Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive123

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

Cohen has written in The Spectator that his Wikipedia biography has been used as part of the vast left-wing soncpiracy: Diary, 9 July 2011.

Nick Cohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is the article. Guy (Help!) 11:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

See [1]. Needs attention. Brought up at ANI by someone else as well. Dougweller (talk) 12:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely full of problems. I'm addressing some, but would welcome some other eyes. --Dweller (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Also related to the Hari business, below. David Allen Green has tweeted about this, he has a large following. Guy (Help!) 15:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I neither know, nor care, anything about the politics of this, but trying to paint someone as an alcoholic because of a single incident with three bad sources, is BLP manipulation at its slimiest. --Dweller (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I recall this editor's edits to Richard Littlejohn, a well-known right-wing columnist, causing BLP problems, so we probably need to look at what else he's edited. Just commenting on a point made at the ANI discussion before it was moved here that he doesn't appear to have edited recently, as I recall he does also edit as an IP. January (talk) 16:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

This refers to David r from meth productions (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), yes? I am happy for us all to issue a final warning re edits to biographies if that would help at all. Certainly if he plays fast and loose wiht biographies he is asking for a ban, since that seems to be his sole interest here. Guy (Help!) 16:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• I think the BLP problems with this article are so serious they merit restarting it from scratch. I've just reduced it to a stub, removing all the contentious content; it should only be re-expanded cautiously and in line with BLP. Robofish (talk) 23:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• Johann Hari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This columnist for The Independent has recently become embroiled in several apparently well substantiated accusations of plagiarism [2]. However our coverage of these accusations (some of which emerged mere days ago) is not always as well sourced as it should be, with at least one accusation sourced solely to a blog. Attention to the sourcing of this article is needed. --TS 13:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Nick Cohen (see previous section above) has pointed out that User:David r from meth productions appears to know intimate details of Hari's biography, has made glowing edits to Hari's own page whilst putting "vile accusations" on the articles of people Hari has had spats with, such as Cristina Odone, Francis Wheen, Andrew Roberts and Niall Ferguson. Someone might want to take a look through his edits? 86.31.137.176 (talk) 22:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Users have been attempting to make reference to the Wikipedia editing in Hari's article. January (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

There's now a whole section in the article on it – Johann Hari#Accusations of using Wikipedia to self-promote. It's been referenced in Damian Thompson's blog in The Telegraph which is being used as a source. January (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Donna Simpson (internet personality) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This concerns the entry for Donna Simpson (internet personality):

I do not believe that this person meets the definition of "Notable" to be included in Wikipedia, and request that her "biography" be removed, or at least rescinded until and unless she meets the criteria for Notability in the future.

Quoting directly for the guidelines (and forgive me because I am not HTML smart, so I use old-school techniques):

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's 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."

This article is about a woman who has turned herself into living, breathing, tabloid fodder. Her only claim to "fame" is that she wants to go from 700 pounds to 1000 to get a Guinness World Record, which she does not even hold yet to be of note. Her only "notable" "accomplishment" is, allegedly, being the most overweight woman to give birth. I do not feel that, in and of itself, nor the fact that she has a pay website with pictures and videos sensationalizing her obesity and eating habits, makes her a person notable for inclusion. It is not like she is Perez Hilton, who is a truly Notable "internet personality."

She does not meet the basic criteria of Notability for any biography. Quote from that section: "Any biography: The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.

Just in that alone, she does not meet the definition for inclusion as a biography. But I will continue. The lists for notability includes: Academics, Athletes, Creative Professionals, Crime victims and perpetrators, Diplomats, Entertainers, Pornographic actors and models, and Politicians. She fails to meet the definitions of any of those subject matters. Additionally, there are People Notable for Only One Event, from which I will quote, "the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person." I fail to see how she meets this criteria.

In fact, in the entire Notability guidelines, I fail to see even one way in which this person should be included. Other than for a few fetishists, she would not be notable at all. She is nothing more than a self-styled side-show attraction - that is not slander, it is exactly what her goal is. And I don't believe that meets any criteria for Notability in Wikipedia's rules, and I suggest the deletion of her "biography."

If we put biographies of all random people who have created websites and gotten media coverage in a few sources for an insignificant facet of their lives, Wikipedia would be a free for all. I, personally, as an Academic who has done important research on the desegregation on Major League Baseball, and who has been more widely cited and sourced than this woman, would qualify for a biography if she does. And if I do, let me know. Kelelain (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• - Well .... she is being discussed in the press and the viewing figures show something is going on...three thousand three hundred views yesterday. We have the WP:GNG of notability which is not too difficult to attain. If you provide a concise deletion rationale - I will nominate it for deletion for you and see what the outcome is. Off2riorob (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

My guess is she's notable enough to have an article (what a world we live in). That aside, why can't Kelelain nominate the article for deletion if s/he believes she's insufficiently notable?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

He may be able to but he did say, "..and forgive me because I am not HTML smart, so I use old-school techniques" - so perhaps he has never created a AFD. I think I agree with you though, the BLP could well get kept - Off2riorob (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I know you were only trying to be nice, but why should he be spared the painful steps of creating an AfD? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

He seems to have suffered enough having read that article. Off2riorob (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

LOL, you have a point. But now we've joined him. Try clicking on her "official" website.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I only scanned the article with one eye and I got hungry. No way am I checking out the official site. Off2riorob (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, my suggestion about her official website was a serious comment (you'd have no way of knowing that, though). It's a redirect to another (very weird) website, and I don't know how we are supposed to be able to tell that it's really Simpson's wish to have that other website be hers.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, serious hat ... If its not her official website (with added detail about her) we should remove it. ...note - I removed the unofficial and replaced it with the "official" - Off2riorob (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I was going through the article and making copy edits when I came across her real website. I was about to change the infobox accordingly and saw you'd beaten me to it. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

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

The lines stating that Michael Jackson (New Zealand poet) took time away from poetry to play football are completely erroneous, and should be removed..

Signed,

Michael D. Jackson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.253.145 (talk) 23:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it as unsourced.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I made this page for testing purposes a while ago and kind of forgot about it till just now. How it works is explained on the talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why this belongs on this noticeboard, although it can raise issues since the content that breaches WP:BLP is live in some page. I personally don't think this is a good idea unless we are doing this involving a fake person. I am against this.  JoeGazz  ▲  18:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Nalin de Silva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please look to the talk page for a little background. I think this editor's additions are still coming off as biased and problematic, but I'm not sure how to deal with them, since he seems to be trying in good faith and I known nothing about the topic. Diff:[3] ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 05:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

 Working I will work on this and see what I can do to contact him. I would personally inform him about WP:COI and WP:NEUTRAL.  JoeGazz  ▲  18:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I've informed the editor on his talkpage. I am going to mark this as {{resolved}} since all that was needed is to speak to the author and then communicate with him to get him to stop editing the page in such a way as described above. If the editor makes more edits like the above, please re-bring this up on this noticeboard and someone may need to impose restrictions.  JoeGazz  ▲  18:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

This article is a list of people -- most of them alive -- purportedly involved in civil disobedience whose only reference was a now-of-line website. I wonder what we do with that. --damiens.rf 18:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I've taken the first step of removing all redlinked and unlinked names per WP:NLIST (and, by extension, WP:BLP). I also removed that not-a-reference (website it was on is not a neutral, reliable source). However, I'm still not certain that the article itself is valid; I don't think it's typical to list people based on opinions they hold. I'm tempted to take it to AfD, but I need the input of others, because I know that my opinion on what makes an acceptable list article is not always in line with mainstream consensus, so I don't want to nominate it if it's likely to be kept. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It clearly needs reliably citing and dates adding as to when and what these people allegedly said - if its not improved in the near future I will start moving it to the talkpage so that interested users/editors can cite it and replace it. Whether its a noteworthy topic for a list is a bit dubious. Off2riorob (talk) 08:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

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

By geisha tradition geisha do not reveal age. Sayuki is the first white geisha in Japan. Having Wikipedia reporting her age, when the Japanese media do not do so out of respect for tradition, puts Sayuki in an awkward position and at a disadvantage in her career. As a living person this is not appropriate.

Various editors keep on reverting content about Sayuki to read as if she is no longer a geisha, and put the article into the past tense. This is harmful to the career of a living person if people believe that she is no longer working and do not contact her as a result of Wikipedia editing.

The title of one of the cited articles is "First Western Geisha" referring to Sayuki. Yet the editors keep saying that another woman is the first Western geisha though there is no evidence anywhere that she debuted as a geisha or was paid as one i.e. she did not work as a geisha. To be a geisha one must formally debut in a geisha district and Sayuki was the first white woman to do so on record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.102.27 (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

These issues and others have been raised many times on this board and on the Graham Talk page. Here is one example. This is nothing new, and the IP (a single purpose account) - usually the one raising the issues - is often involved in tendentious editing of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

This IP and another IP (no doubt the same person), continue to alter the article to suit what they believe is correct and appropriate. In so doing, they remove reliably sourced information without consensus for their point of view. Does anyone think I'll have any luck requesting semi-protection for the article? I don't usually do that for content disputes, but this borders on vandalism, at least the broader definition of vandalism, and the only other option, as I did once before, is to request blocks for 3RR or edit-warring, which is much more time-consuming and tedious.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm no admin, but if I were one I think I'd consider the request. I don't watch BLP/N like a hawk, but this is hardly the first time I've seen a version of this complaint arise. You're right, it's not a valid complaint per WP:CENSOR, and it's a time sink. If it's mostly IP SPAs, it would be an effective way to reduce the problem. The thing is that it would need to be long-term to be useful, and someone will complain that a long-term semiprotect goes against WP:Anyone can edit (a valid concern). That's the sticky part... // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I requested semi-protection and got full protection until July 13. The article still needs work (along with a companion article), but I'm content to leave it alone. It's hard to work on the other problems with this kind of single-minded agenda in the way. We'll see if it returns after the protection expires.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

A different set of eyes might be valuable at David Fisher (architect). I'm not sure exactly what is going on, but there seems to be a bit of an edit war going over some of the content. There have been various unexplained attempts to remove some of the negative material, which have been reverted. The problem being that the material being removed appears to be mostly sourced to documents from the legal firm that is suing him, which raises questions of objectivity. - 121.214.219.40 (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I made a minor edit on the article, but don't have to clean it up totally currently - about to board a flight. I agree that the article as it stands currently is inappropriate - primary source documents should not be cited like that, especially when they are hosted by the opposing law firm. Although the newspaper articles cited are going to be appropriate sources, it's probably inappropriate to be sourcing those from copies of the documents hosted by the opposing law firm as well. Kevin (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Best to delete the entire paragraph that's sourced to these docs. It's 100% unencyclopedic to repeat legal claims or findings as if they're something that makes any sense in plain speech. That paragraph is a bunch of legalese that doesn't help the reader understand in the slightest what actually happened in court, much less what he actually did. Instead it just gives some scary sounding and because they're primary sourced out of context BLP violating legal charges. Surely a case this big is well covered in the press. If anyone wants to re-add a description of the fraudulent activity and legal history that's properly sourced and told from an encyclopedic perspective that's fine. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Arun Prakash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ravi Shankaran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I happen to be the subject of this article, so it falls under the category of "biographies of living persons". In its basic form the article is accurate and unexceptionable. However from time to time I find that someone edits it to add material which is not just unverifiable but false and concocted as well as defematory and libelious in nature. I have edited out the objectionable material earlier, but this malicious person keeps re-inserting it. I have again edited the article today; 9th July 2011. I would be grateful if a watch could be kept on this page and a recurrence prevented. Identification of the person would help me to initiate legal action against him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funnyrat (talk • contribs) 08:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

You can view the edits to the article about Arun Prakash, and who made them, at this link.

The problematic edits seem to have been introduced by User:Mukerjee. Although he provided references supporting some of the statements he added, I don't find the references sufficient or convincing for the material he added or its tone.

I have left a note to this effect on User talk:Mukerjee, where I have also mentioned to him that I have obliterated a large section of his userpage because it contained problematic statements about other people, such as suggesting they were "frauds" or "criminals". This is a violation of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy.

I advise you to be cautious about mentioning legal action on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a strict policy of no legal threats. This means that anyone who threatens other editors, or Wikipedia itself, with legal action, is likely to be blocked from editing until the threats are withdrawn or the legal action concluded. This does not, of course, prevent anyone from taking legal action if necessary. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for the prompt response to my complaint; as well as the action taken. I was not aware of the rule about mention of "legal action" and regret using that phrase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funnyrat (talk • contribs) 10:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I am one of the editors on the page, and the one who first added the section eventually deleted by user:Funnyrat (Arun Prakash himself, as mentioned above). The main point as summarized in the lead are:

His tenure as Chief of Naval staff was marred by the Navy War Room spy scandal which involved a close relative - his wife's nephew, Ravi Shankaran. In the scandal, a number of sensitive documents were leaked from the War Room in Delhi to international arms dealers related to the 19,000 crore (USD 4 billion) Scorpene submarine deal[1], and possibly other large Navy purchases. The navy conducted its own investigation, dismissing three officers after six months, but it took a year before handing over the investigation to the [[CBI]. Meanwhile, several actors, including Shankaran, had left the country. Prakash himself was not personally charged but the delay in handing over the case to the CBI was criticized[2]

The contentions in this section are: a) that the Navy War room spy scandal involved took place during his tenure, b) one of the chief culprits was a relative, and c) Arun Prakash was not personally charged, but the navy was berated for its delay in handing over the matter to public inquirers.

All three claims are referenced with in-line cited reports, mostly from Times of India and Outlook (magazine). The Navy War Room scandal remains a black stain against the record of the Navy in this period, and the involvement of a relative is a fact that needs to be recorded against Admiral Prakash's encyclopedic information.

I edit a lot of BOLP pages and am well aware of the basic norms. I think the three claims made above all follow NPOV norms, and are clearly based on reputed sources. The matter is verifiable, and has no original research. It is also clearly relevant to the subject.

However, it is possible that these sources (media reports) may have been superseded by subsequent investigations. If there are other references - e.g. court judgments, books etc., that give other views, such as exonerating Prakash, let user:funnyrat or others edit the page and give the references; this will strengthen the article. Without such steps, simply deleting all reference to the scandal as if it never existed, and also removing all five references, simply appears to be malafide, as I noted in an earlier edit on this section.mukerjee (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, at the moment, the material in the article discussing events during his tenure as Chief of Staff, amounts to exactly one sentence. With such brief coverage, only the most significant developments during that time period, can be discussed. It may well be the case that the war room scandal was significant enough to merit mention. But we can't demand that Arun Prakesh supply references to "exonerate" himself from things of which he was never even accused. In any case, given his rather tangential connection to the events, we need to take care in how we discuss them in his biography. Such care seems not to have been taken in Ravi Shankaran, where I see you and funnyrat have also been editing.

The Arun Prakash article does indeed have a severe lack of proper referencing at present, but that should be easy to rectify and I intend to do so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

This is the BOLP page, and let's stick to the BOLP issues in the article. The user:funnyrat has claimed that "material which is not just unverifiable but false and concocted as well as defematory and libelious in nature." I am claiming these facts are verifiable, and anyone can check the article citations on this. Let us be specific about what is "concocted, defamatory and libelious".

The material deleted repeatedly by user:funnyrat involve three well-referenced facts (as detailed above):

a) the Navy War room spy scandal involved took place during Prakash's tenure,

b) the primary accused was a nephew of his wife, and

c) Arun Prakash was not personally charged, but the navy continues to be criticized in the media for its delay in handing over the matter to public inquirers.

These facts are all cited from respected media sources, and indeed, are not being denied by user:funnyrat or anyone else. They are also relevant to his public role, and hence his encyclopedic entry. In that case, why are references to these being systematically removed by a single user who admits to being an interested party? Please look at the last revision and let us indicate the specific violations to BOLP. mukerjee (talk) 05:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

i concur with Mukerjee here. a) The issue has been covered widely in the indian media b)I dont see how the mention is "concoted" or "libelious". The only question is whether it is WP:UNDUE. IMO this is relevant to an encyclopedic article on the subject and a brief mention should be included (disclaimer: came here through mukerjee's post in india noticeboard)--Sodabottle (talk) 05:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The issue is being muddied here by the posts above - whether any libel has occurred is not what's under discussion. You are correct to identify WP:UNDUE as being the primary concern (there are also some problems with wording). In Mukherjee's preferred version of the article, the majority of the lead and in fact the majority of the entire article is taken up by discussion of the scandal, and in fact discussion of other "related" scandals including general observations about other people who were involved in similar incidents that had no other link than the people involved being ex-naval officers. The entire discussion of Prakash's role during the rest of his tenure as chief of staff, in Mukherjee's preferred version, is limited to a single sentence. I agree that the scandal deserves a mention in the biography, but it needs to be neutral in tone and appropriate to its significance in his overall career. The sourcing also needs to be better; the Outlook Magazine piece says Prakash's role, "if any", "will be laid bare" - well, that was in 2005, so where is a reliable source relating the outcome of that? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

At least, I did some research and added some relevant material. As of now the article is completely barren of references, and is missing an relevant aspect, widely reported in India, that an editor had put in after considerable labour. If you wish to contest the tone, by all means, edit it as you see fit. But do the work, don't just blank out a well-referenced section and stand aside leaving the article barren. I am taking a first shot, please edit it thereafter as you see fit.mukerjee (talk) 13:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

While editing the article just now, I found a reference paper [4], which says that the leaks were not related to commerce, but more to war plans. I have therefore removed references to scorpene etc. (which were also from cited media reports) in the article. I also added a ref related to his bio; and also one more ref. Also made the navy war room part smaller, and also toned down the language. Please feel free to edit it further as you see fit. mukerjee (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Mukerjee#Recent edits contains a list of articles about people that Mukherjee has edited recently. The list also contains comments about the people concerned.

When I noticed that numerous entries in the list described the persons as "fraud" or "criminal", that not all the people thus described had any criminal convictions, and that at least some of them were still alive, I redacted the entire list and left a polite note for User:Mukerjee asking him not to restore it until any problematic entries had been removed.

Mukerjee has now restored a version of the list, and the following comments there about living persons, are still concerning;

Raghuraj Pratap Singh not convicted of anything, although his Wikipedia article says "There are already three criminal cases, pending against him." Mukherjee's userpage describes him as "Indian criminal-politician".

D. P. Yadav not convicted of anything, although his Wikipedia article says he has been charged with murder nine times. Mukherjee's userpage twice describes him as a "criminal-politican".

Although I'm sure that the principal intention of the list is merely for Mukherjee to keep track of his recent contributions, it still seems to me that the comments about these two living persons should not be made in this way. Is this an appropriate use of user space? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Clear violation of WP:BLP IMHO, and emblematic of a major problem on Wikipedia (which I really hope ArbCom will address). Collect (talk) 09:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

He did remove the criminal from one entry that you deleted, but apparently not all. I'll do so now and leave a word. —SpacemanSpiff 09:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I am mainly a content editor, and those lines have perhaps been there since 2005 or so. Quite possiby, these rules are newer.

What takes my goat is when an editor, who finds two lines objectionable in a list of a hundred items, blanks the whole section rather than edit those two lines. Maybe I have been on wikipedia too long. No doubt I am "emblematic of a major problem in wikipedia". Go ahead, bury me with your hatchets. mukerjee (talk) 13:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

You're correct that at the end of 2005, WP:BLP contained no instructions about what one should not say about living persons on userpages. Although, maybe that's common sense. It's worth noting that even back in 2005, WP:BLP said "add only people convicted of a crime in a court of law to Category:Criminals" ... watch out for that one.

As for blanking the entire list; well, the list had four or five uses of "criminal" as a label, one of "fraud", and one or two of "liar". Looking at the list - which as you say, was rather long - it wasn't immediately easy for me to be certain that these were the only problematic statements about persons, or for me to quickly confirm which of these 100 people were still living. So I blanked the whole thing, and invited you to fix the problems (since you surely knew the subject matter better) before restoring the list. Seemed sensible at the time. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

This looks like a big advert, with most of the references appearing to come from court documents or similarly unacceptable sources. Any thought as to whether this qualifies for speedy deletion as spam? Thanks, 99.170.154.183 (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like spam to me and tagged for deletion as such. – ukexpat (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

This article contains erroneous information stating that William Goldman is also S. Morgenstern. However, William Goldman is only the person who abridged S.Morgenstern's books, as stated in the introduction of Goldman's abridged version of The Princess Bride. Also the site did not have enough sources, but was not changed or taken off the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.49.122 (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're incorrect about Morgenstern. Morgenstern was a pseudonym and plot device created by Goldman. I've added a reference to the article to validate the fact. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Missing reference for the last sentence ("UK's Serious Fraud Office has however confirmed that... have closed the file for investigation."). Also a citation would be better here.

 Finding source...  JoeGazz  ▲  15:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I found a source and added it to the article. That source should be acceptable and work.  JoeGazz  ▲  14:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

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

An editor identified only by IP address (66.151.103.8) recently appeared and violated the BLP policy in several ways, by adding false and libelous statements. See the talk page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zvonko_Bu%C5%A1i%C4%87 The editor has very deep POV issues and should not in my opinion be editing this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sowberryhagan (talk • contribs) 15:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

You reverted the IP's changes to the lead based on BLP. However, that really doesn't resolve the problems with the article, which reads like a rant. When discussing the subject's background, the section header is "Terrorist's background". In the Hijacking section, the word terrorist or terrorists is mentioned so many times I lost count. The only cite for the section is the appellate opinion (which I have to look at to see if it supports the hyperbole). In a later section there is the following amazing sentence: "Freeing this Croatian terrorist from a life sentence and shipping him to his homeland caused the disgust of relatives of the city cop he murdered more than 30 years ago." This article is a disaster.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I've made substantial revisions to the article and commented on the Talk page. I've already reverted one IP's attempt to undo my changes. There seem to be two IP camps, one pro-Busic and one anti-Busic. Both are causing problems. More experienced editors watching would be helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I had a look earlier and the article clearly required a wikification, well done - adding to my watchlist now. Off2riorob (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• This group is involved in disqualifying the existed edits and throwing false accusations. On the article talk page I've provided clear proofs that all my edits are strictly supported by the US Court documents, reliable references about terrorism and articles coming from the mainstream media. This way I've provided clear and lawful qualification of this act of air piracy and bombing as terrorism. The above accusations and support to them is some kind of canvassing.--71.191.31.183 (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Primary American court documents ... what do the secondary reliable reports say? Please see WP:BLPPRIMARY - lookinf at the article there are a lot of primary PDF's and a court docket - the only one I can see that is in English and secondary independent and wiki reliable is http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/nyregion/19parole.html - and it refers to Croatian independence fighters and you seem to be moving the focus towards terrorist - - Off2riorob (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is there will be reliable sources that will use the word "terrorist", but that doesn't mean we can repeat it as a label of a BLP. This particular person is notable for having hijacked the plane. He was convicted of hijacking (air piracy). He was NOT convicted of being a terrorist. Even if the term is used carelessly in the mainstream media, we can't use it - it goes too far. Some people are going to think of him as a terrorist, and others are going to think of him as a political revolutionary fighting for a cause. We can't label him as either.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• • There are many of them: mainstream media: Time, New York Times, textbooks about terrorism. Did you read any of thle at all? Far from enough for you to defend nonsense. As a criminal and terrorist, Busic was expelled from the US, no matter which way you are interpreting Wikipedia rules. One of the Wikipedia pillars is the Fifth pillar. Please, learn about it as bit more — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.31.183 (talk) 18:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The Judge says in the article, During sentencing, the trial judge, John Bartels, stated on the record that he did not consider Bušić "a terrorist or a criminal" and that although his methods were wrong - Off2riorob (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Frankly, I don't care how many mainstream media reports you come up using the adjective "terrorist". The only way it could possibly be relevant is if the article discussed the differing points of view as to who Busic was, what he stood for, etc. Certainly a Pandora's box, but not unheard of on Wikipedia. But that is still quite different from labeling him a terrorist.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• So, you, Off2riorob, are supporting forgeries. Show us the document containing the quoted text! Moreover, the three other judges are clear: terrorism is terrorism. The US law is clear: this is an example of heinous terrorism.--71.191.31.183 (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• To Bbb23: You do not read the Court document, you do not care about the mainstream media, Pope John Paul VI who publicly codemned this heinous act of terrorism, you do not know anything about scholars point of view about this case, but you still know more than I do. Who are you sir/madam?--71.191.31.183 (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Reading the accusations against me looks like that Wikipedia supports forgeries and whitewashing. Now a petty Balkans terrorist cannot be called terrorist even though he was sentenced for an act of terrorism: air piracy and bombing (which was the root cause for a person's death and injuries of others) on the USA soil. Is this Balkans Wikipedia or something else?--66.151.103.8 (talk) 12:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

IP 71.191.31.183, who was blocked for 72 hours for edit warring, is back and continues to insist on reinserting unsourced, unencyclopedic, inappropriate information in the article. I could use some more eyes. I will revert one more time but am then logging off.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The article is now back in the same miserable state it was before I worked on it. Some examples:

• The opening: "Zvonko Bušić (born 1946) is a terrorist". It cites to the Encycloped of World Crime. We have an article about the author (Jay Nash) of that book, criticizing its many inaccuracies. In any event, given Busic's conviction and the controversy surrounding his actions, it is an inappropriate label.

• The Hijacking section uses the word "terrorist" over and over. It also has far too many details considering that there is a main article on the hijacking. Finally, some of the information is simply inaccurate and not supported by the source.

• The Reactions section is an incredibly slanted article on comments from the victims' families. It opens with: "Freeing this terrorist from a life sentence and shipping him to his homeland caused the disgust of relatives of the city cop he murdered more than 30 years ago."

--Bbb23 (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

---

• Looks like that this individual Bbb23 does not read or, even worse, does not understand the references supporting the text I wrote. All his/her improvements are based on preserving blog-like nationalistic propaganda which tries to sell nonsense about the noble cause of an ordinary Balkans terrorist which crime is clearly classified by the international law and the U.S. Code as a terrorism, and for which he got life imprisonment here in the USA. Bbb23 does not offer any knowledge about law and crime, yet still he knows what is right and what is not. Just count the number of references (criminology, mainstream media, court documents) he removed from the text. What is terrorism is clear from U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d); it is written in a way understandable to a fifth grader. If anything is miserable here then it is clearly an attitude not based on common sense and any knowledge of the subject under the discussion.

• Shame on Wikipedia for allowing this miserable propaganda hurting us who lost our friend and relative Brian Murray!!

--71.191.31.183 (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

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

For some time now, I have been trying to clean up a low-importance article on the American journalist and author Michael Deibert but a user registered as Context23 keeps vandalizing it. Chiefly, Context23 continues to link to what I believe is highly contentious and possibly libelous material in the form of an article attacking Deibert by a Haitian politician named Patrick Elie (one of Deibert’s specialities appears to be Haiti) in a website I have never heard of before. I researched Elie and found that he evidently has a history of making false claims (on his website, Deibert links to articles chronicling how Elie spent time in prison for falsely claiming to be a diplomat and using a false address on a federal firearms transaction in connection to some sort of apparent assassination plot), so I am very worried that this link goes several steps beyond Wiki’s no-libel policy. There is already one article linked to critical of Deibert’s writing from the New Left Review and that article falls well within Wiki’s standards. However, I find the second article - the one that Context23 continuously links to - and another one linked to by someone named Diana Barahona that accuses Deibert of libel - do not. Thoughts? Thank you for taking time to help with this! Just trying to make Wiki a better community for all concerned! MultiWorlds (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Read the discussion page for user Context23, they appear to have some sort of personal/animus towards Deibert, and intend to keep defacing and vandalizing article. Not sure what policy is on this. MultiWorlds (talk) 13:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, all. User Context23 is sending repeated communications/messages to me that now border on harassment. Any ideas on the policy for this? Thanks! MultiWorlds (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Editing the 'Michael Deibert' article, comments by user: Context23

First of all I have to admit that the frequency of my edits in the past 48 hours has been excessive, I do understand that and will refrain from making such frequent edits in any articles in a given 24 hour period.

In regard to the Michael Deibert <"Michael Deibert" on Wikipedia article on Wikipedia: Wikipedia user Multiworlds User talk: Multiworlds has repeatedly deleted references with links to newspaper articles [Podur, Justin. Kofi Annan's Haiti New Left Review, January-February 2006 2006, Retrieved 6 July 2011] [Barahona, Diana. How to Turn a Priest Into a Cannibal CounterPunch. Feb 03/04, 2007. Retrieved Jul 05, 2011] [Elie, Patrick[ Haitian Activist Speaks out Against Deibert's anti-Haiti Propaganda| Haiti ProgresVol. 24, No. 2, 2006, Retrieved 6 July 2011, mirrored on indybay.org] documenting the massive amount of criticism Deibert's journalism has received, especially where it pertains to his reporting on Haiti.

The differential edits <Wikipedia:"Michael Deibert" article revisions Revision as of 00:08, 8 July 2011 by Context23 compared to revision as of 01:25, 8 July 2011 by Multiworlds do show my high frequency editing, but also serve to document that both the edition to the article as well as the references used, stay very well within the scope of user guidelines for wikipedia, and that any disputes should have been resolved on the discussion page. That of course includes me, which I must also admit that previously, I had not laid out my reasons for the edits with due diligence as could have been hoped for. I do realize that the need for discussion is implicit, but it should come from all sides involved in the editing process in order to result in Wikipedia articles that are of any value.

The range of Michael Deibert's vociferous critics includes among others Haitian, Canadian and U.S. activists for example a former Haitian government official in several administrations, political activist and writer: Patrick Elie [Elie, Patrick. Taking us to democracy like cattle to a killing house Dec 14, 2005. ZNet. Retrieved Jul 07, 2011], as well a plethora of journalists from the Caribbean nation and abroad such as Justin Podur: [see: A dishonest Case for a Coup [Podur Justin. A Dishonest Case for a Coup. ZNet. February 16, 2006. Retrieved Jul 07, 2011.]: part of a dialogue with the writer Michael Deibert].

The criticism, ranging from the very well documented and researched to perhaps more deceptive claims, gives strong evidence that any objective article about Deibert should mention both the quantitative as well as qualitative discussions Michael Deiberts book and articles have engendered. It is not within the scope of the Wikipedia/Deibert article to examine all claims, may they be proven or unproven, in regard to the journalistic merits of Michael Deibert's journalistic skills, instead, in order to have any merit, it is imperative that the article examines both any positive as well as negative connotations being associated with Deibert's media contributions.

The claim that articles that were linked to by me ^[1] are potentially libelous is especially spurious in light of the fact that Mr. Deibert very frequently uses the accusation of libel in his comments and articles [see for example the numerous comments the writer leaves in public forums.[Deibert, Michael. [5]]

Deibert's journalism has included allegations of child sacrifice: ["The charges culminate with Deibert’s uncritical reiteration of a gang leader’s claim, from his Florida exile, that a baby missing from a Port-au-Prince hospital had been kidnapped by So Anne and murdered in a vodou ritual to strengthen Aristide." by a well known Haitian activist, Annette Auguste a.k.a. Sò Anne AMR 36/003/2006: Amnesty International Amnesty International Appeal case

Some of the media's claims against Deibert may be libelous, but in much the same fashion as his spurious and undocumented claims of child sacrifice in Haiti, just to stay with one example. No one has ever brought any allegations of this sort before a court in Haiti or abroad and no documents of verifiable testimony exist to make these claims any less absurd as they are even on superficial examination, given the well documented track record of of Annette Auguste as a community activist singer and grass roots activist in both Brooklyn, NY and Haiti. Interview with noted Haitian writer Edwidge Danticat and Annette “Sò An” Auguste. WBAI Radio NYC. Oct 21, 2006.

Furthermore Vodoun, the main religion of Haiti that Deibert implicates as being involved in child sacrifice in the case of Anette Auguste, is not mentioned in academic literature as being involved in human sacrifice which is not prevalent in contemporary Haiti.

Given the facts at hand: that Michael Deibert has made several highly defaming cklaims, to date unverified or backed up with primary research materials, it should not be considered potentially libelous to include articles into the Wikipedia/Deibert article that merely serve to illustrate the contentiousness of his writing. None of the changes to the "Michael Deibert" article as edited by me, contain anything that could be construed as defamatory or libelous.

The article is very one-sided in its current form and mainly reads like a public relations piece about the author. Without any references providing a more balanced viewpoint, the article merely mirrors the authors own web-pages michaeldeibert.com and has no encyclopedic value.

comment added by: User: Context23 (talk) 01:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC) cleaned up my comments Context23 (talk) 04:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: I do not think this page is the forum to discuss this further, this should ultimately take place on the Michael Deibert talk page. 04:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Editing the 'Michael Deibert' article, comments by user: MultiWorlds

Hi, Context23. You seem to have some strong personal animus towards Diebert, which I don't really understand but which I don't think really has a place guiding edits on any subject on Wikipedia.

It appears the Deibert did accuse Patrick Elie of libel here and apparently responds to his claim with a third party source. As already noted by others, someone not remembering being on the steps of a church on particular day does not rise to BLP standards and, at any rate, Elie had already been imprisoned for lying before. It seems important to you to present a critical view of Diebert's work, but I think the New Left Review article does that well and much more convincingly than the other two articles you have attempted to link to both of which, in my view, cross the line into potentially libelous. Somebody writing an article that you happen to agree with doesn't make their opinion noteworthy for inclusion. Diana Barahona, for instance, is mentioned almost nowhere with regards to Haiti if one does a search on Google Scholar, which is the same case with Justin Podur when it comes to Haiti (he appears to be some sort of forestry professor or something)

I found a number of articles defending^[2][3] Deibert and his writing, as well. Should we link to them all? It could be endless. The debate section would be longer than the article itself which was already overlong and helpfully streamlined by other editors here.

From what I can tell, Diebert in general writes very sympathetically about voodoo^[4][5] so I think your concerns there may be a little overblown. Deibert's writings^[6] about this So Anne person also do not reflect your comments. See following:

In July 2003, Johnny Occilius made his now-famous declaration on Radio Kiskeya of So Anne’s alleged-involvement with the baby’s disappearance and death, followed one month later by former Lavalas deputy mayor of Port-au-Prince Jean-Michard Mercier, who supported in every detail Occilius’ account and expanded upon it. Sonia Desrosiers, the widow of Roland Francois - the Port-au-Prince gang leader who was kidnapped and killed in July 2003 - then gave her own account to Radio Vision 2000. Readers and listeners are free to make up their own minds about the veracity or not of the various explanations of the child's disappearance. In my view, at least, the episode in no way reflects upon vodou, Haiti’s poignant spiritual blend of its African and European heritage, as a whole. I have enjoyed attendance at many vodou ceremonies around the country since 1997, and urge other journalists to treat the belief system with interest and respect given its political significance to the country.

MultiWorlds (talk) 00:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

If you can't summarize your positions concisely, no one will read or respond to them. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Dear Sirs I am a bona fide PhD research scholar and a relatively new Wikipedia editor and have been trying to do my best in this regard, and am learning how to work as per your required format. Some time ago I created a page (as above) on a Pakistani poet, in fact on whose work Im actually doing my doctoral research. There were some problems with the formatting and citations sources which Ive tried to fix and shall be amending further and adding more sources as I proceed. However, now, as of July 2011, criticism has been made that the material is 'autobiographical' or 'edited by subject' or not 'neutral'. Im at a loss to understand this, please. How and why? I am an objective and properly trained research scholar of integrity and have not done any thing mala fide, indeed have tried to do my best to represent the life and work of a poet and scholar who on the basis of my original ongoing research I find to be worth adding to Wikipedia, as a practitioner of poetry from Pakistan. I would request you to please help me in editing this article, thank you.

Khani100 (talk) 05:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the "autobiographical" tag was added in error. I have removed this tag (the editor who added it has already been given some advice about being more careful adding such tags).

I've also removed some of the other tags which no longer seem to be relevant.

A suggestion is that the "See also" list is much too long and wide-ranging. You might have a look at Good or Featured articles on poets, for example James Whitcomb Riley or Philip Larkin, for ideas on what sort of material to include. (Can anyone recommend Good or Featured articles on poets that aren't dead, please?) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

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

AustFacts (talk · contribs) is identifying himself as the subject of this BLP and getting into a revert war over content. He was previously templated for vandalism and reported to WP:AIV. I protected the article pending someone looking into this and hopefully coaching the confused and somewhat bitten user. Regards, causa sui (talk) 07:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I left him a note and a link t this thread. The article does have a couple of issues - the externals one has nothing about the subject in it - and the other is already used as a citation. The user was trying to remove them, perhaps he will comment here and we can look at the issues he has. Off2riorob (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

A load of pretty aggressively libelous (not to mention hurtful) material has been posted by an IP user on the talk page of a BLP.[6] What's the policy on this? Can this be blanked by other editors? Should it be cleared from the history by an admin? I've never dealt with this sort of thing before, and it would be good to know. Thanks in advance, Sindinero (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed as violating WP:BLP as containing unsourced contentious claims about a living person. "Libel" is not required to invoke WP:BLP Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick and helpful response! Sindinero (talk) 12:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Looks like this article has been hacked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.199.163.25 (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• I've stripped it down to a stub for the time being. Thanks for bringing this to attention! -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

How do we feel about lawsuits against living people that were subsequently dismissed? If you look to the second paragraph of Susan Polgar#Executive Board of the United States Chess Federation, you can see that a lawsuit was filed against the subject. That lawsuit was subsequently dismissed as essentially having no grounds; my understanding is that the plaintiff (Sam Sloan) refiled the suit and it was again dismissed, this time with far harsher words (although if I recall correctly we only have primary documents on that filing). The lawsuit was reported in the New York Times, as was the suits dismissal, but only in "Gambit" (the chess section) and the local section. I'm sure that numerous famous people have had groundless lawsuits against them that were thrown out, and including them would seem to violate WP:UNDUE, especially as filtered through the stricter lens of WP:BLP. The complicating factor here, though, is that those lawsuits were connected to why Polgar was removed from her post on the Executive Board of the UCSF. Thus, even though the lawsuits were found to be groundless, they ended up causing other significant changes in her "story". My concern is that if I take out the paragraph in question (and the third as well, because it's connected), then the last paragraph explaining her dismissal lacks context. Perhaps lack of context is alright, though, given the potential harm of being associated with a negative lawsuit. Thoughts? Qwyrxian (talk) 05:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The content as I read it now appears to be neutral and non-problematic, provided that the sources accurately represent the content. Regards, causa sui (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

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

• [7] I reverted this new editor's edits but he just put them back in. I tried discussing it on the talk page [8]. Isn't this slanderous to the person? Dream Focus 10:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
• The slander is in refering to her casual sex partner as an 'assailant'. A Federal court jury has made recent relevant findings about Jamie's lies on this — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheologianOfSatan (talk • contribs) 11:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I've started working on the article. It's very messy from a legal/POV/BOP/libel point of view. We can report only what the sources say, not what we think things mean. For example, when a jury rejects Jones's claim that she was assaulted, we can say that. However, we cannot say that her allegations were false. As a reader, we can draw that conclusion from the jury's findings, but as an encyclopedia, that's a big leap and cannot go in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

More eyes either on this article or on this discussion would be great, as users are still adding "False accusation of rape" as a see also, adding a "hoaxes" category, etc. Let's get a consensus either for or against this sort of thing, so we can stop the back and forth. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I find it rather disturbing that Jones' allegations are stated as uncintested facts .. she lost not only her EEOC complaint but also her lawsuit. ZHurlihee (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• This is a BLP disaster zone. Needs more eyes. MastCell ^Talk 16:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The article has been fully protected for three days. There have been ongoing discussions at the article's Talk page prior to the lock. I'm not sure the article is any longer a "disaster zone". I've done a fair amount of work on the article trying to sort out what is attributable to whom. The principle events are (1) the incident itself and Jones's allegations and (2) the lawsuit Jones brought against KBR alleging sexual assault and the verdict. There are some less important events, such as testimony before Congress and the EEOC complaint, that are also reported on. Most of it has been cleaned up, although there is always room for improvement. As an aside, contrary to what Zhurlihee states, the result of the EEOC's investigation subsequent to Jones's complaint went in Jones's favor - for what that's worth - clearly, the trial was far more important than the earlier complaint to the EEOC.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• article is locked from editing, but is in dire need of more sources, more reliable sources and better formatting for the existing sources that identifies important bibliographic information like author and date. here are a few additional sources i found:
  • Prisco, Amy (November 20, 2009). "Case Summary: Jones v. Halliburton Co" (PDF). Rutgers Conflict Resolution Law Journal.
  • Turvey, Brent E.; Petherick, Wayne (2008). "Case Example: Investigative Use of Forensic Victimology". Forensic Victimology: Examining Violent Crime Victims in Investigative and Legal Contexts. New York: Academic Press. pp. 24–32. ISBN 978-0-12-374089-2. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
  • Tsotakos, Alexis (2009). "Protecting the Rabbits from the Panel of Foxes: The Case Against Mandatory Arbitration Clauses in Non-Union Employment Contracts". Upper Level Writing Requirement Research Papers (Paper 31). Washington College of Law.

  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 01:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

RICHARD HOLMES <copyvio redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vonskrappes (talk • contribs) 10:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• This is a board for notices about problems with existing articles, not a place to request new articles. You need to go to Wikipedia:Articles for creation instead. But please note what you have written above is a verbatim copy from this website and can't be used as the wording for a Wikipedia article as it is a copyright violation. Voceditenore (talk) 11:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

J.J. Perry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

JJ "Loco" Perrry was born in Louisville, Kentucky October 25, 1967. His mother was Varda Zamir (maiden name) Perry. His father is Christopher C. Perry is a native of Louisville, Kentucky. His mother was a native Israel who imigrated to the US with her parents at a young age and became a naturalized citizen. JJ Perry's parents divorced when he was a child. He grew up in Louisville, Kentucky. I am his father. Christopher C. Perry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.196.172 (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You must be very proud of him. I know that my children are important to me as well. Do you have any questions or concerns about Wikipedia's policy on biographical articles we can help you with? --Jayron32 23:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - Hi, I have posted a list of helpful links for you on your talkpage. Although I appreciate you assert personal knowledge of these details, we still require WP:RS to support article additions. If you are aware of any independent locations that may support these claims we would be grateful if you would present them here for discussion, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob is correct, and I think you will find the links that he posed to be useful. Please note that you are not constrained to suing on-line sources; just remember to cite any non-online sources properly, and ensure that they are what we refer to as "reliable sources". Congratulations, btw -- I see that among other things, a major RS reported that your son was a co-winner of the 2004 Male Stuntman of the Year Award at the World Stunt Awards. I've reflected that in the article -- adding notable facts like that one, supported by reliable sources (as I did in that instance), are what wp looks for when seeking to determine if someone is notable for its purposes.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Robert Zoellick advised Enron and Fannie Mae; Robert Zoellick is in contempt of Congress for refusing to answer a GAO inquiry into transparency at the World Bank. The International Financial Institutions: A Call for Change A Report to the Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate, March 10, 2010, at 24 http://www.foreignpolicy.com/files/fp_uploaded_images/int_fin_inst2.pdf Congress refused to appropriate a capital increase for the World Bank until the GAO study is completed and necessary reforms are in place. http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/hearing/?id=33c66777-5056-a032-525aaOa5806634e9 http://kaygranger.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=12&parentid=4&sectiontree=4,12&itemid=983 [See March 9th statement to Secretary Geithner] The inspector general of a $22.7 billion global health fund whose financial management was entrusted to the World Bank is reporting mismanagement. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/23/global-health-fund-fraud_n_812801.html I have been commenting about Robert Zoellick's lawlessness at the World Bank in the media: http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS412&q=karen+hudes+robert+zoellick&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

On May 25, 2011 I testified at the European Parliament about this scandal at the World Bank, and the Chair of the European Parliament's Committee on Budgetary Control, Luigi de Mastris, wrote me on June 1, 2011: "I share the opinion expressed by the Members of the Committee that it was very interesting and inspiring to learn about your case at the World Bank." I am asking for help editing Zoellick's biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.75.44 (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I advise you to be very careful with anything you write about living persons. Please review our policy on biographies of living persons. The Huffington Post article that you link to, does not even mention the name "Robert Zoellick". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I have reviewed the WP:BLP and any edits will be fully documented. I am seeking advice whether to run proposed edits through this forum first. The links are to various articles, all of which concern the World Bank under Zoellick's presidency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.75.44 (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Demiurge, I read the policy, and that is why I am seeking guidance in this forum. Any proposed edits will be consistent with the policy and documented. Any suggestions whether it is advisable to run proposed edits through this group first for comment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.75.44 (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's fine to discuss proposed changes here. Equally, discussing proposed changes on the talk page for the article, is a good idea. In fact, the talk page is possibly a better place, since discussion there will be more likely to attract the attention of others interested in editing the article, both now and in the future.

My concern is that you have very strong views on this subject, and thus you may find it very difficult to write neutrally (see WP:NPOV). From what you have written above, you are engaged in travelling the world, and also commenting in numerous social media forums, to highlight what you perceive as the "lawlessness" of this individual. That does not make you ideally positioned to edit the Wikipedia article about them in a neutral manner; and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for raising awareness of issues (see Wikipedia:Advocacy).

To mention some specifics, Wikipedia does not consider commentary on forums or comment pages to be reliable sources (which would cover much of what is led to by the Google search you linked). Also, Wikipedia avoids linking to primary source court or legislature proceedings for material about living persons, especially if negative or controversial. Writing conservatively about living people means that we must be very careful when writing about people being accused of something but who have not been convicted of anything or found responsible for any wrong-doing.

Going back to the Huffington Post link, that piece not only doesn't mention Zoellick, it also doesn't even mention the fund that it discusses, having any link with the World Bank at all! If this is the sort of material that you plan to add to the article about Zoellick, then I am tempted to suggest that it would be more beneficial to spend your time on other things. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

comment Wouldn't you have strong views if you were fired for trying to enforce international securities laws, and were now trying to prevent a currency war? Here are proposed edits in italics. The sources are numbered at the end.

On April 20, 2010 Robert Zoellick declared open access to the international statistics compiled by the World Bank. US Congress refused to approve a capital increase for the World Bank until Robert Zoellick cooperated with a GAO inquiry into transparency at the World Bank requested by Senators Richard Lugar, Patrick Leahy and Evan Bayh.

Even though she previously had expressed the desire to hold no further political office (specifically ruling out another four years as U.S. Secretary of State in a second Obama term), she has been in formal discussions about taking up the post, according to three different anonymous sources. President Zoellick's successor has to be approved by the 187 country members of the World Bank since the 66 year Gentlemen's Agreement for appointment of the World Bank President by the US ended.

The sources for the two statements in italics: 1. The International Financial Institutions: A Call for Change A Report to the Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate, March 10, 2010, at 24 http://www.foreignpolicy.com/files/fp_uploaded_images/int_fin_inst2.pdf http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/hearing/?id=33c66777-5056-a032-525aaOa5806634e9 http://kaygranger.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=12&parentid=4&sectiontree=4,12&itemid=983 [see Congresswoman Kay Granger's March 9, 2011 statement to Secretary Geithner]

2. April 24, 2010 Statement of the Board of Governors, available at http://www.imf.org/external/np/cm/2010/042510.htm 74.96.75.44 (talk) 11:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• - comment - hi, if you want to add something please consider what we primarily do here at wikipedia - we report on what secondary sources have asserted is notable and have as such independently reported on. Your desired addition above and its external support falls well outside of that remit. Off2riorob (talk) 11:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you arguing with the authority of the sources cited (a Congressional report? a Congresswoman's statement?) or whether it is notable that Congress refused to approve Robert Zoellick's request for funding? 74.96.75.44 (talk) 12:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, we have no idea whether that's notable (and significant in Zoellick's overall career) or not. So we depend on what independent reliable sources say about it, instead. This is the sort of thing you need to be providing as a reference - in this instance it only just falls short of verifying the first of your proposed changes. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not buy your argument that Congress' decision to turn down Zoellick's request for funding has no significance for his overall career. What about the decision of the 187 countries in the World Bank to rescinded the Gentlemens' Agreement for appointment of the World Bank President by the US during Robert Zoellick's Presidency? Either one of these developments is a rebuke to Robert Zoellick. Taken together, they indict Robert Zoellick's Presidency at the World Bank. 74.96.75.44 (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Do an NYT search - many articles on Zoelick. It is, however, not up to Wikipedia editors to "indict" anyone at all. Collect (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Robert Zoellick has indicted himself through the following facts: (1) After Robert Zoellick refused to cooperate with a Government Accountability Office inquiry into transparency at the World Bank requested by Congress, Congress refused to appropriate funding for a capital increase for the World Bank and (2) Robert Zoellick's Presidency of the World Bank has ended the 66-year-old Gentlemen's Agreement that the US may appoint the President of the World Bank. These verifiable, notable facts have bearing on Robert Zoellick's biography in Wikipedia, which is misleading and inaccurate without their inclusion.74.96.75.44 (talk) 19:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

This is going nowhere fast. You have been given advice and don't seem interested in taking it. I suggest you take it to a blog ..failing that - to the article talkpage and I suggest you add reliable independent sources or don't assert anything. Off2riorob (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for putting the issue so succinctly. I am asking Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee to tell me whether you are right or whether the following sources are reliable and independent:

1. The International Financial Institutions: A Call for Change A Report to the Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate, March 10, 2010, at 24 http://www.foreignpolicy.com/files/fp_uploaded_images/int_fin_inst2.pdf http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/hearing/?id=33c66777-5056-a032-525aaOa5806634e9 http://kaygranger.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=12&parentid=4&sectiontree=4,12&itemid=983 [see Congresswoman Kay Granger's March 9, 2011 statement to Secretary Geithner]

2. April 24, 2010 Statement of the Board of Governors, available at http://www.imf.org/external/np/cm/2010/042510.htm 74.96.75.44 (talk) 11:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)74.96.75.44 (talk) 10:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I provided considerable background information to the Arbitration Committee on this topic, and the Arbitration Committee informed me that it is for serious conduct disputes (that is, editors misbehaving) which the community is unable to resolve. Disputes about content (that is, what articles say) are resolved by discussion on article talk pages. Having fulfilled my obligation to explain in this Noticeboard and on the Zoellick bio talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_Zoellick#Transparency_at_the_World_Bank why the proposed additions (supported by independent and notable sources) improve Wikipedia's article on this subject, I then made the edits in accordance with the following Wikipedia policy:

"In most cases, the first thing to try is an edit to the article, and sometimes making such an edit will resolve a dispute. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The argument 'I just don't like it', and its counterpart 'I just like it' usually carry no weight whatsoever. Limit talk page discussions to discussion of sources, article focus, and policy. The obligation on talk pages is to explain why an addition/change/removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia." Demiurge 1000 then "reverted" the edits. There is strong consensus that the creators and major contributors of pages and media files should be warned of a speedy deletion nomination. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPEEDY Issues are to be resolved by discussion with the other editor or administrator in the talk section. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review. I answered Demiurge 1000's criticisms as follows: See "Zoellick is also trying to leverage his long U.S. diplomatic career into the bank's first general capital increase in more than 20 years, an issue that will be debated this week at meetings of the institution's governing board." World Bank gets help from sovereign wealth funds to invest in developing nations, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/17/AR2010041702921.html The applicable procedures for selection of the next President of the World Bank are in Strengthening Governance and Accountability: Shareholder Stewardship and Oversight, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEVCOMMINT/Documentation/22885978/DC2011-0006(E)Governance.pdf. See also MPs Call for World Bank Shake-up "The World Bank is in 'desperate' need of reform, which should include ending the arrangement under which its president always comes from the US, a parliamentary report has said." http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/231867. Currency1 (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

If you are actively engaged in a controversy involving the subject of the article, you must not edit the article itself; it would be an out-and-and violation of WP:COI. As you describe your situation, almost nobody in such a situation would be able to write objectively. The only way to keep yourself safe from being blocked for COI is to avoid the subject entirely, or else to suggest clear reliable sources on the article talk page, without letting it become a diatribe about the subject. Our rules on bLP apply to article talk pages also. DGG ( talk ) 17:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads' up. Please advise whether you have any issues with my sources or edits.Currency1 (talk) 23:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I just finished copy-editing Calle Jonsson. I went into it thinking I'd stub it, because it looked pretty much like an accused-of-a-crime good candidate for AfD. When I dug into it, I found that it's actually a notable case: Jonsson, a young Swedish guy, was vacationing in Greece when he was accused of stabbing a Greek man. The case was shaky, and the Swedish press reported on it quite a bit. He was tried and acquitted, but then the Greek supreme court demanded a retrial. On top of that, the Greeks charged him and his parents of perjury and defamation for claiming that the Greek police took liberties with the law in his case during the first trial. He was eventually acquitted again this year, but in the meantime the whole thing seems to have put a lasting chill on relations between the two countries.

So, I think I've got the article reasonably neutral, but it's more about the trial than Jonsson. I think it's now a WP:BLP1E article. There's a six-month-old hat suggesting a merger with European Arrest Warrant, but I don't think that's an appropriate merger: the Jonsson article is notable enough to remain a standalone, and it's not really about warrants. I'm thinking it needs to be renamed, but I'm having trouble deciding what it should properly be called. Thoughts? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 22:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a fun read, and I made some copy edits to it, but I don't think I'll be of much help in suggesting a name. All I can come up with is something mundane like "Calle Jonsson attempted murder case".--Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice work. Really good additions. definitly no merge of the article now.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Irrelevant details about a non-notable lawsuit persistently added by IPs (mostly recently here), with inflammatory wording "Controversy academic fraud case". There is only one third party reference for this suit, (here), which does not mention Spellings. Goverment figures are frequently named in lawsuits through no fault or action of their own, there's no reason to think this case is any different. I suspect someone has an axe to grind. There's certainly no controversy. Hairhorn (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Has since been removed by another editor, but would still value some input. Hairhorn (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The desired addition is laid out on the talkpage here Talk:Margaret_Spellings#.22Controversy_academic_fraud_case.22 - Off2riorob (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Four parties have filed Federal Tort Claims Act cases have been filed to the Office of General Counsel against her and the actions of other employees of the Department on July 1, 2011. The brief has also been sent to President Obama and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder because of criminal misconduct by employees within the AAEU. Unlike the suggestion as noted by Hairhorn, a Federal Tort Claim is on a person or the person's actions which commit the Tort. Spellings, and other employees are named in the brief. The lawsuit as noted in the Portland alliance was the underlying lawsuit which then caused two additional civil actions, including complaints filed to Spellings herself. Those complaints were upheld against the two accreditors by Spellings et al. The controversy however continued which has now led to the FTCA cases against Spellings (and others). Unlike the suggestion, when you have actual statements from Spellings giving the approval to commit a tort in writing, it is not simply "through no fault or action of their own."

As to "briefs not being source materials" it would should be noted that other sections of wikipedia due in fact use briefs as source materials. To claims otherwise, is simply misguided and illogical based on the community. The FTCA brief is over 300 pages in length and maintains several thousand documents. FOIAs have now been filed by other 3rd parties who have learned about this case to seek additional materials and we are working now to get several news paper articles written. - Randy Chapel- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ka7hvz (talk • contribs)

I see you have been repeatedly adding this since 2009 - please stick to a single account. WP:Other stuff exists or WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS - does not mean it is relevant in this case. There are many poor policy violating issues across the wikipedia but that is not an excuse to create another one. As for your desired addition - three legal dockets and a unreliable external do not make for an addition to a wikipedia BLP.Off2riorob (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Two people have added to this actually and there are actually many other legal dockets concerning the fraud Off2riorob and several websites/blogs going up. it would seem that you have particular issue with facts and successful actions against the accreditors and Feds from coming to light, which causes several of us who have now read/learned about your edits to wonder your true intent here. What I can assure you now is that there is going to be other newspaper articles on this subject -- but then again, I am sure you will continue to attempt to cover up - just like spellings and the Department have already been doing (check the IP history).--ka7hvz (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

"several of us who have now read/learned about your edits" - who is this "us" .... please be aware that editing as a group is against policy. - Also - I am from the United Kingdom and couldn't care less about whatever you think I care about. My interest in this issue is in regard to Wikipedia:Policy and guidelines only. - If and when independant reliable reports assert some notability of this issue and it is notable to the subject of the Biographies actions/life story I will add it to the article myself. Off2riorob (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

As noted in the article that you removed, there are several people that have been affected by what Spellings et al has done. As to the point that you are in the UK - figures. us Americans know what kind of wankers you are over there in the UK.--ka7hvz (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Please take care with the personal attacks - WP:NPA - If you continue your editing privileges will be restricted. Off2riorob (talk) 23:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You opened with personal attacks Off2riorob. People have lost everything. Families have been damaged and destroyed as a result of what has happen.--ka7hvz 23:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I told you - I am only interested in Wikipedia:Policy and guidelines - where have I personally attacked anyone? Off2riorob (talk) 23:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to come up with reliable, third party sources to back up your edits, Ka7hvz, because I don't see a one. That is why all your edits have been reverted. Hairhorn (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The civil settlement agreements cannot be published. The FTCA claims and settlement can be because of open records laws. "...reliable, third party sources" will be forever debated I am afraid (some claim Fox News is not reliable or unbiased for example). It is however clear that shortly 3rd parties will be publishing on this topic and when that happens, yes there will be new edits.--ka7hvz 01:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• The actual case involves the complaint of 2 students against their college. The escalation to any conceivable party is merely the peculiarity of US law--trying to involve not just the college but the agencies that accredited the college, the govt. agency that certifies the accrediting agency, the people at the govt agency that deal with the agencies that oversee accredition matters, finally the person in charge of the govt department. If the case is covered in major RSs, which I doubt, there could conceivably be a mention at the article on the college, but this would require much better sourcing than presently available. If the case is in fact itself actually notable , which I doubt even more , there could be an article on it.As far as I can tell, the Chronicle of Higher Education, the primary publication for actual controversies in US higher education, has not even mentioned it in a note (if I missed it, I'd appreciate the cite). Everything beyond that is an attempt at Soapboxing, a form of publicity or promotion, and one of the things which is not appropriate here, or in any other encyclopedia. I would dismiss the complaint at Wikipedia, with prejudice, unless the real sourcing according to RS becomes available--and even so, unless the Secy was personally involved in a major way, and the sources for that involvement unimpeachable, there would be no mention in the article on her. Any continuation of this would strike me as an attempt to disrupt the encyclopedia, and I have warned the user accordingly. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

In reference to DGG's statement - let's review (I have left off all the citings and links to this, but can source each sentence as a result). 34 CFR § 602 is the SECRETARY'S RECOGNITION OF ACCREDITING AGENCIES. In the US, the Feds are unable to directly approve a degree or program. This is actually bared by the Constitution and is actually in the domain of the state. As a result, the concept of accreditation was developed in order to handle the millions of dollars of title 4 funds sent to schools and to handle quality in education as national/regional reliable sources - this according to the feds themselves. The Office of Civil Rights actually handles part of this as does the Office of Inspector General.

BOTH ATS and NWCCU were cited as being apart as they are the national and regional accreditor for the school in question. Both were in violation of 34 CFR §§ 602.15,.20,.22,.23. Diane Auer Jones only cited ATS and NWCCU for 602.20 and .23 violations on May 8, 2008 due to my March 2007 complaints to Spellings herself to which Spellings ordered Carol Griffiths to investigate. It is actually Congress that has put into place how this is done and the primary unit required to handle this is the AAEU. 34 CFR §§ 602.30-38.

According to the federal code, citing accreditors for not keeping schools accountable and not maintaining policies based on federal regs is done by a senior Department official. Sara Tucker was one of the senior officials who was involved in failing to cite ATS and NWCCU on .20, .15 and .23. so was Diane Auer Jones and Cheryl Oldham. The actual letters in Sept and Aug of 2008 were first authored by Nancy C. Regan under the direction of the Office of General Counsel.

As early as Jan 15, 2009 forward, Arne Duncan has been apprised of this mess that Spellings left and now has been handed 4 FTCA claims which name some 20 employees of the Department. The FTCA provides a limited waiver of the federal government's sovereign immunity when its employees are negligent within the scope of their employment. Under the FTCA, the government can only be sued 'under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.' 28 U.S.C. S 1346(b) These four Federal Tort Claims have several causes of actions, including negligence in citing ATS and NWCCU as required under statue, among many other claims. The brief that has been submitted to the Office of General Counsel is over 300 pages in length and the first stage of it was over 100 pages in details sent on July 1, with several thousand pages of supporting evidences. A fifth claim is being contemplated to be filed. These claims have been received by the Department's Office of General Counsel who for the last 7 months has come under fire over this case and how it has been handled by the Department. As of July 8, Charles P. Rose is no longer General Counsel at the U.S. Department of Education and Philip H. Rosenfelt has taken over.

AAEU was audited by the Office of Inspector General dating all the way back to 2003 over failures within the unit in doing its job. Like in the case of the former MMU (which has now been renamed after the oil spill in the gulf), when a government unit fails to do its job and people get hurt and in the MMU case, people died, FTCA claims can be filed. There actually are articles regarding the downward spiral of accreditation in America and the lack oversight involved, including senators asking questions at recent hearings and in the media (Sorry - the Chronicle of Higher Education is not "the" primary source here. google 'accreditation senator' 'accreditation fix' and so on).

In this case, negligence has actually damaged and personally injured students and their families at this point. The AAEU with ATS and NWCCU have oked schools offering degrees that violate state laws, decisions cases and federal statues, while demanding that students and their families don't filed complaints and are gagged for life. Such cases here in Ca has been raised and won by the State's attorney general against schools. Hence why there are FTCA cases being filed, since FTCA cases are based on the state you are filing in.

When there are actually letters signed by people who, by law, must give account for millions of dollars and the oversight that accreditors provide to the nation, it is more than just relevant - at least senators think so. At this time, the Department is being hit with many FOIAs seeking information about the cover up and this will continue. This has also spilled into the efforts of two congress persons and in about 3 weeks time from this writing, likely will go to the media and national press. Two civil FOIA cases are now being put together.

To that end, no other additions to Spellings BLP have been added by me or the other students, until further articles concerning these cases are done - articles well beyond the Chronicle.--ka7hvz 03:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no doubt there is room for a discussion about current issues involving the US accreditation process.Any regular reader of the appropriate news sources will know of a number of instances, Where it should be covered and whether this should be a separate article depends on the degree to which it becomes a major issue. It certainly should not be written by anyone having a grievance about a particular instance--that's a violation of WP:COI, and the sort of intense COI that almost nobody can correct for in their editing. Whether any of this goers in the bio of the Sec'y depends on what the sources say. Suits against a US agency normally name the head of the agency because of the general oversight, but the degree to which personal involvement is present varies. Even if there were some personal involvement with respect to accreditation in general ,it would still have to be shown in this case. That you wrote a letter to her after which the agency took some action is not personal involvement. Everything else you say is pure Soapbox. Wikipedia does not exist to right wrongs. It is not a mechanism for government reform, but an encyclopedia.

As you admit you are one of the parties to the case, in order to prevent the introduction of further bias, as a totally uninvolved administrator I hereby warn you that I shall block you for COI should you do any further editing on her bio or anything on the topic of this particular case or this particular college. Depending on your editing, it might be extended to anything on the topic of the US higher education accreditation process. Any uninvolved administrator is welcome to review either this warning, or the possible block. DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Please note all links to ****** in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Libby article should be reviewed as the site registration must have lapsed and it is now being used by spammers. Perhaps you should link to http://web.archive.org/web/20090105171826/http://wilsonsupport.org/ instead — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.211.59 (talk) 15:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Replaced both of them. Thank you for this report. Off2riorob (talk) 07:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Gabe Garcia (soccer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The person mentioned is not notable for a Wikipedia and is just clutter on Wikipedia's website. Wikipedia living biography article needs to be deleted. This article has poor resources about this person. [[9]]

Thankyou again, Crackofdawn (talk) 07:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

If you feel that way, feel free to nominate the article for deletion and get the opinions of other editors. This link to Wikipedia's deletion process will get you started. Dayewalker (talk) 07:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

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

This issue concerns how to handle quoted material that the original reliable source has apparently redacted because it was part of what was considered defamatory material. In the final paragraph of John_Malkovich#Personal_life_and_political_views, the text beginning "When interviewed by The Observer, Malkovich elaborated on his comments:" and ending "it gives them more oxygen." is sourced to an article that was subsequently amended (as noted in the current online version as well as separately.) The quoted material is still widely found on non-reliable internet sources such as blogs, which is what leads me to guess that it was indeed originally present in the article, though some of that chatter may be a secondary result of the WP article itself.

The simplest fix would be to remove the material in question from the WP article. A more difficult solution would be to have the print edition checked for the material and have the citation reflect that. Thoughts? Thanks. Rostz (talk) 13:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Relying exclusively on your summary, I'll say that if the original source redacted the content because it is potentially or actually defamatory, that ought to settle the issue immediately for us as well. There are WP:V concerns here, but the BLP issue is clear-cut. It is out of the question for us to include potentially defamatory content that is not supported by the sources, let alone something that was specifically redacted by that same source. Regards, causa sui (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Good enough; removed. Rostz (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Material that is unsourced or poorly sourced is repeatedly being added to this page. This should not be inserted and must be removed immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinacat7 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Not so sure about the sourcing, but you are definitely right to revert edits which turned nearly half the article into blockquotes from one of this individual's strong opponents on a controversial topic. I've left a little note for the editor concerned.

Please be careful with any edits that remove references, though. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

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

There has been some vandalism of George Watsky lately. I am editing on a smart phone at the moment which can be limiting. Would someone with rollback rights revert to the July 8 version by Sophomoric? I think that's pretty clean. And if an admin could take a look to see if some level of protection might be appropriate? Thanks. Cullen328 (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted to Sophomoric's version, having examined the edits in between. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Demiurge1000. Cullen328 (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Hello this is my personal biography page and the information here is consistently incorrect and misquoted with either no references to back up or sources that aren't actually true to begin with. Please could you let me know how I can lock this page to stop this from happening in the future? Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlebootsofficial (talk • contribs) 23:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem I see here is that reliable sources state that you were born on 5 April (e.g). You know when you were born, but unless you, by yourself, tell people via reliable sources when you were actually born, the information will be wrong, and not only in Wikipedia. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider either that page or the iTunes page a good source for the birthdate in a WP:BLP. Do we have any better sources? Nil Einne (talk) 00:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore most of the other changes appear to be proper. Okay the 'Captain Beefheart' is in the source (although the link on the page doesn't work, [10] does). Similarly the 'Second studio album' removed the first time but not the second also appears to be in the source. But the fee paying thing appears to be a case of irrelevent (since none of the sources establish relevence) OR, and a poor attempt at it too, since the ref to the school page only establishes what the school is now. It seems unlikely it was any different when the artist attended but this isn't established in the ref. The Christopher Drew thing also doesn't seem to be mentioned by any source (and I'm also confused as to the relevence of Christopher Drew's current job). In fact none of the refs, either the ISC website nor [11] or [12] mention her attentending Rossall School, although this doesn't appear to be disputed by the artist. Similarly the 'Bretton Hall College' doesn't seem to be mentioned in either refs in the section i.e. [13] [14]. In other words, while a few changes (namely the Captain Beefheart and once removed second studio album thing) were in the source; most of the others appear to have been removing unsourced info or in the case of the birthdate, poorly sourced info. P.S. To avoid confusion [15] only appears to remove part of the real name, and not the birthdate. Nil Einne (talk) 01:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay I have even more concerns about the birthdate. It seems to have first been added [16] as May 1st quickly changed to May 4th [17] (a typo? completely invented date?) without a ref. It was then removed here [18] a few days later. It was re-added here [19] a few days later still without a ref and possibly has been in the article since then. So where did this date come from? Did it appear in some dubious ref? Was it completely invented? We don't know. I tried to look in archive.org but couldn't find any archives for either the Allmusic or Itunes bio earlier then 2010. It could easily be that both refs got the info from us, not exactly uncommon and one of the reasons we have to be very careful about using less then high quality refs (and even sites like the BBC and NYT appear to have copied us on occasion).

I should mentioned I missed the 'where she got a first in cultural studies and wrote a dissertation on "the concept of originality in the music of Jamie Cullum' which was removed is in the source (not the Bretton Hall bit). But the phrasing 'got a first' should be changed as it could be confusing to people not from the UK. Considering the whole sentence is more or less plagiarised directly from the source, this isn't surprising.

Incidentally I found a ref for her attending Rossall School while looking in the article history (still nothing about Christopher Drew) [20] and also if anyone re-adds that she attended Elmslie Girls' School, do ask for a better ref then [21].

Nil Einne (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

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

While reading this article I noticed that there are a lot of big company names like Warner Bros and Disney, but the links in the resources go directly the companies main websites and there is nothing to prove that this person has/had anything to do with them. His own blog is used as as resource. Interviews are not linked, nor are awards. I found nothing in the article that could be verified.

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

This just doesn't seem to be a verifiable article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.154.176.149 (talk) 05:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I could do with input over whether this information is a BLP problem. Brief overview; some tabloid paper published a trash allegation (see the content) and she is suing them for libel. There is disagreement over whether we need to record the specifics of what allegations they made - I say they don't. A couple of others say they do. I partially see their argument, but also think that favouring privacy and caution is a sensible move.

I'm particularly worried this is a subtle attempt to put a POV into the article and undermine the housekeeper. Relevant discussion: Talk:Dominique_Strauss-Kahn_sexual_assault_case#Moot_court_facts --Errant ^(chat!) 07:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

My problem here is that leaving out the reason for the lawsuit confuses the reader. She's filing a libel lawsuit for what?? It's not for any of the things mentioned above. But a reader won't know that, unless they actually click on the references. And we should never force readers to read references to get important information.

As for BLP, there are numerous precedents of libel lawsuits where the details of the libel are included in the article. Is there any reason why more stringent BLP standards should apply to this unnamed housekeeper than to Ashley Olson, Clark Jones, or Jose Santos?

As for his POV worries, I have the same concern from the opposite perspective. :-) -- Bob drobbs (talk) 08:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

My POV worries relate to the person originally placing the material, who was desperately trying to disparage the subject, and when that failed tried this more subtle approach. I disgree that it is particularly important what the allegations were. Is there any reason why more stringent BLP standards should apply to this unnamed housekeeper; this is never a good argument. People tend to use it when I (and others) enforce WP:BLPCAT and it usually just results in BLP being applied to the new examples too :) As it stands... I suspect the WND article needs tweaking per WP:BLPNAME, and the others may need looking at. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Errant, are you assuming good faith when you accuse other editors of "desperately trying to disparage the subject"? Please play nice. And I wasn't joking about my own worries about POV. I've seen a consistent trend in trying to cover up absolutely notable, though negative, information about the housekeeper even when the references were rock-solid and the information was coming from the prosecutor.

As for enforcing things regarding libel cases, my position remains clear and consistent. _If_ a libel lawsuit is notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia, then the reason for the lawsuit also merits inclusion. It's simply a joke for an encyclopedia to remain intentionally vague and force it's readers to go to cited references for facts and details. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 09:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it is important to remember that there are two living people affected by this controversy and BLP policy applies to both. As far as I can see, the housekeeper is not even named, so it seems a bit extreme to be hiding reliably sourced information about her relating to accusations against her which she says are false, while at the same time presenting an entire article in gory detail about accusations she has made against DSK which he says - and now the prosecutors possibly agree - are false. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The article in question is about the case against DSK not every subsidiary case arising from it. Keep the thing focused and remove all references to libels and unsubstantiated accusations. John lilburne (talk) 11:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: Even if the newspaper claims are correct that doesn't make her allegation against DSK untrue, and if the newspapers claims are incorrect that doesn't make gher claims against DSK true. John lilburne (talk) 11:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

@Alex; we've consistently been keeping the nastiest of the tabloid allegations about DSK out of the article (thankfully) and I was trying to apply the same policy to the housekeeper. Consistency is good. @Bob; the user in question is the typical sort of SPA trying to spin the article, I'm not worried about calling that out. AGF is no suicide pact :) @John; the reason I have resisted this is stubbornness because on the talk page I was told either the allegations go in or we "compromise" and take all the content out... which I find an objectionable argument.. FWIW I think it is relevant given that it relates to the mass of allegations that have surfaced r.e. the housekeeper in the last few weeks, that she is going after the tabloids who are publishing them. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It will hardly come as a shock to hear that I'd favour removal of most of the article anyway. This is the problem with articles like this, they are simply disguised news, where the emphasis ebbs and flows as the days and weeks go by. There will always be pressure to add this or that bit of reported tidbit gossip or allegation, as the article is magnet for BLP violations and will remain so well after the legal processes have concluded and the news agenda has moved on to other things. This article should never have been started, that it was is a demonstration of the immaturity of the project, that editors can't wait before they start spinning their own slant on the news event of the day. I know that you and others have been mindful to keep as much of the tosh out as possible, but tosh creeps in day by day. It is inevitable as speculative news reports get written day by day, and editors want to keep up with the latest developments. John lilburne (talk) 11:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

These are actions on the part of the housekeeper. Impeccably reliable sources are reporting actions that the housekeeper chose to initiate. No one forced the housekeeper to file a libel suit against the N. Y. Post. She is responsible for her own actions. They are reported here in the New York Times. This is exactly one sentence long in our article, seen here.

"Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. "

There is no "privacy" whatsoever in a filed lawsuit reported in the New York Times.

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's 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."

We are not spreading "titillating claims". The issue at the heart of a lawsuit that the housekeeper chose to initiate will be decided by a court of law. Nothing is "sensationalist" about reporting about one more lawsuit in a battle of lawsuits. There will be a legal outcome and it will have bearing on the primary lawsuit involving sexual assault.

BLP does not mean leaving out relevant parts of a story because the story itself is sensitive. We are expected, by BLP, to exercise a "high degree of sensitivity". But it would seem exceedingly difficult to report about a case involving accusations of sexual assault to omit all references to sex.

The above quotes (underlined) are from WP:BLP. Bus stop (talk) 12:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether goose or gander, WP:BLP still applies. Contentious claims, even about a person not named, require the same standards we apply to all BLPs. The Duke lacrosse case is a good example where "titillating claims" were "reliably sourced" according to those adding them to articles. Wikipedia is better off recognizing the WP:DEADLINE we have in an encyclopedia than in promoting such stuff. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the reference to "goose or gander" is all about. BLP applies, but it should not be misapplied. The point about a person not named is that the person should be named. We are only not naming the housekeeper in this article because most reliable sources are not naming that person. We are simply following reliable sources. We are not following BLP because BLP is mute on this issue. While it is true that there is no deadline it would seem contrived to deliberately omit eminently relevant information that a source no less prestigious than the New York Times is giving substantial treatment to. The entirety of the N Y Times article is given over to the thread of this issue of the lawsuit filed by the housekeeper against the N Y Post. Omission of that would be a contrivance. Bus stop (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop, it is simply incorrect to suggest that "we are only not naming the housekeeper in this article because most reliable sources are not naming that person". There are plenty of reliable sources that have named her. We are not naming the housekeeper because we have made an editorial decision not to do so, after consideration of the appropriate WP:BLP policies. Article content is not determined by outside sources. They provide it, we decide whether it is relevant to an article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you mention in your above post, "the appropriate WP:BLP policies." Can you please tell me what "appropriate WP:BLP policies" you feel supports the omission of the housekeeper's name? Bus stop (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• - Could we just add a comment that gives the detail without the need to repeat the claimed defamation/demeaning portrayal - like,....

On July 5 the maid filed a libel suit against the New York Post, claiming that in articles the post published about her in early July they had subjected her to humiliation, shame, scorn, emotional injury, embarrassment, loss of standing in the community, loss of self-esteem, public disgrace, severe and extreme emotional distress and “ridicule throughout the world.” Off2riorob (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• • This is essentially what I have been pushing for - but the other editors on the page are sticking fast to the idea that either we detail the allegations or the whole lot goes. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Errant, I'm sorry that you find my argument "objectionable". The corollary of my argument above, is if the details aren't important enough for readers to care about, then the lawsuit isn't either, and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. It should be deleted.

Off2riorob,'"… had subjected her to humiliation, shame, scorn, emotional injury, embarrassment, …"

I find your suggestion extremely POV. You're going to cherry pick details from the case to tell the story you wish to tell? _If_ this libel lawsuit is indeed notable enough for inclusion in the article, then how about a compromise where we include the reason for the libel lawsuit _and_ her alleged reaction to it? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I am with Errant completely about this - I see you have just removed the compromise Bob - it seems unless you get to add the specific claimed insult/libel defamation you start posting in capitals and reverting - as for your edit summary - it is far from an irrelevant factoid - it represents that there are some issues or at least she feels issues with the way she has been portrayed in the media. Its quite acceptable editorial judgment under WP:BLP that we do not need to repeat and republish a specific insult to the subject to add detail about it. Off2riorob (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob—the housekeeper's accusations against DSK of sexual abuse are very clearly related to the degree to which she is believable in a court of law. The lawsuit that her attorneys file against the NY Post are to reclaim some of her recently eroded credibility. There is not justification for failing to mention this relevant detail on BLP grounds. The best reason is that the NY Times is a reliable source. An entire article in the NY Times is devoted to the lawsuit the housekeeper is filing against the NY Post. The reader obviously has a need to know the concrete reason for the housekeeper's attorneys bringing the charges against the NY Post. Bus stop (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

We arew not making a guilty/not guilty case, or trying the case in our article. The reason is that she feels the reporting by the New York Post was insulting and libelous. - Every time I look at that publication I am amazed that it is a major city paper. Off2riorob (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

What I removed was _not_ a compromise. John lilburne reverted my change which kicked off this discussion with an edit summary: irrelevant detail about an irrelevant factoid. I just took his change one step further. _If_ this libel case is an irrelevant factoid, then it has no place in the article. However, if the lawsuit truly is notable, then the critical details also need to be provided. There is no violation of WP:BLP in that.

As for "acceptable editorial judgment", it seems to me that you're trying to engage in POV censorship, under the guise of editorial judgment.

Suggested compromises: 1) Delete the entire line since it's only tangentially related to the article and probably not historically notable. 2) Provide specifics of the alleged libel _and_ specifics of her claimed reaction to it. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

What iyo is POV censorship is imo NPOV BLP consideration. It is no more tangent than at least half the current article - as I said, it reflects her position that she has been insulted/libeled in the reporting of the case. Off2riorob (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

@Off2riorob It would be highly inappropriate to dismiss a complaint of rape, simply because the person was supposedly a sex worker, as such this is completely irrelevant to the case. John lilburne (talk) 19:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

This article is about the allegations against DSK, not about his alleged victims legal issues with the press. Regardless of the truth of the press allegations they have no bearing on the case. If all we knew was that this person was suing about a statement in the press, we would not be putting it in any article. It is only being considered because of the relationship with DSK. Keep it focused folks. John lilburne (talk) 19:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

John lilburne—all moralizing aside, the case for nonconsensual sex is diminished with the addition of prostitution as a factor. That is why the NY Post lawsuit is relevant and the reason why it should be mentioned in evenhanded but concrete terms. Bus stop (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

No if bloody well is not. NO is NO! Whether the person is a prostitute or not, one is not empowered to rape them. Show me a US law that says otherwise. John lilburne (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

John lilburne—there is no "rape" in allowing eminently reliable sources to provide us with guidance on propriety and you shouldn't even be utilizing language such as "rape" in a discussion on a Talk page unless you are using the term literally. This The New York Times article is showing us that the reporting of the lawsuit against the New York Post is reportable information. Bus stop (talk) 02:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

DONT just DONT. Your argument that this diminishes the case for rape, is wrong morally, and wrong legally too. Whether the person is a sex worker, dresses provocatively, goes out with alleged rapist, or is married to the alleged rapist. That does not entitle the other person to rape them. NO is NO. If in doubt ask your mother, school teacher, or Rabbi. John lilburne (talk) 06:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Off2riob, I think you read a different WP:NPOV article than I did: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."

What exactly do you feel is NPOV of about cherry picking certain information about this libel lawsuit? Do you really think that is the way to represent all significant views about the libel case?

I took an _unofficial_ tally to help understand where we are:

• Hide the reason for the libel lawsuit - 2 votes (Errant and Off2riob)
• Include reason for the libel lawsuit - 2.5 votes (Alex, Bus Stop, Bob)
• Delete the entire thing as non-notable - 1.5 votes (John, Bob)
• I'm not sure of their views - (Andy, Collect)

Now, we don't have consensus here. However, Off2riob since it seems you're in the _minority_ will you at least stop engaging in reverts until we get some sort of consensus? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus to repeat the claimed libel in the article. - I personally see the press attacks on her and the legal report/claim of libel as noteworthy, if consensus develops against that I will happily accept that. Off2riorob (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Off2riob, you still have not explained how _your_ definition of WP:NPOV matches with the definition in the article: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."

It seems to me that you're just trying to put forward your own POV, actively seeking to censor information which could possibly put the housekeeper in a negative light, totally irrespective of the actual BLP and NPOV rules. And, it seems pretty questionable, under the argument that there is a lack of "consensus", to feel that you have a right to make whatever, possibly POV edits you want, even if they're contrary to the views of the majority here.

Finally, it seems likely that consensus isn't going to happen here without compromise. Are you willing to try to seek some sort of compromise? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I will compromise on anything apart from the desire to include the claimed insulting/libelious remarks in our article. Off2riorob (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

To reiterate my position:

• I find it "objectional" that some are attempting to cast this as a binary situation, where we have to have one or the other. That is absurd.
• The fact she has filed a lawsuit is of minor relevance especially in relation to the press discussion of her credibility. Not to include it does not seem proportionate
• The meat of the allegations, though, are not necessarily as relevant and I favour privacy in such a case - so as not to repeat tabloid allegations (and, yes, it would be repeating them) [this is consistent; we touch on the fact that people have attacked DSK in the press, but avoided giving the more vitriolic attackers a platform[
• Bus Stop's argument is, in my personal opinion, morally objectional and steeped in a specific POV; more to the point, though, it consists entirely of his own original research e.g. The lawsuit that her attorneys file against the NY Post are to reclaim some of her recently eroded credibility. and I feel we can discard it. I am not sure what he intends to achieve with such an argument :S
• I am inclined to agree mostly with John lilburne; except that I think that some of the elements being reported about the housekeeper are of roughly the same relevance with this. And much as I despise this approach - I feel it brings balance to the section.
• I could buy a compromise that was slightly more specific about the allegations, but that does not simply repeat them... perhaps "allegations related to her personal life"?

Hopefully that sums up my view :) --Errant ^(chat!) 21:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I have a new way to express this; a number of tabloid allegations have been made about the housekeeper - we don't report them for BLP reasons and because they are of no real relevance. The housekeeper has filed a lawsuit over some of these allegations. The latter is worth a brief mention, the former is still not useful. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

At this point in time I think that the addition is unjustified. I also recognize that the some others are hell bent on adding what I consider irrelevancies. So with that in mind "the housekeeper has vigorously denied allegations, by some media publications, about her personal life and legal remedies are currently being sought". Otherwise as with Off2riorob. John lilburne (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with John lilburne. The article is about DSK, not about the housekeeper. This article is being used by too many contributors to spin the story one way or another, and we would serve our readers best by sticking with facts of direct relevance, rather than titillation and hype. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

To Andy. I have to strenuously disagree with one of your statements, because it is important. This article is not about DSK. The article is about the case, which DSK is only one part of. And any attempt to limit this case to only talk about DSK, and ignore the rest of the case, is extremely POV. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob, I'm sorry but your position doesn't seem supported by BLP nor by NPOV. Once again, can you please explain, citing what WP:NPOV actually says, how you can justify deleting the claimed libelous remarks which are at the core of a lawsuit which you describe as "notable"?

As for compromise, I'll compromise on anything other than writing about a lawsuit, while censoring basic details of that lawsuit.

So, unless you see another option here, the only compromise which I see that remains possible, is to delete the libel lawsuit in it's entirety from the article. Would you accept a vote on that? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The basic details of the lawsuit is that she is suing them over defamatory tabloid remarks. What else needs to be said? And why? It is far from censorship; just applying the same editorial discretion we have to every other tabloid underhand remark about both subjects. FWIW I agree this is about the case, not DSK. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The defense theory is that there was consensual sex during which the maid turned on DSK, attempting to make him look a like a rapist. We also know that many insiders expect that the charges will be dropped by the prosecutor, which implies that the defense theory is difficult to be dismissed as unreasonable doubt. But then, for consensual sex to have happened in the given circumstances almost certainly implies that DSK had made an appointment with the maid for having sex. So, the allegation was already out there between the lines of all the other information about this case. Therefore this isn't a big deal. Count Iblis (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

That is entirely OR/guesswork and of no relevance whatsoever to the discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

ErrantX, first of all, your premise is faulty: "suing them over defamatory tabloid remarks. She is actually suing over statements which she alleges are defamatory. The statements could be true, or they could be false. But we should not be making judgments either way.

Have you already made up your own mind about the merits of her libel lawsuit? Are you deliberately trying to lead readers toward a certain POV in regards to the merits of that lawsuit? If not, we must give readers the information they need to make their own minds.

And no reader can make a discernable judgment as to the merits of her libel case without being given the statement in question. If this libel lawsuit is indeed notable, we absolutely have to give them the main specifics of the case so that they can make up their own minds. As for tabloid' remarks", we are _not_ quoting a tabloid. We are quoting the NY Times.

Without the facts, how can a reader make an informed decision about the merits of the case?!? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Include it all, and let the reader decide. It's all been covered a ton in RSs. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

"suing them over defamatory tabloid remarks. She is actually suing over statements which she alleges are defamatory; you're splitting hairs, over the lack of one word. Which should clearly be implied... I am now not being neutral? Hardly. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• I think that we do well as a community when we follow the RSs. When we stray from them, it is often because someone is wiki-lawyering to suit his own POV, IMHO. I've seen more than the usual dose of straying from following the RSs at the DSK article, unfortunately. Of all the comments here, the one that I thought most compelling was that of Alex Harvey, to the effect that "I think it is important to remember that there are two living people affected by this controversy and BLP policy applies to both." If (and only if) supported by proper RS coverage, I think the information is notable and worthy of coverage, both as to what the charge was and the libel suit. It is obviously inextricably wound up with the DSK matter, so mention at that article is appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason or necessitation at all to repeat the claimed libel/disparaging insult in our article - and jonny insulted him by calling him a **** ** *** ***** - all the dashed bits are unworthy of repeating in a wikipedia BLP - encyclopedic article, as is the claimed demeaning insult here. Off2riorob (talk) 06:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Your view of necessitation may, of course, differ markedly from the subjective view of another editor. We avoid such problems when we follow the RSs. I'm sure that there are editors who -- if not bound to follow RSs, but only to follow their own subjective view of necessication -- would prefer to delete/censor references in all wp articles to rape, prostitution, sexual abuse, abortion, pornography, sexual anatomy, profanity, and every detail of every 100,000-times-viewed sex scandal article that is currently on wp. We don't go down that road, and the way we cut short efforts at subjective personal viewpoints taking over the project, is to follow the RSs. That keeps us all honest.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Amen to Epeefleche.

Off2riorob, we are now speaking about a lawsuit. Maybe the statements from the Post were libelous; Maybe they were 100% accurate. But it's not our job to _guess_ who is right in a lawsuit or to put forward a particular POV about it. Our job in regards to this lawsuit, must be to simply provide well-referenced, notable facts, and allow the readers to make their own decisions.

Once again, without knowing the alleged libel, how can a reader make an informed decision about the merits of the case?!? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 08:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a dangerous argument. Because, by your argument, reciting the alleged libel in the article equally leaves the reader wondering "hmm, so where did they get this information from". So perhaps we need to add the information provided by an anonymous insider to clarify this? And then note the claims about cleaning staff being pimped by their union for context (because we would not want to imply falsely she was going this alone)? I argue that this is all material a reader can actively search out if they desperately wish to - from an editorial perspective we can only cover a brief factual overview of the case. In this situation the Post published potentially defamatory remarks about the housekeeper, the housekeeper is suing them for libel. I do not yet see a substantive argument to support the idea that the actual defamatory remarks are of significant enough relevance to be noted when played against the privacy of the individual and our BLP policy which cautions us to be reserved in relating facts about living people. I make the point, again, that much spurious comment has been made about both of these people - and we have successfully managed to keep that out of the article. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Errant, see Epeefleche's comments. There is no danger here, when all we are doing is using factual, notable information, from reliable sources.

The real danger seems to come from POV censorship. By implying that the Posts remarks were "spurious", it would seem that you have already made up your mind about the libel case. Is that true? Or could the Post's story about the housekeeper actually be correct?

And I'll ask again, how do you think a reader can make an informed decision about the merits of the case if they don't know what the housekeeper is claiming was libelous? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 09:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Who cares whether the Posts story is correct or not? It could sensibly be described as unsubstantiated rumour, sure, which is why we do not use it to source information for the article. But I could not care less about the outcome of a libel case, or indeed the entire sexual assault case, which involves two people I don't know from Adam and the politics of two countries I am minimally interested in, at best. You seem to be making a meal of words to try and imply I am sitting here desperately trying to make sure the housekeeper isn't criticised, which is nonsense - I apply my views on WP policy consistently across all of the many articles I have been involved in (i.e. hundreds).

And I'll ask again, how do you think a reader can make an informed decision about the merits of the case if they don't know what the housekeeper is claiming was libelous? it is not, and should never ever ever be our job to do this. We are not here to present things to allow people to make up their minds - we are here to record the historically significant material. This is, of course, one of the problems with writing about an event as it happens - weighting the material is hard and we are left with untied loose ends which are left "for the reader to assess". Sad.

Even with that said, your argument makes no sense whatsoever - how does reciting the allegation help with any form of understanding to the reader? You want to add the word "prostitute" to the article without context or clarification. There is an obvious conclusion any reader is going to draw - why are you so eager for them to draw that? If we were presenting the aspects of the alleged libel fairly we also need to detail it beyond a one word description - otherwise, yes, it is a BLP violation. To explain this, consider; the reader still would need to dive into the source material because this might be a well substantiated allegation (i.e. perhaps the Post is reporting on prior convictions or arrests relating to this) or it could be more spurious (anonymous information). Do you see how problematic that simple statement becomes? --Errant ^(chat!) 10:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we could work a compromise here - avoiding the word "prostitute", although I have no good suggestion for a replacement phrasing, and include comment on an anonymous source (third party sources have mentioned this). --Errant ^(chat!) 11:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

What term could one would use in place of the word "prostitute"? The New York Times chooses its words carefully too. It uses the word prostitute twice in this story. The first paragraph of the NY Times story reads:

"The hotel housekeeper in the Dominique Strauss-Kahn case filed a libel suit against The New York Post on Tuesday over a series of articles it published during the Fourth of July weekend claiming that she was a prostitute."

Our article should use plain words. The above paragraph also uses the word "claiming". The reader can reasonably be expected to know that "claiming" leaves open the possibility that that which is being claimed is false.

Prostitution also happens to be a fact in the real world, just as sexual assault—frequently by men against women—also happens to be a fact in the real world. We should be stating reliably sourced information in evenhanded but concrete terms. Bus stop (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Who cares whether the Posts story is correct or not?

Are you kidding me? If you think no one cares about the merits of the libel case, then how can you argue that it's historically notable. This is why I think your arguments for the inclusion of the case, while excluding certain facts, are motivated by POV concerns.

You want to add the word "prostitute" to the article without context or clarification.

I am happy to _add_ context and clarification, so long as it's well-referenced. I just don't accept that we should censor facts and replace them with generalities. What context or clarification would _you_ like to add?

There is an obvious conclusion any reader is going to draw.

And what are these obvious conclusions you think readers are going to draw? I've drawn no conclusion yet. Have you already made up your mind about the case, and are basing your edits and arguments on that?

Perhaps we could work a compromise here - avoiding the word "prostitute".

How about "hooker"? But seriously BusStop and Epeefleche are right. We shouldn't be trying to whitewash the facts to find some word choice which doesn't sound quite as bad. We should simply be sticking to the facts as listed in numerous RS. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Dude, unless your a typist looking for practice you should stop wasting your time posting here - we are not going to repeat this claimed insult/demeaning allegation in our article. Just as we are not going to name her either. This sort of push against policy and guidelines is a waste of your time. To call a spade a spade - three Jewish focused editors - you, User:Bus stop and User:Epeefleche want to add the the accuser of the Jewish person, a Muslim... is a claimed prostitute, it is so tiresome as to be laughable, in a really sad way. - move along - the level of partisan POV is deafening. Off2riorob (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The blatant POV problems are on your side in demanding that we include a questionably notable libel suit so as to paint the housekeeper as more of a victim, while hiding factual well-referenced facts about that lawsuit. There is absolutely nothing in the wikipedia rules against providing notable, well-referenced, facts about a lawsuit. As for implying that the views of 3 editors should be discounted because they're "Jewish focused", that's absolutely uncalled for. Do you typically turn things personal when you run out of arguments? You _really_ need to stick to the merits of the arguments, rather than making ad hominem attacks.

However, above you have said that you will "compromise on anything apart from the desire to include the claimed insulting/libelious remarks in our article. Does that mean that you will agree to a compromise of the deletion of this libel lawsuit from the article? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

A spade is a spade. I am lucky in that I do not give a damn about either of these people. I don't support the removal of the simple fact that the maid has felt insulted by a newspaper and is taking them to court. If consensus is to remove that legal challenge I would accept that. I object to users demanding to include and repeat the insult unnecessarily in our article. Off2riorob (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? If you think no one cares about the merits of the libel case, then how can you argue that it's historically notable. This is why I think your arguments for the inclusion of the case, while excluding certain facts, are motivated by POV concerns.; uh what? You brought whether the Post was correct or not into this - as I keep saying I have zero opinion really. And frankly care not one jot what occurs in this case. This is what I was pointing out in my last comment, in direct response to your tedious accusations. As I said; I employ the same dispassionate views for every BLP article I have ever edited; hence getting annoyed when snotty people start accusing me of clear POV or whatever nonsense :) My interest is in recording this even for posterity with careful consideration for the privacy and the hisotrically relevant material. Per the sources; it appears other people are interested in the libel action, and on this I base my view of inclusion. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we could consider including in our article the language, "The Post knew or should have known that they were false." The inclusion of that language would make it perfectly clear that the charges (by the New York Post) of prostitution are vehemently denied. I think we can use The New York Times as a source for that language. Bus stop (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The claimed libelous insult/defamation will not be repeated in our article. - as a deal - if the BBC repeats it then I will add it myself. Off2riorob (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob, I'm sorry, but you don't have a right to unilaterally make decisions, ignoring everyone else's views. Neither do you get to decide which RS are good enough for you. I've requested mediation. Are you willing to be a part of it?

I've also listed Errant, Bus Stop, and Epeefleche as parties to this deadlocked dispute. Would you please join us? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not willing to waste a moment of my time there, I have wasted enuf here, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how noting how vehemently the lawsuit denies the allegations is a compromise when I clearly stated (and explained why) we should have context to the allegation if it was ever included in neutral tones. That is not context. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see context added to the text. My only requirements for that context is that it be relatively brief; we don't want 8 sentences on this one point. And that it be well-referenced. But, you've got to help us out here. Since you're the one who is requesting "context", and you don't like what Bus Stop suggested, can you _please_ be specific in your proposal. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)