Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎The Gore Effect: BLP applies to all content about a living person.
Line 676: Line 676:
:::::::::Only my opinion, of course, but if there is significant content that might relate to legitimate matters of BLP concern in a non-BLP article, I suppose it could be appropriately applied. Then there's this article, referencing a satirical concept that is, at most, incidentally referencing an LP whose only reference in the article itself is within citations placing him somewhere at sometime. This is not the stuff of BLP concern and it is a rather clear cheapening of rationale for use of the template.
:::::::::Only my opinion, of course, but if there is significant content that might relate to legitimate matters of BLP concern in a non-BLP article, I suppose it could be appropriately applied. Then there's this article, referencing a satirical concept that is, at most, incidentally referencing an LP whose only reference in the article itself is within citations placing him somewhere at sometime. This is not the stuff of BLP concern and it is a rather clear cheapening of rationale for use of the template.
:::::::::But your question really presumes resolution of this BLP/N...which is to ascertain some consensus of opinion as to whether or not this article is a '''"Biography of a Living Person"''' with attendant BLP caveats and increased sourcing requirements. Clearly it is not, though the resulting fallout from the satire may have consequence to the credibility of both Mr. Gore and the AGW cause. Life is tough out there in the CC trenches. [[User:JakeInJoisey|JakeInJoisey]] ([[User talk:JakeInJoisey|talk]]) 21:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::But your question really presumes resolution of this BLP/N...which is to ascertain some consensus of opinion as to whether or not this article is a '''"Biography of a Living Person"''' with attendant BLP caveats and increased sourcing requirements. Clearly it is not, though the resulting fallout from the satire may have consequence to the credibility of both Mr. Gore and the AGW cause. Life is tough out there in the CC trenches. [[User:JakeInJoisey|JakeInJoisey]] ([[User talk:JakeInJoisey|talk]]) 21:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::Let us try it again: BLP (despite the "biography" part) applies to all content about a living person. If you want to say "X was in Y at <date> where Z happened" then its a direct statement about a living person, which must adhere to the rather more strict sourcing demands of the BLP policy. It doesn't get mooted or otherwise invalidated because its used in a humourous context. (otherwise you may want to point out where our policies state that humour has a lower requirement for [[WP:V]] than other contexts). --[[User:KimDabelsteinPetersen|Kim D. Petersen]] ([[User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen|talk]]) 23:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


== http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_K._Morhaim ==
== http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_K._Morhaim ==

Revision as of 23:27, 14 June 2010

    Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.

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

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


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

    Additional notes:




    Episkopon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Living persons are named as alumni of a controversial secret society (Episkopon), but there is no citation or source for this. I think this is dangerous. I have tried to apply some tags to this article, to indicate where it needs fixing, but I am not sufficiently experienced to deal with this all myself. It's a very contentious and important topic, but the article has some serious flaws. Could someone please take an interest and help out with this? It would be so very appreciated. Thank you.

    By the way, the secret society was recently implicated in the press for nearly killing a student during a hazing ritual.

    As well, several of the living persons named as alumni are very prominent individuals:

    Bill Graham (...a former Canadian politician. In 2006, he was Canada's Leader of the Opposition as well as the interim leader of the Liberal Party of Canada between the resignation of Paul Martin and the election of Stéphane Dion as his successor. Graham was variously Minister of National Defence and Minister of Foreign Affairs in the cabinets of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin... Graham serves as chancellor of Trinity College at the University of Toronto; chair of the Atlantic Council of Canada; and co-vice chair of the Canadian International Council. He is a director of the Empire Club of Canada and a member of the Trilateral Commission.)

    Adrienne Clarkson (...is a Canadian journalist and stateswoman who served as Governor General of Canada, the 26th since that country's confederation. She was appointed as such by Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, on the recommendation of then Prime Minister of Canada Jean Chrétien...)

    Anthony Indelicato

    [ No Legal Threats -- Redacted, user cautioned ]

    Joshua Pellicer

    Joshua Pellicer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    • - Article is repeatedly edited to add that 'Joshua Pellicer has positions teaching dating and relationship-related content with a number of companies'. However, this is uncited and there is no evidence that Joshua Pellicer has any position with any company, let alone in the dating field. // ~HateToLoveMe

    Omar Khadr

    Omar Khadr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Noticed that this article has been edited with predjudice. Just wanted to bring it to the notice of someone who knows how to right such things.

    Appears to be an autobiography of a non-notable person. A candidate for local elections in Ireland who failed to get elected and has tried to keep up a media profile since. User Account Dublinborn appears to have created this article and not much else Special:Contributions/Dublinborn, concern it may violate WP:Auto

    There was a vote to keep after discussion 4-2 Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gary_Fitzgerald

    Eliseo Soriano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and
    Shannon Rose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    The article is the victim of BLP dispute issues regarding the notability of the subject as an "international fugitive". The latter, libelous claim, is only backed by a web archive. People have diverse opinions on the true reason why the subject is notable: some users say he is notable for being a critic to other religions while others (i.e. the user reported below) firmly believes that the article is notable for being an "international fugitive and a televangelist" at the same time. In the eyes of the Filipinos, the first "notability reason" is the real reason.

    The "POV pusher", being a critic of Soriano to the point she calls Soriano as a "cult leader", had a long history of edit wars and 3RR reverts. Shannon Rose had commented harshly against another similar article, Daniel Soriano Razon. She is extremely harsh against users who just wants to add referenced, good information about the subject. Soriano, having been charged with rape, has a "counter-affidavit" covered by the press. When a pro-Soriano editor adds the counter affidavit in defense of the article, the POV user immediately rejects it without giving a chance for someone to find sources. Someone finally found a reference but the POV-pusher immediately removed it without trying to trim it down. I, the IP, only tried to remove unnotable and libellous statements agaist the subject, which is Soriano. Shannon Rose, being a POV pusher and a critic to Soriano (see this talk page and also this this talk page) has tried to offensively destroy the credibility of the editors who tried to simply add more positive edits to the subject. Thanks! 120.28.114.16 (talk) 03:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, I will be happy to respond on the allegation of bias and why the editors are vigilant and cautious about revisions by non-established users. The subject is a highly-controversial fugitive televangelist with a substantial cult following in the Philippines. All claims about the subject's criminal activities that appear in the article are reliably sourced from official web pages and broadsheet newspapers with national and international circulations. Attempts to sanitize the article by anons and single purpose IPs have a long and tainted history of socks and perma-blocks (please see Petersantos, Felix Natalo, and Dar book). The use of archived web pages as reference, like in the case of the Interpol wanted page for the subject, has been agreed through a clear consensus involving not only long-time editors but even administrators as yourselves. This response from an admin that has been recently lobbied in favor of the proposed alterations may summarize that consensus. A Google search for "Eli Soriano" fugitive returns almost 6,000 hits, while a search for "Eli Soriano" televangelist only returns 1,600 hits, clearly hinting what the subject is more notable of. Thank you and more power! – Shannon Rose Talk 14:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A Google search would bring recent-ism into the factor, he is notable as a evangelist not as a fugitive. Adding it to the lede like you have done is undue weight and I don't support it at all. There is no interpol arrest warrant, he is on the red list, which means that there is an extradition request for him from Manila and countries that have an extradition policy with the Philippines will or may hold him while they investigate the request in the same was as they have Polanski.Off2riorob (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Off2riorob, the subject is a televangelist but how did that make him notable? There are probably thousands of televangelists out there who are not notable enough to merit their own articles in WP. The subject became notable because of the anomalies that surround him, the biggest of which is running away from the country in the middle of various lawsuits with same-sex rape as the one who received the most media attention. If it is just for being an televangelist, then he is not notable at all. The bulk of RS supporting notability is about his crimes and current fugitive status. The Google search, though we are certainly not using it as a basis, returns almost 6,000 hits for "Eli Soriano" fugitive yet only returns 1,600 hits for "Eli Soriano" televangelist, clearly suggesting that the issue of being a fugitive carries more weight in terms of notability than his being a televangelist, or, at the very least, that he is also notable as a fugitive. I don't know where you got the Interpol arrest warrant bit, I clearly wrote "Interpol wanted page" above. Thank you for your input, much appreciated, but articles for international fugitives are notable especially when supported by a wanted page in the Interpol website, broadsheet articles, as well as documentaries complete with dramatizations from major Philippine TV networks such as can be seen in this YouTube upload. The lead is basically a notability clause, and that is why I, as well as other nonpartisan editors, feel inclined to include that information there. – Shannon Rose Talk 17:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you claim a consensus for this please direct me to it. I find the claim that this man is notable primarily as an international fugitive, well.. laughable and incredulous. Eliseo Soriano ihe notable international fugitive...right Off2riorob (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Off2riorob, I will be happy to provide proof of consensus on the use of the words international fugitive on the lead. On November 2, 2009 the words international fugitive were removed by Rvr707 and reinstated by 4twenty42o. On October 27, 2009 the words international fugitive were removed by 124.107.217.64 and reinstated by DanielRigal. On October 9, 2009 the words international fugitive were removed by Felix Natalo and reinstated by DanielRigal. On October 5, 2009 the words international fugitive were removed by Mangingisda99 and reinstated by Conrad940. On September 27, 2009 the words international fugitive were removed by Electromagnetictop and reinstated by DanielRigal. Again on September 27, 2009 the words international fugitive were removed by 76.95.181.51 and reinstated by DivineAlpha. On August 7, 2009 the words international fugitive were removed by 121.54.2.85 and reinstated by Makeemlighter. And so on and so forth. These clearly illustrate a consensus that the words international fugitive should be in the lead. It should also be noted that most, if not all, of those who attempted to remove those words from there have been confirmed as socks and/or have been perma-blocked. Thank you! – Shannon Rose Talk 21:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that the content has been removed and replaced is not a consensus of support for the content at all. You claim a consensus, has there been a discussion and a consensus for this that he is notable foremost as an international fugitive and can you point me to it.Off2riorob (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Off2riorob, the fact that the words international fugitive were repeatedly removed from the lead by anons and socks, yet vigilantly put back by established users and admins is clear consensus that we believe international fugitive should be there. If not then why reinstate it? The Merriam-Webster online dictionary has two definitions for consensus, one is in line with your understanding, and the other is "group solidarity in sentiment and belief." If reinstating the words international fugitive everytime they have been removed is not group solidarity that it should be there, then what would you call it? Random action? Nevertheless, if you want consensus in the context of messages in the discussions then let me supply some quotes and links:
    • We should modify the article to reflect this distinction however there is no justification for removing the phrase "international fugitive" (unless the case really has been dropped) as Interpol lists the red notices under the category of "Fugitives" and the service handling them is called "Fugitive investigative services"DanielRigal
    • I agree with Shannon Rose. And I even think that "accused rapist" gives a more accurate description if what looking for is a "gist of why he's controversial."Conrad940
    I will look more tomorrow and ask some people that are experiances in MOS and issues such ass this. Off2riorob (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Good night, Off2riorob! I'm off to bed in a few minutes as well:) – Shannon Rose Talk 22:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    @Off2riorob: The first rationale provided by Shannon Rose (Rationale 1:Interpol website, broadsheet articles, as well as documentaries complete with dramatizations from major Philippine TV networks such as can be seen in this YouTube upload.) cannot be used as a valid reason. Here are the reasons:

    • The Interpol website stating that Soriano is wanted no longer exists (except for a web archive).
    • The broadsheet articles are focused on his current rape charges not on his fugitive status. (BTW, Soriano is still innocent until proven guilty. By the way Shannon Rose talks, she thinks the latter is guilty and keeps on calling his organization a "cult". Is that good faith, SR?)
    • The Youtube video uses the Tagalog language. Can Shannon Rose determine if it really covers his fugitive status?
    • If you ask any Filipino (who has not read this WP article) regarding Soriano, it is obvious he will say that he is a televangelist. Was Soriano featured in international news programs like CNN? Was Soriano placed in the 10 Most Wanted Fugitives of the NBI (Philippines)? Of course not, Shannon Rose simply used her influence to make it appear that Soriano is a highly-controversial fugitive televangelist with a substantial cult following in the Philippines. She believes that Soriano is leading a cult, how can we trust her? Anyone critical of the subject such as Shannon Rose will try to place more negative coverage of the subject, thus giving it undue weight. Here is a recent valid RS praising the subject (this part must be placed in the article to counterbalance and make it more NPOV): The Philippine Star- "An Award for Bro. Eli". Thanks and God Bless! 180.191.65.41 (talk) 09:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Second Question: Why is the article notable? Take note that he is known for criticizing various other religious groups (even the influential Iglesia ni Cristo is one) for doctrines and practices he considers to be against his personal understanding of the Bible (Not a valid RS but this link shows the reactions of the Filipinos to his actions: like criticizing various other religious groups). Here is an edit done by a nonpartisan user: He removed the international fugitive part and tried to discuss it in the talk page. 180.191.65.41 (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi both, it would be my pleasure to address the Anon's concerns:
    • The Interpol website stating that Soriano is wanted no longer exists (except for a web archive). – Using archived web pages is a standard practice in Wikipedia. I would have to point you to an admin's reply a few days ago when the same issue was put forth by IronBreww. In there he patiently explained why it is justified to use an archived web page as reference.
    • The broadsheet articles are focused on his current rape charges not on his fugitive status. (BTW, Soriano is still innocent until proven guilty. By the way Shannon Rose talks, she thinks the latter is guilty and keeps on calling his organization a "cult". Is that good faith, SR?) – Let me gently correct you here, I do not "think" that the subject is guilty. We do not make personal conclusions in Wikipedia but simply improve on articles based on the information available from reliable sources. I have never said that subject is guilty. The broadsheet articles are focused on his fugitive status. Yet, of course, we cannot separate the rape charges from his fugitive status because that is the most notable criminal case he ran away from that made him a fugitive in the first place, and so the rape charges will always be mentioned to make sense of why he is in hiding. Every article that revolves around the current problem of him being in hiding automatically speaks about his fugitive status. Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines fugitive as 1 : running away or intending flight 2 : moving from place to place. For example: "An irate Superintendent Abad Osit, chief of the Pandacan police station, ordered Police Officer 3 Jun Gumaru to explain why he should not be held accountable for violating the standard operation procedure (SOP) for the custody of fugitives." (source http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleid=68908). We cannot deny that the statement attributed to Superintendent Abad Osit is directed to our subject and the circumstances surrounding him. After all, the entire article is about Eli Soriano. The presumption of innocence until proven guilty hardly applies to a fugitive. Flight is an admission of guilt. As the subject is constantly evading the law, and has been doing so for many years now, he has completely marred the presumption of his own innocence.
    • The Youtube video uses the Tagalog language. Can Shannon Rose determine if it really covers his fugitive status? – Absolutely, ako po ay bihasa sa pag-unawa at pag-gamit ng wikang Filipino (I am fully capable of understanding and using the Filipino language).
    • If you ask any Filipino (who has not read this WP article) regarding Soriano, it is obvious he will say that he is a televangelist. – This is mere conjecture.
    • Was Soriano featured in international news programs like CNN? Was Soriano placed in the 10 Most Wanted Fugitives of the NBI (Philippines)? – CNN is not a news program but a cable network. Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines do not require that a subject notable for breaking the law be featured in a CNN program or be placed in the 10 Most Wanted list. One requirement is that The perpetrator is notable for something beyond the crime itself. The subject is a notable televangelist, and that makes his crime notable as well. The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual or has otherwise been considered noteworthy such that it is a well-documented historic event. As far as we are aware, a same-sex rape charge has never been filed against any founder of an international church such as the subject's, in fact it is so unusual and noteworthy that even giant television networks in the Philippines devote entire programmings to dramatize the commission of the crime, tackle the issues surrounding it, and interview victims... such as the link I provided showing the TV special "Case Unclosed" where the very reason for the case being unclosed is because the subject ran away from the law. In the program the victim said that the subject is currently hiding in Brazil, a country that has no extradition treaty with the Philippines. The Soriano rape case, apart from being mentioned in Eli Soriano, actually merits its own article. But then it will just be redundant and a waste of space, so it is best to just integrate it in the current one.
    • Here is an edit done by a nonpartisan user: He removed the international fugitive part and tried to discuss it in the talk page. – Thank you for pointing out that revision, which was done in March 16, 2009. Please be aware of a more recent revision by the same editor in May 14, 2009, wherein he reinstated the words international fugitive in the lead after they were removed by an anon like yourself.
    I hope I have now addressed all your points. If you have any more issues against the edits, then please don't hesitate to bring them up. Be well! – Shannon Rose Talk 16:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Good Answer! I still see some "holes" in your statements: Let me gently state to you SR, that WikiLeon only reinstated the words "international fugitive" because an anon removed it without stating the reasons. Of course you will revert the edit done since it (anon) did not discuss the reason why he removed the international fugitive part. Naniniwala ka na kulto ang pinamumunuan ni Soriano, bakit, anong relihiyon ka ba? Ikaw ba ay inimpluwensyahan ng pastor/lider mo na maniwala na ganyan ang kalagayan ni Soriano? (You believe that Soriano is leading a cult. Why!? Of what religion did you come from?) Take note: Anyone critical of the subject such as Shannon Rose will try to place more negative coverage of the subject, thus giving it undue weight. Can Shannon Rose, who is most probably a Filipino also, decide why the subject is notable? (TO the Undecided here are reason why "NO" should be the answer:) First, she is critical to Soriano, second, many influencial religions in the Philippines (#1 - Iglesia ni Cristo) were affected by the flaying of Soriano towards them.
    • Here is one issue: A recent valid RS praising the subject (this part must be placed in the article to counterbalance and make it more NPOV): The Philippine Star- "An Award for Bro. Eli". Take note that Soriano is not known as a fugitive by many people, please see and answer my :::*"2nd Rational:" - Why is the article notable? It is because he is known for criticizing various other religious groups for doctrines and practices he considers to be against his personal understanding of the Bible (See this. This may not be a valid RS but this link shows the reactions of the Filipinos to his actions, namely, criticizing various other religious groups)..
    • By the way SR talks, she is implying that Soriano is guilty: The presumption of innocence until proven guilty hardly applies to a fugitive. Flight is an admission of guilt. As the subject is constantly evading the law, and has been doing so for many years now, he has completely marred the presumption of his own innocence. . What if I tell you, SR, that the subject ran away due to the threats bombarded against him by influential, POWERFUL, religious sector(s) in the Philippines. Of course no journalist will expose that since he (the journalist) will become the enemy of the influential, POWERFUL, religious sector(s) bombarding Soriano with charges and threats. Take note that the Philippines is the 2nd most deadly area for journalists.


    Well Done, Shannon Rose, you stand firm in your beliefs. Who/What influenced you beliefs (besides those RS) is still a mystery to me. 180.191.57.92 (talk) 08:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Anon, your claim that "WikiLeon only reinstated the words "international fugitive" because an anon removed it without stating the reasons" is, again, pure conjecture. Editors, specially admins, don't just revert edits because they were done without explanation. Editors compare the difference of present edits to the previous and examine them, then act from there. You are rationalizing against being openly proven wrong. You confidently cited this edit as an example of what you perceive as a non-partisan editor removing "international fugitive" from the lead, yet the same editor in a more recent edit reinstated "international fugitive" after it has been removed by an anon like yourself. I am sorry, but that edit obviously reflects a more current disposition of the editor.
    Regarding the Mashable award for the subject's blog that was mentioned in the entertainment column of the Philippine Star, please know that we do not just mention any award in an encyclopedia. The award must be notable. Kindly see Awards and Prizes to at least have an idea of what sort of awards deserve mention in an encyclopedia article. Also, please realize that the BLP Noticeboard is not a place to ask personal questions to editors nor is it a forum for religious apologetics, and other self-serving subjective issues including your personal theories, conjectures, heartaches, and grudges. If you find it challenging to communicate in an unattached manner and with civility, you are gently encouraged to move away and contribute on articles where you hold no emotional involvement. Thanks! – Shannon Rose Talk 14:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me gently correct you there, the Award is notable. We must include that part to the article. Slightly mentioning it in the "Biography" section is good enough for me, SR. Your suggested 2nd paragraph simply represents your point of view on the subject, and I disagree to it. Making the article more NPOV must be the concern of everyone. You gave it undue weight, then I suggest that the award be briefly mentioned to counterbalance the article's situation. If you keep up your POV edits, then the article is nothing more than an impartial coverage on the subject (specifically, focused on his negative issues). If you continue flaying the subject, less users and anons will trust your perspective on the article. Thanks! 180.191.61.141 (talk) 02:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Anon. You may need to brush up on your understanding of what is a notable award fit to be mentioned in a biographical entry here at Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; haven't you read an encyclopedia before? The link you gave is to Mashable, an Internet news blog who also began giving out awards in January 10, 2008. If you will look closely, you will see that the Wikipedia article is about Mashable, the news blog, which is deemed notable due to its popularity as that and not as a reputable or prestigious award giving body. There exists other notable entities who also give out awards, but it does not necessarily follow that just because the entity is notable then the awards they give are automatically notable. For example, an award that was previously mentioned was one given by a radio program called “Dis is Manolo and his Genius Family.” That program gave Soriano the award of "Most Outstanding Preacher." Is the radio program notable? Of course it is! But is the award notable? No. There is absolutely no need to "counterbalance the article's situation." As objective and impartial editors, we should simply provide information based on reliably-sourced facts in line with Wikipedia policies regardless of whether they are seen as positive or negative by anyone. Thanks! – Shannon Rose Talk 13:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi SR! Please consider the fact that organizations (that included award-giving ones) are generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention to support a claim of notability. I have given you a valid RS, Shannon Rose. There are other valid RS praising the subject even before he was charged with rape, making him notable long before he was bombarded with legal issues. Please stop making the article impartial and negative, SR. Your criticism towards the subject (Soriano) is reflected in your edits. Take a look what you have done here. I'm not saying that your edit was bad, but since you immediately added the "negative" coverage, you again gave it undue weight. Here is quote from another nonpartisan editor (you quoted some opinions from users too):
      • [Eli Soriano talk page- Awards and Recognition section] I am not 100% against them being mentioned in the article, if it serves some genuine encyclopaedic purpose, but spamming the article with a load of YouTube videos is unacceptable. from DanielRigal (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • From the same user: Other awards, that are genuinely independent, can be mentioned (but preferably not in an "Awards" section) and only if they are awards for him personally, not for his organisations. For example, the awards for the popularity of his personal website are best mentioned in the context of demonstrating his continued popular support despite his legal troubles.
    I hope this clears your mind and please, be more open-minded. 180.191.61.132 (talk) 03:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Anon, you are obviously confusing the general notability guidelines, the notability guidelines for organizations, and what constitutes a notable award. There is no question that the subject is notable, and there is also no question that Mashable as a news blog is notable, it is the notability of the award that is being questioned. You may want to ask for assistance in understanding this issue as you seem to be "mashing" (no pun intended) everything with the aim of dissolving them into a single brew:)
    Regarding DanielRigal's reply to your lobbying, let me paste the entire thing here so that you are always reminded:
    • Use of Archive.org is legitimate to demonstrate what Interpol published in the past. Nobody has ever suggested that Archive.org alter or falsify their archive and it is considered reliable even though they are not official archivers for Interpol. Using Archive.org is a bit like going to a library to consult old editions of newspapers or public records. That said, it is possible to misuse Archive.org. If somebody were to pick a past version of a website which contains claims that the publisher later repudiated or amended then it could give a false impression. Do we have any proof that Interpol is still after Soriano? If they are then the description as a fugitive can stay. If they have definitely dropped the matter then references to him being a fugitive should be put into the past tense and probably removed from the lead section but kept elsewhere. If they have simply chosen not to mention him following a reorganisation of their website, that is inconclusive. That could indicate that he is no longer seen as a priority for Interpol but may still be wanted.
    • The "Awards" section has, in the past, contained a big list of awards that Soriano's own organisations had given him. If we mention those at all then we have to explain the context. This is likely to make him look ridiculous. I would be inclined to leave those out entirely, unless there is so much RS coverage of them that we can't ignore them. Other awards, that are genuinely independent, can be mentioned (but preferably not in an "Awards" section) and only if they are awards for him personally, not for his organisations. For example, the awards for the popularity of his personal website are best mentioned in the context of demonstrating his continued popular support despite his legal troubles. An "Awards" section can give the impression of a self-aggrandising "trophy cabinet". In the case of a man who gives himself awards, you have to expect people to be suspicious but that should not prevent a brief mention of any genuine and notable awards.
    • Aggressive warning of newbies is not a good thing but I don't see how it would encourage people to engage in sockpuppetry. Genuine, definite sockpuppets and puppeteers need to be dealt with quickly but there are bound to be genuine newbies as well. Rather than diving straight in with the warning templates when a newbie makes a bad edit that might be COI (or whatever) it is better to start with one of the Welcome templates aimed at potentially problematic users. This lets the user know that they did something wrong in a much more gentle way and helps them to get it right in future. Watching how they respond to that will often give a clue as to whether they are a genuine newbie or a sockpuppet. I appreciate that the user you mentioned can be a little "spikey" but it is a general issue with articles where sockpuppetry is rife that it becomes easy for an editor to get trigger-happy with the reverts and warnings. I have found myself doing it from time to time. Editors need to take care to avoid this but the blame lies with the sockpuppeteers because they create the toxic editing environment where every anonymous or newbie edit seems suspect.
    If you find it difficult to understand any of these points then please feel free to ask and I will do all I can to help you. – Shannon Rose Talk 13:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody is questioning the award-giving body except you, SR. You, being a critic of Soriano are just trying to deny the obvious truth: even after being charged with same-sex rape, Soriano is still an active preacher-blogger and can still get awards. Who can prove that Soriano gives himself awards, he's not that foolish to do that. Even DanielRigal knows that there are some awards (from notable and independent award giving bodies) given to Soriano. Mashable as you said, is a notable news blog. After it creates its own award giving body, now you say it (referring to its new award-giving body) is not notable. Oh, c'mon! Who decides the notability, a critic of the subject? NO! a COI? NO. or a third-party reliable sources complete with information on how that award works? YES!. Slightly mentioning it, even just one sentence long (or two), is good enough for me. :-) Now, about the Itanong mo kay Soriano part, it is obvious you have never heard of it. Everyone knows that it is where Soriano preaches using the question-and-answer type. Even his critics make fun of it (I'm not saying you should believe the questions in this site since it is only a critic's way of maligning him): (1) - here is one, here is another one, here's another one but wait, there's more (humor) last (4). Remember, Soriano claims to be able to answer any question using the Bible. Using those for non-official RS, we can conclude that he claims (remember - CLAIM only, not PROVEN) that he can answer any question using the Bible. Please SR, I am again asking you in a gentle manner, be more open-minded. Are you a Filipino? If yes, then probably you know Soriano years before the rape case was charged against him. 180.191.66.131 (talk) 03:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, Anon. I can see that you are still struggling to distinguish between a notable individual like Soriano, a notable organization or company like Mashable, and . An organization can be notable, but their notability is not a guarantee that the awards they give, if ever they decide to do so like Mashable, is also notable. Here is a list of notable Philippine awards, and here is a list of notable American awards. I am sorry, but the subject is yet to receive any notable award fit for inclusion in an encyclopedia. – Shannon Rose Talk 20:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shannon Rose:Hi SR. The category about the notable Philippine awards is incomplete. But why talk about that, Mashable is internationally NOTABLE (I'm not shouting...). I have seen many articles about website listing the award given by Mashable. here's one. Why are you questioning it, SR? Your the only user I've encountered who denied the notability of an international/internet-wide award-giving body (they awarded Wikipedia itself). Please do not whitewash the reality: - that Soriano can still receive good awards even if there are legal issues surrounding him. I was even unaware that Soriano was given awards by some radio-station/show (don't know) called "genius family". I'm only interested in getting the Mashable award be mentioned, very briefly, at the end of the Biography section because it serves one encyclopedic truth, that Soriano is still an active preacher and can still be awarded by these organizations.
    Please answer my reaction (above) about the "uncited" Itanong mo Kay Soriano part. You can watch it in the internet if you want to prove that the sentence in the article is true: This is exhibited in his program "Itanong mo kay Soriano (Ask Soriano)" where he claims to be able to answer any question using the Bible.. 180.191.71.169 (talk) 05:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, Anon! How are you today? While Mashable is, without question, a notable news blog, it is not notable as an award giving body (i.e. which makes its awards unnotable). Encyclopedia Dramatica, like most Wikipedia articles, is still in the process of development to at least a near-decent state. Errors in articles would, of course, tend to remain unless certain editors take notice and become inclined to correct them. For all you know, one of these days the entire award section for that article may come-off. At the moment I am only able to concentrate on one entry at a time. Let other editors sort that one out. Established users are here to brainstorm on the Eli Soriano article in particular, not on Encyclopedia Dramatica... unless you wish to edit that one too. I do not. If you are unable to find the Mashable award in either the current list of notable Philippine awards or the current list of notable American awards, then I would have to perpetually disagree with your rabid insistence regarding the addition of that information to the article. Here is a friendly advice, which you are free to accept or discard: why don't you register, edit for at least a year, then come back here with a little bit more knowledge and understanding? Until then, I believe I am already finished in dealing with you. As you just keep on going on and on about your personal sentiments, conjectures, original research, and personal interpretation of Wikipedia policies and procedures. I only came here due to the promptings of a well-meaning, more senior, and admittedly more knowledgeable editor. But I find myself devoting more time in extending help to you and Dar boo... I mean, IronBreww, than discussing improvements with editors who truly know what they are doing. All issues have already been answered. DanielRigal already explained why archived web pages can be used as reference and why the awards section went, the majority of established users have agreed to retain international fugitive in the lead—and I have also agreed to compromise my previous position regarding its precedence in the notability clause, the wholly-unsourced paragraph was deleted with the express agreement of a mediating admin—and none of the established users (who obviously know what they are doing better than the unverifiable anons that just popped-out from nowhere) opposed it, and every issue has been clearly and patiently addressed and explained. That's it! Job done! Otherwise, going back and forth with anons like you will not only be pointless and a complete waste of everyone's time, it will also be never ending. Wikipedia is not a place to lament about the present state of one's religion as reflected by reputable newspapers, websites, and TV specials. Some sort of therapeutic facility is probably required for that. Editors here just go by policies, procedures, commonsense, and reliable sources. – Shannon Rose Talk 18:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Shannon Rose, I'm the anon you've been talking to for these days. I've registered following you advice. How long does it take to be considered an "established user"?
    Going back to the issues. Mashable's award giving body is not notable, do you have proof? Why do you keep questioning that part even though it is placed in other articles unquestioned? Don't you trust the award-giving body just because it is new in the line (2008)? Is there suspicious "scandals" or scams that happened that maligned the integrity of the award-giving body? (So now I ask you, does an award have to be just to be notable, of course not! I know that you've gave that category as a simple example.) How about other awards? Is it okay for me to include them provided it is popular in the Philippines and I have valid RS to back them? Of course they should.
    I don't know your motive on questioning the notability of the award or who you are working for, but I suspect you're either in one of those organizations that are against Soriano, or is heavily influenced by it. (Sounds familiar?) To be honest (please don't take offense), SR has been this close in making me believe that the award is unnotable but your constant criticism and anti-Soriano-ness (you talk in a way that implies that Soriano is guilty) has made me more persistent and doubtful. Let as wait for the mediating admin to return and I will try to invite more users (including the pro-Soriano camp and some admins that were previously involved). Trust me, it's notable (talk) 07:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Suggested Leads

    the current lede

    Eliseo Fernando Soriano (born April 4, 1947), an international fugitive and a controversial Filipino televangelist, is the presiding minister of the Philippines-based Members Church of God International. He is known as Bro. Eli in the congregation he leads, and through his radio and television program Ang Dating Daan (The Old Path).

    Soriano is known for criticizing various other religious groups for doctrines and practices he considers to be against his personal understanding of the Bible. Soriano and his followers believe him to be the Pantas (Wise man) according to Daniel 12:9-10 who would understand the Bible in the last days. This is exhibited in his program "Itanong mo kay Soriano (Ask Soriano)" where he claims to be able to answer any question using the Bible.

    the anon's suggested lede

    Eliseo Fernando Soriano (born April 4, 1947), a Filipino televangelist and the presiding minister of the Philippines-based Members Church of God International. He is known as Bro. Eli in the congregation he leads, and through his radio and television program Ang Dating Daan (The Old Path).

    Soriano is known for criticizing various other religious groups for doctrines and practices he considers to be against his personal understanding of the Bible. Soriano and his followers believe him to be the Pantas (Wise man) according to Daniel 12:9-10 who would understand the Bible in the last days. This is exhibited in his program "Itanong mo kay Soriano (Ask Soriano)" where he claims to be able to answer any question using the Bible. (legal issues part)
    Soriano is currently facing charges of rape in his home country, the Philippines.

    Shannon Rose's suggested revision in place of the second paragraph in the current lead

    Soriano fled his home country after being indicted for same-sex rape, this, along with other lawsuits and issues, have been widely-publicized thereby compromising his reputation as clergy.

    The reason for suggesting this is because the present contents of the second paragraph i.e. being "known" for criticizing other religious groups, believed to be a Pantas by his followers according to a certain verse in the Bible, and being able to answer any question using the Bible, are wholly unsourced. My position is either we replace the second paragraph or we scrap it altogether. – Shannon Rose Talk 14:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    off2riorob's suggested lede

    from Eliseo Fernando Soriano (born April 4, 1947), a Filipino televangelist and the presiding minister of the Philippines-based Members Church of God International. He is known as Bro. Eli in the congregation he leads, and through his radio and television program Ang Dating Daan (The Old Path).

    He is known for criticizing various other religious groups for doctrines and practices he considers to be against his personal understanding of the Bible. Soriano and his followers believe him to be the Pantas (Wise man) according to Daniel 12:9-10 who would understand the Bible in the last days. This is exhibited in his program "Itanong mo kay Soriano (Ask Soriano)" where he claims to be able to answer any question using the Bible.

    In 2009 Soriano failed to attend his bail hearing in regards to allegations of male rape and there is a Philippine warrant out for his arrest. Off2riorob (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, Off2riorob. Please read the article and follow the references. The subject was indicted for rape in May 2006 and a corresponding warrant of arrest was issued by Judge Siyangco. Soriano was then allowed to post bail, which he did. Then the case got dismissed... for a while. Because in November of the same year (2006) the case was revived, and another warrant was issued by Judge Dayaon. It was then that Soriano went on hiding. Then, in June 21, 2008, news came out that Soriano showed up and posted bail again. This was later confirmed as a hoax, because it turned out that the arresting officer, PO3 June Gumaru, and Soriano's secretary, Belen Talentado, conspired in faking the certificate of detention to permit his release by posting bail for his rape case as opposed to Soriano actually surrendering and posting the bail himself. Because of that he was again indicted for a second crime in relation to that particular case: falsification of public documents. Clearly, he has been a fugitive since 2006. These are all sourced information available for your reading pleasure on the article under Rape case. Why would we then say that there is currently a warrant out for his arrest due to failure to attend a 2009 bail hearing?
    Also, why should we retain the second paragraph saying that the subject is "known" for criticizing other religious groups, believed to be a Pantas by his followers according to a certain verse in the Bible, and being able to answer any question using the Bible, when they are wholly unsourced? – Shannon Rose Talk 18:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The uncited can clearly go. So he has failed to answer bail, that is simple and exactly as my comment.

    Firstly, it's 2006 not 2009, so it cannot be exactly as your comment:) Secondly, he is a fugitive not because he failed to attend a bail hearing. There was no bail hearing set for him. The Philippine judiciary does not work that way. I know that you are a conscientious editor, but we cannot make light of his legal problems the way you want it. Especially so since they, particularly his same-sex rape case, are notable enough to have their own article. There is absolutely no POV on the lead. The guy is a fugitive and people generally know him as such. In fact, there exists at least six times more web pages on "Eli Soriano" fugitive than on "Eli Soriano" televangelist. The solid consensus among established and long-time users in keeping that information on the lead is crystal clear, while opposition only comes from single-purpose anons like this one as well as previous users who have been perma-blocked for abusing their accounts. The POV would come in only if we remove the fugitive part there, because we would fail to attribute almost half of the article. Thanks! – Shannon Rose Talk 19:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I notice your recent SPI was closed as no issue, you are perhaps seeing anyone who wants to remove dispputed content as a sock puppet but they are not. The thing I have found is that if an article BLP is POV then what happens every time is that people, good faith people, come along and try to rectify the problem and that is what I see here. Off2riorob (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Off2riorob. Sadly, it was. But I am going to request another checkuser replete with evidences, hopefully, at the end of the week, when I have more time. The no issue is, I believe, justified, because I was truly lax on providing further information. But since no checkuser was performed, we cannot really make a conclusion whether they are "good faith people," as you are inclined to believe, or mere reincarnations of permablocked troublemakers like Petersantos and Felix Natalo. I will, however, remove the unsourced second paragraph as has been clearly agreed. – Shannon Rose Talk 13:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Soriano is already popular even before the rape allegations came up in 2005. There were even parodies of him in the the late 90's to early 2000 because his religious program was so popular during that time.

    see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ang_Dating_Doon

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZK7mjqYXR4
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DG3zXLfanko

    The second paragraph should not be removed. Oh, Come On! Is there a requirement that every sentence, every information in Wikipedia needs to be backed by references. It will only be questioned by critics of the subject that has terribly lost good faith due to the past issues of the problem. The Eliseo Soriano is currently blocked by editing because of an anon removing and inserting unsourced information? Purely a deceptive allegation, kindly review the edit and you will see that 120.x.x.x added a sentence backed by an RS. The other sentence need not a reference, since it came from a section of the Daniel Razon article that was added by Shannon Rose. 180.191.61.132 (talk) 03:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Straw Poll

    I have a concern the the adding of international fugitive as the primary comment in the lede and the primary reason for this persons notability is a BLP violation as this is beng given undue weight. Shannon Rose thinks that is the most notable thing about him and supports the present lede. Would users comment as to their preference within policy.

    Rewrite

    Eliseo Fernando Soriano (born April 4, 1947), a Filipino televangelist and the presiding minister of the Philippines-based Members Church of God International. He is known as Bro. Eli in the congregation he leads, and through his radio and television program Ang Dating Daan (The Old Path).

    Soriano is known for criticizing various other religious groups for doctrines and practices he considers to be against his personal understanding of the Bible. Soriano and his followers believe him to be the Pantas (Wise man) according to Daniel 12:9-10 who would understand the Bible in the last days. This is exhibited in his program "Itanong mo kay Soriano (Ask Soriano)" where he claims to be able to answer any question using the Bible. In 2006 Soriano failed to attend his bail hearing in regards to allegations of male rape and there is a Philippine warrant out for his arrest.

    Present lede

    Eliseo Fernando Soriano (born April 4, 1947), an international fugitive and a controversial Filipino televangelist, is the presiding minister of the Philippines-based Members Church of God International. He is known as Bro. Eli in the congregation he leads, and through his radio and television program Ang Dating Daan (The Old Path).

    Soriano is known for criticizing various other religious groups for doctrines and practices he considers to be against his personal understanding of the Bible. Soriano and his followers believe him to be the Pantas (Wise man) according to Daniel 12:9-10 who would understand the Bible in the last days. This is exhibited in his program "Itanong mo kay Soriano (Ask Soriano)" where he claims to be able to answer any question using the Bible.

    comments

    Please post your preference here. Thanks.

    I agree, Yworo. I am willing to compromise my current position about the subject being more notable as a fugitive than as a televangelist to this new rationale and am fully amenable to flipping their order. Thank you for your input! – Shannon Rose Talk 12:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Take note, Yworo, that the official website of the Interpol does not include Soriano in the fugitive list. Shannon, however, added this part in the article, again giving it undue weight and more POV coverage PO3 Gumaru admitted in a sworn affidavit that he had never seen the church group leader, that Soriano did not really surrender to him, and that he is, (THIS IS THE PART THAT WAS NOT STATED BY THE POLICEMAN:)in fact, still a fugitive. Why did Shannon Rose add it, probably just to reflect her current beliefs in the article.
    2nd evidence: Here is another part Shannon inserted which was absent from the reference. After more than a year and a half of living as a fugitive,.
    • Technically speaking, he may still be a fugitive but since he is not notable as such, why not place that part in the Legal Issues section.

    Be vigilant, Wikipedians, as members of Soriano's group (removing the rape case part) and critics of Soriano's group (rejecting the duly-sourced awards) are tilting the article to extreme levels of POV: (whitewashing). I'm voting for the rewrite. Shannon Rose I am gently advising you to please, (pretty please) be more open-minded and please accept the fact the prior to his legal troubles, Soriano was already notable for being a televangelist and a critic to many religions. 180.191.61.132 (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Hi, Anon. The "vote" of another anon, who only began editing two months ago, may not necessarily amplify the voice or add weight to the obviously-COI opinion of the SPA Anon. Nevertheless, thank you for dropping by! – Shannon Rose Talk 12:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current -Keep as is: "an international fugitive and a controversial Filipino televangelist". "international" bear more weight than "filipino" given this is wikipedia. Conrad940 (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the Wikipedia Manual of Style, specifically WP:MOSBIO, indicate that one of the first things that should be presented is the subject's nationality or citizenship. This is normally followed by their career, then why they are notable. Being a fugitive is not a career, and being an international fugitive not make one a citizen of the world. Yworo (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for pointing that out, Yworo. Following this, it should then read "A Filipino televangelist and international fugitive." This actually flows much better. – Shannon Rose Talk 20:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Rumors are he's already a Brazilian citizen. It'll come out in the papers sooner or later. I guess we can then change the lede to "a Brazilian of Filipino descent" :) Conrad940 (talk) 08:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My own Suggestion:Eli Soriano (born...), a Filipino televangelist, is the presiding minister of thePhilippines-based Members Church of God International. Currently an international fugitive, he is known as Bro. Eli in the congregation he leads, and through his radio.... 120.28.64.72 (talk) 02:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Bill Phillips (author)

    The Revision History of the Bill Phillips (author) page on Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Phillips_(author)&action=history, shows more than four years of persistent misuse by “Yankees76.”

    In that time, Yankees76 has displayed extreme bias against Bill Phillips. As the Revision History clearly shows, Yankees76 promptly deletes/undoes any good faith additions to the page that would make it more balanced and compliant with Wikipedia’s NPOV policy.

    Yankees76 insists on being the primary contributor to the page, and the majority of what he contributes is defamatory and irrelevant except to him, as it supports his extreme bias/personal resentment toward Bill Phillips.

    The sources Yankees76 often cites refer to http://tmuscle.com/tmuscle.com, an online newsletter published by TC Luoma, a former employee of Bill Phillips who was dismissed from one of his companies 15 years ago. These citations are biased and not reliable.

    TC Luoma has made defamatory claims about Bill Phillips for many years in his newsletter, which Yankees76 then adds to the Bill Phillips (author) page. (TC Luoma also sells nutrition products that compete with those sold by Phillips.) Whether or not TC Luoma and Yankees76 are the same person, they share the same agenda, which is to control the Bill Phillips (author) page on Wikipedia.

    Throughout the past four years, Yankees76 has bullied many contributors with insults and accusations that they are vandalizing his work on the page. This behavior goes directly against Wikipedia’s founding intention of providing objective, unbiased, and fair information. As it stands now, the Bill Phillips (author) page is defamatory, biased, and based on unreliable sources.

    The bottom line is that Yankees76 has persistently misused his position as an admin with improper deletions and unreliable sources.

    Getfit1980 (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ludicrous accusations. First off, please review WP:AFG and WP:NPA. Second - I'm not an admin, nor have I ever claimed I was. You can't come to Wikipedia and make defamatory statements about other editors - especially garbage like what you've posted above. - especially when you have spent ZERO effort in doing anything with regards to coming to a consensus on any material. Also please familiarize yourself with what a reliable source is. Information that you don't agree with doesn't make the source unreliable. TC Luoma was the editor in chief of Muscle Media and is the owner of Testosterone Magazine which makes him "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." But beyond that, your edits include more than simply the material sourced using articles published by Luoma - you've deleted material published by Outside Magazine, Coloradorunnermag.com, an interview will Bill by Fitness Atlantic.com and a press release by the Make-a-Wish Foundation. [1], replacing it press release material including material cut and pasted material from Transformation.com - Phillips latest website. What is your rationale behind that? There are 24 references in the article - not even a quarter reference T-Nation. Giving due weight to all aspects of the subjects life doesn't make the article defamatory and irrelevant. Wikipedia isn't another avenue for Bill to do a press release.
    Admins, User:Getfit1980 is one of many sockpuppets who come to the article every few months without any previous Wikipedia edits and rewrite the article to remove any statements (sourced or not) that are related to Bill's well documented past as a steroids dealer/bodybuilder and supplement company owner or any negative statements in general. Any attempts to get these sockpuppets to discuss edits are usually met with silence. At one point (September 2008) the article was fully protected to avoid nearly the entire removal of content by a sockpuppet using the name User:BillEditor[2]. How I've "bullied" any editors is beyond me, considering these editors refuse to discuss their changes and usually disapear only to be replaced by yet another sockpuppet that proceeds to do the same thing without any attempts to form a consensus on any of the informatio. The last one, the now blocked User:Chloe81375, attempted to intimidate both myself and another editor by threatening to expose our alleged addresses. Clearly there is an agenda being pushed by an individual or group of individuals who have a conflict of interest.
    The article as it stands now does not give any undue weight to any side of Bill's career/personal life - both his successes and failures. The main article was written in March of 2006 by User:Glen and I've simply expanded on it with talk page discussions dating back to February 2006. A look through the edit history will show that I've spent considerable time carefully sourcing the info, especially info that is likely to be challenged. I've also attempted to explain why sources such at TC Luoma and magazines such as Mucle Insider and Testosterone Magazine are reliable sources. There is not much additional information I can add to this article at this time, however I'm not about to let an individual posting under numerous accounts remove sourced info in order to satisfy their own agenda. Yes, I'm aware of WP:OWN however watching an article and removing content blanking and vandalism does not fall under that guideline.--Yankees76 (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just so Yankees76 isn't accused of canvassing - he did post on my talk page a few days back when the "outing" occured, but I think I should follow up now.

    1) In that time, Yankees76 has displayed extreme bias against Bill Phillips. As the Revision History clearly shows, Yankees76 promptly deletes/undoes any good faith additions to the page that would make it more balanced and compliant with Wikipedia’s NPOV policy.

    • he's probably done it twice in 4 years - and I've done it once too. When I did it - the article was butchered by a name/number user name/sockpuppet and was re-written to read like a press release - complete with copied and pasted material from Transformation.com's forums. I had a conversation with that "user" and we seemed to come some sort of working relationship until they disapeared and have not edited since.

    2) Yankees76 insists on being the primary contributor to the page, and the majority of what he contributes is defamatory and irrelevant except to him, as it supports his extreme bias/personal resentment toward Bill Phillips.

    • Wikipedia should probably count itself lucky that anyone edits this guys page. Other than the constant sockpuppetry, he's the only preson consistantly adding verifiable material to the article - and the material he's is hardly "defamatory". Where do you get "extreme bias" from any of that? Clearly you're not assuming good faith yourself.

    3) The sources Yankees76 often cites refer to http://tmuscle.com/tmuscle.com, an online newsletter published by TC Luoma, a former employee of Bill Phillips who was dismissed from one of his companies 15 years ago. These citations are biased and not reliable.

    • Don't trivialize the source. TC Luoma was once the editor-in-chief of the most popular bodybuilding magazine in the US (Muscle Media), and is the current editor of one most respected online fitness/training sources in Testosterone Nation (which is also a print magazine). Due to his many years working closely with Phillips on MM2K he would therefore have accurate insight and information about Bill Phillips' life during that time. And he posts new material about his experiences semi-regularly. This isn't some random internet blogger's opinion that Yankees76 is quoting, but a published author. Also note that some of the references that use T-Nation quote articles that were not written by TC.

    4) TC Luoma has made defamatory claims about Bill Phillips for many years in his newsletter, which Yankees76 then adds to the Bill Phillips (author) page. (TC Luoma also sells nutrition products that compete with those sold by Phillips.) Whether or not TC Luoma and Yankees76 are the same person, they share the same agenda, which is to control the Bill Phillips (author) page on Wikipedia.

    • Hardly "defamatory". Potentially embarassing to Bill now that he's 10 years or so removed from it and trying to bury the information, but truthful nonetheless. Bill Phillips is no angel. [ Redacted per WP:BLP }

    5) Throughout the past four years, Yankees76 has bullied many contributors with insults and accusations that they are vandalizing his work on the page. This behavior goes directly against Wikipedia’s founding intention of providing objective, unbiased, and fair information. As it stands now, the Bill Phillips (author) page is defamatory, biased, and based on unreliable sources.

    • This statement clinches it for me that you're indeed the same "BillEditor" who despite a WP:COI- see diff[3] - continues to delete any information on Bill that is related to steroids or his past as a supplement company owner. You've been constantly deleting sourced content on and off for at least 2 years - half the time without a valid explanation - which is indeed vandalism and would be reverted as such. Yankees76 isn't "bullying" anyone (and he's never insinuated that it's "his work" that I've seen - please post diffs if you're going to make personal attacks on other editors. Bullying editors is making fake threats to post their addresses - a power which you don't have. Nobody has been bullied on this article except the editors who are trying to prevent those with a conflict of interest from turning it into an ad. If your intention is to provide objective, unbiased, and fair information, why do you delete the fact that Bill used steroids or that he ran a magazine that employed Dan Duchaine and liberally discussed how to take and even smuggle steroids? Why the need to remove Bill's association with Jose Canseco, when there are plenty of sources that talk about it? That's not being very objective. The "press releases" you've inserted in place of the article aren't very objective either.

    6) The bottom line is that Yankees76 has persistently misused his position as an admin with improper deletions and unreliable sources.

    • The bottom line is if you had taken time to discuss your edits and build a consensus you might find you'd have a better experience here. This complaint is frivolous and reeks of self promotion and agenda pushing - and is a weak attempt to silence someone. It's pathetic. --Quartet 21:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Because TC Luoma is a competitor of Bill Phillips, his sources are not reliable enough for negative information from them to be used. If they continue to be used for that, I'd be inclined to disallow their use as sources at all. In fact, we certainly should not allow linking to any articles written by him that contain such information, because WP:BLP say we can't link to potentially defamatory pages. Yworo (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "Competitor" can only be used loosely to describe the relationship between these two - try to disregard weasel words like "competitor" to describe their releationship and "newsletter" to describe TMuscle.com. Bill Phillips sells his books/transformation products to a completely different target market at completely different retailers than Biotest sells their bodybuilding supplements. In fact Phillips does not even have any sports nutrition or bodybuilding supplements available for sale on his website at all. Since TMuscle is free and therefore not a publishing competitor - how are Bill and TC competitors? Becasue they used to work together? If I used to work at McDonald's - does that mean I can't write an article for a magazine that talks about my experiences there and have it used as a source here? And how is disclosing that Phillips had a benign tumor removed from his jaw negative material? --Yankees76 (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note that Getfit1980 has been blocked indefinitely. --Yankees76 (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    A new user, User:Luke18:2-8, attempted to add some negative information[4] to the David Eppstein article. I saw several problems with it. First, the information added did not really correspond to the source: the letter referenced actually states that the complaint against Eppstein was found to be groundless, while the edit of User:Luke18:2-8 appears to indicate otherwise. Second, it looks doubtful to me that the source cited[5] satisfies WP:V. The cite meami.org appears to be some kind of a search engine and somebody seems to have posted a privately addressed letter there. I don't think this qualifies as "published" material (such as, say, an article in a newspaper would have been). I have reverted the edits of User:Luke18:2-8, but I'd like someone else, experienced in BLP matters, to take a look. Nsk92 (talk) 12:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm, I don't even see any source, I get a bunch of pop-up windows from that link. However, anybody can make a complaint. We normally do not even link to verifiable legal complaints, because until a ruling of some sort is made, there is no way to determine whether there is any merit to them at all or whether they are malicious. The same would apply here. If the subject were verifiably sanctioned due to a serious complaint, that might be something which could be added to the article. But the complaint itself is not noteworthy.
    I've added the article to my watchlist. Yworo (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    When I follow the link, I get a pdf file with a letter from an interim Provost for Academic Affairs to a Mr Musatov. I also found that there is an indef-blocked user User:Martin.musatov and even an indef-blicked IP, User:76.91.204.240. This might be related. Nsk92 (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Musatov persistently vandalizes P versus NP problem and related complexity articles (especially after the former has been semiprotected), usually by adding a listing of an unrelated algorithm copied from elsewhere, often slightly modified (e.g., once he used the source code of the plug and play BIOS driver from the Linux kernel, with all substrings "PnP" replaced with "P = NP"; he appears to like the search-and-replace function a lot), usually with a link to his website, meami.org, buried in the text. He operates using several IPs, and occasionally, one-time user names like the User:Luke18:2-8 above. His edit to the David Eppstein article was clearly malicious, it was a revenge for actions by User:David Eppstein taken agaist him (i.e., reverting Musatov's vandalism, and semiprotecting the article).—Emil J. 13:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    William Lane Craig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - William Lane Craig is a popular Christian apologist and philosopher, or, depending on your persepctive, a popular philosopher and Christian apologist. Most people who know of him - such as his students - are very much in his pocket. And it's difficult to explain that while one might have the perspective of Dr. Craig as a great philospher and thinker, most people - which is to say the far more objective persecptive - find him to be far from a philosopher first and apologist second. His page is currently riddled with extraneous information and has, I feel, a celebratory tone about it. I have begun to isolate these in the discussion page and asking for commentary. Two examples, the biography contains bibliographic statements (like recounting a specific article that Dr. Craig wrote) without explain why it noteworthy among the hundreds of articles that he's written. Or, the article simply listes a few books that are mentioned in the actual bibliography without any clarification. I will be cleaning up this sort of clutter.

    There are more specific and controversial edits which I would like some advice from other Wikipedia editors. For example, Dr. Craig is an advisor of the Center for Science and Culture which is a program of the Discovery Institute and, some people would say, is indistinguishable from the Discovery Institute. I believe that this is a rich and salient detail that the uninitiated needs to know when reading about Dr. Craig. Therefore, I would place it early in his biogrpahy. Others want to bury deep within the article or omit it entirely.

    More to come! And thanks! Theowarner2 (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The user Rihanna Knowles repeatedly is changing the birthdate of Flo Rida from December 16 to September 17, both in 1979, even though there are two sources cited in the article supporting the December birthdate (Reuters and Allmusic). RK has never cited a source that directly supports the alternatively claimed birthdate. Recently User:HipHopStan also followed RK's lead. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible sockpuppets? -- Cirt (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is at Talk:Flo_Rida#Flo_Rida.27s_Birthday. There are possible WP:SPA accounts involved. Regardless, the info on the birthdate is cited to Allmusic and Reuters, both sources that satisfy WP:RS and WP:V for this info. The info should not be changed, without backing up a change to a significant amount of other independent reliable secondary sources. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Accounts involved
    1. HipHopStan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    2. Rihanna Knowles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    3. 65.25.18.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    4. Flo Rida's Biggest Fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    5. HipHopfan4life (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    There may be others involved as well. I have given both of the 2 above accounts warnings that if the disruption continues, they will be blocked. -- Cirt (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: The account, HipHopStan (talk · contribs), continued the disruption, after the warning. Blocked for one week. -- Cirt (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support that, I was edit conflicted in my revert of his edit. Off2riorob (talk) 21:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Hopefully the other account, Rihanna Knowles (talk · contribs), or the various IPs, will not engage in the same behavior pattern again, after the warning, regarding this article. -- Cirt (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Added two more accounts to above list, related to issues with same article. -- Cirt (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Update, now at sock investigation case page

    Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HipHopfan4life. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Maximum age of living persons

    The BLP policy was recently changed to establish 123 years as the age at which we assume that an individual is dead. Please join in discussion on what the cutoff age for BLPs should be on the BLP talk page. Thanks  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 20:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Unsourced negative information in Paul Daley

    [6]

    I have insisted that a source be provided that backs up the assertions I removed in the above link. Until the source is provided, the paragraph remains out of the article.--Father Goose (talk) 02:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I have already explained the matter to you, but obviously you've not listened. Paralympiakos (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It ends up being more complex, to my eyes - a source has been added, from ESPN, but later, less reliable sources have raised doubt on the claims [7][8]. Either way, the inserted wording displays an overly strong POV not contained in the source. - Bilby (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the information again. Some was clearly unsourced, and the rest was not fully supported by the espn story, as Bilby pointed out. Paralympiakos has reverted Bilby's attempt to bring it closer to the source. I've now issued him a 3RR warning, since he has reverted other editors multiple times. Other editors and administrators are encouraged to keep an eye on the situation.--Slp1 (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No idea why you keep removing it. It was sourced and the sources stating there was another knee were purely speculative. I remember some of them asking a question in the title ("Did he get hit by another knee") so it wasn't conclusive whatsoever. Paralympiakos (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Armin Perla

    born 5.02.1990 is Bosnian football player whit pre-contract agreement to Ary United —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vederan (talkcontribs) 22:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I cannot verify Susan Wise Bauer's rank or position on the faculty of William and Mary College. I suspect that she may have moved on, probably to a more prestigious post. The rank noted in the article tends to lower her credibility as an authority on world history education, the area of some of her books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrennenderSorge (talkcontribs) 00:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This CV seems current as of 2010, so I don't think we are too far off the mark. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Southern Poverty Law Center

    A dispute has arisen regarding whether one version of the lede is problematic with regard to the biographies of living persons policy. Further opinions would be welcome at the article talk page.

    CIreland (talk) 02:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Having looked at the page, I think the BLP concerns aren't as widespread as portrayed--the biggest issue I see is with the NPOV, although it does have some tangential BLP effects. Jclemens (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, CIreland.
    In a nutshell the BLP issues are these. Yes, SPLC is not a living person. On the SPLC page hates groups were/are listed is if they were actually hate groups, instead of saying this was SPLC's view either directly or as the media uncritically repeats the claims. Yes, hate groups are not living people. The problem is that some of the listed hate groups are run by or consist solely of a single person. That single person is easily identifiable by a simple look at the Wiki pages for those groups, let alone other sources. So labeling that person's "group" as a hate group is tantamount to labeling that person as a someone running a hate group, and that may violate BLP, among other things such as libel, but we are here talking about BLP. Before Wikipedia broadcasts the SPLC claims worldwide as if they were the truth instead of the SPLC's view, we at Wikipedia better be sure we have fully complied with all relevant policies. For more detail, see the various discussions going on. And thanks again. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to see some comments here, as LegitimateAndEvenCompelling was editwarring (6RR) on the grounds that 3RR didn't apply to BLP violations. He was blocked but quickly was unblocked. Dougweller (talk) 21:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is never any reason to edit war in a content dispute, it uncivil and disruptive. Talk pages and noticeboards exist for a reason, content in an article is decided upon by consensus, not by individual interpretation of policy. One editor's opinion that it is a BLP violation does not justify edit warring, only the Community-at-large can make that decision and then the decision should be carried out by an admin as needed to enforce the decision. I dont see consensus reached that the information must be removed. I am saddened that an admin felt that someone who egregiously violated policy should be unblocked so quickly.Camelbinky (talk) 21:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to agree with you, Camelbinky, but there's a large amount of leeway in BLP that tends to result in this sort of editwarring in marginal BLP cases: one editor believes in good faith that his edits are 3RR exempt because of the BLP impact, while one or more other editors disagree, and believe in good faith that the version they prefer has no issues which create BLP problems. Jclemens (talk) 22:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This was in no way a clearcut BLP violation and he's lucky he got unblocked. What I don't understand at all is how anyone can claim that saying that the SPLC tracks hate groups could be a BLP (or even NPOV) violation. It is a fact that it tracks hate groups. Some of the groups it tracks may not be hate groups, there may be disputes over whether they are, but most of us would agree that many of the groups it does track are hate groups. There's no libel in saying that, the text never said that the groups the SPLC tracks are all hate groups. Dougweller (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "Hate group" is not an objective description - it is emotive and evaluative - and neutrality would mean we don't label any group as such - or even imply that the SPLC tracks any such such group. We say rather it track groups it regards as hate groups, the reader can decide for themselves whether the evaluation is warranted.--Scott Mac 00:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look at the talk page, there are references to a number of sources that appear to be RS that say it's an organisation that tracks hate groups, not that it's an organisation that tracks groups it regards as hate groups. Dougweller (talk) 00:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a consensus out in the world, and certainly among reliable news and academic organizations studying the phenomena, that hate groups, however they are described, exist. The SPLC is simply one (although possibly the most important one) of many watchdog organizations that monitor such groups. It is erroneous to assume, without any proof, that any classification made by the SPLC is its unique interpretation unsupported by any of these other groups who monitor them.
    In any event, the text in question does not name a single group. The article as a whole mentions only one specific hate group in the article section on hate groups and then does so only to cite it as an example of an organization that disagrees with being so classified. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User page was edited by coryburnell. Edits have been undone. Discussion page noted with link to WP:BLP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ELH50 (talkcontribs) 12:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Problematic editor at Dino Rossi

    Hayek1818 (talk · contribs) Seems to be a case of a new editor on a mission who isn't terribly familiar with Wikipedia's processes. He's inserting information into the BLP of a challenger to a U.S. Senate seat, which includes information that may or may not be valid (I haven't looked in detail -- just noticed on vandalism patrol). In any case his editing is problematic because he's reverting to a version that contains what appears to be some commentary directed at editors reverting him. Some more attention to the article would be appreciated. — e. ripley\talk 22:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've reported him for edit warring, but would still appreciate any extra eyes on the article. — e. ripley\talk 22:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've looked at the article. You are correct to revert him, although the BLP nature of the material seems tangential--he's trying to buff Rossi's article with his commentary. He's obviously new and might be salvageable--many good editors started as POV pushers. Jclemens (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree on the whole. Thanks for looking. I've left some specific pointers to policy on his talk page, so maybe he'll take a look at them while he's blocked. — e. ripley\talk 23:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Limmie Snell

    Limmie Snell has a death date of 1986 sourced offline, and seems to be performing this year. Are there two musicians of that name or is one source incorrect? Fresh eyes appreciated. ϢereSpielChequers 08:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Cohl - Biography

    The information contained in this biography is false. It only alludes to the down points in his career and doesn't speak to the real "Michael Cohl". This is slander against a great man. It also highlights two positions which Michael Cohl no longer holds. It is misleading and a vast misrepresentation of the man and his accomplishments. I suggest it be removed immediately. Thanks You, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.250.131.123 (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Now has a section titled "Her Exit from the Financial Times" which starts with "A search of the ""Financial Times"" archives reveals that here final three articles were written in September, 2005.[4]" based on a FT search. Is this OR in a BLP? Further the section posits cause and effect for her leaving the FT. Is there any problem with the section title or contents? Additional input as to where the line on OR and SYNTH ought to be drawn would be highly welcome. Collect (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This edit needs attention, and I'm traveling and can't get to it. I haven't checked the reliability of some of the obscure sources, and the claims are not represented neutrally (the claims are made by a convict, of dubious credibility, which isn't elaborated at all in the text). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    hmmm, no response, so I've begun working on it. This source does not appear to meet the standards of reliability for a BLP. This source also does not appear to satisfy the requirements for reliability for such changes in a BLP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've cleaned this up the best I can for now; it would be helpful if others would watch this BLP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I have no first or second hand knowledge of the subject, I simply found the page a few days ago while reading through articles on the music genre and did some cleanup and one reversion. Apparently, IP is attempting to substantiate what I reverted. I am not afraid to revert this, but would rather have a more BLP-concerned admin handle the situation, the current pattern is dubious and I am not interested in going to war over it. Thank you. Sswonk (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree the link is inappropriate and I have removed it, and will watch article for a while. Johnuniq (talk) 03:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sholom Rubashkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Rubashkin is a high profile case, in which Sholom Rubashkin has been accused of fraud and a huge number of child labor offenses - this latter has just been shown by the courts to have been one big lie. According to Rubashkin himself, the accusations of fraud is similarly trumped up and he has been framed by the State and US Govenment. None of this has been mentioned in the wiki article, although I would suggest it is highly relevant. This case has appeared on wiki with a very non-neutral slant, and none of his defense has even been presented. Please see www.yated.com for an overview of the case from a different perspective. Each of his cases can influence the outcome of his other cases, so it is most important that this wiki article does not unfairly bias potential judges, jurors, media and witnesses in this very complex case. I don't know how to get a more open perspective into the article as I am a novice user. I wish someone would present his side of the matter somewhere in the article. From what I've seen others trying, and my personal attempts, it is complex to know how to present information in a way acceptable to wiki, and to keep it there despite reverts. Please can someone help here. Eftwithrachelg (talk) 08:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Rachel Geller[reply]

    He was recently acquitted on state charges but he has been convicted on federal charges of fraud. I removed the extended discussion of state charges regarding child labor violations after acquittal, simply noting that he had been charged and acquitted. But there's no reason to worry about the discussion of the fraud conviction -- that's a done deal, no reason to worry about jurors being affected, etc. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That article is not a biography at all, it is just about crime and trial, it needs moving to a new title. Perhaps .The criminal trials of Sholom Rubashkin. The article is simply a cited rap sheet or criminal report. It starts in this labeling manner...Sholom Rubashkin is the former CEO of the Glatt kosher Agriprocessors slaughterhouse in Postville, Iowa, and a convicted fraudster.... lovely. Off2riorob (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    For some reason, I think "Allegations of homosexuality and homophobia" forms a red flag in any BLP. [9] shows the restoration of that section in Matt Drudge. Does anyone else find this to be per se "contentious" and ill-suited to an encyclopedic BLP? Past precedent is that "outing" a person as gay (source is a gay publication specifically opposed to Drudge) where they have said they are not gay is specifically beyond the pale, and labelling such a person as "homophobic" likely hits the same policy and rules for BLPs. Collect (talk) 09:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    We may report stories that appear in reliable sources. However the section seems too long. TFD (talk) 07:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably more of an WP:UNDUE issue, if any. There might be a better section title than "Allegations of homosexuality and homophobia", as well. It seems a bit attack-y, or something. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 13:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    On second thought, there may be a BLP issue here. This kind of info is definitely controversial, so only the highest quality sourcing is allowed. I'm just giving this a cursory glance, but commondreams.org, Washington Blade, Capitol Hill Blue, and NY Press probably don't make the cut. nydailynews.com is borderline (I think it's OK, but some others at the WP:RSN don't). CBC and Salon are pretty good, I think. That's just a cursory glance, as I said, some of those may be better than I think, and may not even be RSs for normal info. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree with Peregrine on this. Since he has strongly denied the allegations, then it seems to be an WP:Undue issue at best and spreading gossip at worst, which is a BLP no-no. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hoon the buffoon

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    Please read this, get to know the issue, but keep discussion in one place, at Talk:Geoff Hoon. ╟─TreasuryTagChancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 09:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Geoff Hoon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    This derogatory not notable nickname which is just a simple insult has been added to the Geoff Hoon BLP, its not well known, its just a valueless insult of little or no notability and should be removed, content is a derogatory, non encyclopedic and not notable nickname. Here is a google search result for Hoon the buffoon , this is the kind of valueless derogatory insult with a citation that BLP policy should be there to remove, its a simple attack on a living subject, started elsewhere but the attempt is to propagate it through wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Because I'm lazy and don't especially want to add another page to my watchlist, could the discussion be kept centralised at Talk:Geoff Hoon, where there is already a lengthy section? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTagcabinet─╢ 20:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Your lazyness is not at issue, the issue is the adding of a not notable derogatory nickname to the BLP of Geoff Hoon, please seek consensus here for your desired inclusion. Off2riorob (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be delighted to seek consensus, a process which is currently taking place on the article talkpage. It is easier for all concerned if it all happens on the same thread, so I suggest that anybody wishing to comment does so in the existing discussion. (Although I don't mind if you post here, because I'm not particularly interested in what you have to say, since you are endlessly repeating the same fallacy.) ╟─TreasuryTagCounsellor of State─╢ 20:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever, your desired addition has no value apart from insulting the living subject, feel free to seek support for your desired addition here, this man has done this and that negative notable things and I support thoe inclusion of those issues, actually they are already in the article, I object to your desired addition of what I see as a insulting slur of a nickname with no encyclopedic value. Off2riorob (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As there is RS for it I see no reason not to include it, but in the body of the article. It would be better for the discussion to be centralised at Talk:Geoff Hoon as there is already a lot of discussion and many sources. People interested should probably weigh in there. Verbal chat 20:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It clearly is a BLP issue and nothing but an insulting derogatory nickname and we will seek consensus here where there are a wider collection of editors. Off2riorob (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And one that is reliably sourced, and he has even commented on in RS. Please keep discussion to one place now Rob. Verbal chat 20:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    A reliably sourced BLP issue, super, fantastic, a valueless insult wikipedia can be proud of. I have previously removed other derogatory nicknames and this is no better at all, a simple insult to a living person of no value to the reader at all. Hoon the buffoonOff2riorob (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with Off2riorob. There has to be a good reason (i.e. long-term significance) to add an ephemeral insult to a BLP. All politicians make mistakes, and if one of them has a name that leads to a nice rhyming insult, naturally opponents will use that insult and papers will report it – it's gossip that makes the world go round. If the insult gets under the skin of the subject, and he retires or starts legal proceedings or commits suicide or whatever, then we should include the information and the insult in the article. Meanwhile, we do not permanently record every insult used against an opponent in their BLP. Johnuniq (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice try, but that's making up new rules as we go along. RS are the gold standard for Wikipedia inclusion, full stop. Jclemens (talk) 04:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It sounds like you mean WP:UNDUE vs. BLP. You need to look at the body of coverage on the subject, the current size of the article, and the ideal size of the article, and decide if it merits mention. Is it too much of the article now? Will it be too much of the article if it was a full size FA style article? I don't know the guy well enough, but there is a certain amount of usage of the term.[10] It sounds like he's pretty famous, so that may not be a large part of the total coverage. I'm American and I've never heard of him, to show you how much I know. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It is not widely used and just an insult, I wouldn't ever add it but hey, if users think it is a good addition then enjoy. 09:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talkcontribs)

    Good. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTagChancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 09:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Boyce appears to be under partisan attack from his political opponents. I have left a couple of comments on the accounts talkpages but I holdout little hope, if it continues use guidelines and attempt discussion if that doesn't work ask for semi protection. Off2riorob (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Nazir Ahmad (Burewala resident) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a possibly living person known solely for an alleged honour killing (I previously nominated the article for deletion, but there was no consensus). His trial must have been over by now, and yet the verdict hasn't been reported. Only a single sentence in the article is referenced. Should I delete everything that isn't referenced, slap a tag on it, or send it to AFD again? Andjam (talk) 09:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You should have a go at searching for a cite to support the content, if you don't find anything you could just move the uncited stuff to the talkpage and see what happens. I have had a bit of a search and can't find the outcome, if someone is from Pakistan perhaps they could find out. I have my doubts that he is actually a living person though as this from Dec 2005 says Police in Multan said they would complete their investigation into Ahmed's case in the next two weeks and that he faces the death sentence if he is convicted for the killings and terrorizing his neighborhood.here Off2riorob (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Could anybody have a look at Walter Jens' biographic entry, please. It's slightly unbalanced as to his achievements vs. his alleged Nazi past. --Dodo19 (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It doesn't appear overly weighted as regards the content about his membership in the party IMO, it was not illegal was it and many thousands in fact millions of germans were in the hitler youth and members of the nationalist party. What the article really needs is other parts of his life expanding which would take the present excess weight out of the membership content. Off2riorob (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Content looks alright to me. Off2riorob (talk) 17:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Holy hivemind. I was about to bring this here myself. I'm not sure it's notable enough for inclusion; it seems more just scandalous; it's very borderline. Thoughts? Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see this as enyclopedic. She was hacked/accidentally posted a picture. That's it. This quote from the talk page sums it up pretty well: "Until this actually has a noted impact on her career or life, and a cited source says so, it's pretty trivial." --TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 20:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for bringing this to our attention. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The pages Ángel di María (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Aleksandar Kolarov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) are being constantly vandalized with transfer rumours to Real Madrid C.F.. Please, I am requesting to protect these pages. B.Lameira (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The place to ask for protection is Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection. I have requested these two semi protection for you, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protected for a week and two weeks respectively by Administrator Fastily, thanks to him for that. Off2riorob (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Craig Thomson (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The article has been reversed back and forth between some anonymous users and some registered users. One of the edit summaries from one of the anonymous users says "Edited material that is libelous and will take legal action if it is restored", which leads me to believe this might be the subject or one of his representatives. The content is potentially libellous and I decided to report it here before this edit war goes any further. The diff can be seen here. // Deenoe 06:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    story is from 14 months ago that he used his union credit card for hookers and suchlike and one from three months ago saying he is suing all and sundry.

    http://www.thecoastnews.com.au/central-coast/565-craig-thomsons-1-million-union-fight.html

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/mp-used-union-credit-card-for-escort/story-e6frg6no-1225696980003

    http://www.smh.com.au/national/how-a-union-boss-won-the-dobell-prize-20090409-a27o.html

    Personally I would leave it out until we know if he is guilty of anything, no charges after 15 months and now he is suing for a million...seems a bit like he may have a case, funny that it is only being added now, at the most I would add a sentence with the coast news cite saying that ...

    In April 2009 in was reported that Thompson's Health Services Union credit card had been misused for election campaign spending and inappropriate use of union funds. In 2010 Thompson was reported to be suing the union executive for damages. It is further reported that he is also suing Fairfax Media for publishing the allegations. Mr Thomson is fervently denying the allegations.[1][2]

    I think I will boldly add this as it is not undue and conservatively written. I will leave a note on the talkpage there regarding this thread. Off2riorob (talk) 09:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    In agreement with Off2riorob's actions - the summary provided seems fair given what is known. The information that was attempted to be added was a gross violation of WP:WEIGHT, anyway. Orderinchaos 19:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Orderinchaos, always good to get feedback that your on the right track. Off2riorob (talk) 11:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The articles all relate to British Law Lords (senior judges), the material added, and the contents of the userpage of the editor adding it, suggest that the editor is probably personally involved in the case. No sources have been provided, although a bald statement taht everythign is verifiable has been included. I've made a first attempt to engage the user on their talkpage, which may be successful, but I'd appreciate more eyes on these articles at the moment. David Underdown (talk) 10:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    These edits are certainly unacceptable on multiple grounds—unsourced negative statements in BLPs, blatant POV, undue weight, etc. User:DeeDeeDee7 confirms that what we have here is a losing litigant venting spleen against the judges who ruled against him. I'd block if there is any more of this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    -- Hi David(?) and Newyorkbrad I'm struggling a bit on the use of this site and I trust this is the correct way to contact you (by using the 'edit' button?)

    My other struggle is to establish quite what part of my addition to the relevant biography's could be construed as misplaced. All of the material facts I have stated are a matter of Public Record and contained within the court documents, the Metropolitan Police records and the DPP/CPS departments, or should be! There clearly should be no information to which I have referred that is not contained within the records mentioned. There is also much relevant material held by the Ministry of Justice although they have been reticent to supply it under the Freedom of Information Act and, as related, only did so upon the intervention of The Lord President of The Privy Council

    http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/david_schiller - is relevant 
    

    I do, of course, understand the concerns you might have, especially upon first sight of my 'edit'

    It would appear Wikipedia may not be the appropriate place to add information that does not reflect well on any (Honourable!) persons 'Biography'

    I will copy my comments to Lord Hope for any comment he may wish to make Regards DAS

    Tut, tut. At Family Foundation School, my edit was to remove a sentence. A later editor removed sources. I copied the sources to the talk page, as I believe they belong in the article, with neutral, non-BLP-breaking content.
    You then rolled back re-added the content with the same sources, despite the BLP concerns on the talk page. I have reverted your edit, and suggested that if you did not agree this was a BLP issue, you come here. You know better than this. I would encourage you to rework your submission to cover the problem: 2 editor argue the content does not belong, 1 based on BLP concerns, 1 argues the source is strong enough to address the BLP issue, if any.- Sinneed 14:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Edit to correct my error. - Sinneed 15:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the quote (which I had added earlier, I now believe in error) that had the main problem content. My only concern now is that we have attached this pro ball player to the Family school, based on a single source. I still think this needs wiser eyes than mine... can we make this link based on this single article?- Sinneed 14:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    DOH! Trying to work between meetings...sorry...I see I did not say I restored the text and the sources... removing only the quote I had added earlier.- Sinneed 15:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Louie Gohmert and C-SPAN

    Parts of this politician's biography (specifically, the last two paragraphs) are sourced only to a primary source, C-SPAN. Is this acceptable practice, or does it amount to original research?

    This is a general issue for articles about politicians: is it ever acceptable to write about their views, voting records and speeches based purely on government records, or are secondary sources always required? If the latter is the case, we have many articles that will need to be cut down to comply. Robofish (talk) 01:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The citations to C-SPAN here could readily be replaced by citations to the Congressional Record, which in general terms a reliable source insofar as we are reporting what a Representative said and did on the House floor. There are times when the Record is not a verbatim transcript, but they don't seem to apply here. So the requirement of a reliable source is satisfied in terms of the remarks attributed to the Congressman.
    A separate question is whether we are giving undue weight to these two floor speeches. It is to avoid doing that that we would often require a secondary source that discusses the remarks in question, their context, and reactions to them. Certainly if not a single secondary source could not be found discussing these speeches, one could easily argue that they should not occupy such a large portion of the article. But I am not sure whether that is a true BLP issue or simply an editorial judgment issue.
    Apart from both of these points, the paragraphs in question certainly need editing for POV, such as by deleting the reference to a "fantastical story." Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed the material for now, more of an editorial call for now. --Tom (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Tablo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Rohmann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    User Rohmann is part of a campaign against this person by Korean netizens that has been reported in Korean media 12. He has repeatedly inserted non-notable and potentially libelous material into the article.--Ben Applegate (talk) 09:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Eido Roshi's Biography page is being attacked

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

    I need help moderating or locking the Eido Tai Shimano Criticism section.

    Those who are augmenting the criticism are not signing their posts in a way that can be followed to a name. Right now those who are critical are attempting to suppress a footnote that supports the fact that no sexual complaint has been made since 1995.

    Please lock this page until new verifiable information can be added.

    I am a very concerned party as I am a Dharma Heir of Eido Roshi and sit on his board, and I can and do state factually that no sexual complaint has been received by the board since 1995.

    Thank you,

    Genjo Marinello —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenquaker (talkcontribs) 17:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Attacked?

    The objection to the footnote does not concern the fact that no sexual complaint has been made since 1995. The objection is to a reference that states: "By the way, none of the four men I am referring to are members of AZTA, but please be aware that a man who was declined membership in AZTA, in part because Eido Roshi would not acknowledged him as a Dharma Teacher, started the current wave of vilification."

    I am the person he refers to as having been "declined membership." The Membership Chairman informed me as follows: "Your application for membership in the AZTA was not "rejected without review," for you have not yet applied for membership in our organization."

    Obviously if I have not applied for membership I could not possibly have been "declined" as stated. And there are far more people involved than "four men."

    Remove the factually inaccurate material and there is no objection to the reference.


    Kobutsu Malone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.102.214 (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Requests for page protection are made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, not here. However, I see no basis for such a request at this time.
    Here is a relevant passage from Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons:
    Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
    Zenquaker, it appears that you are the author of the cited source you assert is being suppressed. As such, it is generally not considered appropriate for you to be adding it. Additionally, as an open letter apparently posted to a chat forum, it does not appear to meet the criteria for a reliable source (q.v.). As such, in my opinion it ought to be removed along with any claim it anchors. I agree that it doesn't speak to the claim that no complaint has been made since 1995, and that therefore it is not appropriate that it be attached as a footnote intended to substantiate that claim. Even if it did speak to this claim, as a work that doesn't meet the criteria for a reliable source, it would not be a suitable anchor for that claim in any event.
    Descriptions of the controversy must stick especially closely to reports previously published in reliable sources, and must fairly represent "all majority and significant minority views" published in such sources. Any claim not directly supported by a published report in a reliable source should be removed.
    Indeed, it appears that both of you have some personal connection to subject of this article. If this is the case, in keeping with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline, you should avoid editing the article, restricting any edits you do make the reversion of simple vandalism and violations of Wikipedia's policy biographies of living people.
    Zenquaker, I note that you have also substantially edited the article Dai Bai Zan Cho Bo Zen Ji, including the section Dai Bai Zan Cho Bo Zen Ji#Genjo Marinello. I would therefore ask you to review Wikipedia:Conflict of interest with care, especially the sections How to avoid COI edits and Editors who may have a conflict of interest -- Rrburke (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Despite what has been said here, Zenquaker has now deleted three scholarly references from the criticism section on the page:

    http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/CriticalZen/Aitken_Shimano_Letters.html

    http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/CriticalZen/Zen_Master_in_America.html

    http://www.hoodiemonks.org/ShimanoArchive.html

    This was done under the justification: (→Criticism: removing references of criticism that are inflammatory and redundant.)

    It would seem that there is an egregious conflict of interest operating here.

    Kobutsu (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Those citations don't look like the kind of reliable editorially assesed that we require at wikipedia, as we have other citations there and the content has not been affected IMO we can do without those external links. Off2riorob (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I tend to agree with Off2riorob: we want only the highest-quality sources when the subject is living and the subject matter is this controversial -- that is, "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (RS). One of the two essays cited appears to have been presented at a conference, but there is no evidence that either was published or peer-reviewed and no information about the author's credentials or expertise has been adduced. If the works are unpublished or self-published, they would be wholly unsuitable for inclusion as sources. The raw letters (please see Wikipedia:Primary sources) appear to have been reproduced at a personal website lacking appropriate professional editorial oversight. In order for sources to be considered reliable works of scholarship, they should meet the criteria set out at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Scholarship.
    As for the conflict of interest, I agree that Zenquaker has a conflict which would normally render his editing the article inappropriate. However, removing poorly-sourced controversial material about a living person is one of the few things an editor with such a conflict can do. That said, I believe he should now leave off editing this article except under the circumstances set out at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Non-controversial edits (this list includes removing BLP violations). -- Rrburke (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that high-quality sources are what is required here. As a result, I am going to remove the whole "criticism" section. The Aitken book does not support the allegations made (it talks about problems with social relationships), and the other references are to primary sources - letters, some of which are unsigned, some of which seem to be drafts, and some of which don't mention the subject by name. The danger of original research and synthesis etc is thus grave. It is possible that something BLP compliant can be developed, but this needs to be done with considerable care and the best possible sources.--Slp1 (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a "Living people" section in this footer navbox. Is this a concern from a BLP-policy standpoint? What about those people that deny being con artists. Peter Popoff for instance, there's no doubt that he's a fraud, and is widely known for being a fraud.. but he's also primarily a televangelist. Is it right to include a con-artist navbox at the bottom of his page but not one for televangelists or faith healers? (don't know if such a navbox exists, but just for the sake of argument..) How much weight should be given to the actual self-professed professions of these people vs. their public-bestowed notoriety for being fraudsters? -- œ 12:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The associated documentation says "This template includes a list of living con artists. To conform to Wikipedia:Libel, please do not list anyone who has not confessed or been convicted. Accusation is not the same as guilt."
    It is not just the template - the same issue applies to the con artists listed in confidence trick and also see category:confidence tricksters.Category:confidence tricksters is a subcategory of category:fraudsters--Penbat (talk) 12:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you get convicted of being a con artist? Surely the legal charge is fraud. Off2riorob (talk) 12:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Being a con artist or scammer is just a commonly understood style or subset of fraud (thus is a subset of the fraudster category) so it is not a contraction that a con artist will be convicted of fraud.--Penbat (talk) 13:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So what is need to add them to the sub group, a citation in which they are referred to as a con man? IMO this is somthing that should not be added to living people. Con man, it is a matter of opinion, people convicted of fraud is fine. I really dislike the tabliod type labeling of people. Template hit man instead of murderer and so on. Off2riorob (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. "Convicted of fraud" is objective and verifiable. Jclemens (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Bill Clinton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Clarence Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) both appropriately have "sex" mentioned in their Wikipedia articles. After all, Clinton had the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal, and Thomas had the Anita Hill accusations about sexual comments in the workplace.

    The question I have here is about the lede in those two articles. Should the lede mention "sex" or not? Currently, the lede for Thomas does, but the lede for Clinton does not. I presently have no opinion about it, and would like some advice. One thing's for sure: the treatment should be consistent between these two articles, because there's no reason to mention "sex" for one and not the other. This may seem trivial, but using the word "sex" in the lead does tend to sensationalize things quite a bit.

    Anyway, the Thomas lede currently mentions an "accusation that he had made unwelcome sexual comments" (emphasis added). The Clinton article lede currently mentions his impeachment "in connection with a scandal involving a White House intern." Shall we remove "sexual" from the former, or insert it into the latter? We ought to do one or the other, and it would be nice to get this minor issue settled by wide community input.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If anything, sexual scandals in Thomas' bio vs. Clinton's is UNDUE, since there have been multiple RS'ed accounts of accusations against Clinton in addition to the Lewinsky affair. Thomas' Anita Hill accusations were limited to his confirmation hearings, unless I've missed something. I'd say removing it from the lead in Thomas' article is probably the most appropriate response. Jclemens (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that, Jclemens. Anyone else agree or disagree?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot think of any reasonable argument for mentioning it in one and excluding it in the other. My first instincts say to exclude it from both. — JPMcGrath (talk) 09:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There should be no "sex" in either lead. At Clarence Thomas, there is no need to provide details in the lead, and I would reword to something like: "The U.S. Senate ultimately confirmed Thomas by a vote of 52–48 in the intensely fought confirmation hearings." Johnuniq (talk) 09:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm an involved editor at Clarence Thomas (as are Anythingyouwant and JPMcGrath). Personally, I don't think these are entirely parallel situations. Thomas' confirmation hearings are a (if not the) central part of virtually every reputable biography or biographical piece about him, so I think that some level of detail in the lead is appropriate. On the other hand, while the Lewinsky scandal was a major event in Clinton's presidency, it doesn't occupy the uniformly central position in reliable published work about him.

    I think WP:WEIGHT strongly favors at least some detail on the hearings in the lead of Thomas article, given its prominence in reputable published biographical material (including Thomas' own autobiography). I don't edit Bill Clinton and have no strong opinion about the level of detail to give the Lewinsky scandal in the lead. MastCell Talk 17:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting any alteration of either lede whatsoever, except for one word. Additionally, as I have pointed out previously to MastCell, Thomas's autobiography was not about his whole life, but rather stopped when he stopped serving on the District of Columbia Circuit. But let's suppose we use his autobiography as our guide....Here's what the dustcover says: "Thomas speaks out, revealing the pieces of his life he holds dear, detailing the suffering and injustices he has overcome, including the acrimonious and polarizing Senate hearing involving a former aide, Anita Hill, and the depression and despair it created in his own life and the lives closest to him.". Notice the absence of lurid detail there. No sex. By the way, beyond being an editor of the Clarence Thomas article (as MastCell noted), I've also made substantial edits to the Bill Clinton article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The Gore Effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    An editor has put an BLP notice on this articles talk page, however some say this article is not a BLP but is an article about an expression. Does an article about a satirical expression fall under BLP guidelines? There is a RFC currently running about this [11] mark nutley (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Without going into detail about the article (I've already commented in the AfD) I agree with the principle that that all biographical material about a living person is subject to WP:BLP, but I don't think the article contains any significant BLP material about Al Gore. The alleged statements by Bob Marciano, Joe Joyce, Curtis Brainard, Steve Benen, Lisa Miller and Joseph D’Aleo seem to be accurately quoted, Nancy Pelosi's actions are properly sourced to Michael Daly at NYDailyNews so I think the only possible BLP concern might be the "gloss" of Harald Martenstein in Die Zeit. If the article is to be challenged, I don't think BLP is the way to go. - Pointillist (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The article is not a BLP at all, but as with all articles, any content about living people should comply with BLP policy. Off2riorob (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. Jclemens (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Since the article was created explicitly as an attack page on a living person - the original version, authored by the person who started this thread, was openly polemical and included attack images as well - BLP has to apply. The article still functions as an attack page with the clear intention of ridiculing and denigrating a living person, which is one of the reasons I took it to AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gore Effect). -- ChrisO (talk) 08:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Give over the article is about Global warming and is not a BLP at all, neither is it an attack page, apart from its an attack on global warming climate models.There is also what appears to be a consensus on the talkpage that the template is not required. Off2riorob (talk) 09:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the template should stay as there are obvious BLP concerns in the use of the term. Verbal chat 09:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not an attack page. However, there is no harm in reminding editors that BLP has sway throughout the project space and that anything contentious about the living person himself must be thoroughly and carefully sourced. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    True, and not disputed by anyone involved. But the question remains as to the Wikipedia propriety of tagging this article as "BLP" with attendant RS implications for sourcing...which is then being cited as grounds for rejecting content and sourcing not even referencing Mr. Gore...as in this case where relevant and easily sourceable content was deleted, assumedly under the "immediate removal" BLP mandate, as "Unsourced per BLP". |Revision as of 22:23, 12 June 2010 (edit) (undo)KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk | contribs) (?Appearance and Background: Cut: Unsourced per BLP)
    This article is about a satirical concept and references to Mr. Gore are limited, at most, to RS citations that he was in a certain place at a certain time, surely not content about which BLP sourcing considerations should be proffered...or tagged in "talk". JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Context is everything. I was removing quite a lot of material that was either unsourced, poorly sourced or wasn't in the sources produced (see the previous removal). - as BLP requires. This was one of the 5-6 removals that was there. Source it and readd it is what you should do. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The question is not on the propriety of your individual edits citing BLP considerations but whether BLP considerations are applicable to this entire article which is, as I understand it, what the BLP "talk" tag is designed to establish. It is mis-applied and should be removed from the article talk page as an unwarranted impediment to the composition of this article. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    BLP applies to all articles, so your expansion here tells us nothing. The article is question is about humour/satire directed towards a living person, and thus the BLP guideline should be one of the very first things that people keep in mind when editing that article - and that is the reason for the tag. But tag or no tag - BLP applies. There is a terrible tendency amongst editors to thing that BLP only applies to directly biographical articles, such as Al Gore - and it is often forgotten that BLP is about all content that relates directly to/is about a living person.--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    BLP applies to all articles, so your expansion here tells us nothing.
    Quite the contrary. It tells me, at least, that you appear to be persistant in promoting the mis-interpretation, mis-application and subsequent demonstrable mis-use of the sourcing requirements mandated by the placement of a BLP tag in the referenced article. I'll go out on a limb and suspect its legitimate purpose and use will be made evident to you...eventually. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisO do you honestly believe this image [12] is an attack image and not just a bit of fun? mark nutley (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems like a situation that I wrote WP:CRYBLP to apply to: BLP may apply, but it should not be used as a lever to force the removal of tangentially-related material. If it's unsourced and attacking Gore, it goes. If it's reliably sourced and making fun of Gore, it stays. Jclemens (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Can anyone point to an actual edit to this article (not obvious vandalism) that attacked Al Gore? Other than Gore's name being in the phrase "Gore Effect", I can't think of any way that this article would be any closer to the subject of Al Gore than any other non-biographical article would be. People joke that the weather gets unusually cold at Gore appearances and other events related to climate change. One paragraph of the article states that "Gore Effect" has been used to mean Gore's influence. This seems to be the closest we come to Al Gore. Is that the passage where there might be a BLP concern? How can this article get closer to the subject of Al Gore than that? Will we put BLP notices up on every article in which Gore is mentioned as much as that Gore's-influence paragraph? The use of the template appears to be over the top. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I had removed the template per the talk here but it has been reverted back in, can we please get this sorted mark nutley (talk) 20:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we have to wait for discussion to die out at the article talk page and, I guess, here, before removing the box. The initiator of the RfC on the talk page, Jake, can remove the RfC tag and close the discussion after it dies down (see WP:RFC#Ending RfCs), and if there's a consensus, we can then take down the BLP box. Incidentally, there is a ban on citing self-published sources for information about living persons (see WP:SELFPUBLISH and WP:BLPSPS). That applies to subject matter, not whether or not this article is considered BLP taggable, and self-published sources referencing Gore only indirectly or in a trivial way but referencing the subject of this article directly can't fall under the BLP policy in any way. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no consensus here or there to remove the tag. Verbal chat 20:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is also no consensus to include it, it matters not it is valueless to add it there and does nothing apart from demean the value of the template in a POV way. it is not a BLP. There is also as I see 40 keep comments and 35 delete comments and no consensus to delete the article. Off2riorob (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the template, surely this issue has been settled before? Does it belong on non-BLPs or doesn't it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Only my opinion, of course, but if there is significant content that might relate to legitimate matters of BLP concern in a non-BLP article, I suppose it could be appropriately applied. Then there's this article, referencing a satirical concept that is, at most, incidentally referencing an LP whose only reference in the article itself is within citations placing him somewhere at sometime. This is not the stuff of BLP concern and it is a rather clear cheapening of rationale for use of the template.
    But your question really presumes resolution of this BLP/N...which is to ascertain some consensus of opinion as to whether or not this article is a "Biography of a Living Person" with attendant BLP caveats and increased sourcing requirements. Clearly it is not, though the resulting fallout from the satire may have consequence to the credibility of both Mr. Gore and the AGW cause. Life is tough out there in the CC trenches. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Let us try it again: BLP (despite the "biography" part) applies to all content about a living person. If you want to say "X was in Y at <date> where Z happened" then its a direct statement about a living person, which must adhere to the rather more strict sourcing demands of the BLP policy. It doesn't get mooted or otherwise invalidated because its used in a humourous context. (otherwise you may want to point out where our policies state that humour has a lower requirement for WP:V than other contexts). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Poorly sourced, looks like a press release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brecherdc (talkcontribs) 14:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Recreation of an article that has been AfD'd twice

    Not being an admin, I can't see the original Madison Eagles articles, but Madison Eagles (wrestler) has just been created again. Lots of references, not sure how many are independent or that reliable, but I'll let others who can see the old version decide if it's a CSD G4 candidate or not. If it's OK, then it probably should be moved to the original non-disambiguated page name, which I guess has been salted.The-Pope (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It's the same person but this version is much expanded. I didn't check all the references, but from a cursory glance and comparison I wouldn't feel comfortable speedying it as a G4. -- œ 17:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    An anonymous editor added a rash of content to the article, claiming Devananda had commited murders, kidnappings etc. I reverted, as most of the information wasn't cited, and that which was cited didn't mention Devananda. Another editor subsequently reverted my edit, re-adding the BLP violations to the article. I don't want to edit war, so if someone here can take a look it'll be appreciated. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 17:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    DO edit war to keep out uncited allegations of murder and kidnapping. Jclemens (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ... however, looking at the article, I see that the first cite included DOES mention him by name. I suspect the characterization is not as clearcut as this summary. Jclemens (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The article used to be well cited. I meant what the IP added wan't cited right. For example, the only citation in the "Allen kidnappings" section added by the anon editor is a New York Times article, which while mentioning the kidnappings, doesn't mention Devananda or his organization. [13] --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 19:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    1. ^ "Labor MP accused of credit card rort". The Sydney Morning Herald. April 8, 2009. Retrieved June 11, 2010.
    2. ^ "Craig Thomson's $1 million union fight". The Coast News. February 17, 2010. Retrieved June 11, 2010.