Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

Shortcut: WP:BLP/N WP:BLPN

This noticeboard is for reporting and discussing Biographies of living people policy issues which require outside intervention. These may include disputes with tendentious editors and cases where outside persons are repeatedly adding problematic material over a longer period of time.

It is not for simple vandalism or material which can easily be removed without argument. If you can, simply remove the offending material.

For general content disputes regarding biographical articles consider using Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies.

All Wikipedia editors are encouraged to assist fellow editors regarding the reports below.

Please make your comments as concise as possible. Fellow editors and administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes.

Please familiarize yourself with the Biographies of living people policy before reporting issues here.

Please note that edits by the subject of the article may be welcome in some cases.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Biographies of living persons
• Wikipedia:Three-revert rule#Reverting potentially libellous material

Please add new incident reports at the BOTTOM of this page. Sign your post with "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp. IMPORTANT - do not copy and paste any defamatory or libelous information to this noticeboard. Please link to a diff showing the dispute, but do not paste the information here.

To report a possible BLP violation

• Please make sure that your report really belongs here. Common vandalism should not be reported here; instead, revert it yourself and warn the user; if it recurs, report it at WP:AIV. If an article is being persistently vandalized, request page protection.
• Create a new section with the article name

  =={{subst:Blpwatch|Article name}}==

• Describe the dispute using the following format:

  * {{article|article name}} - brief explanation // ~~~~   or

  * {{userlinks|username}} - brief explanation // ~~~~

• Add new entries at the bottom of the page.

To close an incident

• Use {{subst:Blpt|[[article name]]|RESOLUTION|~~~~~}} and {{subst:Blpb}} to close an incident that has been completely resolved and no longer requires outside intervention.
• Any issue that has not been edited for 15 days may be copied to the appropriate archive page.

Contents 1 Peter Bucknell (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?] 2 Christopher Michael Langan (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?] 3 Stephen Barrett (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?] 4 David Gaiman (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?] 5 Howard K. Stern (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?] 6 Daniel Pipes (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?] 7 Patrick Haseldine (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?] 8 Peter Dobbie (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?] 9 David Hicks (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?] 10 Derek Smart (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?] 11 Darius J Pearce (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?] 12 Talk:John_T._Reed 13 Muhammad al-Durrah (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?] 14 WP:BLPC 15 T. Padmanabhan (Writer) (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?] 16 Louise Lanctôt (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?] 17 David Miscavige 18 Casey Serin (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?] 19 Bob Clark (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?] 20 Paul Bérenger (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?] 21 John Cornyn (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?] 22 Ted Nugent (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?] 23 Glenn Greenwald (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?] 24 Antony Flew (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?] 25 Straight, Incorporated (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

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

• Article: Peter Bucknell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• User: Peterbucknell (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Note: I have tagged Peter Bucknell first as a {{db-bio}}, later as a {{db}} with a reason, but in both cases it got detagged. The article was earlier deleted, AFAIK because it was created by the subject of the article, and now has been recreated again by the person who is the subject of the article. I will leave it for now, could someone else have a look at the article, the editor, and the subject. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

At least some of this seems to be sourceable to sources outside of self-published ones, although we are dealing with a prolific self-publicist here (it's arguable that this is a useful trait for a musician to develop, of course). Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Although the claim to having been 'Viola Professor' at the Crane School of Music disguises the fact that he was simply an Assistant Professor, which is a more minor position. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

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

I question whether the section in question was libelous but it was absolutely and without question a violation of WP:NOR, and an excellent example of why NOR is such an important rule in Wikipedia. Interpretation of complex evidence from original sources is extremely difficult and dangerous, which is why we must avoid it, and especially in WP:WLP situations.--Jimbo Wales 12:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

There is currently an ongoing dispute in relation to potentially libelous material in this entry. That the material is potentially libelous has been argued by four editors: Asmodeus, DrL, Sheerfirepower, and FNMF. User Asmodeus is the subject of the entry; DrL is the wife of the subject. Other editors disagree that the material is libelous. Asmodeus and DrL are presently banned from editing the entry. In my opinion, not only is the material potentially libelous, being a one-sided representation of an uncontested lawsuit, but the material is totally non-notable and unimportant in relation to the subject of the entry. For these reasons I believe the section should be deleted. The editors that disagree have a clear antipathy toward the subject of the entry for several reasons, and I do not believe they are in an objective position to judge the issue, despite some of them being long-term editors of Wikipedia. It is my opinion that the bad faith of many of the editors of this entry extends far beyond the particular issue I have raised here, and constitutes a campaign in violation of Wikipedia's official policy in relation to living persons.

I believe the potential libelousness of this section of the entry has been raised in this forum previously by user DrL. But whatever was the outcome of that process, the current state of the dispute is unsatisfactory.

I wish to point out that I have no association with Langan, am not a proponent of his ideas, and am not a proponent of intelligent design (with which he has been linked, a link he insistently contests). But I am appalled at the editing which has afflicted this entry.

As is the way with these things, there are an endless number of potentially relevant diffs. Here, however, are the diffs I consider to be the most critical:

• 1. Asmodeus: original request for removal of potentially libelous material
• 2. Response by Arthur Rubin
• 3. Response by Asmodeus
• 4. Opinion of Sheerfirepower
• 5. Sheerfirepower
• 6. Response of FeloniousMonk
• 7. Further comment by Sheerfirepower
• 8. Opinion of FNMF
• 9. Edit deleting section by FNMF
• 10. Reversion of deletion by Arthur Rubin
• 11. Comment on reversion by FNMF, indicating all the violations of official policy by editors of the entry
• 12. Undoing reversion by FNMF
• 13. Comment by Guettarda
• 14. Reversion of deletion by Guettarda
• 15. Comment on reversion by FNMF
• 16. Undoing of reversion by FNMF
• 17. Comment by Guettarda on User talk: FNMF
• 18. Reversion of deletion by Arthur Rubin
• 19. Comment by Guettarda
• 20. Comment by FNMF on User talk: Guettarda
• 21. Comment by Guettarda on User talk: FNMF
• 22. Comment by FNMF on Langan talk page
• 23. Comment by FNMF on User talk: Guettarda
• 24. Comment by Guettarda on User talk: FNMF
• 25. Comment by FeloniousMonk on Langan talk page
• 26. Comment by Guettarda on User talk: FNMF
• 27. Comment by Arthur Rubin on Langan talk page
• 28. Comment by FNMF on User talk: FeloniousMonk
• 29. Response by FNMF to Arthur Rubin's comment on talk page
• 30. Note left for Jimmy Wales explaining circumstances of the dispute

I hope this helps make the issue clear. I believe this is a serious and ongoing policy violation with potential legal consequences. I believe outside assessment is necessary, given the antipathy to the subject by the involved editors. FNMF 04:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Jimbo; however, WP:BLP applied to the Mega Society, itself, requries that the Mega Foundation be excised from the article if some reference to the dispute between L and the Mega Society is not there. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The above argument by Arthur Rubin is ridiculous. The references in question are to Langan's work. The notion that mentioning a foundation of which Langan is a member and a founder is somehow libelous, just because there was, in the past, a legal dispute with another foundation, is nonsensical. It is also evidence of the destructive editing pattern afflicting the entry. FNMF 13:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Further to the above is the comment I left on the Langan talk page here.

A summary of the arguments for and against removing the links to published secondary references accessible on Langan's website has been made here. FNMF 02:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Certain individuals are disruptively editing this entry in an attempt to slant POV. Users FeloniousMonk, Arthur Rubin, and Guettarda have reverted reasonable edits that were worked on by a number of editors who established consensus. Instead of involving themselves in the collaboration process, they simply revert. As admins, these individuals should be fostering a cooperative environment rather than editing in a disruptive fashion. --Honorable citizen 18:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

A few impassioned disputants are still, pardon the expression, going nuts on the article talk page (some even arguing that the term "autodidact" should not be used in the introduction but that "self-taught" should be used because autodidact is, what, too obscure? excuse me, in an encyclopedia? when it's linked to the article yet?) but if they understand Wikipedia policies well enough that the article itself will remain at least as encyclopedic as it is now, this section can be archived. That's a question, hence I'm not archiving it yet. — Athænara ✉ 01:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to point out a couple of things. The dispute about the word "autodidact" was initiated by a party previously not involved in editing the entry at all, and I don't believe is going to be an ongoing issue. Some of the issues above have been more or less resolved (such as the NOR violations in relation to the lawsuit). Others persist. Several editors continue to treat the entry as a battleground about intelligent design, despite little or no evidence that the subject of the entry is an advocate of ID. Because of the perception by some editors that Langan is an advocate of ID, however, they remain hostile to the subject, and persist in a campaign against improving the entry. The most recent problem is the question of whether to include a section describing Langan's ideas. False objections are being raised to the idea of including such a section, arguments such as: that it would unnecessarily "promote" Langan's ideas; or that Langan's ideas are not notable enough to describe in an entry devoted to him; or that to include such a section gives his ideas undue weight. See the recent talk page discussion of this matter. Problems may well continue with this entry, so long as some editors continue to view the entry as a battleground in the war on ID, and so long as they do not attend sufficiently to the requirements of BLP. Any assistance in this matter would be most welcome. FNMF 01:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I take your points as cogent observations of the situation.

The trivial dispute about "autodidact" is symptomatic—a few editors are far more interested in squabbling about tangential issues than they are in improving the article. The latter is the primary purpose of any article talk page as per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#How to use article talk pages: "Keep on topic: Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." — Athænara ✉ 02:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It may be worth watching this entry for another few days. FNMF 09:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Barrett (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• Stephen Barrett (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - I have removed a negative, unsourced statement from this article with the edit summary "Remove unsourced statement per WP:BLP and WP:NOR/WP:WEIGHT - in view of the latter, only reinsert if sourced in other than primary sources" (diff). User:Levine2112 then reverted my edit and added two sources. (diff) However, neither source supported the removed statement. I therefor reverted Levine2112 (diff) with the edit summary "rv: unsourced statement per WP:BLP and WP:NOR/WP:WEIGHT - these sources (1) do not support the assertion (2) do not show that this is in any way important. DO NOT REVERT without discussion on talk". A discussion on the talk page ensued, and Levine2112 became very argumentative and claimed that he did not understand my logic. Instead of waiting for a consensus to build, he inserted a slightly edited version of the disputed text elsewhere in the article without adding any sources showing why it is relevant and should be included. (diff). I have asked him to self-revert (diff) but so far he has not complied. I have waited some 40 minutes after that request to self-revert and am now requesting some guidance as to how to proceed. But I'm about to go to bed so perhaps an uninvolved admin can take a look. Thanks, AvB ÷ talk 21:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have not become argumentative. I only made an argument. There is a difference. I am still unclear of the point AvB is trying to make there and I have requested several times that he clarifies it. He has refused to. I have also provided as a source an entry on the Stephen Barrett talk page made by Stephen Barrett himself, user:Sbinfo. In this discussion, Barrett clearly states that he did in fact fail the neurological portion of his board certification exam in 1964 and never again re-took them. Thus he is not board certified. Furthermore, I have cited BLP#Using the Subject as a source to AvB to demonstrate that Barrett's comments on an article's talk page can be used as a source of information. I welcome anyone to come to the talk page to discuss my and AvB's points. Cheers! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The situation has worsened, but there's now a RFC. --Ronz 19:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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

• David Gaiman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - a small number of users are CONTIUALLY adding to the David Gaiman's page that his son is the fantasy author Neil Gaiman, there is absolutely no evidence that this is true. Gaiman's own website never mentions his father as being called David, similarly the article they use as basis, has no evidence that this is the same Neil Gaiman. I accept that it is possible, but to add something that is merely possiible (even probable) does disservice to wikipedias attempts to be a reputable encyclopedia --90.241.1.65 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Another section about that was archived yesterday (see the Neil Gaiman section in Archive 12). It's basically vandalism—if you see it, revert it. — Athænara ✉ 14:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe this is in fact true. According to the Contemporary Authors Online database, Neil Gaiman was born to David Bernard Gaiman (a company director) and Sheila Gaiman (a pharmacist) on November 10, 1960, in Portchester, England. A 1974 book, The Hidden Story of Scientology, refers to "David B. Gaiman, Deputy Guardian of the Church of Scientology (World Wide)". David Bernard Gaiman is listed in the Companies House database as the proprietor of G & G Food Supplies, a vitamin shop in East Grinstead (where Scientology has its UK headquarters). The company is co-run by Sheila Gaiman - see http://www.gandginfo.com/en/ . Issue #50 of Scientology's "Impact" magazine lists David Gaiman and G&G Food Supplies as being "Patrons" of the Church of Scientology ([1]), and G&G Food Supplies is listed as one of the World Institute of Scientology Enterprises network of businesses ([2]). I don't think there's any real reason to doubt that the David Bernard and Sheila Gaiman who fathered Neil Gaiman in Portchester in 1960 are the same David Bernard and Sheila Gaiman who were working for Scientology in the 1960s and 1970s, and who are now running a company selling vitamins to Scientologists in East Grinstead. -- ChrisO 23:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The point is not whether Wikipedia editors think there is no reason to doubt this; we need reliable third-party sources to cite on this. Otherwise it's WP:OR which should be removed from biographies of living persons straight away. AvB ÷ talk 21:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I found this on Neil's own website: "Gaiman is the son of a vitamin-company owner and a pharmacist." [3] It's actually from a CNN article. I'd suggest that was fairly conclusive. -- ChrisO 22:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You may want to check out WP:SYN. AvB ÷ talk 22:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm well aware of WP:SYN, which is why I've not rushed off and added the points above to the article. The challenge now is to find reliable sources that can be used to tie the narrative together in terms that will meet WP:SYN's requirements. It's not going to be doable overnight. :-) -- ChrisO 23:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Good to hear you're well aware of WP:SYN. I take it you will no longer be arguing here as if it does not exist or disputing a perfectly correct report regarding clearly disruptive policy violations. I fully agree with User:Athaenara: "It's basically vandalism—if you see it, revert it." AvB ÷ talk 22:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

PS It should be clear to anyone who understands the basics of WP:BLP, or human nature for that matter, that the author does not want this info, correct or incorrect, out on the street. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, we are not paparazzi, and should not be helping anyone, let alone disruptive editors, to create a rumor. AvB ÷ talk 22:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO, please explain this edit if you're that well aware of WP:SYN. I've reverted it as a WP:BLP/WP:SYN violation. AvB ÷ talk 22:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The issue is plainly not a rumour - it's well documented in an extremely reliable secondary source (i.e. The Times). However, I do think we could make use of a primary source - i.e. public records - to verify it unimpeachably: "Where a fact has first been presented by a verifiable secondary source, it is acceptable to turn to open records as primary sources to augment the secondary source." (WP:BLP#Public figures). I wouldn't presume to guess what Neil's wishes are but since the information is already out there and documented in the national press, I don't think there's any harm in citing it. I agree that it would be different if it was some wholly undocumented private matter but the question of which schools he attended doesn't fall into that category. -- ChrisO 07:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The Times article is just one of the two pieces of information you're joining in typical WP:SYN fashion. Do you know you are referring to a Times article that does not say X is the son of Y or any other permutation to that effect? I see no citations from reliable secondary sources that have this information, only articles about X and articles about Y. Also, you seem to require those assisting here to look up the actual citations you should have been providing. FWIW, for the Times article this is: archived copy, The Times, 13 August 1968, p.2 col. c, Head Bars Son Of Cult Man. I feel I am wasting my time explaining WP:SYN to an admin, on the BLP Noticeboard no less. AvB ÷ talk 10:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Rather than take up space here, let's have this discussion at Talk:Neil Gaiman. -- ChrisO 13:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No, this was posted here for a very good reason. Others had inserted clear violations of several policies in the encyclopedia. On joining the discussion here you have not only asserted that this can in fact go into the encyclopedia, you have also underhandedly added this information yourself to yet another article while claiming here that you were abiding by WP:SYN and therefore not adding it to the article reported above. You are an admin and should be able to understand the rules. These policies are not trumped by consensus. If you do not agree with my interpretation, by all means ask another admin or ask around on the WP:BLP and WP:OR/WP:ATT talk pages. Don't forget to point others to the full explanation I put on that talk page yesterday and to the warning on your talk page.(diff) Or someone else may want to chime in. I'm logging off now, not sure when I'll be back on line. Have a good weekend everyone. AvB ÷ talk 14:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This boils down to a dispute over interpretations of the policy. We both believe that we're interpreting it correctly. The best remedy, I think, will be to present the evidence and our conflicting interpretations (after Easter!) to other admins and maybe Jimbo and ask for an independent view. In the meantime, I'm logging off too - we can discuss this further on Talk:Neil Gaiman after Easter when we hopefully have some more substantive evidence to discuss. -- ChrisO 15:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This would have remained a discussion about policy interpretation if you hadn't made exactly the same disputed WP:SYN edit to another article during that discussion. In addition to looking like a convoluted type of WP:POINT, it also was a pretty big mistake to make in a WP:BLP context where we remove first, talk later. This is now also a discussion about your behavior. The violation prompted a warning. I will not reward this type of behavior in someone who ought to know better and do not want to encourage contempt of a rule that is becoming more important every day. I want you to realize that. In a BLP, when in doubt, remove. When in doubt, don't add. When disputed, don't add. AvB ÷ talk 18:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Howard K. Stern (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Mortifer (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) has continued to add the phrase that this man is Jewish. While this is not necessarily libelous, Mortifer is unrepentant and refuses to find a source; his reasoning is that Mr. Stern looks Jewish. Worse, I think he may be getting him mixed up with Howard Stern (the other guy); as I will likely not be around, I ask others to please watch this article. If you see this phrase added, or even if it is present at all without a source, please remove it. Update: after looking through user's contributions, this appears to be a spa that has often added the unsourced phrase "who is Jewish" to articles, often when it is questionable or controversial (see Huey Long. Someone please watch this person, as I do not have time to undo his reversions. Thanks. Patstuart^talk·edits 01:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

People might also want to watch what's going on in the talk page. There was a lot of speculation about the subject of the article which didn't appear to have anything to do with the article, & some of it rather negative (e.g. suggesting he had built up a legal fortress in Bermuda by bribing corrupt officials) which I removed. Nil Einne 11:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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

This article still suffers from biased editing. See the talk page and the problems of the article lacking "full citations" (over thirty external links are not identified as "full citations"); the article clearly does not clearly, adequately, and consistently identify the authors, titles, publications, dates of publication, and dates accessed of the sources used in the article. I have pointed this out, but no one has stepped up to correct these violations of Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Citations, Wikipedia:Attribution, Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, WP:POV, WP:BLP#Public figures, and Wikipedia:Manual of style (with links to several of these other articles). I have previously given much of the needed information for providing "full citations"; this information is accessible (see talk page archive pages). There is no reason not to disclose fully the full citations, unless one is engaging in trying to hide what the sources actually are. Assuming WP:AGF, one hopes that that is not what is going on in that article. But the article appears to be trying to present the subject in a positive light but avoiding citing the titles of articles used as sources and showing how much of the material comes from Pipes's own websites [and/or from other sites; from articles sympathetic and/or critical of him; authors and titles etc. are needed to see nature, reliability, and notabilty, and verifiability of the sources linked]. That is not in keeping with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Articles in Wikipedia dealing with subjects relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the parties to that conflict, the Middle East, and living persons whose notability relates to their work on that region and that conflict and the parties to it seem continually to suffer from biases and lack of actual Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. (This is my second attempt to call [attention] to this article in this noticeboard. Subsequent editing by others of this article has not assuaged my concerns about it. Please consult the editing history of the article and the current and archived talk pages and the misleading way in which the archive of the talk page was constructed initially. Such obviously-biased and misleading articles do not represent Wikipedia in a positive light, in my view. To mislead Wikipedia readers, who may be students, is not doing a service to these readers.) --NYScholar 02:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)-[corrected typo. error. --NYScholar 04:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)]

[edit] Patrick Haseldine (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• Patrick Haseldine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - The subject of this post is making frequent changes as User:PJHaseldine, without sources, and seems to be using it to push own agenda. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NotPJHaseldine (talk • contribs) 11:37, March 30 2007 (UTC).

If the editor in question is, indeed, the subject of the article (and it certainly looks like it) this is not a WP:BLP issue (see the policy text). In addition, User:PJHaseldine's edits seem harmless and consistent with the rest of the article (which looks like a true WP:AUTO from my side of the screen). The recent edits are also unremarkable in that they simply add more unsourced info to an already undersourced article.

FWIW, in my opinion most of this article qualifies as a typical vanity autobiography and should be userfied. However, it has been through an AfD with the result keep so I may be overlooking something. Frankly I have no idea what to do about this article. But I do not think it's a WP:BLP issue. AvB ÷ talk 00:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. — Athænara ✉ 01:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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

I got a phone call on Sunday from Peter Dobbie. Note that he is User:Peter dobbie, who has edited the article. It needs going over with a fine-toothed comb for sourcing and so forth - he really wasn't happy with the version before his edits. He also uploaded a pile of photos, but Redvers properly deleted them as not free-content images (and I emailed Mr Dobbie to explain we can't use with-permission images - but if we have the proper paperwork, that'll be a different matter). I hope to have time to look at it later (though I haven't since yesterday morning), but if others could give it a severe quality check that'd be really good - David Gerard 16:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, will do, and I'll maybe get some other people who are good at dealing with this sort of stuff in as well. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 16:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, he changed very little apart from adding those photos, two links and a brief new paragraph. Did he have any specific complaints? AvB ÷ talk 18:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing specific. He wasn't too happy to have an article at all, and he was quite unhappy that the photos he uploaded were deleted. I assume the harshest reasonable eye to BLP content should reduce its objectionability sufficiently - David Gerard 20:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. My first impression is that the article is rather undersourced, although most or all of it is probably sourcable. Application of WP:BLP based on some general objectionability would prune the article quite severely until more sources are provided. I'm going off-line now, but will check in later to see what e.g. Moreschi et al. are thinking. AvB ÷ talk 20:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• User 200.171.98.161 added text verbatim in January 2006 from a speaker bureau website. Most of it had been in the article ever since. That webpage, not cited until today, is so far the only known reference, though user Wikiwoohoo (talk • contribs) (see article history) must have found something somewhere. — Athænara ✉ 19:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Hicks (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• David Hicks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Recent material added to this article is probably libel. It is generally based on selective use of sources or sources which consist of hearsay. In discussions on the talk page the editor concerned shows little inclination to stop adding such material, hence my raising it here. John Dalton 04:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC) In evaluating this issue, account might want to be taken of a recent precedent [4]. I'm no expert though. Hopefully someone here is. John Dalton 05:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I tagged the "Hicks in custody" section with {{POV-section}}. — Athænara ✉ 18:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Derek Smart (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• Derek Smart (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - User:Bill Huffman a long time detractor of video game developer Derek Smart continues to add libelous and poorly sourced material in the article which is protected by WP:BLP guidelines. Time and time again such material has been removed by myself and other editors, but they keep doing it. This is the same behavior they had on the Usenet and which led to a complete breakdown of serious discussions on various gaming threads. It was already established by other editors who created a small history of Huffman's actions, that his only reason for being on the page is to cause disruption, libel this person and prevent the article from being an npov one. The article was recently in ArbCom and the decision was clear as they pertain to following the rules. Yet, those rules are being adhered to by everyone but him. Here is today's episodes, as well as yesterday's and yet another. There are many more like that in which him and another editor User:Kerr Avon repeat these actions. Can someone here PLEASE stop by and set this straight? 208.60.251.161 12:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The above IP address leads to host-208-60-251-161.fll.bellsouth.net in Florida which is Derek smart's own ISP. Hence the above statement is likely from Smart himself and has to be taken with a grain of Salt. Regarding Huffman, Huffman has never edited the article perse as his edits [5] shows. Huffman has joined in the discussion page only which is perfectly permissable. Anonymous IP addresses like the above from bellsouth were banned by arbcom from any editing of the derek smart article due to edit warring.Kerr avon 13:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again, please stop ignoring the Wiki rules and doing the same that got an RFc filed against you before (by another editor). You and Huffman are attempting to taint not only the article but also the talk page. Which is one of the reasons why the article ended up in ArbCom. That ruling has been largely ignored by your and your friends. It is easy to accuse someone of being Derek Smart just because they oppose you. Fact is, the article history shows that I am not the first and only editor who has raised this issue about the behavior of you and your friends. Quite a few established Wiki editors have in fact done the same and the evidence is right there on the article's archives. 209.214.20.148 14:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The very first sentence of this complaint, claiming that User:Bill Huffman has edited the Derek Smart article, is completely in error. The rest of the complaint, it seems to me, suffers from similar truthiness issues. Anyone reviewing this case should be sure to note Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Derek_Smart, where the arbitration committee held that both Derek Smart and his surrogates are banned from editing the article, although they are welcome to edit the talk page. Nandesuka 19:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe the complaint is regarding posts where I have only attempted to respond to issues that the anonymous poster himself has raised. He falsely accused me of making a couple of false statements, I just addressed those items and the anonymous poster then makes the claim that defending myself is violating WP:BLP. I also responded to the anonymous poster's suggestion that Dr. Smart's Ph.D. should be referenced in the article even though there is no reliable source for the Ph.D. validity since Dr. Smart refuses to reveal the school that bestowed the degree. The anonymous poster has frequently deleted my comments and comments from others from the talk page. Whoever, looks at this might consider explaining to the anonymous poster that deleting discussion on the talk page is not a very constructive way of trying to convince other editors over to your views. Regards, Bill Huffman 22:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to comment that not only has Mr Huffman been editing appropriately - i.e. only to the talk page, but WP:BLP is being misapplied here. None of the material is prima facia libelious, and the talk page is the correct place to discuss its merits. The anon editor, who is presumably Derek Smart, is misguided in removing it from the talk page without discussion. --Haemo 20:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Darius J Pearce (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• Darius J Pearce (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - No evidence of claimed 'attributed legislative change'. No citations in support of numerous comments. No notable reason for page existence. Should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aim Here (talk • contribs) 14:44, April 3, 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Talk:John_T._Reed

I am a bit concerned as I have deleted some slanderous comments from this talk page twice but they've been reverted back in by an apparently serious editor. Also that User:Jscottccre who put the comments in has some personal score to settle. May be safest to delete the page or page history. --BozMo talk 17:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with deletion of the page.

--PeterMarkSmith 06:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad al-Durrah (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Muhammad al-Durrah (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). This is an unusual case on which it would be good to get some independent input. The subject has been extremely widely covered by the mainstream media. A cursory search of Google news archives suggests that the majority of mainstream sources agree that the subject is dead, though there is disagreement over who killed him. However, a limited number of mostly non-mainstream sources say that he is not dead, that his death was faked and that his continued existence has been covered up for the last 7 years by a wide-ranging international conspiracy. Consequently the article is listed in Category:Possibly living people.

Given the dispute over whether the subject is dead or alive, I've added the BLP template to the article talk page in order to err on the side of caution. However, if the BLP rules are followed, the sources that declare the subject to be alive - basically self-published sources and overtly partisan websites - will be problematic due to the WP:BLP#Reliable sources restrictions on the use of such sources.

I've not edited the article myself; I recall reading about the matter at the time, but that's about the limit of my knowledge. However, there's clearly a major issue about the sourcing. Some tendentious editing appears to be going on, with strong POV statements on the talk page and mainstream national newspapers being dismissed as non-reliable. The tone of the article is problematic and is dominated by the non-mainstream POV - undue weight is clearly an issue. Two thirds of the article is dedicated to the discussion of a conspiracy theory promoted (and self-published) by an professor of medieval history, a physicist and an engineer. The article would clearly benefit from the attention of some independent editors. -- ChrisO 19:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Chris, it's not only self-published and partisan sources who are saying it; here's an article from the Los Angeles Times recounting the story. [6] It's also not an international conspiracy theory, just a Pallywood suspicion. If you look at the Landes film, you can see the original footage, and I have to say it does look very like the boy is peeking out from under his hands at one point. There's also the strange business of the French court fining someone a tiny amount for allegedly having libeled the journalists who showed the original footage, by saying they had distorted it. The court accepted it was libel, strictly speaking, because the accuser didn't prove his case, but fined him something like a dollar to signal that the journalists didn't come out of the case well. I'm writing all this from memory so I'm sure I have some of the details wrong, but that's the gist of it. I'm not coming down on the side of the Pallywood allegation; I'm just saying it genuinely isn't a clear-cut case. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Your reference appears to be an opinion piece. I was under the impression that advocacy journalism was frowned upon as a source for BLP, but perhaps the noticeboard regulars can provide more advice on that.

I appreciate that you and the other editors of the article probably have your own POV on this subject, but let's not lose sight of the fact that biographies of any sort are supposed to "document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject." The article currently falls a long way short of that, as I've indicated above. -- ChrisO 20:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

First, I have no POV on the issue. Second, advocacy journalism isn't frowned upon as a source for BLP. What counts is the reputation of the writer or publisher. If the LA Times considers it suitable for publication, then so do we, because they're a reliable third-party source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd still like to hear what others - without preconceptions - think on this issue. -- ChrisO 23:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying I have preconceptions? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

He probably was, though you obviously don't. I don't have any, either, and I agree with you. I have no idea why he's trying to delegitimise your neutral point of view of the situation. I decline to speculate about it, but it does offend me. — Athænara ✉ 01:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You've clearly gone through the sources and formed an opinion of the case, and you've edited the article. I'm simply looking for a view from someone who's not seen or edited the article before. That's all. -- ChrisO 07:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Your view of my "preconception" is that I think the boy is alive. But if you look at my edits of the article and talk page, most of it has been to resist people who are trying to imply that e.g. [7] Now that you've commented on my position, please take the trouble to go through my edits there, so that you can apologize. And in general, as several others have asked you to do, please stop commenting on what you think my views on various issues are, because you keep getting them wrong. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BLPC

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

Good idea. Watch it fill up. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully it clears even faster. :) - Denny 21:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Very good idea. Nice one. -- ChrisO 07:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] T. Padmanabhan (Writer) (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

T. Padmanabhan (Writer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - This BLP swings from one end to another. At one place the subject is called a trend setter and at another place he is described as egoistic. No sources quoted // Weblogan 14:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed both the positive and negative opinions because they were just opinions, and uncited too. Steve Dufour 04:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Louise Lanctôt (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Louise Lanctôt (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Completely unsourced, with quite nasty claims. Quick Google search suggests that the article is generally accurate, but I've not the time (nor, for that matter, the inclination) to wade through it all. Jonel | Speak 21:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Jonel has blanked the article per WP:BLP and left a note to that effect on the talk page, which seems the right thing to me. AvB ÷ talk 22:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Miscavige

This person is the president of the Church of Scientology, and as such an object of controversy. An accusation against him was added to the article based on the statements of a former church member posted to three anti-Scientology websites. The charges may be true but it doesn't seem to me that they can be stated as fact on WP. I have removed them twice and they were put back. Steve Dufour 04:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• The information was from a sworn affidavit. The information should be reinserted back into the article, but with correct clear attribution given to the source of the statement. Smee 05:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

• Isn't it the case that anyone can basically allege anything in an affidavit? I'm not sure we can regard such a document as a reliable source given the lack of any editorial controls or verification. A court judgment might be a different case, but an affidavit doesn't seem to me to be a very satisfactory source. -- ChrisO 06:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• In a sworn affidavit, the person is under oath. Theoretically, they'd face the same penalties as lying to the court from the witness stand. AndroidCat 18:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That still does not give us the right to repeat the charges as if they were a fact. For all we know the person giving the testimony could be mentally unstable. Steve Dufour 19:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

In that case, why not remove otherwise citable references for everyone? They might be be mentally unstable too! AndroidCat 20:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Most of them are not making charges against living people. Steve Dufour 20:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The issue seems to be now resolved. Steve Dufour 01:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Casey Serin (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

A US Department of Justice IP of 149.101.1.120 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) got reported to AIV over this, possible BLP issues. - Denny ^(talk) 19:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Clark (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Bob Clark (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - The questionable claims do not concern Clark himself, the filmmaker who recently died in an auto accident in Los Angeles. This is in regards to the driver of the other vehicle, who swerved into the opposite lanes of traffic and hit Clark's vehicle head-on. Reliable sources state that the driver was intoxicated and did not have a license. However, a number of anon editors have been adding various claims about the driver, Hector Velazquez-Nava of Los Angeles. The most common is that he is an illegal immigrant; one editor claimed the GMC Yukon he was driving was stolen. szyslak (t, c) 20:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears someone has now found a source verifying that he is an illegal immigrant; not about the other allegations, though. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

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

• Paul Bérenger (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - This remark about Paul Berenger is biased and subjective: "only Prime Minister who practiced democracy and the only one who boosted the economy of Mauritius and also restored political stability." Shows no research has been undertaken prior to the posting of this article . Mauritius has always been a demoracy . Please verify your sources !!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.100.60.29 (talk • contribs) 18:35, April 6, 2007 (UTC).

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

The "Casino investigation" section has no sources, and therefore is a serious breach of BLP. I strongly considered deleting the entire section, but have waited for input. But if none is forthcoming, the whole section has to go. Corvus cornix 23:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

A brief search found this as a possible source for some of the material. The CREW item on their filing can be found here. That's obviously a primary source, but it could be used to support the fact that CREW indeed made a filing. JavaTenor 00:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ted Nugent (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

There's been a complaint about this being a biased article. A quick read over it and the 'controversies' section, gives me cause for concern. Some sources are very poor. I've no time to do this properly but some bold editing and removals look like being in order. Can folk deal with this?--Doc^g 11:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This bio is terrible. It needs a full re-write with some fact checking. The subject's (purported) just came through and deleted some extensive info, possibly justifiably. -Will Beback · † · 11:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI to anyone who cares, I have deleted that revision as the edit summary contained a phone number. --BigDT 15:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Glenn Greenwald (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

I don't know a lot about the subject of this article; however, it has been the subject of a protracted revert war as of late over one section in particular. The article is about a fairly notable blogger, and the section in question discusses a "controversy" in the blogosphere where someone accused the subject of sockpuppetry on other blogs to support himself and his own views. The article cites 3 sources; 2 are partisan blogs, and the other is the subject's response on his blog to those allegations. My understanding of WP:BLP is that it applies very clearly to this paragraph, and explicitly disallows it in the "Reliable sources" section. The user advocating that the paragraph should stay, David Spart (talk • contribs) has not been able to provide a reliable source (though he has claimed that the blogs cited are not, in fact, blogs, and are "very very reliable"). He has also accused a number of accounts reverting the edits reinstating the paragraph of being sockpuppets. I attempted to interject in the discussion on the talk page as (what I felt was) a neutral third party, to no avail, so I am asking for further third-party input. Is my reading of both policy and this particular situation correct? Thanks in advance. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add that the "sockpuppetry" section carries a negative POV and must be considered libelous. WP:BLP begs Editors to "especially" avoid potentially libelous material. --AStanhope 22:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This whole article seems way too heated. Steve Dufour 03:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Antony Flew (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

The article for Antony Flew is libelous. See the details at the discussion page under the title "This article is libelous". The article is not objective, gives a point of view (discrediting Antony Flew which is OK but Wikipedia is not the place to do this). Moreover, it is poorly written. This is a violation of the Wikipedia policy and I would like the article to be rewritten in a more impartial way. finsalscollons 83.53.126.58

[edit] Straight, Incorporated (history|Watchlist this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• Straight, Incorporated (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Both the article and the article's talk page have some strong criminal allegations against the organization and its members/employees that are not currently supported by reliable sources. I had originally |nominated this for deletion but additional sources were provided in the deletion debate and the discussion seems likely to close as "keep" or "no consensus". It sounds as if there is some basis to the allegations (which keeps me from simply removing them) but I'm concerned the article may be considered libellous in its current state. RJASE1 ^Talk 16:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)