Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive135

John Smelcer

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

My name is John Smelcer. I am the subject of a libellous wikientry. Wikipedia encourages the subject of such sites to contact wikipedia. Based on the date the negative comments were added to this site, it has been determined that the individual who posted these was the defendant in a child custody case who posted this on wikipedia so that lawyers, court appointed guardian ad litem, the judge and the judge's clerk might see this information which could not be brought into the court record otherwise. Is wikipedia meant to be used as a menacing tool in child custody cases? Legal actions are now in motion to remedy the impact of this site. As the subject, I ask that the entire wikientry be removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.162.138 (talk • contribs)

At first glance the statements about misrepresentation as a Native American appear to be well sourced. If there are alternative perspectives available in reliable sources, then of course these can be added as well. Deletion is not likely to be an option -- he unquestionably meets WP:PROF and likely other standards as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Almost all of the controversy at the University of Alaska is supported by a few articles from the Anchorage Daily News, none of which is available online now except for a fee. They appear to be real, though, and the very short free abstracts seem to support at least some of what is said in the article. What exactly are you saying is incorrect, and what sources do you have that any of the material is incorrect? (The section in the article is a bit long, in my view.) Finally, although you can do whatever you want outside of Wikipedia. Here, legal threats are not permitted and can result in a block.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The three Anchorage Daily News articles, reprinted in several other papers via the Associated Press, are available online at ProQuest and at NewspaperARCHIVE.com. I accessed these articles free of charge by logging in with my library card at the King County Library System and the Seattle Public Library. It is likely your own local library's web site also offers a free login to these fee-based archives. If not, email me via my user page and, unless I'm mistaken, fair use allows me to email you copies.

• Shinohara, Rosemary; Meyerowitz, Robert (3 August 1994), "UAA Professor Quits Amid Credentials Probe", Anchorage Daily News (ProQuest archive), Anchorage, Alaska, p. A.1
• Meyerowitz, Robert (24 April 1994), "Teacher Quits In Protest Haida Professor Says UAA Fails Native Students, Lacks Role Models", Anchorage Daily News (ProQuest archive), Anchorage, Alaska, p. A.1
• Meyerowitz, Robert (19 April 1994), "Alaska Native's Appointment Stirs Controversy At UAA", Anchorage Daily News (ProQuest archive), Anchorage, Alaska, p. A.1

Note that besides the news editor, it wasn't just a single reporter at the Anchorage Daily; both Rosemary Shinohara and Robert Meyerowitz had bylines. Not to be confused with User:Meyerowitz, Robert, one of John Smelcer's sockpuppets. I haven't turned up any evidence that Mr. Smelcer made a libel accusation against the Anchorage Daily News, the Associated Press, or the other newspapers that ran these stories. It appears he is under the mistaken impression that because his forgery conviction was set aside after he served his sentence, everyone, including Wikipedia, is under some sort of gag order to never mention it again. Clearing up that question should resolve this.

Note also that Wikipedia:No legal threats means that Mr. Smelcer's new IP address is going to be blocked if he continues to make legal threats. Please read Wikipedia:No legal threats and understand it to avoid getting blocked once again. If he stops making legal threats, it will be possible to have a dialog. If he continues to repeat these legal threats, the only avenue of communication will be between his lawyer and the Wikimedia Foundation. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

This article is clearly defamatory. we know Doctor Smelcer well and have read many of his books, which are not only entertaining but filld with wonderful Alaskan folk lore. Cannot imagine why anyone would be so mean spiritedd as to have written many of these comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.97.115 (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Are the "comments" false?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The subject requested that his article be deleted, which is not an option. The university controversy appears pretty NPOV and well enough sourced, so removing that does not appear to be an option. All editor responses to the subject so far appear to be correct but still a little bit unresponsive. Is the subject asking for something reasonable that we can consider?Jarhed (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

See the end of this thread: Talk:John_Smelcer#Response from official bio. Stewart1969 is hopefully the final new user account to carry on this dialog. Smelcer has written a new document PDF describing his side of the story, and is requesting that we link to it, and presumably summarize the relevant contents in the article. It's several pages long and I haven't read it yet. If anyone else can do so and edit the article appropriately, I think it would help.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The article as it stands now is a bit of an attack article imo. The subject is quite limited notability and he has requested deletion - I would support that. A lot of the attack content is cited to this single proquest anchorage news article that is unavailable to read ... ^a b c d e f g h Shinohara, Rosemary; Meyerowitz, Robert (3 August 1994), "UAA Professor Quits Amid Credentials Probe" (ProQuest archive), Anchorage Daily News (Anchorage, Alaska): A.1 Off2riorob (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I support deletion as per non-notable 100% and the sooner the better.Jarhed (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources that demands that sources be available online, and nothing that says they must be available free of charge. It baffles my why such an objection would even be raised, not once but repeatedly. As it turns out, in this particular case you can find them at both ProQuest and NewspaperARCHIVE.com, and there are multiple means of accessing them free of charge. And there is always the Wikipedia:Reference desk if you need any help with that sort of thing. And to boot, I'll email you copies if you like.

I refrained from AfD because I felt it was a WP:SNOW, but if the idea has support then it's worth a shot. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. !vote away. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Smelcer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dennis Hood

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

Numerous issues with the article: -Biased towards Hood -'Legeslative Career' padded with virtually every mundane aspect of Hood's career. -Most citations are opinion pieces from Adelaide News. -At least one citation (#16, relating to waste collection and Green opposition) doesn't back up the assertion made in the article. (There was no mention of the Greens in the citation)

In my opinion, it looks like a pretty clear case of astroturfing. Baconbeard (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any BLP issues.Jarhed (talk) 00:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Jon Cutler

Resolved

 – Removed unsourced claim

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

According to the date of birth, this Jon Cutler cannot be the same Jon Cutler who was a cast member of the 1979 NBC comedy Brothers and Sisters and took part in the movie St. Elmo's Fire (1985). The one who played the role of Larry Zipper in Brothers and Sisters had to be much older than 10, in fact he was a college student. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.225.37.211 (talk) 09:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Marc Grossman

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

This is an article about a former State Department official. I'm concerned that the "Controversies" section makes some tacit allegations of wrongdoing. First, there are two paragraphs describing how Grossman met with a former Pakistani intelligence chief a week before 9/11 and that this individual was later dismissed for sending money to Mohammed Attah. The article provides no source explaining why this might be controversial. However, the article says that the 9/11 Commission found the issue of the financing of the attacks to be of little significance (a quote I find very dubious), and this leads me to believe that someone is including information about the meeting in this article in order to make an inference that Grossman, and therefore the US Government, had some foreknowledge of 9/11. The second "controversy" is also very dubious: it states that Grossman was one of 15 officials subpoenaed in an investigation of two AIPAC lobbyists who allegedly gave secrets to Israel. The implication is that Grossman was subpoenaed because he was suspected of doing something wrong, but the source says that all 15 were subpoenaed by the defense in that case and provides no information on why they were subpoenaed. I'd like to remove the whole controversy section as none of this material is significant enough to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia article. I'm also somewhat skeptical of the phrasing: "Grossman is a native of Los Angeles, California and a veteran Jewish diplomat [1] and foreign policy scholar." GabrielF (talk) 11:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I've decided to go ahead and remove the controversy section. GabrielF (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Article looks great--I don't see any BLP issues.Jarhed (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

David Fisher (architect)

David Fisher (architect) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It would be useful to have some eyes on this article. Yesterday I blocked Cigarshop (talk · contribs) for three days for edit-warring on it, and with the block notice pointed them to WP:BRD and WP:BLP/H and this noticeboard; but I see from the history that other SPAs Latidadada (talk · contribs) Studiopesce (talk · contribs) and Hakaik.wiki (talk · contribs) have also been active there recently adding and removing unfavourable material. JohnCD (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Watchlisted - Off2riorob (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Tapani Koivuniemi

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

This biography of living person is written in slandering purpose and is based on hate campaign. Please, remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.164.143 (talk) 00:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I've marked this article for speedy deletion as an article about a real person that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed the A7. My Finnish isn't good enough to easily check the article against the sources line for line very quickly, but he definitely has enough coverage to meet the GNG, and as far as I can tell, the gist of the article is right. There were two Helsingin Sanomat articles already used as sources, and there are more high quality sources available. (Helsingin Sanomat is the largest newspaper in Finland, and two features about you in it would make it surprising if you weren't notable.) Kevin (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The newspaper articles were about the organisation, not about him. Taken to AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tapani Koivuniemi. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Gilgamesh in the Outback

Gilgamesh in the Outback (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Read what is currently there and compare it to what Robert Silverberg actually said in the source used: "During the heyday of the shared-world science-fiction anthologies, back in the mid-1980's, I was drawn into a project called Heroes in Hell, the general premise of which was (as far as I understood it) that everybody who had ever lived, and a good many mythical beings besides, had been resurrected in a quasi-afterlife in a place that was called, for the sake of convenience, Hell. The concept was never clearly explained to me - one of the problems with these shared-world deals - and so I never fully grasped what I was supposed to be doing. But the idea struck me as reminiscent of the great Philip Jose Farmer Riverworld concept of humanity's total resurrection in some strange place, which I had long admired, and here was my chance to run my own variant on what Farmer had done a couple of decades earlier. (Second paragraph is not germane - deals with character development) It was all so much fun that I went on to write a second Gilgamesh in Hell novella, featuring the likes of Pablo Picasso and Simon Magus, and then a third. I never read very many of the other Heroes in Hell stories, so I have no idea how well my stories integrated themselves with those of my putative collaborators in the series, but I was enjoying myself and the novellas (which were also being published in Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine) were popular among readers. "Gilgamesh in the Outback," in fact, won a Hugo for Best Novella in 1987, one of the few shared-world stories ever to achieve that. By then I realized that what I was doing was writing a novel in serialized form. The book that resulted in 1987, To the Land of the Living was not primarily an expansion but a compilation: I drew together my three Gilgamesh novellas, making slight revisions here and there in the interest of consistency, and added a brief epilogue that gave Gilgamesh's seemingly random wanderings in Hell some emotional significance and an ultimate epiphany. The only major change in the original three texts involved deleting all material that referred directly, or directly grew from, the work of the other writers in the Heroes in Hell series. This was done to avoid any clashes over copyright issues. Since I had, by and large, gone my own way as a contributor to the series, with only the most tangential links to what others had invented, it seemed wisest to eradicate from my book any aspect that some other writer might lay claim to, and I did." This is the actual citation that Wolfowitz is quoting from. The nuanced selective choices are trying to rewrite history and put both Morris and Silverberg in a bad light. He makes it sound like Morris, who is younger than Silverberg, tried to nefariously sucker him in to writing for the series. Silverberg was the President of SFWA back in the 1960s - he is by no mean naive or gullible. He knew exactly what he was doing when he wrote in the series and when he left the series. A more balanced account was written on the Heroes in Hell page, but Wolfowitz keeps removing it, even after we make the changes he cites for deletion. This needs arbitration by an unbiased higher authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.161.68 (talk) 05:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your post and concern for the accuracy of Wikipedia. What is the source of the quote you gave above? Wikipedia has clear guidelines for sources. WP:RS. If you can help us access the source you have cited above then we can see if it is being accurately represented in the article and make any needed corrections. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is the source you requested: Thomsen, Brian (2006). Novel Ideas - Fantasy. DAW. pp. 205-206. ISBN 9780756403096. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.161.68 (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

That looks like a reliable source to me. DS (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Note that Hullaballo Wolfowitz referenced Brian Thomsen's "Novel Ideas" as a citation for his revision that Robert Silverberg's "Gilgamesh in the Outback" was "originally published in July 1986 Asimov's" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilgamesh_in_the_Outback&diff=449325690&oldid=444320250. It would be difficult for Hulaballoo Wolfowitz to challenge the Brian Thomsen citation given that HW also uses the same citation to assert "originally published" in the July 1986Asimov's. Dokzap (talk) 04:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Dokzap

Note that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz doesn't challenge the reliability or accuracy of the source. What he does challenge is the use of the source to support phony claims of "controversy" and related innuendo of impropriety regarding the story's author, as introduced into the Heroes in Hell article by an IP/SPA.[1] Since this source doesn't in any way support such claims, inserting them into an article is an obvious BLP violation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Please take note of the information contained on "The Hugo Awards" website, written and administered by the Hugo Awards organization itself (publication data from the website: "© 2011 World Science Fiction Society "World Science Fiction Society", "WSFS", "World Science Fiction Convention", "Worldcon", "NASFiC", "Hugo Award", the Hugo Award Logo, and the distinctive design of the Hugo Award Rocket are service marks of the World Science Fiction Society, an unincorporated literary society.") http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/1997-hugo-awards-2/, reporting that Mr. Silverberg won the Novella Hugo in 1987 for "Gilgamesh in the Outback" as published in "Rebels in Hell" of the Heroes in Hell series. I believe, of everyone, the Hugo Awards organization itself would have access to the most accurate information regarding its own awards process. I also do not believe anyone would accuse the Hugo Awards organization itself of being "biased" or guilty of supporting "phony claims" or "innuendo of impropriety" based on their own records from 1987. 'See' [2] Hulcys930 (talk) 03:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Please stay on topic - does the nuanced use of quotations violate NPOV when compared to the original or not?98.218.161.68 (talk) 16:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Citing an accurate and neutral paraphrase of the Silverberg quote addresses the issue raised by Hullaballo Wolfowitz as to if "Gilgamesh in the Outback" was "originally published" (HW's phrase) in the Isaac Asimov's SF Magazine with a cover date of July 1986. I believe use of this term is erroneous because it suggests a rights publication sale that has not been cited. This is what I wrote on HW's Talk page and other places. I present it here for background. Note that a paraphrase with selective quotes to be accurate should not contradict the work's subsidiary rights issues. Here is my comment: By reverting "first serialized" to "originally published," as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Mr. Ollie have done on the Heroes in Hell series article, the Heroes in Hell anthology article, and Robert Silverberg's "Giglamesh in the Outback" articles, HW and Mr Ollie repeat the error of not citing the source for how it is known that the work is "originally published" and confuse a common English phrase with a precise term of art used in publishing contracts. "First serial" is accurate in describing a work that first appears in advance of book publication. Technically this is called a "subsidiary right." "An Introduction to Publishing Contracts" by Charles Petit, Sean Fodera, and the Science-fiction and fantasy writers of America explains the relationship of subsidiary rights to book publication. The authors write, "Subsidiary rights are ancillary to the actual publication of the work by the acquiring publisher ... Exercise of these rights before publication is known as first serial rights." , p. 14. Note the phrase "ancillary to the actual publication of the work by the acquiring publishers." To use the phrase "original publication" may be acceptable in common language when the book form is the actual first publication in any form, or when a magazine is the acquiring publisher. However, to use it to refer to a first serial for part of a work that later appears in book form is inaccurate and may confuse the bibliographic record. If there is a subsidiary rights first-serial publication, in my opinion using "original publication" is erroneous, because it implies this is the actual publication of the work by the acquiring publisher. While using the phrase "first serial" to refer to a single publication of a work that later appears in its intended book form may lack specific verifiability, its use is defensible if that work later appears as part of a whole book. It can be inferred that a publication that appears first in partial form and later in a book by the acquiring publisher is a first-serial right. As a Wikipedia project, I would propose an editor write an article describing traditional publishing terms such as "subsidiary rights," "first-serial rights," etc. It is clear that many editors who do not have specialized knowledge of publishing terms need some guidance. The colloquial use of "original publication" may not always be precise or accurate. Speaking to the specifics of this garbled edit by Hullaballo Wolfowitz and Mr Ollie in the latest revision of the Heroes in Hell anthology, and other revisins in related article, I propose deleting the term "original publication" in this article and others. As a noncontroversial compromise, describe other publications of the work without time quantifiers such as "first," etc. Merely state the date of the publication and its title. However, given this explanation here of subsidiary rights and first-serial rights, the use of the term "first serial" is more verifiable than "original publication," which in my opinion is not verifiable at all.Dokzap (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)Dokzap

FYI this was posted elsewhere and should have been posted here:

There is a discussion on the BLP noticeboard about this article. The article as it is looks fine to me. Is there still a dispute?Jarhed (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Less than 30 minutes before you made this post, an anon with no edit history, hit the article, removing reliably sourced claims and censoring the article content to reflect the way new editions of books in the series are being hyped by its editor-publisher. The only BLP issues involved are vague claims by various people associated with series editor Janet Morris that Robert Silverberg, the author of this story and one of the most prominent and well-respected authors in the genre, and/or Brian Thomsen, a well-respected editor who sadly died a few years ago, somehow connived to place inaccurate copyright notices in several books, depriving Morris of credit she claims to be due. These editors are making the claims, and censoring/vandalizing the articles involved, even though the editor-publisher Janet Morris endorsed the now-disputed text (suggested by User:I Jethrobot as accurate and appropriate.[3]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Jarhed Yes, there is still a dispute on the BLP noticeboard about this article, which has not been closed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz chose to ignore a consensus reached in a different Dispute Resolution [[4]]and five days after consensus was reached, rewrote the article using a source from Brian Thomsen and selectively quoting and parsing the statement by Mr. Silverberg (Thomsen, Brian (2006). Novel Ideas - Fantasy. DAW. pp. 205-206. ISBN 9780756403096) to indicate the exact opposite of what Mr. Silverberg stated in this source and then had the page locked for 30 days with the incorrect information on it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was cautioned to accept the consensus as it stood but chose to ignore that advice.lifebaka 03:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz posting the following statement in the Edit History of this page regarding his substantial edit: "(cur | prev) 18:06, 27 August 2011 Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs) (3,798 bytes) (Rv, no consensus, and not a compromiuse[sic], but a capitulation to COI editors; Undid revision 446998036 by NebY (talk)) (undo)"

• Now that the page is unlocked, apparently, someone else went in to attempt to change the page back to its original wording (as it was before the Dispute Resolution) to reflect the actual events of 1986 but Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has already reverted it to his own belief system. Please check with the editors dealing with the BLP dispute before assuming that information on this page is accurate. The disputes regarding the Heroes in Hell series have been ongoing for over 2 months and span over 10 different pages and ANIs and DPNs. I can provide you a list of the various pages if you want to see them. Thank you. Hulcys930 (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

98.218.161.68 (talk) 02:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I have scanned the articles in question and I still either don't see or don't understand the BLP issue. If your real problem is that you have a contentious editor, I'm sure that you can get some responsive assistance on the administrator's noticeboard.Jarhed (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Jarhed - I put this here for you perusal - this imperious treatment by HW and removal of the text that refutes his misrepresentations, BY ONE OF THE TWO BLP personalities who is being wronged by HW is beyond my comprehension. To wit:

Two points: 1) Janet Morris did not endorse the use of the "originally published" language - she endorsed I, Jethrobot's proposed non-controversial consensus wording where it was merely stated that GITO was published in both venues, without any attribution to originality;

The hell she didn't. You are just, plainly, not telling the truth. This [5] is the edit Jethrobot made, which she endorsed. Plain as day, it left the phrasing "originally published" in the article while changing "reprinted" to "then printed." Guarddog2/Morris, in part quoting Jethrobot, quite expressly endorsed the article's "reflecting the chronological publication order without reference to copyright"[6]. You're now arguing that accurate information "reflecting the chronological publication order" shouldn't be in the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The following is from Janet Morris refuting you calling me a liar: Jarhed - please click the link and read what she wrote.98.218.161.68 (talk) 03:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC) The section below that was addressed to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and directly talks to the libelous inferences he is making. Are there no consequences for such actions.98.218.161.68 (talk) 04:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I've collapsed a wall of text, crossposted from Guarddog2/Janet Morris's talk page, where anyone who wants to can read it. All that it actually says about the text I cited amounts to "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Domenico.y User:Domenico.y (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davina Reichman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Off2riorob (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC) This user has contributed heavily to BLPs including Adam Schuck, Davina Reichman, and articles tangential to Reichman such as iClothing and the Being Born Again Couture Fashion Show. Lots of sourcing problems have been brought to the user's attention in several fora: user talk, article talk, and afd. Among several serious problems at the Davina Reichman article, this user has repeatedly restored content there (especially content on "influence") along with refs that don't support the claims in any way. [7] [8] [9] The user also restored content referencing the subject (Q&A interview, Linkedin profile, statements by associated business Being Born Again Couture Fashion Show, etc) The user doesn't seem to be listening to reason based on WP:BLP, WP:BIO, and WP:SOURCE. I've reverted the Davina Reichman BLP 3 times now. Instead of relying solely on WP:3RRNO, I'd like to bring this user's edits to attention here. Any advice? JFHJr (㊟) 22:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC) - I left the user a note linking them to this discussion. I also asked them to take it easy and left a 3RR note and a bit of advixce, clearly they are passionate about the topic. Off2riorob (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Thanks a heap for stepping in. I do appreciate it. JFHJr (㊟) 22:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC) - Thanks Off2riorob Domenico.y (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y Hi JFHJr, What I glean from the article: is that Anina has unsupported claims of: "This led to further work, and she then engaged an agent. Anina has modelled for many designers, including Sonia Rykiel, Dries van Noten, Salvatore Ferragamo, and Turkish haute couture designer Yıldırım Mayruk" and "She has spoken at New York University to female photographers, and presented mobile reporting" and "Anina has been written about in magazines such as Paris Match, Stuff, Mobiles, German Amica, Elle, and more" - it is not referenced and therefore a BLP, is this correct? Also, will you read my comment on the last comment please and tell me what you think? I am sorry that I appear to have not referenced this before, as it would have cleared up some stuff about me referencing what is obvious to me, looking at the photos and seeing the influence, but is not so obvious to somebody that is not interested in fashion and therefore requiring some "proof". I am sorry if I did not make myself clearer. Thanks. Domenico.y (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y Please take a look at WP:BLP. BLP means "Biography of a Living Person." The Anina article is a BLP and needs to conform to basic guidelines. Unreferenced contentious claims should be removed from any BLP. Contentious here means questionable claims that can be positive, negative, or neutral – I think most claims on notability can be contentious. If you have more questions or comments about Anina, try posting on your own talk page or on the Anina talk page for continuity. It also helps others looking into Anina identify what the issues are. Likewise, it's helpful to keep your discussion about Danina Reichman in one place (your questions have been answered in several other places). Please keep in mind several editors communicating with you have pointed you to Wikipedia pages using links that begin with WP: and even spelled out the guidelines for you. Many of the answers to your questions are at the other end of these links, so please take time to have a good read. JFHJr (㊟) 22:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC) This editor has again repeatedly submitted problematic edits ([10] [11]) despite advice ahead of time from three editors in several different fora ([12] [13] [14]) that the particular edit would be inappropriate. The advice contains explanations and references to relevant policies and guidelines, however Dom seems to have disregarded it. At this point, my opinion is that the user's edits have become disruptive. I don't think his willingness to read and take advice has anything to do with his English capability, since he has no problem making various hefty arguments on his side. I also don't think this is going to stop, even if and when an AfD consensus is reached. Is there something else that might be appropriate in this case? JFHJr (㊟) 18:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC) You have to make a decision as to what policies and/or guidelines Domenico is violating and take appropriate action. If you believe he is actually violating BLP, you can request a block. If you think he is edit-warring (not necessarily violating 3RR), you can request a block. If you think he is "vandalizing" articles by removing reliably sourced, relevant material or adding unreliably sourced material, you can request a block. These requests would normally require sufficient, formal warnings to stop. I think you've gotten a bit bogged down by all the discussions in so many forums and should focus your attention more carefully on what the problem is ("disruptive editing", albeit a common term, is a bit general) and proceed accordingly.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC) When you AfD a BLP as non-notable, the process is impossible to stop. For the purposes of the BLP noticeboard, I think that we should only AfD those BLPs that have BLP compliance problems. There was recently a huge, project-wide discussion about the general deletion of BLPs, which should inform anyone who cares that there is no firm agreement about deleting BLPs. (The results of that project were that any BLP that is completely unsourced should either have sources added or be deleted). Strictly for the purposes of this board, we should avoid doing anything to otherwise compliant BLPs except for improving them.Jarhed (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC) Robert Winston Robert Winston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Discussion at article talk page [15] in which a contributor charges the subject with racism and bigotry based on these comments [16]. Appears to be pushing an unsubstantiated point of view, perhaps in violation of WP:BLP. 99.170.155.102 (talk) 12:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC) What I'm finding thus far is that media coverage, including the Telegraph article linked to above, has reported Dr. Winston's claims as addressing a practical language barrier problem [17], [18]. The attempt to make this a racism issue without any credible sources supporting that interpretation seems--to borrow that contributor's adjective--odious. For the record, prior to my involvement at this article I had never heard of Dr. Winston. 99.170.155.102 (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC) I have removed the portions of the Talk page section that constitute BLP violations.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC) Thanks Bbb23 for the redaction and thanks 99.170.155.102 for the report (I would welcome you on your talk page if I thought your IP was not going to change for a while). I will watch and assist when the confused editor returns. Johnuniq (talk) 07:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC) Has returned, and offered veiled threats: [19], [20]. You're right Johnuniq; my IP does change constantly, owing to interrupted internet connection here. 99.170.155.102 (talk) 11:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC) The editor under discussion appears to have defenestrated himself: Talk:Robert_Winston#Vale.Jarhed (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC) He's also restored all previous conversation, including that which was redacted for BLP violation [21]. 99.168.81.210 (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC) Michael P. Nelson Michael P. Nelson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The subject of the article is a colleague of mine at Michigan State University. He brought the article to my attention. Nelson has no problems with the content, but feels that the banner questioning his "notability" may be damaging. I am familiar with policies on notability and I do not see why there is any question about notability in this case. The article contains numerous verifiable citations to Nelson's books and his widely cited articles. Moral Ground in particular was excerpted in e Magazine and is getting a lot of attention. Can an administrator take a second look at this and remove the banner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomp649 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC) The ability to remove such banners is not part of the administrative toolset :-) However, I've replaced the "notability" banner with one about issues with the sources used in the article. The problem here is that almost all of the sources used seem to be merely listings of books and papers that Nelson has written. To clearly demonstrate notability, the sources used should instead be things that have been written about Nelson. (This wouldn't preclude also including a list of Nelson's key works in the article, of course.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) An editor has raised the issue of whether Nelson meets WP:PROF. If you wish, you could start a discussion on Nelson's notability on the Talk page of the article. This kind of issue doesn't normally require administrative intervention.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC) Well, the article was proposed for deletion on those grounds months ago, and the proposed deletion was challenged by an apparently uninvolved editor. If editor(s) still feel that notability is not met, then the next step would be AfD; there's no advantage (or fairness) in keeping the Notability banner prominently on a BLP article for months and expecting friends of the subject to mount challenges to it on the talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC) I have mixed feelings about this. First, the editor who prodded it for deletion was uninvolved, whereas the editor who challenged it was the creator of the article (hardly uninvolved). So, the uninvolved editor acquiesced and placed a tag on the article, actually a relatively cooperative reaction. Second, the tag was placed on the article in late July, and there has been no editing to improve the article until this minor contretemps. Third, my guess is we're both in agreement that the article needs improvement and needs secondary sources to establish notability (I have no problem with the tag you put on). The only issue is how best to get there, how best to alert editors to the problem, etc. Personally, I would be in favor of keeping the notability tag on as well as the secondary source tag you inserted. And, finally, from a practical/procedural prospective, some articles are clearly not notable, and some are clearly notable. This article, in my view, is somewhere in between depending on the quality of the awards he's received and any secondary source coverage of his works. So, an AfD is likely to fail because we tend to "err" on the side of inclusion. I also don't think the suggestion to Thomp649 to address these issues on the Talk page is a bad one. I'm not saying the burden is on him to establish notability, just it might be a useful discussion to clarify what is needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC) Ah, you're right about the editor who removed the PROD - I should've checked that before commenting. The issue to me is that if we believe an AfD is "likely to fail", then that's not a reason for having a notability template on the article - in fact quite the opposite. Notability templates are not a form of AfD lite. My practice is always that, if an AfD closes as Keep, then there should no longer be a notability template on the article. I appreciate the desire to see the article improved, but what is the main problem that needs addressing by such improvement? If the problem is notability, then the article should be taken to AfD - the notability template has been there for months and not produced any improvement on that front. In my opinion, the bigger problem is the overwhelming use of sources associated with the subject of the article. Unlike the notability question, this is not borderline - the sources used are completely the wrong type of sources, it's a fundamental misunderstanding. And there is no separate process to address that, hence the tag. I wholeheartedly agree that the subject and/or friends of the subject should be encouraged to discuss issues on the article's talk page, but I don't agree that they should have to do so in order for the notability template to be removed. If no-one is prepared to AfD the article, then it doesn't need a notability template, especially not as a "badge of shame" (sorry, a bit of a cliche I know) on a BLP. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC) I guess we'll just have to disagree on the notability tag issue, but I'll defer to its current tag status and not reinsert the notability tag.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC) If there is any dispute about notability on a BLP, I generally prefer that the article be taken to AfD. I think the decisions made there are pretty good.Jarhed (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC) Bill Wielechowski, Hollis French, Les Gara User:Mineguy inserted similar content into these articles, as witnessed here, here and here. Obviously, there's no references and NPOV problems. These additions have seen various stages of reversion, with Gara's article seeing only limited reversion, solely due to this help desk request. I'd like to smell a rat. Despite politics being Alaska's de facto major-league sport, the average citizen tends not to use an honorific prefix to refer to their legislators; that's generally the domain of the legislators' aides. A quick rundown of issues I see with the Gara article as it currently exists (some of which can apply to related articles): Eldon Mulder represented a district called the 23rd District prior to redistricting, but represented a different constituency than the current 23rd District represented by Gara; Mention of Gara as a part-owner of Snow City Cafe without mentioning that his partners are French and Ethan Berkowitz; Lack of relevant wikilinks (perhaps a sign of this being copied and pasted from a talking points bulletin; misspelling restaurant as "restauraant" in two different articles is merely coincidence?) Gara is frequently referred to by conservatives, most prominently Rick Rydell, as "Left Gara." I haven't included that due to perhaps a lack of "reliable sources." I am working on cleaning up Alaskan political articles, albeit slowly due to a lack of collaborators. I'm posting this notice in case anyone else can be of help.RadioKAOS (talk) 02:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC) Oh boy, more of the same. This time, it's User:Energy10, who initiated the help desk request. This appears to be a brand-new user account, whose only contributions have been the help desk request and multiple edits to Gara's article made today. These edits amount to more NPOV violations with no specific sources cited. It's already turning the article into a minor mess. Considering that this user is "attempting to counter" User:Mineguy yet also misspelled restaurant as "restauraant," I'm actually beginning to suspect that this "edit war" is rather a somewhat elaborate troll. If it keeps up, I'll just blank the whole damn thing and insist that if these users are serious, that they start over with properly sourced content.RadioKAOS (talk) 00:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC) Nelson Hendler Resolved  – October 4, 2011 User:Black Kite deleted "Nelson Hendler" ‎ (WP:A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content Nelson Hendler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Major BLP issues in this new article about a pain doctor who was convicted of improperly handling drugs. I am not BLP-policy-aware enough to even begin to deal with it. Looie496 (talk) 05:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC) It should have been speedily deleted by the first administrator that set eyes on it. Its a large cut and copy paste of a previously deleted article or an article from another project and there is no edit history it has copyright issues , never mind anything else. It should be blanked.Off2riorob (talk) 10:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nelson Hendler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) update - I stubbed it back. Off2riorob (talk) 10:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC) Two dubious Werner Erhard articles? The ruling at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation_of_BLPs#Final_decision reaffirmed the commitment to honor the policies and guidlines for articles relating to Living Persons rigorously both in letter and in spirt; and the ruling at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt_and_Jayen466#Final_decision imposed sanctions and censure on an editor who had consistently been flouting the policies on POV pushing and BLP violations. Both of the articles below were created and/or extensively shaped by the editor in question (under both current and previous usernames), and my view is that the intent and effect of both is to disparage a Living Person by giving excessive coverage to weakly supported negative information about them. I think that both have been the subject of AfD discussions in the past, but perhaps it is time to re-examine them in the light of these rulings? Werner_Erhard_vs._Columbia_Broadcasting_System. This article ostensibly is an account of the court case in question but is arguably a WP:COATRACK to provide an airing for the unsubstantiated allegations of incest and tax-evasion that were the subject of the libel action. Scientology and Werner Erhard. This article is misleading and damaging insofar as it leaves an impression of a far more extensive involvement of Werner Erhard in the Scientology movement (which is widely regarded with a degree of scepticism and concern) than is actually the case. The facts are that he completed one or two of their courses in the 1960s as part of a broad investigation into many strands of philosophical enquiry, and made at that time a few guardedly positive comments about it. Both of these topics are already covered in at least adequate (arguably excessive) detail in the Werner Erhard biographical article itself; do they justify additional separate articles of their own? DaveApter (talk) 10:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC) This is the problem with a lot of User:Cirt's content creation - its undue and biased but it takes years to get rid of it because he wrote in such a way as to make it difficult to remove. At least his policy violations have finally been exposed and he has been stopped now and can't create any more. It will take years to slowly delete his bias from the project. Off2riorob (talk) 11:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC) If anyone thinks the topics aren't notable then WP:AFD would be the right forum for discussion.   Will Beback  talk  11:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC) Jimmy page Jimmy Page (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) He has not died. Article incorrect — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.254.42 (talk) 15:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC) It has been corrected. --Javaweb (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Javaweb John Sculley John Sculley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Main problem appeared to be in the sub-section John_Sculley#1983.E2.80.9393_:_Apple - note this person was CEO of Apple Inc. and this is a contentious subject for some. I simply removed items that were not referenced, and seemed possibly contentious diff The talk page also shows some (past?) issues with the coverage of the Apple period of this person's employment history. Talk:John_Sculley. This is not my subject and I have no idea if other parts are biased, or if my removals are wrong. It appears to be a subject of (minor) contention and I would appreciate it if someone could check the article over. Thanks.Imgaril (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC) The article looks pretty good now and I agree with your edits. The BLP policy says that you should remove any unsourced negative information from a BLP immediately and without waiting for discussion, so don't worry about that.Jarhed (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC) Controversy and criticism of Big Brother (UK) Controversy and criticism of Big Brother (UK) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article is something of a content fork and has previously been considered for deletion in 2009 with a keep decision. An editor wishes to include content in the section headed sex and nudity per this version: [22] I have edited his contribution thus: [23] With a talk page explanation here: [24] Before reinstating the material can those who know about these matters please consider whether any aspect of BLP will be infringed, for example WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:NPF and WP:BLP1E? In addition, is this material notable enough anyway and is the referenced source satisfactory for BLP? The editorialised addition will have to go, regardless. Leaky Caldron 20:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC) Well, your edit is a bit less celebrity magazine style - the daily mail in the circumstances is likely better than others that could be found - its one of those celeb style articles that's never going to be encyclopedic - who judges what is controversial? also its not really criticism - adult themes is normal.. anyways... your write is an improvement imo. Off2riorob (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC) Anthony Bologna (again) Anthony Bologna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I've tagged the article for neutrality, out of concern for possible UNDUE emphasis on the recent pepper spraying incident, and also am concerned about overreliance on a highly questionable, free-distribution community newspaper and local-news website for the vast majority of biographical information on this person. The newspaper and website are not notable and I question whether they meet the criteria of WP:BLP as biographical sources, and WP:V generally. Yes, I know this article is subject to an AfD, but its fate is far from clear, and if it survives we have to grapple with its content. Input from experienced editors is requested on these issues. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC) Here's some info on the Downtown Express paper.[25] It's part of some NYC group of free papers, it sounds like. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC) I'd be comfortable sourcing random facts on, say, subway stations to community newspapers/websites. I can't see our policy countenancing taking half of a BLP - the entire "Career" section and most of the lead paragraph - from such sourcing. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC) Clearly we are under attack from anonymous group supporters (they have been posting the subjects childrens' details on their chat forum) - and users that support the protest - we need overriding protection when such occurs.- some kind of experienced group of editors that can be requested to fully protect and take over the editing of a topic when the flying monkeys come to use the project to support their campaigns. Off2riorob (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC) I am very concerned by this post on an external website by one of the most active editors on the page, calling for outside assistance. "IMPORTANT: Please go to the Anthony Bologna Wikipedia page, click on Discussion, and comment to make sure that the Anthony Bologna Wikipedia page is not deleted." ScottyBerg (talk) 22:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC) He, User:PromiseOfNY should be warned/blocked by an administrator for that. Its WP:MEATPUPPETRY "recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited." - Off2riorob (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC) The post appears in multiple locations on that website.[26]. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC) Senator Lisa Murkowski and Representative Don Young and the 8(a) Business Development Program Lisa Murkowski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Don Young (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 8(a) Business Development Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The Washington Post has been running ran an expose on possible abuses of the 8a program, which awards government contracts to companies run by socially and economically disadvantaged persons or entities, including Alaska Native Corporations. While both of these lawmakers have championed this program, there is as yet no evidence to suggest that they had anything to do with the alleged abuses. The contracts are not awarded directly by either the Senate or the House so even having information about the program and the unfolding scandal (several people in Virginia have just been arrested by the feds in connection with it) in the biographies of these lawmakers seems like a mistake. IPs seem bent on pushing this information into Sen. Murkowski's article in particular. More eyes needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC) The other sources seem to indicate Murkowski was a champion of the program - isn't this a mention in her bio in a positive fashion? If the program is corrupt, seems fair to mention this in her bio also - this is typical for pol articles. Kelly hi! 01:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC) Of course there should be no mention of unproven wrongdoing in a BLP.Jarhed (talk) 03:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC) I endorse WP presenting only the actual facts about the Heroes in Hell(TM) series, and not Hullabaloo Wolfowitz's consistent misunderstanding and misstatements of the facts I was hoping never to return to this debate, however, Hullabaloo Wolfowitz is now claiming I endorse positions and editions based on his positions, which are incorrect. I do not accept any statement that any story for the HIH series was "originally published" anywhere else because this is untrue and contrary to the contract between me and every writer in the series. Here are the facts about Heroes in Hell(TM), its various volumes and stories printed elsewhere which must be correctly stated. I am aware that WP has a BLP ongoing. I prefer not to participate in any more endless debates, but to say here for the record that my rights and the rights of approximately 34 writers are being misstated by HW and potentially damaged when "originally published" is used to indicate that a story from Heroes in Hell had a first serial or promotional inclusion elsewhere. Heroes in Hell is a shared universe series, which means certain intellectual property belongs to the series and to me as its proprietary/editor, such as milieu and characters created for the series. The contract under which the books were written for me and my contract with Baen Books for the 20th century volumes of HIH stipulates that all stories commissioned by me and guided by me and created for my series by ALL authors are to be original and written to take place in and include the Heroes in Hell series milieu and concept, which is my intellectual property, created by me and subsequently contributed to by the various writers in full understanding of their contract terms and conditions. For this reason, the Baen Books volumes cite no permissions and no earlier publications on the copyrights pages and each clearly states that each book is a "Baen Books Original." This is legal and correct in terms that Simon & Schuster accepts and the US Copyright Law accepts because THE STORIES ARE CREATED FOR AND ORIGINAL TO the HIH series. The placement of first serials or free promotional placement (as in the case of the story Baslieus, which I co-wrote) in magazines or other books in no way clouds or diminishes the fact that each story was commissioned by me and created under my direction as an original story for my shared universe series, or that every author signed the same contract, each author warranting that the story I commissioned and which each author delivered would be an original story. Nor does such promotional publication diminish the requirement that the Heroes in Hell characters and milieu created by me and others belongs to the series as a whole. The Library of Congress "original" copyright date for each volume (listed under the volume and my name and thereafter including the names of the other writers) is as much as a year before the publication date. For Rebels in Hell this copyright office date is 1985. Any attempt to prove primacy based on dates of availability is immaterial and doomed to fail because of the lag time between original copyright date and publication. By US contract law and publishing law, all stories written for HIH series were required to be original to the series and one look at the volumes' rights pages proves this by the lack of permissions citations required thereon. Any "editor" should know this, whether a Wikipedia editor or any other kind of editor. If you apply the standards HW is attempting to apply to establishing GITO's "original" publication (a nonstandard term and an immaterial term in any case), every other book and story in WP should be immediately subject to the same extensive scrutiny and potential revision of their WP pages. Since in the mid-1980s it was common for portions of as-yet unpublished books to be included in other books or magazines with earlier publication dates (even including other books by other authors) in order to promote upcoming book releases, and this was often done by verbal agreement, thousands of titles would have to be re-investigated if WP wants to prove "original" publication status for each and every case. On the WP page about Gilgamesh in the Outback (GITO), which exists because the story is Nebula Award nominated and Hugo Award winning, focus should be maintained on the version that won the award, which was the version created under my direction for Rebels in Hell and submitted to me as original and purchased by me as original, and also first-serialized in IASFM. If any Silverberg quotations are added, they should be those that explain that in order to compile his 3 HIH stories into a volume to be sold by him outside the series, he was obligated to remove the proprietary HIH material to avoid copyright violation issues. Since by doing so, the GITO story in Silverberg's resulting novel was no longer the award-winning version, discussing this novelized version of GITO on a page dedicated to the award-winning version at all is discursive. I suggest, since all problems have solutions, that a simpler and less controversial wording be adopted, or correct publishing terminology be used. Perhaps it could be said that story X was published in magazine X AND book x, and avoid the issue of applying non-standard publishing language altogether. The sequentiality issue is the problematic one. Or use correct publishing terminology, such as "Published in X book on A date and first-serialized in Y magazine on B date. In closing: I endorse none of HW's edits or statements or selective quotations on the topic of Heroes in Hell series and its stories, which statements and edits are at best confused and at worst misleading. Guarddog2 (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)98.218.161.68 (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

• Just for the record, this whole wall of text was cross-posted here from my talk page, where the collapse-note originally appeared. Outside of my own talk page, absent extraordinary circumstances, I would not alter or remove comments made by an editor with whom I was in a dispute. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

We have provided DS and OTRS with the exact contract language that ALL the original 19 Heroes in Hell franchise authors signed. GITO was commissioned to be written within a specific milieu i.e. the Heroes in Hell shared universe per the franchise agreement for the book "Rebels in Hell", and not as a standalone work. Only BAEN Books has the right to claim that it is the original publisher. They bought the primary rights under an advance and royalty contract. First serial rights are addressed in that contract (per the provided definition - publication "prior to" book release). GITO in this instance is an excerpt from the book. It is a chapter of the anthology to be taken as a part of the whole. Were this not the case, then how do you explain this statement in the Heroes in Hell contract which every author signed: "The author represents that the story is original and has never been published in any form." If that is not the case, as you are claiming, then you are in fact accusing Silverberg, Benford, and all the other authors who exercised their first serial rights as delineated in the Heroes in Hell contract of fraud, since by your definition they created the works "originally" for Asimov's or any other magazine used to advertise the upcoming book and lied when they signed their Heroes in Hell contracts. Look at the creation dates in the copyright information. Rebels in Hell was created in 1985. The Asimov's Magazine issue with the book excerpt was created in 1986. So the book pre-exists the magazine article. Chronological availability of a product to purchase is meaningless in this instance. You can see why so many respected authors are upset with your insistence on using general language bibliographic definitions instead of defining specific terms of art used in the publishing industry for the WP readership. I am sure you were just trying to write the best possible article with the information you had available to you, but please correct these oversights now that you have verification of the actual contract terms. I know you have stated in the past that the WP readership would not understand these terms of art, and that is why you are so adamant against using them, but I'm sure a well written article commissioned to explain them simply, could enlighten and educate all of us. WP is an encyclopedia after all.96.255.31.106 (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC) 98.218.161.68 (talk) 03:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Jarhed: The only BLP issue here is the attempted alteration of the publishing history of Robert Silverberg's Gilgamesh in the Outback which was written for the Heroes in Hell(TM) series. H. Wolfowitz insists on trying to prove the story was written for Asimov's and then "reprinted" in Rebels in Hell which is inaccurate, as you can see by the mind-boggling amount of information above. At this point, all most editors want is for the Gilgamesh page to be returned to it's original wording before the Dispute Resolution [[27]]concensus and the publishing history to be a completely neutral, chronological statement as follows:

"The suggested edit would be: "Gilgamesh in the Outback was published in the July 1986 Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine and the shared universe anthology Rebels in Hell, published in July 1986 by Baen Books." Dokzap (talk) 04:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Dokzap" as was agreed by consensus [[28]]. There is only one editor objecting to the above neutral language: H. Wolfowitz.

If this could be accomplished, the disputes would go away(I hope). Then WP can develop a new article about the definition of the terms of art: "first serial," "original publication" and "subsidiary rights" in publishing, which is an entirely different subject. Thank you. Hulcys930 (talk) 05:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hulcys930 (talk • contribs)

List of Sicilian Mafiosi by city‎

List of Sicilian Mafiosi by city (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Sicilian Mafiosi by city contains a large number of unreferenced names and has been overhauled recently. It is difficult to assess if much of the information is still reliable and sufficient reason to suspect that this list does not pass WP:BLP, in particular WP:BLPCAT. I wonder if it is not time to propose it for WP:AFD, but want to have some opinions and guidance first. - DonCalo (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Don Calo. The list serves no purpose especially now, after an editing blitz, that a big proportion of it is unsourced. Denisarona (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed the uncited redlinkers. No position on deletion but moving forward, I will insist any additions, either have a en wikipedia article or have a WP:RS to verify the addition. Off2riorob (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a BLP disaster waiting to happen. The article is pure POV in that "mafiosi" is a political term with strongly negative overtones, not an encyclopedic term of fact. Delete this article as nonsense.Jarhed (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I see that there is an entire template infrastructure dedicated to the topic of the Sicilian mafia. All of this is complete garbage from an encyclopedic perspective. It invites all of the most invidious editing: naming someone as mafia as an attack, claiming mafia connections based on self-published sources. From a BLP perspective this subject is akin to the Biological Warfare article, where people with the most tenuous connections to the subject can be smeared with extremely egregious charges. If I could figure out a way to do it, I would blast all of this garbage off the wiki.Jarhed (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I might also point out that there is *no way* that this data can ever be correct. Even if mafia members were correctly identified as those who are known by competent civil authority, all such data is confidential as ongoing criminal investigations. This data can never be anything more than a collection of uninformed speculation, innuendo, and sensational news stories.Jarhed (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

User Svierge777

(Contributions) This new user persistantly edits BLPs such as Axl Rose adding in mentions of heritage, primarily Polish such as this example, or moving Polish to the start of a list of heritages such as here, and is pretty close to pushing an WP:AGENDA, as he's started calling wikipedia prejudice against "certain cultures". I explained through reverting that he needed to supply a reference for BLP, and also on his talk page the policy of BLP, directing him towards WP:BLP and WP:REFB, but he's ignored this and reverted again and again. I'm not sure how best to address it, I've told him reverting despite what he's been told can be considered vandalism, (in doing so accidentally breaking 3RR) is that the best step? BulbaThor (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I left him some helpful advice, hopefully he will back off a bit and seek some advice. He's new and seems to be wanting to improve the article in good faith. Off2riorob (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Please be careful not to violate 3RR again. Instead, strive to take discussion to the various article's talk pages, and work towards consensus. If backed by reliable sources, the fact that a person is of Polish ancestry may well be notable, if that person is reported by reliable sources commenting on their ancestry. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

That is also an example of a detail that should be removed from a BLP if it is unsourced.Jarhed (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

nicholas bailey

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

Someone reported that the actor Nicholas Bailey had been involved in the recent riots over the summer of 2011 in Birmingham. This statement is completely untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisazina72 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this issue. I've removed this unsourced allegation from the article. The IP address (unregistered user) responsible has done the same thing with various other celebrities[29], I'll check those as well. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Gábor Koltai

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

I'm a member of WikiProject Wikify; this article is tagged for wikification, but I thought it strange that there were a string of footnotes at the end of a stub. Of the 16 footnotes (I removed a couple of Hungarian-language dead links), only three are in English; the rest are in Hungarian with no translation. Of the three English-language sources, only one (a brief story on Variety.com) actually concerns the subject; the other two concern former business associates. The page seems to have been created and maintained by a SPA. I'm a relatively new editor, and this is the first apparent BLP violation I've seen. The lack of good sources for an article covering only the subject's alleged legal transgressions seems to be a problem.--Miniapolis (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable is my default solution for this problem. I hope no Hungarian speakers show up for the discussion.Jarhed (talk) 23:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; as far as I can tell this is a one-editor show, so we'll see what happens :-).--Miniapolis (talk) 02:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gábor Koltai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Elizabeth Hoffman (professor)

Elizabeth Hoffman (professor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a marketing bio.

I dunno about that, but it had a lot of sourcing problems and certainly some puffery. I've removed quite a bit from the article as unsourced. There's really only one source - and that is her bio.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

sargon dadesho

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

This bio is slanderous and cites blogs and other deadlink sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.242.174.254 (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This bio is for a Syrian political leader and makes a lot of statements of fact that I am unable to evaluate from a cultural perspective. This person lives in the US and the article is probably overall a positive. A prior deletion effort failed. I removed the obviously slanderous material and watchlisted.Jarhed (talk) 12:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Marintia Escobedo

Resolved

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

This article reads like someone's self-promotional fluff piece. It seems very inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.119.40 (talk) 04:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I really can't tell if there are any BLP violations in this because it mentions so many other individuals. The person is so non-notable that it could easily be speedied.Jarhed (talk) 13:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I took a shot at separating the real claims of notability based on her career in entertainment in Mexico from the huge amount of unencyclopedic POV-laden prose in the article. There are plenty of credible claims of importance, so CSD A7 does not apply. It could possibly go to AfD, but she has plenty of coverage in Spanish sources so it is likely the article would be kept. What it really needs now is a thorough copy-edit and some inline citations. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Great work, that looks a lot better.Jarhed (talk) 05:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Michael Moore

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

This is a fairly simple question - Given that the stated purpose of a citation is to fully identify a source - How does the citation "<ref>Schultz (2005) p. 8</ref>" meet that goal?

I am faced with the situation of two editors agreeing that it is sufficient, despite the fact that it provides no useful information to the reader.

I believe someone with a stick has to lay down the law - I've already directed them to WP:CITE, but they have ignored the guidelines contained therein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlassTwiceAsBig (talk • contribs) 15:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

A bit more detail would benefit - perhaps a small quote that supports the content in the article. Off2riorob (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

brought from the external for discussion purposes only and not for reprinting - "Moore had attended a seminary for one year, when he was fourteen, but dropped out because he was forbidden to watch football. Moore would run for office at the age of eighteen, help open a youth crisis center when he was still little more than a youth himself, and run his own alternative newspaper for ten years" - Michael Moore - A biography by Emily Shultz - 2005 - Hardback published by ECW Press - 2006 paperback published by Satin publications - ISBN-10: 1905745036 ISBN-13: 978-1905745036 - page 8 - It doesn't appear to be an official with permission bio but says, "Emily Shultz sorts the man from the myth with in depth interviews and research" - Off2riorob (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

A quick search through the references in the article would find reference 19 which is a book by Emily Schultz, published in 2005, complete with ISBN number. While the cite could be expanded, it wasn't difficult to find what it was referring to. That format is seen in other articles, but usually there is a Bibliography section where one could look. Maybe that's the answer - change ref 19 to the same format and move the Schultz book to a Bib section. Also, I noticed that the diff of the latest revert by GlassTwiceAsBig uses the Harvard citation template. Does that reference meet the criteria of WP:CITE? Given everything, yes. Ravensfire (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Rob and Raven, I saw no need to clutter up the sourcing by redundantly typing out all of Schultz again; when using a different page range from the same source I have always used Author last name, date of publication, and page range...had Schultz written several of the references...say 2 books in the same year on the same subject or if the source was an updated work with a different year (3rd edition for example), I could see the need for expansion. I would be ok with a bibiliography section, but I'm concerned if a newbie editor doesn't understand Harvard citations, would this not lead to further edit warring and time wasting rather than trying to improve the article.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Given a bib section and inclusion of the book there, fine - however, that was not done. All that was added was a reference that is confusing for an average reader - remember that the user will be clicking on a link which gives them nothing more than "<ref>Schultz (2005) p. 8</ref>" - which does NOT meet WP:CITE - "...what matters most is that you provide enough information to identify the source". For this purpose, "<ref>Schultz (2005) p. 8</ref>" is clearly insufficient, and Mike has repeatedly refused to clean up his reference - which is his responsibility WP:BURDEN.--The glass isn't half full, nor is it half empty. It's twice as big as it needs to be. (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in this case I do agree - from the history of this BLP, there has been a lot of complaints and disputes, could the experienced editors active there please raise the citations to as as high a standard of detail as possible - Off2riorob (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

So this is not to be followed anymore?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Clearly follow guidelines, (those shortened footnote guidelines are over my head never mind over newbies heads) - its just a personal request (perhaps over and above the levels stated in the guidelines - there has been a lot of previos complaints/disruption) to make them as clear and verifiable as possible on this particular biography. Off2riorob (talk) 19:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, fixed, full book cite, better than the self-published links, I suppose. Since we're obviously not going with a bibiliography, are these new standards just for me or will all editors on this article be required to follow them?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Making changes on a high-traffic article for a controversial person is a chore. Optimally, all new cites should follow the article standard and old cites should be upgraded as part of normal changes. Consider watching the article for new edits that do not follow the article standard and either informing the editor or fixing them yourself. On a case by case basis, it might be appropriate to revert a non-standard edit. You might find that most everyone will follow the new standard automatically.Jarhed (talk) 20:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

So, I used a book cite template, and that wasn't good enough, now it's a raggedy cite. ARRRRRRRRRRGGGHHH! I give up, some articles "are more equal than others" I suppose.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Jeff Hostetler

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

Please add this to the article about him. It is from another of your articles here that you have already published.

National Football League quarterback Jeff Hostetler (career 1985-1997)[13] grew up on a farm just outside Jerome. Hostetler led the New York Giants to their 20-19 win over the Buffalo Bills in Super Bowl XXV (see 1990 New York Giants season).

I am a librarian, and from Somerset County. He is a native son. Thanks Kelly1200 (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Lauren Oliver

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

The author just tweeted to invite readers to have some fun with her page [30]. I just had to revert a joker. I could use some more people watchlisting the article for jokers. hbdragon88 (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Just semi-protect it.Jarhed (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been out of the loop for awhile. Is it now OK to semi-protect BLP articles even when there is no current major problem? hbdragon88 (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I would wait a little to see what the flying monkeys do. Its not usual at present imo to pro actively protect prior to some degree of disruption - perhaps some will come and improve it as its not very good and she seems only minimally independently notable. Off2riorob (talk) 19:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That is an excellent point, I was just thinking about playing whack-a-mole with tweeters.Jarhed (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Howard Schultz

Resolved

 – The usual false content vandalism that is so prevalent in articles in this Wikipedia - reverted

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

The article is skimpy to begin with. But it's also been vandalized. It says that Schultz' mother was Kim Kardashian. Clearly needs fixing, and quick. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.115.64.20 (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The usual fact altering vandalism by an IP address - a user has reverted it. Thanks for the report - welcome to Wikipedia.Off2riorob (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Tomas Tranströmer

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

My wish for correction is with regard to this sentence: "According to Britain's The Daily Telegraph, a poll run on the Nobel Prize website after the announcement said 88 per cent of respondents had never read his poetry.[13]"

It should be removed if it can not be enriched with a comparison to other Nobel laureates who are/were poetry writers.

As it is now, it is not clear whether it should be construed as a negative comment on the interest in poetry by the respondent to the Nobel Prize site, or on Tranströmer, or on the value of the Nobel Prize as an indicator of a writer's significance, or perhaps all three.

In any case, such citations from the press of such nature tends to bring ridicule over Wikipedia for repeating what is essentially "yellow journalism".

I lack the editing skills and ask for help in removing or in improving it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idealist707 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The Nobel Prize in Literature is an ongoing scandal: it is usually awarded to Europeans who nobody has ever heard of, and as our article states, more Swedes have won it than writers from all of Asia put together -- even before this event. Looie496 (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Mola Mola (musician)

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

After checking the internet movie base I have found that there is no record of Jack Hazebroek appearing in any films or tv series. I have checked to total character listings of all films and series on this page and there is no mention of Jack Hazebroek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milkyboy124 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any BLP issues, but this BLP has no refs. In addition, virtually every musician linked in the article also has a BLP with no refs. I'm tempted to create my own bio and link to Mola Mola's.Jarhed (talk) 06:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• - now under discussion at - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Hazebroek (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Julian Assange

Julian's grandfather Warren Alfred Hawkins is Australian born and was not born in Scotland as reported.

Heh, speaking of unproven criminal allegations.Jarhed (talk) 06:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Complete absence of edit warring at Sarah Palin article

Shades of Conan-Doyle's dog in the night here. An editor has recently added a section to the Palin bio regarding the content of Joe McGinniss's new biography of her - including references to an alleged affair with her husband's business partner, and to claimed use of cocaine and marijuana in her earlier life. Though this is sourced to the Daily Mail, a little Googling shows that other, more reliable sources are reporting the story (as allegations by McGinniss, rather than as necessarily factual), see [31] or [32] (and [33] for the allegations of a 1987 sexual liason with Glen Rice, also from McGinniss's book). The odd thing is the complete silence at the article talk page etc. I find it difficult to believe that nobody is watching the article, so what is going on? Have the Palinistas all abandoned her? In any case, I think a few more (neutral, or at least uninvolved) eyes on the article may be necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The wiki has lost a lot of editing, and SP doesn't attract as much attention as Rick Perry and others, now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm still editing Wikipedia pretty much every day, and (disclosure) I'm not all that fond of Sarah Palin personally. However, I think that any contentious claims about her need to be referenced to high-quality reliable souces. Perhaps the warriors have lost interest a bit because she isn't a declared presidential candidate, but we still have an obligation to maintain BLP standards here. Do you have a specific recommendation, Andy, or is this just a sociological observation? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

My only recommendation was that uninvolved editors should keep an eye on the article. The McGinniss book seems to be attracting a significant amount of attention in the mainstream media (see L.A. Times review for example[34]), and we will clearly have to tread carefully to find a balance regarding how this is reported. (And BTW, for the record, I'm no Palin fan myself - though I suspect that is fairly obvious). AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I am no fan of SP, or of editing US electoral politics articles in general, but no amount of overwhelming RS consensus is going to convince me to include that she might have had sex with some dude, a decade and a half before she became notable. That is the very thing that WP:SENSATION wants us to avoid. The other stuff, however, needs to be better sourced. In fact, I am not sure if it should be included at all. We are not a gossip rag, no matter what the subject. --Cerejota (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I removed the sentence about Joe McGinniss's new book per Cerejota's impeccable reasoning and have placed the article on my watch list per Andy's request. The Los Angeles Times review Andy linked casts real doubt on whether this book, or reporting on it, can be considered a reliable source for the SP article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy, I watch it every day, but I hate to edit without discussion on talk (and even more loathe to revert). I agree with Cullen's recent removal of this section, as it certainly is pure sensationalism. Worse, it's the type that will always inherently lack secondary sources (the he said, she said type). I guarantee it's not the last we'll see this added to the page. Fcreid (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The edit at issue is a splendid example of the political silly season "this person alleged that John Doe is still beating his wife" level of relevance in a BLP. Collect (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Im actually surprised that this hasn't come up earlier, i guess the Palin fever is starting to break ;-). I commented on the talk page that i dont feel this material should be included for more or less the reasons expressed by Cerejota, Cullen328, Fcreid and Collect. Bonewah (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I first posted material to the Sarah Palin article. As this has been reverted, I've now taken this to Talk:Sarah Palin#Joe McGinniss book. I've explained my reasoning there, and very much welcome additional input into this issue. I am unconvinced by some of the arguments above. WP:SENSATION does not appear to apply to me. This is not something merely reported in scandal-mongering papers. It's something being discussed in reputable, reliable source papers. It is not infotainment or churnalism. The above reference to WP:SENSATION appears to be a rather broad interpretation of what WP:SENSATION is actually about.

As I've said on the Talk page, the driving principle behind WP:BLP is the use of reliable sources, and we have those aplenty in this case. Wikipedia is not a gossip rag, and we should not repeat what gossip rags say. However, when a significant scandal is covered by multiple reliable sources, that is something we should cover, in a careful, measured, neutral and, above all, well-cited manner. Let's use all those cites given above! Bondegezou (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The only thing that is being covered in reliable sources is the fact that McGinniss made the claims that he did. And, in any event, reliable sources are necessary, but not sufficient for inclusion in a BLP. Frankly, if this material doesnt qualify and sensationalistic gossip, I dont know what would. Bonewah (talk) 17:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't follow how you are interpreting WP:BLP. I've re-read it and I don't see anything comparable to your language of "necessary, but not sufficient". If reliable sources like The Guardian, LA Times etc. are covering the issue, I don't see how it can be dismissed as "sensationalistic gossip" alone. While I appreciate your comments so far, Bonewah, I don't see how they relate to policy or reliable sources, which I understand to be the central principles behind all our efforts here. Could you perhaps re-explain your point with specific reference to policy? Bondegezou (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The material includes accusations of felonious criminal activity not sourced to any named person. If that is not almost a textbook definition of "sensationalistic gossip" I wote not what would suffice for you. Collect (talk) 21

01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ive explained my thinking at length on the SP talk page, including quoting the relevant portions of BLP policy directly, I dont know what more you want. Further, between here and the Sarah Palin talk page 8 different editors have rejected inclusion of this material in her biography so far with only you arguing for its inclusion. While that does not preclude further discussion and minds changing, i think you are clearly swimming against the tide here. Perhaps our time would be better spent not arguing in the face of such clear consensus. Bonewah (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the McGiniss book is WP:RS. McGiniss is an author with a long track record of major books, it was published by a major publisher, and it's been widely reviewed.

Whether it's true is another question, which we can't decide. We should include the charges and the reviewers' reactions. That should keep it WP:NPOV.

Whether it's salacious is irrelevant. Unfortunately in the public discourse, WP:RSs regularly publish salacious information (which I don't think has anything to do with their qualifications for office), as they did with Bill Clinton, Eliot Spitzer and Anthony Weiner.

So now the vote is 2 to 8, and as you know WP:CONSENSUS is not a majority vote. --Nbauman (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The allegations made in the book are currently covered by Wikipedia in Joe McGinniss#The Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin, along with analysis of his claims by other reliable sources (which are not supportive). The reviews claim that McGinniss relied on anonymous sources for his claims, this is definitely a big no-no for us per the BLP policy. Unless there's some corroboration for his claims, they should stay out of Sarah Palin and Glen Rice. Kelly ^hi! 17:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Rice himself admitted to sleeping with her. It should be included in his wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.227.232 (talk) 05:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP prohibits material that doesn't have a WP:RS; a book by an author of many books with a major publisher is a WP:RS. I don't see anything in WP:RS that prohibits books or articles which themselves quote anonymous sources. All the President's Men is a WP:RS even though it doesn't identify Deep Throat, isn't it? --Nbauman (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• Definitely keep new info out the page It would violate the wikipedia rule that editors have to take into consideration the living person and the implications such claims can have on their lives. This is to controversial at the present time with reliable sources saying different things and it is not so relevant to her overall history and bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apolo91655 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

We've taken into consideration the implications on the living person into consideration. We've also taken into consideration the fact that she's a public figure (in the libel sense), that she's thrust herself into the public forum, that she's been outspoken on many issues, that she's a politician who held positions of public trust, that she's talked of running for president, and that the public has a right to know all the information about her that they might consider important in deciding whether to vote for her. We've also taken WP:CENSOR and WP:WEIGHT into consideration. I personally don't think salacious material is relevant, but it made a big difference for Bill Clinton, Elliot Spitzer and Anthony Weiner. If it gets media attention -- book reviews -- then it meets WP:WEIGHT and has to go in. And it has. --Nbauman (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Media attention != relevance. In the case of Spitzer and Weiner, the relevance is clear, they lost their jobs over the affairs. Similarly with Clinton, depending on the incident, he either had to go to court or it led to an impeachment trial. No such relevance exists in this case. Bonewah (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, media attention = relevance. Otherwise, how do you determine relevance? Do you just say, "I don't think it's relevant," and delete it?

I think that if there's a hypocrisy issue, it's relevant. If one of the issues that Palin used to further her political career was chastity before marriage, and she had a one-night stand with a basketball payer before she was married, that would be relevant. Whether Joe McGiniss' account is true is not for us to decide. We only decide verifiability, not truth, and include the skeptical reviews. McGiniss is a published author, his publisher is an established publisher, so fairly or not, it's a WP:RS as defined by WP. --Nbauman (talk) 04:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The book and allegations are mentioned in Joe McGinnis - however, the allegations don't belong in biographical articles about people mentioned by the book, because other reliable sources say that this book is not reliable, as shown above. A possible new wrinkle is that Andrew Breitbart has published e-mail from McGinniss which possibly shows that claims in the book are hoaxes or lack evidence,[35] though none of that should be included in Wikipedia unless documented by other sources. Kelly ^hi! 13:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

That's not the way we do things in Wikipedia. The standard for admissibility is verifiability, not truth. If one source that we define as WP:RS says that somethig is true, and another WP:RS says that it's false, we include both the charges and rebuttal, and let the reader decide.

I think that McGinnis and Breitbart are both irresponsible and often wrong, but my opinion doesn't entitle me (or anybody else) to remove their claims. All that it entitles me to do is to add to McGinnis' claims, and Breitbart's claims, the reasons that other WP:RS give for not believing them. And that's what we should do in the Sarah Palin article.

Even if we agree that McGinnis' charges are completely wrong, they have gotten so much publicity that the charges and rebuttals should be included in the article. People who read Doonesbury will wonder if they're true. If they see no reference at all to McGinnis, they'll wonder whether Wikipedia is censored. And the answer will be yes. --Nbauman (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP does not agree with that position. Contentious material must be sourced to reliablke sources and while the normal presumption is that published works can be used, where the preponderance of outside sources is that the material is deliberately used as a means of attack (see the NYT and WaPo reviews) and the material is sourced to anonymous sources, and the material relates to felonious activity, the policy actualy requires that such material not be used in the BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Please give a link and quote the WP guideline you're referring to. That's not my understanding of WP:BLP, and it's not my understanding of WP:NPOV and WP:CENSOR either. --Nbauman (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably WP:GRAPEVINE ("Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person...that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards"}. See also WP:RELIABLE - "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. (emphasis added) Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves...They are unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties." Also WP:BLPGOSSIP - "Be wary of sources that...attribute material to anonymous sources." WP:LIBEL may also apply here, as the Palin family has notified the book's publisher to preserve evidence in advance of a lawsuit.[36] Kelly ^hi! 14:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Sarah Palin edit

We have numerous reliable sources saying that this book was published and that it's been controversial. It's kind of bizarre to pretend that it doesn't exist. The article should at least refer to it briefly. We don't need to repeat the allegations but we should acknowledge it, and also mention Palin's reaction to it and to the author, which are also notable.   Will Beback  talk  20:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a tabloid whose joy is in printing material specifically found to be trash by the reliable sources - WaPo and NYT, inter alia. But heck - I suppose the fake Irving autobiography of Howard Hughes should be used for claims in the Hugehes article by the standard you propose - the same level of "realness" is in both. Cheers, but I think consensus is exceedingly strong here, Will. Collect (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Every major news source has talked about this book, if only to call it trash. It would not violate any part of BLP to say that a book was publsiehd that has been called "trash". The existence of the book, and Palin's reaction to its writing and publication, are not gossip. As for the Irving biography, it's mentioned in the Howard Hughes biography. It should be, because it's very notable even if it was a hoax. The McGinniss book should at least be mentioned.   Will Beback  talk  21:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia does mention the McGinniss book, and the controversy engendered, in Joe McGinniss. Kelly ^hi! 21:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Howard Hughes is probably not the best example here, since he is not alive...probably a closer analogue would be Jerome Corsi's work about Barack Obama, no mention of which will you find the Obama BLP. Kelly ^hi! 21:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The Palin article should probably say something along the lines of

• Palin complained publicly when writer Joe McGinniss, who was writing an unauthorized biography of her, rented a house next to hers in Wasilla. Palin increased the height of her fence to block his view. After the book was published, Palin threatened the writer with a lawsuit, saying that the book is a 'series of lies and rumors presented as fact'.

That would not violate the letter or spirit of BLP, and would refer to what appears to be a significant issue that she has reacted to publicly.   Will Beback  talk  21:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec)In order to maintain neutrality, you'd have to include statements from the other RS's, like the New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post, and others who derided the book as an agenda-driven, badly-sourced attack piece. Mention of the lawsuit would likely end up requiring mentions of the McGinniss e-mails obtained and published by Breitbart, and McGinniss' response to them. Then it would quickly expand past the weight it deserves in the Palin article. Since there seems to be general consensus that the book is trash, it should likely just be kept out of the Palin biography, as we do with other attack "biographies" like Corsi's work on Obama. I'm not seeing how this situation is different. Kelly ^hi! 22:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The proposed text deals entirely with Palin's actions. I don't think it's necessary to bring in a lot of other aspects since, as you point out, the matter is dealt with in great length in another article. As for the Corsi book on Obama, I am not aware of any similar actions he took in response. Per the Streisand Effect, reacting to something often brings it greater prominence.   Will Beback  talk  22:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Meh, rather than belabor the point endlessly I'll just say I disagree. Palin's actions (actually her attorney's actions) don't have much weight in the context of her overall biography. And the text really wouldn't be neutral if it didn't convey the WP:RS opinion of the book, which puts the legal actions in context. So far the consensus has been to exclude McGinniss' allegations, I'll wait to see if that changes. With respect - Kelly ^hi! 22:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The proposed text doesn't mention the allegations, so that's beside the point. We could add that it was "widely criticized" or something to that effect, but I think it'd be best to keep it short.   Will Beback  talk  22:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's a revisipn based on the input from Kelly:

• Palin complained publicly when writer Joe McGinniss, who was writing an unauthorized biography of her, rented a house next to hers in Wasilla. Palin increased the height of her fence to block his view. The book, published in August 2011, was widely criticized. Palin's lawyer threatened the writer with a lawsuit, saying that the book is a 'series of lies and rumors presented as fact'.

Any other input?   Will Beback  talk  00:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, to prevent being misrepresented, I'm still with the above consensus that the material doesn't belong at all. Just to be clear, where are you proposing to put this - in one of the subarticles (like Public image of Sarah Palin? Kelly ^hi! 00:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above concered different material. I'd suggest putting this into chronological order, under "After the 2008 election".   Will Beback  talk  00:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That section seems primarily concerned with significant political activities (book authorship, "death panels", Tea Party movement, "mama grizzlies", and Presidential run speculation. I'm not sure how tabloid reporting on a discredited writer can fit in with appropriate weight. Kelly ^hi! 00:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The fact that she raised her fence and the fact that she has reacted to the book are not "tabloid reporting". They are widely reported incidents in the subject's life.   Will Beback  talk  00:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Today, the New York Times reported that Palin was...doing nothing. There are literally thousands of reliable sources writing about her, we can't possibly include everything, especially stuff extremely questionable on BLP grounds. Kelly ^hi! 00:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

There is absolutely no question that this book was written. It is not a "questionable" assertion. More has been written about this than about numerous other items included in the biography. For example, the article devotes as much space to her view on the troop surge in Iraq, a topic about which she merely has an opinion that few people have ever discussed. I'm not saying we should devote much space to it, just a few lines. I don't see any specific BLP policy clause the requires us to suppress mentioning this book.   Will Beback  talk  00:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Not questioning that the book was written, but I'm just not seeing any comparison with weight given the rest of the section in which you want to insert this. There are thousands of articles about Palin's looks, breasts, glasses, even discredited speculation she caused the 2011 Tucson shooting. We ignore most of it, not sure why we need to include mention of a book by a discredited author with equal weight to her impact on the 2010 Congressional elections. Kelly ^hi! 00:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure this book needs mentioning at all. But mentioning the book, mentioning negative reactions to the book, mentioning that is was controversial, mentioning legal action about the controversy, all whilst skirting around the question of what was so controversial in the first place? If I made that edit, I think I'd feel a bit like I was working for Pravda.--FormerIP (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Pretending the the book never existed and that Palin didn't react publicly to McGinniss's moving next door to her would be more "Pravda" like then simply acknowledging briefly that these things have happened. People who want to learn more can follow the link to the writer's biography. There's nothing in the proposed text which violates either the letter or the spirit of BLP. If you think differently, please quote the specific text that says we must not mention the existence of unfavorable but well-known biographies.   Will Beback  talk  00:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that. What I would say is that the episode is either noteworthy or it isn't. If we begin the tale, we should also end it, not tell three-quarters of the story so as to protect the subject of the article from having to read the same thing on Wikipedia as she has already read in all mainstream news media in the US. --FormerIP (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

We often give incomplete accounts of something when a more complete discussion exists elsewhere. "Widely criticized" is a fair summary. Can you suggest a few more words which would summarize it more completely?   Will Beback  talk  00:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Per WaPo: Derided as being a hit piece by a writer who said he hoped it would end Palin's career" comes to mind. His hope, he admits, is to cut short whatever is left of her political life, a spectacle he likens to “the cheap thrill of watching a clown in high heels on a flying trapeze. seems to accurately reflect what the WaPo reviewer sees as his motive for writing the book. Reliably sourced enough? NYT Although most of “The Rogue” is dated, petty and easily available to anyone with Internet access, Mr. McGinniss used his time in Alaska to chase caustic, unsubstantiated gossip about the Palins, often from unnamed sources like “one resident” and “a friend.” Yep -- the McGinniss book was not only "criticised" it was roundly trashed by the major newspapers. Heck even in the UK (Daily Telegraph): These are the depths to which Joe McGinniss has sunk, 42 years after he wrote a fine book called The Selling of a President about the 1968 Richard Nixon campaign. / For no discernible reason other than blinded hatred of Palin (and no doubt to make some money) McGinniss moved to Alaska in 2010 and rented the house next door to his subject. This stunt – and his synthetic indignation at the understandable ire it prompted from the Palins – is given extensive treatment.. Yet some editor thinks that Wikipedia should in any way promote such trash - seen from the viewpoint of all the major newspapers? Sorry Will -- this goes far beyond accusing LaRouche of calling for the murder of a prosecutor ... this is plain and simple malignity. [37] Even Keith Olbermann and Bill Maher would not push the book -- which I suggest Wikipedia should not come within a league of pushing. Apparently one editor's mileage varies - even from them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Mentioning the existence of a book, and saying it was "widely criticized" or "trashed", isn't really promoting it. Rhetoric aside, are there any policy-based objections to the proposed material? If so, please cite the specific text in question.   Will Beback  talk  03:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

See my response to Nbauman immediately above this section break (presumably the post to which you initially posted on this board). Kelly ^hi! 03:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

If the proposal here is to mention the McGinness book in a sub-article, okay, but there's no need to say that Palin "complained" about him, or whined about him, or fretted, or lashed out. Just keep it short and concise, and say she "objected" to his presence. And leave out the crap about the fence. Maybe she entered and left in darkness too, or blasted music to annoy McGinness, all of which would be as trivial as raising her fence. And also leave out the "threats" (more negative connotations in the word "threat") by Palin through her attorney. If she sues, that might be non-trivial. Only an experienced Wikipedia editor could take this crappy book and use it to call Palin a "complaining" and "threatening" bitc*.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Taking that input into the draft, we get:

• Palin objected publicly when writer Joe McGinniss, who was writing an unauthorized biography of her, rented a house next to hers in Wasilla. The book, published in August 2011, was widely criticized.

Any further input?   Will Beback  talk  05:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Fine for a sub-article, IMO.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's intended for the biography. But a longer version could go into the "Public image" article.   Will Beback  talk  06:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm fine with the short version in a sub-article, but I don't see why it should be mentioned in the main Palin article, which isn't the place to describe everyone who's creeped her out or trashed her. She's objected to a million things, including the Fed's second round of quantitative easing,[38] but they can't all be covered in the main Palin article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with the above mention as it is now in a sub-article but it is not notable enough for the main article. If other stuff exists in the main article that is less notable than this book, then the other stuff should obviously be removed.Jarhed (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I object to the inclusion of this material in any Palin related article. For any sufficiently famous subject, literally thousands, if not tens of thousands of articles will be written and to mention all of them in wikipedia simply because they appeared in print somewhere would result in a desultory mess. Other than to wave the reliable source flag, no one has made even a prima facia case for the inclusion of this material. It is totally irrelevant and a gross violation of a number of policies. Bonewah (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The "prima facie" case for including this is that Palin has responded personally to the activities of McGinniss. It's not an issue of something that someone wrote about her - it's about what she has done regarding McGinniss. There's nothing in BLP which says that we must suppress the mention of unfavorably, or even trashy, biographies. this was written by a notable author, issued by a mainstream publisher, and has received considerable attention. Including a mention of it in the article would not have any effect on Palin.   Will Beback  talk  23:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

If that is your case for inclusion, then I stand by my objection. Nothing in your response indicates that this material has any lasting importance to the subject, your hand waving not withstanding. Bonewah (talk) 02:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Upon what policy languuge are you basing your objection? the appearance here is that editors are objecting based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is not sufficient reason.   Will Beback  talk  22:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Really? You actually need a rule to tell you to only include that which is relevant to the subject? How about common sense or perhaps discretion? Hell, at some point you might even note the consensus against inclusion, even if you dont agree. Bonewah (talk) 23:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on policies. This is a well-known event. The proposed text is neutral. No one has given a good reasons for leaving it out. If there's nothing else I'll go ahead and add it.   Will Beback  talk  00:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

(Undent) People can and do often make policy-based comments without explicitly quoting policy. Looking at some of the comments above, it appears that many of them allude to the following policies and guidelines:

• WP:SS: "Summary style is accomplished by not overwhelming the reader with too much text up front by summarizing main points and going into more detail on particular points (sub-topics) in separate articles."
• WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion."
• WP:UNDUE WEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint."
• WP:BLP: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for providing concrete issues to respond to. WP:SS, a guideline, refers to the general organization of an article. There's no question that a couple of sentences would be better split off into a standalone article. WP:NOTNEWS, a policy, refers to events which have short-term notability. This issue has been written about for over a year, so that clearly doens't apply. WP:WEIGHT, a policy, is very important here. It says that matters should be covered in Wikipedia article in proportion to their coverage in independent sources. On that basis, this issue deserves to be included, much more so than many other topics which have received less attention but are given space in the article. The language quoted from WP:BLP is important, but no one has asserted that saying McGinniss moved next to her and wrote a book about her is a "titillating claim".   Will Beback  talk  01:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

More than one editor has said above that a brief mention would be okay in a sub-article but not the main article, because it is a detail, and such details belong in a sub-article instead of a main article. More than one editor has said above that this info does not have much enduring notability; there was press coverage when the author moved in next door, and now there is press coverage because the book has been published, but in between there wasn't so much, and there's no reason to expect much in the future. Regarding undue weight, more than one editor has indicated above that it would be wrong to include this in the main article while omitting comparable info about other things Palin has objected to (eg QE2), and other comparable authors who have written books about her. Regarding BLP, yes the fact that she didn't like it when someone moved in next door to her is a somewhat sensationalist, titillating, tabloidish tidbit, and all the more reason to keep it out of the main article, if not out of the sub-article too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I would go further and add that relevance is important here. Further, I feel that Will, you are not giving WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP the consideration that those policies deserve. You are insistent that everyone else quote you the rules which forbid the exclusion of this material and seem to believe that anything which is not expressly forbidden by the rules must be included. This is simply not the case. I do not feel that you have made a strong case that this material is relevant enough to be included at all, and I cant help but feel that your constant call for others show you rules forbidding its inclusion is merely cover for the fact that not much at all has been said about why this is important enough to include. Indeed, WEIGHT says almost exactly that "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." Undue weight says several times that "significance to the subject" is what is important and so far, the only time you have even attempted to establish significance was to by claiming that because Palin responded to the book's claims, they must be relevant. That is an incredibly weak argument, especially considering how salacious these claims are and the fact that this is a BLP. Bonewah (talk) 02:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

If you think "WP:WEIGHT" should be our primary guide then would you agree to deleting all the material which has received less attention than this book? 02:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I already recommended that as a remedy for anyone claiming that this non-notable book should be included. However, you should be aware that such is not considered a valid claim as per WP guideline: Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In any case, there has been extensive discussion on the talk page of the article about how bloated it is. I don't think anyone trying to pare it down would encounter much objection.Jarhed (talk) 03:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is a policy which we need to follow, while Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is just an essay and merely informative. I've started a fresh thread on the article talk page about issues which have received less coverage than this, yet receive more weight.   Will Beback  talk  03:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken, both are guidelines not policies. You can find the link to the WP document that gives the definitions of both at the top of the BLP article.Jarhed (talk) 06:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I earlier said that I was fine with a bare mention of this book in a sub article but I been convinced otherwise. Voluminous reliable sources attack this book's sourcing and its author's veracity, and every salacious claim has been denied by the subject with no evidence that she is not telling the truth. This book is trash and unacceptable for a BLP in any form.Jarhed (talk) 07:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I certainly do object to inclusion of this data as per plain BLP policy. The policy explains that notable events for celebrities generally have a mention in more than one publication. In this case, all we have is one book that is making the salacious claims and nothing else. Mentions of the book in other publications count only for the notability of the book, not the claims contained therein. This is the real issue: if there were any truth to these salacious claims, they would be extensively reported on by multiple news sources. There is no such coverage, as such they cannot be reliably sourced as per BLP.Jarhed (talk) 02:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's the multiple sources for celebrities guideline: Wikipedia:WELLKNOWN#Public_figures. I might point out that this guideline was made precisely to cover cases such as this: salacious but unverifiable claims made by an otherwise reliable author and publisher for the purpose of selling books.Jarhed (talk) 03:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's say John Doe writes a biography of Sarah Palin. What standard of notability do you think would need to be met before we mentioned it in the WP article?   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

For an article on a controversial figure, biographies might have to be handled case-by-case. For the current discussion, I would feel a lot more comfortable with including it if you could find one reliable source that didn't say the book was poorly sourced.Jarhed (talk) 03:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

No one is proposing adding the claims from the book, only a mention of the existence of a notable book. The existence of this book has been reported in multiple new sources.   Will Beback  talk  02:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the book has some notability, but mainly for its author. I note that the book is covered quite well on his own WP article. Just because an author publishes a book about a celebrity does not make it notable for that celebrity. Palin's mention of the author on her facebook page also does not make the book notable.Jarhed (talk) 03:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

What would make it notable, aside from being mentioned in hundreds of newspaper articles?   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I would urge you to read the BLP policy one more time, because it seems to me that the inclusion of this book in a BLP is clearly covered there.Jarhed (talk) 03:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Folks keep saying thatm but they seem unable to find any actual part of it which says that we should omit any mention of a notable biography.   Will Beback  talk  03:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

From wp:blp "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject" (emphasis mine) From wp:undue: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." (emphasis mine) Honestly, ive never seen an administrator so determined to ignore Wikipedia's core principles as you seem to be now. Bonewah (talk) 04:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Is the New York Times a reliable Source? What about The Washington Post? Boston Globe? Newsweek? Anchorage Daily News? Sunday Times of London? The Christian Science Monitor? Philadelphia Daily News? El Mundo? The Sunday Telegraph? Los Angeles Times? The Globe and Mail? Houston Chronicle? The Independent? National Post? The Ottawa Citizen? Pittsburgh Post - Gazette? The Guardian? The Ottawa Citizen? Philadelphia Inquirer? San Jose Mercury News? Tulsa World? St. Louis Post - Dispatch? Contra Costa Times? The Daily Mirror? Every one of these newspapers thought the book was notable.   Will Beback  talk  04:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Relevance of source to subject

<--Relevance, Will, relevance. Just because something has appeared in a reliable source does not automatically make it relevant to the subject of an article. The undue weight section I quoted just above says exactly that "This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." If an event is in the news, it is therefor in reliable sources. Undue weight makes clear that this is not enough, going so far as to say that this is especially a concern. If you dont see how the passage I quoted above means what I just said, what the hell do you think it means? seriously, when you read the words "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic" what do you think that means? Im honestly asking. Bonewah (talk) 04:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

So do we agree that the existence of this book has been noted in numerous reliable sources? If so, then we should be able to agree that it is has received enough coverage that WP:WEIGHT indicates it should get a mention.

As for relevance, I don't understand the argument that a widely reported biography by a notable writer and a major publisher is not relevant to a WP biography. How do we establish the relevance of a book about the subject?   Will Beback  talk  05:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Your argument is starting to remind me very much of the talk page discussion about Trig Palin not being Palin's son. The same arguments were made back then, reliable secondary sources, the quantity of the coverage shows weight, etc. I suppose it wouldn't be appropriate for me to ask you to search the talk page archives (all 66 pages of it) and just substitute "McGinniss book" for "Trig" in the discussion. I invited you to read the BLP again hoping that you would get from it that it is unacceptable to use a source in a BLP that is widely reputed in reliable sources to be poorly sourced. This is not my opinion, the reliable sources say so. I would like to understand, from your reading of BLP, why you think it is appropriate to use this source.Jarhed (talk) 07:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Rather than asking me to read old archives on a different topic, I'd like you to read what I've written here. I'm not proposing using the McGinniss book as a source. Is that clear?   Will Beback  talk  23:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

We are talking past each other. I said that asking you to read the archives would probably not be appropriate, although you might find that many issues similiar to yours have been dealt with there. I compared this issue to a similiar lurid issue also with poor sourcing and a lot of RS weight. You want to include a source in a BLP that has been discredited as a poorly sourced smear by the reliable sources, and I want to know how you justify this as per BLP. I am asking this question because by my reading of BLP, no justificaiton is possible. All of your weight issues are handled by the description of the source in the McGinniss BLP, where it belongs if anywhere.Jarhed (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

No, no, no. I do not want to include the McGinniss book as a source. Is that clear?   Will Beback  talk  21:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Your distinction between the source and RS coverage of the source strikes me as disingenuous and amounts to giving that much weight to the source. You fail to make a case that any use of this source jumps the BLP bar. You dispute my contention that issues similiar or identical to this one have been debated at length in the talk page archives, but I assert it again. There was a notable porno movie made about Palin and a lengthy debate ensued about including it in her BLP, a debate that contained arguments identical to yours now. The arguments you present have been done over and over again, and I would appreciate some acknowledgement from you that you understand that your arguments are old hat.Jarhed (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Acknowledging the existence of a book is not the same as treating it as a source. For example, we have an extensive article about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The logical thing to do with a widely noted yet poorly reviewed biography is to note its existence and the poor reviews, not pretend it never happened.   Will Beback  talk  06:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

<=== And your argument to acknowledge the existence of the book differs from the same argument to acknowledge the existence of the porno movie how?Jarhed (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC) BTW, as per your "Elders of Zion" example: Who's Nailin' Paylin?Jarhed (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Will, if you "don't understand the argument that a widely reported biography by a notable writer and a major publisher is not relevant to a WP biography." its because you are choosing not to get the point. Ive spelled out, in plain English, how both wp:blp and wp:weight expressly say that the mere appearance in a reliable source does not automatically establish relevance to a subject and that both policies make clear that only material which is significant to the subject should be included. I cant spell it out any more plainly than that, and, frankly, I think that no matter what I say you will simply go back to repeating the line that because this book is mentioned in a reliable source it must be mentioned in Palin's bio. Thankfully, im going off for a weekend holiday so someone else can continue this dead parrot sketch, but please note that my silence does not mean my acceptance. Bonewah (talk) 11:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe that WP:WEIGHT requires we give issues which have received significnat coverage some space in an article. For reasons which I don't understand, you believe the opposite. That much is apparent. Have a great weekend.   Will Beback  talk  23:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no "issue" here. And sometimes when you find no one agreeing with your arguments, you likely should consider the possiblility that you are, in fact, wrong. Articles on many people do not include every article and book written about them - the existence of a book or article on a person does not mean that it belongs in any Wikipedia article, and this has been true for the past five years at least. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Nicholas Garaufis

Resolved

 – Off2riorob stubbed the section--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Could someone please review the last paragraph of this article? As the ruling is covered in the New York Times it likely does have a place within the article, but as it reads now it appears slanted towards criticism and somewhat lengthy in comparison to the remainder of the article. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, that paragraph violates WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. I have to get back to work now. Any editor with time available, please clean up this mess. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Jeremy Glazer

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

I'm a regular at WP:COIN and have recieved a report regarding this article. A user, Jerglazer (talk · contribs), claims to be the subject of the article, has reported at COIN that they may have a COI and would like a piece of information removed from the article. here is the report at COIN. There's a source there that backs up the claim but I have no idea how reliable it is especially since it's a few years old. As I'm not incredibly familiar with BLP policies, I thought I'd ask for help here. OlYeller^Talktome 18:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a very weak reference. It's essentially stating a fact based on a photograph of two men standing together. If it is being challenged, I'd say remove it. There is no way AfterElton, a self-described "pop-culture" site, is an RS. The Interior (Talk) 18:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• content - In October 2008, AfterElton.com noted his boyfriend to be actor Chad Allen. - http://www.afterelton.com/people/2008/10/gaycelebrityboyfriends?page=0%2C2 -

AfterElton.com is a blog, is there a stronger citation, or others asserting his LGBT status, he is in the LGBT people from the United States category, has he self declared as LGBT? He is named on the Allen bio Chad Allen (actor)#Personal life - using the same blog cite. Off2riorob (talk) 18:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The actor's orientation is not featured on his professional website nor is it hidden. In fact, other than a few light bio details, there is not much that is not professional on his website at all. All of the sourcing in the personal life section of his WP article are gossipy blogs. Based on the lack of such data on this person's website, I would be willing to delete the entire personal life section as inadequately sourced.Jarhed (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, the data on the gossipy websites is very stale.Jarhed (talk) 19:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, there is no way of knowing if the COIN requester is really the person, but I am willing to give benefit of doubt and go further that this data in his BLP is causing problems in his personal life. Delete forthwith.Jarhed (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

One of the other contributing editors has found and added a reference from 2006 published in The Los Angeles Daily News. Perhaps this is a tense issue (as in time) and they're not dating anymore. Would it be prudent to change the tense to note that at the time the references were written, they were dating (assuming we consider any of the sources reliable)? Even so, as this isn't exactly highly valuable information for an encyclopedia, I'm inclined to strike it from the contents completely but I have no idea how WP:BLP and or WP:CENSOR apply. OlYeller^Talktome 19:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - I wouldn't dispute if you removed it but this is a hot topic area and we have experienced editors that may want to comment and I suggest giving this one a little time for responses. Off2riorob (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I say delete as improperly sourced. This celebrity is actively maintaining a personal website which is authoritative for such data.Jarhed (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

On November 27, 2006, The Los Angeles Daily News printed an article by Greg Hernandez about Chad Allen which said that Jeremy Glazer was Allen's real-life boyfriend, and that they were both in the film Save Me. Since then, reporter Hernandez has been let go by the newspaper but they have agreed to host the online archives of his regular column "Out in Hollywood". The old article is at this link. This 2006 story corroborates the 2008 story. There's also the May 2009 photo layout in the San Francisco Sentinel by photojournalist Bill Wilson where he says Chad Allen spoke at the GLAAD Media Awards and told the crowd about his partner Jeremy Glazer. Wilson writes that he later questioned Glazer who confirmed that he was Allen's partner. Binksternet (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, it all seems pretty much verified , I would prefer to see mention in a mainstream publication but it seems correct. Off2riorob (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

So? Old gossip with poor sourcing, and we have good reason to believe that these BLP details are incorrect. Someone could argue that we should keep it in the article for historical reasons, I say no because of the poor reliability of the sources. These details are not negative in any way and are only of prurient interest. Not a tabloid, I say delete.Jarhed (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, weakly cited I agree, it is normal from what I have seen that unless someones sexuality is notable it is only gay publications and gay blogs/outing blogs that are interested in such details and the BLPCAT might still be undue from whats been presented so far. Off2riorob (talk)

Jarhed, the sources I found, The Los Angeles Daily News and the San Francisco Sentinel, are perfectly fine ones, reliable as any other news reports. Chad Allen told a room full of media types, gathered for an awards ceremony, that Glazer was his partner and that they had known each other for exactly four years. This is not prurient or gossipy. Binksternet (talk) 19:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I invite you to look at those sources again. They are entertainment blogs and do not share the editorial oversight of their newspapers. I'm not saying that they are invalid for gossip, I'm saying that their gossip is old and that we have good cause to delete the references for poor reliability and for not a tabloid. Yes, dating data in a BLP is prurient, not encyclopedic, and we should delete it when we have a good BLP reason to do so.Jarhed (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You might want to borrow a dictionary to see what the standard definition is of prurient. The Bill Wilson photo layout is celebratory, not salacious or gossipy—just like the GLAAD Media Awards. Binksternet (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Just for you I looked it up, and sure enough, it is an excessive interest in sexual matters. It is nobody's business who is dating whom and not encyclopedic. Some celebrities feed the machine, and some, like the celebrity in question, live like a normal person. Delete the prurient dating data as poorly sourced and not a tabloid.Jarhed (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

So having a partner—just that much information and no more—is excessive to you? Do you wish to remove all mention of partnerships in Wikipedia? I doubt you will succeed. To me, excessive interest in sexual matters would be if Glazer's tool size was discussed, or his kinks, or even whether he had sex or not. None of the links says he has sex, they just say he has a longterm partner or boyfriend. Of course we can assume he has sex, but the links do not say so. Excessive, eh? Binksternet (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Before we start on fixing every BLP on the wiki, perhaps we could fix this one, you know, the one where the living person asked for assistance?Jarhed (talk) 05:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It's okay; there's nothing to fix. If Jerglazer says that he is "not a boyfriend of actor Chad Allen" then perhaps the two have had a falling out since May 2009. Perhaps there's a new love in his life... he doesn't say. At any rate, the old information stands as reliably sourced, and dated, and attributed. Glazer was the boyfriend/partner of Chad Allen for at least four years. Binksternet (talk) 10:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Can Emed

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

This obscure Turkish artist article suffers from clear efforts to exaggerate his importance, and by a severe weakness in the s.p.a. author's command of English. I don't want to discourage them, but this is getting problematic, as the s.p.a. keeps removing maintenance tags without doing anything to cure the problems. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I made a few edits to address the templates and left him with a BLP ref improve one, see what he does with that - I agree with your comments there is perhaps an exaggerated notability but I can't read the externals - he does seem to have won a few minor-ish awards, seems harmless ... I don't know if it would survive at AFD though. Off2riorob (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I seem to remember a bio of this person previously deleted but perhaps under a slightly different name? Off2riorob (talk) 08:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Can Emed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Robert Hughes (Australian actor)

Robert Hughes (Australian actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The subject of this article was accused of molesting a (then child) cast member of a well known television show on which he appeared 20 years ago. At the time there was considerable discussion about whether this uncorroborated and untested statement should be allowed to appear in the subject's article. (Note: I have no opinion on the truth or otherwise of the accusations. If the accusations are true then I ahbor them.). The "consensus" (IMO there was no consensus as such) was that as there was a police investigation, the claim should be included in the article.

Recently, this edit was made to the article, making the reasonable claim that this investigation does not appear to be going anywhere. It was reverted here with the equally reasonable claim that Wikipedia does not report on what has not happened. While this is reasonable as far as it goes, this seems to me to be manifestly unfair to the subject of this article. For nearly two years, this article has included an unsupported accusation of a most serious kind that seemingly can't be qualified in any way until the New South Wales Police issues a statement of some kind. This may not happen for years, if ever. Surely this can't be justified. I suggest the removal of the claim in its entirety until if and when New South Wales Police decide to lay charges. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that these kinds of allegations do not belong in a BLP article. However, I didn't feel up to the headache of removing the material (it did receive a lot of press), so all I did was remove one dead link and add a sentence that as of March 2011 the police are continuing to investigate. If we can get some consensus here whether the material should be removed, that would be helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I have tried for a long time to get some sort of consensus on a rule not to include unproven criminal charges in a BLP. So far as I know, most Anglophile countries have an innocent until proven guilty rule. WP is such a well known source of bio information that such charges can follow a person for the rest of his life, even if they were never proven in court. I always try my best to stop attempts to include them, but I am not always successful.Jarhed (talk) 05:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone (perhaps a local Aussie) find a cite for my desired addition - Nineteen months after the allegation from Monagahan, Hughes has not been interviewed by the police and there have been no charges. - Personally I don't see why this can't be added anyways as an uncited statement , what about - nineteen months after the allegations there are no reports of any charges or that Hughes has been interviewed by the police. This person was tried in the media - the reporter of the allegations sold her story to the press before she went to the police, there is no chance of any charges ever against him.- the press coverage alone would make a fair trial impossible. Its unfair to leave his biography like this for nineteen months without an update. Off2riorob (talk) 08:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, there is no source making that claim. The most is the "no charges after 12 months" that turned up last time it hit the news. The problem so far has been, and continues to be, that you can't reference a lack of news, and the media won't report on the until an anniversary of the allegations or the police come out with a statement one way or the other. I'd like to see the claim that there have been no charges stick, even unsourced, and I agree that the odds of there ever being a trial are incredibly small. Which risks a situation where the police may keep the case open, even if it is unlikely to proceed, and thus the allegations may sit untested for years with no news of progress. - Bilby (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

article: M.A.Padmanabha Rao

M.a.Padmanabha Rao 17:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)This is regarding the article: M.A.Padmanabha Rao

1. The Editors of Wikipedia I came across lately are very disappointing to scientists.

2. One undergraduate who cannot understand scientific content in the article suggested Deletion within 20 minutes of creating the article.. I saw adverse commenting and unacceptable language by one or two more Editors without going through the article and understanding.

3. One of the main objections is that one should not post an article on self. For latest Physics discoveries in 2010 that I mentioned in the article, one undergraduate Editor criticized as an “Advertisement”. They should first go through the contents to see whether there is truth in it.

4. One Editor said there is a conflict of interest. There is no conflict of interest since I am a retired Professor and published my research paper in Brazilian J. Phy, March 2010 from my home address <redacted>

5. Instead of suggesting what should be done to meet the standards of Wikipedia, they simply label for Deletion.

6. These Editors do not care to suggest any modifications, since they do not know.

7. They do not give an opportunity to the authors to defend.

8. They do not provide any e-mail address or any other means to reply.

9. They do not point out exactly where and why the scientific content is unacceptable for them, since they do not know.

10. Previously, one Editor did not like introducing in some websites like "Radiation" on latest breakthroughs in Physics.

11. I have projected latest Physics Discoveries 2010 in article: M.A. Padmanabha Rao. Now the article is labeled for Deletion. These Editors do not seek Experts advice. In general these undergraduate- Editors prove detrimental to science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.a.Padmanabha Rao (talk • contribs) 17:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

An alternative way of creating new articles, which would deal with some (but not all) of these problems, would be to start your new articles at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. By doing so, you would definitely receive suggestions for modifications, and have opportunities to reply - although you might still find yourself dealing with undergraduates, and perhaps still suffer disappointment. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Gilbert Adair (and) British Poetry Revival

This is NOT the Gilbert Adair who is the Irish/London poet connected with the British Poetry Revival and who has 14 books of poetry out as well as many mainstream academic books (on American Epics) and articles on poetry/film/literature, and who started and ran the Sub-Voicive Poetry series in London for many years (now on faculty at University of Hawaii). There needs to be 2 entries for this name in order to straighten out who is who. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.211.73.10 (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

lynn cain

• Lynn Cain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Will.i.am (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Taboo (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Just a note that Lynn Cain is the Uncle of Will I Am NOT Taboo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.176.9.143 (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The source cited seems to say otherwise. Can you find an alternative source that gets this fact right? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Martin Bashir

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

This article is heavily biased. It does not meet Wikipedia standards, particularly with regard to the edits made by right wingers in the section about the Presidential election 2012. For example, it is absolutely true that the US Code prohibits the use of the US flag in advertising. It is also true that it is not enforced, but so what. Bashir's comment about Sarah Palin was accurate and has no place in this article. Clearly an edit by some ignornant right wing fanatic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsphill (talk • contribs) 19:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The section was badly sourced, and in any case looks like trivia to me - I've removed it for now, and will expect anyone reinserting coverage of the issue to provide a proper justification. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Brian Camelio

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

I have attempted to improve the article on Brian Camelio but I have just been accused of harassement on my talk page. I'm a bit tired now. Could someone check my conduct and let me know whether I acted properly? Have I added too many maintenance tags? Thanks. --Edcolins (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Its just normal free to anyone to edit wikipedia attack issues. Remove the article from your watchlist is my advice - be strong, you have done nothing wrong. User:Bcamilio at en wikipedia is clearly having a massive conflict of interest - they are the person in the article - at commons Bcamalio -- you as a NPOV experienced contributor are being attacked by the subject of the article that just wants it as he wants it. Its promo the whole thing - this also ArtistShare - promo trash - you are the only neutral thing in the whole advertisement and you get accused of harassment - it would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Off2riorob (talk) 20:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I have removed the unreferenced material and I have semi-protected the article for now. --Edcolins (talk) 22:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Cool - I also support you as being uninvolved enough to use your block button if the COI becomes more of an issue in that sector. Off2riorob (talk) 23:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Brad Sherman

Resolved

 – the vandal has been blocked for one week and article semi protected for one month

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

IP vandalism, covered in press: http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/10/brad_sherman_wikipedia_sciento.php

Probably worth semi-protecting, and keeping a close eye on thereafter. --JN466 00:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

That was the work of a single IP user who was blocked and hasn't come back. But I am also concerned about the many edits by a staffer in Sherman's office, BenFishel (talk · contribs) & Benjaminfishel (talk · contribs), who has been busy adding positive material to his boss' bio. He's also mentioned in the same article.   Will Beback  talk  00:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with the IP, and your reverts over the past few weeks. It's not a much-watched article, and things would probably have been worse if you hadn't kept an eye on it. As it is, having an unsourced allegation of past alcoholism in the article for more than a week was bad enough. I still think semi-protection might be advisable; you last blocked the IP only a few days ago. --JN466 11:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• - update - the IP vandal came back and I reverted and reported him and User:Salvio giuliano blocked him for a week. - article has also been semi protected by User:AlexiusHoratius for violations of the biographies of living persons policy until 8 November 2011. Off2riorob (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Jeff Frederick

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

An editor, User:Vabio1 is repeatedly edit warring and reverting to ensure that a current political candidate, Jeff Frederick has only favorable material in his article, a violation of Wikipedia:NPOV. Vabio1 has previously been sanctioned for violation of the three-revert rule Wikipedia policy. In various recent situations, Vabio1 either

• 1) uses either irrelevant citations (a violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability), or
• 2) claiming opinions unfavorable to Jeff Frederick are "controversial", without describing favorable opinions in the same biased way (a violation of Wikipedia:NPOV).

Giving irrelevant citations, Vabio1 has on the Talk:Jeff Frederick page asked other editors do his work for him to identify a suitable references, or 2) to accept his argument that a Wikipedia reader should be able to deduce certain conclusions from a reference that doesn't mention Jeff Frederick. The latter would be Wikipedia:Original research: "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." If Vabio1 is correct in his edit text, then he should be able to identify suitable references.

Vabio1 finds it OK to include ratings by various political organizations, which obviously are controversial to their opponents, but describes unfavorable ratings/scores by a business organization as "controversial." Wikipedia considers it important that all sides of a controversy be included and stated fairly (see Wikipedia:NPOV). Criticism of Virginia Free, as in the last Vabio1 edit, should be in an article on Virginia FREE, not here.

I would like the opinion of other editors on this matter. --Zeamays (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I had Frederick on my watchlist for a while, but it became a pain to control as Vabio1's edits are craftier than the usual partisan single purpose accounts. However, I cleaned up his latest round of stuff and reluctantly put it back on my watchlist.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Side issue to Sarah Palin controversy (Levi Johnston and his "mayoral campaign")

Multiple editors have presented information in the Sarah Palin/Joe McGinniss controversy likening it to a publicity stunt on the part of McGinniss. I have no quarrel with those arguments. However, it's plainly obvious that due to his association with Palin, editors inserted information into multiple articles referring to Levi Johnston and his announcement about a year ago that he was running for mayor of Wasilla. That very clearly was a publicity stunt; do you see Johnston on this list? I don't. While mentions of this "candidacy" were deleted from certain articles, they remained in other articles, often to the point of overshadowing mentions of the article's titular subject. Unfortunately, that is a favorite Palinista tactic, which was previously brought up in Talk:Sarah Palin WRT Palin herself and duly ignored.RadioKAOS (talk) 11:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

1. References to "Palinista" are contrary to WP:AGF and other policies. 2. If the reliable sources make factual claims, then such should be included given proper weight. 3. "final lists" of candidates do not mean much when the issue is one of intent to run. 4. Political slly season is here in full bloom. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

OTOH how is speculation about future events encyclopaedic? Either someone stood for office or they didn't, old news that some one once said that they might stand for office doesn't really cut it. John lilburne (talk) 12:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Are we speaking of Sarah Palin#Possible 2012 presidential and Senate campaign?   Will Beback  talk  16:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

What articles besides the Johnston article are you guys talking about?Jarhed (talk) 13:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll provide more background if necessary, though I'm probably going to pressed for time starting at some point this morning. The Anchorage Daily News carried an Associated Press story roughly a year ago, in which they cited a TMZ.com report that Johnston was considering filing for the office in connection with a proposed reality TV show. This was coincidental with Johnston hiring a well-known Anchorage criminal defense lawyer, Rex Lamont Butler, as his entertainment agent. None of which sounds to me like a serious candidacy as opposed to a publicity stunt.

Johnston apparently filed paperwork with the Alaska Public Offices Commission, but that all did was allow him to be considered a candidate under state law for the purposes of raising and spending money. That is different from actually filing for the office, which occurs according to municipal ordinances and during specific filing periods. I didn't fully search the APOC website, but it appears that Johnston filed a disclosure report in June 2011, which was about four months past the deadline.

The relative inactivity of WP:ALASKA predates Sarah Palin's announcement as John McCain's running mate. Since the latter occurrance, I've noticed far too many Alaska-related articles which have been hijacked by gratuitous references to Palin, her family and associated individuals/topics. This specific complaint was triggered by the existence of such in Verne E. Rupright, which I noticed recently is ripe for cleanup/rewriting, especially since he was reelected just the other day without the presence of whatever media circus may have previously existed.RadioKAOS (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, rather than "Palinista," how about "individuals who demonstrate a willingness to serve as unpaid publicists for Sarah Palin and individuals associated with her?" The clear distinction between being authorized to raise and spend money on a campaign under state law, and actually filing for municipal office under the ordinances of that municipality, is something I began pointing out on here specifically with regard to Johnston roughly 10 months ago. Either I've been flat out ignored, or have seen reversions of my edits when I've attempted to make a more realistic portrayal of the situation, as opposed to the ad infinitum ad nauseum parroting of some media circus which began with a TMZ report. The only reason I can see for this is that it would portray Johnston in a light contrary to the goals of the "unpaid publicists." I've run for elected office before; a few press releases and a half-assed attempt at meeting what little paperwork requirements he faced does not equal a campaign. The lead of the Johnston article states: He considered running for Sarah Palin's former job as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, but withdrew from the race in August 2011. What did he withdraw from? Every indication I've seen is that he did not file a closing report with APOC. Furthremore, he never filed with the City of Wasilla, which is different from any filing requirements he faced with APOC. The recent media report that he wasn't running for the office, near as I can tell, came after the conclusion of the filing period.RadioKAOS (talk) 10:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Upon further digging, I was mistaken on one point. The filing deadline was in July, not August. Most municipalities in Alaska hold their filing windows in August. Another check of APOC's website reveals that Johnston filed the bare minimum of paperwork with them, and as of this date did not close out his campaign. Given that the paperwork listed the address of Rex Butler's law firm, I could possibly state without being incorrect that Johnston's actual involvement was limited to affixing his signature to the forms. The Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman reported the following on July 30: After being the first to file a letter of intent to run for mayor last August, former Bristol Palin beau Levi Johnston did not follow through with his official paperwork with the city. The following paragraphs in the story contain quotes from Tank Jones, not Johnston, and give conflicting information as to Johnston's actual intent during what was the final days of the filing window. In other words, a Frontiersman reporter must have noticed earlier in that week that the deadline was fast approaching and that Johnston still had not filed as a candidate. And that's what's important to this discussion, not whether the celebrity-oriented media declared him to be a candidate, and not whether filing a letter of intent with APOC made him a candidate in the eyes of some. To quote from the letter of intent form: Although I have not yet satisfied the filing requirements as a candidate, I will comply with the requirements of AS 15.13 as though I were already a candidate.RadioKAOS (talk) 11:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Ralph Nader presidential campaign, 2000

Repeated issues with User:Mystylplx/User:Griot. User edits without neutral point of view. Edits do little if anything to improve Ralph Nader-related articles. Exclusively posts criticism and negative WP:POV. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ralph_Nader_presidential_campaign,_2000&action=history As a result, the aforementioned articles read very poorly, more like negative op-ed, than as encyclopedia entries. In fact, searching several other entries for the subject biography reflect greater quality of writing with superior neutrality. Taking overall edits into account, I strongly suspect this user is a Democrat who is much more concerned with pushing his own WP:POV than creating a solid article. 99.88.147.237 (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I made some suggestions on the Ralph Nader talk page. Is he planning on running for president again? If so we can expect lots of action on his articles. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 21:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

BTW his article is supported by "Project Socialism" when socialism is not even mentioned in it. Actually he is one of the most important figures in the development of modern capitalism. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Mark Pilgrim (software developer)

Over at Mark Pilgrim (software developer) we have been working toward a consensus as to how to properly present the fact that he suddenly took everything he had ever done - including some very popular books - off the web. In particular, there were concerns about attempts to use the phrase "Infosuicide" as being a NPOV violation. Now I see that a page called Infosuicide has been created referencing Mark Pilgrim. Is this a problem? Any advice about how to properly handle this situation would be most appreciated - I normally work on engineering/science topics and not BLPs. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Somewhat on a tangent - is a screenshot of a generic 410 notice really a "copyrighted" webpage and need a fair use rationale? I'd think no copyright could be claimed on it. Just like how someone can't copyright stop sign. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone have any advice? I am really not comfortable with calling a decision to delete some web pages as "suicide." It feels like a violation of BLP policy. I could really use some input from someone more used to dealing with BLPs. Guy Macon (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, infosuicide seems to be going to be deleted or merged to online privacy - my search returns suggest its not a common expression - Who is calling his actions infosuicide? Off2riorob (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds from here like a classic case of techneologism. Collect (talk) 15:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It look like the Infosuicide page may be going away soon as a non-notable neologism, but I still need an answer about the underlying BLP policy. The semi-protection will be coming off of Mark Pilgrim (software developer) in less that a week, and I would like to have a paragraph in place by then that doesn't violate BLP policy. Guy Macon (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

What that article needs is some independent WP:RS. Have his recent actions been mentioned in any? Unless multiple reliable sources are calling his actions infosuicide then imo our article shouldn't either. Off2riorob (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense. Thanks! Guy Macon (talk) 01:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I've just expanded the Mark Pilgrim content, and with (for the moment) one ref from Eric Meyer. If it's not your field, then yes, Eric Meyer's blog is WP:RS for web development matters. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infosuicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am removing this page from my watch list and will make any further comments on the article/afd talk pages. Guy Macon (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Anthony Mundine

He went to Kingsgrove North High School. I went to school with his cousin Michael Mundine at the same school and he was in Year 7 there when we were in Year 10.

I can tell you this though. He was a very quiet kid. Not at all the person he is now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.88.219 (talk) 02:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this insight. Unfortunately Wikipedia articles can't be based on personal recollections; to add any of this information, we need to know where it has been mentioned in an independent reliable source - book, newspaper, magazine, serious TV documentary, etc. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

derek goldby

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

The final sentence in Derek Goldby biography is untrue. please delete.

Derek Goldby — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.120.249 (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The sentence was unsourced and somewhat non-neutral, the IP identifying themself as Derek Goldby has gone ahead and removed it, I've watchlisted the article, and all is well with the world. (Probably.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Damien Echols

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

Hello, recently a user, fairly fresh from a 3-RR violation ban, (opticks3 (talk · contribs), has been attempting to push unreliable sources, potentially libelous material, and, before being called out for it, this wonderful link about "sacrifices that are, literally, sacrifices to the ‘gods’, the reptilians, and they have been happening for thousands of years" on the West Memphis Three article. As his efforts there have been blocked, he has moved on to the personal article for Damien Echols, where he is now trying to push a series of cherry-picked quotes and legal document highlights in an attempt to paint the recently-released Echols in a particular manner that is less than neutral (the previously mentioned external may offer a hint). The objections of Echols himself and his legal team, of course, were not listed besides these cherry-picked "internet gotchas", which are questionable to include under any circumstance. As I have little time to eject such behavior, I request more eyes and hands over at the Damien Echols article. Thank you. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add that user bloodofox also fairly fresh from a 3-RR violation ban, was the reason that both of us were banned due to his repeated reversion/deletes. I made one poor choice in source reference and immediately removed it when it was brought to my attention, which is how it is supposed to work. Please read through the Talk pages on both West Memphis Three and Damien Echols articles for a better understanding of the issues we are trying to resolve. Additionally, please contact the senior editor -- Kim van der Linde as she is the editor who imposed the block and may be able to provide additional information. Thank YouOpticks3 (talk) 07:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

This article is a complete disaster - it's a biography that begins with the section "conviction and sentence", as if nothing at all is known about this person's life prior to death row. Later sections then concede that the person might have had an existence before that - the structure is rather like a confusing movie that starts at the end of events and then tells the story by flashbacks. Needs pretty much a complete re-write, sadly. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Uh, as any admin can see, I've never been banned for any reason, including 3RR. Presumably Opticks is confusing the editing lock on the West Memphis Three article with some sort of ban, although he himself was recently 3RR period banned. And agreed about the article; like the West Memphis Three article, it's in an abysmal state and needs a total rewrite. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Anne Bremner

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

CaliforniaAlibaba keeps putting information in my Wiki page that is false. And taking out my corrections. Can something be done about this? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annne bremner (talk • contribs) 07:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? This edit, for example, seems to be properly supported with references -- so it's not clear on what basis you assert the information is false. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Just a brief note to mention that this seems likely to be related to the Murder of Meredith Kercher case. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Bremner should not be editing her own biography, particularly given her edits. Hopefully, based on one recent comment on the Talk page, she will start suggesting changes there rather than making them herself.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm the editor who the multiple accounts Anne bremner (talk · contribs) and Annne bremner (talk · contribs) (one with two "n"s, one with three, plus an IP) are complaining about. As far as I can tell she had three objections. The last is still open and could use third opinions.

1. Inclusion of information about a lawsuit against which the firm she works for (unsuccessfully) defended the police department. There was a misunderstanding about whether it was her colleague or herself who worked on that case. She deleted the information without comment, which I reverted. She left an edit summary clarifying the misunderstanding, but unfortunately another editor (either from WP:RCP or WP:COIN) reverted it [39]. After I saw her edit summary I checked another source and removed the information [40].
2. Inclusion of information about damage to her car in the DUI case, which was referenced to a newspaper whose reporting she apparently disputes. She deleted that information and included her own claim of $34,000 of car damage and an unnamed expert who states she was in a hit-and-run accident [41]. User:Binksternet suggested condensing the section to get past all the confusing he-said/she-said, which we've done [42][43]. (He also added the information about DUI to the WP:LEDE, which I see User:Bbb23 just removed back.)
3. The edit which Nomoskedasticity points to. Others are welcome to condense that too for WP:WEIGHT, WP:RECENTISM, etc. if you think its necessary. Or not. As you may have noticed from this summary, I don't sacrifice detail in the name of concision.

Regards, cab (call) 16:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow Item #3. Which section are you referring to?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Look for the text starting with "whose attorney, Dan K. Webb" (that passage, up to the end of the paragraph --- one of the things that User:Annne bremner was removing before). If you think it should be condensed or rewritten, go ahead. cab (call) 16:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Another editor condensed that section a bit, and I've copy edited it and condensed it just a bit more. The same editor has also severely condensed the DUI section and commented on the article Talk page. I'm not sure I agree with the removal of material from that section, and I certainly don't agree with the conclusion reached by the editor about motive. In my view, the DUI case could have been handled in a couple of sentences (or not at all), IF Bremner hadn't made a stink about it. The stink took more time to explain in the article than the DUI. Another case where the aftermath of an event becomes more of a big deal than the event itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Jack Tramiel

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

See also Talk:Jack_Tramiel#Claims_of_"ruined_lives" .

I have already removed a claim diff that "Former employees at Atari Corp. have also stated the work environment was very unpleasant and volatile, with some later complaining that their lives and careers had been ruined by Tramiel and his sons." which appears to be based on a comment reporting second hand information posted in a blog given http://www.dadhacker.com/blog/?p=995 - it appears to be a non-neutral statement given that in the same place others had good things to say.

The article makes some claims that would need referencing in any article - in particular the history of Jack Tramiels's early life and concentration camp experience - the claim that " He was examined by Dr. Mengele and selected for a work party ... his father was reported to have died of Typhus in the work camp; however, Tramiel believes he was killed by an injection of gasoline", others statements in the article fail verification eg "Tramiel is sometimes viewed with disdain for his overall business conduct practices and operations under the Atari brand" (I have removed this pending a reliable source).

Could someone check the article for further neutrality/verifyability issues. Thanks.Imgaril (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I took out a couple of uncited things that could be negative, including "sparking a price war." The article does not seem so bad, or a problem at this time. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Mos Def

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

Mos Def announced he would be changing his name in 2012. The article says that citing to a reliable source. Since that announcement, there have been a number of editors, mostly IPs but not exclusively, who want to change the article now, even though there's no reliable source that says he's changed his name earlier. One editor said he heard Mos Def say it on a TV show, but I would be troubled by citing to a TV show unless it was crystal clear what Mos Def actually said. It would be better to cite to a news source. In any event, after backing out changes repeatedly, I requested semi-protection of the article (most of the changes were coming from IPs). The admin, however, imposed full protection and suggested "we" reach a consensus on how to fix all this without edit-warring. So, I started a subsection on the Talk page and set forth my views more clearly.

It would be great if other editors would weigh in on the article's Talk page so we can reach a consensus. Otherwise, I fear it will have to go to a higher level of dispute resolution because I'm assuming the admin's warning was directed at everyone, including me, so I'm not going to take the chance and revert changes without a clear consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)