia's editorial standards. Attempts to write a more balanced version of the "controversy" section in this article have been repeatedly reverted by two individuals. Other paragraphs in the article refer to a New York Times article from 2008 which is fairly balanced, but selectively quote from the article so as to present a non-neutral viewpoint. I am a student of Geshe Michael's, thus probably can't be considered neutral myself, but I am really trying to do the right thing here, not simply pretend that there is no controversy. 173.162.214.218 (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I appear to have gotten logged out before I submitted that edit. It was I who added this section on Michael Roach. Abhayakara (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not just the NY Post that is carrying recent stories relating to Michael Roach, see [26], [27]. Because there are so many reliable sources, BLP concerns about poorly sourced material do not apply. Johnfos (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

John, the two sources you list are both based on the New York Post article: one quotes from it, and the other reproduces it. One of these sources is a quotation service, not even a newspaper. I honestly don't know what the other source is--it looks like it might be a weekly paper in Hawaii. But since both articles are directly based on the New York Post article, you can't say that the claim you are making is multiply sourced, and it is absurd to claim that "there are so many reliable sources [that] BLP concerns [...] do not apply." Abhayakara (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I feel the Post is an RS. But, the consensus generally is, is that it is too much of a tabloid, and it should not be used for contentious BLP info. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree that the Post is an RS. Also, when other papers report that the Post reported x, that is an indicator that it is appropriate for us to do the same.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the New York Post is, in this case, a reliable source for a BLP article. This article cited is not really an in-depth article, but more like a blog post. It also allows comments, so linking to it may also be a potential liability issue. The information it adds to the article is negligable. What the subject is currently wearing is simply not significant, especially as this is a more of a "seen about town" kind of blog-like post, even the author may not know how often the subject wears a suit vs. robes. It's pretty much unreliable trivia. Yworo (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The Page Six magazine article, however, seems fine to me. It seems to cover everything in the sentence that needs supporting, and the NYP article was clearly just a blurb based on it. Why link to both? Yworo (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a concern that this biography violates, at a minimum, WP:UNDUE with this tabloid reporting. It is worth noting that the original insertion contained at least one extremely bad error on what is perhaps the crucial piece of information being raised here.

This edit contains the insertion of the claim that Michael Roach 'admitted' that the relationship was romantic, while citing the precise paragraph in the text of the Page Six article where it is made clear that he does exactly the opposite: "maintains the relationship wasn't romantic". That's a pretty appalling state of affairs, I must say.

I hope that several more people will do what I did and read the Page Six article with a thoughtful eye. It is a gossipy story from a tabloid, using classic low-quality journalistic techniques like changing the name of one of the sources. (The story contains a made-up name for "Mia", the primary source for the "Armani" claims.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Yworo marked this as resolved, but I don't think that's the case. User:Jimbo Wales asked for several more reviewers to read the page with a thoughtful eye. He seems to agree with my assessment of the article and the story. I would really appreciate it if a few editors who are not particularly familiar with a particular branch of Buddhism could do as Mr. Wales suggests and review the article. In particular, please read the NYT article that's used as a source, and compare the impression you get from reading that article to the impression you get from reading the paragraph where it's used as a source. Also, look at the wiki article as a whole and see if, even if you agree that something should be drawn from these articles, the amount of text covering this controversy, and the content of that text, is really representative of a high-quality article. Yworo, no disrespect intended: I see that you have tried to see this from a neutral viewpoint, but you seem to agree that the gossip article was a good source, and Mr. Wales didn't, so that's why I'm hoping a few editors who haven't already weighed in on this will do additional review. Thanks, and sorry to be a pain--I know I'm in no position to make demands. Abhayakara (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe Jimbo was making a distinction on the reporting in the article. Some of the reporting uses multiple named sources, some of it was only sourced to Mia-not-her-real-name. It appears that the latter material has been removed, and a discrepency between the article and the source has been fixed. As it also appears that Roach was interviewed for the article, it would seem to me there is no reason not to use the article to report what he said when interviewed. That said, I'm not an expert in this branch of Buddhism and I don't believe this is the best place to find an editor familiar with a particular branch of Buddhism as you are trying to do. Have you tried WikiProject Buddhism? I'd think you might find the educated eyes you'd like more readily there. Yworo (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

In any case the review Jimbo asked for has not, as far as I can tell, occurred yet. I don't feel qualified to speak for him as to what he intended to say, but the distinction that you are making and attributing to him is difficult to locate in his comment. He backed out the one clearly unsubstantiated edit, but asked for more review, stating that the article as a whole used "low-quality journalistic techniques," so I don't think that the edit he made was the limit to the criticism; rather, he was being much better behaved than I and looking for consensus rather than simply cutting that part of the article out.

I don't see the need for more review from Buddhist experts. The Dalai Lama is pretty authoritative when it comes to how the Gelukpa lineage treats monks' vows, and he said in his book, How To Practice, that monks who engage in this practice do not break their vows. So I don't think there's any basis for dispute over this point. I myself am a knowledgeable Buddhist, and according to my understanding, Geshe Michael's actions are in accordance with the scriptures. The people who seem to be pushing the opposite viewpoint as also knowledgeable Buddhists, and don't agree with me. Hence, it seems clear to me that appealing to Buddhist authority here is not going to improve the quality of this article.

What I really want to see is commentary from a few disinterested readers who can say whether or not they think the disputed text makes the article a better or worse article. The reason I raised it here, and not somewhere else, is that it seems clear to me that the article as it stands now is inappropriate in light of the policies on BLP, and so people who are more expert in this policy than I would be able to make that determination. So far the only person who has expressed an opinion on this question is Jimbo, and he seems to think that at a minimum it violates WP:UNDUE, so it seems to me that if I am mistaken here, my mistake is a matter of degree, not essence.

In accordance with the instructions, I didn't copy the disputed text into this discussion, but it's the last three paragraphs of the "Modern Day" section of the article. I don't think the text needs to be removed entirely, but at present it seems to be unbalanced and presenting a decidedly non-neutral viewpoint. Abhayakara (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the fact that there is a controversy seems to be true and have reached the New York Times. The length of the remaining paragraphs seems to be due to giving all sides of the matter. Please remember that Wikipedia is for the general reader who has no understanding or even knowledge of the intricate reasoning of Buddhism. It doesn't seem undue to mention the controversy as the average Joe expects monks to be celibate. Given that it needs to be mentioned, the discussion around it needs to be presented in a balanced fashion. It appears to me that Sylvain did a relatively good job of writing about all views neutrally. What do you specifically suggest is still wrong with it. Yworo (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said, the reporting seems unbalanced to me. The second and third paragraphs are mutually redundant. There's no need to quote both Lama Surya Das and His Holiness saying that the practice is okay; one or the other would be enough. I think His Holiness' book is a better source, because it's more like an academic journal than the NYT, but either source would be adequate. Both is too much. But the main problem is that if you read the NYT article or even the NYP article, I would expect you to come away with the idea that the partnership was a positive and constructive thing that some people had trouble with. When you read the Wikipedia article, I think you come away with a completely different impression: that there was no reason for the partnership, that it was a negative thing, reviled by all, and that it went down in flames. This is why I'm calling for some new editors who are not involved in the discussion already to review this, and specifically to compare the sources with the wikipedia article to see if they agree that the two present different viewpoints.

The fourth paragraph is weird. It's appropriate to report that Geshe Michael is no longer practicing with Lama Christie, because it's true. But the only authority we have for the assertion that begins the sentence--"A left B for C"--is the gossip column article. I myself have never heard either of them say precisely what happened between them, and I am very skeptical that they would have told the NYP reporter. The sentence is written as if the two were married, but they were not, and never claimed to be. And Geshe Michael is quoted in the same article saying that the relationship was not romantic. So the implication of the final paragraph of the "Modern Day" section is really not supportable. It's not unreasonable for a tabloid reporter to tie "GM and C were practicing together," "now they are not" and "C is marrying T" into a story of love lost, but it is unreasonable for Wikipedia to repeat that when even in the article that is used to justify that claim, the opposite claim is made by the very person who is the subject of the biography. In particular, mentioning who LC is marrying in an article about GM just seems weird--if you think that's notable, put it in an article about LC! Abhayakara (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Reading it again more closely and checking the sources, the worst problem that I see is the inclusion of the Dalai Lama quote you've referred to, "Yogis who have achieved a high level of the path and are fully qualified can engage in sexual activity, and a monastic with this ability can maintain all the precepts." I find this problematic because it is not directly about Michael Roach. It's a hypothetical statement predicated on having "achieved a high level of the path" and being "fully qualified". It give the implication that Roach is so qualified, but no source presented says that he is. So using this quote would seem to be synthesis by implication. Do you have a source that states that Roach is so qualified? Yworo (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The Office of the Dalai Lama is not a spiritual institution. It is part of the Tibetan Government in Exile. It is entirely qualified to make statements on matters of protocol, like whether or not a monk should appear in public in Dharamsala with his female practice partner. It is not qualified to make determinations as to whether or not a spiritual practitioner is or is not qualified to engage in a specific practice. The text of the letter from the Office of the Dalai Lama is very careful to speak in terms of protocol and not to make assertions about Geshe Michael's qualifications or lack thereof. This would be like someone in the Registrar's office at your university making an assertion as to whether or not you are able to play a musical instrument.

The qualifications, or lack thereof, of a practitioner are not objectively measurable. Whether or not you are *permitted* to do a particular practice is either up to you, the practitioner, to decide, or in the case of a monk, up to that monk's abbot. In this case, that would be Sermey Khensur Rinpoche Geshe Lobsang Tharchin, who was the abbot at Sera Mey Monastery in India at one time, and who was the abbot at Rashi Gempil Ling in Howell, NJ, from the early seventies onward. His reincarnation has recently been recognized, so I guess you could go ask him. Otherwise, you can either take Geshe Michael's word, or not, but you will not be able to find an authoritative source other than Geshe Michael himself justifying either the position that he is qualified, or the position that he is not. He has stated that he is qualified. I think it's better for Wikipedia to leave the question of his qualifications unanswered, other than (if appropriate) to report what he has claimed. Abhayakara (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay.... I certainly don't want to say anything negative about the subject, but what I see is this: In 2002, the Dalai Lama wrote words to the effect that if qualified -> the practice is okay. In 2006, the Office of the Dalai Lama says something to the effect of This thing Michael Roach is doing is not okay. Now, I know the office of the Dalai Lama and the Dalai Lama himself are not the same thing, and might not always be on the "same page", but the implication here is not that Roach has done nothing wrong, but that the Office of the Dalai Lama does not consider him sufficiently qualified to meet the exception. But putting it in the opposite of the chronological order, the article text seems to use a past conditional statement of the Dalai Lama to refute a more recent statement of his Office. Do you see what I'm getting at here? Yworo (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The statement by His Holiness was generally applicable. It was not my intention to imply that he had corrected his office. I think he has remained wisely silent on the subject, if it has even come to his attention. He has never been quoted as having taken any stance one way or the other on Geshe Michael's qualifications. We would do well to emulate him.

BTW, sorry for the volume--while I was composing my first answer to you, you did two additional edits. Abhayakara (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment. FWIW, I think a good compromise has been reached on the wording of Michael Roach article and see the matter as resolved. Let's move on. Johnfos (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

John, let's wait a few days and see if anybody aside from those of us who have already weighed in decides to review the article, okay? Aside from that, I agree that this discussion is consuming way too much space here. Abhayakara (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see that my application of logic was perhaps not correct. In that case, I still think presenting all sides of the matter is dicatated by our policy of NPOV. However, I see Abhayakara's point about describing the parting of ways as if it were an average relationship breakup. Whatever these two are, average is not a word I'd use to describe them. Yworo (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The personal life section needs much better sourcing, or the unsourced claims removed. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Anything uncited and controversial or contentious should be removed. I would take it to the talkpage to allow anyone that finds supporting citations to replace it. Simple clear as day stuff can be tagged as uncited or likely easily sourced. Off2riorob (talk) 11:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Darrell M. West (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Material in following paragraph from article is biased and contentious.

"His book "Brain Gain" has earned praise from leading people. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg says "Darrell West understands that more than any stimulus or bailout, the most important step we can take to strengthen America's long-term economic health is passing comprehensive immigration reform.... West provides the kind of facts and analysis we need to move the issue forward in Washington." Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush that "a key element in a high growth economic strategy is changing our immigration policies to enhance productivity and innovation. 'Brain Gain' provides a roadmap to do just that." Carnegie Corporation President Vartan Gregorian says 'Brain Gain' is an invaluable work that as dispassionately, factually, and objectively as possible analyzes the political and economic aspects of immigration and their effect on our nation. Writing with a level of thoughtfulness and intellectual rigor missing frm the current debate and informed by rich sources of data, Darrell West tackles the question of why, despite so much evidence that immigration brings substantial economic, intellectual and cultural benefit to the U.S., immigration policy has been so difficult to resolve. In doing so, he has helped raise the level of national discussion about this issue to a new, more enlightened level" (see book's back cover)."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.86.131 (talk • contribs) 2010-07-19 02:45:05

• So why did you copy it here in its entirety? There's the article's talk page. There's the talk page of the editor who added the material. And, given that this is clearly DarrellWest (talk · contribs) copying the advertising blurb from xyr own book jacket into Wikipedia, there's the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest noticeboard. Moreover, what do you want done by others that you cannot already do yourself? Uncle G (talk) 03:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Micah Jesse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Recent removals of cited information  Chzz  ►  04:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Slow-motion edit war over a few months. The vandal needs to get b&, and it wouldn't hurt if someone watched the page since in most cases the vandalism stuck around for about a week before being noticed. 76.211.5.153 (talk) 00:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've revoked the privileges of the main vandalism-only account, and enabled pending changes on the article. Uncle G (talk) 02:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Halevy appears to be a barely notable fitness trainer. Most of the editing to the article has been done by WP:SPAs. As a result, the article contains a great deal of poorly sourced and unsourced information. The article is often used as a battleground between fans and his detractors. I think the article should be trimmed to a near stub, unless much better sources are found. --Ronz (talk) 17:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• The article appears to be a bit fluffy and promotional, with a dash of COI thrown in, basically the gentleman is a personal trainer and certified fitness coach in Manhattan. and could well be not very wiki notable with a few little mentions in fitness sections and lower grade write ups. Off2riorob (talk) 18:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Any objections to trimming it down? --Ronz (talk) 00:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Why not simply propose it for deletion?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• I've looked at the edit history. My goodness! This doesn't appear to be a fans-and-detractors issue, but rather two people who have fallen out over business dealings, one or both of whom are abusing Wikipedia as a battleground.

  It's worth reviewing John Sitaras (AfD discussion) here, partly because it's apparently the other side of the coin (with yet more single-purpose accounts) and partly because from that you'll find a still-accessible copy of the the Men's Vogue article whose citation was erased in this edit. For what it's worth, that information wasn't unsourced because the source didn't exist, as claimed. However, there is no actual mention of this person in that article. I suspect that the original writer of the content was using that source to justify "exclusive". The other source cited there, the CBC article, does support the rest of the statement, but doesn't support "exclusive". Uncle G (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the responses. Yes, at least some of the editors appear to be people working for his former employer.
  • After reviewing the references more closely, I am going ahead with the AfD recommendations. --Ronz (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • FYI, from the AfD page:

• • And yet even further Halevy is a spokesperson for a national brand by the creator of vitaminwater: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ix_M0Jvpq4 - 72.248.3.102 (talk) 18:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't see anything that meets WP:BIO in these links. --Ronz (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Here's the definition: "notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary."
    • So a fitness expert who's on TV regularly, is an authority on certain subjects, has written articles, spoken internationally, and represents a national brand isnt significant? How many trainers do you know that meet have done this? What would that make Halevy represent -- maybe 1% at most of fitness entities? Exactly. This meets Wikipedia's exact criteria. If you think I'm wrong, walk into a gym and see how many trainers there have done any of the above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.248.3.102 (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

72.248.3.102 (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• 
  Just came across this discussion, and from an outsider's perspective (I had absolutely no idea who this was before stumbling on this BOLP thread), I'd say that Halevy is borderline notable. Sources are borderline as well. I would suggest perhaps giving him the benefit of doubt for now, and keeping this as a stub to be expanded on as his notability seems to be on the rise, i.e. possible that more (and better) sources are to follow. Those parties who are suspiciously "interested" in Mr. Halevey's promotion need to take a step back and let some outside editors determine valid info. You can post some sources on my page if you want me to look at them. I'm sure others would be happy to help as well. It's not so much that the info is bad, but that there seems to be some POV issues and if you get and outside perspective, the info you want to include is much more likely to remain. Anyway, I suggest revisiting AFD in a couple of months if no new info or better sources turn up. Just my 2 cents. The Eskimo 15:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eskimo.the (talk • contribs)

• Halevy was named as one of "America's Ultimate Experts" in July 19th Woman's World - the largest selling woman's magazine. Updated entry including ref + exact page number. > added to AfD page as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jeff_Halevy

72.248.3.102 (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – IP Editor seems to have stopped editing in the material, thanks all Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 11:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

90.197.224.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has added allegations to the Brian McGinlay in this edit. I am not convinced that the source is sufficient for a lot of that material and, after being asked by the IP to take a look at the source, raised those issues on the talk page. Which was ignored along with the comment Thanks for that, although I'm not sure your personal reflections on the subject matter are of any relevance. Rather I simply wanted you to confirm what was in the source so I can put it back in the article. I'm struggling to see this user maintaining GF... so can someone else try and explain the issue with the content. The text of the source is posted here temporarily so you can see it (my concerns are that the allegations are all on or two lines in the source which does not constitute reasonable coverage) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 07:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

But the "allegations" were published in national newspapers, see WP:WELLKNOWN. Accordingly I suspect it is you who has the issues and require the explaining to. I stand by my comment - with all due respect - it doesn't matter what you think about the material, but what is in the sources. If you or other editors you are friendly with find it objectionable that is no reason in itself to exclude it from the article. I hope this helps you to understand. 90.197.224.58 (talk) 07:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

No, much of it is incidental information in a report about the fraud allegations. You need, I think, a much better source about, say, the toilet incident. It's also worth pointing out you put it in the Sexuality section - can you see how that is making a connection that the source doesn't make comment on? We have no information on that event and certainly no indication it relates to his sexuality. :) You can cite WP:WELLKNOWN if you like - but it actually invalidates this source for most of the info you added. I dislike the comment If you or other editors you are friendly with find it objectionable, this has nothing to do with objectionable. Trust me :) allegations of gay sex (what is that about BTW? it's a very vague assertion in the article...) are certainly nothing I would find objectionable :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 07:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Allegations in tabloid newspapers don't qualify as WP:RS. The article massively fails BLP standards and references to the Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror and the Daily Record need to go. Wikipedia is better than this. AJRG (talk) 07:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment the 1987 matter is not an allegation but a matter of public record which is significantly documented in the Daily Record. The Times also covers the 'late night incident' which brought about his early retirement. How do you propose we conceal all this information/sources while expanding the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.224.58 (talk) 08:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I have remopved the disputed content, please don't replace it without consensus support here. The content and the citations are awful, the toilet incident where there was no conviction, in a section titled sexuality and then adding that he left his wife the same year is a pure and simple attack content. Off2riorob (talk) 08:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a note - another IP has appeared adding the same content back. Just a heads up. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 18:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned about the status of David Kernell. I don't want to turn this into a he-said-she-said, but I think our BLP policy about what to do with articles about people who are notable only for one event (in this case, the Sarah Palin email hack) is pretty clear. User:Constitutionguard, who it should be understood is a relatively new user, prefers to keep David Kernell as an article about the man rather than redirecting it to Sarah Palin email hack. I have argued against it, and tried to keep it as a redirect, but I don't want to be edit warring really so I'm hoping exposing this to some more eyes can help Constitutionguard see that this isn't the right tack to take. (I should note that David Kernell has been nominated for deletion here, where Constitutionguard offers more of an explanation of what he'd like to see.) I'm a bit at a loss as to how to help him proceed in the proper direction at this point, since his reasoning is sound (Kernell shouldn't only be associated with the email hack incident), but his proposed solution is not (create an entire article on Kernell that only references the email hack incident, along with some probable WP:SYN about an attack on the U.S. Constitution as it stands now). Anyway, I'd appreciate a few more eyes here. — e. ripley\^talk 21:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• AFD discussion closed, article now redirects. This appears to be resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eskimo.the (talk • contribs) 15:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Issues regarding hallucinogen use / advocacy, biased paraphrasing, poor sources and WP:SPA involvement:

• John Major Jenkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jschiapas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• VRTS ticket # 2010071410045091
• VRTS ticket # 2009021410023992
• VRTS ticket # 2010071310000121

Please review. Guy (Help!) 15:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have access to the books, but the "corrections" made by Chambers109 (talk · contribs) and clones are clearly incorrect. If there's a potential BLP problem, the entire sections (not just the paragraphs) includling hallucinogens should be blanked while the discussion is going on at OTRS or at the article talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I see that is the present state. However, if Jenkins did advocate hallucinogen use in his books, that would be notable and appropriate for inclusion. The extensive quotes which used to be in the article certainly appear to be advocating hallucinogen use. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

From what I saw, the subject does not advocate that, if you or anyone wants to add that claim, please provide independant secondary wikipedia reliable citations that support that claim, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I capitulate. I trust that will be a satisfactory "consensus", and have edited the article again. Wikipedia needn't obtain a copy of Jenkins' latest book, the "The 2012 Story", since that book is viewable with Amazon.com's "Look Inside" feature. I was able to view the critical pages 384, 395, 396, 397, 400, and 401. I assume Wikipedia can do the same. (Note that the publisher had to give Amazon permission to display that material.) Since Off2riorob's only objection is that Jenkins' advocacy of hallucinogens is inadequately sourced, I agree to remove all mention of advocacy, and will add that Jenkins denies advocating hallucinogens. I will cite Wikipedia's JzG as the source for that denial, since JzG insists that that denial be included, and has cited no source for it. I have expanded one quote, which Wikipedia can verify online.Jschiapas (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Do not add it again , there is no support for your content at all. Off2riorob (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Looks to me like this one little point of contention is corrupting the integrity of the entire article. Perhaps all this effort should be focused on getting the article to a more encylcodic state rather than consiting primarily of excerpts from the subject's writings? The Eskimo —Preceding undated comment added 17:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC).

• NY Confidential (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is being actively edited and is currently in a shocking state. I don't have time to deal with this now, but someone should radically overhaul this BLP catastrophe. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Removed anything controversial and poorly cited and badly written, which left about eight words. Also left comment, "either write something decent and well cited or don't bother. This article could use a couple of additional watchers to stop any poorly cited claims returning. Off2riorob (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I added in a sentence about Dupre which was supported in the citations & watched the article. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 13:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Watchlisted. — e. ripley\^talk 15:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Joshuaingram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Regarding the phrase Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page of the BLP guidelines, I'm concerned that this edit (comments made about a BLP Keith Olberman--intentionally misspelling the name and making reference to a political position that has not been sourced on the subjects page) on a talk page violates the guideline. I requested that the editor making the comments removed the statements, and they refused stating that I will absolutely not redact my comments unless an administrator comes and explains exactly what is absolutely unacceptable. I would have removed/reverted the possible violation myself, but am seeking assistance because I want to make sure I'm understanding the policy correctly myself (that I'm not in error). Akerans (talk) 21:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

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

The article on Keith Fimian, a candidate for Congress, read like it was written entirely by his polticial opponents. I rewrote the whole page, and some users, namely Critical Chris are re-adding the poorly sourced and potentially libelous information, and making the whole tone of the article negative. I took the article from this to this. The bias on the page is horrendous and needs to stop. BS24 (talk) 01:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Possible WP:OR content removed

A rather bad biography including such outrageous polemics as "On October 26, 2007 NPR aired a story by Garrels that was mainly based on information extracted via torture.[6] Garrels herself described the victims as "blood-soaked" and "sobbing", but used the information anyway, despite the fact that information obtained this way is notoriously unreliable."

I would edit it myself but I have to get some sleep now - gotta get up in 4 hours.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The text was inserted on this edit. My first impression is that it is an original research; the user draw conclusions from the refs he/she used. Sole Soul (talk) 00:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the paragraph concerned is clearly original research and have removed it. --Slp1 (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the first time we've had an image problem here, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive594#Image BLP.3F. We now have an image on Commons, [28] depicting two unnamed men, whose permission we don't have, with the clear suggestion that they are sex tourists. If I'm right and we shouldn't be using this file on the English Wikipedia, is there any Commons BLP issue? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It's from the US State Dept. and clearly attributed as such. Though the larger issue is that it is a violation of NPOV to suggest that it could be a BLP issue. Wikipedia should be neutral; to remove photos solely on the belief that prostitution is wrong and depicting someone engaged in is defamatory is clearly asserting a POV. Thanks. TJ Black (talk) 10:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

This NPOV vs BLP stuff is nonsense. The point of BLP is to remove information that, if untrue, has a reasonable possibility of being hurtful to, damaging to, or otherwise unwelcomed by, the subject. Thus such "negative" information is removed unless verified. It is not POV to take a reasonable guess as to what a subject might reasonably object to. If we followed your line of reasoning, we'd not remove unreferenced remarks like "Joe was an antisemite" or "Bob was a self-confessed paedophile", because calling anti-Semitism or paedophilia "negative" would be POV. Articles should remain neutral, but in protecting living individuals against unfair remarks that are likely to offend them, we can use reasonable subjective assessments of what is likely to be harmful or objectionable. Most people, who are not prostitutes, would object to be called, or identified as, prostitutes (or indeed sex-tourists), and thus for the purposes of BLP, the inference is negative and requires us to take care of our sources.--Scott Mac 20:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Since we have no way of knowing what people might object to, then by your reasoning we must remove nearly all photos from Wikipedia. To single out and target sex work-related photos is asserting a bias; it's equivalent to saying the official position of Wikipedia is that sex work is shameful and wrong. Either NPOV is a core policy or it isn't. TJ Black (talk) 05:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The site the photo was copied from does not state that these men are involved in sex tourism (WP:OR anyone?); in fact, it doesn't indicate whether the photo is real or staged or merely illustrative. Without either a clear reference or the permission of the subjects, the assertion that the people in the photo are engaged in soliciting prostitution is a problem. NPOV doesn't mean we throw common sense out the window - making a claim that a living person engaged in or solicited prostitution (a crime in many nations) is contentious. Shell ^babelfish 06:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure we could find any number of photos on Wikipedia that could potentially have been staged or not really depict what they immediately appear to. Unless you're proposing they all get deleted than there's a clear bias at work here. TJ Black (talk) 07:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It's clearly inappropriate to include a photo of two men as an example of sex tourism without any sourcing that these particular men are engaged in sex tourism - even with sourcing it would be a problem. Hypothetical arguments and reductions to the absurd aren't very helpful here. The bottom line is we can't lightly imply that people are engaged in sex crimes. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Then you're welcome to address any of those photos as well, so long as you aren't silly about it (see WP:POINT if you aren't sure what that means). The point here is that you have no solid reference nor permission from the subjects so this particular image is being used inappropriately - that things might be wrong elsewhere doesn't make ignoring the rules acceptable in this case. Shell ^babelfish 08:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Above, an argument is made that it violates NPOV to claim that two guys might object to being used to illustrate Sex tourism. That argument violates commonsense: Wikipedia does not need to decide whether using a prostitute is good or bad since we do not right social wrongs – we just reflect the real world. Of course it is reasonable to assume that John Citizen would object to being labeled as a "potential customer" in Thailand.

The original image is #8 (here) with a caption that is even worse than ours. In recent months, Wikipedia has been getting a lot more BLP conscious, mainly from a sense of what is ethical rather than what is legal, but I do not know of any clear guideline for a case like this. Johnuniq (talk) 08:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This is an interesting issue. The main concerns, as I see it, are that the two males are recognisable, and that they are identified as "potential customers" of the two women (who I agree are clearly prostitutes, but since they're only seen from the rear they are not clearly identifiable). I think these concerns can be met by doing two things: (1) blur the faces of the two men - I see that this has been partially done for the left-hand man but not for the one on the right, for some reason - (2) and change the caption from "Prostitutes talk to potential customers..." to "Prostitutes talk to Western tourists ..." -- ChrisO (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The thought that we could fuzz out the faces of the two alleged abusers is reflective of the fact that the picture is contensious and adding it is controversial and as such it is a simple solution to leave the picture out. Off2riorob (talk) 12:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Clearcut BLP violation - we cannot imply someone uses the services of sex workers without clear evidence. Find a better picture. Exxolon (talk) 13:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to raise the additional point that the photo is almost certainly a copyright violation. The photo is clearly marked at the original source as being (c) 2005 by Kay Chernush. The copyright page of the site says "You do not have to contact the State Department in order to use the photos in this Web site (tipphotos.state.gov), but they must be used with the credit:"Kay Chernush for the U.S. State Department." - notice that we do not do this, and this vague statement is not a clear copyright license.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure we do. That exact credit is on the photo page on commons, that's what we do when attribution is requested. If that weren't sufficient, every single photo that required attribution would be copyright violation, since we put all attributions like that. Also, of course, photos produced by the US Federal government are public domain. --GRuban (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you're a bit off the mark with this one, Jimbo. The copyright page is clear enough about the terms of use [29], which amount to PD with attribution. No claim of exclusivity or copyright is made. Note that the images are attributed to "Kay Chernush for the U.S. State Department" - in other words, they're clearly a work produced for the US government, not just images that the USG has licensed from the photographer. If the USG didn't own the images it wouldn't have the right to say how they should be used. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that if the photo is indeed public domain, then the context in which it is used is a non-issue unless a complaint is made directly by one of the men in the picture. In that case, we can remove the picture out of courtesy, but I think for now it is fair for us to assume that the State Dept. obtained these men's permission before posting their picture in the public domain for anyone to access.The Eskimo —Preceding undated comment added 18:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC).

Why do you think that's the case? I'd be surprised if that happened. Dougweller (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Squish!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DSC_7334.JPG

Why I just did that

On 14 June 2005 this Statment was added to the Fred Phelps Bio a high visibility article:<removed BLP vio>

This failed to have a source when inserted and the sources its had for over a year now has failed to even remotely back up the claim. Note: this Failed to be addressed during its tenure as a WP:FA or even after its Demotion Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you are posting this here for, you found it and you removed it, would you please remove this big picture it is distracting and there is no action required in regards to it or this thread you have opened at all. Off2riorob (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)