Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DarkFalls (talk | contribs) at 05:57, 22 June 2007 (→[[Jock m sommese]]: deleted). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


    Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
    Shortcuts

    This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

    Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

    Search this noticeboard & archives
    Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Additional notes:



    The following subsections may apply to any or all Biographies of living persons.

    Category:BLP Check

    → In re {{BLPC}} template and WP:BLPC

    I created this page as a simple category to flag BLP concerns quickly: WP:BLPC. It seems like a good idea. - Denny 21:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Good idea. Watch it fill up. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopefully it clears even faster. :) - Denny 21:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Very good idea. Nice one. -- ChrisO 07:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Recent changes to BLPs

    A link to Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Living people has been added to the RecentChanges page under the "Utilities" row, titled BLP. This can facilitate the finding of vandalism to biographies of living persons to avoid a "Sinbad (actor)-type" incident happening in the future. Cross-posted to WP:VPN, WP:AN, WT:BLP, #wikipedia, and #wikipedia-en. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unreferenced BLPs

    There are over 8300 articles on living people that have the {{unreferenced}} tag. This is a list of them. (warning: pretty big page) —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 00:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh shit, that's worse than I thought.--Docg 00:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just looking through a few of them, they have the unreferenced tag at the top but with no indication in the text what the problematic unreferenced material is. It would be good if people could be encouraged not to use the general unreferenced tag, but to add the fact/citation-needed tag to the contentious issues. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, {{fact}} should NEVER be used on contentious issues on BLPs. Uncited contentious material should simply be removed.--Docg 02:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Aye, and originally the list was going to include {{fact}}-transcluders AND {{unreferenced}}-transcluders but the latter is a bigger priority, so let's do that first. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 11:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    For now, I have completed my search. The result: 17 lists of articles (16 of which contain around 1000 articles) on living people that contain {{unreferenced}}, {{unreferencedsect}}, {{more sources}}, or {{fact}}. Over 16,000 articles on living people that are not completely referenced. Let's get working. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 16:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unreliable BLP sources

    NNDB Notable Names Database

    Is the National Names Database a reliable source? The Talk:NNDB page discussion leans against using it. One editor mentions that Jimbo is very against it, especially as a primary source. It seems to be used quite frequently on biographies. I've challenged it on the Paul Wolfowitz page, but would appreciate more input from others. Notmyrealname 20:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No, it is not a reliable source for any sort of controversial or disputed information. FCYTravis 22:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this an official policy or just an opinion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Notmyrealname (talk • contribs) 19:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    From WP:RS: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." We do not know who the authors of the NNDB are, and thus we have no way of knowing how credible or trustworthy the information is. What we do know is that many of the articles (c.f. the NNDB article on Michael Jackson) are written from a clearly-biased perspective with the intent of generating maximum lulz. Our biographies of living persons policy demands the absolute strictest standards of sourcing and neutrality when we maintain a biography of a living person, and further requires that we use great caution in sourcing any claim which may be controversial, derogatory or disputed. Citing NNDB for something like a birthplace is one thing, citing it for a claim that someone was arrested for <insert scandalous crime here> is entirely another. Even then, it shouldn't be cited unless it's absolutely the last resort - and if it is, we probably shouldn't have an article on the subject anyway. FCYTravis 21:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I ran into one case where the NNDB said a person was born in 1954 but his WP article said he was drafted into the army in 1962. Steve Dufour 00:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the quote from Jimbo Wales-Why on earth should we consider it a valid source? It seems to me to be riddled with errors, many of which were lifted directly from Wikipedia. To my knowledge, it should be regarded like Wikipedia: not a valid source for anything in Wikipedia. We need to stick to REAL reliable sources, you know, like newspapers, magazines, books. Random websites are a very bad idea.--Jimbo Wales 18:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Notmyrealname 02:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jewish Virtual Library

    There seems to be a similar problem as above with the Jewish Virtual Library, especially as a source for biographical information. Sourcing seems to be very vague and often cites wikipedia itself. A few examples: [1], [2], [3], [4]. As with the NNDB, if a source is determined to be unreliable, shouldn't it be prohibited from being listed in the references section as well? It seems that this might be used as a way to sneak in information that otherwise wouldn't make it into the wiki article. (I've tried to raise this issue on the Talk:Jewish Virtual Library page and the Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources pages as well but this seems to be a particular problem for biographical info).Notmyrealname 12:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I would treat it as a convenience source, with great care taken about POV. The sponsorship is by "The AMERICAN-ISRAELI COOPERATIVE ENTERPRISE (AICE) was established in 1993 as a nonprofit 501(c)(3), nonpartisan organization to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship by emphasizing the fundamentals of the alliance — the values our nations share." The material posted there is only as authoritative as the source or poster may be authoritative--it always gives the source, but only sometimes the exact link. Looking at their index [5] of biographies, the individual ones link to a variety of useful sources of varying reliability. It obviously cannot be used to prove anything contentious--but since it usually omits negative information, little contentious is likely to be found.DGG 21:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, one concern is that it's a back-door way of implying a person's religion when there isn't a proper way to do it that complies with WP:BLP. It's extremely rare for them to site any of their sources with specificity (I haven't seen any cases of it other than "Republican Jewish Committee" or "Wikipedia"), so there's no easy way to fact check them. I don't see how this resolves any of the concerns that Jimmy Wales raises above about the NNDB. Notmyrealname 22:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Glenn Greenwald

    → See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Eyeballs requested on Glenn Greenwald

    Userlinks
    Article links

    Glenn Greenwald is a political commentator, erstwhile independent blogger and now a columnist for Salon.com. There are allegations from the blogosphere that at some point in his career as a blogger he left comments on other peoples' blogs using different names. The accusation is essentially sockpuppetry in the realm of political blog comments. Even if the accusation is true it is unprovable, negative, potentially libelous and unencyclopedic. The Wikipedia is a resource used by the world at large. The crime of "sockpuppetry" is an inside baseball sort of thing and has no meaning to the general public. Anyway, an edit war erupts over and over on the article with Greenwald-haters and sockpuppets adding this information to the article again and again. // AStanhope 04:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Just posting to add: This issue has been brought up before on the BLP noticeboard (entry #9 in Archive 15. Also, Greenwald has explicitly denied the accusation, which (as noted by AStanhope above) can not in any verifiable sense ever be proven or disproven because the only original source of "evidence" lies on partisan websites with a longstanding animosity towards Greenwald, and as such, are motivated to discredit him. R. Baley 08:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked (for 3RR violations) the anon who keeps adding the disputed claim. Strangely enough, she doesn't appear to be very appreciative... -- ChrisO 23:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Now the same person, Raphaelaarchon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (under yet another IP 211.224.128.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as indicated by this and this (edits made during the 24 hr block, btw) is adding the info to Sockpuppet (Internet) as promised. R. Baley 06:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    We have license to revert and block any user tossing that paragraph around. FCYTravis 07:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have also filed a suspected open proxy check here. R. Baley 07:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an open proxy - Google it. I've blocked it indefinitely. -- ChrisO 07:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Two more open proxies and one sockpuppet account have been used - now also blocked indefinitely. -- ChrisO 18:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The article was recently unprotected and Raphaelaarchon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has again added the allegations to Glenn Greenwald and Sockpuppet (Internet). In view of this conduct, I've reverted the edits, blocked her for 48 hours and warned her that any repetition will result in an indefinite block. -- ChrisO 07:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Raphaelaarchon is now using another open proxy to add the same allegations to Glenn Greenwald, Michael Barone (pundit) and How Would a Patriot Act?. I've blocked the proxy and blocked Raphaelarchon permanently. -- ChrisO 12:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AN/I

    The same user now claims to be working with others on an external forum to coordinate further attacks on a range of Wikipedia articles (diff). I've posted an alert to WP:AN/I to request that people watchlist the targeted articles for a while. It would be helpful if BLP editors could do the same. -- ChrisO 10:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    2 notes: First, just because the entities reporting Glenn Greenwald's use of sock puppets may be "hostile" to him should have no bearing on the matter if the evidence is compelling, provable and factual and the evidence, even if circumstantial, is verifiable and true, (which, if you read the articles, it most certainly is.) You can argue that Woodward and Bernstein and their employer were extremely hostile to Nixon, yet their coverage of Watergate is not excluded here.

    Secondly, a quick perusal of Google finds many legitimate news references to the incident. I could mention http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2006/7/26/sock-puppetry.html by Michael Barone, who, while a center-right conservative pundit, is certainly no partisan hack and I can find no personal animus by him toward Greenwald.

    Lastly, this standard of "denial" by the subject does not seem valid or relevant to the situation at all. Thousands of articles reference crimes, scandals and incidents denied by the subjects, yet when compelling evidence upholds the story, of course Wikipedia reports it. Why, in the Sockpuppet (internet) article alone, there are "examples", some of which the subject denies, yet the article stands. When Greenwald was added as an example, and I think a very well documented one, if you care to read any of the investigative articles, his entry was repeatedly removed. While this information may be negative, it is backed up with much factual documentation, its widely reported, its reported by reputable news organizations, it is relevant and informative, it is fair. This entire affair smacks of protectionism of a single person's article by partisans who support him, while Wikipedia countenances literally thousands of similar articles on less documentation and reporting. Why, the very Michael Barone article from which his reporting of Greenwald's actions was removed contains another article critical of Barone by a left wing blog hostile towards Barone! (by the same Moderator who is policing all the above listed articles purging them of any mention of the sock puppet incident, and not just by the one user, but by many users who are debating in good faith, if you read the Greenwald history page).

    A more neutral Moderator should look at this evidence and make a more fair adjudication. This information should certainly be debated on the exact wording and form, but the actions by Greenwald are egregious and newsworthy and should be included in an even-handed and well-researched manner. There should be no special treatment for this one blogger when others are being mentioned by name, with less proof, in the very articles from which Greenwald is removed. 61.47.19.221 16:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (1) The first edit on May 15 by the anon IP (diff here) and the follow-up re-insertion of material 4 days later on May 19, (diff here, scroll down a little).
    (2) On the talk page more evidence they are the same is in this section (here) where raphaela picks up the discussion on May 19 where it was left off (initiated) by anon 68.84.254.176 four days earlier. This indicates that the account is a meatpuppet at the very least, and most probably a sock.
    (3) Finally, the edits are from an account in Florida, similar to the locations of at least two other socks used (in the U.S., other open-proxy socks have been used internationally). R. Baley 02:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Alan Feinstein

    Resolved
     – Not really a BLPN problem; Appropriate tags were added to the article per below and comments to the talk page were added. -- Jreferee (Talk) 18:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I suspect I am not doing this right, as it is the first time I have run across this problem.

    There is a bio of Alan Shawn Feinstein (Alan Feinstein) which is extremely laudatory. In fact, things are not that clear, and the local paper ran an article about the source of some of his wealth. He also seems to be a very self-promoting person, as far as I can tell, he never gives a nickel to any charity without requiring that they publicize his donation. He makes tv ads about his contributions.

    I made a couple of mild edits to include this info, leaving the ton of laudatory stuff alone, and then in looking at the history found that someone else had tried to do that and had had their edits removed. Also, someone has already flagged the article as of disputed neutrality.

    It's annoying to see a long article that really seems off the beam. What's the policy on this? Can it be fixed to be accurate and then frozen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trudyjh (talk • contribs) 20:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Almost all of the text in this bio was copied from two sources: the March 2004 article in The Providence Journal and the Feinstein Institute page on the Roger Williams University School of Law website. It needs serious copyediting. — Athaenara ✉ 05:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Joe Eigo

    Resolved
     – Not really a BLPN problem; However, references were added to the article to address below concerns. -- Jreferee (Talk) 18:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Article has ostensibly been edited by the subject, contains zero citations, and is in need of a clean up. Made attempts to get citations for some statements, removed others, and tagged the article ([6], [7]). My edits have been repeatedly reverted, first by Naconkantari, then Starnestommy. I can no longer try to improve the article or I will be in breach of 3RR. I've also been given a vandal warning, which is obviously completely unwarranted. --81.179.113.175 02:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Correction: edits in early June (see article history) were very much a BLP policy problem. That does seem to have subsided and remaining issues are minor (e.g. "Canadan" for "Canadian" and piping to incorporate "The" into the Missouri School of Journalism). — Athaenara ✉ 04:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mary Manin Morrissey

    Resolved
     – I gave the article one last once over and it appears BLP free. Matter has received enough intervention to resolve the dispute as far as this board is concerned. -- Jreferee (Talk) 23:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A friend of my parents' is a lawyer, and he is currently mediating a despute between this individual and a former disgruntled employee of hers. Knowing I am admin here, he just gave me a call saying that, during the mediation, the topic of the person in question editing her Wikipedia page came up. Apparently he has added a ton of untrue/biased/slanderous material and when she tries to remove it, she is reverted. He mentioned the allegations of additions section as an example. I quickly glanced at it and it appears sourced, but I didn't have time to check if it was reliably sourced. While I told him the process to e-mail the foundation to remove untrue BLP information, we should make a headstart by trying to clean this up as much as possible. I am in my last 10 days or so of college and finishing up projects, finals, etc. so I really don't have time to deal with this myself right now. If some people can look this article over for BLP problems and remove them ASAP that would be great. VegaDark (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I deleted material that was sourced to unreliable sources such as emails, personal blogs, and discussion forums and placed warning in talk. I will keep the article on my whatchlist for a while. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. VegaDark (talk) 08:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Some more developments to this, here are some e-mails I have received from her lawyer, posting with permission:

    1. "Mary understands that there needs to be something that other folks can edit, but she would also like some semblance of truth posted. Andrew, the one who has been both building and editing the page, and running the list server mentioned on the mary page, has been stalking her and others, has multiple restraining orders against him, etc. He writes letters to the editor type things and then cites them as if they were from the newspaper. Re the question of the cult, Mary is a national figure, founder of the Global Alliance of New Thought Ministers, had many thousands come and go freely in her church, the term in the paper "cult like" just references her popularity and not anything about how she operated. She had a legitimate non profit church, with a board, with officers and annual meetings, etc. Her sermons were broadcast on tv, she sold tapes of her talks, etc."
    2. "From WIkkipedia site: This is a new revision but an example of the problem letting this guy post...the "some that believe it" is unsubstantiated ,it is what Andrew said, it is not what was said in the meeting on June 4th! At the meeting, this was discucssed and no one thought it, if it had happened Mary would have been criminally charged and she was not. So he totally distorts what was said. Andrew then goes on to say what the tv station reported in quoting his opinion, this is not fact but he presents it as fact. He did not invest any money in LEC, he just says this stuff, it gets picked up and then he puts in wikipedia. Is there a way to block this page and just shut it down completely? He is obsessed with LEC and Mary and is imo mentally unstable. He tried multiple times to disrupt the meeting on June 4th, which I moderated."
    3. "This guy Andrew Parodi (not his only name apparently) is using wikipedia as a propaganda propagator, can you delete this whole section which has little or nothing whatsoever to do with Mary Manin Morrissey, but everything to do with Andrew and his attempt to troll and tout his one web site." (He then adds the entire text on the page from "Shortly before the closure of Living Enrichment Center in the summer of 2004, Andrew Parodi started a Yahoo! group..." to "...saying it would come back with returns -- gain interest." - Everything sourced by references 54 through 60.
    4. "any respectable publishing site will retract untrue statements if the facts dictate as such. There have been 26 revisions or edits to the wikipedia site about Mary since June 10th, based on the history of the wikipedia site. I made one of them, just a short note re the June 4th meeting to see what would happen, (because I had heard that Andrew was obsessed about the site and edited and re edited any changes made by anyone beside himself.) Sure enough, my little sentence about the June 4th meeting was edited out and replaced within a very short time, maybe a few hours. Someone is working very hard to control the wikipedia site about Mary, read the talk pages from the administrators. I think that Andrew uses multiple names to make his changes/edits and re edits so that they do not appear all to be from him, but right now, I am convinced ( speculation alert) that he is using the alias on wikipedia "laughing jesus". He is auguring with the wikipedia administrators about a photo of Ed that he published, claiming it is historical record that can not be replaced and was never published except in LEC advertisements. Who around the world would know something like this except a person obsessed with his control of the wikipedia site. Who cares what Ed looks like on a site about Mary?"

    If someone can help with this that would be great. VegaDark (talk) 06:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've taken out the huge section on Andrew Parodi's forum. This should probably have a small paragraph, but the enormous stuff with quotes from Parodi was completely unbalanced. The bit on the settlement is also somewhat unbalanced but I'll leave it to someone else. This article needs to be very carefully watched. --Tony Sidaway 07:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I've tried to make some minor adjustments to the word flow, but I'll watchlist this for future changes. —— Eagle101Need help? 09:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The stubbying done by Tony was the correct approach. Hopefully from now on, material added will be closely scrutinized. I will keep in my watchlist as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

    Resolved
     – I reformatted the article and gave it one last once over. It might not be 100% BLP problem free, but I believe that the matter has received enough intervention to resolve the dispute as far as this board is concerned. -- Jreferee (Talk) 00:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    "I am The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. Please remove the article about me, pending action in the Court of Session for libel. I have made repeated attempts to prevent or correct these libels, but to no avail. The action will be filed in 14 days. If anyone from Wikipedia wishes to contact me to discuss resolution before the action is filed, I may be contacted at monckton@mail.com. If I am not contacted, the action will be lodged without further notice, and an application will be made for service outside the jurisdiction where necessary. It is likely to attract considerable publicity, and it will serve as a useful warning to those who come across it that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. I shall be applying for an order that all Wikipedia content that in any way references or identifies me should not be permitted to be broadcast on the Internet within the jurisdiction of the UK courts.

    "I shall repeat what I have told Wikipedia before: the article about me, which is presumably supposed to be a straightforward biography, is repeatedly amended to make libellous comments, particularly in connection with a) my alleged views on the HIV virus; and b) my alleged views on climate change, both of which have been seriously misrepresented. Also, despite my repeated attempts to remove it, a link has been posted to a hostile article about me, but without posting any link to the correction which the newspaper in question was obliged to print the following day.

    "I have done my best to get this matter resolved by other means, but without any success. Unless I hear from Wikipedia, it will become unlawful for Wikipedia to transmit any material in any way mentioning or identifying me into Scotland, and my US agents will apply for the judgment of the Court of Session to be enforced, with damages and costs, in whatever jurisdiction wikipedia uses. It is not acceptable that I, as the victim of a libel in my own biographical entry, should be prevented from editing or removing the libel, while Wikipedia can continue unmolested to blacken my name."

    Mr. Monckton, could you please send an e-mail to info-en@wikipedia.org, detailing what you believe is libelous in the article? We will open a trouble ticket and work with you to try and resolve these issues. Thank you. FCYTravis 19:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Monckton can't enforce his libel judgment in the United States, since British libel law violates U.S. public policy. See, for example, this district court case and this discussion. Other cases include this, a similar case with the same holding. *** Crotalus *** 23:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed a very questionable statement written here by Raymond Arritt. Do not use the BLPN to impugn the motives or issues involved with living persons who question, rightly or wrongly, the factual accuracy and fairness of their biographies. FCYTravis 00:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems this isn't the first time an anon claiming to be Monckton has made legal threats. See Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley#Deletions?. By the way, the IP address does trace to the UK (specifically Cable & Wireless/Energis). -- ChrisO 08:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there's been a bad history with that article. The parts of the page that the IP user keeps deleting have appropriate citations. As an editor of the page, I'm confused as to what the libelous statements might be. I'm open to suggestions for revision, although I have little hope of ever satisfying the IP user, whoever he or she is. SeaAndSand 02:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr. Monckton--if this is really him--is mistaken on all of his charges. Going one by one, a) has been true in the past, but no recent edits have mentioned his views on HIV/AIDS, as any objecitve perusal of the page history will show. As for b), Monckton's views on climate change are not specifically discussed, so I don't know how they could be misrepresented. All statments about his views are statements of fact supported by sources. The paragraph that the IP user repeatedly deletes links to two rebuttals of Monckton's essay by two noted scientists. It would be helpful if the IP user was specific about the "hostile article" in question, but it appears to refer to George Monbiot's piece. This piece is still available on the Guardian's website [10] and there is no link to any correction. I can find no record of any correction online--though Monckton was allowed to respond in the Guardian and this response is linked on the biography page. If the Guardian article is libelous, then the IP user should take it up with them and not sites that link to it. SeaAndSand 03:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe Monckton did actually threaten to sue the Guardian but was mollified by the newspaper agreeing to run a "right to reply" article which he wrote in reply to Monbiot's piece. The resultant article is the text which the anon IP attempted to paste - in its entirety - into Wikipedia in this diff. So there is clearly no reason to suppose that the Monbiot article is libellous, since Monckton not only didn't sue but accepted an alternative form of redress. -- ChrisO 21:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Premature resolution?

    Has the lawsuit threat in fact been formally addressed with Monckton (or the person purporting to be him)? If not, then the matter should not be marked as resolved and the page unprotected, as has been done here. In my view there was nothing in the original article that would have prompted BLP concerns but it's clear that Monckton (or his agent) thought differently. The issue at hand is not objective BLP concerns but the lawsuit threat. Raymond Arritt 14:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Tom Cruise

    Resolved
     – Per below. -- Jreferee (Talk) 00:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This bio article is protected so I can't remove the 'Tom Cruise=Jesus' story that was first printed in a British tabloid, the Sun. I am requesting that an admin remove the reference, as it has been denied by Scientology officials and is poorly sourced. It is at the very end of the Miscellaneous section. 69.12.131.206 20:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Removed - The Sun hardly counts as a reliable source. FCYTravis 20:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree. Yes, it's a tabloid, but it does carry serious and generally accurate reporting alongside the celebrity fluff. It can't simply be dismissed as entirely unreliable. The report in question was picked up by a great many other sources (see [11]), so it wasn't just something that the Sun ran. -- ChrisO 18:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The Sun reporting on Tom Cruise is unreliable celebrity fluff and rumor. Jehochman Talk 09:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    More lists

    Resolved

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jossi (talk • contribs) 03:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I went through the category for articles tagged with {{unreferenced}} and found some lists which could be problematic for WP:BLP. What does everyone think of these?--BirgitteSB 17:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    In Afd ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to List of convicted Australian criminals and removed speculative entries. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In AfD ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed unsourced and speculative entries. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That edit was reverted the same day. — Athaenara ✉ 21:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Tagged as lacking sources ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It had been tagged since May 5th. — Athaenara ✉ 21:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Paris Hilton

    Resolved
     – Per below.-- Jreferee (Talk) 00:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unsourced (and highly questionable) negative information concerning a "medical condition". --- RockMFR 20:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Lots of linking to pictures of her crying, used for humiliating effect. Since none are allowed since a free image exists showing what she looks like, why link to them at all? It is harmful Cornea 21:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Lots"? I see two links, since you cried foul when you called a mugshot image "abusive." Others are far "worse." You also removed much information from the article regarding recent events, such as her 70 in a 35 speeding, and etc., violating a neutral stance. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I referred to Paris Hilton, not the talk page. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Medical condition information and crying photos confirmed as being removed from the article. The talk page does not seem to need BLPN help. -- Jreferee (Talk) 00:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Prospective question

    Resolved
     – Prospective question answered with article creation.-- Jreferee (Talk) 00:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This in an inquiry about BLP concerns regarding a 9-year old video game star who today is the subject of a major feature in the New York Times [12] The publicity was clearly done with the permission of his parents, and his career has been with their encouragement. (Personally, I think its outrageous behavior on their part & there therefore might be some BLP concerns with respect to them as well). But the NYT considered it appropriate to print, & that's a major national medium. I don't see how we can ignore it, but frankly had I been the Times I would have refused the story. DGG 21:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia requires an article of everyone featured in the New York Times? Quatloo 00:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that he is not a proper subject for an encyclopedia article. However he probably will have one here soon. The Star Wars Kid does. Steve Dufour 01:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There are many other articles on him. There are articles on him or mentioning him in the Sunday Times, Orlando Sentinel, National Post, New York Daily News, Sports Illustrated, Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, and an article by Kelli Kennedy that went out on the AP wire. The earliest mention was in October 2005 by Electronic Gaming Monthly. If that's not 'notable', I don't know what is. If someone else doesn't make it in a few days, I'll do it. Nevermind, someone already did and I just couldn't find it. Chris Croy 06:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Andrea Yates

    • Andrea Yates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I feel that these type of article, should be moved to wikinews and only touch on the crime or action, not on the person. It is as if the Wikipedia is becoming a sensationalist encyclopaedia. I have also put a tag on a similar article stub Lisa Ann Diaz. As I read in wikipedia policy:

    Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them.

    If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a redirect is usually the better option. Cover the event, not the person.

    I think that all of these type of articles should be deleted or at least totally rewriten and just focus on the event. Sadly many people are murdered in the world everyday, but it has not object to include these facts in an encyclopedia // Francisco Valverde 11:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    BLP is not for article moves. Wikipedia may not be a newspaper, but one of the most notable murders of the 21st century definitely deserves coverage. To exclude Lizzie Borden, for example, would be a huge hole in a general purpose encyclopedia, and very noticeable in one as detailed and comprehensive as ours.--Prosfilaes 12:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, there is no reason to not have this article merely because others have sensationalized it. Quatloo 06:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally, article moves are one way of decreasing BLP--it was reasonably argued that having personal name in the title would give a very high rating of the WP article on search engines. But in this case I don't see how to move it.
    But I really have a problem with this article, even tho I very strongly dislike the overuse of BLP. The reason is that her conviction was overturned and she was found not guilty. She was finally judged to be insane, not criminal. This really matters--she can not be treated as a criminal in WP--or for that matter elsewhere--she will have her full civil rights if cured. As a minimum, the picture is unjustifiable; no ethical publication can include pictures of the insane to emphasize their insanity--this is not just 20th century sensationalism, this is 18th century barbarity. (After the conviction & before it was overturned, this was of course different). I do not believe in taking unilateral action, but if I did I would now remove the picture. The text also needs revision--one does not publicize her delusions. What she did while insane does not diminish this, or give us the right to over-emphasize the act. The act however was so notable & received so much publicity that we can properly includes a short sourced article. We maintain our rights to objective coverage by not overextending them. DGG 07:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    She notoriously killed her children. She does not have to be found guilty in order to justify having a WP article. Also, nobody once judged insane can have all their civil rights restored -- she will not be able to own a firearm, for instance. Quatloo 08:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does what the court say really matter here? Very few killers lack mental problems, and courts just look at things from one dimension, interesting from a legal perspective, but not necessarily from a psychological or ethical perspective. Of course we should publicize her delusions; you can't discuss a murder without discussing why it was done, and treating delusions like they are embarrassments to be swept under the table is terribly Victorian and hostile to the mentally ill. A full biography of anyone includes photographs.--Prosfilaes 13:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Marcus Einfeld

    This article focuses on the subject's alleged lack of integrity. Most references are to newspaper reports which brought the subjects character into question after a speeding ticket controversy. The subject is a prominent Australian legal figure. Thus the article should contain more information about his career and achievements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.73.205.72 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This article was in pretty poor shape with much original research, sources that no longer worked (led to defunct webpages), POV phrasing and undue weight given to relatively trivial issues in order to smear the subject. I have greatly reduced the article and given detailed justifications on the talk page. It should probably be reduced further by someone with greater knowledge of the subject and also requires some formatting fixes which I may do later. CIreland 13:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ho Yeow Sun

    Resolved
     – Ho Yeow Sun protected by Visviva based on continued insertion of copyvio text, and edit warring by all parties. Article stubbed and things seem to have calmed down. -- Jreferee (Talk) 04:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Neutral opinions are requested as to whether this Controversy section complies with WP:BLP and, if not, what should be done about it. (See also Talk page; the church in question has blocked itself from archive.org during the last week, disabling one of the links.) Jpatokal 12:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the present version omitting that section is on balance preferable. I oppose over-extending BLP, but the previous version was not really NPOV & it would be difficult to deal with in a brief space. DGG 07:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with DGG. Keeping it deleted is best. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, since the request was posted, some interesting new sources including a direct clarification from the church itself was found, and the section has been rewritten like this. Any opinions? Jpatokal 16:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    DeCavalcante crime family

    Appears to accuse a construction foreman of controling a mob family. Unsourced. Here is a search for all of the other crime family artilces we maintain [13] PouponOnToast 14:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You missed the references and further reading section. It simply lacks inline citations. Chris Croy 15:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reference. From 1993. And a few news articles. This is enough weight to accuse someone of being a mob boss? PouponOnToast 16:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a specific reference for the mob boss. The policy is simple: If there's a reliable source that says something, it can go in as long as it's relevant. Chris Croy 21:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Joseph McMillan

    Resolved
     – The material requested by McMillan to be deleted was speedy deleted per request by only editor. The new material may have issues, but not BLPN issues. -- Jreferee (Talk) 05:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Joseph McMillan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There is an archived discussion here that led to this article's deletion in November of last year. It's been rewritten? The man doesn't want an article and has tried to get it deleted.--dave-- 16:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Is the article the same as the old one? In other words, is it still copyvio? I don't think the subject of the article gets a say in whether we include it or not. Sperril 03:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The article resembles the material in the online biography flagged up in the archived discussion. I'm not so sure it is enough of a rewrite to escape being a copyvio. Also note that the current article was copied (under GDFL) from http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Joseph_McMillan (Feb 2004). AvB ÷ talk 21:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: On 02:07, 15 November 2006 Tawker deleted "Joseph McMillan" per G12/A7 / apparent author in response to this discussion. I do not see any BLPN problems. The current article was copied (under GDFL) from sourcewatch.com, there still might be copyvio issues per the article resembling the material in the online biography if sourcewatch.com was taken from online biography without permission. -- Jreferee (Talk) 05:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Craig T. Enoch

    Craig T. Enoch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This person was a member of the Texas Supreme Court. The article is stub class. The issue is that his son was convicted on child pornography charges. Another editor added this info to the article and it was subsequently deleted. I readded the information with an online newspaper article as a cite and it was again deleted by the same person who removed the first one. The removing editor's reason was that the article wasn't about his son and that his son would require his own article. I disagree because the only things that make his son notable are his child porn conviction, and the fact that he's the son of a former Texas Supreme Court justice. I believe that both of these facts in combination make his son notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. I don't believe that they warrant his own article. If he does warrant his own article, then we would have to mention that he's notable for being the son of Craig T. Enoch. This brings us back to square one. (The article wouldn't be about Craig T. Enoch so he shouldn't be mentioned in the article about his son.) Just for reference purposes, this is the line I had added... "In 2006, his son, Gates Enoch, plead guilty to possession of child pornography and was sentenced to 22 months in federal prison." (with cite) Sperril 23:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The father didn't seem very notable either. I put a tag on the article. Steve Dufour 02:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That last one doesn't make much sense to me. Since all members of state legislatures are N, and there's hundreds in each state, surely the justices of the State highest level courts are N. (I note that in New York State, the "Supreme Court" is not actually the highest court.)DGG 03:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If that is the standard, fine with me. I didn't know where the cut-off level should be. The only information in the article is from the website of the law firm he is working for now. Steve Dufour 03:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is absolutely not acceptable. The sins of the son are not visited on the father, and have no business in his biography. Not everyone ever convicted of a crime is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. FCYTravis 03:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand what you are saying. That's why I pointed out that the conviction alone would not be enough to warrant inclusion. I agree with your opinion that the sins of the son shouldn't be visited on the father. What I'm looking for is policy / precedant. I can think of Noelle Bush as an example. The only thing she's really notable for is her criminal history. This wouldn't normally make her notable enough for an article on wikipedia except that she's the daughter of former Florida Governor Jeb Bush. I also understand the vast difference between a Governor / President's brother having a child that got into trouble vs. a former State Supreme Court Justice's child that got into trouble. I guess we have 3 options. 1 is to not put any information anywhere on wikipedia regarding his son's arrest. 2 would be to include a single line on the page of the father that mentions it. 3 would be to create it's own article. Is there any precedance or policy that covers this? Sperril 03:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The answer in these cases would be 1, no information. We're not a directory of every crime ever committed, and there's no evidence to suggest that Gates Enoch's crime has had any sort of broad media impact or national notoriety, as, say, Noelle Bush's actions have generated. To create an article on him just to report that he was convicted of a run-of-the-mill crime would place undue weight on that crime (we can't possibly write a balanced biography of him) and to include it in the article on his father would taint Mr. Enoch with his son's actions for no good reason. FCYTravis 04:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm leaning in the same direction myself. I definitely agree that creating a seperate article is out of the question for the reasons you cited. Sperril 04:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    William Gaillard

    A rather minor figure from European Football who has been featured heavily in the British press recently due to some remarks he made about Liverpool FC. A page about him was then created, and has been used to merely re-create the attacks on his character. The article does not adere to Wikipedia's NPOV policy, certain users are reluctant to enter into dispute resolution and prefer instead to instigate edit/revert wars. Edcoomber 11:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Chris Gore + Philip Zlotorynski

    A user (User:GBone77) threatened User:Roleplayer with legal action, see Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance), because of slander, he claims to be Chris Gore, I gave him a conflict of interest warning, but I don't really know what to do, because he edited a lot of different articles related to him, do you revert the articles, or something like that? Jeffrey.Kleykamp 13:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I also noticed in his contributions that he took away information with references and replaced them with his own stuff (it goes so far that at least one page recently got a deletion proposal because it is unverifiable), he also took away completely the license of a photo of Chris Gore. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 13:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Kola Boof

    Resolved
     – Two solutions to question provided. -- Jreferee (Talk) 01:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The article for this author has recently been deleted, after first being stubbed, based, according to the admins who did first the stubbing and then the deletion, on input from the subject (see here regarding the former). After the stubbing of what was in fact a contentious and inconsistently sourced article (with the majority of the questionable sources posted by more-or-less single-purpose editors and consisting of material from blogs and press-release posting sites that represented the subject's POV), I started the process of creating a better-sourced piece; the result as of the night of June 11 had as its sources the subject's own site, Harper's Magazine, The New York Times, and the site of an expert on Osama bin Laden, with whom Boof claims to have had a sexual relationship[14]. Even so, the brief start at a new article was deleted. What can one do regarding a controversial but unquestionably notable person who evidently objects to any WP article that falls short of hagiography? Robertissimo 17:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It was deleted twice based on BLP concerns from subject on OTRS Ticket, once by Zscout370 and once by Nick. See Logs. Your question may be better addressed by either Zscout370 or Nick. In addition, an arbitrator recently wrote in a "Proposed decision":
    Summary deletion of BLPs
    4) Any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant BLP policy. This deletion may be contested via the usual means; however, the article must not be restored, whether through undeletion or otherwise, without an actual consensus to do so. The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the article to demonstrate that it is compliant with every aspect of the policy.
    -- Jreferee (Talk) 01:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Marc Dutroux

    Definitely no citations, not to mention that someone tried to do something about it, but ended up replying to themselves on the talk page?! Basically, the 1st paragraph describes the sensitive nature of the whole articel, so I'd rather not repeat the summary. 68.39.174.238 20:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Quatloo recently removed some uncited information. I've just read the article which matches my memories of news reports over the years (I live in the Netherlands where news coverage of this case mirrored that in Belgium). I've scanned the first four sources and feel they have been adequately summarized in the article. It is true that the article lacks inline cites, which should be changed. I'm not sure this should be done immediately; the article looks well-researched to me.
    On a side note, unless I'm very much mistaken, at least one earlier deletion as "uncited" (diff) (not by Quatloo) may be incorrect -- I think I saw the information in one of the refs. It can be restored if an inline cite is provided.
    I also scanned the talk page but I'm not sure I understand what 68.39.174.238 is trying to say. AvB ÷ talk 19:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Kit Malthouse

    In his entry, it states that I, Len Cook did not get my contract renewed because of his actions. That is not true, and a defamatory statement — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.62.196 (talk • contribs)

    I've cut away large portions of the article, which is essentially unsourced (both external links are devoid of actual content, and wouldn't be reliable sources for anything except Malthouse's opinions). If someone wants to dig up the WSJ article referred to and see if there's anything useful in it, that would be great. -- Jonel | Speak 15:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Blind application is BLP, or any other policy, is madness. I left out the section on rough sleepers(I couldn't find ANY sources on his involvement in that) and the reference to Len Cook. The section on prostitution & phone booths is entirely sourced to that WSJ article. Chris Croy 21:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for adding sources. The article sorely needed them. -- Jonel | Speak 22:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark F. "Thor" Hearne

    Resolved
     – Redirected and protected per below. -- Jreferee (Talk) 02:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A news article appearing today states:

    In the latest chapter of a string of attempts by Hearne to cleanse his public record as lead snake-oil salesman for the mysteriously-funded "non-partisan" group that he founded to push propaganda about a massive (if non-existent) Democratic 'voter fraud' epidemic, it seems his Wikipedia page has been expurgated of all references to the ACVR.

    As you might expect after such a news article, the Mark F. "Thor" Hearne Wikipedia article has a variety of unsourced BLP problems as well as POV problems. The article needs some Wiki love by someone with a little time to devote to it. Thanks. -- Jreferee (Talk) 17:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    After attempts to fix the article, Zscout370 redirected and then protected the article per OTSR ticket on 03:25 14 June 2007.

    Anatoly Lebedko

    A nearly identical message was posted on the article talk page from another IP. The article itself has not been edited since early April 2007. — Athaenara ✉ 23:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Gwen Shamblin and NPOV's "N"

    Gwen Shamblin bio - NPOV's "N" is for "Neutral" not "Negative" or "Newsworthy" right?

    The Gwen Shamblin wiki entry including the recent discussions on the Gwen Shamblin Talk page have gotten Shamblin's attention for once. As an authorized representative for Shamblin, I am sincerely asking for the help and direction of admins and editors alike to consider the difference between allegations and facts, and unintended consequences of allegations. I would at least like to ask that anonymous edits not be allowed on this entry similar to the Phil McGraw entry.

    Everyone has their critics, even Dr. Phil, Dr. Laura, and Michael Jackson have their critics, dissentors, disenchanted former employees, and ex-clients. However, some of the allegations reported in the news about Shamblin and now recently re-gurgitated on wiki, rise to a unique level that may be inciting threatening letters, emails, and phonecalls. Recently she has had several close-calls in direct face-to-face confrontations, two of which required local police intervention and subsequent discovered potentially violent intentions. These incedents by total strangers had one thing in common, they involved people who had never even met Mrs. Shamblin and knew nothing about her except what they read in a news article or on the internet where a certain few people have made vague claims that Shamblin has said, done, teaches, or approves of harming children or others. Allegations, Mrs. Shamblin has flatly denied and has repeatedly proven (and been forced to prove to police) that they are false. When someone continues to uphold these unsupported claims that she or her church approve of child-abuse, it tends to get self-appointed vigilante types crazy. A seemingly noble cause is all some people need to snap.

    Media outlets are understandably slow to let go of a shocking controversy, because they sell news that is shocking. But surely, as intriguing as accusations of criminal or pseudo-criminal behavior like this are to the media and those who would stop a reported "monster", this is why wiki has a very well thought out policy on biographies of LIVING persons. I don't want to wait until some sincerely tragic headline news of an attack on Mrs. Shamblin is reported to ask for reasonable consideration of facts and what has merely been alledged, this is very serious. GwenShamblinRepresentative - GwenShamblinRepresentative 18:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please let me know in talk page of that article what is disputed text that you want removed on that basis, and I will take a look. You can also emai me if you feel more comfortable doing so privately. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you prefer it, you can contact the OTRS volunteers. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Physical appearance of Michael Jackson

    I have removed the "Weight" section from Physical appearance of Michael Jackson. It was unsourced, controversial, potentially libelous, and appears to be original research. (See the first sentence). The diff can be found here. Although unrelated, it also uses weasel words. Cool Bluetalk to me 20:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sylvia Browne

    After the deletion an editor has restored the material on the basis that I have edited the article before and therefore my action could not accepted as a BLP intervention. I would appreciate if other BLP watchers can comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    David Oreck

    Resolved
     – User banned; article cleaned up. -- Jreferee (Talk) 03:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    At least three (1 2 3) accounts got indefinite blocks, some anonIPs got shorter ones. — Athaenara ✉ 05:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Benjamin LaGuer

    Needs some more eyes. Sorely lacking in inline citations. -- Jonel | Speak 02:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sir James Stronge, 10th Baronet

    Resolved
     – Article redirected per AfD consensus and contentious BLP material removed. -- Jreferee (Talk) 04:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Quite contentious unsourced claim of a mental or emotional disability; there is no version of the article without the claim except for a one-liner that was quite correctly tagged for speedy at the time. The article is up for AfD, but this claim should be removed from the history, and no version of the article is really salvageable. Carlossuarez46 19:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Eugene Martin Ingram

    Ugh... I have some knowledge of the subject - he has some notoriety among Scientology critics and ex-Scientologists for being an "enforcer" for the Church of Scientology's Office of Special Affairs. I would suggest pruning the article further and merging whatever remains to the Office of Special Affairs article, leaving a redirect behind. If it can wait until the weekend I'm happy to do this myself. -- ChrisO 21:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like a reasonable solution. Some of the info here is probably relevant to some article, but this biography just doesn't seem like a good idea. Mangojuicetalk 02:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The AfD consensus Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugene Martin Ingram seems to be for the subject to have its own article, and not be merged. Smee 02:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    I disagree. Ingram is notable by himself already. --Tilman 11:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Some people happen to be notable for a lot of "negative" facts. Consider "pruning" Idi Amin and Dennis Rader too, these articles are much too "negative". For example, the second one focuses on alleged "crimes" only backed up by court records, while neglecting to mention his good works for his church. --Tilman 11:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Amin and Rader are notable as independent actors who actually did things that are historically significant. Ingram is only notable as an OSA operative and his activities are merely a footnote to OSA's broader activities. We certainly wouldn't have an article on him if he was just another private investigator. -- ChrisO 10:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ChrisO: I felt this couldn't wait any longer, so I've deleted the article. If you do still want to merge the info somewhere, let me know and we can work something out. Mangojuicetalk 14:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Barrymore

      • It will need to be watched at least for the next few days. He's pretty famous/notorious over here - Phil Spector is the closest US parallel I can think of - and the current murder case will certainly be front-page news tomorrow and probably for some days to come. -- ChrisO 23:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jack Radcliffe

    Michael Nutter

    George Soros

    G.S. is a very controversial guy and draws many bizarre criticisms, may of which are included in the very long article, e.g. a Prime Minister once called him "a moron," conservatives call him a "Communist" and a self described "far left-winger" suggest that he works with ("for" suggested) the CIA, and there are also allegations (unfounded to my reading of the evidence) about nazi collaberation (when he was 13 years old!) that have been brought up in major publications. Currently, Bill O'Reilly has said something about him contolling US media and the Democratic Party. My feeling is that some of this might be included - but only to show that notable figures make bizzare claims about him. I'm withdrawing from editing this article for the time being - because it's just too hard to decide what is fair and what is not. I hope others will keep an eye on on it from a BLP point of view. Smallbones 09:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have removed the "communist" accusation, which is defamatory as well as being simply absurd. Also I believe it is problematic including what every crackpot thinks of every person in the public eye, and not the role of Wikipedia to be a sounding board for such things.--Samiharris 19:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, for now that the problem seems resolved, but I'll suggest that there's a strong likelihood that similar things will pop up in the future. BTW, shouldn't the "resolved" be signed? Smallbones 08:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that {{resolved}} should always be signed. — Athaenara ✉ 08:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am un-resolving this article. We seem to be having some very novel interpretations of WP:BLP being used to justify the removal of notable, reliably sourced criticism by Bill O'Reilly. Claims of everything from Fox News not being a reliable source to O'Reilly being non-notable are being used. Since I am vigorously defending the inclusion of a neutral, sourced, and notable bit of criticism against threats of "sterner action", I will recuse myself from further discussion here on this topic, except to state that in my experienced opinion as a BLP patroller since the patrol was first formed, the passage I am defending is NOT a blp violation. I will continue the discussion at Talk:George Soros. I will also point out that Gamaliel is also lukewarmly defending the inclusion (or at least not demanding the removal) of such criticism, in a slightly modified form. Those who are using BLP in this situation are, in my opinion, misusing the policy to force a whitewash of this subject. - Crockspot 15:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly object to the way this has been characterized. I asked for the intervention of an uninvolved administrator who had previously intervened on that page. He did so and now Crockspot is seeking to contest that determination. He reverted the objectionable material despite a warning from the administrator that "stronger action" would be taken if the material continued to be inserted in the article. I very much object to this "whitewash" accusation. Soros has come under attack from a political commentator who made an unsubstantiated accusation against Soros that was denied. It appears to be a false accusation. It has been substantiated by no one. It is highly unfair and improper for Wikipedia to repeat this apparently false accusation. BLP states the abiding rule is to "do no harm," and that needs to be applied in this situation. I would suggest that if anyone has an agenda here it is Crockspot, not the persons resisting use of the material.--Samiharris 15:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I particularly object to the term "reliably sourced" as relates to the allegations by Bill O'Reilly. These accusations, by a political commentator with a well-known prejudice against Soros, were unsubstantiated. They were simply accusations, and they were denied. We cannot shirk our responsibility by blandly reporting a very damaging accusation (that Soros is the funding mastermind of left-wing media websites) that is denied and, as coming from a person with an evident political bias, is inherently untrustworthy and unreliable as relates to this particular subject matter.--Samiharris 15:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So let me get this straight - all the tens of billions of dollars funneled into political campaigns and lobbying efforts by major international corporations is all kosher, but if a guy like Soros funds liberal groups, that's exerting undue political influence? Balderdash. O'Reilly's allegations are fundamentally false and misleading and have no place in an encyclopedic discussion of Soros. FCYTravis 19:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I feel that the main issue is being danced around. The editors seem to be using their personal opinion of O'Reilly as their reason for not including the reported material. Here is a modified version of something I posted on the Soros talk page:


    What the editors who are against the inclusion of this material need to be reminded of is that this is in a "Criticism" section. It has not been stated as fact in the encyclopedia. Nobody is trying to mislead Wikipedia's readers. What IS being attempted is to report that a major and well known critic, Bill O'Reilly, criticized Soros. In fact, this is not the only instance that he's criticized him. He has done it several times on his program, and has even devoted an entire section of his book to Soros in "Culture Warrior." In fact, the whole premise of the book is based on the alleged manipulation of the media from Soros and others like him.

    O'Reilly has even gone on Oprah and slammed Soros.

    So it is indisputable that O'Reilly is the biggest critic of Soros. Yet, after the revert, the name Bill O'Reilly happens to be missing from the "Criticism" section. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 22:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no need to include "criticisms" by personalities such as Bill O'Reilly or Al Franken when they are done in such lightweight forums as television or radio talk shows. If such criticism is done in a serious academic forum such as a peer reviewed journal, that would be a different thing entirely. Quatloo 23:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the policy or precedent for your stance Quatloo? Because, from my experience (albeit limited), Wikipedia is full of such criticisms from such sources. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 00:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply to Quatloo: Peer-reviewed journals for political criticism? That threshold seems to be on the high side. What are the publications that would qualify? R. Baley 00:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply to Bellowed: on the other hand I think that currently our threshold is set somewhat too low, leading to a lot of "he said/she said" -back and forth commentary (or insult and counterattack, if you prefer). It would be different if O'Reilly had been pointing out Soros (atypical?) money donations and control because it had been covered in other separately owned, and more neutral (at least ostensibly) sources. Then I think it could possibly meet a notable threshold and be included (while also citing other sources). R. Baley 00:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not mean to imply that peer-reviewed discourse was required, I was merely using it as an example to make the point that if criticism is to be included, it need not be taken from the gutter of talk radio/tv. How about from an editorial page? A column from a news magazine? Foreign Affairs? No shortage exists of such material. The absence of opinion from talk programs, as User:Bellowed seems to urgently inform us as a serious omission in need of redress -- that is no omission at all. Quatloo 05:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Replicating criticism from O'Reilly etc. falls clearly under the "Wikipedia is not a tabloid" dictum in BLP. To me it is a very clearcut situation and I regret some of the rhetoric ("whitewash") that is being employed to justify inclusion of this material--Samiharris 15:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    After an apparent threat of a block, I am going to stop editing the article for now. I have been personally attacked and accused of pressing a right-wing agenda, but if you look at Talk:George Soros, the political comments and accustations are certainly not coming from me. My inquiry as to the full meaning of the argument being presented is being ignored so far. There's not much more I can do. There certainly does seem to be a political agenda at work here. It stinks. But I have a clean block log, and this fight is not worth hanging myself out to dry over. I hope that the other patrollers will express their opinion at Talk:George Soros, whether you agree with me or not. I think what is going on is a serious abuse of BLP, and it needs to be dealt with. If the consensus is that I don't know what the hell I'm talking about, then I need to know that too. - Crockspot 04:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it's fair to say this is an issue on the borderline. Reviewing WP:BLP the most relevant section seems to be under "Critics"
    "The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable secondary sources,"
    Since the fact being reported is that O'Reilly is critisizing Soros, I think we need to get somebody other than O'Reilly (a secondary source) saying that O'Reilly said... - if it is to be included at all.
    I sort of want the criticism in, since O'Reilly is notable.
    I don't think that this type of criticism reflect badly on Soros, I think it reflects badly on O'Reilly - that he is conducting a smear campaign like this. But I guess the rule works both ways - unless there is a secondary source saying that O'Reilly is conducting a smear campaign then it should not be included. Smallbones 16:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So anyone who criticized another in multiple books that they have published, and on multiple television and radio broadcasts that are highly rated and listened to/watched, still must have a further secondary source referring to it? Is that the precedent we are setting? I'm willing to work with that IF this precedent is applied fairly across all of the BLP articles on Wikipedia. So for example, anything that MediaMatters puts out must have a reliable secondary news article referring to it, or it cannot be used. Any article that one of the big guys over at the NY Times writes that is critical of someone, must be commented on by another reliable secondary before it can be used (for example this followed by this). I don't believe the editors who are fighing this inclusion would really want that, considering just about every bio of anyone conservative is chock full of critical sources that would have to be removed. BTW, I am no longer recusing myself from this argument here, as I am now resigning as one of the original BLP patrollers. Apparently I don't understand the policy well enough to be attempting to enforce it. - Crockspot 17:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This problem raises an interesting point which you now allude to. I think it is an open question as to whether criticism must be always be sourced to primary or secondary sources. That being said, criticism cannot be sourced to non-reliable sources -- blogs, message boards, radio or television talk shows, etc. This is true no matter their ratings. Because some blog is widely read or some TV show has high Neilsen ratings, does not somehow magically turn it into a reliable source. Quatloo 00:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable secondary sources,"
    The problem is that O'Reilly's criticisms aren't based on any reliably sourced facts. All we can report is the fact that he is critisizing, which it seems from the above BLP policy quote, must be sourced from secondary (not primary=O'Reilly) sources. If he has indeed has put this criticism in multiple books, TV shows, etc. then it should be pretty easy documenting that he said it from a secondary source. For example somebody mentioned that he was on an Oprah show. If anybody asked him even a basic question on this (as opposed to just letting him ramble on) then that would be a reliable secondary source.
    Let's leave other articles out of this discussion for now and just resolve the problem in the Soros article. I've been confused on this borderline question for some time and it keeps coming up in the Soros article - nonfactual criticism from notable people. I asked for help in interpreting BLP on this. If this interpretation of BLP is accepted, then maybe you should get further discussion and put it directly into the BLP policy. Smallbones 08:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, well O'Reilly's same criticism is on Media Matters website, word for word. I still don't like the idea of having to go to their site to get O'Reilly's quote. It sets bad precedent, in my opinion, because we say that anything that comes from O'Reilly in the future is unreliable. But if that's what it takes I can certainly do that. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 14:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Alright. I added it back in using Media Matters's site as a source. Thanks, Smallbones, for your knowledge of policy and your suggestion. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 15:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yay! WP assists O'Reilly in smear campaign against dirty commie Jew! — goethean ॐ 15:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You won't find me upset that WP assists Michael Moore in his smear campaign and his conspiracy theories. Because noting criticism, however ugly, from a noteworthy and newsworthy source is definately something that WP should be doing. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 16:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If its newsworthy, why didn't any newspapers cover it? — goethean ॐ 16:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well MM did, and I guess that's all that (puts pinkie in mouth) "matters." |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 16:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So my point stands. No newspapers covered what you (falsely) claim is "criticism...from a noteworthy and newsworthy source". Essentially, you are attempting to remedy the lack of media coverage of O'Reilly's (non-notable) criticism by having Wikipedia cover it. — goethean ॐ 16:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, actually the New York Times did cover it in an editorial piece slamming O'Reilly. But the real issue here, Goethean, was that O'Reilly is notable and he most certainly is, especially in this instance as Soros's number one critic. O'Reilly attacks him everywhere, on TV, on other shows, in print, and Soros does the same for O'Reilly. The two have had a long-standing feud and it was absurd not to note the fact that O'Reilly is his critic. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 16:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, corrected that, it was the LA Times, not the NY Times, that talked about the O'Reilly/Soros/Media Matters connection. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 16:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OMG, you mean someone from the LA Times has actually heard of Bill O'Reilly? Will wonders never cease. Oh, and just for shits and giggles, take a look at Criticism of Bill O'Reilly, particularly the sourcing. - Crockspot 17:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I object to using Media Matters to source O'Reilly's comments as well. See this diff of discussion in another article about how MM and other blogs slightly twist their quoting of obscure, hard-to-locate articles in order to smear someone like Fred Thompson. When then can't find anything else to smear him with, they put something ambiguous out there to intentionally give the wrong impression. This tactic, which was backed up by another blog, gave several Wiki editors the impression that they were adding a sourced quote of Thompson's to that article. It was not until another editor ponied up three dollars to purchase the article before it was clear that ne never uttered those words. - Crockspot 17:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Clay Aiken

    In the article for singer Clay Aiken I have entered (and cited) information regarding several controversies he was indirectly involved with. One topic was Rosie O'Donnell's tirade against Kelly Ripa when Clay tried to cover her mouth. Ripa as everyone knows remove his hand and O' Donnell labeled this homophobic (in reference to the lingering question on his unpublicized sexuality). [15] There are several other controversies that are not listed in this article, and it is apparent that his die-hard fans called Claymates are deleting this information, which is censorship. User:Triage stated his/her reasons for deletion as having to deal with " "rv to version agreed on due to Bio of Living Persons concerns," but this information has been well publicized and should be included in this article. I see it as a Conflict of Interest that his fans are committing acts on censorship to protect him, and to me that is simply wrong. The information I've entered does not slander nor reveal personal information that can be used by someone to harm him. Simply it should be included in the article as the article already contains citations mentioning the incident, but simply no text relating to the incident. Is there anyway someone can help here? --XLR8TION 15:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Isn't a discussion on the "Talk" page of the article a good first step when there is a disagreement among editors? Instead you go straight for ANI? And this notice board too? If you look at the history of the article, you will see that the controversies you think should be there were not deleted by the so-called Claymate (barf) editors, but by other Wikipedia editors who have rarely or never edited the entry before or since, following an AfD. See [16], [17], [18], [19], and especially [20]. See this comment on Ken Arromdee's page by me following the deletions: [21]. -Jmh123 16:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You left out that User:Triage posted in his/her edit summary, "Rosie's tirade" (her opinion) is in Rosie's article." In particular to your request, it is inappropriate per BLP to use Rosie's statement to support a position on Clay's sexuality, whether directly in the article or through the title of a reference. This whole issue is widely discussed on the article talk page and is attended to by many editors. Reagrding your assumptions as to who is behind this, you will have a more enjoyable time on Wikipedia if you strive to assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. -- Jreferee (Talk) 19:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder

    Mark Copani

    • That is not an accurate relfection of the editing of that article, there have been only 50 edits in two months, [22], the anonymous users were editing existing material, Burntsauce removed large chunks of the information (as is his usual manner) and it was restored on 4 occasions in the last month, once by one IP [23], twice by another IP, [24], once by Dr Pizza [25], and most recently by Sima Yi [26]. In fact there were only a total of 11 edits in all of May. As for protection, this article has never been protected because of material being added back in, however a number of other articles that were stubbed by Burntsauce have been previously protected.
    • This article is on the list of articles needing sources at the pro-wrestling project and when the information is restored by an editor from the project it will be fully referenced. Darrenhusted 21:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Margita Bangová

    • Margita Bangová (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I'm the original author of this article, written long ago before inline referencing was common and before WP:BLP existed. The article was based entirely on published sources (local and national news coverage), a few of which were listed at the end of the article. Though most of what was reported about Bangová was negative, I included as much published criticism of the reporting as I could find. The article has now been nominated for deletion on the grounds that it is racist and non-notable. As a result I went through and added as many inline references as were still available to me, with the result that nearly every contested statement directly about Bangová is now sourced. Nonetheless, it would be useful for editors more familiar with WP:BLP, and who have no personal interest in Bangová or her ethnicity, could check over the article to see whether it's appropriate. —Psychonaut 15:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Stacy Keibler

    Resolved
     – No BLPN issues raised; I read the article and no BLP issue stood out. -- Jreferee (Talk) 04:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    what is the BLP concern with the present version: its a list of events & co-workers.?DGG 00:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Max Keiser

    Resolved
     – No remaining BLPN issues. -- Jreferee (Talk) 04:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    Nominate it for AfD and find out--that why we have it. i think it's just notability, not specific BLP problems DGG 23:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I read through the article and did not see any issues needing BLPN assistance. -- Jreferee (Talk) 06:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I'll nom for deletion.--Mantanmoreland 18:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fred Thompson

    • Fred Thompson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - There is a rather nasty bit of innuendo that has been repeatedly added to Fred Thompson. It [27] concerns a commercial that Thompson did as a part of his ABC radio contract for a company formerly partly owned by a man who was accused (not convicted) of a crime ten years ago. The passage neglects to mention a few of those important details from the source article, only mentioning the co-founder's alleged misdeeds and implying, by inference, that Thompson has a criminal connection. // BigDT 00:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I read over the article with that passage removed and saw no other BLPN issues. The article reads very well. The post in question has phrases such as "a company that says it fights identity thieves", "co-founded by a man accused of" a money crime. The post in question then describes Thompson endorsement of the company. The information was taken from an Los Angeles Times article having the tag line He promotes the firm of a man once accused of deceiving consumers. The addition to the article was placed under the "Controversies" trivia section of the article. Per BLP Trivia Section, biographies of living persons should not have trivia sections; relevant sourced claims should be woven into the article. The post in question looks like innuendo that presents a biased point of view lacking a clear demonstration of relevance to Thompson notability. See Biased or malicious content. I think you are right to keep it out.-- Jreferee (Talk) 03:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    WinSoftware

    Resolved
     – Article speedy deleted.-- Jreferee (Talk) 06:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unreferenced article that makes serious accusations about a software developer. The assertions may very well be true but there are no sources. Videmus Omnia 04:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This does not appear to be a BLP issue because it involves a company, not a Living Person. Nevertheless, I've tagged this for speedy as a non-notable company, attack page, and unreferenced tripe. Jehochman Talk 04:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: "a software developer" is presumably a person. — Athaenara ✉ 06:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    "WinSoftware Ltd is a company that develops fake security software" is accurate. It makes WinFixer. Fake security software is exactly what it is (see this discussion for example). I do see Jehochman's point that "a software developer" in the corporate sense is not a living person. — Athaenara ✉ 06:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Murder of James Bulger

    Very few inline citations, none of which use ref templates. Numerous references to the problems the parents have had/caused. Potentially harmful to these parents and several other people named in the article. violet/riga (t) 11:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Background - The article originally was titled, "James Bulger murder case", made Article status on April 21, 2004, with no references, was move to James Bulger on October 2, 2004, and was moved to Murder of James Bulger on June 5, 2007. There is a statement in the article that says there is an "injunction against the press reporting on the boys' whereabouts in England and Wales." The article has many more problems than that. It looks like a big BLPN job, which I don't have time for at the moment. -- Jreferee (Talk) 17:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Chris Russo

    I'm thinking of removing the "tirades" and "Russo-isms" sections of this article as being unreferenced and potentially inappropriate per BLP. His tirades or foul ups while speaking can be considered negative material against him. The article seems to be built by a lot of IP editors so it'd be hard to create a discussion at the talk page about this, so I've brought it here for consideration. Thanks, 17:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

    Apparently the guy makes a living being controversial, so I don't agree that this material is inappropriate per BLP. Just an opinion. I do think the entry could use some work; it's pretty much of a mess. -Jmh123 17:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael_Lucas_(porn_star)

    It appears that Lucas uses an anon IP (216.57.17.234) and, until "outed," (see the Talk page) the username User:Lucasent (Lucas Entertaiment), to edit his own Wikipedia page. He usually stays within the boundaries, but has apparently recently recruited some of his fans to make sure external links to his blog, myspace, and Lucas Entertainment are included, as well as a passage about an "unauthorized" biography. (216.57.17.234 claimed in an edit comment that Lucas "can't stand the book," but he and several new anons keep adding the external links and reference to the book back in whenever they are removed.) Another editor has made a good case on the Talk page [28], I think, for not including these links and mention of the biography. Reversions have been going back and forth on this for days. Each contested edit could go either way, as to whether it should legitimately be included or not, but I'm bringing this up now because Lucas may be recruiting others to make sure the entry is written the way he wants it to be written. It's an unusual BLP issue in that the individual is apparently requesting potentially harmful material about himself be included (as well as promotional links)--is it a case of "please don't throw me into the briar patch"? It is my personal opinion based on a long controversy over an entry on one of his new "stars" (now deleted via 2nd AfD and no longer working for Lucas) that Lucas has been around Wikipedia a long time, knows how to work the system, and knows the benefits of Wikipedia for self-promotion and promotion of his company. See Lucas Entertainment (now merged). Any perspective, advice, recommendations, comment? Thanks. -Jmh123 20:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Haifa bint Faisal

    This article is somewhat sourced but I think it needs the attention of someone more experienced with BLP issues than I am.--BirgitteSB 20:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Danah Boyd

    Several previous discussions have taken place regarding the titling of this article and capitalization of the subject's name. In a nutshell:

    • The subject of the article has noted that her name is legally lower-cased (self-reporting of information per BLP guidelines), and her university and published academic papers use the lower-case "danah boyd".
    • Mainstream news coverage of the subject has given her name as "Danah Boyd".

    There are, roughly speaking, two camps here: one which believes that per BLP, the article should use "danah boyd" as much as possible, and one which believes, per WP:NAME, that the article must follow the presentation used in mainstream news coverage. Both regular editors and admins of Wikipedia have come down on both sides at different times, and the article has occasionally been tugged back and forth between the two capitalizations. So... could we get some discussion and hopefully a final resolution of whether this is a BLP-related matter of fact, or a MOS-related matter of style? Ubernostrum 23:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see opinions here. -- Renesis (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jock m sommese

    As User:Radiant! brought to my attention, the Jock m sommese article reads like an attack piece. The article has a source, but the article seems more certain and negative than its source. This really is the sort of thing Wikipedia could get sued for. (It accuses the man of crimes for which he has not been convicted.) – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's been deleted by Alison, as non-notable. --Dark Falls talk 05:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=139834628"