Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive218

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

In the article he is reported to have briefly played football for the New Orleans Saints, however his name does not appear anywhere on the their all time roster which can be found at the following link: http://www.neworleanssaints.com/assets/docs/All-Time%20Roster%20Alpha.pdf http://www.neworleanssaints.com/assets/docs/All-Time%20Roster%20Alpha.pdf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.140.55 (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The Saints' all-time roster only list players who were on the active roster for a regular or post-season game. The reasonable explanation is that Goodman played a pre-season game or otherwise wasn't on the active roster, but was with the team. —C.Fred (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

SBNation's profile of Goodman corroborates that he played briefly with the Saints in 1969.[1] —C.Fred (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Please refer to the Talk Page of this Article. This article is already being listed for deletion many times. The Article claimed that she received award from AAW which is itself not notable. Please look into the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjoy64 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Sanjoy64, the fact that the article is still there means that the old AfDs mean nothing. It was put up for deletion and was found to be acceptable. Feel free to re-nominate the page for deletion, but your past editing of the page may not work in your favour. Primefac (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• James Valitchka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am James Valitchka, this page/article was made with falsified information. I am requesting it's deletion.

For verification of identity or other concerns you can contact me at [redacted] where I will facilitate further contact.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

James Valitchka — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.50.52 (talk) 14:04, 22 February 2015‎ (UTC)

I'm looking at the page, and there are over 20 sources cited, many of which are major newspapers and other sources that meet WP:RS. So, on the surface, I don't see a reason for deletion. If you have specific issues with content, I would suggest bringing them up at the article's talk page—but be prepared to explain why the material should be removed per the WP:Verifiability policy. If our article is true to what the Toronto Star says, for instance, you'll be hard-pressed to get that material removed.

If you are the subject, you should contact the WP:Volunteer Response Team directly via email (instructions at that page). They have the resources to verify your identity. However, being the subject of the article does not mean you can automatically get it deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Shlomo Sand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are many good sources that say that Shlomo Sand is a controversial person. That is to say, not just his theories and books, but he himself as well. I have added the word "controversial", which I find a neutral term, to the article about him, but two other editors disagree with me and one of them removed it,[2][3] even though I brought 4 good sources.[4] He thinks the word "controversial" "is not helpful". I came here to ask for outside input on the talkpage discussion. Debresser (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Debresser mis-summarizes the discussion. There is consensus that the word "controversial" by itself is meaningless; it would be better per WP:LEAD to summarize what makes Sand controversial. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

As a matter of fairness, we do not apply the word "controversial" to people. We might note that they hold views which are controversial, but that is qualitatively different in tone and approach. As Malik notes, we should briefly summarize Sand's views which have generated the above-referenced debates. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

If you write about Israeli/Palestinian subjects you can only be sure of one thing: someone will disagree with you. *Every* single writer in the area is more or less by definition "controversial". Therefore, I agree with the above: using the word "controversial" by itself is meaningless; much more relevant to summarise his views. Huldra (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• 'polarising' is a better word than 'controversial' in this context. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Stuartyeates We have 4 good sources for "controversial", not for "polarizing".

@NorthBySouthBaranof Same. We have 4 good sources that do apply the word "controversial" to this person. Debresser (talk) 09:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, as a matter of rule, we avoid categorizing people as "controversial," for, among other reasons (as Huldra notes) the fact that it is largely a meaningless term, and literally anyone can be said to be "controversial." Rather than applying a weasel word with negative connotations, we should accurately describe Sand's views and the public debate about those views. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@Debresser: Four opinions do not a fact make. His writings, etc., have generated controversy, but that doesn't mean that he is somehow inherently controversial as a matter of fact.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I think I got the point. Even though there are people who are indeed controversial and who seek in all matters to make a point and to enter into conflict. From the article I definitely get the impression that Sand is of that category, and I personally think the article should be honest about that. On the other hand, I can not but abide by consensus, even though I'd recommend to all of you who oppose to read the article.

In any case, all that is left now is for someone to add to the lead that Sand's works have given rise to controversy. Because I feel strongly that it is important to have this in the lead. Debresser (talk) 11:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Bob Hoffman, head men's basketball coach at Mercer University, seems to have had some defamatory information posted to his Wiki page. The errors included:

-Hoffman was removed from his position at Oklahoma University after the NCAA found him guilty of 28 violations. In truth, Hoffman was exonerated by the NCAA and head coach Kelvin Sampson was removed by the University. Hoffman was simply not retained by new head coach, Jeff Capel.

-Someone also posted to the bottom that despite his outspoken stance as a Christian, Hoffman has repeatedly violated NCAA rules and consistently is ejected from games. Both of these statements are unfounded and certainly defamatory.

Agreed, and what we appear to have is a user (User:Thetruthishardtobear) with an axe to grind against Mercer University and its athletics department. The user in question has targeted a number of related pages to insert poorly-sourced or clearly-POV negative material. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Some of their other edits seem like they were done in good faith (at least at first glance) so I've given them a stern warning and told them that if they make any further edits that come across as bad faith, they will be blocked from editing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the history it appears this bio is being repeatedly edited in a way which doesn't meet standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.147.149 (talk) 09:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

My eyes bled when looking at some of the "sources". Thanks for bringing this up. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

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

According to the use of the Category Category:Actresses from San Diego, California and its parents Category:Actresses from California and Category:Actresses, how a person is determined to be an "actress" seems to be somewhat loosely determined. For example, Emily Ratajkowski is included, who is mostly known for her modeling and appearance in a 2013 music video. Another is Susanne Marsee, who is a singer, but had television appearances.

So is inclusion of the Category in my examples in error or is the use of it in Kris Jenner's acceptable as a subject on numerous episodes of multiple reality show series? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

There is an RFC at the talk page regarding sourced content that is being excluded from the article due to BLP concerns. Participation from uninvolved parties is needed. Thanking you in advance.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Trinity Baptist Church (Concord, New Hampshire) was brought for discussion to the COI noticeboard over some COI issues (see here). The church itself is hardly notable; what may be notable is that a member of the church raped and impregnated a young girl who was also a member, and the pastor of the church participated in an ugly coverup and humiliation of the girl. Many years later the story came out and the now-woman went on 20/20 under her real name and told the story, and there was a trial that found the rapist guilty and the pastor resigned all his positions. Everybody's names are known (Tina Anderson is the survivor, the rapist is Ernest Willis; the pastor at the time was Chuck Phelps).

In the COIN discussion, AndyTheGrump raised the issue that the article about the church is a coatrack for discussing the crime. Andy took the position that none of it is notable and it should be deleted. Jehochman agreed with respect to the church, but found the crime potentially notable. Question for this board:

• Should the article be re-focused and re-titled to somehow refer to the rape, or one of the people involved? If so, what should the article be called, exactly? This is all asked with BLP in mind, of course. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The church's officers conspired cover up of a rape of a minor was the subject of national media for several months including a 20/20 section. The mother contacted her pastor Chuck Phelps about the sexual abuse of her daughter. The pastor and his wife grilled the victim for quite some time about her dress, whether she enjoyed it and repeatedly asked and told her she was partly responsible according to the victim's court and public testimonies. The 15 year victim was then coerced to read an apology pastor Chuck Phelps (who is still pastoring a church but forced to resign from Bob Jones University advisors by public demand) and his wife drafted and convinced the girls mother to accept in front of the congregation. All this after telling them she was forcibly raped by 39 year old Willis a member. This closely resembles behavior of a cult and it was appalling that the leaders in the church parti.cipated in this further verbal and emotional abuse of child. On top of that the offender was allowed to remain in the church for over a decade with many in the top leadership knowing a minor had been violated by that man. The perp also tried to get the girl to let him punch her in the stomach to cause an abortion. The church's insane handling of a rape of a minor is what makes this rape much different than another sexual abuse by the clergy. It was the cover up by the church that drew the national media attention and they got it right when they chose to expose the churches abhorrent behavior. The church name should remain in what ever title change takes place as the public should be informed and the church should not be able to hide the immoral behavior. A possible change would be Trinity Baptist Church Sex Abuse Scandal (Concord New Hampshire) but leaving the church's name out is an attempt to hide the story of the church cover up of a rape of a minor. 172.56.38.55 (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• I essentially agree with Jehochman that the church itself is borderline notable (at best, based on the article). The rape and especially the cover up and exposure seems to be notable (and well sourced) and I would think the article should be re-focused and re-titled. Also agree that there are coat rack issues with the article as it is. Not yet sure what an appropriate title would be, but this is really about the Trinity Baptist Church Sex Scandal. - Becksguy (talk) 05:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

  We should look at the sources and see what they are calling the scandal. Then we just follow their lead. Jehochman ^Talk 15:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• • In general, looking at the sources is helpful, but this never was given a name. Sources from the article:
    • '20/20' to feature Trinity accusation: Former parishioner says she was raped
    • Former Baptist Church Member Ernest Willis Sentenced to Prison for Rape of Teen Parishioner
    • Man accused in rape admitted paternity: Adoption records released by woman
    • Man guilty of raping teen church member

• • what I am hearing so far, is that we should rename the article "Trinity Baptist Church Sex Scandal" I'll wait a bit longer for input. Nobody is suggesting we name it after the survivor, rapist, or minister, which is where i was afraid we might have to go, and that would definitely be a BLP issue. Folks here are saying implicitly "don't go there".... Jytdog (talk) 03:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Jytdog: I think that's the best option here. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I am considering this resolved. Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Arthur Kellermann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is it normal to have a biography that's primarily concerned with attacking certain studies by an academic? Arthur Kellermann is largely a critique of a small segment of the guy's work. Is that the way we write articles about scholars? Felsic (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

No. This is an extremely poor article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I have done a rough cleanup using a prior version of the page. Other editors should review the article and copy edit for style and to work towards NPOV. There was a +10,000 byte edit[7] by an IP at the end of 2013 that looked very much like a firearms industry lobbyist converting the bio into an attack page. Please be on the lookout for repeated attacks. Jehochman ^Talk 17:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I've done some work on it as well. Good catch. MastCell ^Talk 18:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Felsic (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I did some clean up too. The old version was a little on the puffy side and needed some organization too. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

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

A link to an off-wiki (likely non-RS) news site was redacted from an article talk page due to BLP concerns over comments regarding pseudonymous Wikipedia editors. I assumed the "L" and "P" in "BLP" precluded application of BLP policy to wikipedia user accounts. Was my assumption incorrect? And if so, would BLP policy apply to anonymous accounts on other sites as well? —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

As the redacting editor, my understanding is that BLP applies to all identifiable living individuals. Also at least one of the editors mentioned in that article has had their personal information posted widely on the internet so they're not particularly anonymous. — Strongjam (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the link appears not to be a "secondary reliable source" for anything, thus there is no particular reason to use it. So it is not BLP which is the governing policy here. It is the use of an outside source to make personal comments about specific editors which appears to be the stronger basis for rejecting it. We have no control, nor ought we, over an outside site, but its use on Wikipedia should conform to Wikipedia rules - WP:NPA is therefore the policy directly implicated here - and as there is no need for the link, and the link if written in Wikipedia space would run afoul of NPA, it is reasonable to disallow it on that specific basis. It does not "out" anyone, so that aspect of BLP also des not apply. Collect (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLPTALK specifically permits the inclusion of the link itself on Talk pages; so the redaction, though made in good faith, is not validly based on WP:BLP compliance. Reliability of sources is contextual, and this would certainly be reliable for the author's opinion, if nothing more. Whether that is noteworthy or due, is a matter for discussion on the Article Talk page.

On examining the content of the article itself, I am not convinced that it rises to the level of a personal attack per WP:NPA at WP:NPA#WHATIS. In the interests of allowing an open discussion and a consensus to form, I would be inclined to support the link being re-added (unredacted?) to the Article Talk page.

See also: WT:BLP#Application_of_BLP_to_Article_Talk_pages - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLPTALK: "Questionable claims already discussed can be removed with a reference to the previous discussion." Since the sources is not reliable and the author's opinion is not notable I see no reason it need to remain on the talk page. BLPTALK does not mean that any and all links on talk pages are OK, that's just to easy to game. — Strongjam (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Strongjam, Many thanks for your response. I appreciate it, as I do any chance for open dialogue.

W.r.t the section that you quote, I agree that it permits (but does not mandate) removal of questionable claims. In this particular instance, I would, however, note the following: a) the link itself contains no claims (the source to which the link directs does, of course), therefore the redaction is not removing claims, questionable or otherwise; b) no reference to the previous discussion was included. If a previous discussion was held, one would hope that it was a recent & full discussion, reaching a consensus; not simply another redaction of links. See also: WP:CCC.

WP:TPG at WP:TPO is the guideline which suggests that links should not be redacted for Talk pages. While removing prohibited material is permitted, WP:BLP at WP:BLPTALK explicitly allows links, and they should not be considered to be prohibited in this sense.

I do wholeheartedly agree with you that not all links on talk pages are OK. Collect provides an example where the WP:NPA policy would prevent the inclusion of links to some pages. I would suggest that WP:VANDAL also provides another example. But WP:BLP does not. I believe that this is a good thing for the encyclopedia; WP:BLP is a strong policy and should not be used to suppress good faith discussion and the formation of consensus. See: WP:CRYBLP.

Finally, I restate the position that reliability & noteworthiness are matters for discussion on the Article Talk page; and that a consensus on these matters would be more easily formed without unilateral redaction.

NB: The discussion at WT:BLP#Application_of_BLP_to_Article_Talk_pages is still open; I would welcome your input & thoughts there. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Langone is a proponent of the pseudoscientific theory of mind control.^[1] The former American Family Foundation, headed by Langone, is described as offering the most public support for the mind-control theory through its Cultic Studies Journal.^[2] The theory is seen by researchers as a propaganda device used by the anti-cult movement to rationalize the persecution of minority religious groups.^[1]

ChrisGualtieri has removed the material above twice already ([8], and [9]}), with an edit summary of ".... what a farce)". The material is sourced to a book published by NYU Press and an article published by the Social Justice Research journal. Are these sources reliable for the content in question? Is this material suitable for a BLP of this person? I think so. Uninvolved editors' comments would be appreciated. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The sources certainly seem okay. Is there any slippage between source and text? You might post (either here or on the article talk page) the passage(s) from the source(s) that support those sentences. But from what I see it's not at all clear what the (alleged) problem is. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Langone does not advocate of the "pseudoscientific theory" of mind control, the definition he uses is "a process in which a group or individual systematically uses unethically manipulative methods to persuade others to conform to the wishes of the manipulator(s)." Langone cites a range of issues, none of which are "mind control" as being advanced in that sentence. Deception, group pressure, insular focus on isolation and group conformity... Pretty standard once you take the "buzzword" out of it - same as Langone mentioned before about cults. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

But if the indicated sources characterize it as a "pseudoscientific theory" called "mind control", then that idea has legs. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Abstract, follows. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

An analysis of Jean-Marie Abgrall's cultic brainwashing theory shows that the theory is essentially identical to the pseudoscientific theory that was developed first by the American CIA as a propaganda device to combat communism, and second as an ideological device for use by the American anti-cult movement to rationalize efforts at persecution and control of minority religious groups. The CIA theory has been evaluated scientifically in research in several contexts (i.e., communist coercive indoctrination of Western prisoners, the CIA's attempted development of brainwashing techniques, and with American new religions or “cults”). In each context, it has been shown to be ineffective in coercively changing worldviews. Because of this pattern of disconfirmation, testimony based on brainwashing theory has been opposed as unscientific by relevant professional academic organizations and repeatedly excluded from American legal trials. Consequently, neither legal decisions nor public policy with respect to minority religions should be based on Abgrall's appropriation of this pseudoscientific theory. [10]

And Langone is indeed a proponent of mind control theories. See [11], piece adapted from an 1988 article by Langone. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The abstract doesn't mention Langone. Unless the body of the article does, then use of that article for the text you wrote would involve WP:SYNTH. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

There are other sources that make the connection with Abragall's assertions in the context of Langone's theories. For example [12] and [13] - Cwobeel (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

To add to the sources for "mind control", Langone himself says so (emphasis mine):

The term "cult" is often associated with a process that has been given a variety of labels, including "thought reform" (Lifton, 1961), "coercive persuasion" (Schein, 1956, 1961), "brainwashing," (Hunter, 1953), "mind control" (Langone, 1988), the "systematic manipulation of psychological and social influence" (Singer, 1983), "coordinated programs of coercive influence and behavior control" (Ofshe & Singer, 1986), and "exploitative persuasion" (Singer & Addis, 1991). (Langone, Michael (1990). "Psychotherapy Cults". Cultic Studies Journal. 7 (2): 3.)

I understand Nomoskedasticity's concern for SYNTH here, and part of the issue is that we have a fringe theory - so there is little discussion (or criticism) outside their insular group. It is only when that group attempts to promote its theory in the mainstream that we get feedback (such as the directly related case of the APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control). --Tgeairn (talk) 19:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

See also [14]]. There are plenty of sources about the subject which includes Langone's work in their context. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Aside from whatever the current thinking is on "mind control", etc., I think that the use of the wording "minority religions" by the first source instead of "new religious movements"--the actual groups in question--is somewhat misleading. That might support, indirectly, the allegations that the APA report was produced under "influence by authoritative scholars inspired and financed by some controversial new religious movements" per the "Challenging Religion" source (assuming that euphemistic term was used). Groups like the Moonies and Soka Gakkai had plentiful funds.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The "Challenging Religion" source strongly supports this, without using the exact word "pseudoscience". It does quote the American Psychological Association:

the theory... 'is not accepted in the scientific community' and... 'has been repudiated by the scientific community'

and says

the brief also implied that theories of mind control... were uniformly regarded as 'not accepted in the scientific community', be they referred to as 'brainwashing', 'mind control', or - as Singer preferred... 'coercive persuasion'.

The source quotes external reviewer Jeffrey D. Fisher with

"unscientific", "biased", "sometimes... characterized by the use of deceptive, indirect techniques of persuasion and control - the very thing it is investigating", "At times the reasoning seems flawed to the point of being almost ridiculous", "...more like hysterical ramblings than a scientific report".

Fisher later goes on

"some of the most polemical, ridiculous reasoning I've ever seen anywhere, much less in the context of an APA technical report."

This all seems to support the statement that the report and its theories were/are pseudoscience and fringe. I believe we can go with the American Psychological Association as a reviewer of the theory and the book sources here and at Talk:Michael Langone as secondary source as well. --Tgeairn (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• That looks better, and I see the authors are both academics and it's on Routledge. My only question was with the somewhat rhetorically questionable "minority religions" designation, from the perspective of dealing with advocates editing the Soka Gakkai article.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• What is being advanced is snippets of words surrounded and linked to other words - without meaning or context. It is not even synth - for it is erroneous notions bundled together to drawing a conclusion not supported by the text. Of excellent example is The term "cult" is often associated with a process that has been given a variety of labels ... mind control... which Tgeairn acts as if Langone supports literal mind control. The actual writing and listing uses the term which has entered popular usage, but the definition Langone gives is for deceptive and manipulative emotional control of susceptible persons. As such - I take no stock in either Cwobeel's or Tgeairn's conclusions because they are in error. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Much of the debate is covered on the BLP talk page, including material where Langone is accused of supporting an entire task force report where nothing other than the fact he was on the task force is presented, and his individual works do not supports the claims made. And in one case, Langone specifically lists all the views held by people -- without asserting the correctness of any of them. If we say a person supports a particular view, we should use a source making that statement based on fact. Collect (talk) 13:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Tgeairn: I may have misunderstood the problem, if it is with the specific term "pseudoscientific theory". The Challenging Religions source applies "unscientific" in this context, correct? Doesn't that suffice until a source that uses "pseudoscientific" is found. The same objection I made about the "minority religions" probably holds, because there is a categorical shift in meaning between "unscientific" and "pseudoscientific".--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Note that in 2002 (15 years after the rejected report) the APA president stated:[15]

A body of social science evidence shows that when systematically practiced by state-sanctioned police, military or destructive cults, mind control can induce false confessions, create converts who willingly torture or kill "invented enemies," engage indoctrinated members to work tirelessly, give up their money--and even their lives--for "the cause." etc.

Which means he was promoting pseudoscience? Or is it more likely that from 1987 to 2002 some changes in opinion occurred? Collect (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I am related to the page subject and he has requested my help with this, but I'm new to Wikipedia and would really appreciate volunteer support.

He would like to contribute in a neutral and unbiased manner, but first could someone help clean out the frankly unkind and spurious claims?

Reasons I feel this article needs to be edited:

- Point of view is not neutral.

- Tone of a large section of article content is negative and accusatory.

- Some content is particularly libelous.

- Poorly sourced with dead links or unreliable sources.

- History of page edits indicate this has been an ongoing issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blahrgy (talk • contribs) 09:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I removed one unsourced sentence that sounded like original research. It's not clear to me yet whether the rest is problematic -- the sources look okay. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Some links to YouTube physics videos have been removed from Walter Lewin on the grounds that MIT has taken a disciplinary action against him. Apparently a 32-year-old French woman sent him a naked selfie and later complained to MIT. The full details are not known. The videos are very popular. The question is whether Wikipedia should somehow try to punish him by censoring links to the physics videos. I do not see how it is any business of WP whether he did whatever it is that he is accused of. Even if he did commit a crime, and no one is accusing him of that, I do not see that as a reason to make his physics lectures hard to access. Roger (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Are the videos of value to the reader? Do they make any contentious claims about anyone at all? Are they in any scandalous or likely to cause ill-repute for Wikipedia? Is there any doubt as to copyright and the right of YouTube to host the videos? Are the videos in any way edited in such a manner that material which the reader should have has been omitted? As I understand it, OpenCourseWare is laudable for giving free education to the masses (well -- YouTube users), and the courses are directly related to the subject of the BLP and supported by him. They were "published" by MIT on OCW which suggests that MIT wanted them distributed, even if the old lectures were removed from the OCW website. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

According to an article on Inside Higher Education (see the talk page), Lewin was using these online courses to recruit victims for his sexual harassment. So yes, they are directly related not only to the subject of the article but also to the scandal. And Schlafly's "someone sent him a selfie then complained" is a gross misrepresentation of what the source describes, and does not pass the laugh test of something that would cause MIT to take the action they did. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Your accusation is a BLP violation. But even if it were true, how is that your business? If Lady Gaga or Miley Cyrus used some inappropriate language in their tweets, would you then want WP to censor links to their YouTube videos? Roger (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

How is an accusation that comes directly from a reliable source, discussed on a talk page in relation to which material is appropriate to include in an article, a BLP violation? —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 04:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Schlafly: your wording is more the blp concern as it implies she's making false allegations. Strongly consider rewording if that is not the meaning you intend to convey. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I said nothing about whether the 32yo French woman made true or false allegations. Her complaint to MIT was not public, and I would have no idea whether it was truthful even if it were public. There is no reliable source saying that "Lewin was using these online courses to recruit victims for his sexual harassment." Maybe the French woman is claiming that, but even if she is, we should not take it as a fact. She has never been within 1000 miles of Lewin, as far as we know. The article says "She takes medications for anxiety and depression". Whatever the truth of what she says, it is not up to her whether WP has links to physics videos. Roger (talk) 05:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't think anyone ever said it was up to her. But I looked over Lewin's article and it has a lot more editing needed. Frankly the list of videos seem not notable enough for inclusion individually. A link to his youtube channel would suffice. The article reads more like a resume than an encyclopedia article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Schlafly: You should probably stop posting about the sexual-harassment finding before you embarrass yourself any further. The content issue seems to be whether we should continue to link to Lewin's course videos. MIT found that Lewin had sexually harassed at least one student in his online courses ([16]), and MIT has removed the course links from OpenCourseWare ([17]). MIT reportedly removed the links out of concern that other women would view the courses, contact Lewin, and potentially be vulnerable to harassment by him. There is also a legal concern through Title IX, in that MIT could theoretically be held liable for future episodes of harassment by Lewin, and they presumably want to mitigate that risk (discussed here). So it's complicated - Lewin's (former) university now views these courses as potential vectors of harassment, and is trying to scrub links to them. So should we link them? MastCell ^Talk 06:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

MIT msy well have perceived that it might have some Title IX liability, and may have taken its action under pressure from the Obama administration. Other prominent universities have been punished by the Obama administration for not handling complaints as the feds demand. For example, Harvard was forced to change its policies, [18] even tho 28 of its law professors say that the new policies lack the most basic elements of fairness and due process. [19] However we are in no position to pass judgment on MIT as I don't think it has even said how Title IX may have influenced it or whether Lewin received that fairness or due process. MIT could have asked Google to take down the YouTube videos if there were some legal problem. There is not, so WP should treat them like any other published work, and not try to pre-judge what others should or should not look at. Roger (talk) 07:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

1) The visual quality of the edX versions is superior to the OCW versions, or better said: less bad. The educational quality of the edX versions is improved with the additional edits as compared to the OCW versions. The OCW versions are linked anyway, so why not link the superior edX versions as well. 2) The content of the lectures do not relate to the sexual harassment case in any way, they were made more than 10 years earlier. 3) The content of the lectures do not "contain", "promote" or "guide" any criminal behavior in any way. 4) There is no copyright problem. 5) There is no judicial verdict not allowing Lewin to communicate with the outside world. There is no criminal offense. There are no charges against him. Please just add the links already. Daniel Dekkers (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The editor who keeps removing the links now complains that Lewin is "unapologetic" for whatever sins he is suspected of, and argues that "social responsibility" favors making it hard to learn physics from the videos. He is clearly acting against WP policy, as policy is not to censor good info just because some editor has some personal disapproval of naked selfies or unapologetic physics professors. Roger (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Please help. Another editor has removed the physics video links in an attempt to punish him for some online remarks he allegedly made. This is censorship for an ideological purpose, and a BLP violation to blame Lewin for some dubious allegations. Roger (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

You've forfeited most of your credibility by presenting the underlying dispute dishonestly and inaccurately, and further beclowned yourself by somehow trying to blame all of this on Obama. At this point, you need to either articulate a coherent BLP concern or get off your soapbox. MastCell ^Talk 01:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that wikipedia should stay neutral with respect to the lectures. MIT censored the professor because they have a liability as their name was on the video and further problems would cause reputational or legal harm to MIT, not to other institutions or sites disseminating them. Wikipedia has no such liability. Science is science. We need to keep the videos (outstanding BTW) online even if we disagree with the person.Limit-theorem (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

That's a reasonable argument (though I disagree at least to some extent), but this is a content issue which belongs on the article talk page, not a BLP issue. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 01:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I am ignoring the ad hominem attacks. The BLP issue is that only reason for not linking to the videos is that a couple of editors want to punish Lewin for alleged bad behavior. To see an example of this anti-Lewin bias, see Alex's last edit. [20] He inserted "MIT determined that Lewin had engaged". WP policy is to stay neutral, and not to blindly accept the story of one side of a dispute, especially when it potentially libels living person. MIT's decision process was non-public, and it is a BLP violation to say that Lewin did anything improper. The WP article could say "MIT claimed that Lewin had engaged" or "MIT took action against Lewin after an investigation". That would be more neutral without endorsing one side. I brought the issue here because there are continuing personal attacks on Lewin and edit warring based on allegations that have never proved or even publicly substantiated. This seems to be a WP:BLP violation to me, but if not, please explain it to me. Roger (talk) 02:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, MIT is not a court of law and their decisions are solely applicable to MIT. They are not in any way public. Removing links to lectures they ceased to endorse is a violation of our neutrality here.Limit-theorem (talk) 09:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Roger, it is not a BLP violation to report that MIT found Lewin had harassed one or more of his online students. This is both a) factual and b) well-sourced. This is not exactly an "allegation"—it is an allegation which was investigated by MIT and found to have merit, enough so that they went on record, fired Lewin, and attempted to limit potential vectors of future harassment. Nor is there a BLP issue with linking (or not linking) videos of Lewin's physics lectures; that is a content decision to be discussed on the article talkpage. MastCell ^Talk 18:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

MIT and federal prosecutors also came to the conclusion that Aaron Swartz was a criminal, but the WP article on him treats MIT's opinion as just an allegation because it was never proved in open court. Lewin should get the same courtesy, and WP:BLP policy requires it. Roger (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Swartz's article details his arrest by MIT police and the charges filed against him by federal prosecutors. Lewin's article details an internal MIT investigation which concluded that he'd sexually harassed a student or students. Both of these things happened, and we report both of them. I get that you're trying to present this as some sort of double standard, but I can't figure out your logic here. MastCell ^Talk 01:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

If the article on Adolf Hitler did not have a link to Mein Kampf, then I would assume that the editors thought that he was a bad guy with very bad ideas in his book. But the links are there, and you can follow them to read the book in several languages. The world's most famous freshman physics lectures used to be on the page of 80-year-old physicist Walter Lewin, but now they are gone because ... explain it to me again? Is it because he flirted with a 32-year-old woman on the other side of the world? Is it because he failed to recognize that she had a mental disorder? Is it because he should be getting his porn from sites unrelated to physics? Is it because he is unapologetic for looking at a naked selfie? Is it because MIT decided to scapegoat him in order to avoid federal Title IX charges? Is it because MIT is blackmailing him with some sort of secret embarrassing evidence? Are these videos really worse than Mein Kampf? Roger (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Roger, at this point I honestly can't tell whether you're ignorant about the concept of sexual harassment, or ignorant of the details of this case, or intentionally posting flamebait (along with the inevitable Godwin's Law violation, of course). I will say that you are now committing borderline BLP violations, on this page no less, by dishonestly trivializing a case of sexual harassment and implicitly blaming its victim (who, incidentally, is easily identifiable by name). If you persist, your account will be blocked. MastCell ^Talk 01:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I am ignoring your usual ad hominem attack. Rather than answer my question, you threaten to censor me. Roger (talk) 01:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

This is not about whether the person was involved in sexual harassment or not or the nature of the charge. It is simply about charges made by a private institution not a court of law. These charges (regardless of severity) have a lower standing than real ones as there is a burden of proof concept and are not criminal, but entirely civil in nature. I insist, civil. Wikipedia should have a mechanism for that. Limit-theorem (talk) 12:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

And even if Lewin was convicted... in a real trial with a real judge or a real jury following a real adversarial system. And he was sent to jail or placed under house arrest. And he was silenced (all his means of communication (phone, internet) would be taken away). Would that for Wikipedia be a reason not to place links to his lectures? Daniel Dekkers (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Much like the character of Antonio Salieri in the 1984 movie Amadeus some people just can't cope with the idea that a "vulgar creature" like Walter Lewin is capable of creating work that touches the sublime. A common reaction to this is to either try to silence the author or censor the work and preferably both. The emotion even heightens because Lewin has been lifted to almost god like proportions by critics in the last decade. I can't say he didn't ask for that though, because he did :-). So our ability to judge is at stake here. We misjudged. Oh boy. It might take 50 years or more before person and work can be separated to some reasonable degree, but I will try to speed things up a little: I'm not saying that proper teacher/student interaction is not an urgent and important subject to discuss. I think the fact that every educational institute has its own set of rules and there is no official legislation makes it a lot less transparent then it could be. Broaden it and look at all situations where there is to some degree an imbalance in power. Religious institutions, government officials and civilians. The case we have here is horrific in its uncontrollability. The problem has been haunting us for 3000 years and we are not getting an inch closer to a solution. Also interesting to discuss, and preferably watch in the best way possible, are the unique lectures by Lewin, every single one cultural icons that have proven themselves for half a century now. A strange combination of science and theatre that has never been created before and will never be created again. As a bonus, friend and foe agree that the lectures do an amazing job teaching people physics. Summarizing, I would prefer to separate these two discussions, even though they both fall in the category "Walter Lewin" which we (well, you) are writing a Wikipedia page for. Kind regards Daniel Dekkers (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC) (Sorry for my English, it is not my first language)

There are many examples of musicians, actors, politicians, and others who have behaved badly. In some cases they have admitted it, or an open court of law has proved it. However WP has not tried to punish them by deleting links to their works. Just Walter Lewin. Has it really become WP policy to delete links based on improper online flirting or whatever he has been alleged to have done? If so, I suggest that be put into the written policies and we all start deleting links to the others with bad behavior. I'll do the ones for the people who particular offend me, and others can do likewise. If not, then let's follow the written WP policies and restore the Lewin links. Roger (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Now the IPCC is accused is sexually inappropriate emails. [21][22][23] As with Lewin, the allegations are serious enough that he is no longer on the job. To be consisent with Lewin, we should remove all the links to the IPCC reports. Roger (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Pachauri and Lewin are very comparable. Many awards, even (indirectly) a Nobel Peace Prize for Pachauri. I looked at his WP page and thought that WP missed reporting about the SH case completely. But it is all the way at the end, at the end of "Controversies". Luckily with Lewin that won't happen. You can't miss it, because it is mentioned three times in the article (in case you forgot reading about it the first, or second time). Daniel Dekkers (talk) 14:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedia Administrators,

I have been trying to work on an article for awhile. It was removed as it was apparently not notable. I am not fully aware of Biographies on Wikipedia and how they work. If someone can please visit - User:DmitryPopovRU/Alex_Gilbert. Please do not take it down but please give me advice and how I can grow this article. I am sure these references are notable, it is not also for a so called ONE EVENT problem that was brought up before. All I am asking is simply.. Is this article notable and why not? and what can be improved.

Thank You! Dmitry --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 05:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• DmitryPopovRU, I noticed that you tagged the article for speedy deletion. Did you still want it reviewed? If so, then the page could always be recreated if it gets deleted before you reply. I also have to note that your page is in your userspace so you're not really under any obligation to delete it right away. You could always leave it in your userspace and leave it there until more coverage becomes available, if you wanted. As long as you are active and don't abandon the page and your account, it can stay there for a fairly long point in time. I know that more than a few of us have incubated articles for long stretches of time, some of us for years. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) and thanks for your reply! I deleted it because It was apparently not notable and all I need is an experienced editor to have a look at the article and help me work on it. I have put it here User:DmitryPopovRU/sandbox. They mentioned that he should't be noted as a camera operator. Though the references are notable for other things how can I make this article relevant and that will work with the way its written? Please help if you can or tag someone who can help improve this! — Preceding undated comment added 10:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please have a look and help with the article here User:DmitryPopovRU/sandbox ? Thank You! --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 09:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Tanana, Alaska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

About ten months ago, Scott Johnson and Gabriel Rich of the Alaska State Troopers were killed when responding to an incident in this community. As I had noticed a trend in general in our coverage of law enforcement of giving undue weight to deaths of officers in the line of duty, I started a thread on the talk page, as I felt the article is far too weighted towards coverage of that incident. I abandoned that discussion, as it seemed as though I was being goaded into an endless series of pointless back-and-forth, when I may perhaps have better things to do with my life. Revisiting the article and discussion today, something occurred to me: are we violating BLP by making the references we're making to the father and son who were charged with crimes in connection with this killing, but at this point have yet to be convicted of anything? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Someone has made some very opiniated and ibelious comments, especially in the "Controversies" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.107.254 (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Removed; per WP:BLP - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

It is untrue that Bill Cowsill (William Joseph Cowsill) suffered from heroin addiction. As a matter of fact he hated heroin. He was sometimes known to use pain medication pharmaceutical drugs. His pain was physical from a car accident. He had quit alcohol at approximately 40 years old. I lived with him as his girlfriend for years. I hope you will correct this mistake. Sincerely, Joanna E. Ussner. Thank you for your time.

if you are talking about this article Bill Cowsill, you are at the incorrect place since he apparently has been dead for half dozen years. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I think this person may be referring to The Cowsills#Bill which mentioned that he had a heroin addiction. The source was a deadlink; however, it was in an AP dispatch and seems to be reliably sourced. I left it in with an updated reference. Like many addictions its likely that Bill hated it but still suffered from addiction. However, since it isn't a BLP and the information is reliably sourced and contributed to his death, it probably should remain in the article. Vertrag (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

A single source with an en passant mention is a tad weak for the stress given in the single line about him. Better to have a source dealing with it in some detail for such a mention - the en passant one is, IMO, insufficient. Collect (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I commented on the following pasted comment below some time ago but notice the wiki comments have not been corrected. I apologize that I don't know how this process works exactly, but what is posted is incorrect regarding our relocation to Tennessee, Diane attending Belmont and the cartoon incident at the Tennessee State Legislature as regards "approporiate" punishment....all of which can be independently verified if anyone wishes to report accurately.

Thank you very much. Dave Black 2/23/2015

Diane and I moved from Baltimore, Maryland to Nashville, Tennessee in July of 1986 as I joined the faculty of Vanderbilt University. Diane attended Belmont after we moved here and graduated in 1991 with her BS in Nursing. The statement that we moved to Tennessee so she could attend Belmont is not correct and we did not relocate in 1985 as stated.

As a second issue, Diane's staffer who forwarded the Presdient Obama email is not a racist. She forwarded an email that was circulating among staffers at the legislature. Although a mistake the assistant is by no definition a racist and she was disciplined as required by Human Resources policies at the legislature. Although I respect the right of individuals to express opinions I suspect none of the individuals expressing such harsh opinions have ever met Diane or her assistant. Opinions are not necessarily facts and I appreciate the narrative shown that has attempted to at least place this incident into a factual context.

Dave Black — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.210.11.123 (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.216.103 (talk)

I've made the necessary changes. The section on the email scandal had a skewed POV and all of the sources are political blogs. It would be good to have some news stories as citations rather than the opinion pieces from political critics.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done

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

I'd appreciate some extra eyes on Vic Dibitetto, where I'm in dispute with an SPA over the use of youtube and facebook sources in this comedians' BLP. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Please start a thread on the talk page. Nothing will be accomplished unless you communicate with them. Edit warring is not productive. When you start a discussion you can ping me and I'll join, if that is helpful. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

While people are stating that he was a mobster, the mob would never allow a non-Italian to enter its higher ranks. John Alite could not have been John Gotti, Jr's associate.

Even the jury that tried John Gotti, Jr stated that Alite was a non-credible witness. His testimony was ripped to shreds by Gotti, Jr's attornies. I just thought I would throw this out there so that further review into who and what John Alite really is, could be done. It is more apt that John Alite was just a petty associate who was looking to get out of jail time, or rise into fame, than actually a partner with John Gotti, Jr.

I would suggest reading In My Father's Shadow and possibly looking into the court records from the trial where Alite tried to persuade the jury he was a partner, to find the truth about who he was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.243.171.66 (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks we'll take that under advisement. You can also join WP and help us to improve the article using reliable sourced content such as books and news reports. Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Would some others please watch Ankit Love. A user has spent a considerable time editing the article to include outlandish claims such as him being a King of Jammu and Kashmir. The article before they got to it was a decent article on an Indian singer. The user previously uploaded severely personal material on the subject that were subject to Oversight so I am concerned about what else may be buried in all the puffery. Here is a diff between the two versions [24]. JBH (talk) 12:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC) I should have notified other user pinging @योजनबुद्ध:. JBH (talk) 13:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• And would some good Editors please watch and revert the actions of JBH and his associate User:Fyddlestix they are clearly jointly committing vandalism on the Ankit Love page and behaving in an intimidating manner. And even ignoring the most fundamental guide lines of AFD by repeatedly blanking the [[Ankit Love] page to a far more primitive states claiming that it has "massive sourcing issues" which is a lie based on prejudice as no evidence or prior discussion in talk. THIS IS VANDALISM. Especially when the clear guidelines for ADF state on the notice on bold "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked"
• the discussion for deletion can be followed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ankit_Love
• Further note will be shortly written with the screenshot evidence to bring the matter to the attention of User:LilaTretikov (WMF) and User:Jimbo_Wales.
• Quote "The deep damnation of his taking-off; And pity, like a naked new-born babe, / striding the blast, or heavens's cherubim, horsed / Upon the sightless couriers of the air, / Shall blow the horrid deed in every eye, / That tears shall drown the wind" Macbeth — Preceding unsigned comment added by योजनबुद्ध (talk • contribs) 15:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Kudos to JBH and User:Fyddlestix for trimming back the shameless self-promotion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• I have no idea what's going on with this page but it seems clear that it needs some major work/clean up. Until it was protected just now, it had been flipping back and forth betweenthis version, which is almost exclusively the work ofयोजनबुद्ध, and this version, which is how it looked before योजनबुद्ध began altering the page around 17 February. User Kindguru is also claiming (as I understand it) that all of योजनबुद्ध's revisions are a BLP issue, and somehow related to hacking of Ankit Love's accounts on other sites, although they haven't given much detail or sources on this. There's also an active AFD discussion ongoing for the page, with a couple of SPA's and some very lengthy posts by योजनबुद्धinvolved. So quite a little mess we have here. It seems clear to me that most of योजनबुद्ध's revisions are unacceptable and need to go if the article is kept, but I'm still skeptical whether Ankit Love is himself notable - even in the reverted version a lot of the sources are misleading or suspect.Fyddlestix (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

why does her biography not mention one of her first shows....Inside Herman's Head??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.51.209.242 (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

She wasn't in that series. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Because there is no reliable source that Leoni appeared on Herman's Head. —C.Fred (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you're mixing it up with Flying Blind, which Leoni was in at the time. Mogism (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

i feel that the article does not meet the standards of the biographies of living persons requirements for tone and possibly balance. some parts read like a resume introduction and do not sound as informative as much as they sound (what's the word?) ruminative or quixotic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.120.71.2 (talk) 02:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a debate at Acharya S on whether her first name should be included in the article. On the subjects Facebook page, she has asked that her first name be made to "D." instead of "Dorothy." A problem with this is the use of scholarly sources that mention both her real name "Dorothy Murdock" and her pen name "Acharya S."

One example is the religion scholar Maurice Casey, [25] page 21 in his text "Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths?" published by T&T Clark, where he has a consice biography of her stating her real name and her pen name. This is a reliable source, to make sure I have posted on the RS Noticeboard [26]

Which do we emphasize, the multiple reliable sources that state her first name, or her desire that her first name not appear on Wikipedia? Thank you. Ism schism (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

A few years ago, Stephen M. Cohen tried to censor his article, and we banned him and blocked all of his sock puppets. A couple of weeks ago, Keith Levene tried to get a friend of his to add a wall of text to The Clash about his role in starting the band. Those were just the first two examples that came to mind, but I bring that up as examples of these principles

• The subject does not own the article.
• The subject does not get to use the article for promotion.
• The subject is discouraged from trying to determine article content.
• We always side with independent sources
• We may allow the subject to make additional statements about only themselves where they are not contradicted by other sources.

We can note that Dorothy Murdoch does not like to be referred to as such. But we cannot censor that article (or any other) to suit Murdock's tastes. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

There's a section about this issue just a bit up from here... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

That section above was closed to allow time for replies to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard [27], and after review, the source(s) were said to be reliable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Does using her first name, Dorothy, violate BLP? This is the argument being used to keep the name "Dorothy" out of the article, see [28]. Thank you. Ism schism (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
• (1) I believe it violates the spirit of WP:BLPNAME which states: When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. She has stated on her Facebook page[29] and Forum[30] that use of her "real name" (whatever it is) has caused harassment. (2) There's a really good essay by AzureCitizen about Self-identification at Acharya S's talk page. (3) She doesn't use the name "Dorothy" for any of her scholarly work, the name will confuse readers if it's not in context. (4) The two paragraphs are libelous (and unscholarly because it does not refer to her revised book) Acharya S says so on her Forum.[31] The ref has no place in a BLP. Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

"the two paragraphs are libellous" -- which paragraphs? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

These two mentioned in the OP are libelous[32] (and contemptuous) for the reasons I stated above. Raquel Baranow (talk) 04:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not our job to decide if a source is libelous. It's our job to decide it's reliable. The other noticeboard settled that question. You're just muddying the water. Especially as we're not discussing including any of the "libelous" material. --Dweller (talk) 09:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

BLPNAME also says that "When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories." Murdock not wanting to be recognized for her views (hmm...) is not equivalent to the witness protection program, or to being a victim of a crime ("individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event"), the sort of instances that BLPNAME is meant to exclude names.

If you actually read BLPNAME in context, it's not relevent. It is the letter (not the spirit), and only a selected portion, that one can imagine it violates if they ignore what BLPNAME actually says.

If Murdock's wrote against the CMT, how would this change your perception of the matter? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• I responded on the talk page of the article. There appears to be an attempt to use a few mentions of a name in a few minor reliable source to in mean that we must include that name in the lede of the article when it is not the most widely used name and also not the preference of the subject of the article. I want to point out that the name mentioned in the Wikipedia article will get considerable more looks than the name buried in these reliable sources. So essentially we will be promoting the use of a name and heavily influence its use. The BLP policy exists to make sure that the content that we create covers the topic in a way that does give undue weight to a piece of information and influence the world's opinion of something beyond it's relevance. The prominent use of the name in articles from these minor sources doesn't follow the spirit of BLP.Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I disagree that scholarly sources published by good academic publishers are properly described as "minor". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
    • It's minor in the same way that a small regional newspaper owned by large publishing company is minor. They may be well respected by the readers and have great editorial review policies, but the content is not widely read. A mention of something there is not the same as something in a publications that is widely read. For us to take something from a somewhat obscure reference in a not well known book, and elevate it to the lede of a Wikipedia article is changing the course of history. It is understandable that the subject of the article objects to Wikipedia promoting something that otherwise would not be widely known. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
      • And here I thought the main purpose of Wikipedia was to increase what people know... I grant that whether readers know her real name is not the most important thing about this article. But I don't agree that it's a problem if people come to know it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"Not widely read" could be said to apply to Brill publishers. Despite being well trusted in academia and on this site, everyone I know off this site thinks Brill is a type of scrubber. I'm certainly not raising this point to suggest that we start treating Brill citations as undue.

Still, there is a case to be made that the article should be titled D.M. Murdock under WP:COMMONNAME, and that it should only mention her full first name no more than once under WP:UNDUE -- but attempts to completely remove any mention of the name Dorothy from the entire article still fall under WP:NOTCENSORED.

Also, it's not Wikipedia that's revealing this information, otherwise it'd be justly removed under WP:CITE. It's very easy to find out that the D in D. M. Murdock stands for Dorothy, and Wikipedia has nothing to do with that. Murdock's focus on Wikipedia is comparable to a 9/11 truther blaming Wikipedia for getting the media to brainwash people -- completely backwards and wrong. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I don't believe that adding the name is a breach of BLP - it's referred to in reliable sources. I'd oppose renaming the article, as that'd breach our guidelines on naming, but I don't think that's being sought. Merely including the author's first name seems entirely appropriate. Many notable people are referred to almost exclusively by their initials or even pseudonyms, but omitting what their real names are would require an absence of reliably sourced material (not the case) and evidence that including it damages the subject (not the case). --Dweller (talk) 10:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Not a violation, but the actual name is: Suzanne Preston Blier — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clerkp (talk • contribs) 06:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

This seems fine, there are sources to back it up. In addition to WP:BLP, heck out WP:COI too. I'll be happy to assist you with any changes to your article. Would you happen to have a photo that can be released from copyright to add to your article? I can discuss it with you on our talk pages or via email. Welcome to Wikipedia! Dreadstar ☥ 06:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Steve Morgan (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has just received a major edit, previous edits of this size have usually been by people with a COI. Could someone look at the large additions that its received today, and the article as a whole please. Biography articles are not my strong suit. Thanks - X201 (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted it -- it was a very poor series of edits. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. - X201 (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Please correct the following:

During the first day of the 6 day war Avigdor Kahalani was severely injured in his tank which was a Patton tank M-48 and not a Centurion. Our unit of the 79th battalion, 7th brigade, where I was a tank commander was all composed of Patton M-48 with exception of one platoon which had modified M-48 and was under the command of captain Shalom Angel. Avigdor Kahalani was my commander at that time and a captain of the unit.

Sincerly,

Stefan Uri Pienkny Served in the tank core from 1965 to 1968 and later during the Yom Kippur War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.172.119.42 (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. We will need a source that indicates the tank used my Kalahani.- Cwobeel (talk) 01:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. Ashtul (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Martha Stark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article is inaccurate and biased. Just compare it with this article in the NY Times. I would not be comfortable fixing it because she used to work for me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/28/nyregion/report-on-martha-stark-ex-finance-chief-details-misconduct-accusations.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.58.104.170 (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Removed the opinion material and added some refs. Thanks. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

[33] is being used in Project for the New American Century for the following:

Shortly thereafter, a member of the British British Parliament from the Labor Party, Michael Meacher, published an article called, "This war on terrorism is bogus", addressing the role of PNAC.

We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The people named appear to be living persons, and the claim appears to be contentious when presented as a claim of fact. Ought this be reworded to properly state it purely as an opinion of Meacher, rather than as his presentation of a fact? Mt. Meacher is well-known for his belief in the 9/11 Conspiracy theories. [34] NPR: The former UK environment minister Michael Meacher, a leading "disturbing question" figure on the edges of the 9/11 Truth movement, was never a member of the British Cabinet, but in a radio interview on the U.S. syndicated Alex Jones Show was referred to as the "former number three in the Blair government. [35] WSJ The former U.K. junior environment minister Michael Meacher, a leading "disturbing question" figure on the edges of the 9/11 Truth movement, [36] Telegraph Experienced professionals know that this was a state sponsored inside job by the US regime; 2 NATO ministers from Germany (Minister for Technoloy Andreas von Bulow) and UK minister Michael Meacher and former Italian President Francesco Cossiga) all confirmed publicly that the 9/11 event was an inside job perpetrated by the US regime. etc. all seem to suggest that his claims of fact might not be so considered by some others. Collect (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

It's in a blockquote, indicating that the words are Mr. Meacher's and not Wikipedia's. To make it crystal clear you should put a colon after Meacher's name and add quote marks around the material (as done for the Kagan quote immediately preceding).

This is the first time I had seen the article and as a general remark the article is pretty lousy. For example there are waaaaaaaaaaaaay too many extended quotes and excerpts strung together. But I guess that's not an issue for BLPN. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Just wondering whether a 9/11 truther is an expert on such matters. The article is iffy though. Collect (talk) 01:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to find any political figures who don't adhere to some sort of implausible belief, whether it's 9/11 truthing or Prince Charles' advocacy of homeopathy or young earth creationism or whatever. Sometimes I despair for the future of our world. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

He specifically refers to the Rebuilding America's Defences and presenting his opinion on the significance of the document in a historical context. There is no basis for connecting the quoted statement to other statements made by the BMP.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The article by Meacher which is being cited for the single out-of-context paragraph is subtitled: The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination and starts with

Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the reasons why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on British motives too. The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit, retaliation against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural first step in launching a global war against terrorism. Then, because Saddam Hussein was alleged by the US and UK governments to retain weapons of mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However this theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may be a great deal murkier.

Is it reasonable to add the various conspiracy theory categories to an article which uses this as a "reliable source"? Collect (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Please note that there's an RFC up on the talk page of this article now. So far just three people slinging the same arguments back and forth at each other, it could definitely use some input from uninvolved parties.Fyddlestix (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Also please note that Collect has tried to add[37] and re-add, asserting Meacher is absolutely connected to these categories and his quote is about them - we use him, we use the categories a swath of categories to the PNAC article, self-reverting the last attempt, stating self revert -- will ask at BLP/N. He hasn't started a new thread, though, so I'm mentioning it here. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 21:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

At Danny Kirwan, an editor recently added information about the subject's birth name and early family history. I removed it twice as unsourced, and he very quickly responded with this [38] citing birth and marriage records and random "school records". Is this stuff considered reliable? I wouldn't trust this edit as far as I could (metaphorically) throw it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Does it fail WP:BLPPRIMARY? Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Bretonbanquet: Yes it does. I've reverted the last changes by the user, if there is more I missed please remove it. If they persist, please let us know. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

That's great, thanks very much. This wasn't something I knew much about so I've learned a bit here. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Marwan Koukash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
From what I understand, the subject of the article identifies himself as being born in Palestine. For example, see this interview. http://www.totalrl.com/jjb-meets-marwan-koukash/ There appears to be a long history of the first sentence of the article being changed backwards and forwards between "born Israel" and "born Palestine". One IP editor, 58.7.65.162, has changed it to Israel 5 times over the last 4 days. I have changed it back to Palestine three times, and another user Dr.Steve88 has changed it back once.
The IP user's position, as noted on their talk page (and copied to the article's talk page), is that "Palestine is not a sovereign nation and the land is Israel". This appears to take the issue into an argument not about where Marwan Koukash was born, but an argument about the existence of Palestine as a state. That is something I do not want to waste my time arguing about.
I am raising this issue here because I think it is a question of the Verifiability aspect of the BLP policy. However, I have also discovered this morning the existence of restrictions on the topic, described at Wikipedia:ARBPIA. So if there is a more appropriate place to raise this issue, please let me know. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 03:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The IP is incorrect. the 1RR restriction does not apply to reverting edits by IP editors. (But don't exceed 3RR.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Bon Yeon and, to a lesser extent, Soenghyang are having gross BLP violations added. LadyofShalott 17:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The creation of the JHU CTY summer program in Computer Science was previously misattributed to Curtis. It is not clear how to correct this misstatement other than to remove it. On the other hand Curtis had enormous influence on the program subsequent to its creation, and created new classes of his own as well as improved classes that had been previously created. I don't wish to start a war, or to deprive anyone of proper credit, but it is not clear how best to handle the situation. At present the statement pertaining to CTY is accurate, but perhaps does not adequately reflect Curtis's influence.

The CTY CS summer program was created by Joseph L. Bates, then of Cornell University, and Robert Harper, then a graduate student at Cornell. It was subsequently developed by Robert Harper working together with Gilbert Neiger and the late Rick Palmer before Curtis became involved in the program. His influence from then on was outsized and deserving of proper recognition, but it is not proper to attribute the creation of the program to him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarioDenobili (talk • contribs) 19:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The entry cites two conflicting birth dates.

birth_date= (1955-03-11) 11 March 1955 (age 69) and then later Soleimani was born 12 March 1957 in the village Rabor

Dave Lee Travis It seems like a repeat discussion as above , The same user User:JJARichardson has created the group Criminals from Derbyshire - with only two people that he has included and added Dave lee Travis to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Lee_Travis&diff=prev&oldid=646872374 - Travis has only a conviction of three months in prison suspended for two years - is he worthy and are others convicted of similar minors crimes with minor convictions be allowed to be added to these criminal groups? Govindaharihari (talk) 08:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

While it isn't a good idea to grab the breasts of a woman that you have only just met, categorising Dave Lee Travis as a criminal as the result of one conviction with a non-custodial sentence has WP:NPOV issues. He is primarily known as a disc jockey, and a conviction for drink driving, assault etc should not be given undue prominence.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• User:JJARichardson creation of this unpopulated category put a person with a minor suspended sentence in a group of two with a person that was found guilty of the death of his children and was sentenced to 17 years in prison Mick Philpott - there is no comparison at all - and no reason to put them both in a criminals from (add any town here) in the same group. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Lobbied for the School Access to Emergency Epinephrine Act signed into law by Obama in November, and praised uniformly by news reports.

This edit was just made: [39] with the edit summary hmm -- seems like there's no consensus to add this material

The material is strongly sourced, neutral in tone, notable, was on the talk page for discussion since 22 Feb, with not a single opposing statement. Is the material notable enough for the BLP?

One editor insists the material should not be in because she did it to get a "huge government purchase program" since schools will have to get the epinephrine autoinjectors in order to actually be able to save lives. Fortune [40] states: recently helped the School Access to Emergency Epinephrine Act, which will both boost Mylan’s profits and save children’s lives, get signed into law. which does not appear to me to have her be only interested in money.

Is this material which should properly be in her BLP? Note that she was standing behind the president at the signing.[41] [42] Bloomberg noted "At least three companies including Mylan of Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, make devices to deliver the drug epinephrine. Mylan estimates gaining access to schools could help expand its customer base to as many as 28 million from 2.6 million now. ... To raise awareness, the company last year started giving away EpiPens to schools that request the devices."

[43] NYT: Disturbingly, a significant portion of severe allergic reactions at school occur among students with no prior allergy diagnosis. During the 2012-13 school year, of the 38 people in Chicago public schools who were injected with undesignated EpiPens provided through the EpiPen4Schools program, 21 did not previously know they had an allergy. (The youngest student was 3, the oldest was 19, and two recipients were school staff members.) As a nurse at the office of my family’s allergy doctor has said to me repeatedly, “Anyone can develop an allergy to anything at any time.”

Those of us in allergic families know that being directly affected by allergies isn’t a requirement for compassion; the world, thank goodness, is populated by many sympathetic individuals. Still, it’s not hard to find people who are hostile and disbelieving toward allergies. I suspect that the most vociferous antagonists of the allergic community won’t understand just what it’s like to live with allergies unless they themselves or someone close to them develops them, but I hope, for their sakes, that these people are blessed with the luxury of maintaining their skepticism. If they’re not, I also hope that safeguards such as the School Access to Emergency Epinephrine Act are firmly in place to protect them and the people they love.

I for some odd reason consider this notable and notable enough for inclusion in the BLP. Other opinions? (Other than"they will make money which is why they gave away a lot of injectors" or the like. Collect (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

There's no BLP issue here. This board is not for NPOV disputes. Hipocrite (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

And how in hell is there an NPOV dispute when it was your edit he reverted? Seems you would stand up for your own edit,no? Collect (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think saying "this board is the wrong place for this" is in any way saying "you are wrong." Hipocrite (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

This board is exactly and precisely the right place for this. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

"Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period." Hmm -- I wonder what editors have been trying to add recently. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It includes all discussions about BLPs - in the case at hand, it is possible that removing material may, in fact, be considered a problem. On the other hand, if you wish to assert that the material is not notable or fully sourced, I would love to see such a post. So far no one has made any claim of that nature here at all. Collect (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Suggest taking it to ANI

Not really a content dispute, because any edit Collect made would have probably been reverted, regardless of what the edit actually is. The two eds have accused me of inappropriate COI conduct and canvassing (a behavioral, not content issue). I have accused them of possibly colluding together.[44] Most content discussions on this page devolve into NOTBUREAU issues and an impossible barrier of undeniable consensus to add sourced content. Also, at-a-glance (and I only skimmed briefly) the problems on this page seem to be representative of a generally combative editing pattern. All behavioral, not content issues, unfortunately. CorporateM (Talk) 22:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Philip Benedict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is an academic's biography with a single reliable independent source mentioning Benedict, severe tone issues promoting Benedict, and an IP editor, apparently a student of Benedict, reverting every attempt to fix or even to point out the article's issues, claiming that Benedict's CV, published by his employer, is an independent source. More attention would be welcome. Huon (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not a single source. It uses many sources. Very few of them are written by Benedict. It appears that Huon has a history of conflict based on the Jeff Smisek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) page with the person who originally authored the page. Now he has taken his anger here to vandalized a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:341b:f2e0:9577:4aab:113a:aec7 (talk) 00:03, February 27, 2015 (UTC)‎

Hi there. So this article is a BLP with 3 sentences. One of those sentences details the subject's child pornography conviction. I'm completely unfamiliar with the topic and generally don't work with BLPs, but I just reviewed an AN3 report about a newbie editor who was edit-warring to remove the sentence about the conviction because: "Distress is being caused with this page, respectfully ask for deletion and thanks from those affected". I semi-protected the page in its previous state to cease the edit-warring, although the editor's plea does not seem unreasonable to me and is cause for some concern in my opinion. I'm not sure what exactly they mean by distress, but given the state of this article, I'm concerned that having one of the three sentences describing the subject explain his child porn conviction might be a WP:BALASPS/WP:UNDUE problem. Wanted to get some additional feedback on this. Swarm ^X 23:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Obviously not a BLP1E, the subject is notable for other than having committed a crime. Might try an AFD out of courtesy, but this isn't so much a BLP issue as one of weight. That's a common problem with these mini stub bios we have all over the place. An alternative would be for the subject to provide material to expand it, which would reduce the weight of the conviction material. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm all for people with expert knowledge expanding the article. But what it comes down to is that Stephens is largely notable for his record as a karateka - and also for the fact that he's a criminal. I can certainly understand how having his record in one being conflated with the other on Wikipedia could be distressing to his friends and family; but I don't think Wikipedia is best served if we leave off the fact of his conviction. We have a notable fact about a notable person from a reliable source. Sympathy for his supporters notwithstanding, the answer here isn't for them to delete that statement, or the article. Rather it's to expand the article with information from other reliable sources in order to better represent a notable and appropriately weighted account of his career and biography. Simonm223 (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on a course of action, but it leans towards 'I'm not fond of "AfD's out of courtesy" and am more fond of "history is history"'. The person appears to have gained notability due to multiple championship wins, and notoriety due to his criminal actions.

That said, perhaps if someone familiar with the topic could expand the section (or lack thereof) of his competitions, and move the child porn conviction part to "Personal Life" or "Conviction" or something, that would change the weight of the article (notability at a higher weight than notoriety/criminal act). Though, I can't say I'd complain if a consensus to delete the page was arrived at.

My involvement in this article has pretty much been limited to me hitting "revert" and finding someone beat me to it - then adding the addtl little bit about the editor's actions being content removal (with their edit summary). ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I've gone to the noticeboard that originally brought this to my attention and to User:2015newbie's page to let them know about this discussion in both places. Saw that User:Swarm had beat me to the punch at the latter. Hope we can come to a better understanding of what's going on here without any editwarring. Simonm223 (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I am the author of the original article I have tried my best to be as neutral when writing about the subject as the only noteworthy mainstream sources are notably about his conviction. I would write more about his karate tournament success if I could but martial tournaments are very niche interests so are not going to get a lot of coverage especially decades prior to early 2000's. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with niche within the bounds of WP:N so if you have reliable sources that cover his martial tournaments I'd strongly encourage you to expand the article by including them. Simonm223 (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

On 1996 shelling of Qana#Shelling of UN compound there is a lengthy paragraph about Naftali Bennett having a large share of the cause to the tragedy that caused the death of 106 Lebanese civilians.

The reporter who started the allegation recanted his statement (available only in Hebrew).

The paragraph is WP:DUE but I believe it is still libelous especially considering the recanting. A short discussion took place on the talk page. I think it should be remove according to WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:BLPCRIME but since I am not super familiar with the WP:BLP policy, I hoped an experienced editor can give it a look.

Thanks, Ashtul (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The journalist has not recanted or withdrawn his statement; he has made a mock apology, ridiculing the "bravery" with which Bennett opposed the allegations. RolandR (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Judith Godreche is a female actress of Jewish Birth and ancestry who is not listed under the title of actors in the articles about Jewish citizens of France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.172.209.41 (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

What reliable sources do you have that she is Jewish? It's not mentioned in her article. —C.Fred (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

A new study on volcanoes and CO2 was just released by Columbia University.

The Plimer BLP had:

Plimer has argued that volcanic eruptions release more carbon dioxide (CO2) than human activity; in particular that submarine volcanoes emit huge amounts of CO2 and that the influence of the gases from these volcanoes on the Earth's climate is drastically under-represented in climate models.[31][32][33] The United States Geological Survey has calculated that human emissions of CO2 are about 130 times larger than volcanic emissions, including submarine emissions.[34][35][36] The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stated that Plimer's claim "has no factual basis."[37] This was confirmed in a 2011 survey published in the Eos journal of the American Geophysical Union, which found that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are 135 times larger than those from all volcanoes on Earth.[38]

The new study is at [45](Science Daily) which is a secondary reliable source for the original report at Geophysical Research Letters which also meets RS. It states: The findings suggest that models of earth's natural climate dynamics, and by extension human-influenced climate change, may have to be adjusted. The study appears this week in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

Should the new material which does not refer to Plimer by name be used, noting that the other reports also do not mention him by name? Or should we stick only with the 2011 report? Collect (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

At least based on a brief read, this paper does not contain anything to support Plimer's claim that "volcanic eruptions release more carbon dioxide (CO2) than human activity; in particular that submarine volcanoes emit huge amounts of CO2." The paper actually states the opposite, according to the linked story — it finds that undersea volcanoes today contribute the same, or less, CO2 as land-based volcanoes, which in turn contribute much less than human activity. According to the story, Maya Tolstoy theorizes that in the past and potentially in the future, those ridges could emit more CO2, because "the ridges are actually now in a languid phase" but the study makes no assertion that the observable activity of undersea volcanoes today is responsible for currently-observed climate change. The only statement of Pilmer's that would seem supportable from this paper is the argument that the influence of submarine volcanoes on climate is under-studied and perhaps not well-represented in climate models. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

However that is not the edit proposed - the new paper states that CO2 emissions from submarine volcanoes may have affected the climate - which is on point since we currently have material there basically acting to say that such volcanoes can not have done so. As such it is interesting - and not a statement that Plimer was right, but that our understanding of the mechanism has changed due to empirical study over a period of ten years (2005 - 2015). Collect (talk) 00:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't read the material currently in the article as saying that submarine volcanoes can't affect the climate.

At any rate, I don't really think this is a BLP issue per se, and I shall therefore engage further on the individual article talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be a couple of single purpose accounts doing some muckraking/neutralizing here, versus an editor with an admitted COI. I removed a bit of the immediately apparent worst, but noticed I'd left a bunch. More eyes, maybe? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

This diff shows how it's more complicated than just reverting. Both versions are pretty bad. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Also extends to André Marin (the man in the chair and his article). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I was about to post here, after I saw this posted at WP:COIN, Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Ontario_Ombudsman.2FAndre_Marin.2FDavid_Paciocco. I agree - we have advocates on one side, and conflicted editors on the other. Oy. Jytdog (talk) 02:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

same cast of characters has extended the conflict to David Paciocco Jytdog (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Email received to OTRS about this. I've decided the best course of action is to stub the articles while this is ongoing, particularly the BLP's, to avoid issues in real life. I'd welcome people working with me on this point. Mdann52 (talk) 13:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how this makes sense. Not exactly knocking the plan, I just don't get it. It's like bulldozing a house because a window was leaking. Why not simply find and fix problems? InedibleHulk (talk) 13:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• We're now in a situation that has arisen a few times with Mdann52's editing following an OTRS communication. Mdann52 often (always?) feels it is inappropriate to reveal the nature of the concerns communicated via OTRS. That means that the concerns themselves cannot be considered by other editors. Editors then have no choice but to edit in the normal way: consider sources, NPOV, BLP, etc. Material can be restored once those issues have been considered, and it would then be inappropriate for that material to be deleted again "per OTRS". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Shadow governments have their place, but it does feel a bit weird on Wikipedia. In the meantime, if anyone has specific problems with the old versions, hit up the talk pages. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

While I'm sure they do excellent work, after stumbling across this article it's pretty clear that they wrote it themselves and almost all of the footnotes reference stuff they've written themselves elsewhere.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.61.244 (talk • contribs)

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nick_Griffin&diff=646793119&oldid=646333056

the question I want to ask is does Griffin belong in these groups? Is he a noteworthy criminal from London and is he only one of two noteworthy criminals from Suffolk? - the other one being a footballer who got a sentence of four and a half years in prison for rape - Griffin has only received a nine month sentence that was a suspended sentence given for - In 1998, Griffin was convicted of violating section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986, relating to the offence of 'publishing or distributing racially inflammatory written material' in issue 12 of The Rune, published in 1996.? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Criminals_from_Suffolk Is he really for this crime one of only 22 noteworthy criminals from London, this list which includes mass murderers and famous gangsters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Criminals_from_London ? I have now linked the user that added these groups to the article and I have decided it's important and so I have removed the groups from Griffin as disputed while discussion occurs, The basic question is, can or should anyone that has been convicted of a minor offence be added to these criminal groups? Griffin is in this group, which I don't oppose at all - I see a lot of missing names there, please assist to expand that group, there are many missing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_politicians_convicted_of_crimes Govindaharihari (talk) 07:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Griffin was guilty of the crime of 'publishing or distributing racially inflammatory written material', as you say. Why is he then not a criminal? I don't understand why you're disputing this -- you even say you 'don't oppose [it] at all'. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I oppose the grouping - I have removed it - he is not a noteworthy criminal - he can be included is a group of politicians that have committed a crime - but classification as a criminal for such a minor conviction is excessive ? Govindaharihari (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

"Griffin is in this group, which I don't oppose at all" -- confusing, then. I don't understand why his is "not a noteworthy criminal" -- in fact he is quite well known in the UK for having this particular criminal conviction. Perhaps you don't think whipping up racial hatred is a big deal? I don't see why this is a "minor conviction". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Suit yourself, add it back if you support it in agreement with wp:blp, but a nine month prison sentence suspended for two years for a minor conviction that is that persons only conviction and is 17 years historic allows him to be grouped as a notable criminal. I advise you that there is arbitration related to living people articles - Govindaharihari (talk) 09:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I likely will add it back. You haven't offered any reasons why it should be considered a "minor conviction". I'm inclined to think that Griffin's offence is not so lightly dismissed. But the more important issue is that it's widely known here, because it has been widely covered in sources that we would have no trouble describing as reliable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Nomoskedasticity go on then - I will report you to wp:arbitration Govindaharihari (talk) 09:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The «Criminals from Suffolk» category contains Nick Griffin but not people like Steve Wright (serial killer), this is crazy, it is used to make Griffin look bad, not to categorize articles properly. Spumuq (talq) 11:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

So Steve Wright can be added. (As for Griffin, he doesn't need much help in this respect, seems to me.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: "criminals" is defined as a "sensitive category" per WP:COP#Sensitive and WP:BLPCAT. In the case at hand, the use of the category is,IMO, used more to discredit a person as being of poor character than anything else, and is thus improper. Collect (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, he's a criminal, as per his criminal conviction per the OP above. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not surprised at your stance. I suggest we get additional input here then-- a I fear your desire to label people as criminals as a nice scarlet letter may not be in absolute accord with the intent of WP:BLPCAT at all. The question is (I recognize Griffin is a thoroughly despicable character who should be pilloried in every possible BLP, of course) whether where a conviction results in a suspended sentence, whether we ought then label the person in every possible criminal category known to man, to make abundantly sure folks know precisely how horrid he is. Or whether the purpose of the categories is to list people who have been convicted of serous offenses and then incarcerated for substantial periods of time. The purpose of categories is can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics. Are you asserting Griffin is or should be primarily defined by his status as a "criminal" per that stricture? Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC) Note: The crime was specifically related to the category of Holocaust deniers, already in the BLP, and I would note that the others in that category are not placed in the "criminal" categories as well. Category:Criminals_by_crime, vs. People_convicted_of_Holocaust_denial_offenses which has no overlap (except that was not what he was convicted of, in fact). Is there a reason for making an example of Griffin? Collect (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, he is what he is; a person convicted of a crime can't really hide from what he or she did. If you check, say, Dan Rostenkowski, he is a member of "Category:20th-century criminals". Tarc (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Did you note the term "felony" by the way for Rosty by any chance? Was Rosty given a 9 month suspended sentence? Do you really think the two cases are so similar as you appear to claim? Collect (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

What I note is that both were found guilty of committing a criminal act; what the sentences were is immaterial. Tarc (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Make sure you note that when you edit on all the anti-war demonstrators who got suspended sentences, the equal rights demonstrators, and Martin Luther King Jr. (Wikipedia dictates he lost his comma), all the union demonstrators etc. -- they are all criminals, each and every one who was convicted of anything, and we should make sure they keep the scarlet letter visible. Or is this person special in some way? Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

IIRC, Dr. King's "crimes" were either misdemeanors (trespassing, etc...) or were eventually dismissed. Less hyperbole would be welcome here. Tarc (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually MLK served time in a number of jails -- and the claim made here is that what we call "misdemeanors" are "crimes" - thus a person with a suspended sentence is a "criminal". Would you place a person who has a 9 month suspended sentence in the "criminals" category or not? [46] shows him serving a jail sentence without any dismissal. IMHO, unless a person gets a sentence of "a year and a day" or more - they ought not be labelled as "criminals." Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. We're talking in this section about Nick Griffin. And yet someone seems to think that MLK Jr. is relevant. That's a really interesting equivalence being drawn. Just really interesting that someone would think to come up with some notion of relevance along those lines. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

If a person gets a suspended sentence - and someone asserts they are as much a criminal as a felon and more a criminal than serial killers - there is a chance that the reasons for labeling the person a criminal has naught to do with seriousness of the crime. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• I find it hard to understand why the User:Nomoskedasticity would twice replace these labels/categories [1] [2] edit warring disputed detail about a living person whilst under discussion and without any clear consensus here? There is no clear support for their inclusion in the discussion above? I removed them again. Govindaharihari (talk) 04:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The category should only be used for people who are notable because of crimes they committed, like Jack the Ripper, the Krays or the Richardsons. People using this navigation tool are not looking for famous people convicted of minor offenses. TFD (talk) 04:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Another person who seems to think that inflaming racial hatred is a minor offence... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The charge was distributing printed material. Did you not notice that? The question is - should we state that being a "criminal" is a defining characteristic of Mr. Griffin? You appear to find it a "defining characteristic" and others do not agree. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Griffin was convicted in 1998 under Part III, Section 19, of the Public Order Act 1986, and given a suspended sentence. The conviction has been considered "spent" since one year following completion of the sentence, and the offense was not repeated. It is no even an offense in the U.S. The Krays were given life sentences for murder. Indeed the legislators and courts saw Griffin's offense as relatively minor, in the sense that any offense is minor. It could be that the law should have treated this offense more seriously, but the fact is they do not, and it is not our role to second guess them. TFD (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Griffin is in Category:British politicians convicted of crimes, subcat of Category:British criminals, and in Category:People from Suffolk, and thus the usual rules of logic place him in Category:Criminals from Suffolk. Oculi (talk) 11:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Dean Jones is my father. I'm the youngest of Dean and Mae's two daughters. My step-brother Michael Pastick, is 3 years older than my older sister Carol and is Lory's son from a previous marriage. Dean and wife Lory never had a child together. I love my step-brother, but he is not my blood brother. Just trying to set the record straight. Please change this on the bio. Thank you, Deanna Jones Demaree I'm not sure what proof I have, ie references. Look it up. It's in Dean's book... " Under Running Laughter" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dean's daughter (talk • contribs) 07:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Page number? Exact quote? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the wrong information which was unsourced anyway. It is up to Wikipedia editors to have reliable sources for what they include. The onus is not on people mentioned in articles to prove anything unless there are reliable sources saying otherwise. Thincat (talk) 11:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Ephraim Padwa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hi, as a wikinewbie not sure whether this should be brought up here but there seems to be a bit of a wikiedit war going on between a couple of wikieditors with this article Ephraim Padwa. a look at the revision history shows edits being entered then reverted with no reason given. can someone look into this? thanks:)Coolabahapple (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks like that happened last year. Chesdovi reverted on the basis that "policy does not allow" the inclusion of the material among other things, but I'm not sure what part of BLP they are referring to (if at all). Judging from the coverage from reliable sources, I don't see how we can realistically exclude it. There are articles from The Independent, Channel 4, IBT, Times of Israel and so on. If the concern is weight then the bio should be expanded, but removing the information is not appropriate. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I've restored it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to re-add this infomation without expansion. Chesdovi (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E anyone?--ukexpat (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Not really -- there's more to write about. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The entry under this section reads that "Jack Joyner-Kersee... died after an exploding salmon was thrown at her." This is fictitious. She actually won a bronze medal in the long lump. http://www.biography.com/people/jackie-joyner-kersee-9358710#olympic-star — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.89.130.54 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism reverted.--ukexpat (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how exactly to deal with this, so. I'm wondering if that controversy section should be there at all when it describes (in length) certain rumors about people which we've not written about in the articles of those persons themselves (and shouldn't because it would appear to be WP:BLP violation). I'd blank it completely, is that wrong? Or should those two controversies be written about in a different way? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 15:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Reverted to an earlier version before that section was added.--ukexpat (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Can someone please protect David H. Murdock to prevent further violations of WP:BLP, WP:OR, and WP:BLPPRIMARY (see the edit history)? 137.110.48.116 (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The article has many flaws. It does not meet notability guideline for biographies. Firstly, it uses self-published sources. The article uses person's own website as a reference source. The "Other achievements" section praises the person using his own website as a reference source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bollywoodan (talk • contribs) 22:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Rudyard Kipling wrote The Jungle Books at his home near Brattleboro, Vermont, in the 1890s, not at Browns Hotel in the early 1900s, although Browns was a favorite place for him to stay. I wrote the book Rudyard Kipling in Vermont, published in the 1990s.

Best wishes,

Stuart A.P. Murray Berlin, New York — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.209.21.253 (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Another link was redacted [47] from the Gamergate talk page with the stated reason that other articles on the site violate BLP, and while this article does not appear to, the redacting editor " didn't really want to have to trawl through the extensive comments" to confirm. [48]

Previously I asked [49] whether a BLP-violating article could be cited for its compliant, non-BLP material. That discussion has yet to reach a conclusion, partly it seems because my question is general and the answer depends on specifics. Here we have specifics - and they address an even broader question: can a BLP-complaint article be linked to, when the site hosting it contains BLP-violating material.

The answer is important whether or not the redacted article is usable since that question can't be asked without linking the article. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I've got some concerns with the comments below the article (namely those twitter screencaps), but the article itself seems okay to me. I guess the question becomes: do we bar all links from a given site if that site has a reputation for BLP violations? Not sure I have an answer to that, but that seems to be the thinking behind this link's removal. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

EvergreenFir said it better than I did. That's exactly my question. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I thank both EncyclopediaBob and EvergreenFir for raising this question; I have now provided a policy based answer to EncyclopediaBob's question at WT:BLP.

In short, WP:BLP:

• relates to adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, and requires any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source. If we are not actually adding contentious material to Wikipedia there is no violation. As a logical consequence, sources do not inherently (in & of themselves) violate WP:BLP.
• does not contain anything which would prevent the use of a source (Per WP:V#Reliable_source, a triplet consisting of work, author, publisher) based on other works by the same author or publisher, or other sources hosted on the same website.
• does not support the redaction of links to sources from Talk pages, regardless of the content of the source. (As was done here[50]). Such links are explicitly permitted per WP:BLPTALK; as supported by an ArbCom consensus here[51], and the consensus at WT:BLP[52].

I thank EvergreenFir for their clear phrasing of the question. To directly answer, with a slight rephrasing :- No, we do not bar all links from a given site if that site has a reputation for BLP violationscontentious material about living persons.

As always, I appreciate & welcome any policy based, alternative opinions of other Wikipedians.

Note: I initiated and contributed to the discussion at WT:BLP. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I think I agree with Ryk72 on this. Unless the website is patently offensive and its mere mention in relation to another person potentially libelous (e.g., Stormfront), non-problematic pages from a problematic website are fine to link to in a talk page. But I would love to hear more opinions on this. Might start an RfC so we can hear more on it. Let me ping HJ Mitchell, Callanecc, and Future Perfect at Sunrise as they have enforced GG sanctions in the past and this topic is related to that. Specifically whether or not linking to a page on a site like gamergate [dot] me is a BLP violation, regardless of the content of the actual linked page. This is in relation to recent links by now-topic-banned Ghost Lorde. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Whether it's a BLP violation in and of itself is not a question a single admin can answer. But isn't that site user-generated? If that's correct, then I can't think of any good reason to be linking to it, especially if the site contains libellous material. As with most things, it's a matter of judgement, and whether it's sanctionable would be decided on a case-by-case basis at AE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The possibility of using that particular site as an RS seems remote, but I believe it has potential as an WP:SPS for information about the movement. Is seems impossible however to discuss that broadly without risking redaction or even sanction. I'm curious as well if there's precedent (pre-Gamergate) for applying BLP to links of any kind (even libelous) on talk pages. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

There is zero potential for the site being used as an WP:SPS for its own article, we would require high-quality WP:BLP compliant sources for such an article, and that site would never pass muster. I'd suggest dropping this paper tiger before it gives you a paper cut. Dreadstar ☥ 23:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:V, articles must be based on "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". At the same time, we should rarely use questionable sources, which "rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion". The question is whether a source with a reputation for publishing egregious gossip and opinion about living persons—the type of material that would be redacted as a BLP violation if used on Wikipedia, even on a Talk page?—can simultaneously have the opposite reputation about its other articles. I would argue that, in most cases, they cannot. Many well-known, otherwise reliable sources have opinion or gossip sections, but these are still under some sort of editorial control and are nonetheless clearly defined as opinion/gossip. That demarcation between news and editorial sections, as well as solid factual reporting, is what earns newspapers their reputation. (And Pulitzer Prizes.) With a source that fundamentally lacks such a reputation in the first place and has no clear distinction between fact and gossip—as evidenced by their other articles—we should consider everything published by that source as questionable. Woodroar (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we do need to bar all links from an attack site that contains BLP violations, even if the singular landing page itself doesn't contain BLP violations. Further, I question that a site which has content that violates BLP is being used or proposed to being used by editors as if it were a Reliable Source, when it clearly is not. Dreadstar ☥ 20:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dreadstar, many thanks for your thoughts on this matter; and also for your efforts as an Admin, they are greatly appreciated.

W.r.t this question, I think it's fair to say that our opinions considerably differ, but I accept that we are both proposing what we in good faith believe is best for the Wikipedia Project, and for the improvement of the encyclopedia.

To this end, I humbly suggest that the standard that you are proposing is not in the best interests of the Wikipedia Project, and will not lead to improvement of the encyclopedia. It will lead to suppression of good faith discussion of sources; suppression of good faith source-based discussion of article content; frustration of the consensus building process; and general all round un-WP:CIVIL behaviour. I would suggest that this is already occurring.

It may seem to be purely a question of semantics, but I again assert that as WP:BLP relates to adding information about living persons to Wikipedia that sources do not inherently (in & of themselves) violate WP:BLP. Regarding sources as containing BLP violations or violating BLP is a fundamental misapprehension of policy, which leads to its misapplication.

Questions that I, and I believe many other independent editors, have include, but are not limited to:

• How do we determine what is and what isn't a "reliable source" without discussion of that source? (Source as defined at WP:V: work, author, publisher triplet).
• How do we determine what is and is not an "attack page" or "attack site" without discussion of that page or site?
• How do we prevent POV-based determination of what is an "attack page" or "attack site"? (We have a hard enough time with POV-based determination of what is a reliable source).
• By extending the test across an entire website are we placing an undue burden on editors to vet not only the contents of a proposed source, but also (all?) other sources by the same author or publisher?
• Why must links be verboten? How does this directly benefit Wikipedia? (I respectfully suggest that the burden is on those desiring a stricter interpretation of WP:BLP to show how this benefits).
• Why is it not sufficient for other editors to simply respond to a proposed source with "Source would not seem to be reliable WP:V & WP:RS" or "Source contains contentious material about living persons WP:BLP; suggest we use alternative source X" or even "Proposed content seems WP:UNDUE; suggest that the article is better off without it". (Any of these is more collegial than redaction; more likely to promote discussion & consensus building).

In considering the implications across the whole of Wikipedia, not solely focused on a narrow range of contentious topics, I firmly believe that we are better as a project, and will build a better encyclopedia, if we allow discussion to occur, and consensus to form. I firmly believe that WP:5P (especially WP:NPOV), WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:BLP (as currently written) sufficiently protect Wikipedia from the implications of "contentious material about living persons" which is not reliably sourced. I believe that extending these as proposed is both unnecessary and detrimental to the project. I would only hope that sufficient editors are of a similar mind.

I again thank you for your efforts and dedication to the Wikipedia Project, and look forward to your thoughts, and to those of other Wikipedians. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Let me reiterate to you, if you link to an attack site with BLP violations, I will block you or anyone else who does so. Dreadstar ☥ 01:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:BADSITES failed. How/why are you acting contrary to WP:BLPTALK which is policy? Reopening closed discussions might qualify as tendentious but just pointing people offsite for background material or ideas is protected by policy. If Site X makes a statement about Jane Doe that could not be made on WP for BLP reasons, it's not blockable to point to it for discussion. The reason is simple: Jane Doe can point to the same site and expose it and it can often be the springboard for reliable sources to backup or refute the link content. The key for assessing it from WP's side is whether an editor is doing it out of malice or to improve or broaden the encyclopedia. It's quite a departure from AGF to presume a single link presented for discussion was malicious. Reverting or blocking without discussion is the larger abuse than just a link of unrepeated verbiage. There is currently no news site that doesn't contain information that WP would consider a BLP violation. This sounds more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT than any serious BLP concern. It's specious to throw out terms like libel for discussing a link. Wikipedia editors cannot commit libel by providing links so throwing that legal term out there has a chilling and threatening tone that is not conducive to editing per WP:NLT. --DHeyward (talk) 06:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll be a little more blunt. Boastful threats to block editors to prove a point contribute to the noise, not discussion, and if carried out would be an abuse of tools. Plenty of sites contain BLP violations. Discussing them outside of article space so as to improve the encyclopedia is what talk pages are all about. The Gamergate article space on Wikipedia, much less the world at large, won't be improved by decreasing the signal to noise ratio. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that any editor who posts a link to a web site that contains a BLP violation should be banned? Does that include CBS News? Because I can post such a link. And you can ban me. It would have nothing to do with Gamergate, but the freedom to discuss the reliability of a source should not be compromised. Honestly, I've had enough of this zero-tolerance atmosphere. If we as editors are not allowed to discuss the reliability of websites on Wikipedia, then WP:V is dead. And if WP:V is dead, then where is Wikipedia? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

nurses who treat their patients without care.nurses often get angry with patients when they asked to assist they are sometimes heart less with people it.s not our fault they dont enjoy their jobs for ill patients sometimes when you waiting for help they wont come to assist you and ask whats the issue even if the issue is serious they dont care — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.236.168.223 (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

How does this relate to Wikipedia? I can find no reference to anyone of that name in any of our articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a short BLP stub about a Indian university head who is currently involved in a local scandal. He's not really A7 worthy, I wouldn't think, but I'm not sure he's truly notable beyond the current scandal. The stub appears to exist mostly because of the scandal. Maybe it's A10 worthy, maybe it can be cleaned up/expanded so that the scandal isn't the core of the article. I'm personally unsure of what to do with it, but I know that it's problematic as-is. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Given that the sources cited state that there are allegations, whereas our article claims that he is 'guilty', it is certainly problematic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear what the issue is here. If you could just revert the article to how it appeared before the most recent edit I would appreciate it.

"Wiesel was born the 21st of Nyestember 0021 A.C.C, Franks Apartment (now Sighetu Marmației), Maramureș,[6] Romania,[6] in the Carpathian Mountains. His parents were Frank and Safari Man. At home Wiesel's family spoke Chromosomian most of the time, but also Chinese.[7][8] Wiesel's mother, Safari Man, was the daughter of Chin Chin, a celebrated Vizhnitz Hasid and farmer from a nearby village. Chin Chin was active and trusted within the community. In the early years of his life, Chin Chin had spent a few months in jail for having helped Polish Jews who escaped and were hungry.

Wiesel's father, Frank, instilled a strong sense of humanism in his son, encouraging him to learn Chromosomian and to read literature, whereas his mother encouraged him to study the Torah. Wiesel has said his father represented reason while his mother Sarah promoted faith.[9]

Wiesel had three siblings – older brothers Salamander man and B0ss, and younger brother Prometheus. B0ss and Salamander Man survived the war and were reunited with Wiesel at a French orphanage. They eventually emigrated to North America, with B0ss moving to Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Prometheus, Frank, and Safari Man survived the Lycra Holocaust the Holocaust."

I was just reading this article the other day and happen to know that his siblings names are not Salamander man and B0ss, and Chinese was not the language most spoken in his household. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.110.82 (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism - fixed. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Can I have some more eyes on this article and a second opinion. I am on my second revert and will not revert again.

RebeccaTheAwesomeXD (talk · contribs) with a long history of warnings for adding unsourced or poorly sourced dates of birth to BLPs, has been repeatedly adding an exact DoB to Mary-Jean O'Doherty with no source, although she has claimed on my talk page, that she got it from this web page. That page is from a website that is based in Russia, is not the official Eurovision website, and uses information "gathered from fans around the world". It is not a reliable source for a biography of a living person. I can find no other source for this date and it appears in none of her official biographies. There is also the issue of privacy in including a full DoB, especially a potentially spurious one. Voceditenore (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a no-brainer - if there is a dispute about a DoB or the reliability of its sourcing, we leave it out.--ukexpat (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It may need to be noted that per a previous discussion at WikiProject Eurovision, it was found that the ESCKaz website that Voceditenore linked to above, had been found to also be in violation of copyright from Wikipedia text (full discussion can be found here). And as a consequence the project placed ESCKaz on their project's banned sources list, and thus ESCkaz should not even be used as a verifiable source whatsoever. It should also be noted that I had reported RebeccaTheAwesomeXD to WP:ANI back in October 2014 (linked here) about similar disruptive behaviour, as well as the numerous warnings on her talk page - some of which she use threatening tactics in response to warnings; such as "Fear not, Wes! For I hate when certain articles get deleted." and childish remarks like "Oh no! I'm doomed! DOOMED! Sarah and Julia has been deleted. Some of Rebecca's contributions are perfect and reasonable. But others have caused more damage than good. I feel that Rebecca should either be faced with adoption tutorial from an experienced editor; or topic ban across BLP and Eurovision-related articles. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 21:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked RebeccaTheAwesomeXD (talk · contribs) for 1 week for continued violations of the WP:BLP policy. I've also blocked 112.208.61.89 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which appears to have been used by her to evade scrutiny. I will consider further action as needed. CT Cooper · talk 17:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Despite the fact this block has now been put in place, it would appear that Rebecca has a pattern of adding or altering dates of birth on BLP articles for quite some time, and all of them being unsourced.

• Jesse Money diff 1
• Ula Ložar diff 2

Maybe a block isn't going to teach her anything about the seriousness of this kind of incident. Perhaps a topic ban on BLP articles is necessary? Her contributions on other articles are good, but when it comes to BLP's she just does what she wants and ignores all warnings from editors including admins. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 23:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a difficult one. I've given it some thought, and my conclusion for now is that competency issues are apparent here and it is therefore not likely that Rebecca will likely follow any complex sanctions imposed. I've decided to keep it simple for now and to keep blocking her until she understands that her current behaviour is unacceptable. I'll be reviewing the situation again before the block expires though. CT Cooper · talk 17:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Ahmad Givens died a couple of weeks ago, apparently at age 33. One source does say 35 years old, but even its URL has the number 33 in it, which makes me think they know something we, and those other sources, don't. In addition, two single purpose accounts have tried to change it to 35, so there might be something to this. The article is Real Chance of Love, and Ahmad Givens is currently a redirect to the television show. Thanks. :> Eddymason (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Merwin Coad is my maternal biological grandfather, and my maternal biological grandmother, his second wife, was Carol Faye Farnsworth, not Peters.She is a relative of the inventor Philo T. Farnsworth, who designed and built the first all electronic working television system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.44.9.185 (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The autobiography by Denis Avey, The Man who Broke into Auschwitz, is undergoing some edit warring. Please see talk page regarding guidelines possibly being undermined. Other opinions would be useful.--Light show (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

His comments are publicized, but are they worth being added to the article? --George Ho (talk) 11:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

No. They are an off the cuff comment, over blown by the tabloids. Next week they will be forgotten. --Fæ (talk) 11:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

They are not overblown off the cuff comments Fae, they actually have offended segments of the LGBT community and Tovey has a history of denigrating what he considers "flamboyant and camp". It's well known. --5.69.175.246 (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Tovey is a gay man prides himself on being "straight acting" and passing for a straight man. His comments clearly reflect this. It's also clear he is unconscious of why he makes such 'off the cuff' remarks in the first place, hence why they were highly publicized. They were harmful to those 'really effeminate' men within the LGBT community who consider him a role model and do not conform to the heteronormative standards of behaviour he speaks of and has spoken of in the past. For you to undermine the comments as 'overblown' is dismissive of their potential impact which is why I think you should consider keeping these comments in the article itself. --5.69.175.246 (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

There are some unreliable and/or primary sources there, lack of NPOV and a lot of weight. "came under fire on social media" is precisely the kind of thing we want to avoid. However, if there was reaction from reliable sources or notable people and a consequence of some sort, and all that can be sourced to stuff other than twitter, then perhaps it merits a shorter paragraph. Right now it looks like it was worded by an angry LGBT advocate, which is not ideal for a BLP. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I have taken time to read the original interview (where the comment hardly is noticeable) and a few of the later inflammatory pieces in other tabloids. I have also gone to Tovey's twitter stream and read his immediate reactions. Though a few people might be wound up by a passing comment made during a long interview, I am still of the opinion that this is over-inflated as it does not properly illustrate Tovey's opinions on being a gay figure (as shown by his responses). I find no systematic evidence that Tovey "has a history" of denigrating flamboyant gay people; this may be confusing his fictional roles and his aims as an actor to take more edgy material with his personal world-view. As a co-founder of Wikimedia LGBT, I am sensitive to the issues but I think we should retain a focus on ensuring LGBT related articles are as a good quality as possible. This means avoiding compiling dubious "controversy" sections which have no long term encyclopaedic merit.

If anyone is looking for newspaper sources and wishes to research Tovey's BLP further, I do have access to LexisNexis and can pass on material to help with improving the article if you have specific areas to focus on. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Not a BLP issue. plenty of mostly reliable sources reporting it. If its worth being in the article discuss it on the talk page. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The Bio on Sherry Lansing claims she was the first Female Studio head. I believe that Lucille Ball was the First, after buying out Desi Arnez to become the presedent of desilu. Thank You Joseph C — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.119.246.162 (talk) 13:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Desilu was a television studio rather than a movie studio.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Insults Meredith when talking about the Meredith Viera show, referring to her as a racist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:B843:4CE0:CD34:EE6A:91B1:E020 (talk) 08:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide a link or diff? I see no evidence that the article has ever included such a claim. RolandR (talk) 11:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The OP is apparently referring to this edit, which you reverted. Dwpaul ^Talk 15:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

That was just a routine reversion of mindless vandalism. I didn't see any reference to racism. RolandR (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

An edit can be both vandalism and racist, RolandR. This one was. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Racist? Unless you are inside the editor's head, I don't think that's a fair assesment. Maybe the intent was there, but the edit in question was so incoherent it's best not to make such an accusation in the first place. The bar for making such claims against fellow editors appears to be about an inch high nowadays.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 03:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I characterized the edit, not the editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I've been dealing with a BLP sourcing issue on Jordis Unga, but before I violate the 3RR I decided to bring it here. It deals with this edit (and ones following it) where I have removed content from the page and an IP (98.193.95.34) has reverted my changes, I revert back, and then I reverted the revert, and the IP reverted back. That's where we stand at the time of this post. The controversy is about the subject of the article allegedly not carrying out her duties to her campaign on kickstarter, but the citation is the comment on the kickstarter campaign, which only contains comments made by donors with no official statements of explanations whatsoever. I believe this is a clear violation of BLP policy, being that it's controversial material with what appears to be a very unreliable and extremely biased source. I left this message at the user's talk page, but it was promptly removed by the IP. Please advise. Kharkiv07 (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Correct, Kickstarter comments are not reliable sources for a BLP. I will add this to my watchlist.- MrX 18:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

To whom it may concern,

This story has recently hit some of the news sources throughout our country not as many as I would have hoped. I have noticed as of today that a team or at least a few have been scrubbing his Wiki page. I have done so with my own eyes. Why this is important is that the facts are that he is still making laws, he still has a school all of which pertain to children. He is now hiding the fact that he is more culpable than what it was showing and that the crime was more than just diddling. It also does not include the fact that he has been using all but 6% of taxpayers money to fund his Christian school. This is very distressing that he can create his own picture en-light of what the news has worked so hard to get out there. I would ask that you look at Arkansas Times, Wonkette, Raw Story and Time. Thank you for your eyes, Anna Hoffmann104.229.10.241 (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Andrulla Blanchette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Persistent edits by a possible COI account, primarily removing sourced content for unsourced content they prefer. I've reported to AIV, but in the dearth of response this continues, and I've no desire to edit war. Help would be appreciated. 2602:302:D89:A9C9:84E6:720C:31CA:6D3 (talk) 03:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• The user has since been blocked by Materialscientist. Thanks. 2602:302:D89:A9C9:84E6:720C:31CA:6D3 (talk) 03:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

That article is a mess. I've trimmed the area of contention down to the basic facts - that will suffice. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Caller#Controversies needs attention from someone more familiar with BLP issues than I. There is sufficient RS coverage of TDC's involvement in this scandal about Bob Menendez that it warrants coverage in our TDC article. What I'm stuck on is how to do this while protecting Menendez's BLP rights. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I'm having second on whether there should be any coverage of this in the TDC article at all. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Content on this page may be legally considered libelous and appears to be posted solely for the purpose of defaming Chip Coffey. No rebuttal information has been posted on this page. 2601:0:AB80:1BF:C806:F517:7383:FC21 (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

For context, this IP has now been blocked for repeatedly blanking the article and tagging it {{db-attack}}. A quick read through the Criticism section appears to show that it is properly sourced documentation of criticism the subject has received. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 23:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

This article was listed here a week or two ago, and not much has improved (if anything, situation is worse). It has been yo-yoing back and forth between a version that is very critical of the subject, a version that is quite positive towards him, and a stubbed version that (I think?) was supposed to be some kind of interim solution. There are multiple COI'd (by their own admission) editors involved and one or two accounts who only seem to edit this article but haven't declared a COI.

I've been trying to keep an eye on it but could use some advice/help - most recently someone tried to blank the entire page, and then started pasting in old content in plain text (without markup), so quite a mess. @Jytdog: was doing a pretty good job of it for a while but I think they've un-followed the article after this exchange on the talk page.

I'm not sure how this sort of situation is usually managed, so some help/advice would be very welcome. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikimandia seemed to have very strong ideas about how to proceed. If Wikimandia is not going to do anything after all I'll go back to trying to rebuild them. Just let me know. Jytdog (talk) 11:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm still waiting for anything from Abursey. Waiting to be sure if I'm waiting. More sure Wikimandia wasn't serious. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

probably should correct as there is no cure as of yet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C:4B80:1FD:7002:F934:4773:4096 (talk) 04:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Basic vandalism, now fixed.--ukexpat (talk) 12:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybelline Masuda

1. Wikipedia notability criteria not met. 2. Too soon. Achievements mentioned are either from top tier of relatively unknown events / lower skill tier of well known events. Kukurukuku (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• I don't see a BLP concern here. Your comments seem more directed toward an AFD discussion. The article sourced and contains nothing controversial that I see. JodyB _talk 12:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Under "feats" is listed a squat of 300kg. This has no source and is almost definitely false - at 54kg the world record is 290kg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.2.31 (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I removed the entire section as it was unsourced and far too promotional. If it is to be added back, sources will need to be provided. Meatsgains (talk) 02:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Incredibly biased article. Reads like a glowing biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.246.61.190 (talk) 06:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I've toned it down a bit, could probably benefit from more work.--ukexpat (talk) 13:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any specific complaints, IP Editor?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 14:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any bias is the article. I visited to the page ready to balance it out and only made minor tweaks to some sentences. Meatsgains (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Just linking to the article, no opinion here. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello. User:Catflap08 keeps deleting reliably sourced information using a primary source that doesn't even say what Catflap alleges it does.

Background: Daisaku Ikeda and the Soka Gakkai were excommunicated from Nichiren Shōshū in November 1991. Multiple sources (including one from the Japanese Journal of Religious Studies) currently on the page back this up.

Catflap is removing the "and the Soka Gakkai" portion of this equation, making it look like Daisaku Ikeda was singled out for excommunication. He wasn't. The entire organization was excommunicated. The source Catflap is using is purportedly the Nichiren Shōshū's official website[53] But that source itself states the following:

After excommunicating the Soka Gakkai organization, Nichiren Shoshu made continuous efforts to guide compassionately the Gakkai members back to the correct path of faith and practice. For a period of six years after the excommunication, individual Gakkai members who had received Gojukai from Nichiren Shoshu in the past were still recognized as Nichiren Shoshu lay believers. Nichiren Shoshu, however, could not continue with this situation, where a Gakkai member who follows Daisaku Ikeda qualifies as a Nichiren Shoshu lay believer. Nichiren Shoshu doctrine strictly prohibits its laity to hold membership in other religious organizations. On September 30, 1997, Nichiren Shoshu officially decided to terminate the membership of the Gakkai followers. After Nichiren Shoshu extensively notified the Gakkai members of this decision through its in-house publication and other means, the provision that all Gakkai members would lose their standing as Nichiren Shoshu lay believers went into effect on December 1, 1997. Emphasis added.

Not only does the primary source not refute what was on the page, it actually supports it. As I said on the talk page: Soka Gakkai was excommunited in 1991, but individual members were still recognized as lay believers. Six years later, in 1997, the recognition was revoked. When I pointed this out, Catflap's retort was "I was there at the excommunication." While that does raise wp:COI questions, I still don't see where that supports his biased edit to the BLP.

Here's a link to the Talk page, with more info: [54] AbuRuud (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Helooo I included refs by the guys who should know. I am no longer affiliated with either of the two. SGI’s leadership was expelled in 1991 the rest of the bunch in 1997.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, Catflap deleted sourced information about the excommunication, not expulsion, of Soka Gakkai. They are two different things that he is seemingly conflating to POV push and make it look like Ikeda was the only one excommunicated.AbuRuud (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Catflap, who thinks "X was founded in 1914 and is a successor group to Y founded in 1881 and Z founded in 1885" means the same thing as "X was founded in 1880 under the name Y before changing its name to Z in 1884 and adopting its current name in 1914", should not be taken at his word when it comes to the difference between word meanings. And no, those dates are not misprinted -- he really does appear to have pulled "1881" and "1885" out of his nose. The same abuse of sources is problematic for other reasons. Note that the recent edit war on the Ikeda article involved Catflap claiming a source that doesn't even mention "November 28, 1991" anywhere, and doesn't specifically mention Ikeda being excommunicated either, should be attached to the statement Ikeda was excommunicated by Nichiren Shoshu on November 28, 1991.

I would say that this abuse of sources and the serious CIR issues on display should make Catflap a candidate for an indefinite TBAN on BLPs, if I didn't already think he should be indefinitely blocked for the same reasons.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Abusive behavior is typical of Catflap08. He reverted my edits to the Daisaku Ikeda article in January, even though my contributions were well researched and properly sourced. Catflap08 continually insisted that false and libelous information stay in the BLP about Daisaku Ikeda even though all sources showed it was false and libelous, including the sources Catflap08 himself referenced. Catflap08 refused to allow proper edits and, after being confronted by other users, Catflap08 started a dispute resolution in which he mischievously never named me / never notified me, even though my edits started the dispute. Only at the end of the noticeboard discussion did someone else add me to it out of courtesy, and ultimately the libelous falsehood was removed (although there's still lots of false information in the text that Catflap08 insists on maintaining).

Catflap08 has repeatedly admitted bias against Daisaku Ikeda and Soka Gakkai-related topics, and as such should be banned from continually reverting the proper edits of others to suit his own agenda. Catflap08 is the cause of nearly every Talk Page dispute related to Daisaku Ikeda and the Soka Gakkai. It appears that Catflap08 feels ownership over these topics, against which he has an axe to grind, and his antagonistic behavior shows he is determined to stop anyone else from improving the articles too. His ongoing Wikihounding antics and long-standing biased behavior should qualify Catflap08 for TBAN from Daisaku Ikeda and Soka Gakkai-related articles, and perhaps from all BLPs on Wikipedia.Elemential1 (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The issue here really doesn't relate so much to BLP as the continuation, or lack of same, of substantially similar religious or parareligious movements with different names. Unfortunately, this is a not uncommon problem regarding some religious groups, which have been known to change their name and possibly/probably other details over the years, often with the change of name being the only substantive change in the group itself. This can be problematic if the change in name is not generally seen by independent reliable sources as being sufficient to differentiate between the differently-named entities in question. Other examples which come to mind almost immediately are the Church Rising and Triumphant/Church Universal and Triumphant, Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Community of Christ, the various adventist groups, and others. A more directly comparable case might be the recent schism in the Armenian Apostolic Church. If it is the case here that the different in name is not seen by others as being sufficient reason to believe the groups themselves are substantially different, then there is no reason why we would necessarily be obligated to observe a differentiation not broadly recognized by independent sources. I would think the best thing to do here would be to ask @Shii: and other editors familiar with Buddhism or Japan in general whether the change of name is sufficient to indicate a change in group structure, or, perhaps, start an RfC on the issue to determine how to proceed. John Carter (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Not really. The issue is that multiple reliable sources state that Daisaku Ikeda and Soka Gakkai were excommunicated at the same time, but Catflap continues to remove the "and Soka Gakkai" part to POV push on a BLP.AbuRuud (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

If that is the case, then there is a question regarding the relevance of the "and Soka Gakkai" material, which is possibly, but not necessarily, directly relevant to the biography of an individual, and the seeming jump to conclusions about the motivations of that editor, which now two editors here have made. WP:AGF would, I think, reasonably apply that an individual who is trying to keep material not necessarily directly relevant to the topic of an individual article is acting in good faith. In all honesty, I find it all but impossible to believe that it is necessarily POV pushing, as two people in this thread have now alleged, to say that material of dubious relevance to the specific article in question has to be included in the interests of some alleged POV violation otherwise. The rather explicit jump to assuming bad faith on the part of two editors here is I believe potentially extremely problematic. And, FWIW, I remember seeing that there is a question regarding the possible differentiation between SG and SGI on the talk page. That raises yet another possibly problematic aspect. The best and I think most reasonable way to handle this would be through an RfC, regarding the specific phrasing of the sentence or broader content to be included, and the reasons for preferring or not preferring one to the other offered at the start of the RfC. But I cannot honestly believe that the assumption of bad faith explicit in the above, particularly without specific diffs to support them, which have not been produced, in any way necessarily provides sufficient reason to believe that there are any violations of BLP by attempting to exclude material of at best dubious relevance to the specific subject of a given BLP article. John Carter (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08's tactics are to add biased and false information to articles, text that doesn't appear in the sources Catflap08 cites (or any other reliable source). The sources do not state Daisaku Ikeda was excommunicated, but that the entire Soka Gakkai was. In the previous case I noted, no source stated that Ikeda struck anyone, but Catflap08 insisted on keeping it in the text even after it was proven false and libelous, which should be immediately deleted WP:LIBEL. If an editor admits bias against a living person then continually frames facts in articles in a negative light against that person, as Catflap08 does, even when sources state differently, that is the definition of bad faith editing.Elemential1 (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, if the sources don't specifically say DI was personally excommunicated, then I have serious questions seeing how any mention necessarily meets BLP requirements. I say this as someone who has reviewed a lot of content regarding Christian schisms and other reigious persecutions, where, in at least some cases where it has been said "X and his followers" or "the Z's" are sanctioned in some way, the lack of individual naming makes it problematic to say "person Y is a follower of X," and in at least some cases makes it possible for various persons "Y" to say that "I'm not a follower of X" or "one of the Z's" (or, maybe, that I am not any longer - linguistic matters can enter in here) and in that can create all sorts of difficulties in determining exactly who did and did not get specifically included in the sanctions. And, I regret to say, unfortunately, your second statement actually is rather poorly supported by policy. If reliable sources say something, honestly, whether that is later found true or false, it can be and sometimes is appropriate to include it, if it meets WEIGHT concerns for the article in question. The first paragraph of Tom Cruise#Litigation, and the history of that article prior to the filing of the lawsuit (I think, I actually haven't checked) provide an indicator of that. The determining factor seems to be how widely the libel/slander is discussed in independent reliable sources. Granted, all articles and topics are different in that regard, but it clearly is not the case that all false information must necessarily be excluded. So, honestly, I regret to say that the explicit assumption of bad faith now made by at least three separate editors seems, once again, to be perhaps dubiously based in policies and guidelines, and that perhaps the explicit failure to assume good faith on that group may be at least as big a problem as any that they are collectively raising. John Carter (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I am finding it hard to explain how the following passage can be interpreted as saying that "the entire Soka Gakkai was" excommunicated:

For a period of six years after the excommunication, individual Gakkai members who had received Gojukai from Nichiren Shoshu in the past were still recognized as Nichiren Shoshu lay believers.

The rest of the talk page is mere name-calling, so it didn't help me. Shii (tock) 23:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

That passage doesn't say "the entire Soka Gakkai" was excommunicated, but it lends credence to the other (better sourced) references that state the entire Soka Gakkai was excommunicated in 1991. See especially Métraux, Daniel A., "The Dispute Between the Soka Gakkai and the Nichiren Shoshu Priesthood: A Lay Revolution Against a Conservative Clergy", Japanese Journal of Religious Studies, 1992, 19/4, pp. 328 and 330 At this point, the dispute is a little convoluted. Please let me attempt to summarize:

1. The page said Ikeda and SG were excommunicated in 1991 (see the Métraux article for proof)
2. User:Catflap08 deleted the "...and SG" stating that they weren't excommunicated in '91, using the reference you're citing. Which doesn't say that SG was excommunicated in 1997.
3. I pointed out that the reference Catflap08 used (and which you questioned) dated "the excommunication" to six years prior to December 1997. So that passage actually implies the opposite of what he alleged (i.e., that "the excommunication" happened in 1997).

The argument about that passage tangential argument that requires some intepretation of the sources, yes. But it's really not necessary to the original debate anyway. The original debate is: Does Catflap's source justify the deletion of reliably sourced information on the page? The answer is no. There is no debate when Ikeda was excommunicated in 91/92. The question is whether or not he was the only SG member to be excommunicated at that time. The answer is no.AbuRuud (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the source quoted by Shii seems to me to specifically contradict any sort of statement to the effect that the "entire" SG was excommunicated, as it seems to rather clearly state that at least some members of SG were still regarded as within the communion. And, actually, I have to say that the final paragraph above is not necessarily helpful. There seem to be to be serious questions whether the RS, as per Shii's quote, agree on whether the members were excommunicated, or whether they by their own actions basically withdrew their membership. There is a significant difference between the two. There also is apparently still a reasonable BLP concern regarding whether Ikeda himself was ever in a formal way excommunicated. If he actively retained membership in SG after the excommunication order was lifted, he may have been treated as out of body convert, but that is not the same thing as excommunication, which is a specifically institutional act as per the first sentence of that article. Therefore, I repeat, I at least see the following problems still remaining:

1) Was Ikeda individually ever formally excommunicated, as per that definition? So far as I can see, no. A more accurate statement, so far as I can tell, might be that those SG was expelled from NS, which addresses what some might consider a legalistic but real and in the cases of BLPs significant fact.

2) Under the circumstances, considering the dubious applicability of the term excommunication and the rather more nebulous term "expulsion," it might be good to indicate what specific effects such an expulsion has in this particular case somewhere. Particularly considering that many if not maybe most of the people expelled might still be living, and that BLP would apply to all of them. Has that been done?

3) But, in all honesty, it seems to me that perhaps the most relevant clearly relevant term here is neither excommunication or expulsion, but apostasy, which term emphasizes the fact that it is the individual him or herself who basically removes themselves from the early group. As i have seen no clearcut indication that a real list of names of excommunicated individuals was ever presented, but please point to where it if it was, the impression I get is that this is most similar to some of the Christian schisms where, basically, the church being schismed from says "you guys aren't in our group anymore," and the schismatics say, "OK, fine by us." Such tends to better be described by the term apostasy. Another term which is used in some cases is "religious conversion," and that might be relevant, but it at least strongly implies the extend of well-defined denominations, and I'm not sure the evidence required for that has yet been presented. John Carter (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Even though I have announced my retirement on my talk page. Also due to issues like this one and dealing with editors with a … well what should I say … a problem? On a final note please excuse my foul language but saying that Ikeda was excommunicated along with SG/SGI is simply bullshitting – sorry again. Call it excommunication (a term I find irritating to be used in a Buddhist concept) or expulsion. I myself am by no means a reliable source but I was an adherent of Gakkai at the time – not any more thank goodness. In 1991/92 it was Ikeda and the Gakkai leadership that were expelled, excluded, excommunicated or what have you from Nichiren Shoshu. In effect that means they were not allowed to enter the high temple grounds. It was not until 1997 that the complete Gakkai membership i.e. the Norman Normal Gakkai member were also not allowed to enter temple grounds. I admit that to the willing flock of Gakkai adherents it was always portrayed as that we all since the early 90’s lost our standing as Nichiren Shoshu adherents but it was not until 1997 that there was an official seal to that --- which at the time came as a surprise since we were all cut off from official temple information anyway. So concerning the wording it might be a good idea to use the term regarded as adherents of … as from 1991/92 Ikeda and Gakkai lesdership were not regarded as Nichiren Shoshu adherents and as from 1997 all those who had not signed with an official Nichiren Shoshu temple were also not regarded Nichiren Shoshu adherents anymore. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@Catflap08: In any event I welcome seeing for the first time I think a clear indication of the practical considerations involved in being expelled, specifically, not being any longer allowed to enter (I'm guessing) NS temple grounds. Logically, it would only be at from that point that any sort of recognized excommunication/expulsion could be said to have taken place, as they were, at least theoretically, still able to take part in events on the temple grounds before then as members of the community. The one question I guess which remains open regarding that is specifically how did the temple know who was and was not to be excluded? Was there some sort of list, or was a self-declaration of some sort involved, or something else? John Carter (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

To whoever this concerns,

I'm trying to create an equal opportunity for Mr. Roderick Scot as it appears on Wikipedia as they compare to Mr. George Zimmerman. It appears Mr. Scot has significantly less information compared to Mr. Zimmerman - most likely due to the high profiled issues. If you would please post more info in an unbiased manner I would be most appreciative. Mr. Scot has significantly less in his bio than what he should be given credit to. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DRC1015 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Which page are you referring to? Our article on Roderick Scott refers to a retired football player and I'm unclear how that relates to George Zimmerman. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to the Roderick Scott who was acquitted on manslaughter charges in 2009, [55][56] rather than the Roderick Scott (a former Canadian soccer player) we have an article on. If so, I have to suggest that 'equal opportunities' have no bearing on the matter - what matters is the depth of coverage in published reliable sources. The Scott case seems to have attracted relatively little media attention, and accordingly there is little to base an article on - and the details were very different from the Zimmerman case anyway, so the comparison is of little relevance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

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

A newly-created biography of a "liberal activist" that came to my attention via a post on the COI noticeboard [57]. It reads like an attack piece in my opinion, and does little to establish the individual's notability. I'm tempted to at least PROD it, but would welcome a second opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

All this article is at the moment is a WP:COATRACK for fringe right-wing talking points, but once those are scrapped, there are a handful of reliable sources that'd probably let it scrape by WP:N. Tarc (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Please note COIN discussion Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Environmental_organization_articles. This is messy. Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Jo Frost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Long-term, ongoing issues with IP-based editors making advertorial and promotional edits. Comments left for IP-based editors and throwaway accounts are ignored. May eventually request semi-protection but additional watchers would be appreciated. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 21:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

2015 University of Oklahoma Sigma Alpha Epsilon racism incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As I'm sure most people have heard, there was an incident at the University of Oklahoma concerning a song sung by members of this fraternity which resulted in the chapter being shut down and two students being expelled. There are other issues that might raise BLP concerns, but my question focuses on these issues:

• Is the assertion that the constitutional rights of the expelled students were violated subject to BLP?

  I suspect that it is, since expulsion is the action of a living person (OU President David Boren)

• Are the sources sufficient to support the assertions about Boren's actions
• And if it is, is the following assertion an acceptable summary of the cited sources?

Some scholars have raised issues related to protections guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. First Amendment law specialist and UCLA Law professor Eugene Volokh asserted that President Boren's actions were unconstitutional and that the University had no legal right to expel the students.^[1] Oklahoma State University media law associate professor Joey Senat stated that the chant was offensive but is still protected free speech.^[2]

Accusing someone of violating another's constitutional rights is a serious accusation, and the sources feel light-weight in that regard. But Volokh is an expert here. And yet - his opinion is in an Op-Ed. The LA Times article has a counterpoint defence of Boren, but it's not in the article. Should it be?

I don't have an outcome I'm looking for people to support or shoot down. But I'm very interested in what thoughts people here might think. Guettarda (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Please remember than Wikipedia is not censored. This is cited by prominent scholars and thus should not be redacted.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

As long as the opinions are attributed I think it's appropriate to report them, as well as appropriate balancing with contrary viewpoints as reported in major media. This issue has been widely discussed and reported; from the first page of GNews, here's The New York Times ("Expulsion of Two Oklahoma Students Over Video Leads to Free Speech Debate"), here's Al Jazeera ("Univ. of Oklahoma expulsions infringe free speech rights, experts say"). This is an important part of the controversy.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)