Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive9

Paul Simonon (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Paul Simonon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Can someone fix this and get factual evidence with some sources.

He married Pearl Harbour in 1566. The couple divorced in 1666. He is currently married to Shilpa Shetty CBB racism representative, Tricia Ronane, with whom he has two sons, Louis and Claude. Louis is right now in a relationship with another mam. Their godfather is Justin Timberlake and their godmother is Jade Goody. It is reported that he has left his wife for Serena Williams.

I am not an admin but I removed all potentially controversial uncited info and personal details per WP:BLP, noting in edit history that that sort of information simply MUST be cited before re-adding. CyberAnth 22:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Banjee (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Banjee (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) I deleted the images in Banjee as being potentially libelous to the persons in the images since the images appear to be of living people, the persons in the image are associated with being thuggish men who have sex with men, and the article does not include Wikipedia reliable sources to support such an association. The images quickly were restored by another editor and the article now is in need of a BLP administrator to review the situation. -- Jreferee 19:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• The images were uploaded under the GFDL by the reported author of the images. Click on the images to see. If there is a good faith belief that the photo's subject did not authenticate them for such release, this can be taken to Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. But given that the subject's face is largely hidden, I doubt there is considerable grounds here. CyberAnth 07:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• GFDL does not authorize potentially libelous uses of images. Although the person's eyes are hidden in the photo, I believe that his identity still can be known, especially by those who are familiar with him. Since the article does not include Wikipedia reliable sources to support the use made of the living person images in the article, the images should be removed from the article if his identity can be known even with his eyes covered. Further comment/action still is needed to resolve this implementation of Wikipedia WP:BLP policy -- Jreferee 18:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• So, what do we do next? CyberAnth 10:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

John Grisham (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• John Grisham (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - A fellow Wikipedian brought my attention to this website and was concerned that another user was trying to introduce potentially libellous material. I reviewed the article and the history and it turns out that one user kept reintroducing material paraphrased from one of the cited references, which is related to a current lawsuit involving John Grisham; a Google search suggests that this is a current event. I also noted that the user who kept introducing these changes, ChasAlmy (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), appears to be related to the plaintiff in the case vs. Grisham (according to the referenced magazine article, the husband of the plaintiff is named Charles). This user kept on reverting other people's edits to a version that is to his/her liking. Just to be sure, I changed the title to something more neutral, and also reverted the section to a shorter version (i.e. with shorter content). Other than this, I'm not sure what else I would need to do. Any help and suggestions would be appreciated. --- Tito Pao 22:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note. A few minutes after I made this entry, ChasAlmy reverted the article to longer contents, although the section title I created was not changed. --- Tito Pao 22:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• I am not so sure the lawsuit info should be included in a WP BLP, since it is still ongoing and the "The Hook" is questionable as a source. Probably the reason why big news outlets have not reported on the matter is that the matter is not resolved. I think WP should avoid commenting on the matter until that time. Better safe than sorry, so I am going to remove it until the lawsuit is subject of *multiple* reports in reliable sources per WP:N and WP:V. CyberAnth 07:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Featured article criteria requires only that the article not neglect major facts and details. The lawsuit does not seem to be a major fact or a major detail in Grisham's life, which further supports your deletion actions to help bring this matter under control. -- Jreferee 16:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Billy Burke (evangelist) (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Billy Burke (evangelist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Please look at the article… I thought it violated the WP:BLP in many respects, and quickly pared away the criticism section-I didn't have time or knowledge how to be more precision oriented to potentially retain certain parts of it without making a very pro-POV slant behind. But instead of it being improved, an editor restored the whole thing and since the editor thinks I'm an "agent" of some kind, is unlikely to want to work well with me to improve it. I suspect he will revert me again. I also don't know enough to make the judgement call on one source he wants to keep from a publication called "Creative Loafing" which the editor describes as an "alternative" newspaper in Fl. My sense was that for controversial attacks against the subject of the article that a higher standard would be required for sources, but I would value input from an editor with more experience with kind of question. Professor marginalia 02:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I deleted some POV material in the article and added fact templates. The facts in the article are slanted against Mr. Burke, but the article itself probably could be balanced with additional facts. -- Jreferee 03:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan Corrigan Wells (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Jonathan Corrigan Wells (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) is a leading advocate of intelligent design. From this someone has said that he "rejects" evolution itself, which he does not seem to. I removed the sentence but it was put right back. Steve Dufour 19:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not find the word "reject" in the text when I visited it. I did find a problematic section and removed it to talk for re-writing, see Talk:Jonathan_Corrigan_Wells#Problematic_content. CyberAnth 06:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I rather over reacted to the situation I'm afraid. The article is showing some improvement. Steve Dufour 08:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Make that "was" showing some improvement. :-) Steve Dufour 08:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The Wells article continues to include false and petty attacks on him from people who despise him for his criticism of evolutionary biology textbooks. The sources given for the slanderous attacks include a left-wing political blog, and a web site that gives Wikipedia as its only source! Roger 18:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There has been an organized PR campaign there to insert/inflate material favorable to Wells while remove/downplay material that is not. Two of the four parties involved are members of Wells's church, one is a former member, and the other is a conservative Intellignet Design blogger. Two of the four are commenting here and are presenting a very one sided description of the situation there. Any assistance in putting this conflict of interest PR campaign to rest from earnest, unbiased editors is appreciated. 151.151.21.99 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any issue with Raul, except that he expressed agreement with FeloniousMonk inserting false statements into the article.

Some of the Wells issues are:

- claiming that Wells rejects the idea that HIV causes AIDS, when all he ever did was to sign a petition asking for a reappraisal of the evidence for and against.

- claiming that the Unification Church paid for Wells's UCB PhD, when sources say the opposite.

- claiming that the Unification Church opposes evolution, when Rev. Moon said, "I don't deny the process of evolution in development".

- blaming Wells for another book from his publisher.

The above anonymous editor is apparently calling me a "conservative Intellignet Design blogger". I do have a blog, but I am not an advocate of intelligent design. Roger 03:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You've completely misrepresented the issues there. And now you've been blocked for doing it, which speaks for itself. 151.151.73.165 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was blocked for 24 hours for expressing objections to the unsupported personal attacks in the Wells biography. Yes, that speaks volumes. You can see the above issues being debated on the Talk:Jonathan Corrigan Wells page. If you have an alternate view, then post it. Roger 05:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Anderson Cooper (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Anderson Cooper (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) is in a state of near constant revert warring over speculation about his sexuality. Please can some people take a look and see who's arguments are a correct interpretation of WP:BLP?-Localzuk^(talk) 23:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• The more conservative ones, per WP:BLP. I have removed the material in question and posted my rationale at Talk:Anderson Cooper#.22This_.5Bsection.5D_is_about_Anderson_Cooper.27s_identity.2C_not_his_sex_life.22.2C_and_the_Washington_Blade (Now in Talk:Anderson Cooper/Archive 1). CyberAnth 01:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Tom Cruise (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Tom Cruise (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) contains a story originally printed in the tabloid 'The Sun' which claims that David Miscavige, current head of Church of Scientology, told Tom Cruise that he would be worshipped as a Christ-like figure. Jeff Quiros, President of the Church of Scientology of San Francisco, denies the story. So does Greg Churilov of the Scientology Parishioners' League. Since the story is about a living person, potentially libellous and poorly sourced, I edited it to delete it. It has been reverted each time. Please remove it.

I removed the material per WP:RS. I can only put the page on my watchlist and help revert. Most of that entire "biography" reads like tabloid journalism, by the way. CyberAnth 05:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

David Miscavige (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Thanks, CyberAnth. I also had the same thing (revert) happen when I edited the David Miscavige bio to remove the Sun story. Please delete it from the Miscavige bio also. Here is a link to the President of the Church of Scientology of San Francisco's denial of the whole stupid story, in case you are challenged for removing it: [1] -- 69.12.131.206 (talk • contribs) S. M. Sullivan -- 06:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. CyberAnth 08:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Tom Cruise Miscellaneous: There is a paragraph that states, " In February 2006 an article in Life & Style magazine reported that Cruise and Holmes were splitting up, but keeping up a public pretense until the spring...."

Please remove this paragraph. It is manifestly untrue, as Cruise and Holmes are now married, and spring is long gone. Moreover the sources on it are anonymous, so it's worth less than a double handful of flea dirt, IMO. 69.12.131.206 (talk • contribs) 08:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)S. M. Sullivan

Done. Let us hope it stays. CyberAnth 08:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Neil Gaiman (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Neil Gaiman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) It is continually being added to this profile that Gaiman is the son of a famous scientologist called David Gaiman, and that Neil Gaiman may have been schooled as a scientologist. This is SHEER speculation, any web references just point back at each other in some form of mobius loop, with no official or concrete proof.

There is no official sources even identifying Neil Gaiman as son of a man called David, let alone the SAME David (a common name surely!).

In closing I will add that Neil Gaiman has a very large web presence, with a blog which he writes to daily, he talks about EVERYTHING and ANYTHING, at NO point does either scientology come up, or the name David Gaiman. Yet Gaiman will often talk about his jewish/church of England roots, the fact that he himself obviously never talks about scientology, coupled with the absolute absence of andy official proof means these references should not be added. It may be true, yes certainly, but until there is proof, it must be removed. I welcome any discussion on this. Foxydavid (talk • contribs) 18:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do remove the unsourced information from Neil Gaiman's bio. It is not essential to understanding him, and may not be true. S. M. Sullivan 07:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Gary Null (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Gary Null (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Subject is a writer and broadcaster on alternative medicine. We need some advice on whether the fact that he is mentioned on the website Quackwatch can be included. And more generally on how the subject's critical views on mainstream medicine can be represented in an NPOV way.Itsmejudith 18:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Still need help! Itsmejudith 00:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The controversial aspects are treated appropriately in the article. — Athænara ✉ 13:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ismail Ayob (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Ismail Ayob (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Ismail Ayob was Nelson Mandela's lawyer but he was sued by Mandela in 2005. This high profile lawsuit was widely reported by multiple reputable South Africa media oulets, for example: [2] [3] [4][5] [6][7] [8]. However, Zayd (talk • contribs), has repeatedly removed references to the lawsuit from the article, and in 2006 did it on the Nelson Mandela article as well [9] (it has since been re-added to the Mandela article). Zayd's contributions (over the last year) seem to have mostly been about removing mention of the lawsuit from Wikipedia. Given the editing of someone who might be potentially close to the subject of the article (apparently Ayob has a son called Zayd, although that proves nothing), I think that this could get quite tricky. Should references to the lawsuit be left out? Park3r 22:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree this could get tricky. Hagiographical articles often become an embarassment to the author or subject when other editors add the "other side" of the story. If the article no longer even mentions that Ismail Ayob was Mandela's lawyer, then I would argue that it no longer shows that Ayob is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. How about {{prod}}, nn-bio? Zaian 16:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually the article did mention the lawsuit and Mandela's relationship with Ayob from the start, and wasn't a hagiography (in fact it had a rather hostile tone) [10], but then mention of the lawsuit was removed [11]. It effectively became a hagiography, and all attempts to re-add information about the lawsuit and Mandela's relationship with Ayob have been removed. Ayob was a prominent struggle lawyer and still has a high political profile (if we get rid of his article, we may as well throw George Bizos out as well). The subject is noteworthy and the article can be kept. As for the lawsuit, the details should be kept in, but the possible conflict of interest issues need to be dealt with.Park3r 17:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it did start as a hagiography - most of the early edits were anonymous by 82.111.242.71 (talk • contribs), with the first mention of Mandela and the artwork dispute coming later but being deleted by ((user|82.111.242.219}} a few minutes before the user Zayd first edited. 82.111.242.219 may not have been Zayd, but the same IP address made some unpleasant innuendo-filled edits on the George Bizos article starting on the same day. Zaian 21:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I stand corrected. Regardless, I have re-added the section on the lawsuit to the article (and added a BBC source as well), and expanded on Ayob's other anti-apartheid activities (he represented Winnie Mandela, for example), and I have tried to add some balance to the sections both in Ismail Ayob, and Nelson Mandela. It should be noted that Zayd Ayob is now quoted in the Nelson Mandela article. Park3r 21:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems some pretty wild allegations are being made and it seems to be getting personal which is unfortunate especially coming from Zaian with his or her tremendous accolades and achievements, wish we were all like him or her —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zayd (talk • contribs).

Zayd, it's nothing personal. Thanks for editing this article and the Nelson Mandela article constructively with references. I think the text you added needs to be summarised as it is currently too long, and as you are apparently an interested party, your contribution (even if well referenced) is unlikely to be entirely neutral. It's a start though - please continue to contribute positively by allowing collaborative editing to take its course. By sticking to verifiable facts, and avoiding editorial commentary and opinion, it should be possible to end up with an acceptable neutrally-presented article. Zaian (talk • contribs) 21:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Steve Kagen (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Steve Kagen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Steven Kagen went to Appleton West HS but graduated from Appleton East [unsigned, undated]

Mike Huckabee (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• Mike Huckabee (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Repeated insertion of a paragraph criticizing Mike Huckabee (a former governor of an American state with possible Presidential ambitions) for not ordering a new investigation of a criminal case. Includes no sources for any claims except a single quotation (and that source may be inadequate), and editorial statement like, "The West Memphis Three ordeal has become internationally known as a debacle of the Arkansas justice system." A.J.A. 21:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Kara Borden (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Kara Borden (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) There has been an ongoing conflict with Tommypowell (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and others over the inclusion of exact birthdates for underaged victims of crimes. My interpretation of WP:BLP is that these people are not public figures nor are they particularly notable outside of the fact that they were involved in a sensational crime, and I have been following my interpretation of policy by replacing their exact birthdays with simply their birth years. Tommypowell disagrees and has reverted my changes at Kara Borden, Shawn Hornbeck, and Shasta Groene. Any help and input would be greatly appreciated. AniMate 23:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It is near impossible to find a source for the date of birth for this article. Through much searching, only one possible link has been found which isn't even accessible to the general public due to it requiring a subscription to view. The lack of any other sources would imply to me that the birthdate is not readily available and thsu should not be included. A third party's opinion on this would be helpful. Cowman109^Talk 00:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• ) Those birthdates were put up in 2005 by other users and have been up for 2 years without complaint. I have asked you many times for language in the BLP which distinguishes between birthdates for people of different ages or different occupations (actors/musicians only as you have claimed). You have been unable to respond. Birthdates, where available, are routinely included on Wikipedia pages-there is NO exception in the BLP for alleged crime victims.
• By the way, the link is accesible to the general public without subscription-http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&safe=off&q=lancaster+new+era%22+kara+borden%22+ludwig+2+06+91&btnG=Search and again-the birthdate has been up for 2 years without complaint, posted by User Detour in 1995; not by me. Tommypowell 14:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You're correct that there's no exception in the BLP for birthdates for alleged crime victims.

There's an exception in the BLP for birthdates for *everyone* (except major public figures). WP:BLP#Privacy of birthdays

Wikipedia includes exact birthdates for some famous people, but including this information for most living people should be handled with caution. While many well-known living persons' exact birthdays are widely known and available to the public, the same is not always true for marginally notable people or non-public figures. With identity theft on the rise, it has become increasingly common for people to consider their exact date of birth to be private information. When in doubt about the notability of the person in question, or if the subject of a biography complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth rather than the exact date.

Ken Arromdee 19:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think when you have been the focus of massive international media coverage including TV appearaces and hundreds of thousands of google hits you qualify as a "well-known living person" Where your birthdate is globally available in a 10 second google search the BLP concern about "identity theft" is not present. Tommypowell 14:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that WP should have higher standards than the "massive international media". What is the value of reporting the birthdays of child victims of sex crimes? Steve Dufour 17:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I checked out these articles. In my opinion the last two, at least, should be deleted. What value does it have to give personal details about children who have been victims of sex crimes? Steve Dufour 19:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia is encyclopedic, not 'all-encompassing'. We do not need the details of each of the hornbeck sodomy charges, it's enough to list the proper number of charges filed. TO go too far in the 'gory details' of a BLP is generally frowned upon, and so should the inclusion of information which hurts no one to omit, and which probably serves more to facilitate harrassment than anything else, shouldn't be there. We wouldn't post the victim's address, and we shouldn't post their age. ThuranX 20:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Should there be an article on an individual who is notable only for being the victim of a sex crime while a child? I have no problem with an article on the perpetrator. Steve Dufour 22:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, ThuranX. I see one of the articles is gone already. Steve Dufour 22:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Richard Bridgeman, 7th Earl of Bradford (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• Richard Bridgeman, 7th Earl of Bradford (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Ghost rider1000 (talk • contribs) adds permanently two weblinks [12] and [13] which use an aggressiv and slanderous tone and seem to lead a smear campaign against the earl. Both links contradict Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. He was noticed on his talkpage, in a revert's summary and on the article's talkpage. ~~ Phoe _talk 20:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC) ~~

Leonard Weinglass (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Leonard Weinglass (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Article reads like it was written by an extremist offshoot branch of the John Birch Society. It's not just biased, but pure character assasination and right-wing extremist propaganda. Of all the NPOV violations I've seen on wikipedia, this is BY FAR the WORST, and given the lack of sourcing, exhibits a high risk of containing libellous information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.252.47.251 (talk • contribs).

The article probably should be nominated for deletion. He is not that notable unless there is something more that could be said about him. Steve Dufour 19:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

He is quite notable,and a good deal more can be said. Since he is well-known to be proud of defending leftists, even those involved with criminal activity (and as it is part of American constitutional law that lawyer defend criminal cases) , saying so does not violate BLP. Since the crimes of the accused, some of whom have been convinced, are not relevant, the refs to the WP articles on them is sufficient, and I have removed the descriptions of the crimes. DGG 21:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If things have been written about him then bring that information into the article. I am on your side. However just doing a job, and defending criminals is a lawyer's job, does not make a person notable on WP. Steve Dufour 21:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It depends somewhat on the notability of the criminals. But the refs will bring that out.DGG 22:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Leonard Weinglass, one of the country's most prominent defense lawyers since the Vietnam era, is easily notable enough for an article. As of this writing, the current version of the article contains no improper material. Newyorkbrad 00:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It could use some more references however. Steve Dufour 02:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Peter Roskam (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Peter Roskam (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) POV warriors are battling out with no winners but Roskam is the loser. Starting to read like a hit piece or campaign bio instead of an encyclopedia article. potentially false light libel issues. Please keep an eye on it. --Tbeatty 04:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd welcome as many people who understand WP:BLP as possible to come and comment on the changes to this article that are said to be based on BLP. Thanks. --BenBurch 16:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Since you asked, I've been studying WP:BLP (among other Wikipedia policies) for about a month in my spare time. Generally speaking a Wiki biography about a living person must be written conservatively. It must strictly adhere to WP:NPOV, particularly WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. A side-by-side comparison between the Peter Roskam article, and the article about any living Democratic politician you'd care to name, proves that the former is a hatchet job. Much the same can be said about the rest of the Republican congressional delegation from Illinois and, I suspect, the rest of the Republicans in Congress. Wikipedia must not be put into a position of appearing to side with the critics of a living person. Any negative information must have ironclad RS V sourcing or it must be removed without hesitation. Thanks for asking. Dino 19:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anything can be done if people supporting or opposing a candidate put in true, cited information. (The pupose of the information being to sway voters for or against the subject of the article, not to add to our intellectual understanding of that person's life or importance in history.) I think that readers are smart enough to make up their own minds anyway. Steve Dufour 20:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The information in dispute is all true and all cited in RS-V sources. And *my* goal is not to sway anybody against the congressman. He is not up for re-election for one thing. It is to make a good article. A good article ought to be the verifiable truth whether or not that makes the person out to be a saint or a sinner or (where most of us lie) somewhere in the middle. I will not allow all negative information to be removed in the name of some tortured interpretation of WP:BLP any more than I would allow the good he has done (like returning lost dog tags to vietnam vets and/or their survivors) to be removed. --BenBurch 20:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the article at hand, but there is still the "undue weight" aspect to consider, whether or not the information is verifiable. For hypothetical example, if a subject is caught peeing on the side of the road at the age of five, and there happens to be newspaper articles about it to cite, is it really important enough of an incident to rate a paragraph (or even mention at all)? - Crockspot 21:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. In this article there is "undue mass" as well as "undue weight". That is the total mass of information is way too much for a person who is not that important. Steve Dufour 21:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I would usually think that an article would have whatever was available in it since Wikipedia Is Not Paper. Is there some standard? What would you think the correct size should be? --BenBurch 21:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There is probably a policy somewhere. I would think that an ideal article could be read in one sitting and give some basic understanding of the subject and why he, she, or it is important. If every bit of information that is out there is included no one will make it to the end of the article. Steve Dufour 21:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Crockspot, you are exactly the sort of person we need on this article because you are fair and civil. Please head over there? Thanks. --BenBurch 21:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that there is at least one editor working that article who would disagree with your opinion of me vehemently, and since I have made the committment to avoid that editor if at all possible, I'll probably take a pass on your invitation. But I will try to take a look at it. - Crockspot 21:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Not me! I 'buried the axe' regarding any conflict we may have had a long time ago. Sorry if you haven't. I'd welcome your participation. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 10:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of burying the axe for me. It's the way that you (continue to) conduct yourself that I wish no part of. - Crockspot 15:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh the irony! Someone who supports and defends the Swift Boaters chastising me for my conduct! That's rich! - Fairness & Accuracy For All 15:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yet again, you prove my point for me. - Crockspot 19:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

And you, mine! - Fairness & Accuracy For All 20:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Your comments would be appreciated in any case. --BenBurch 22:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Congressmen are up for re-election every two years. Otherwise I agree with what you say.  :-) Steve Dufour 20:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, you have me there, but the campaigning is a year off at this point. --BenBurch 20:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Congressmen such as Roskam are already fundraising and picking out key campaign staff. Serving in the House means constantly preparing for the next election. Dino 23:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Really Dino? Fundraising is highly regulated by the FEC. Unless he has a federally registered 08 campaign, fundraising for 08 would be illegal. You're claiming he has a FEC 08 campaign in place, Dino? Another one of your 'claims', eh Dino? - Fairness & Accuracy For All 10:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think he was making a general comment that in a democracy politicians are always "up for re-election." Steve Dufour 17:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the article is being edited by people with political agendas. This shows how powerful WP has become if they think the best way they can influence the outcome of an election is to edit a WP article. Barack Obama's article is about the same. I don't think there is anything that can be done about it, unless you want to get in on one side or the other that is. Cheers. Steve Dufour 19:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent update: A new consensus has developed on this article. This is a freshman congressman with one month of service, whose article was ten times as long as the article about Dan Burton, a controversial 12-term congressman from a neighboring state. Pursuant to the directives of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV#Undue_weight, I went through the article with a chainsaw and then Propol and Tbeatty went over it with a scalpel and a pair of tweezers. The result is a reasonably good article, even though it's still four times as long as Dan Burton. I've nominated it for Good Article status. Dino 03:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Samuel_Hook (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Samuel Hook (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) I'm new to this, but this is my brother-in-law. Yes, he has some links with Abramoff, but I find it unneccessary to see that Sam has its own Wiki page. Is it possible to nuke it in its entiretiy? [unsigned]

Legitimate question: Would that be because it paints a less than favourable picture of Sam? Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 20:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I made a small change for the sake of fairness. I wonder how long it will take for it to be deleted. Steve Dufour 06:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Mel Gibson DUI incident (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Mel Gibson DUI incident (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) There is a very interesting debate taking place on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mel Gibson DUI incident AFD discussion page regarding breakout articles on controversial incidents in the lives of living people. I think editors involved with the biography project may be interested in weighing in on this. Cleo123 02:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

John Travolta (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

John Travolta (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) My 'Family' section cleanup attempt has been reverted by some unknown person. I added the year he and Kelly Preston were married and the names of their kids. My source was the wiki bio on Kelly Preston. I also deleted the parts about Jett having untreated autism because the sources were Operation Clambake,( an anti-Scientology message board), and a couple of gossip media. Not reliable sources. Some of the allegations were not sourced at all. All that I deleted were potential legal trouble for Wiki. Please consider blocking the editor who reverted to remove my changes, and protect this bio if you agree with my changes. 69.12.131.206 03:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)S. M. Sullivan

• Just off the cuff, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so unless there is a RS cited for marriage date and children's names in the Preston article, that info is not reliably sourced. Children's names are particularly sensitive, unless they are already notable themselves. (If there is an RS in the Preston article, it should be used directly in the Travolta article, not cite the Preston article.) - Crockspot 15:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I had previously raised concerns about the "Family" section of John Travolta which User:69.12.131.206 was trying to address, and I appreciate that. [14] The best solution would be to find an independent, reliable source to support the marriage date and children's names. Generally there is no attempt to keep secret the names of children of celebrities on the level of Travolta, so I don't see a problem with identifying the children's names in this article. However, the allegation that one of Travolta's children has untreated autism has not been properly sourced and so I do see a problem under WP:BLP with continuing to include that in the article, as some editors apparently want to include it. --Metropolitan90 00:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It is Tilman who keeps reverting my attempts to correct the Travolta article and other articles too. He has an anti-Scientology website that he has linked to the bios of a few Scientologists. I consider that he is using Wikipedia articles to get more hits on his website. What to do? It is impossible for me to imagine good faith on his part. S. M. Sullivan 07:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)S. M. Sullivan

Mark Ebner is an award winning investigative journalist. Just because he writes about Hollywood doesn't make his website "gossip". His article is credible; the "Kawasaki syndrome through carpet cleaning" that Travolta is telling isn't. I am therefore restoring it. --Tilman 07:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Eben Pagan (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• Eben Pagan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Negative information about this (non-notable, but let's ignore that for now) individual is sourced only to messageboard posts. Edit-warring is ongoing to keep said information in the article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Michael Langan (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Christopher Michael Langan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) This article is being used to harass the bio subject. Some of the content in the article and history is potentially libellous. Please see the article talk page for complaints from the subject of the article. DrL 16:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Shawn Hornbeck (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• Shawn Hornbeck (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Do we really need to mention the specific and embarassing details of the crime comitted on this man in the lede? 'In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm"'// Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I took the word out and it was put right back with the justification that it was cited. I don't think there should be articles on child victims of sex crimes at all. Steve Dufour 18:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Bill Belichick (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Bill Belichick (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) * There is a plethora of potentially libelous material being perpetuated on Belichick's biography page, including criticisms that, although cited somewhat correctly, are not Wiki in format and are not verifiable. Also, they are borderline libelous. As an aside, look at every other NFL coach's wiki page and find a "Criticisms" section. Oh yeah, right. None to be found. WStewart07 05:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Mae-Wan Ho (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Mae-Wan Ho (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) *Needs a good clean up and verification. Editing on the article is not active, but the mess that is there needs sorting out.--Peta 09:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Mansoor Ijaz (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Mansoor Ijaz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) I'm not sure if this is the right place to report this but I think someone should take a look at this edit [15]  YDAM TALK 17:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• There is really a problem here of hostile reverts and implied legal threats. Admin action requested - DGG 00:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• I added a proposed deletion template to the article. -- Jreferee 18:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• I deleted the tag and worked to improve the article. It seems to be pretty much NPOV right now and satisfy BLP policy. But everyone is very welcome to improve it further. Biophys 16:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Stephanie McIntosh (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Stephanie McIntosh (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Someone should read this while it is probably right also very offensive

• I removed the section that seemed improperly sourced, per WP:NOR and WP:BLP. Crum375 04:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• I removed a sentence for BLP violation and added one fact template. The article now seems to read OK as far as BLP issues go. -- Jreferee 17:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Neil Warnock (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Neil Warnock#Disputes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Regarding the "Disputes" section of the above article. Sub-sectioned "Players", "Managers", "Referees" and "Fans". Whilst it could be said to be entertaining, most of the information contained within these headings, and in some cases relating directly to other living persons who are themselves the subject of biographical Wikipedia articles, is typical 'I heard it somewhere', although qualified(?) with a range of pre-cursors such as (quote): "he is said to have commented", "involved claims that", "apparently", "is said to have", and "many Forest fans have accused him of". It remains spectacularly unsourced.

Quoting Jimmy Wales: "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."

Quoting Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy: "Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages."

Removing any of this information 'aggressively' is not an option for me, as I have already tried to edit the page in a sensible manner, and got reverted immediately. A hard-core of editors appears to exist in watching this article.

If you are happy with the nature of the prose in the Neil Warnock article, then I apologise for wasting your time. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 01:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Overall it is a rather stupid article. But then Warnock seems hard-headed enough so that his feelings will not be hurt. :-) Steve Dufour 13:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Normally, I probably would agree; however, we don't make assumptions as such in Wikipedia do we? Citations have been asked for. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 11:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Georgie Thompson (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Georgie Thompson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Davesmith33 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) is repeatedly entering information which does not have a reliable source. // Bladeofgrass 20:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Phil Dowd‎ (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Article (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) This is another soccer-related biography which says much under a section called "Criticisms", but is told in a prosaic, non-NPOV style, obviously based on hearsay, and citing no sources. IMO, It paints a dubious picture of the subject of the biography.

Again, if you disagree, please disregard. I have presented on the Talk page for this article. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 23:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This can be closed, as the Criticisms section has been removed by a bold editor. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 11:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Then re-instated! Ho-hum. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 22:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Srebrenica massacre (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• Srebrenica massacre (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - In the article (and on its talk page), editors Opbeith, Bosniak, Emir_Arven and potentially others are repeatedly reinserting allegations or innuendo that the head of the UN peace keeping force, Canadian General Lewis Mackenzie visited Serbian "rape camps" where he was delivered with Bosnian women and raped them. This is an absolutely absurd charge that is rooted in propaganda rather than reality; Mackenzie has very publicly questioned much of the reporting surrounding the Srebrenica Massacre and calling or suggesting that he's a rapist is a way to discredit him. To me, this looks like ad hominem at its worst and potentially libelous to boot. -- Mgunn 19:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, among its editors, the article has a number of Serbian revisionists and siege mentality Bosnians that have made rational discussion and rational editting extraordinarly difficult. It feels a little bit like an online version of the Yugoslav wars... make the other side look as bad as possible without getting banned by Wikipedia editors. -- Mgunn (talk • contribs)

Richard Littlejohn (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Richard Littlejohn (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) I edited this article to remove a large number of unsourced controversial statements, which are plainly unacceptable under WP:BLP. However a number of users have insisted on reverting these edits, with one user describing them as a "whitewash". 217.34.39.123 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Much of what is being disputed is sourced and acceptable under WP:BLP, much of it is unsourced but not particularly negative, and some of it looks like attempts to build up 'guilt by association'. Needs more thorough investigation. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• This is the sort of article that will continue to hold WP up to libel until WP:BLP is strengthened. CyberAnth 07:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?] and related articles

Lyndon LaRouche (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) These articles are being used to showcase the theories of three minor critics, Chip Berlet, Dennis King, and Tim Wohlforth. These three all have similar views, which are esoteric and out of the mainstream. It would be proper to devote perhaps one paragraph to their shared theories. However, two of them are editors at Wikipedia: Cberlet (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Dking (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), and they are very aggressive about promoting themselves and their viewpoints in these articles, and apparently in other articles as well. I believe that some of their allegations may be libellous, but because they have been published (or in some cases self-published) it is argued that they must be included in the articles. They also have friends at Wikipedia who support them (as seen elsewhere on this page.) I think at the very least there are violations of WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. --Tsunami Butler 15:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

These three all have similar views, which are esoteric and out of the mainstream. Both Cberlet and Dking are published authors, based on their user pages (and following a link); I suspect they can recognize libel when the see it, before they put it in writing. And it's pretty clear that Cberlet and Dking think that LaRouche is, well, to put it mildly, a bit unusual. Which would tend to make their opinions on that matter the mainstream view, actually.

It would help if you provided some diffs here (or even specific wording that bothers you), rather than broad generalities. Details will give other editors a much better idea of what you consider "esoteric" and what you think might be "libellous". (As far as undue weight, that's really a matter for talk/discussion pages of articles, unless an edit war breaks out.) John Broughton | Talk 21:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, these three authors allege that LaRouche is a fascist and that he is in favor or some sort of totalitarian state. I consider this possibly libelous because LaRouche has campaigned for over 35 years against fascism. These three make insinuations, without offering evidence beyond a technique of "decoding" where Dennis King, for example, says that photographs of galaxies that appear in LaRouche-affiliated science publications remind him of swastikas. Wohlforth equates support for government regulation of the economy a la FDR with support for a totalitarian state.

LaRouche has mainstream critics, of course, but they generally criticize him for being a conspiracy theorist, and do not accuse him of conspiring to bring about dictatorship or, as Dennis King does, having a "dream of world conquest." I think that one would have to draw the conclusion that King, Berlet and Wohlforth are themselves conspiracy theorists, and their ideas might deserve some mention, but not a central place in a biographical article. --Tsunami Butler 22:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is a diff from yesterday, where Cberlet inserts his own libelous allegations into the intro of the article. --Tsunami Butler 15:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Similar material was added by Dking here in the midst of a rather extensive re-write, and when the potentially libelous material was removed, it was re-added by Phil Sandifer here. --Tsunami Butler 22:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The general case has already been resolved in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche_2 Dennis King is a respected and published author on LaRouche, and Wikipedia is lucky to have him working on the article. Why is Tsunami Butler publishing on every possible noticeboard then? Because Tsunami Butler is simply another LaRouche follower who is attempting to whitewash any negative fact about LaRouche. Please be cautious when reading any statement of Tsunami Butler because many of them are simply incorrect. Mgunn 19:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The Arbcom com case cited by Mgunn was closed in February of 2005. Dking did not register as a user until June of 2005. The WP:BLP policy was first drafted in December of 2005, so BLP issues were never raised in the ArbCom case. Mgunn's interest appears to be POV-oriented, as his edits and comments demonstrate that he is a defender of the neoconservatives (as are King and Berlet,) and LaRouche is an outspoken opponent of same. As I understand it, WP:BLP policy applies universally to articles on living persons. --Tsunami Butler 15:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Tahir-ul-Qadri (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• Tahir-ul-Qadri (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - completely unsourced and a major cleanup project. The article is periodically subject to the insertion of an opinionated paragraph deriding this individual's teachings and linking to a youtube video. --BigDT 07:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

2006 corruption scandals in Chile (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• 2006 corruption scandals in Chile (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) New, well referenced article with much potentially libelous text. The references are in Spanish, which I cannot read to determine whether the statements are true. The article may need someone to review it who reads Spanish. Thanks. -- Jreferee 01:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yoshiaki Omura (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• Yoshiaki Omura (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) This article is a biography of a living person in which the content is clearly disputed. While it is protected from editing and correction, false and misleading, poorly sourced, irresponsible and potentially libelous material is being exhibited, and Dr. Omura's reputation is being damaged. This is unacceptable. I have repeatedly removed such material and it was repeatedly replaced, and now I am disabled from editing the article though I am not unregistered or newly registered. PLEASE HELP. We should not need a law firm to help us remove such material.

Sincerely, Telomere+ Telomere+ 07:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of the statements in the article are indeed negative to Dr Omura, but these statements appear to be clearly referenced. What do you mean by "poorly sourced"? Andrew Dalby 13:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I have explained in some detail in Dr. Omura's article discussion section what I mean by poorly sourced, with examples, prior to removing any poorly sourced portions. My explanation was removed. Why? The main body of this Yoshiaki Omura article seems to have been put together by a person who acts like Dr. Omura's enemy and wishes to damage his reputation. To someone who knows Dr. Omura and works with him, as I do, the negative statements are obviously false and placed with an intent to damage. Please read my explanation in the "my talk" section of Telomere+.

In addition, some references found to contain erroneous information have been changed by their owners already, with apologies to Dr. Omura, and are outdated. My goal is not just to remove the poorly referenced and obviously false information that misleads people, but to publish the truth. As I stated, I have not newly registered; why preclude me from the right to remove damaging untrue material according to Wikipedia policy? Please do not refuse to enforce the relevant Wikipedia Policy in this case. Telomere (talk • contribs) 02:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

BDORT (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

BDORT (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• I have placed a request at WP:AE regarding the below discussion. -- Jreferee 17:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC) → (Now in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive4#User:Richardmalter.)

BDORT (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Please take a thorough and careful look at this, as I believe it is clearly defamatory and anti BLP when inspected closely: [16] and [17] . I am representing Dr Yoshiaki Omura on wikipedia with his permission. There have already been malicious defamatory statments about him removed by an Admin[18]. I believe the editor, Crum375, left as the sole editor of this entry is biased against Dr Omura/BDORT as I have outlined here [19] . I requested the Arbitration that has just closed and which decided I am banned from editing the article. Be that as is, it has been confirmed and remedied [20] that the version that was edit warred over for months, including by 'Crum375', against my repeated reversions of it and my support of the stub by the last Mediator in order to end the protracted edit war - contained BLP defamatory information. I know that the remaining BLP information I refer to in the article is presented in a not obvious way, but this subtlety does not lessen the BLP issues one bit, nor the lack of basic accuracy; protracted discussions by me about the points raised with this editor are fruitless. I am trying to prevent further real life damage (which has already happened and which the ArbCom has acknowledged privately to me due to privacy issues) and continuing BLP problems remaining. Thanks.Richardmalter 14:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Richardmalter has just been banned by ArbCom from the BDORT article, Talk page and related pages. The issues he refers to are described in detail in the Arb case (which he brought), and the case was decided against him, as he clearly has a conflict of interest and has edited the article tendentiously and disruptively for months, and was blocked for 3RR several times. As far as the specific issues, since the Arb case, we have modified the BDORT entry to focus on the actual diagnostic procedure and not its inventor. We have a well sourced article, with careful regard for WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP as well as due weight. I welcome a review of this article and comments, and would be happy to improve it while adhering to WP's rules. Thanks, Crum375 22:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Crum375, is there a WP policy about you tracking my every comment on WP or the like? I find it like stalking.

Richardmalter (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

To others here, Please note the ArbCom as it does ruled on 'behaviour' as they saw it not content, which was not addressed. An admin unrelated to the ArbCom case deleted the defamotory material championed by Crum375 et at. I have three times set out the problem I refer to here above, and three times Crum375 has replied in a generalized way that has not addressed the actual problem whatsoever. There is a continued resistance to any cooperation without Admin intervention, andthis editor has also edit warred with the last Mediator. Please also note that this is due to the supra-WP bias of this editor as documented by me with diffs in the Arb case and confirmed in his view by the last Mediator. Crum375's bias was revealed here: "Be also aware . . potential WP readers . .will rely on BDORT . . with possible dire consequences" [[21]]. And as CheNuevara (last Mediator) commented on this: "What you say . . . does express your opinion of the matter pretty clearly"[CheNuevara 00:10, 4 October 2006][22]. There is much more to this than seems. Thanks.Richardmalter 01:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Richard, 'stalking' would be if I followed you around to different unrelated articles. AFAIK, following your posted comments and responding to them on an Admin's Talk page, or on a noticeboard, where you are addressing the same topic and the same article, is the proper and expected behavior of a good wikipedian.

ArbCom has reviewed everything you mention above - you presented it all during that case. They ruled that you edit tendentiously and have a conflict of interest, and unanimously banned you from the article, its Talk page, and all related pages. I suggest we focus on the actual issues. The BDORT article is available to all for review and comments. Again, I would be happy to have neutral editors review it and suggest improvements, if any. Thanks, Crum375 01:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you do not focus on issues raised. You respond in generalized ways that do not actually address points made. And to reiterate, you are the ONLY editor I have been involved with - amongst numerous Admins/Mediators etc who NEVER accepts any of my suggestions - and only accepts changes with outside 'pressure' or Admin ruling. You have also as a matter of documented fact been directly party to real world harm to a living person by your actions of defending and editwarring and reverting pro the defamatory version for many months against me, an Admin, and a mediator - all who are completely neutral, that the Admin SlimVirgin deleted straightaway as as soon as I pointed out the WP:OR defamatory statements in it, that you advocated for repeatedly. You were 'deaf' to all my requests in this regard. That means your record in terms of WP:BLP is extremely poor regardless of your intentions ... Outside help is therefore certainly needed because of this, and your very poor WP:BLP record, with this entry. I may have a conflict of interest technically, but this does not change any actual event, or fact noted here. Richardmalter 03:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Richard, the statements you make about me above, that "as a matter of documented fact been directly party to real world harm to a living person by your actions" can easily be seen as personal attack on me. If you have such documented proof, please present it. Otherwise, please focus on the issues at hand. As far as the more substantive points you make, you have presented all of them to ArbCom during the case you initiated, that was just closed. They reviewed all your points, and decided that your edits are tendentious and that you have a conflict of interest, and unanimously decided to ban you from BDORT and related pages. Since the case was closed, we have revised the article to focus on the procedure and not its inventor. It is well sourced and meets all of WP's requirements, including WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP as well as due weight. If any neutral editor would like to review this article and suggest improvements, s/he would be more than welcome. Thanks, Crum375 04:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest, as has Crum375, above, that anyone concerned with Richardmalter's assertions consult the record of ArbCom re Yoshiaki Omura, of whom Richard Malter is a proponent, as well as the entry itself. These, I would think, speak with startling clarity for themselves, as does the persistent disposition to personal attack, innuendo, and threat, of Yoshiaki Omura's advocates. GenghizRat 04:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

GhengizRat, the defamatory statements on Omura that you wrote and edited and tried to support with many references and arguments have been Admin deleted. Crum375, again you do not actually' address the actual' points raised. You defended a version tenaciously that you championed with many arguments over many months that contained the clear defamatory statements on Omura that clearly violated WP:BLP, that have been Admin deleted, at my request. That's the factual record.Richardmalter 03:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Quod erat demonstrandum. GenghizRat 05:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I think the article is improving (re WP:BLP). But there are still serious (BLP) issues remaining. The first is as follows. If WP is representing the work of a living person, then the representation of their work has to be accurate. I realize all the WP editors here are non-experts but basic journalist/encyclopedic standards need to be maintained - especially since Dr Omura is a living person. Dr Omura's devloped technique, the BDORT, is currently described and explained almost totally inaccurately throughout the article. I have gone through many other WP articles on science and other technical subjects and there seems to be no problem giving accurate information in WP, so I am insisting that this article describing the work of a living person also has the same basic level of accuracy in description of the BDORT. Please see for a correct description: [23] especially the section: '3. Finding the right fingers for the Test' NB. "A correct match of fingers is able to give a reliable Bi-Digital O-Ring Test, if it satisfies all three conditions." - ie this is the so-callled 'three conditions for reproducibility'. Without this, the technique is NOT BDORT BY DEFINITION (because BDORT is said to be reproducible, repeatable). WPedians have to be reasonable reporters as well. Currently the article contains correct information but which is fragmented. If you ask why did the Patent Office initially refuse the application (which they did - as correctly noted in the article), it was because they said it was subjective. So Omura got the Affidavits (uploaded to WP and public docs available from the Patent Office for $25) to show that it was objective. Currently the 'threads' of the report are not linked narratively or accurately. But again, most of all, and please focus on this point, regardless of the poor 'narrative' currently, the actual description of the BDORT given is totally inaccurate. You will see also then if you read the correct description I point to above, the idea that the "forefinger" is used by the testee - as currently reported repeatedly in the article, is also completely inaccurate. Can we just get a basic accurate description please.Richardmalter 03:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Richard, this is clearly a non-BLP issue, and hence this is the wrong page and forum. But addressing your point about the BDORT technique nonetheless, I did use the language from Omura's patent abstract. Although it's not as detailed as the one you describe, I think it's sufficiently detailed for our readers. They can always follow the links to Omura's writings and get more detail if they wish, about the exact finger selection, decision criteria, etc. Crum375 03:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Crum, this is a very BLP issue - VERY misdescribing the technique developed by a living person (for which by re-adjusting the page to focus on this very technique even more so makes this a big problem) is clearly a BLP issue. I cannot see why your resistance to a simple accurate description!. I do not see what problem you have with this. As usual you are for whatever reason "resistant" to any change, I propose - even though many other Admins/mediators/Editors have found ways to easily justify and incorporate those necessary edits I have asked for. It needs to be done in this instance, straightaway. Your record is that of defending and edit warring for many months a blatant BLP violation version which was eventually Admin deleted. I ask you now again not to continue in this vein.Richardmalter 10:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Because a technique was developed by someone who is living does not make a description of that technique, accurate or not, a BLP issue. That's making a mockery of BLP. Additionally, merely because affidavits were made to the USPTO that something is "repeatable" or "objective" -- that does not make that a fact either, even if those arguments were accepted by USPTO and a patent granted. Patent filings are primary documents, and any claim stated in them is simply that: a CLAIM. Quatloo 10:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Quatloo, hello; I follow what you are saying, and generally I would say the same as you. However in this specific case Dr Omura and colleagues are saying that the BDORT is repeatable and objective - and that that is a key characteristic feature of it. Right up front (even for a minute ignoring the current technical misrepresentation), the article says "subjective". This is immediately an editorial POV, and moreso a POV comment on the work of a living person that is contradictory to the statements that living person makes about his specific work described in this article. That makes this instance a very BLP issue. To repeat, a WP editor is saying something contradictory regarding a technique to what the living person says about this, their technique! Even if, as I know, some non-expert third-party citations use the word "subjective", to include that and not to include even as claims, the statements of Dr Omura and colleagues about the reproducibility and objectivity of the technique, is also clear POV editing, ie selectively patching together an article that has a definite bias/opinion. But even beginning from a correct technical description (which no reasonable WPedian/person could argue against having in the article), the three conditions for reproducibility must be included otherwise what is described is not BDORT - and no one can argue with Omura about what BDORT is or isn't (though value assigned to it is another thing). And so even with this approach, we end up back at the same point. Thanks.Richardmalter 11:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Statements about a technique are just that, statements about the technique, and not about the individual who invented it. To say otherwise would mean reporting a criticism of a book, film, TV show, etc. would be also bring BLP into play and thus stifle almost all discussion of any contemporary creation. BLP was not intended for such cases, and cannot be reasonably applied. Quatloo 14:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

One other point, and I don't mean this to apply specifically about BDORT, since I am ignorant of it and have no opinion regarding its validity. If a topic is overwhelmingly acknowledged as quackery by the scientific community at large, it is not POV to report it being quackery while devoting no time to the opposing viewpoint. Fringe views need not be presented at all. POV would be presenting the fringe as anything except the fringe. Quatloo 14:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Quatloo, I do follow and agree with what you are saying re techniques etc. The problem here is I think though different: there is a discursive 'statement', or description, that is not citated, written by an editor that is completely contradictory to and summarily and conclusively dismissive of the claims made for the technique by its developer and colleagues (that can be citated). So it is not a question of reporting a negative criticism here that you comment on. It is an editorial expression/POV that contradicts the citatable material and which completely dismisses the key aspect of the work - described by his descriptions - of the developer of the technique. Richardmalter 21:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No argument you have raised brings BLP into play. If a technique's description (accurate or not, that is not important here) impacts BLP then we are dealing with a subject that is outside the realm of science and very much inside the realm of personality cult. *If* BLP applies, the subject is pseudoscience. Quatloo 09:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Allison Munn (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Allison Munn (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) I keep going to Allison Munn, to find someone keeps saying that she is engaged, well... she is not! So who ever is putting this, IMDB.com is very trustworthy, and is claiming cleared that "she single"! Teddey (talk • contribs) 19:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Jenna Bush, Barbara Pierce Bush, Al Gore III

Jenna Bush (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Barbara Pierce Bush (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Al Gore III (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

There's a long-term tit-for-tat war going on between editors of these articles. The cycle goes something like this:

1. Editor "Dem" (not real username) adds detailed info about Bush twins drug/alcohol arrests to their respective articles.
2. Editor "Rep" complains, but can't get consensus to remove the material. In retaliation, they add info about Al Gore III's drug/alcohol arrests to the Al Gore III article (which is basically just a stub).
3. Editor "Dem" complains, but can't get consensus to remove the material. Stalemate.
4. Editor "Admin" removes material from all the articles citing WP:BLP.
5. Repeat.

I'm giving up on this one. If anyone else wants to give it a shot, be my guest. Kaldari 00:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete all three articles? :-) Steve Dufour 19:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No, not really. MER-C 11:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Will Young (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Will Young (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) There have been several attempts to vandalise Will Young's biography with homophobic remarks. Luckily another member has reverted to the original material Gill P (talk • contribs) 22:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again there have been attempts to vandalism this biography with homophobic remarks. Again they have been removed. There has also been some editing removing some perfectly legitmate reviews of his theatre debut. They have been restored. Gill P 14:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

George Voinovich (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

George Voinovich (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) A lot of unsourced and speculative claims in this article. Crockspot 05:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Michael Langan (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Christopher Michael Langan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) There are several people sitting on this article reverting to a contentious version relying on irresponsible sources (sourcing a contentious crackpot without credentials or credibility). I've removed that source, and so have several others during the last few weeks, but these edits have been are reverted. Looking at the recent edits, some of the editors seems to have a personal investment. One is so off the wall ("Felonious Monk") that he may even be the crackpot in question as he seems overly involved in the article and obsessed or preoccupied with the Langan fellow. I've heard about the feud these two have had for the last 10 years or so. Seems like wikipedia is being used in a personal vendetta. It would probably be best to err on the side of caution here and warn the editors to be more careful. Denn Blake

What we seem to have here is several editors working in tandem to blackwash an article. This isn't the first time I've seen something like this in a bio here. Denn

David Cash, Jr. (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

David Cash, Jr. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) This has been changed a few times to libel another person with a similar name. The claims about a positive photo ID and attending Berkeley are false. Can we fix this more permanently? 76.17.126.213 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Shane MacGowan (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Shane MacGowan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Full of technically potentially libellous comment. I ve commented in more detail on the comments talk page through the tag but not sure if anyone goes there. Thank you High Heels on Wet Pavement 00:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Robert Prechter (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Robert Prechter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) I've added documented material (from the Wall Street Journal, Fortune, etc.) to the article on Robert Prechter. Prechter's employee, User:Rgfolsom keeps on reverting the material. Please note that this article is currently involved in a lengthy request for arbitration involving both Rgfolsom and myself. Smallbones 14:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Article is at issue in a current Arbitration case. User:Smallbones is posting non-factual and defamatory remarks about the subject, including ridicule and name calling ("voodoo," "looniness"). This is not in keeping with a biography written in a neutral, encyclopedic tone, is potentially libelous, and violates WP:BLP, a policy that the Arbitration committee has strongly reaffirmed in a recent ruling. Have twice removed the offending material in the past 30 minutes. Requesting administrator intervention. Thank you.--Rgfolsom 14:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Careful with your facts! That's 3 times you've reverted this article in about an hour. Smallbones 15:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Mark Oaten (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Mark Oaten (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) has been a battleground of sorts for an allegation of coprophilia only sourced to a satire mag. It appears a reliable source may have also picked up on it now, but I already got burned once on British sources and don't want to get burned again, so if a few people could review it so I'm not the only one watching it, that'd be great. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Wretström (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Daniel Wretström (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Daniel Wretström (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) This article is a violation of the Swedish personal data law [24] since the killers name has not been published in Swedish journalistic media and I don't think it has been published in media outside Sweden. Therefore the article of the supposed killer has been deleted from Swedish Wikipedia [25] (sv:Wikipedia:Sidor föreslagna för radering/Khaled Odeh). His name should therefore be deleted from all versions of this article that mention it. //StefanB sv 09:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If you know it's in violation of any Law, remove it immediately, don't post here! Ask Jimbo. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 12:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It isn't violating any laws. Only US jurisdiction applies on en.wikipedia.org -- not Swedish. To say otherwise means the extreme -- you consent to enforce Islamic law (as specified by Iran), etc. an all US wikipedia servers, and so forth. Quatloo 13:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If the killer's name hasn't been published anywhere, isn't it a violation of BLP, not because it's illegal in Sweden, but simply because it contains unsourced negative statements? If you're going to state that someone is a killer, BLP requires a source. Ken Arromdee 18:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the Odeh sentence as it violated BLP. -- Jreferee 02:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Mike Honda (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Mike Honda (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Can someone please take a look at this article? One (or more?) Japanese anonymous editor keeps adding some obscure conspiracy theory and subtle racism, flatly contradicted by reputable English article. ThreesCompany (talk • contribs) 17:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Tom Coburn (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Tom Coburn (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) A small section of this article, "Sterilization controversy," is, in my POV unnecessary because it contains an unsubstantiated charge; a legal case was filed, but then dismissed with no further action. Several users have attempted to delete this section, but it keeps getting restored. We would appreciate your looking into this matter. Thank you. ProfessorPaul 00:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)