< Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitextInline

Revision as of 18:58, 7 February 2007 view sourceSteve Dufour (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers21,429 edits →[] {{blpwatch-links|Shawn Hornbeck}}← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 20:14, 19 January 2025 view source JJMC89 (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators345,126 edits Adding {{pp-sock}}Tag: Twinkle
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{short description|Misplaced Pages noticeboard for discussion of biographies of living people}}
	__NEWSECTIONLINK__
			{{pp-sock|small=yes}}
	]{{Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Header}}
			<noinclude>{{Pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>{{/Header}}
	<!-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -->
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
	<!-- New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here. -->
			| archiveheader = {{NOINDEX}} {{archivemainpage|WP:BLPN}}
	<!-- PLEASE REMEMBER TO SIGN YOUR MESSAGE -->
			| maxarchivesize = 290K
	<!-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -->
			| counter = 365
			| minthreadsleft = 1
			| minthreadstoarchive = 1
			| algo = old(9d)
			| archive = Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
			}}
			== Poorly sourced Russian spies/ex-spies poisoning claim of Bashar al-Assad ==
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Jean Brault}}==
	This article about a Canadian political scandal cited only other Misplaced Pages articles in stating that he had committed crimes and been convicted. I blanked all but the initial sentence, on the theory this constituted "poor sourcing" and because I could not access all the refs in the related articles ] and ] to verify the details about this individual. Is that the correct course? ] has a great number of refs, ] only has 2 and ] had none. Can an article about crimes by a living person rely on references in another article? How about when the link is dead like the one in ] about his conviction? ] 22:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
			{{la|Bashar al-Assad}} BLP attention is needed. {{diff|Talk:Bashar al-Assad|1267015498|1266549621|On the talk page}} I have warned about the Russian spies'/ex-spies' Telegram claim of Bashar al-Assad being poisoned being too poorly sourced. Probably because of al-Assad's as a fugitive wanted for ] and as an ex-dictator, few people seem to be bothered with leaving the rumour in place, despite the low quality of the sourcing that all point to a viral rumour based on the ''General SVR'' ] channel. The ]ly "may have been" and "it was reported that" seem to be seen as sufficient to justify propagating the rumour, without attribution to ''General SVR'' as the source of the claim. After half a day, none of the more regular mainstream media sources appear to have said anything about this, including independent reliable Russian sources such as '']'' and '']''. Currently there are two sentences with the rumour (one in the lead, one in the body of the article). Diffs:
	No of course not. When it comes to putting negative information into the biographies of living persons, references must meet the highest standards of reliability to avoid liability. What you are describing is an outrage. ] 23:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
			* Adding the rumour:
	::It would be easy enough to copy the references into all the articles to which they were relevant. Just a comment. ''']''' 23:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
			** {{diff|Bashar al-Assad|prev|1266808883|08:50, 2 January 2025}} by {{u|BasselHarfouch}} source = ]
			** {{diff|Bashar al-Assad|prev|1266896530|18:49, 2 January 2025}} by {{u|Bri}} source = ]
			** {{diff|Bashar al-Assad|prev|1266975208|02:04, 3 January 2025}} by {{u|Richie1509}} source = ]
			** {{diff|Bashar al-Assad|prev|1266997014|04:24, 3 January 2025}} by {{u|Geraldshields11}} source = ]
			* Removing individual instances of the rumour:
			** {{diff|Bashar al-Assad|prev|1266976981|02:14, 3 January 2025}} by me (I didn't realise that other occurrences remained)
			** {{diff|Bashar al-Assad|prev|1266998539|04:33, 3 January 2025}} by {{u|Nikkimaria}}
			] (]) 13:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I see, thanks for letting me know about it. ] (]) 13:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|David A. Yeagley}}==
			::See also: ] from the same source. ] (]) 17:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	We could use some help at ], where at least two anon IPs have repeatedly blanked the entire article and substitute a "hatchet job" bio containing negative unsourced statements. It's been going on for some time now and has escalated to the point of edit warring. I have left messages on the discussion pages of the anons, but in vain; they refuse to use "discussion" or edit in good faith without blanking the original text.
			:Thank you for clearing up this point, i was not aware of it. I will be careful in the future ] (]) 07:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Dear {{ping|Boud}} Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I understand how important it is to maintain high standards for sourcing on Misplaced Pages. When I added the reference to Newsweek, I did so in good faith, as I recall it being a respected publication during my upbringing. I wasn't aware that the community's perception of the source has shifted over time, and I appreciate you pointing this out. If we had talked about it first, I would have gladly reverted it myself. Collaboration and communication are key to building a better encyclopedia, and I value the chance to learn and improve. Thank you again for bringing this to my attention, and I'll be more careful about vetting sources in the future. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do to help address this matter. ] (]) 17:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	The offending editors are ] and ], with very similar edits having also been made by ], ], and ]. An IP check is probably in order due to possible sock puppet activity to avoid 3RR or repercussions on the registered user names.
			== Joe Manchin ==
	Thanks in advance for your help, ] 02:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
			Today we have an unnecessary edit war on BLP outgoing Sen. ] (and perhaps many other articles this morning) about the addition of infobox data which is factually incorrect at the time of insertion (], ]). Nobody is arguing the data, just the timing of the edit. While ] is one person jumping the gun, they are a longtime contributor here. Their position should be taken in good faith, IMHO. Also in my opinion, these edits are technically BLP violations because they impart incorrect information. ], such clear BLP violations {{tq|must be '''removed immediately and without waiting for discussion'''}} (bolding from the original) by ANY editor. This sort of thing might lead to an edit war in which ''everybody'' is trying to do the right thing. Note: the page was correctly edited for the change; one click would have changed it at the proper time of transition.
	] has just joined in with the same behavior. ] 22:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
			:1. Does this sort of thing happen every opening of congress?
			:2. Isn't this a potential future problem for BLPN, since edit wars on this are built-in to the apparent excitement of awaiting the actual moment of transition?
			:3. I'm inclined towards timed page protection, but page protection is not normally ]. literally ''under attack'' for BLP violations. If we know this is common for transitions of administration, isn't this an exception?
			While this noticeboard doesn't normally discuss policy, should we be aware of such disruption in advance? Making it harder for '']'' editors like Therequiembellishere who feel... Well, I'll let them make their own affirmative position here if they wish. ] (]) 14:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			Page protections is the only way. IMHO, most editors who do these premature changes every two years, don't actually realize it's too early. They seem to assume once mid-night occurs, start updating. ] (]) 15:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Nick Griffin}}==
			:I raise this issue not to cause a problem today. I'm not trying to unduly embarrass any editor for taking a position I don't agree with. On the other hand, we have established BLP policy the ''hard way'' through sometimes brutal disagreements about how to carefully calibrate opposing positions based on good faith argument. I trust the BLP policy because we earned it. We don't need to re-learn these lessons. But we could discuss ''how to proceed next time''. ] (]) 15:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{article|Nick Griffin}} - This article contains libelous allegations of homosexuality/bisexuality. The editor of these allegations is extremely hostile to ] and is obviously using this article to score political points rather than to make a contribution to a decent biography. I believe that speculations about his sexuality are in breach of Misplaced Pages policy but I also object to the prominence given to these allegations. The subject is a politician recently involved in high-profile court cases and elections but more prominence is given to the speculations about his sexuality than to either the court cases or the elections. (unsigned)
			::In agreement. ] (]) 15:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Under policy, it would be within the responsibility of any editor to revert these edits and report the editor to this board. But for my starting this conversation, it would be within my remit to revert the edits, fully protect the page and warn Therequiembellishere (and others). I haven't done that. I want the discussion about what to do next time. ] (]) 15:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I understand, this is for the next time around when terms end & begin. PS - I should note, that the premature changes in the BLPs tend to have a ripple effect on related pages. ] (]) 15:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			I've said everything I want on this on Manchin's talk. It's just a lot of pedantry by a few editors with obsessive fealty and exactitude that doesn't meaningfully help anything or anyone, least of all a casual reader. ] (]) 16:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	:I have paired this section down.. It was a hatchet job full of weasel words. 1) the fact he's married with kids isn't relevant to his dislike for homosexuality or the allegations - that's just inviting people to make a morel judgement. 2) 'Allegedly provoked' - is pure speculation 3) yahoo groups is not a reliable source 4) 'so far has not taken up the invitation to sue him' - weasel words intended to suggest he's lying 5) 'According to some other sources, for example ' - NO one example will not do for 'some' 5) the allegation that Webster's sexuality was well known is inviting a conclusion by the reader. That again is weasel. Unless a relaibel source has drawn that conclusion, and we can report it, we should not infer it.
			:Verifiability is not "pedantry". Members aren't sworn in until noon EST, correct? &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 16:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	:I fully expect to be reverted - so please do watch.--]<sup>g</sup> 20:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
			:I can understand changes being made about 1 or 2 hrs ''before'' the actual event, when dealing with so many bios. But 12 hrs before the event, is too early. ] (]) 16:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	::How are accusations of homosexuality libelous? Sure, untrue claims should always be eliminated, but this is like saying accusations of being Catholic or left-handed are libelous.--]<small>]]</small> 06:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
			:Obvious BLP violations are not pedantry. Those edits added provably incorrect information. Can ] provide a policy-based answer why those edits do not violate BLP guidance? This is just bad acting under the cover of labelling others. Do they not see that? ] (]) 19:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			Therequiembellishere's response here demonstrates we actually have a problem, at least with that user, whose reply here is non-responsive to the issue. BLP policy does indeed require {{tq|obsessive fealty and exactitude}}, as long experience with this board has shown. As my OP suggested, any user might justifiably have reverted Therequiembellishere right into 3RR and immediate blocking, just by merely diligently following policy. Therequiembellishere might bookmark this thead for when it happens to them two years from now. I could have done it this morning, but instead chose to create this thread and invite the user to comment. Would preemptive full protection be a reasonable solution to such flippant disruption? ] (]) 20:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I oppose pre-emptive full protection. I strongly support an immediate sitewide block of any repeat offenders, with the block to expire at noon Washington, DC time on the swearing in day. ] (]) 21:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I'm with Therequiembellishere on this: a prediction, especially one based on clear US law, is not a false statement or a BLP violation. Joe Manchin's term does end on January 3rd, 2025, and that was still true on January 2nd, 2025. It's, in fact, been true for over a month now. The only way it could end on a different day would be if Joe Manchin had died before then, which would obviously be a BLP violation to assume.
			:(Unlike Therequiembellishere I don't even think the opposition is pedantry. Pedants are technically correct; to say that the end of Joe Manchin's term was not January 3rd before January 3rd is not even technically correct. It's just false.) ] (]) 07:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::IMO the issue is not the term ending time but the claim Joe Manchin served as senator etc when he was still serving as a senator at the time. ] (]) 10:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::For further clarity. I think our readers reasonably understand our articles might be outdated. So if the article says Joe Manchin is serving and his term ended a few hours ago or even a few days ago that's fine. I mean in other cases it's reasonable to expect them to even be weeks or months out of date. But if out article says Joe Manchin served, I think they reasonable would expect he is no longer serving. As I understand it, there's no more issue. But if this reoccurs, I'm not sure Cullen328's solution is correct. I mean if some admin is volunteering to mollycoddle each repeat offender then okay I guess. But otherwise the norm is we expect editors to obey our policy and guidelines by themselves without needing handholding in the form of continual blocks everytime something comes up to stop them. Therefore I'd suggest either an admin subject them to escalating blocks quickly leading up to an indefinite if they repeat perhaps under BLP or AP2; or we do it via community bans. While I'd personally be fine with a site ban, it might be more palatable to the rest of the community if we instead do it as a topic ban on making such changes. With a clear topic ban, hopefully an admin will be more willing to subject them to escalating blocks. Even if not, I think the community would be much more willing to siteban such editors if they repeat after a community topic ban. As a final comment, I also don't see why editor feels it's something so urgent that they need to do it 12 hours in advance. This almost seems one of those lame edits we sometimes get at the ANs resulting from the apparent desire of an editor to be first or get the credit so we have editors creating "drafts" with basically zero content long before there's anything to write about then some other editor is sick of this editor doing this and so ignores the draft and makes their own. ] (]) 12:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Technically speaking, if you are still serving you also have served. So it's not technically speaking false, although this really ''is'' pedantry and I would not say it's the most true possible statement.
			:::I'm still not convinced it's a BLP violation, though. ] (]) 04:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I think the argument is being made {{ping|LokiTheLiar}}, that editing in someone is no longer holding an office, when they still are & somebody has assumed office, when they haven't yet, is problematic. ] (]) 16:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I concur with User:GoodDay. The problem is that such an edit violates ], specifically ]. Yes, it was highly likely and in fact Joe Manchin did survive to January 3, 2025 and completed his last term as a senator as everyone had expected. But posting that information to his infobox before that date was horribly premature. There was no way to know in advance if his term would have been ended prematurely by any number of unpredictable awful scenarios. For example, the end date for the term of Secretary of Transportation ] is April 3, 1996, the day he died in ]. WP is not in the business of predicting those scenarios. We simply designate a current office holder as "incumbent" and then we add on an end date when we actually reach an end date one way or another. --] (]) 07:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{ping|BusterD}} maybe a RFC or something is required, to establish how to handle future premature changes to such bios. ] (]) 22:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Taylor Lorenz BLP issues and harassment of subject based on article contents ==
	:::Libel is just a false written statement about somebody. It does not have to be morally reprehensible.] 22:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
			The ] article has an unusual history in the sense that the contents of the article have led to harassment of Lorenz in the past, or other issues impacting her financially.
	:::: Libel is not just a false written statement about somebody. In order for a statement to be libellous it has to do one of the following: (a) expose him to hatred, ridicule, or contempt; (b) cause him to be shunned or avoided; (c) lower him in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally; or (d) disparage him in his business, trade, office or profession.] 14:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
			Most recently it was regarding her date of birth and Misplaced Pages choosing to use a date range, with the allegations being that it was Lorenz choosing to keep her birthdate off of the Internet or being deceitful.
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Danielle Steel}}==
			#
	{{article|Danielle Steel}} - Yesterday, famous gossip columnist Liz Smith with information in ] that appears to be outrageous. However, the unfootnoted information has been there since and Danielle Steel did not object to the information. See . Thus, I did not delete the information. I put ''citation needed'' on the more outrageous facts and thought I would pass it on to the experts to decide what to do. Please review. Thanks.-- ] 03:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
			#
	:Shouldn't all that information be removed per ? -- ] 13:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
			#
	:: Yikes! I removed any unsourced negative information, and also some of the excess personal details. ] 19:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
			#
	:The fact that Steel didn't object to it doesn't mean it's okay to keep. She may just not think much of wikipedia or whatever. It is up to us to keep wikipedia to a standard we expect ] 12:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			There have also seemingly been issues according to Lorenz with errors in the article causing her lost business opportunities
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Anne Milton}}==
			{{blockquote|"This insane 100% false story is affecting my brand deals and some partnership stuff I have in the works for 2025, so I really need it corrected ASAP!!!"}}
	{{article|Anne Milton}}. A constituent, ], has an attack blog on Milton. This has been repeatedly reinserted and edit-warred over. As it stands there is a short para on coverage of the Ireland dispute in the press (fine by me) but the blog itself keeps creepong back in (not fine, per ], links to avoid). I have removed the link. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
			An addition of a 'Harassment and coordinated attacks' section was in August of last year, with information being added shortly after regarding a Twitter suspension. I moved the text around recently in an at a more neutral article that was quickly reverted. A followed shortly after but there hasn't been a policy based consensus.
	*That's an ] thing though, not a ] issue. ]. &#147;] ] ]&#148;. 15:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
			My question- should we have a devoted harassment section included for someone who has been harassed based on her Misplaced Pages profile previously? It seems like ] comes into play with directly focusing attention on her being a victim and could lead to further harassment by highlighting it with equal weight as her career section.
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Harlan Ellison}}==
	* {{article|Harlan Ellison #Self-incriminating account of sexual assault in 1962}}
	I tried removing the offending material because the source is from a work of fiction, and there is considerable doubt as to whether the event actually took place. Other editors have also tried removing the text for the same reason. ] continues to insert the libelous account, which is undoubtedly a personal attack on the biographical subject. The confusion lies in that Harlan touts this story as being true, as often fiction writers are want to do.
			Personally I think the material could be presented more neutrally per ] but wanted to get a wider opinion.
	The source for the libelous account is from the story SCENES FROM THE REAL WORLD: I, THE 3 MOST IMPORTANT THINGS IN LIFE, which appeared in a collection of fiction from STALKING THE NIGHTMARE copyright © 1982 The Kilimanjaro Corporation. From the dusk jacket of that book: ".... For the first time the author has embodied his belief that '''fantasy and reality have switched places in our time''' by including four essays he calls SCENES FROM THE REAL WORLD...." From Stephen King foreword from the same book: ".... one can almost see 'The 3 Most Important Things in Life' as a stand-up comedy routine (it's a job, by the way, that Harlan knows, having done it for a while in his flaming youth)...."
			There is also a discussion currently going on if we should include her year of birth .
	If we cannot be sure the events took place from a likely work of fiction, then how can we include this fictional anecdote as fact? The entire entry should be removed. ] 00:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
			] (]) 20:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			04:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC) ''Fixed incorrect diff''
			:{{Strikethrough|@] it looks like the paragraph below got moved past your signature, and therefor appears orphaned.
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Afshar experiment}}==
			:] (]) 02:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	* {{article|Afshar experiment}} - Dispute, raging for several years, between Professor Afshar and various uncredentialed critics. Many of the statements can be considered to be libelous (and Prof Afshar takes them as such). The problem statements tend to be rather technical, but are along the lines of "Everyone knows that X=Y" with the implication of "Only someone incompetent would think otherwise". I've attempted to informally arbitrate over the years, but its not working. Some sort of banning/protection seems called for. // ] 15:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
	**My recollection is that more of the pro-Afshar comments fit that description than the anti-Afshar comments. However, I haven't looked at the article in the past few months. Perhaps it's gotten worse. &mdash; ] | ] 07:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
			:Removing the harassment section furthers the narrative that there are no coordinated harassment campaigns against her, and acts to diminish the effect those coordinated campaigns have wrought upon her. Generally speaking, victims of harassment don't want what they've gone through to be diminished.
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Pharrell not a guitarist}}==
	*The page on Pharrell williams says he "plays guitar". This is not true, as his production partner Chad Hugo had to learn the guitar for their album "Fly or Die" specifically because neither of them could play the guitar. They previously used synths in place of guitar also for these reasons. I have tried removing this 3 times, but it gets automatically added back. The statement contains no source or reference anyway. He along with many others may at some point have played a couple of notes on a guitar (in the fashion that anyone could) to add to a backing beat, but he certainly doesn't play the guitar, and there is seemingly no evidence to support this. I however can find evidence to support what I've said above.
			:I am unaware of any evidence that discussing harassment on wiki for her, or in general, leads to further harassment. If that evidence exists, I'd certainly be wiling to change my stance.
	**Have you added these comments to the Discussion page for him? That may solve this problem. ] 16:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
			:] (]) 08:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::We don't take a stance on supporting a narrative for something - we neutrally present both sides of an argument based on their prevalence in reliable sources; nothing more and nothing less. Our only priority is making sure it's presented ''neutrally'', above all other content policies. In essence, we don't take a side and if something reads as though it is biased to one side it should be rewritten.{{pb}}
			::Regarding coordinated harassment - If an incident regarding a public figure is significant it will have received plenty of third party sources reporting on it. I spent a few hours looking over sources for anything mentioning her harassment being coordinated and third party coverage supporting it and came up almost empty on third party coverage. And the main source of her mentioning harassment was her ,while on her book tour.{{pb}}
			::I did find that Lorenz mentioned being harassed in several deleted tweets. The only two sources I could find in support of anything involving the words "coordinated harassment campaign" or similar were from Lorenz discussing the Libs Of Tik Tok backlash ({{tq|It’s eye opening to see how sophisticated & vicious these coordinated attacks have become.}},
			::::#IWMF organization post the day after the Carlson incident ({{tq|Carlson’s commentary is a deliberate, deeply dangerous effort to mobilize harassment toward Lorenz.}} which included a quoted Tweet from Lorenz stating she had suffered from a smear campaign
			::::#Media Manipulation brief by her friend Emily Dreyfuss {{tq|Lorenz is a frequent target of coordinated harassment campaigns that include being swatted, stalked,}} which would be a ] due to the friendship, and more than likely not considered a reliable source due to no fact checking on a brief or editorial oversight and a lot of it is opinion based.
			::We present information neutrally and let readers come to their own conclusion. "The aim is to inform, not influence."
			::Going by "we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public." in ], there doesn't seem to be support for her harassment being considered coordinated.
			::You had listed sources in support of the above. I mentioned both IWMF and the Media Manipulation brief from your list above, but wanted to cover the other two as well.
			::::#TheInformation link - {{tq|No stranger to digital harassment, doxxing or the dangers of online celebrity, Lorenz}} Does not support the above.
			::::# Forbes link - {{tq|Right-Wing Figures Attack Journalist Taylor Lorenz For Revealing Creator Of ‘Libs Of TikTok’}} Fails ].
			::If you have other sources in support of it then I am open to reconsidering my position. My main concern is just presenting the text neutrally and if there could be further issues for the article subject that could arise from having a dedicated harassment section. It's a low possibility, but I also never thought I would see a range for a year of birth used to harass someone so that was a first.
			::] (]) 02:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::You asked a question
			:::{{tq|My question- should we have a devoted harassment section included for someone who has been harassed based on her Misplaced Pages profile previously? It seems like ]comes into play with directly focusing attention on her being a victim and could lead to further harassment by highlighting it with equal weight as her career section.}}
			:::and I replied to it.
			:::] (]) 02:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Rick Ross}} ==
			::::I see that. I thought you had replied to work towards a policy based consensus since this was also in the above {{tq|A TalkPage discussion followed shortly after but there hasn't been a policy based consensus.}}, and since it was a section you added I also assumed you wanted to address the neutrality issues.
	An anon contributor is removing whole sections of this article that are properly sourced on the basis that the material removed is too critical. Could some non-involved editors advise this user? ] <small>]</small> 16:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
			::::] (]) 20:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	:I presume you mean ] since this is the one you appear involved in. ] 11:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
			::{{u|Delectopierre}} I believe you meant your post, but I wasn't sure. I attempted a fix that looked good on the post preview but if this was not what you meant please feel free to revert my edit and accept my apologies.
			:] (]) 01:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::You're right. My mistake. That's what I get for editing late at night. ] (]) 02:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			== List of pornographic performers by decade ==
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Christopher Michael Langan}}==
			* {{la|List of pornographic performers by decade}}
	The article is currently locked. However, there is a lot of material that is contentious, defamatory and potentially libellous on the talk page . I tried to remove twice, but it's been replaced by administrators who have shown occasional derision and bias toward the subject of the article and some of the editors who have edited out contentious content. I am a member of the ], but am still not sure if I am communicating this important matter at the right location. Advice and help will be greatly appreciated! TIA --] 13:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
			] is a remarkable article in that it has existed for 20 years and yet, if I were to follow ] to the letter right now, I would have to cut the article down to its first sentence, the section headings, and a single see-also. Saying "X is a pornographic performer" is, obviously, a contentious claim, and as such every entry needs its own citation; it's not enough to rely on the articles as their own ''de facto'' citations, as is the tolerated practice for noncontroversial lists like ]. This is all the more the case because the definition of "pornographic performer" is subjective. With help from Petscan, I've found the following people on the list who are not described in their articles as pornographic performers: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]. Many (all?) of them are sex workers of some sort, so in each case, there may be a reliable source that exists that calls them a pornographic performer, but without one, it's a flagrant BLP violation. And if it were just those, I'd remove them and be done with it, but even for the ones whose articles do call them pornographic performers, there's no guarantee of being right. I removed ] from the list after seeing that an IP had removed the mentions of porn in her article, which had indeed been sourced to a press release about a fictionalized depiction of her life. No, each of these entries needs an individual citation appearing on the list article so that the claims can be judged.
	:I fail to see how being called a "crank" is other than the opinion of the editor. It's clearly not suitable in article-space (unless sourced, possibly to Kevin Langan), but I don't see a violation in the removed text. &mdash; ] | ] 14:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Arthur, you have recused yourself from dealings with this article in the past and it might be prudent to do so now. I don't know who "Kevin Langan" is but this seems to be a harassing comment on your part. It might be best to let a neutral admin make a call here. --] 14:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
			So, there are about 650 entries, and we know at least some are questionable, and we cannot assume that <em>any</em> of the rest are correct. What do we do? Again, the letter-of-BLP answer here is to remove the unsourced items, but that would leave literally nothing. The only two citations in the whole thing are to search pages on two non-RS porn databases. So at that point we might as well apply ]. Another solution would be to find sources for, I don't know, two or three people in each heading, just so it's not empty, remove everything else, and stick {{tl|incomplete list}} there. A third option is AfD. Does anyone have any ideas?
	Before anyone wastes too much time investigating DrL's claims here, please be aware that the arbcom has ruled at ] that DrL and Asmodeus are both banned from editing on this topic due to aggressive and tendentious editing to inflate Langan's status. Any claims made here by these editors should be viewed in this light. ] 08:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
			P.S. I haven't even looked at other lists of pornographic performers. Are they all like this? <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 05:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Alireza Jafarzadeh}}==
	I would like to file a complaint against the editor DMOSS. He obviously follows a hidden agenda in distorting the image of Alireza Jafarzadeh who is a major opponent of the Iranian regime. DMOSS very blatantly adds libel information about Jafarzadeh. His main source is the Iran Interlink site. This site belongs to the Iranian government’s Information Ministry. Along with a number of other websites, Iran Interlink’s only objective is to tarnish Iranian opposition figures and spread misinformation about them. This site is neither reliable nor unbiased. To get more information on it, please check: http://www.iranterror.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=47
	http://www.iran-interlink.info/
			:I don't have a solution to this @], but the first name I looked at was ]. Her article references her full frontal appearance and describes it as sexploitation. Sexploitation films are not pornographic films. I can't see any mention of pornographic acting in her article? This is a problem. ] (]) 05:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	http://www.iranterrorism.info/
			::Doing some spot-checking, ] is described in his article as a director of ]s but not as an actor – and it does not seem as though pink films are necessarily pornographic; ] is categorised as a porn actor but the text of the article does not seem to support this. Clearly there's a problem here. ] (]) 05:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Hm, yes, per WP:BLP each LP on this list should have a decent ref (better than ], see ), and it wouldn't hurt the others either. I'm slightly reminded of a complaint I made at ]. It's not the same, but it's still sensitive. ] (]) 07:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2160
			:Btw, per ] and ], it seems they're not all like that, but ] lists people without WP-articles, my knee-jerk reaction is that that's not good. ] (]) 07:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::] most seem to be referenced using "International Adult Film Database" which is user generated. Imdb for born actors. ] (]) 07:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	DMOSS also removes any additions to Jafarzadeh’s bio that is not in line with his agenda of tarnishing his image. If you follow his other edits in wikipedia, you will notice a scheme to spread misinformation about opponents of the Iranian regime. He is in no way a fair and unbiased editor and should not be permitted to continue his smear campaign.
			:::]. ] (]) 07:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I'll be honest, I thought we'd dealt with this before and it was no longer a problem. I'm sure in previous discussions we're generally agrees such lists should only contain notable individuals with articles i.e. no black links or red links (if an editor believes someone is notable they need to create the article first). I thought we'd also agreed to strictly require inline citations when adding names regardless of what the individual articles say. I couldn't find many of the previous discussions though but did find we seem to have a lot more of these lists in the past. ] (]) 09:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I'm aware of a few circumstances in which pornographic actors faced serious obstacles in their lives after leaving the industry and tried hard to separate themselves from their prior career. I would hope, in these cases, we respect their wishes and just leave them off. ] (]) 12:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Depending on situation, we might or we might not. ] (]) 12:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::My main concern is for people who have explicitly expressed that they no longer want to be public people, being honest. Those who have struggled to transition to non-pornographic acting, music, etc. is less of my concern. ] (]) 12:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::That's understandable but it runs into issues with ] where editors think that once someone is a public figure, it is forever.
			:::::Recently there was I believe the son of a lady who had appeared in Playboy a long time ago who had asked for her article to be removed on BLPN. The specifics that I remember are vague, but essentially she had been a Playmate one year and editors had built an article for her even though she was a relatively private person other than the fact she was in Playboy in the early 80's. The family member had suggested that the article basically loomed over her head and caused harm to her reputation since it was something she did once 30+ years ago and distanced herself from almost immediately. I can't say i disagree that in cases like that, there shouldn't be an article.
			:::::] (]) 15:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I wasn't aware of that specific case but that is precisely the sort of circumstance under which I think a private person's right to privacy should be weighed more important than Misplaced Pages completionism. ] (]) 15:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::I'm reminded of ] per . Other end of the scale, perhaps. ] (]) 15:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{u|Nil Einne}} You may be thinking of which you on.
			::] (]) 16:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I don't think it was really that, although I did forget about it so thanks for reminding me. One of the issues with that list is since it was such a high profile case I felt it likely there would at least be secondary source coverage, and also as pornographic appearances go, I feel being Playmate is a lot less controversial than other stuff; so while it was bad, I didn't feel it quite as severe as most of the other stuff we're doing or have been doing. I was thinking of older discussions probably especially the RfC below. ] (]) 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I don't know where to get sources for this. I would suggest doing as you say, and cutting every non-verifiable person from the page. Anyone interested can hunt down acceptable sources for each entry. ] <sup> (]) </sup> 01:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			Given the lack of referencing and the entries included in error, pointed out above, then I would be in favour of removing every unreferenced entry on the list. If that leaves literally nothing, well - AFD. If somebody ''really'' wants this information, well, categories exist. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I would support this as well, and honestly would probably still vote to delete a list with only the referenced entries if it were brought at AfD. A list page doing the job of one or several category pages and nothing more has no purpose. '''''<span style="color:#503680">] ] ]</span>''''' 13:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Would a blank-and-soft-redirect to ] be a good solution here? That way the list is still in the history for anyone who wants to restore it with references. The "by decade" might be misleading in that case, but we could first reverse the hard redirect from {{-r|List of pornographic performers}}, which this probably should have been at anyways. Another option would be a list of lists at ] and redirecting there. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 18:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I think your first suggestion is a good idea, I'd support that for sure. Definitely less favorable to a list of lists though. '''''<span style="color:#503680">] ] ]</span>''''' 20:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*I knew we had a lengthy RfC/Discussion about this subject matter, it just took me a while to find it though – <span class="plainlinks"></span>, and also this <span class="plainlinks"></span>. Discussions are ten years old, but I don't think anything in the lengthy close of the RfC has changed. I was one of the volunteers who helped add refs to this article → ], which if I recall correctly, was the impetus for the RfC. Good luck, sourcing these types of lists are a massive chore.]] 16:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:RFC closer said in 2014:
			*:''Q: Should all pre-existing lists of porn performers have a reliable source supporting each entry?''
			*:''A: The rough consensus below is that it's always more controversial to call someone a porn performer than to say they're engaged in most other professions. A reliable source should be added for every entry that's challenged or likely to be challenged. But as a concession to the practicalities, editors are asked not to go through the pre-existing lists making large-scale and unilateral challenges, as this will overwhelm the people who maintain these lists with work, and there is a legitimate concern that this is unfair. If you do intend to remove unsourced entries, please proceed at a reasonable, non-disruptive speed dealing with what you judge to be the highest-priority cases first. If you could easily source an entry yourself, then removing it as unsourced is rather unhelpful.'' ] (]) 16:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Well, removing ~650 entries after 10 years of the list's maintainers doing nothing to fix this would average out to, what, ~1.2 per week since that RfC? That seems like a reasonable, non-disruptive speed to me. Courtesy ping @]. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 16:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::Yes, I do vaguely remember making that close ten years ago. I agree that it's appropriate to implement its outcome in full now.—]&nbsp;<small>]/]</small> 17:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::I support that. ] <sup> (]) </sup> 01:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			Based on discussion above, I have redirected the list to ]. This way, the content is still there in the history, and can be restored by any editor willing to take the time to dig up the sources. If anyone objects, I'm happy to argue the case at AfD. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 03:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Good enough. ] (]) 05:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Richard Littlejohn}}==
			:For the interested, ] is ongoing. ] (]) 08:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	I edited this article to remove a large number of unsourced controversial statements, which are plainly unacceptable under ]. However a number of users have insisted on reverting these edits, with one user describing them as a "whitewash". ] 13:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
			:{{re|Tamzin}} Citations are a ] issue. In 2018 (example ), every BLP entry required and had ] citations. Editors at the time considered the requirement to be overkill, and a requirement for an existing WP article supported by good references was deemed sufficient. It was a compromise among editors. Does selectively restoring the sourced 2018 content and then re-adding male, non-binary and new female entries that can be sourced sound like a viable plan to you? ] (]) 11:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Do you consider ] a good enough source in context? ] (]) 11:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::AVN's newsroom content is considered reliable as noted at ]. Caution must be applied in distinguishing hard news reporting from repackaged press releases. If an AVN citation is not good enough, other references that sustain notability for the existing stand-alone WP article can be brought in to overcome any BLP concerns. ] (]) 11:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			::@]: I find it very strange for an article to have had a recentish consensus to move <em>away</em> from a more BLP-compliant version. But I guess overall I'm relieved to know that there was a more compliant version once. Yes, definitely no objection to restoring the sourced version, as long as the sources used are reliable, and then to adding back previously-unsourced entries as people find sources for them. If you do so, let me know, and I'll go retarget all the redirects that have just been retargeted to the category. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 00:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Kith Meng ==
	* Much of what is being disputed is sourced and acceptable under WP:BLP, much of it is unsourced but not particularly negative, and some of it looks like attempts to build up 'guilt by association'. Needs more thorough investigation. ]. &#147;] ] ]&#148;. 15:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
			This person's Misplaced Pages page is being continually changed to remove any mentions of well-documented accusations against him, often by Misplaced Pages accounts that are named after his companies. Now somebody who seems to be a bit more knowledgeable about Misplaced Pages has removed all of the references to crime and corruption, despite them being widely reported on by the press, claiming that it violates Misplaced Pages's policies to mention any accusations if they haven't been proven in court. But many of the incidents mentioned are verifiable, even if he wasn't actually convicted of a crime over them. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 07:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	**This is the sort of article that will continue to hold WP up to libel until ] is strengthened. ] 07:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
			:FYI, this is the disputed edit by {{U|Georgeee101}} who raised BLPCRIME. I guess the question is whether Meng is a ] for the allegations to be reinstated. That could be done through a RfC. ] (]) 22:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I have to be honest, I don't know what that means. I am not a big Wikipedian, I just do edits to articles about Cambodia. Kith Meng is pretty notorious here, there are countless independent articles about some of his antics. But I noticed that his Misplaced Pages page kept getting updated by somebody whose username was the name of one of his companies. I kept undoing them, which wasn't a big deal because they were mostly unsourced, written in poor English. But these new edits are also sanitizing his Misplaced Pages page, removing all of the corruption and scandals and reading like one of his publicity announcements, but this time by somebody who seems to know what they're doing. clicking undo didn't do anything. I assume he hired a specialist. ] (]) 14:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::It means you should start a discussion on the talk page of the article on whether the allegations should be included given the available sources that are reporting on them. If there is not enough participation, you can notify ] or request a ] for outside comment. You should also ] on the intentions of other editors and not presume that they are undisclosed paid editors. ] (]) 22:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Thanks, I started a discussion and included some different sources from the different media outlets. If nobody responds for awhile, is it alright for me to unilaterally edit it again? I am not sure what the rules are for trying to settle these sorts of disagreements. I used to always change it back when the account removing the corruption allegations was openly his PR team, but I am a bit nervous about being seen as a vandal if I undo it now that it's somebody else. ] (]) 11:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Now that it's been disputed under BLP grounds, you must gain consensus before reinstating them. That is why I encourage you to notify Wikiproject Cambodia of the discussion and then a RfC to gather more participation. ] (]) 21:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Uncontentious but still poorly/not sourced info about a living person ==
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Ilan Pappé}}==
	Several new users, including ], ], and ] have been adding defamatory remarks to this article. They are clearly sockpuppets for banned ] and his many other banned sockpuppets -- see ] and ]. When one article is protected, this vandal apparently seeks another place to add his defamatory comments about both the subject of the article, and ]. Is there any way to prevent this continued harrassment and vandalism? ] 01:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
			On ]'s page (since I can't copy and paste the message, his article is short and you can find the parts on there, it's under the "author" section of career) there are areas where it says "citation needed", but I don't think the material is contentious. Do I still need to remove the material ASAP? ] (]) 06:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	=={{blpwatch|J. Edward Anderson}}==
	This article has been created by Ken Avidor. Ken Avidor is a known opponent (with few scruples) of Dr. Anderson's lifelong goals. I scanned the article and found at least one case of taking a quote out of context. The article focuses on local Minneapolis politics, which is not necessarily appropriate to a discussion of Dr. Anderson's achievements. In order to prevent a minor recurrence of the Siegenthaler incident I suggest a rigorous review of this article. ] 04:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC) (moved from ], ]<sup>]|]</sup> 05:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC))
			:I am personally very strict with unsourced content, regardless of it being contentious or not. Generally, however, if the content has been tagged for a reasonable time and remains unsourced, feel free to remove. ]] 10:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	:I saw this while lurking AN/I, and took a look. Not only does the article suffer from a number of mis- or non-contextualized ironic statements, which standing alone present the appearance of a man who changes his opinion on his life's work with the wind, but it also features a large amount of redundant linking, which initially served to look like there was a LOT of opposition to his ideas. I took a whack at cutting the fat, and contetualizing some of it, but one quote absolutely had to go. I have NEVER heard of this guy before, but it's clean there's a LOT of POV-pushing going on at that article. ] 05:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
			::Thanks, but how do I find out how long it's been up for, and what counts as a "reasonable time"? ] (]) 21:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Is it possible to block someone for willful POV pushing by creating an article about their enemy? I know there was the famous case where Misplaced Pages had to block the whole House and Senate because people kept on defacing their opponents' pages. ]<sup>]|]</sup> 06:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
			:::Edit the article, and you will see the date tag - on Chetan Bhagat they are October 2024, so 3 months. Reasonable time is a judgement call. ]] 22:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Is there at least a rough range for what should count as reasonable time? Weeks? Months? Years? ] (]) 22:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::] seconds. Or days. ]. ] (]) 23:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::For me, how long to wait to remove depends on the type of content. For example, clearly promotional unsourced content I may just remove without tagging, but other content I may never remove regardless of how long it's been tagged. In this particular article, I would be inclined to remove a sentence such as "It became India's fastest-selling book of its time" pretty quickly. However, a sentence such as "The story was adapted by film director Rajkumar Hirani into a film named 3 Idiots starring Aamir Khan, R. Madhavan, Sharman Joshi, and Kareena Kapoor" with blue wikilinks to the film and the actors is likely something I would never remove unless it appeared false since it is not a lot more effort to go the wikilinked page and copy a citation for something as basic as that information. – ] (]) 00:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Alright, I removed the sentence about it being one of India's fastest selling books of all time. ] (]) 00:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Yes this article is heavily unsourced, however, I don't see anything harmful here thus I think "citation needed" tags for sometime will be fine before cleanup of unsourced information. ] (]) 04:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Scott Ritter Biography - Noncompliance with MOS and BLP Guidelines ==
	:::I have a long (one year) history with Ken Avidor, both here (see ]) and off-wiki. He is ''virulently'' against PRT, and he has ridiculed PRT proponents on his web pages and blogs ( ). He commonly refers to Anderson as a "PRTista" and the "wacky professor". His anti-PRT campaign is so famous and widespread among the PRT community that there are two blogs devoted to debunking Avidor's claims ( - this one created by yours truly).
			I am requesting approval to fix issues in the ] article regarding the description of his convictions. The article states in its second sentence: {{color|#b22222|He is a convicted child sex offender.}} Labeling Ritter as a "child sex offender" carries moral judgment and appears to be name-calling, which the MOS <u>explicitly</u> warns against. According to ]: {{tq|Labels such as "convicted sex offender" are imprecise and could be construed as name-calling or a moral judgement. It is better to describe the specific crime itself.}} The current wording fails to comply with this guideline.
	:::Having said all that, I've read the Anderson article and, compared to Avidor's typical work, it's actually not too bad. His opinions on this topic are so extreme that I honestly believe that this article is about as neutral as he is capable of producing on someone like Anderson. This is ''not'' to say the article is acceptable (ThuranX has already improved it significantly, and it still has a lot of issues), but rather, I don't think the POV pushing was necessarily "willful", or a sign of bad faith. I think it's entirely possible that this is his idea of neutral.
			2) Undue Weight: MOS:CONVICTEDFELON states that legal issues should only be highlighted in the lead if central to a person’s notability, which is not the case with Ritter's convictions. His notable career as a UN weapons inspector and outspoken critic of the Iraq War is the basis for his fame, not his convictions. Placing this legal information in the second sentence gives it undue prominence, overshadowing his primary achievements. Convictions for online communications with an undercover officer are not what make Ritter notable, as many non-notable individuals face similar charges and nobody is writing their Misplaced Pages bios.
	:::The question now is, will he fight changes to the article? He has already predicted (off-wiki) that . So I think it would be best for those of us whom he views as proponents (], ], and me) to avoid editing the article - maybe someone not associated with PRT can work on it instead? There's actually a lot of information there, and most of it seems pretty accurate, so it's really just a matter of toning it down.] 09:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
			3) Imprecision: The term {{color|#b22222|child sex offender}} in the Ritter bio links to the article for ], which that article defines as {{tq|a form of child abuse in which an adult or older adolescent uses a child for sexual stimulation}}, whereas Ritter's convictions involved contact with an <u>adult</u> undercover police officer posing as a minor. This distinction is significant and misrepresented by the current label.
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Jonathan Sarfati}}==
	I am following the procedure:
	:This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.
	The following in the article has been repeatedly reinserted.
			To bring the article in line with Misplaced Pages's policies, I propose we replace {{color|#b22222|He is a convicted child sex offender}} with: {{color|#00008B|In 2011, Ritter was convicted of several criminal offenses following an undercover sting operation, during which he engaged in sexually explicit online communications with a police officer posing as a minor.}} This phrasing avoids imprecise labeling and provides accurate context.
	I have to report it here, since the rule is being violated by two admins, FeloniousMonk and JoshuaZ, who have a strong ideological bias against the subject of the article, and are breaking this clear rule and the one against original research, and are hiding behind arbcom diktats to punish editors with opposing ideologies. How can we expect justice when it's admins who are guilty and heavy handed, unless we go above their heads?
			Placement Adjustment: Move this information to a "Legal issues" or "Controversies" section later in the article, ensuring balance and compliance with the undue weight guideline. However, since this information is already covered in the body, we should simply remove the statement from the first paragraph, or move it down to the bottom of the second paragraph.
	:He also accuses many origin of life researchers, such as David Bartel of MIT and Gerald Joyce of the Scripps Research Institute, of having a religious kind of faith,
			I attempted to edit the article to reflect these changes, but my edits were reverted with the explanation that "there was consensus found to include this in the lead." However, no justification was provided for how the current wording and placement comply with MOS and BLP policies. I raised my concerns on the article's Talk Page, but they have not been addressed. ] (]) 19:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	:although those scientists do not demonstrate any manifestation of religious faith.
			:I don't think "convicted sex offender" is particularly useful in a lead given the breadth of its meaning, and I think it makes far more sense to describe the conviction. The current lead does seem to violate the MOS guideline. – ] (]) 19:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	: He also misrepresents the work of ribozyme evolution. For example, he argued that the mutagenesis of those experiments employed high error rates, which would cause error catastrophe, but high mutation rates were needed in those experiments simply to reduce the amount of time it would take to satisfactorially mutate a population of ribozymes to a significant extent, as opposed to using normal PCR techniques. This link is just an ibid, so refers to which is Sarfati's own article, which would not support this critical paragraph. So this paragraph is unsourced and counts as ''original research'' as defined:
			: I've changed this per the suggestion. Hopefully the problem is solved. ] (]) 21:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::An editor just reverted the changes without discussion () after I had already made an article talk page comment about this BLPN topic and the violation of MOS policies (). ] (]) 21:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			:We're instructed not to make stand alone controversies sections etc so that would be the opposite of balance and compliance with the undue weight guideline unless I'm missing something here. Do you mean as a seperate section of the lead? ] (]) 01:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Doing like it was in this diff: would be good; a more accurate sentence, at the bottom of the lead, that gives details about the conviction. ] (]) 01:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Yes that is preferable, in the lead but not in the first sentence. I think we could say less than that though. ] (]) 18:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Please note that That One Editor has once again reverted it to being the less-detailed version in the first paragraph (after having been stymied on a campaign to add unsourced or miss-sourced material to the full sentence.) Can we get more hands on this? -- ] (]) 20:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::@] Would you like to propose some language? The key is that we should briefly but accurately state the facts of his conviction instead of labeling his person as such. It seems notable that the convictions resulted from a sting operation (versus contact with an actual minor). ] (]) 01:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::How about "In 2011, Ritter was convicted of criminal offenses after engaging in sexually explicit online communications with a police officer posing as a minor." Pretty close to OP's proffer but a little shorter. ] (]) 01:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			* Now at AE, see ]. ] (]) 20:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I'm not sure it should be in the lead at all as it doesn't seem like the thing that made him notable. However, if he is only notable for the combination of his offense plus his other work then the lead should make that clear. As a stand alone fact it should either be at the end of the lead or not at all. ] (]) 21:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	::"Original research is a term used in Misplaced Pages to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. ... It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;" ]. ] 15:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
			::He is only notable for his other career activities. The criminal offenses by themselves fail notability. ] (]) 05:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::: ] is supposed to summarize the article rather than merely stating the notability of the subject. The article has a top-level "§Arrests and conviction for sex offenses" section, so a sentence in the lede noting that aspect of the topic is reasonable. Per CONVICTEDFELON, the fact that it's not specifically relevant to his notability means it can go fairly late in the lede rather than in the first sentence where the person is identified and notability established. In contrast with the CONVICTEDFELON thought about not including it at all per Tim Allen, that person's article does not have a top-level section about it. And unlike that case, where it seems to be an isolated biographical aspect, here there is at least a mention in the criminality section that does relate to the Iraq aspect, which is a major part of his notability. ] (]) 04:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== RfC: ===
			To settle the issue once and for all, I have created an RfC on the adice of RTH at AE, see ]. ] (]) 16:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:{{Reply|Hemiauchenia}} the consensus ("Providing clarity that Ritter's offenses were not with an actual child was the consensus of the BLPN discussion and I think is the most reasonable position.") you describe on that talk page as existing here doesn't appear to exist. Was it a different discussion being referenced? ] (]) 17:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I agree that there is no consensus about the "actual child" aspect. The consensus that seems to be forming here is that the crime should be described per ] rather than merely using a term such as "child sex offender". – ] (]) 22:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Original research? ==		== ] ==
			There seems to be some editing back and forth going on in the Personal Life section re: Caitlyn Jenner controversy. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	I’m having a similar dispute on the biography of another living person, so I’d like to raise my questions here.
			:What's the back and forth? There don't seem to be recent back and forth problems in the edit history. Do you mean ] discussion in the prose? Please feel free to voice your concern on the article talkpage before escalating here. This is a forum for when consensus isn't apparent or serious BLP violations occur. ] (]) 03:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I don't see any back and forth either, but in my view, using ] as the sole source for that paragraph is a BLPVIO.]] 08:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I gave it a shot. If you'd still like to replace the TMZ cite with a cn tag, I wouldn't dispute it. Cheers! ] (]) 00:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I don't think leaving it unsourced is the best solution, so I just replaced TMZ with better sources, since it received widespread coverage in multiple sources. I do appreciate your effort though. Thanks.]] 14:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			== ] ==
	The first is that the transcripts from a criminal trial were published by a prominent local newspaper. Am I within Misplaced Pages’s rules in using those transcripts as sources, or is that considered original research?
			This article and its references are a combination of two different people (] to see the german article for both), how should this be best addressed? ] and 2 Stubs? ] (]) 09:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	My second question is illustrated by the following. One media report said the unidentified girl shown on the TV monitor in the courtroom was 11; a second report said she was 7. A third source said the monitor was positioned such that reporters couldn’t easily see it. There shouldn’t be any problem in including those three facts in the Misplaced Pages article as just stated (together with the sources). But I want to go one step further - just a small step - and point out that the third fact could EXPLAIN the discrepancy between the first two. (If the reporters couldn’t see the monitor clearly, then they couldn’t accurately estimate her age.) Now the third source doesn’t itself make this suggestion, so one COULD say that my suggestion is “original research”. But I would respond that it is merely PART of “collecting and organizing information” (see ]) - it’s a logical consequence of organizing the information - and is therefore permitted.] 04:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
	:The main purpose behind the "no original research" policy is that you are not presenting your own theories or interpretations. In the first case, linking to the transcripts or citing them as a source is perfectly legitimate. In the second question, my opinion is that your new synthesis of the facts - the new conclusion that you draw - would constitute original research and would be inappropriate. ] 04:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
			:Yep. ] (]) 21:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	::BigDT I think you forgot to mention that primary sources, such as court transcripts - must also have a secondary source in order to interpret them. Otherwise, it's very easy to misuse them. But please permit me to explain to you user 196.15.168.40. The article he is referring to is the ] article. He is a convicted child-killer. 196 has been trolling that article since March of 2006. 196 believes Westerfield was wrongfully convicted. At first, he stated he was here to correct the article and make it neutral. Well, all of that was done and yet he is still around. Thanks to him the article became the nicest article about a child-killer in all of wikipedia. 196 claims to "know a lot" yet he has never contributed to any article except the Westerfield one. When I bring that up to him, he claims that he doesn't have the time to contribute to other articles. However when he first came to wikipedia, to edit the Westerfield article, he was adding something new to it EVERY single day. So much so that an administrator was brought in to protect the article. Strange how he doesn't have the time now. Back then he had the time to contribute his bias and original research to the article. When he found out other users would thwart his efforts he toned down. 196 has made ALL efforts to make the article reflect Westerfield is innocent. Personally, I believe 196 is Westerfield's lawyers or knows somebody who knows the lawyers or are a relative of David Westerfield. A casual observer would not go through the lengths that he has made. For example, he is able to recite dates of testimony and who made them. Clearly the case is very close to his heart. So BigDT be careful what you tell this individual for he will surely find a way to abuse it. He has expressed contempt for the victims parents and blames them. If that's not enough he said deragotory things about the victim and her brothers. The victim is a 7 year old girl. To understand his bias go to the articles external link and go to link 8. Read the section he titled as "Guilty?"; he wrote the entire section. An administrator tagged the section as biased, but 196 conveniently saves the section without the tag. He cares nothing about wikipedia and has only remained here because wikipedia is available to anyone. ] 05:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			== ] ==
	Reply to “Fighting for Justice”:
			I tried removing promotional-sounding text and irrelevant citations on this article a while back. I also rewrote the section on nepotism and his work which has now been blanked.
	I posed two simple technical questions, and in reply you subject me to a long personal attack, only two sentences of which address those questions, and even that is wrong (just like the rest of your response). This shows the difference between you and other editors, like BigDT. Where does Misplaced Pages say that “primary sources ... must also have a secondary source in order to interpret them”? You removed important information from the Westerfield article even when I used secondary sources in addition to or instead of primary sources, so you are clearly just using this as an excuse.
			Theyve been reverted and the sections on criticism marked as disputed, by an account that has only edited this article: .
	You complain that, in the beginning, I added something new to the article “EVERY single day”. Those are the exact same words used by your predecessor, TripleH1976 - and it was he who asked an administrator to protect the article (something else you’ve got in common with him).
			Could someone take a look? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	You speak as though it is BAD that I am “able to recite dates of testimony and who made them”. I’m not alone. This case generated considerable interest, resulting in vigorous debates including on internet discussion forums, which continued even long after the trial was over. Probably because the transcripts were published, MANY people were “able to recite dates of testimony and who made them”, even though they were not related to Westerfield or his lawyer. You - and Misplaced Pages - should be grateful that you have someone here who is actually KNOWLEDGEABLE about the case.
			== Michael Caton-Jones ==
	You believe the article is neutral. Let’s look at one current example. Westerfield was convicted of possessing child pornography. In fact, there is a WEALTH of evidence - most of it from law enforcement themselves - that he did NOT have any child porn. I added that evidence to the article, but you REMOVED it all (as did TripleH1976 before you). Yet you accuse ME of being biased! (So did he.) Quite apart from the Westerfield case, don’t you think the public would like to know what could happen to THEM, too? A zealous prosecutor could again override his own experts in his determination to obtain THEIR conviction.
			This article features the following paragraph thatwas removed today by an IP (wwho otherwise seems to be engaged in puffery - adding various unsourced awards cruft, referring to the subject by his first name)
	I have been thoroughly disenchanted by this, my first experience of Misplaced Pages. I can see why it has a bad reputation. Just ONE determined vandal can effectively sabotage attempts to improve an article, and there’s NO guarantee that the administrators will intervene.] 05:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
			Caton-Jones has been accused of sexual harassment with Sharon Stone alleging in Vogue Portugal that during the shooting of Basic Instinct 2 he asked her to sit on his lap to receive directions and refused to shoot if she did not do so. She stated "I can say we all hated that and I think the film reflects the quality of the atmosphere we all worked in”.
	== ] ==
			It previously linked to this as a source - https://www.vogue.pt/sharon-stone-interview, a page which no longer exists but did as recently as December 19 last year https://web.archive.org/web/20241219112132/https://www.vogue.pt/sharon-stone-interview
	Despite repeated warnings user Tvoz has repeatedly violated the WP:Living rule regarding the ] entry. At the time of Rockefeller's death in 1979 there was much speculation, but no facts, regarding what happened. Tvoz had made multiple attempts to add salacious rumors to the effect there was a young women (he names her) involved, she had an adulterous relationship (this story follows details on his marriage), she helped cause his death from heart attack during sex, she had a motive for seeing him dead (named in his will), and she tried to cover up the episode and mislead police. There was no official report or criminal charge or lawsuit and no witnesses--it's all gossip--and it clearly violates our policy about negative statements and insinuations about living people (the women is in her mid 50s now). ] 06:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	:The above was posted to ]. I originally recommended the user post it here, but I copied it myself after finding out the user has been blocked for 24 hours. Please note I am not endorsing the summary, there has been some discussion on the talk page which provides a different view ] 20:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
	::In my attempts at mediation, I have addressed these concerns on the article's talk page. However, I believe that Rjensen is not representing the case accurately. A quick flip through the history of this article confirms this: the user in question, Tvoz, has inserted citations from reliable sources to document the controversy that arose after Rockefeller's death. She has not made the claim that Rockefeller and Ms. Marshak were sexually involved, nor has she said that she had "motive". (The fact that Marshak was named as a beneficiary in Rockefeller's will shows only that they had some kind of relationship: it could very easily have been a platonic one.) Her edits have been to improve the neutrality of the information and to provide sources for the claims, and thus I do not believe that it is in any way a violation of ]. I will continue to monitor the situation. -- ] 14:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Rjensen's comments above amount to a malicious ] on Tvoz, as she did none of the things described. Take a look at what Tvoz did add to the article: (her subsequent edits have added even more references and refined the text). Nelson Rockefeller died under unusual circumstances, something that gained wide press coverage at the time (for example, it was the subject of a '']'' skit ). Note that although it was widely assumed that Rockefeller died during sex with Marshack (such as in this ] editorial ), the Misplaced Pages article has never said so, and has followed an editorial line similar to that of '']'' magazine, among others (), scrupulously adhering to ] in regard to Marshack. Rjensen's sterile revert warring and willingness to throw wild accusations about show little understanding of consensus or Misplaced Pages's core policies, such as ] and ]. ] <sup><font size="-2">]</font></sup> 21:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
			In that original article the actual quote is "I loved doing most of my films. Hated? Well, I worked with a director on Basic 2 who asked me to sit on his lap each day to receive his direction, and when I refused he wouldn’t shoot me."
	== ] {{blpwatch-links|Sol Leshinsky}}==
			] was directed by Caton James but original source doesn't name him. The subsequent source cited at the end of the paragraph does however - https://www.ibtimes.co.in/you-got-hired-if-you-were-fkable-says-sharon-stone-recreate-basic-instinct-scene-797651
	Although there is no mention in his biographical article, this person is listed on at least two (2) pages as a Soviet Spy, presumably while being a U.S. government official. The person is still living and (as is the case for nearly everyone on these 2 pages) is presumed to be a Soviet Spy based on his inclusion in the 2 pages mentioned below, even though he was apparently never indicted for this behavior. There is no citation or source for his inclusion, even from texts that may have suggested his spying - which unless it is posted as he was suspected, with of course the citations and/or sources, this is openly and clearly libelous. The 2 pages mentioned are:
			The orginal story about "a director" is well sourced in various pirces from around the time of the publication of Stone's memoir. https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2021/03/sharon-stone-on-how-basic-instinct-nearly-broke-her?srsltid=AfmBOoqO1KjUnXmRZSUZYl3RHgCqkYT8itBvDv6BJg7kNDOESs8wjd-5 , https://deadline.com/2021/03/sharon-stone-me-too-experiences-the-beauty-of-living-memoir-news-1234718660/
	http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_secret_agents#Perlo_group
	{{blpwatch-links|http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_secret_agents#Perlo_group}}
			Should this paragraph be in the article? It feels like SYNTH to name him as the subject of the allegation, but there is at least one source that does so.
	http://en.wikipedia.org/Victor_Perlo#Perlo_spy_ring_members
			<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 12:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Xsign -->
	{{blpwatch-links|http://en.wikipedia.org/Victor_Perlo#Perlo_spy_ring_members}}
			:] is intended to stop us connecting different things when no reliable secondary source has made the connection. It does not apply to connections made by reliable secondary sources. However per ] International Business Times is not generally considered reliable so if that's the only source then there are no sources and it would be syn to add it to Caton-Jones article based on sources talking about Stone's allegation and other sources which say he was the director but which don't mention Stone's allegation. ] (]) 06:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	Additionally, it appears that one of the Misplaced Pages editors has posted a warning on the TALK page about adding slanderous material, implying that there have been previous attempts to libel or slander this person...
			::I should further clarify that appearing in a reliable secondary source doesn't guarantee inclusion, it just means syn isn't really our concern any more but instead issues like ] etc. ] (]) 09:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			== ] ==
	This should be removed immediately. In addition, these 2 pages wildly assert a number of other individuals as being spies without ANY supporting sources or citations. In fact, these 2 pages may be the most libelous pages on Misplaced Pages... ] 22:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
			This one is a bit strange. I am bringing it here because I do not wish to be directly involved but it may warrant neutral eyes. The subject, ] is non-verbal and suffers from autism. He has two books which are said to be authored by him, runs a blog, and does presentations. At one stage he was using ] which has serious problems and is certainly pseudoscience, but videos also show him independently typing on an iPad keyboard. Those videos makes it look a lot more like ], which is credible. Anyway, the AFD is going down the lines of accusing the subject, who is a living person whether or not he has autism, of not having written anything and being incapable of communication. I'm concerned that such accusations are degrading, especially if, as the sources claim, he is capable of communication and also considering that there are no BLP sources that say he is not. I am not sure of the best way of tackling this, but if he can communicate, as the sources claim, unsourced accusations that it is faked and that he is having his fingers dragged by someone else across a keyboard seem like BLP violations instead of the usual AFD discourse. - ] (]) 10:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Amy Reid}}==
	Sorry, I don't normally do any editing or revision on Misplaced Pages, so my format here is probably all wrong.
			:Wow, yes, it's completely clear that he can communicate independently at this point. I was hoping Misplaced Pages had got over this panic of erasing everybody who has ever used anything that looks anything life FC/RPM. Thanks for bringing it here.
	Today one article I saw positively scared me. It's on the pornstar Amy Reid. Someone has edited her article repeatedly and over a long period of time.I'll quote some of the choicer nuggets:
			:. ] (]) 08:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I'm less concerned as to whether or not he communicates independently. I am concerned that he may communicate independently, and statements such as "Someone grabbed his fingers and moved them on a keyboard to type a lot of stuff" or "our article about how he has written books is fiction" are degrading and feel like BLP concerns. If there is a possibility that he can communicate, direct unsourced accusations such as this are extremely insulting. - ] (]) 09:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::], what do you suggest? The BLP policy clearly applies to the AfD discussion. I agree that there are comments in that discussion that are contrary to some of the BLP policy, especially the parts about removing "contentious material ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced" (I'd say your quotes falls into this category) and never using SPS "as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article" (some people have linked to / referenced blogs). Once or twice I've removed content from articles for BLP violations, but I've never removed an editor's comments from a discussion, and I'm hesitant to do so, partly because I'm not that experienced an editor (though I'm not a newbie) and also because of my extensive participation in that AfD discussion. I guess I'll start by simply posting a reminder of the relevant parts of the BLP policy and asking people to check their own comments (and I'll check mine). Do you have any guidance about whether something else should be done? And if any other editors have guidance, please weigh in. Thanks, ] (]) 15:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			== ] ==
	"She likes to claim she was born in Germany but is a liar"
	"She also is a girl with low self esteem who was teased all of her life. Her IQ was proven to be very low."
			It seems to me that great chunks of this article are in breach of ] and ]. Just checking whether other experienced BLP editors agree? Looking at the article history, it seems there's been some problem editing, which isn't too much of a surprise, given the state the article is in. --] (]) <small>]</small> 12:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	But what scared me was the more personal, stalker/psycho level stuff:
			:OK, I guess I'm on my own on this. I'll get out a scythe. --] (]) <small>]</small> 18:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			== ] ==
	"I currently did research on her and will be willing to expose how much of a phony person she is."
	"She thinks nobody in her family knows who she is, but they will find out soon."
			{{la|Darrel Kent}}
	Something about ''they will find out soon'' made me decide to go the extra step and suggest that maybe the article should be locked, or in some way prevent that user from continuing their personal vendetta. It's scary, but a person might graduate up from just posting threats online to something worse - like how serial killers start out just torturing animals. Anyway, if something could be done, I think it would be wise. I've already gone ahead and reverted it to a more or less ok version.] 02:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)aghostinthemachine
			] keeps adding contentious material about the article subject back into the article:
	* I spotted the vandalism independently of your notice here and did some reverting myself. Hopefully whoever it is who's doing the vandalism will go away shortly... ] 02:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
			*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Darrel_Kent&diff=prev&oldid=1269810226
			*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Darrel_Kent&diff=prev&oldid=1269816467
			I posted a notice on the talk page, see ]. ] (]) 16:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Ron Jeremy}}==
	This article contained many potentially libelous statements with no sources. I have removed everything but a single sentence so that properly sourced material can be added back. ] 15:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
			:How on earth are those edits in any conceivable way contentious? -- ] - ] 16:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Clive Bull}}==
			::I'll bite. How is the parenthetical {{tq|(Ottawa would eventually get a light rail tunnel in 2019.)}} in any way relevant to this guy's bio? The last time he ran for office was in 1991. If a reliable source has pointed out that such a clear and decisive rebuke to Kent's ideology occurred ''28 years later'', that should be sourced. ] (]) 17:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::While it has nothing to do with Kent himself, I do think giving readers some context on that issue is relevant.-- ] - ] 18:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::But it's not up to you or me to decide that. We need to let reliable, secondary sources decide that it's DUE to mention it in Kent's article. ] (]) 18:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I've removed the sentence from the article, including a source that doesn't even mention the subject. ] (]) 19:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			== ] ==
	{{userlinks|Helper1}}, a new account, is repeatedly inserting , which among others claims that the subject (who is married) seduced a woman via his late-night talk show. The edit alludes to various podcasts which Helper1 has claimed are publicly available - I have asked for him to be more specific as to where to find them, and I don't believe that the current references to them are adequate verification - at best they are too vague. Helper1 continues to revert. The article has been a focal point for hoax vandalism in the past, and I would like some more eyes on this. I have tried a Google search and found nothing relevant on the web. --]<sup>]</sup> 22:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
			{{la|Allan Higdon}}
	{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
	|-
	! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | ] – Stale/wrong place – 11:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
	|-
	| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived ] incident concerning the article above <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
	|-
	| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
	==]==
	A determined IP vandal has repeatedly, for several weeks, attacked this page, replacing the FBI director's bio with a description of a company unrelated to Mueller. Block IP edits? ] 00:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
	:When you revert a vandal, please consider placing an appropriate warning tag from ] on their talk page. That way, if they continue to vandalize from that IP, they can be blocked. It doesn't look like it has been frequent enough for protection ... fyi, the place to request that is ]. I have watchlisted the page so if I see anything, I will revert it, but if you remove vandalism here or anywhere else, please put one of the "test" tags on their page so that they can be blocked as appropriate. ] 00:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
			] keeps adding uncited content to the article including content about immigration status and employment by organzations who make controversial decisions:
	|-
			*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Allan_Higdon&diff=prev&oldid=1269810502
	| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archived ] incident concerning the article above. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
			*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Darrel_Kent&diff=prev&oldid=1269810226
	|}
			There is a notice on his talk page, see ]. ] (]) 16:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			: I will find sources for that article in time. I reverted your edits to this article as you have been going around removing information from articles in bad faith, citing that you are removing contentious information, when in fact you are not. Most of what you are doing is removing non contentious information only because it lacks proper sourcing. Instead of going around and being a destructive force, why not try and improve articles by finding sources? -- ] - ] 16:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::If you want to succeed in adding information to articles, do it with a source. Don't be surprised if people aren't willing to take your additions on faith. ] (]) 16:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::"Adding" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. I simply reverted their edits because I didn't believe they were constructive, based on the user's recent editing history of removing non contentious information from various articles. -- ] - ] 17:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::] is clear that, whether you're adding ''or restoring'' content, you need to include a source. ] (]) 17:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I understand. I am just concerned about this particular user's decision to quickly remove non contentious content from several articles. They are within their rights via WP:BURDEN, but it's not typical user behaviour (from my experience), which is why I believe we should exercise some caution. Especially considering they removed information that was sourced, albeit not with inline citations (of course, within their rights via WP:BURDEN, but I mean, feels very bad-faithy to me, no?) -- ] - ] 18:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Would placing a ''citation'' tag, been a better option? ] (]) 18:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Yes, this is usually the best way of handling uncited, non contentious claims. Or at least, the most common way.-- ] - ] 18:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::No because in my opinion, these claims are contentious and they're about a living person, so under ] they must be removed immediately. ] (]) 18:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::How are they contentious, especially when everything is sourced (though, not with an inline citation) with the reference at the bottom? Why actively destroy an article, when you can make things better by adding inline citations? You can cite policy until the cows come home, but your actions are quite unusual, and are certainly raising suspicions, from me at least.-- ] - ] 18:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Working for people who make controversial decisions is a contentious claim like tribunals and government departments. Information about immigration status is contentious, especially with the recent controversy around wage suppression https://www.newcanadianmedia.ca/temporary-immigration-programs-are-pushing-down-wage-growth-in-canada-economists-say/ and the article's specific claims about him working for the PC party while which seemingly conflicts with their principal of training Canadian workers to do Canadian jobs https://www.poltext.org/sites/poltext.org/files/plateformesV2/Canada/CAN_PL_1984_PC_en.pdf. ] (]) 18:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Whatever you want to call it, birth place is definitely not something which should be in the article without a source. Feel free to add such information back when you find a reliable secondary source but it stays out until you have. ] (]) 01:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I already put an inline citation (it was already sourced, just not properly)-- ] - ] 01:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			== ] ==
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Do as I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy}}==
			I have been trying to add a new section about the scientific concerns raised by ] and another data sleuth against a very large number of articles by ], and this research's subsequent responses.
	{{article|Do as I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy}} - This book, published by ] and written by ] research fellow ], contains chapters entitled things like, "Hillary Clinton — Greedy Speculator, Corporate Shrill, and Petty Tax Avoider" and "] — Bourgeois Materialist, Stock Manipulator, and Tyrannical Sweatshop Boss". Is listing these titles a violation of ]? // ] 03:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	:In general, reporting "X said Y", if, in fact, X did say Y and either (a) X is a reliable source of information about Y or (b) your article is about X is ok from a BLP standpoint. But good grief ... this article needs help. It should not be giving ] to the author's claims and it really needs to cite SECONDARY sources of information about the book. ] 03:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	:: The article is essentially a recapitulation of the book, with a lengthy quotations for most chapters (that is, for each liberal person being attacked by the author). For example, the section (in the Misplaced Pages article) that discusses the book chapter on Barbara Steisand is over 500 words long. It contains sentences like ''Although she claims that the working men and women of America deserve higher wages, her production company, Barwood Films, usually films in Canada, where she can pay lower wages and receive tax breaks that she cannot get in the United States.''
	::I don't think that the article about the book could ''possibly'' be considered NPOV unless it summarized each chapter in three sentences or so; what's there is way too much like mini-articles that present only one point of view (the author's). ] | ] 22:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::An article about a book should be primarily based on secondary sources. It should talk about the impact of the book, about what people have written about the book. It should ''not'' be an opportunity to present the POV of the author without balance/context, and it should not violate content guidelines. ] 22:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::I have examined a few dozen WP articles about controversial and non-controversial non-fiction books, and almost all of them consist primarily of of a description of the contents. I make no claim that this is a proper study--just what is known as "range-finding". ''']''' 23:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
			A new user was created immediately after (]) and has started a series of long edits to the page, including some reverting of my own edits. While some of these edits appear reasonable, others are not (e.g. reverting ‘citation needed’ tags or introducing typos in headings). I would appreciate another pair of eyes on the page (I sent a request for page protection too). I haven't been active on WP for at least a decade and I'm a bit rusty with the policies, but I'm not convinced that the page meets NPOV. ] (]) 21:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] ==
			== ] ==
	Would someone mind checking this out? I've read a reasonably reputable synopsis of this dude, so can't bring myself to remove stuff I know is accurate, but I suspect it is in a poor state. If not, let me know so I can stop worrying. Thanx ] 06:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC) (PS. I don't have on hand the source I'm referring to, so I can't use it to source this... ARGH!)
			{{archive top|]: The revert was actually fixing a ] problem, and the talkpage is the place to go instead of userpages for most editorial discussions. Other complaints go to another forum. ] (]) 04:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			Now are we ]ing ''The Atlantic''? {{diff2|1269908082}} ] (]) 02:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ]{{blpwatch-links|Periyar Ramasami}}== ==
			Misogynistic explanation at {{diff2|1269907832}}. ] (]) 02:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	It is potentially ] allegations without any any citations which I have asked for.The wording are not encyclopedic.
	1: Periyar being likened to Hitler is potentially libellous as Hitler was responsible for millions of deaths whereas Periyar was not guilty of even one.Further no evidence or citation is given this comment.Periyar turned the offer to become the head of the Madras Presidency in 1939 after the Congress quit but he turned it down now to compare Hitler is wrong.
			:An opinion piece is usually not worth everlasting biographical ]. And it's accurate to describe its author as one woman. I would have said one person. The fact that it's an opinion is the ] concern. If you feel someone is being misogynistic, ] is your forum. BLPN isn't generally for editor behavior problems. Cheers. ] (]) 03:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	2:Brahmins:comments like The population of Brahmins in Tamil Nadu, which was about 10% in the 1920s, is today less than 3% as a result of persecution by EVR and his followers are strange as not even a Single Brahmin has been killed in the entire Dravidan movement. Further Rajaji,Jayalaitha and Janaki who were Chief Minsiters were Brahmins and ruled Tamil Nadu longer than any other single community and these statements are not backed by citations or evidence which are required.Jayalalitha is the head of a Dravidan Party
			:It doesn't look like anyone did anything to The Atlantic. It looks like someone edited Misplaced Pages, doubting that this one opinion piece was worthy of inclusion. That sort of discussion seems appropriate to the article talk page; even though it's in a BLP, it's not a BLP issue per se. Looks like you added it, someone else reverted the addition, and that's a good time to get into the ] cycle. -- ] (]) 04:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{archive bottom}}
			== JD Vance & Jon Husted ==
	3: And the wording should be encyclopedic none emotional and contraversial lines like Within a span of 20 years, the Brahmins of Tamil Nadu, who had been living there for more than 2000 years, were turned into alien immigrants by the DK's propaganda. The speeches called for the elimination of Brahmins from Tamil Nadu, and the enslavement of Brahmin women. The speeches harkened back to an ancient Tamil glory, similar to Hitler's revival of ancient Germanic culture are not abcked by citations or Evidence
			Ohio governor ] hasn't announced his pick (yet) for the US Senate. Yet already, IPs are jumping the gun & attempting to update ] & ], as though Husted were picked. ] (]) 16:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	4:Further some one blanked His Childhood and Education.Even today there was mass deletion by 192.223.243.6 which was reverted
	5:Only 1 name needs to be used either Periyar or EVR not 2 creates confusion to readers particularly foriegners.Periyar is how he is known.] Government refers to him as Periyar.http://www.tn.gov.in/government.htm.He is refered as Periyar in Tamil Nadu Government. Periyar University is called named after him and Also, convention suggests that the most common name be used as far as possible in the text of the article
	Vandalism is done by 80.195.10.170 who vandalised the page 3 times .] 10:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	:This is not the place for disputes about deceased persons. Please following ]. ] 00:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)		PS - I've given up, trying to hold back the premature updates. ] (]) 17:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			== ] ==
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Lyndon LaRouche}} and related articles==
			{{atop|reason=See below <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 18:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			{{la|Deb Matthews}}
			This article contains various uncited election results. Elections are contentious topics. Thousands of people go to the polls to decide who should represent them. Many people did not get their way.
	These articles are being used to showcase the theories of three minor critics, Chip Berlet, Dennis King, and Tim Wohlforth. These three all have similar views, which are esoteric and out of the mainstream. It would be proper to devote perhaps one paragraph to their shared theories. However, two of them are editors at Misplaced Pages: {{userlinks|Cberlet}} and {{userlinks|Dking}}, and they are very aggressive about promoting themselves and their viewpoints in these articles, and apparently in other articles as well. I believe that some of their allegations may be libellous, but because they have been published (or in some cases self-published) it is argued that they must be included in the articles. They also have friends at Misplaced Pages who support them (as seen elsewhere on this page.) I think at the very least there are violations of ]. --] 15:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
	:''These three all have similar views, which are esoteric and out of the mainstream.'' Both Cberlet and Dking are published authors, based on their user pages (and following a link); I suspect they can recognize libel when the see it, before they put it in writing. And it's pretty clear that Cberlet and Dking think that LaRouche is, well, to put it mildly, a bit ''unusual''. Which would tend to make their opinions on that matter the ''mainstream'' view, actually.
			See https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Deb_Matthews&oldid=1269868441 and ]. ] (]) 16:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	:It would help if you provided some diffs here (or even specific wording that bothers you), rather than broad generalities. Details will give other editors a much better idea of what you consider "esoteric" and what you think might be "libellous". (As far as undue weight, that's really a matter for talk/discussion pages of articles, unless an edit war breaks out.) ] | ] 21:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			:These results don't appear to be contentious, though. There are citations at the linked articles about the elections themselves. Have you considered copying those citations over rather than deleting the results? ] (]) 17:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Specifically, these three authors allege that LaRouche is a fascist and that he is in favor or some sort of totalitarian state. I consider this possibly libelous because LaRouche has campaigned for over 35 years ''against'' fascism. These three make insinuations, without offering evidence beyond a technique of "decoding" where Dennis King, for example, says that photographs of galaxies that appear in LaRouche-affiliated science publications remind him of swastikas. Wohlforth equates support for government regulation of the economy a la FDR with support for a totalitarian state.
			::No, I'm not touching that page, because I've been reverted by an admin. ] (]) 17:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abottom}}
			== ] ==
	::LaRouche has mainstream critics, of course, but they generally criticize him for being a conspiracy theorist, and do not accuse him of conspiring to bring about dictatorship or, as Dennis King does, having a "dream of world conquest." I think that one would have to draw the conclusion that King, Berlet and Wohlforth are themselves conspiracy theorists, and their ideas might deserve some mention, but not a central place in a biographical article. --] 22:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop|reason=Just realized: It's nothing but the one crying for something wrong with a minister on another minister on... Ya'know what? Likely to get nowhere. If Legend of 14 presists, than take it to ]. <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 18:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			{{la|Ministry of Education (Ontario)}}
			The article charges with being Minister of Education, without citation. In accordance with the principal of ], this is a very serious charge. A Minister is responsible for all actions that go on in their Ministry. ] (]) 16:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Here is a from yesterday, where Cberlet inserts his own libelous allegations into the intro of the article. --] 15:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
			:Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Ministry_of_Education_(Ontario)&oldid=1269877806. ] (]) 16:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Similar material was added by Dking in the midst of a rather extensive re-write, and when the potentially libelous material was removed, it was re-added by Phil Sandifer --] 22:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
			::@]: Are there any BLP claims in ] that can't be sourced by copying a source from the person's article or doing a quick Google search? If nothing else, it seems that would take up less time in the long run than removing, discussing on talk, and then discussing here. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 17:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::There is an uncited table with over 14 living people. It isn't practical to quickly find a source for every one of them. I only posted here because my talk page discussion was removed by an administrator. ] (]) 17:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::We don't have a deadline here, it is not needed to 'quickly' find a source. ] (]) 17:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::The content should be removed immediately under ], because it is uncited and contentious. There actually isn't time to find a source. ] (]) 17:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Why is it contentious? Do you have some reason to believe these people were not in fact Ministers? We're trying to build an encyclopedia here, not robotically delete uncontentious, easily sourced material. ] (]) 17:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Most of the people were probably Ministers of Education. Are the dates right though? Sometimes people can confuse the date of announcement or election with the date of appointment. If it so easy to source, why don't you source the content. I'm not touching the article, I've been reverted by an administrator who wants me blocked. ] (]) 17:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::'Sometimes people can confuse the date' does not equal contentious - we're not claiming somebody committed a crime. ] (]) 17:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::It just a claim that people responsible for the actions of dozens of people access decades. These are serious claims. ] (]) 17:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::Serious perhaps, but not contentious in the manner envisioned by ], so there is no rush to delete this noncontroversial information. Please do not blank anything like this again, from this or from other articles. ] (]) 17:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::], maybe. But how about checking the sources (like Tamzin said) for yourself? Or perhaps, as a gesture of good will, a send-back to the ]. <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 17:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::You mean reverted. With good reason (<u>I'm sure that you've paid attention</u>), and you should kind of clearly understand by now that there are ways to ] do so. <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 17:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I used the article talk page. See above. ] (]) 17:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::That sounds like something that would take roughly 14 minutes—less if you find an RS that lists multiple or all of them.{{PB}} Look, I like removing unsourced BLP content as much as the next BLP/N-watcher, but there's a common-sense limit, and I think you've surpassed it. Just find the damn sources. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 17:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Not my ]. I wasn't aware of the clause in the ] that says contentious material must be removed immediately, unless you've already removed a lot of BLP material recently. ] (]) 17:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Correction: *BLP violating material. ] (]) 17:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::@]: I don't mean limit on quantity. I mean limit on scope. You're taking an extremely broad definition of "contentious" and then making zero effort to find sources even when they exist in linked articles. This is not a pattern of editing that improves the encyclopedia, and Misplaced Pages is not a court of law where "but technically..." works. Stop it. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 17:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Any advice about article editing practices directed towards me is moot because I'm done editing articles. But, thanks for trying to help me anyway. ] (]) 17:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Right. Is that all you got? Is that what you said when ] went to crap?{{sarcasm}}
			::::::::It's still on you, especially if these sources have never been contested. <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 17:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::I'm struggling to understand the logic here but I'm going to take a shot: @] is your argument that, without citations that clearly indicate which minister was responsible for the ministry at any given time, Misplaced Pages might accidently assert that one minister was responsible for the actions of another minister's administration? Because that seems pretty inside baseball. It's deeply unlikely that anyone outside of, like, a provincial archivist is going to be so sensitive that you can't take the time to validate the dates against plentiful reliable sources. ] (]) 17:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::] was accused of being responsible for things that happened before she became a Minister: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s75dKt5FDwc. I don't think Misplaced Pages was the source of the bad date, but this shows that a high level of care should be taken with regards to dates of appointments and that information about Cabinet appointments should be treated as contentious. ] (]) 18:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::A YT video's ]. <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 18:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::I don't think that's the point of the YT link. Which, for the record, is actually a recording of the Legislature of Ontario question period for December 5, 2024. I think their point is that an MPP accused Surma, during question period, of being responsible for things that happened during her predecessor's ministry. The concern is reasonably legitimate. However the urgency is not evident. Just find sources and make sure the dates are right. ] (]) 18:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::Also, just to note, the Kinga Surma situation involves the Ministry of Infrastructure rather than Education. ] (]) 18:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::The urgency is based on ]. The content should not be present, as it is contentious, unless and until it is sourced. ] (]) 18:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::So find sources. These are ''routine details'' and while being accurate is a ''good thing'' here - not least of all to prevent some well-meaning NDP or Liberal MPP from accusing ] of making a decision actually made by ] - there isn't even really any reputational risk here for the BLPs in question - especially as we are currently four education ministers deep into this administration. It might take you half an hour to find all the necessary references - you've probably spent as long defending your decision to delete them. ] (]) 18:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::Something being "routine" has no effect on if or not it needs to be sourced to stay in. ] (]) 18:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::It absolutely does. This is the root of your misinterpretation of ]. Many things are not 'contentious' and do not need to be immediately deleted without discussion. ] (]) 18:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::Certainly not one that involves questions asked by some MP conservatives over something allegedly controversial. <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 18:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abottom}}
			== ] ==
	:The general case has already been resolved in http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche_2 Dennis King is a respected and published author on LaRouche, and Misplaced Pages is lucky to have him working on the article. Why is Tsunami Butler publishing on every possible noticeboard then? Because Tsunami Butler is simply another LaRouche follower who is attempting to whitewash any negative fact about LaRouche. Please be cautious when reading any statement of Tsunami Butler because many of them are simply incorrect. ] 19:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
			{{atop|result={{nac}} No discussion on talk page and no allegation of serious BLP violations. – ] (]) 18:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			{{la|Laurel Broten}}
			The article has various uncited election results. See ] for why this a problem. ] (]) 16:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	::The Arbcom com case cited by Mgunn was closed in February of 2005. Dking did not register as a user until June of 2005. The ] policy was first drafted in December of 2005, so BLP issues were never raised in the ArbCom case. Mgunn's interest appears to be POV-oriented, as his edits and comments demonstrate that he is a defender of the ]s (as are King and Berlet,) and LaRouche is an outspoken opponent of same. As I understand it, ] policy applies universally to articles on living persons. --] 15:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== ] ==
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Cheri DiNovo}}==
			{{atop|result={{nac}} No discussion on talk page and no allegation of serious BLP violations. – ] (]) 18:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			{{la|Eric Hoskins}}
			This article has uncited results about the ] which involves living people. Elections are contentious topics. Many people voted for someone who didn't get elected. ] (]) 17:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	A series of anonymous IPs, which all resolve to the Asia Pacific Network Information Centre in ], ], has repeatedly inserted unsourced allegations that DiNovo, a ] politician, was involved in a ] scam in 1992, was saved from prison only by agreeing to act as an ] informant, and has misrepresented other elements of her biography. Edit summaries have included inflammatory allegations that a "legion of ] attack queers" is conspiring to protect DiNovo by burying this information; one of them, charmingly, directly addressed me as "Bearcunt". In the most recent edit, this mythical legion of NDP attack queers even found its way into the article itself.
			:You may wanna try to ] and try talking to others on either of these articles ''before'' you put them here. One too many. <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 17:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	This has happened six times now. I have tried addressing the matter of ] on several prior occasions, but each time the allegations simply resurface again, posted by a different IP number that still resolves to the same institution. I expect that since they're posting anonymously, the person in question isn't even seeing comments posted to prior IP talk pages. I even tried at one point deleting and recreating the article to remove this claim from the edit history entirely, but as the matter has resurfaced again I've restored the deleted edits so they can be reviewed here. I've even tried searching both Google and the '']'' news database to investigate the verifiability of the claims, but whodathunkit? Not a single verifiable source to be had.
			::What's the point if they're just going to get deleted by an administrator, see https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Ministry_of_Education_(Ontario)&diff=next&oldid=1269877806 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Deb_Matthews&diff=prev&oldid=1270038770. ] (]) 17:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== ] ==
	Since this happens at completely unpredictable intervals, I'd like a few people to keep it watchlisted just in case this happens again at a time when neither myself nor ] (the other user who's done reverts on this) are online. And if anybody has any other advice on how we can make this stop, I'm all ears. ] 19:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop|result={{nac}} No discussion on talk page and no allegation of serious BLP violations. – ] (]) 18:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			The article has various uncited election results. See ] for why this a problem. ] (]) 17:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== ] ==
	: '''Update''': the article has now been sprotected; instead, the anon IP has taken to removing administrator comments about the non-negotiability of BLP from the talk page, usually replacing them with a personal attack against whichever Misplaced Pages user reverted the previous attempt to do this. They have also vandalized the user pages of several Misplaced Pages users involved in the dispute, including mine and ]'s. It's really time for this nonsense to stop — what other recourse is there besides continually reverting? ] 18:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
			{{atop|result={{nac}} No discussion on talk page and no allegation of serious BLP violations. – ] (]) 18:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			The article has various uncited election results. See ] for why this a problem. ] (]) 17:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Please stop filling the noticeboard with these redundant sections. ] (]) 17:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	: '''Further update''': The anon user's latest tactic has been to deliberately insert false links into other articles asserting DiNovo's involvement with other things that she has ''not'' been associated with, such as '']'' and the band ], and then to falsely allege that ''other'' editors (e.g. ]) placed those links and therefore have a credibility problem. This really, really has to stop, but short of permanently blacklisting all of ], what else can we do? ] 03:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== ] ==
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Criticism of Prem Rawat}}==
	One contributor ({{user|Gstaker}}) thinks that information sourced to an article in the ] should be removed because he thinks the Washington Post is not a reliable source.
			There is a content dispute at ] which is about a ], ], a Pakistani politician. The dispute is at ]. The question involves allegations made by his ex-wife, ] in a memoir, ]. The book itself is a primary source, and secondary sources are preferred in ], and secondary sources have discussed the allegations. So the question is whether the inclusion of the allegations in the article would violate the ] policy by being tabloid-like. I am bringing this issue here because I think that the volunteers at this noticeboard are familiar with similar issues. ] (]) 04:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	Another editor ({{user|Momento}}) asserts that allegations of anxiety and heavy drinking can only be made by a qualified doctor if not, as is the case in this article, the article, according to him, violates ] policy.
			:Of course it is a clear violation. A ] is still primary no matter how ] the primary source is. The more adverse/contentious the claim, the more that's true. The DRN discussion is such a dense wall of timesink that I can't begin to want to participate there. But it is a clear violation. Cheers. ] (]) 05:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	I disagree with the reasoning of these two contributors. ] 00:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
			::I agree with JFHJr. I'd also add that ] requires multiple third party sources covering an allegation. A quick glance at the DRN discussion listed five sources that the editor considered secondary in support of the allegation and (from what I could tell) the references didn't seem reliable.
			::DNAIndia article is attributed to 'DNA Web Team', Deccan Chronicle is attributed to 'DC Correspondent', and Hindustan Times is attributed to 'HT Correspondent. TheNews is attributed to 'Web Desk'. And lastly the Mumbai Mirror is an interview so definitely not secondary. Several of the articles seem more promotional than anything, and aren't independently reporting on anything; they are stating what she says in her book. The original ] removal that sparked the DRN discussion seems more than justified.
			::] (]) 07:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::@] @] What about the following? The discussion in secondary sources suggests that this topic warrants some coverage in the article. While we can include differing perspectives, such as Imran Khan’s stance on the allegations, a complete exclusion seems unwarranted. It's all about Imran Khan then why exclude it. NPOV requires representing all viewpoints, and we can ensure fair coverage by including all angles rather than outright exclusion. The original content was attributed to Reham Khan, and no one is suggesting treating these claims as facts. However, they are allegations made by a notable individual with a personal connection to the subject. These can be presented as attributed allegations, alongside other relevant perspectives, such as lawsuits or differing narratives.
			:::*, NDTV
			:::*, The Guardian
			:::*, The Week
			:::] &#124; ] &#124; 16:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::The included sources don't mention the allegations about his children. I don't think ''who'' is making an allegation, nor how close they are to a subject, is what is important - I think it's what secondary sources do independant verification or investigations regarding the claims that matter. ] seems relevant due to the quality of sources that mention this.
			::::I also removed text from ] which seemed to focus on every negative thing regarding Imran Khan mentioned in the book that was also only supported by questionable sources. Drug use, same sex relationships which named other third party people, illegitimate children...I would consider this the epitome of gossip that needs high quality sourcing.
			::::] (]) 23:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::@] For me @]'s feedback is good enough, I accept this as consensus for removal, we will keep those allegations out of that article, you can close the DRN thread. Thank you, @] and @] for their help for sorting this out. ] &#124; ] &#124; 23:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Comment:''' @] @] While a discussion is opened at this noticeboard about this BLP, I have concerns over the ] section which User:SheriffIsInTown has been told not to create per ] in the past, but has created nevertheless. I have proposed it to be ] in the past and given ], which multiple editors have supported but they have opposed it. Not sure if a separate thread is required for this issue if a thread about this BLP is already opened. Additionally, some of the allegations in the controversies section are supported by only one source and did not receive significant media coverage such as ], the amount of weight being given to them is too much and the whole section seems to be astray from NPOV. Thank you. ] (]) 20:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Note that we are citing quite selectively from that article. For example, the reporter describe some outrageous claims made against Prem Rawat by Mishler such as that he engaged in practices to "subdue the ego" that included "stripping devotees, pouring abrasive chemicals on their bodies, and into their mouths, administering drugs, having them beaten with a stick or thrown into swimming pools", that are obviously sensationalists lies (and that even the most staunch detractors will attest to these being lies). I would say that the reason why, whoever added that selective quote did not add the other sensationalist material, may because undoubtedly demonstrates the lack of credibility of these protagonists and of the source. As exceptional claims require exceptional evidence, one could argue that this one-only source is in this case a "poor source" as per WP:BLP. Also note that these sensationalist allegations were never described in any secondary sources, probably because of lack of credibility. ] <small>]</small> 00:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
			::There are on Misplaced Pages with a “Controversies” section, including one for another former Prime Minister of Pakistan, ], which user @] . They seem to object to a “Controversies” section for Imran Khan, due to their declared support for him and his party, but showed no such concerns while editing ]. This demonstrates the kind of POV pushing in their editing that I’ve been highlighting for some time. Their claim that misogynistic remarks by Imran Khan are covered by only one source is false; even a simple Google search disproves it. One source being included in the article does not imply a lack of support from others. Here are four sources that corroborate it:
	::The claims that you classify are as exceptional are not in the entry nor does anyone currently wants to add them, so I think that your comments are irrelevant. I omitted adding that part of the Washtington Post article to the entry because I could find no corroboration, in contrast to the claims of heavy drinking. I cannot know whether the excerpts that you quote are sensationalist lies or not because I was not there, though again, I do not intend to add them to the entry. ] 00:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
			::*
			::*
			::*
			::*
			::Do we need more? Because there are plenty. ] &#124; ] &#124; 23:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			* According to my understanding, memoirs reflect personal memories and interpretations, and the book publisher cannot fact-check or ensure the content's accuracy. Therefore, one cannot claim that the book is reliable simply because an Indian version of HarperCollins published it. I agree that secondary sources have covered it; however, they are merely quoting what is written in the book. That being said, I have no issue including allegations where she was an ''eyewitness'' to events (for example, claims that she saw Imran Khan taking drugs). However, her allegation regarding extramarital childs with Indian partners is very contentious, as she stated that she heard this from Imran Khan. Imran Khan denies the claim, and there is no way she could have been an eyewitness to it. In the last six years, no child or mother has come forward to confirm or refute this claim, so we can safely assume it is false. Furthermore, it is a textbook case of ''hearsay'' and does not belong on Misplaced Pages, especially in biographies of living people. ] (]) 22:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:@] What is your opinion on including Reham’s allegations under the Controversies section instead of the Public Image section, where they were previously covered before you removed them? Also, How about simply including Reham’s claim that Imran Khan acknowledged Tyrian as his daughter? Tyrian is mentioned in many sources, so we only need to state that his former wife, Reham, alleged he admitted in a private conversation that Tyrian is his daughter. ] &#124; ] &#124; 23:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			== ] ==
	:::Good ], Andries. Selective quoting from one article, based on your presumption of lack of corroboration for the part you did not quote, but omitting the fact that there is lack of corroboration for the part you did include, is violating NOR and demonstrates a lack of good editorial judgment in assessing the reliability of a source. Any editor reading the whole quote will know that this is sensationalist BS and will avoiding touching that source in a BLP as being "poorly sourced". ] <small>]</small> 03:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::In contrast to what you state, there is corroboration of the heavy drinking allegation that I included both in reputable sources and non-reputable sources. For example in the book by Spohia Collier ''Soul Rush'' that is also used as a source for the article ]. ] 03:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Again, I do not know whether what is written is sensational bullshit and I do not know how to find out. ] 03:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
			If you have an opinion, please join. ] (]) 14:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::(ed conflict)Sources, Andries, sources. An editor can make the assessment that as these extraordinary allegations are not reported in ''any'' other source, and given that there are hundreds of scholarly sources on the subject that do not mention any of that, these cab be assessed to be extraordinary claims that do not have the necessary support to be considered anything than a "poor source", in particular given the context in which these were made. As editors we have some responsibilities that we cannot skirt by playing the "I don't know" card. ] <small>]</small> 04:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::In contrast to what you write, there is not a single scholarly biography on ]. In contrast a lot has been written about the related subejct ]. Of course, I can say write that I do not know when I really do not know and have no way to find out. ] 04:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
			== Palesa Moroenyane ==
	::::Jossi, please stop disingenously stating that there is no corroboration of the heavy drinking allegation. Apart from the already mentioned reputable source, somewhat doubtful or non-reputable sources for this are Dettmers statements, and Mishler radio interview. ] 03:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
			{{archive top|]: ] is the best place for this kind of comment. ] (]) 19:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			Palesa Moroenyane
			Political Activism
			* Joined the African National Congress in 1998.
	::::I strongly disagree with your statement that I engage in ] when I use my knowledge and my common sense to assess whether sources are reliable in a certain context. Assessing sources is the right and duty of contributors. ] 04:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
			* A product of the Walter Sisulu Leadership Academy 2011.
	:::::The source we are talking about describes the radio interview, so I do not understand what you are saying. There are no other sources corroborating ''any'' of these sensationalist claims. Who is the disingenuous here, Andries? Or is it that you believe that it is OK to selectively cite from an article based on an editors' presumptions based on "somewhat doubtful or non-reputable sources"? You may need to refresh your memory on ] and ], Andries. ] <small>]</small> 04:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::Sophia Collier wrote in her book that Prem Rawat and his brother got slushed during Millenium '73. ] 04:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::Sure, a 13 year old having some fun maybe?. But that is ''very different'' than saying that he "had tremendous problems of anxiety which he combatted with alcohol" alongside saying that he engaed in "stripping devotees, pouring abrasive chemicals on their bodies, and into their mouths, administering drugs, having them beaten with a stick or thrown into swimming pools", don't you think? ] <small>]</small> 04:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Can you please stop mentiong off-topic quotes? That latter quote is not in the article nor does anyone intend to add to the article. ] 04:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Because if you did add the quotes that you selectively omitted, it will clearly destroy the credibility of the other statement and of the person that made them. ] <small>]</small> 04:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::Do you want me to add it? ] 04:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::::A thirteen year old having fun by drinking a lot of alcohol during an event that he himself described as the "'']''" is not innocent. ] 14:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
			* A volunteer of the ANCWL Greater Joburg Regional Office from 2009 - 2012.
	:::::::Yes, I think it is okay to quote selectively from a reputable source based on common sense, personal experience, corroboration form other reputable sources, or non-reputable sources etc. Again, assessing sources is the right and the duty of contributors. You can quote more from the article in the Washington Post if you think that I have omitted something important. ] 04:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::No. Not OK, Andries, as per my arguments above. ] <small>]</small> 04:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::::Can you please explain? I do not understand your reasoning. ] 04:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
			* A Convener of the ANCWL in 2010 for Ward 28 Moses Kotane branch Ward 28 Greater Joburg Region.
	::::::::::I will try: The article describes the opinion of Misher, saying that in a radio interview he said that PR "had tremendous problems of anxiety which he combatted with alcohol". The same article describes him as saying that PR engaged in "stripping devotees, pouring abrasive chemicals on their bodies, and into their mouths, administering drugs, having them beaten with a stick or thrown into swimming pools". These explosive allegations are not mentioned '''in any other source besides this article'''. None of the scholarly sources describe these traits even these sources that containing highly critical material, such as these from your favorite Dutch scholars. So, as a responsible editor, and given this is a BLP, we can safely assert that this source does not meet the threshold for being a high quality reference: ''Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives'', ] advises us. And we should listen to that advise, not dismiss it on the basis of one's knowledge of "somewhat doubtful or non-reputable sources". ] <small>]</small> 04:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Apart from the reputable source the Washington Post the allegation of heavy drinking was also reported by Mishler and another inner circle member called Dettmers in an article by John Macgregor ''Blinded by the Light'' that appeared in Good Weekend - the colour magazine shared by The Age (Melbourne) and The Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney) August 31, 2002 (Page 38-42) and in The West Australian (Perth) dated Septembre 21, 2002 ] 04:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
			* ⁠The Chairperson of the ANCWL 2011-2013 Moses Kotane Branch Ward 28 Greater Joburg Region.
	::::::::::::Sure. You forgot to disclose who exactly was the journalist that wrote the article, his trial for conspiring to steal data to harm PR and his students, the judge comments, and the affidavits he signed in which he says that "because of my media connections I was supported by the Group to publish articles that furthered the goal of defaming Prem Rawat and his students" and that "based on no factual evidence, I arranged to publish in two Australian print media publications", etc. So, these sources are as unreliable as these can be. ] <small>]</small> 05:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::Jossi, the media articles were never retracted by the magazines. And there is another person who signed a similar affadivit in the same affair i.e. {{user|Tgubler}} who has not stopped being critical about Rawat. All this suggests that these affadavits were signed to get rid off a nasty litigation instead of a genuine change of heart. ] 05:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
			* Secretary of the ANCWL of Ward 31 Jongilanga Mzinyathi branch 2013-2016.
	:::::::::::::::Do you mean the person that was the co-conspirator about which the judge said to "suffer from a credibility handicap" when he tried to retract his testimony? In any case, you are just speculating. Let these affidavits speak for themselves. ] <small>]</small> 05:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
			* Relocated to Ward 125 Eric Molobi branch and was elected the Secretary of the ANCWL from 2017-2022.
			* In 2021 - 2023 served as the Deputy Chairperson of the ANC in Eric Molobi Branch Ward 125 Greater Joburg Region.
	:::::::::::Jossi, you do not convince me when you assert that the Washington Post is not a reliable source. Please note that the wording of Washington Post article suggested that Rawat's anxiety was not just a detail of Rawat's private life, but relevant for his notability because of Rawat's claim to bring peace. I admit that the Washington Post would not be the most suitable references if there were multiple scholarly biographies of Rawat, but there is none. ] 04:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC) amended for grammar 04:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
			* Member of the SACP 2010 to date 2023.
	::::::::::::There are abundant scholarly sources about Prem Rawat, see the article itself, and none of them support these statements, even the most critical ones. The arguments are all laid here for other editors to comment. ] <small>]</small> 05:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
			* 2019 National Elections was number 65 candidate of the ANC for the Gauteng Member of Provincial Legislature List .
	:::::::::::::Untrue. The subject of these scholarly sources is ] or ]. Not ]. Where is the scholarly biography of ]? ] 05:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::Untrue? These scholarly sources describe him, his youth, the succession, the arrival to the West in the 70's, his marriage, the family rift that ensued, the evolution of the presentation of his message, etc, etc. So again, there are substantial scholarly sources that describe Prem Rawat's life. Do these have the title "Biography"? no. But that does not mean that we do not have sources about him. We do, and plentiful. ] <small>]</small> 15:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::Yes, untrue. If you think otherwise then please show me one scholarly article that has either an extensive description of Rawat's life or has Rawat as its main subject. ] 16:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::::You can keep saying "untrue" until you get blue in the face, Andries. But the fact is that there are many notable individuals about which there is abundant sources describing their life-work, and do not have a biography with an "extensive description of their lives". That does not mean that there is no material about their lives to serve as the basis for article about them in Misplaced Pages, and furthermore, that does not mean that we should use material that is unsuitable (as per the arguments I made above), just because there is not such biography available. ] <small>]</small> 17:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
			* Joined Umkhonto WeSizwe on the 17 December 2023. She was then appointed as the Ward Coordinator with immediate effect. The position she held until the 19 March 2024.
	:::::::::::::::::BTW, I have observed that you have made the same argument in the pasts in other biographies. These arguments are in contradiction with ], in particular when BLP asks asks to be very firm about the quality of our sources. ] <small>]</small> 17:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::::How is the Washington Post not a high quality source? ] 17:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::::::That is a ], Andries. I am not disputing the quality of the Washington Post. Please go to to the beginning of this section and re-read the arguments provided. ] <small>]</small> 03:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
	(unindent)As one coming fresh to this dispute, I see the ] as a fine example of a reliable source. Further, there is absolutely no requirement that an associate of the subject be a medical doctor, psychiatrist, or psychologist to observe that he was anxious or stressed and that he drank a lot to deal with it. We as the readers can note that the quote is from a former associate and not from the man's doctor, who would in any event be forbidden from releasing such information by the strictures of medical ethics. The quote should be attributed to the person who said it, and should be complete enough that it is not taken out of context. Claiming that it is a "minority view" violating Misplaced Pages policy since most of the man's other followers have not described him as anxious or a heavy drinker is a red herring. The quote appears well sourced and should be included. If the other editors have a quote wherein a follower said in a reliable publication that he was not a drinker and was not anxious, they should add that. That is how a NPOV treatment of a subject works. ] 00:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I think Jossi is mistaken when he writes as I may sunmarize his way of reasoning that a reputable source completely stops being a reputable source if it makes an uncorroborated implausible statement. Yes, may be he is right that we should omit mentioning in the Misplaced Pages entry the uncorroborated statement that he considers implausible (which I did). But of course, we can still use the corroborated statements from the reputable source for the Misplaced Pages entry. I think Jossi's reasoning "demonstrates a lack of good editorial judgment in assessing the reliability of a source", to use his own words. ] 14:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::You summarise Jossi well - "maybe he is right that we should omit mentioning in the Misplaced Pages entry the uncorroborated statement that he considers implausible (which I did)". Exactly!. Be true to truth.] 15:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
			* Appointed by the Secretary General of MK Party, Advocate Tshivhase Mashudu as the National Election Coordinator for the 2024 National and Provincial Elections.
	:Thank you Edison, for your comments. Note that the discussion was not about about if the Washington Post is a reliable source or not, or if the comment made by these persons in the article can be attributed to them. The question was about the ''selective quoting'' from that source to avoid giving readers the possibility to understand the context in which they made these comments. Any sensible reader will most probably dismiss these outrageous allegations, if the have the opportunity to read all what they said. Andries decided to just add a specific allegatiion that ''in his opinion'' is plausible, while omitting others that are, in his opinion, implausible. My contention is that when you cite you cannot make these "editorial decisions", as you are engaging in a clear attempt to enhance the reputability of the source by selectively omitting material that shatters the credibility of the source. So, either we, as responsible editors do not use that source in a BLP, or we cite the comments of these people without selectively omitting other material. My opinion is that we should not use that source on the basis of it being "poorly sourced" in a BLP. ] <small>]</small> 22:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Jossi, I consciously added only material from the Washington Post that is corroborated and omitting that is what uncorroborated. I often leave out uncorroborated statements from reputable sources or statements that I consider implausible. I am not going to change my habit in this regard of making good editorial decisions. Feel free to add more information from the Washington Post that will allow the reader to make an informed decision about the accusations. ] 09:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
	:An exceptional, sensationalst claim that is negative and uncorrororated from a biased, ex-employer who died in the 70's is unacceptable in a biography of a living person. That a newspaper reproduced this claim doesn't excuse it from failing every other test for inclusion.] 08:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
	::No, I think it is a non-exceptional claim voiced in a reputable source (]) that is more or less corroborated by other reputable sources such as Sophia Collier's book ''Soul Rush'' and by another inner circle member i.e. Dettmers (in among others an article by John Macgregor ''Blinded by the Light'' that appeared in Good Weekend The Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney) August 31, 2002). In addition it is corroborated by yet another inner circle member in a non-reputable source. Here Momento admits more or less that it is a non-exceptional claim ] 08:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
			* Umkhonto WeSizwe Candidate number 10 for the Gauteng Representative List.
	:::Straw man argument, Andries. The Washington Post article includes material from the same person that is my all means and "extraordinary claim". You decided to "censor" that material and leave other material that ''you'' consider to be not extraordinary, when it is when taken as a whole. John McGregor's legal imbroglio, and subsequent ruling by a judge coupled with his apology renders that source to be of the same quality: "poorly sourced". As per BLP, that material has no place in a WP article. Your continuous efforts to keep a partially censored reference to that Washington Post article, without addressing other editor's concerns about that material is a case of ]. ] <small>]</small> 16:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
			] (]) 13:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::Extremely unconvincing Jossi, if you want the full story to be told to the readers then feel free to add more material from reputable sources. I have no problem adding it myself though you never answered the question whether you want me to add it. Do not censor well-sourced material from from reputable sources. ] 20:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Ask yourself this question Andries. If a 30 year old exceptional and sensationalst claim that is negative and uncorrororated from a biased, ex-employee who died in the 70's turned up in a local paper about (insert any notable person), would you include it in their autobiography?] 20:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Non-exceptional, corroborated claim voiced in a national newspaper from one of the few persons who could know. ] 20:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
	:MIshler is not a reputable source and no scholar or journalist has corroborated his claims. Jossi, could you please block Andries from the PR article?] 19:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::You omitted some of material, because they shatter the credibility of the source. When taken in their totality, that material violates ]. You cannot cite only what ''you'' perceive as credible ands omit what you perceive as plausible. ] <small>]</small> 15:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::Yes, I only wrote down material from a reputable source that is corroborated but I have no problem to cite more even if this what you describe shatters the credibility of the source. Can you please explain how this violates ] without repeating your unconvincing arguments? ] 21:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
	:No reputable source corroborates Mishler. He is a biased source, making exceptional and sensational claims that are not corroborated by any of the scholars who have written on PR.] 23:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
	::Untrue. Again, there is not a single scholarly reputable article let alone book that treats Prem Rawat extensively. If you think otherwise then please provide such a source, as I had already requested to Jossi without result. In the absence of such sources, it is perfectly okay to use secondary source material from reputable newspapers, such as the article in the Washington Post. I would agree with Momento that if multiple scholarly reputable biographies are available, like in the case of Adolf Hitler then it would not be okay to use secondary source material from newsapers. ] 19:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
	:::Untrue? There are nearly 100 notes and nearly 50 references cited for the Prem Rawat article and not a single one repeats Mishler's claim. We know Melton was aware of Mishler's sensationalist claims (and probably all PR scholars) but he quite rightly ignored them. Your suggestion that in the absence of any negative evidence from the dozens of reserarched and scholarly articles, editors should include negative material from a biased, ex-employee would turn Misplaced Pages into a gossip column.] 21:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
	::::Yes, untrue, again show me one single scholarly reputable article that treats Prem Rawat extensively. ] 23:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
			:We don't have an article for this person. This noticeboard is for reporting issues regarding articles that we do have. See ].]] 14:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	: It is not my responsibility to provide you with a scholarly article that supports your claim. I say they don't exist. You find one. Wiki policy is '''The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Misplaced Pages, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim.'''] 20:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
			{{archive bottom}}
			== ] ==
	:::::There are hundreds of sources used in that article, making it one of the most extensively and meticulously sourced in Misplaced Pages. ] <small>]</small> 00:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
			{{archive top|]. Resolved. ] (]) 19:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	::::::Stop evading my question Jossi. You motivated your exclusion of the Washington Post article by saying that there are many reputable scholarly sources on Rawat. I am still waiting for the title of one reputable scholarly source that extensively treats Prem Rawat. ] 00:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
			Hello. The article ] is currently linked to the main page. It includes this file: ]. The title was chosen by {{yo|Di (they-them)}}, but it is incorrect because that's Florida, not Italy (refer to the plates), only the person claims being Italian, according to how it develops in . Although the video is free to use, naturally, personality rights apply to this person. Regardless of what occurs on the incident and whether the person was scamming or not the people in the area, BLP applies anywhere in Misplaced Pages, including images. As far as we known, this person was not arrested or charged for fraud, so saying the person is scamming can have legal repercussions. In Florida, personality rights are codified in F.S. §540.08:
			No person shall publish, print, display or otherwise publicly use for purposes of trade or for any commercial or advertising purpose the name, portrait, photograph, or other likeness of any natural person without the express written or oral consent to such use given by:
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Phil McGraw}}==
	An anon is adding disgusting libel to this article. I've blocked them for 24 hours, but be on the lookout. ]|] 04:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
			*(a) Such person; or
	:Removed uncited material about ethical violations in Texas. ] 07:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
			*(b) Any other person, firm or corporation authorized in writing by such person to license the commercial use of her or his name or likeness
			It is clear that in the video, this person is not consenting to be filmed. ]&nbsp;]<sup>]</sup> 18:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|John Cena}}==
	On the article's talk page, we're looking to get consensus on whether or not putting statements about anal sex into his personal information section is relevant or not. To sum it up quickly, John Cena is a professional wrestler. Apparently in October, he made a statement on the Howard Stern radio show that he isn't into anal sex. It's been added, reverted, added, and reverted off and on in the past month or so. We'd like some outside views on this as to its relevance within the confines of the article (does the fact that the section is all about personal information open it up to something like this?) and whether this is an issue at all in terms of the guidelines for BLP. Thanks, ] 06:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I think it is completely irrelevant, particularly since it's a denial. You may as well list all the arenas he hasn't wrestled in.] 21:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
	::It's been added back again with no consensus to do so yet. So I'm not sure how to handle this situation. There are about 2 users who want it in and 2 or 3 who don't. I'd appreciate more input on the talk page. ] 13:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
			:Thanks for bringing this up, I will remove the image. I added it because I thought it would be useful to illustrate the article but it's clear I didn't think too deeply about the potential BLP issue. That's my mistake. ] (]) 18:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Earl Mindell}}==
			{{archive bottom}}
	This is an author whose article is on the radar of several POV pushers who want to highlight the dubiousness of some elements of the subject's history and current activities. The main reason I'm posting here is because some of the sources for references (like quackwatch) are out of my experience as to whether or not they are acceptable. POV creeps into the article on a regular basis also. ] 10:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Steven E. Jones}}==
	Although I believe his research is nonsense, the talk page ] slanders him. I don't feel it's my place to remove the section, because both theories are ], but could some 9/11 conspiracy theorist comment? &mdash; ] | ] 07:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Patricia Kennealy-Morrison}}==
	My concern about this article is that the subject's own book is used to source the subject's own claims, with no independant verification of the subject's claims being used. I would politely request that the section in question is removed. The section which is poorly sourced is in relation to Ms. Kennealy-Morrison's claims to have married Jim Morrison. There are no sources cited, other than Ms. Kennealy-Morrison's book, 'Strange Days: My Life With And Without Jim Morrison.' I was under the impression that proper sourcing needed to be in place in order to allow publication of claims within Misplaced Pages. I would remove the offending material myself; however, a tendentious editor accused myself and others of vandalism when reasonable changes were made to the article. Maybe an editor is available to take a look at this (but please, not an editor who is already assigned as the 'regular' editor?). This is a high-profile article, when one considers that the claims centre around Jim Morrison, who is to put it mildly, rather well known on a worldwide basis.
	:BLP applies to unsourced material. This is sourced, and doesn't fall under BLP. The reliable sources guideline is broken, but even it allows the book to be used as a source. Books published by major publishing houses are not considered self-published. Moreover, the claim is very high profile, and I'd think that if there was anything false about it we'd have heard by now. ] 14:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
	:There have been other sources which have commented on her claims. They could be included to discuss her book's reliability. ]|] 18:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
	==]==
	User Zsero is repeatedly using a hatchet-job article from the National Review to claim Shinseki was close to insubordination. His/Her edit says that "According to one source, Shinseki came close to insubordination." The cited article is clearly politically biased. It merely quotes "According to an Army source". Does this qualify as the kind of "fact" worthy of Misplaced Pages? The article makes predictions that proved incorrect about Shinseki, namely that he had political ambitions: "Shinseki's retirement two months ago coincides nicely with the planned — but yet unannounced — retirement of Inouye at the end of his current term in 2004. Shinseki will run for that seat, and most likely will win." Inouye did not retire in 2004, and is still Hawaii's Senator. The article goes on to state "any general like Shinseki, whose political ambitions interfere with his willingness to carry out civilian orders, must go".
	:Frankly, I've looked at this case and I think it's pretty cut-and-dried. Zsero's claim that Shinseki 'came close to insubordination' is found ''nowhere'' in the opinion piece used as a source. The word "insubordination" does not even appear in the piece. Zsero calls his claim of insubordination "a perfectly obvious one-phrase summary of what the article says" but I believe any fair Wikipedian looking at it would have to call it ]. -- ] 17:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
	:I request that others come and examine the situation as well, as Zsero is very insistent upon this point. -- ] 04:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
	==]==
	I have created an article about Boris Stomakhin, a journalist who was recently imprisoned in Russia for exercising his ] rights. User ] repeatedly inserts citation from an allegedly Stomakhin's article, taken out of context, to defame this imprisoned journalist as a fool and extremist (see last "Further political activity" chapter in the article about him - I will delete it again). Not only such citation is biased, but the cited paper may not actually belong to Stomakhin. The original source of the text is basically a blog run by several young people. Moreover, there are already claims in media that Stomakhin was convicted for articles he actually did not write. I summarized my arguments in ], "Misplaced Pages policy on biographies of living persons".] 21:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC) Would it be possible to have an advice from a neutral person who is familiar with Misplaced Pages policies? Whatever such person decide, I would accept. My only concern is to have an objective article that provide information rather than propaganda from any side. ] 01:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
	: I tried to resolve the situation, but apparently it did not work. My arguments can be found in ], but I would like to repeat them here:
	"Let's assume that RKO website is a reliable source (which is not). Then, the cited fragment of the text has been selected to demonstrate that Stomakhin is a ] who wants to exterminate all Russians. However this is not true, which is clear after reading this and his his other alleged writings on RKO web site. He only means that military resistance to Russian occupation is legimate (including ] or what we call ]), because Russians are conducting ] in Chechnya. He believes that it is as legimate as the resistance against Nazi occupation. That is what he means. No more, no less. He is strongly anti-Russian (you could call him a ]), because he wants to protect an ethnic minority (Chechens and others) from an oppression of the kind he believes Nazi did with respect to Jews. So, he is actually an anti-facist, not the facist. Everything is turned upside-down in this article."
	::You wanted to write that decision of administrator Alex Bakharev who found this source to be reliable and rewrote that passage doesn't suit you. He also found my translation to be correct.] 19:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Also keep in mind that the segment of the text allegedly written by Stomaknin was impecisely translated to English. There is nothing else I can do. I will never again write any articles about "controversial" persons, because there is no way to protect their views and even facts of their life from crude falsification in Misplaced Pages. ] 18:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
	::: Is it not strange that Biophys who is russian by nationality living in USA, could do nothing with "wrong" translation? He could suggest better translation, which he didn't. Instead he claims that 'there is nothing else I could do" which is weird.] 07:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
	::: O'K, I added some statements of ], ], ], etc. in ] article to show that I am not alone in this opinion. So, we need an objective article about him.] 23:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Please, look at the article "Boris Stomakhin", talk page and its archive. Statement from Committee to Protect Journalists is taken by user Biophys from Blog, and the statement from Union of Councils for Soviet Jews contains false and libelous statements. For more details and facts of user Biophys abusing and violationg Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, please, look at the article "Boris Stomakhin" and its talk page.] 17:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
	::: '''A proposal'''. The situation with ] article is getting worse and worse. Obviously, we can not have a Misplaced Pages article dedicated to defamation of a journalist who is sitting in prison cell for ] being "practically paralyzed". This article became an object of vandalism (see talk page), editing war between several partisan editors, and the Russian language sources are even more unreliable than I thought. For example, the texts of the most contentious alleged Stomakhin's paper "Death to Russia" are obviously different when cited by different sources (see talk page). The problem: Stomakin's writings are considered offensive by many Russians. I suggest the following way out of the trouble.
	:::'''1.''' Find an arbiter who is not Russian. '''2.''' Exclude any Russian language sources as difficult to verify by third parties. '''3.''' Make an NPOV version of the article and lock it from any further editing. Me (as an original creator of this article) or anyone else can prepare a new version of this article based exclusively on English sources. The arbiter can make any necessary editing and lock it. Another option is to remove the entire paper.] 17:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::: I think that the user Biophys in his 'proposal' uncovered his real motives. Boris Stomakhin is a russian politician and talks only on Russian. Biophys wants actually to prevent non-russian users of Misplaced Pages from learning new information from reliable russian sources, beacuse russian sources are not in support of user Biophys views. The incident was already resolved twice by administrator Alex Bakharev and twice he found user Biophys to be wrong.] 17:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Please, pay attention at the request by Biophys, he's currently asking to find 'an arbiter who is not Russian', next time he would ask to find 'an arbiter who will rule in his favor'.] 19:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::If this proposal about using only reliable English language sources and locking the article is accepted, I would not mind if Alex Bakharev was an arbiter and edited new version of the article that I could prepare. All links to unreliable Russian language sources can be also provided, but they should be marked as "articles allegedly written by Stomakhin", and so on. ] 00:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::: Biophys, please state here all your reasons of unreliability of Stomakhin's articles "Death to Russia". And why there are 'allegedly wriiten by Stomakhin'? For I could critisize any of your sources as 'allegedly written by the their authors' then. I complied with all Misplaced Pages policies by citing Stomakhin's article. May I bring to your attention that according to Misplaced Pages policy I could cite even a blog, but only in case it is written by the subject, e.g. Stomakhin? ] 04:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::: I would like to pay attention of all people reading this section that Biophys consistently mentions that he could write NPOV article about Stomakhin. Is it not strange that this person consistently asks for such weird things like to remove all sources on Russian, to select non-Russian arbiter, to rewrite himself the article about Stomakhin which is the cause of the dispute?] 07:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::O'K. I just edited ] article '''using Russian language sources''' and included citation of "Death to Russia" by Sokolov (although I feel this is violation of LP). If Alex Bakharev or any neutral 3-rd party editor (I suggested non-Russians to avoid nationalistic feelings) verified this text now for consistency with LP policy and corrected it as needed, that would solve the problem I hope. ] 04:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::: Not Ok. The version created by user Biophys lacks important facts, it cites third-party blogs (unreliable sources), it contains original research in citations of Stomakhin from court sentence. Biophys also deleted the most serious statements by Stomakhin, leaving his most moderate citations. He also excluded without any grounds the fact that Stomakhin political view is to exterminate all Russians. Excluded many facts such as false facts contained in Statement of Union of Councils of fU Jews. This perversions of the facts and personal edits of Stomakhin's citations by Biophys are intolerable.] 05:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::: The user Biophys right now reverts my additions to the article which add citations of Stomakhin which are contained in the official court sentence for Boris Stomakhin. He deletes my additions without any explanation by telling me that he complies "LP policy". Is it LP policy to delete additions which are supported with reliable sources?] 06:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::: Please see also http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Anna_Politkovskaya#Death_.26_Putin.27s_birthday and http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Anna_Politkovskaya#Unsourced_speculation to see that I am not alone who are fed up with Biophys political propaganda. Even non-Russians complain that Biophys publishes propaganda in Misplaced Pages.] 08:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
	:: Thanks to ], the ] article is better now. Still, the article is even more biased than the court sentence used for conviction of Boris Stomakhin. This is very easy to fix. Can I do it? I do not want to be involved in the editing war again. ] 20:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
	::: I don't want you, Biophys, making any edits, since you have already made some. ] deleted the most extreme citations of Stomakhin, as he had written in talk page. The court sentence is never biased, with the same, your own personal logic you may dispute the legality of any court sentence and sanity of any person including me. The thing you must remember is that you ain't the only sane person in the world, and other people have their own opinion too and you must live with that opinion. The article must be balanced. You couldn't write that Stomakhin is innocent having an official court sentence that established he's guilty. The only edits you make is to make readers feel that Stomakhin is really innocent dissident and not a criminal, which contradicts to the facts and reality. These human rights activists (Novodvorskaya, Gannushkina) you cite have acknowledged that they never support 'extreme' opinions of Stomakhin, they ackonwledged that writing of Stomakhin were indeed "extreme" they also acknowledged that they do not share views of Stomakhin - which is not written in the Wiki article. You already have distorted the real meaning of their opinions, and I won't allow you to distort the article further.] 12:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
	:: Not only this court sentence is biased; the entire case was fabricated. This is not my opinion. That was argued by journalist Vladimir Abarinov , ], ], ] and other notable people and organizations. Yes, Stomakhin was convicted for his "extreme" opinions and nothing else. But this Wkipideia article paints him as a ] who was rightly convicted. This is done using citation out of context and unreliable sources. This is wrong. ] 19:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Would it be appropriate if we include in the article about ] everything that is written about him at the RKO web site you are using for Stomakhin? ] 21:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
	::: Your personal opinion that 'Stomakhin case was fabricated' is already presented in the article. So I would like to cite again administrator Mikka's question for you: "What's your problem?". Should we include in all the Misplaced Pages articles your personal garbage and conspiracy theories? Look at George W. Bush article, isn't it pretty good article for a man who triggered 600 000 Iraqi civilian deaths? If you acknowledged that Stomakhin published 'extreme' opinions why had you deleted them regularly from the article? Why had you edited them thereby making original research? Let us assume that I believe that Western Civilization is barbaric. Should I write in corresponding Wiki article citations of Osama Bin Laden and Co.? Should I edit opinions of the Westerners like you did in Stomakhin article? I have established clearly that your sources are blog entries and contain false facts and accusations which contradict to prevailing majority (90 %) of sources. You also was caught writing your personal opinions referencing them to Novodvorskaya and Gannushkina. The problem with you is that you are bad faith conspiracy theories writer. Other people have told the same. Think over it.] 09:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
	::::: So, you believe it is appropriate to cite unreliable blogs by extremist groups (like RKO web site) or "yellow press" (like Sokolov) in the articles about living people like ] and others. This is great. ] 15:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC) I left my answer to Mikka in Stomakhin talk page and can repeat my '''main''' point here. The '''texts of citations''' of alleged Stomakhin paper "Death to Russia" by Sokolov and extremist RKO web site '''are clearly inconsistent with each other''' (two first phrases in the continuous citation by Sokolov can not be found in the "complete" text of RKO site). Therefore, I believe both sources are unreliable and this citation should be excluded from the text of this article, although the link to "alleged" Stomakhin writings can remain. Another important point: the context of citations from the court sentence must be explained, as I did. Otherwise, this is misrepresentation (which in my field would be equivalent of scientific misconduct) ] 15:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
	::::::: Biophys are you psycho? You could read my thoughts? Explanation of citation from the court sentence which is reliable is a matter of original reseach. I find citations of Stomakhin from his articles at rko.marsho.net reliable. They include all that is cited by Izvestia. You intentionally trying to advance violently the idea of necessary comparison of every sources to establish their reliablity. If you will compare texts written at rko.marsho.net and zaborisa.narod.ru, zaborisa.marsho.net of course you will find discrepancies. Since the latter two sites were created when Stomakhin was arrested and it's clearly not Stomakhin who wrote (or edited) the articles (material) on them. So what you whine about? About your "inability" to find citations in Stomakhin articles. It's your personal problem. By the way, you cite Bonner and Litvinenko and Bukovsky from these same sites and you seem pretty well contented with the source. You cite statements of HRO from blogs and you find it pretty good.] 04:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::::'''No''', I cited Bonner and others from "zaborisa.narod.ru" which is not RKO web site. You took the text of court sentence from zaborisa.narod.ru.] 23:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC) '''We must stop this discussion.''' So far, you have made several hundreds of edits in Misplaced Pages. Almost all of them are about defamation of Stomakhin or Jewish organizations. ] 00:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::::: Are you chief here to order me to stop discussion? If you want to stop discussion, then you are about to leave Misplaced Pages, if you can't discuss, but to harass then quit. Your only contribution in Misplaced Pages except miserable copied articles on Biophysics - are directed against Russia and they consist of conspiracy theories unsupported with any evidence. Isn't that you who deleted citations from Guardian on Politkovskaya which said she was widely critizised? You don't like truth? Zaborisa.narod.ru and zaborisa.marsho.net - are copies of one and the same site. You even unable to study sources you write from in Misplaced Pages. I haven't been defaming jewish organizations <b> never</b>. If I wrote that the statement of a jewish organization contains false facts, then it was not defamation, clearly. By the way, applying the same criteria, you have defamed Russian Federation, Russian Courts, Serbsky Institute, Boris Stomakhin, Novodvorskaya, Gannushkina - because you attributed false citations of them. I have counted 6 persons which you defamed with one breath. By the way there are some jews among them and jewish organizations. Let's look at the talk page for Boris Stomakhin - I think it's no comment and everything is clear. How much times you've been falsifying ('summarizing') citations from these sources? The only thing you have against me is citing from what you personally consider "unreliable" source. Two Misplaced Pages administrators have found my source to be reliable. So, I repeat once more, what's your problem, boy?] 04:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::::: By the way you have just started edit war with administrator Mikka. I would ask him either to lock the article or to ban you from editing it.] 04:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
	::Since my editing has been reverted by Mikka (no edit wars!), I included "totally disputed" tag in the article.] 20:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
	::: You have to provide why you dispute the article as a whole and provide the evidence in support of arguments right here. All your arguments above were already decided by two Wiki administrators and they had found them to be wrong. The opinions you wish to be included in the article were included although some of them were taken from blogs which is in violation of Misplaced Pages policy. Don't freak out your loss in the Misplaced Pages dispute. If you will persist in vandalizing the page I would report it at vandalism noticeboard.] 07:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
	::::Done. Please see my arguments in ].] 17:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
	::::: I have seen no one valid argument. All your presented arguments were already reviewed by two wiki admins and were found to be wrong. So you told nothing new and edited the article again. Your uninvited and ungrounded edits were reverted. I warn, I report you as vandal.] 08:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
	:::Then I can only copy and paste my arguments here, exactly as they appear at the talk page. This is typical case of defamation of LP using controversial sources. "Yes, no problems with correcting wrong citations. But the citation itself was actually correct ("Jesus Christ was crucified not by the Jews, but by Chechens"). That was deliberate ]. '''Let's take a look at another possible disinformation in this article.''' The text cited by Maksim Sokolov includes the following continuous text (Russian): "Чеченские шахиды взрывают это тупое и бессмысленное российское население не зря... Все равно только зря землю бременят... Убивать, убивать, убивать! Залить кровью всю Россию...". '''Two first sentences cited by Maksim Sokolov can not be found in article "Death to Russia" allegedly written by Stomakhin.''' This also looks suspicious for the following reasons. '''First''', RKO web site obviously has no any editorial oversight; they can post absolutely anything. '''Second''', the "articles" in RKO site are '''not dated'''. This is serious. Any written production must be dated, even personal letter. Otherwise, it is not admissible. '''Third''', Maksim Sokolov did not say what he had actually cited. He did not tell this is "Death to Russia" or anything else. We compare two dubious texts and can see that, yes, they are different! The citation by Sokolov without any reference to the source is also not admissible. '''Fourth''', journalist Vladimir Abarinov claimed that some texts allegedly written by Stomakhin and used for his conviction actually were not written by him (!). '''Fifth''', article "Death to Russia" was not cited in the court sentence, although they tried to find the most incriminating "evidence". I am not doing any original research here. This is simply an examination of sources. My position is very simple and clear: '''Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous.''' (and these are are not simply "controversial" materials; these are mutually '''contradictory and controversial''' materials). This is not POV issue. If you think the article is POV, one can cite the Stomakhin's court sentence as many times as necessary (but not out of the context). It is also O'K to represent Sokolov opinion (but without his contradictory citation). It is O'K to provide a link to RKO site, because we are not responsible for content of other sites. '''None of the administrators told me these arguments are wrong'''
	] 17:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
	:::: Biophys you have failed to cite specific rule from Misplaced Pages which you thought I violated. It's pathetic and laughable to see that you just write empty words. I could copy-paste too. "Biophys are you psycho? You could read my thoughts? Explanation of citation from the court sentence which is reliable is a matter of original reseach. I find citations of Stomakhin from his articles at rko.marsho.net reliable. They include all that is cited by Izvestia. <b>You intentionally trying to advance violently the idea of necessary comparison of every sources to establish their reliablity.</b> If you will compare texts written at rko.marsho.net and zaborisa.narod.ru, zaborisa.marsho.net of course you will find discrepancies. <b>Since the latter two sites were created when Stomakhin was arrested and it's clearly not Stomakhin who wrote (or edited) the articles (material) on them.</b> So what you whine about? About your "inability" to find citations in Stomakhin articles. It's your personal problem. By the way, you cite Bonner and Litvinenko and Bukovsky from these same sites and you seem pretty well contented with the source. You cite statements of HRO from blogs and you find it pretty good".
	::::"The references at the end of each citation clearly show source from which they were taken. They are contained in the article of Stomakhin (all two citations) and Sokolov's article (the first citation). Citation in Sokolov's article and Stomakhin's article completely corresopond to each other. Moreover, citation in Sokolov's article evidences that the article of Stomakhin 'Death to Russia' published at http://rko.marsho.net/articl/mashadov.htm is an authentic text. Therefore, in addition to citation of Maksim Sokolv we could also cite the passages from Stomakhin's article 'Death to Russia' published at . The user Biophys maliciously lies when tells that the article by Maksim Sokolov implies continuos citation from the same article. Here is the whole relevant passage from Sokolov's article:
	::::Стомахин же избрал ясную манеру - "Чеченские шахиды взрывают это тупое и бессмысленное российское население не зря... Все равно только зря землю бременят... Убивать, убивать, убивать! Залить кровью всю Россию, не давать ни малейшей пощады никому, постараться непременно устроить хотя бы один ядерный взрыв на территории РФ... Эта страшная и зловонная Россия должна быть уничтожена навеки". На этом фоне "Майн кампф" - учебник гуманизма. Если сажать по ст. 282 и 280 ("Публичные призывы к осуществлению экстремистской деятельности"), то начинать посадки, очевидно, следует с абсолютного чемпиона. В противном случае статью следовало бы совсем отменить.
	Biophys, you have falsified already the article Human rights in Russia, and I've caught you falsifying data. Now you are trying to falsify the present article. Changes reverted. I invite anyone who could read in Russian to the followoing address to judge whether Biophys is falsifying the link and the source. http://www.izvestia.ru/sokolov/article3098675/ http://rko.marsho.net/articl/mashadov.htm I would like to pay attention that the user Biophys is systematically falsyfying the information in the articles Boris Stomakhin and Human Rights in Russia - which are the articles written by him personally. He constantly rewrites, changes, delets the reliable information he doesn't like personally and abuses other contributors of Misplaced Pages. Please read the whole discussion page for the detailed explanation of cases where Biophys maliciosly falsified the information."] 04:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
	:: See my reply: ].] 17:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
	:::'''The bottom line is:'''
	*Biophys disputes the phrases not contained in the article on Boris Stomakhin, and namely the phrases about Shahids and about stinky Russia.
	*Biophys disputes these phrases by comparing them to the source he claims to be unreliable (RKO website).
	*one disputed phrase (about Shahids) is contained also at RKO website and match perfectly to that cited by Journalist.
	*Some words from the second disputed phrase (stinky Russia) are contained in both the Official court sentence and conviction.
	*Biophys disputes here only RKO website, which is not relevant to the dispute right now, because we discuss only Izvestia article.
	*Biophys disputes these phrases based on the logic that 'they were probably taken by Maksim Sokolov' from RKO website. But he couldn't know actually.
	*Biophys logic is that all Stomakhin citations should be contained on the RKO website, although we know that there are newspaper 'Radikalnaya Politika' edited by Boris Stomakhin and there are publications of other radicals which could have published citation of Stomakhin in question. I don't understand why Biophys think that all Stomakhin citations should be contained only at RKO website.
	*Biophys failed to show that there are contradictory phrases. Out of three citation by Maksim Sokolov, two are found at the RKO website and they perfectly match those of the Journalist and one (about 'Stinky Russia') is not found, because Journalist haven't provided sources. The impossibility to found right now missing citation is not contradiction to Izvestia article. The fact that this citation couldn't be found does not mean contradiction.
	*The phrase 'worse than blog' is absolutely incorrect in regard of RKO website, since Biophys doesn't have evidence that this site has no any review, Biophys has no information on who runs the website.
	*Journalists have the privilege not to disclose their sources, in order to provide the freedom of speech.
	'''And now the basic question: where is the controversy? If Biophys claims RKO website is unreliable, then how he uses this website in order to validate Journalist citations?'''
	] 03:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
	:::<b>It was established in discussion that Biophys claims about contradictions in the sources are false. And there are no contradictions between citations of ] journalist Maksim Sokolov and articles written by Stomakhin at http://rko.marsho.net/articl/mashadov.htm and http://rko.marsho.net/articl/tushino.htm. They match perfectly to those which are cited by journalist Maksim Sokolov. Anyone interested may look here http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#Points_to_answer_for_Biophys and here http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#quote_.22Death_to_Russia.22</b>] 07:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
	::::I would like to notice that currently Biophys claims that these sources: 1) Unreliable; 2) not neutral; 3) Non-encyclopedic style. Given the history of Biophys contributions and namely insertion of Putin into 'Phallus' article and creation of the deleted latter article on blog "La Russophobe" I suggest anyone to think one more time about ] good faith. He contributes only to biophysics and anti-Russian materials. He failed to prove the contradiction - which was the main point of his argumentation. He lied intentionally about contradictions. And he deleted the material which he called "contradictory". Biophys believes that there is a plot (conspiracy) by Russian government against ] Stomakhin sentenced for ]]. And Biophys tries to delete from the article on Stomakhin all information that could doubt this thought. My citations prove that Stomakhin actually wasn't dissident since he called for violence, called terrorist attacks legitimate and called Chechen terrorists heroes. He wants now to delete these supported by sources phrases from the article on Stomakhin by claiming they are unreliable. But these phrases are supported not only by the official court sentence.] 07:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Marcus Allen}}==
	Byron Allen interviewed Ronnie Lott on his syndicated interview show. During the interview Lott says that he and Marcus Allen would not have graduated if Byron Allen had not helped them cheat in an Anthropology class. Should this be included in the Marcus Allen article? --] 14:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Is it possible Lott was joking? If so, it definitely shouldn't be included in ]. And even if Lott was completely serious, that doesn't make him an authoritative source as to what Marcus Allen's grades in the anthropology class were. So I would say, no, it does not belong in the Marcus Allen article. --] 23:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
	::It's been a long time since I put it in the article. I don't think I would have put it in if I thought Lott was joking. They did laugh about it but I think that is just because they thought it was funny in retrospect and not because he was making a joke. Assuming I can get a copy of the video what criteria should I use to determine if he is joking? I suppose someone could interview him again and he could say he was joking. --] 07:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
	::I see your point on the grades. If I remove the statement about grades could Lott be considered a reliable source on the issue of cheating? --] 07:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Ross Gelbspan}}==
	I'm not an editor of this article, but the subject of the article has reverted edits to make his entry more favorable. I flagged this for NPOV and expert attention. The Talk page has nothing on it, but these reversion and edit wars seem to be ongoing. I'm mentioning this article here because this may need attention, mediation, etc. I'm not sure if there are guidelines for subject reversions. Experienced mediation help would be great.
	] 00:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
	==]==
	] had inserted an uncomfirmed bulletin board posting into the References section. -- 19:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Vladimir Putin}}==
	I recently added some material to the biography of Vladimir Putin that relates to the press censorship and other undemocratic actions of the Putin government. The material has been repeatedly removed by Alex Bakharev with the explanation that minor violations of civil rights should not be included in the biography. I have mentioned in my additions, the widely reported accusations of murder by the former KGB agent in London who died recently of Polonium poisoning. No one can deny that this event is a major news event and has strained relations between Russian and Britain. It should be included in the biography as long as it is carefully noted that it is only an allegation at this point. I call upon the editors of Misplaced Pages to carefully consider the possibility that these deletions in Misplaced Pages may have been instigated by the Russian government itself, a government that is extremely sensitive to criticism. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:{{{2|}}}|&#32;{{{2}}}|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
	:I don't think this is a issue of BLP concern. ] 16:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Looking over Putin's article it seems like it is very much slanted in his favor.] 17:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
	:: 'Slanted in his favor' by users inserting unsupported allegations from mass media like Putin has killed Litvinenko, Politkovskaya and so on? You would like to mention he was behind murders of Kennedy, Mahatma Ghandi and Ceasar too, right? You have to look at "George W. Bush" article definitely.] 08:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Cardinal Mar Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir}}==
	Someone has vandalized the biography of His Beatitude Cardinal Mar Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir by having questions included in the sub-article of his involvement in politics and the removal of information from this article to slander his work as an anti-Syrian nationalist..
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Koenraad Elst}}==
	*Users hornplease and TwoHorned have been persistently editing some material into "Koenraad Elst" over the course of several months that are violations of WP:BLP. The following statements:
	"He has also been accused of connections to the Vlaams Blok by Sanjay Subrahmanyam (a professor at University of California, Los Angeles) in the Times of India"
	is based on one source and a newspaper op/ed to boot. It is an unsupported statements and has the connotations of an opprobrium, making it a BLP violation unles it is sourced more reliably.
	"has contributed with other interventions described by Prof. R. Zydenbos on his homepage as emanating from right-wing circles in Belgium"
	is based on the following linke:
	It is a geocities site. It's authenticity cannot be verified. We do not know if it really belongs to Zydebos, who is not notable enough to have his criticism mentioned. Also, BLP#Reliable Sources clearly states:
	"Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject"
	This is clearly a diatribe written against Elst by this Zydebos chap who has not published it anywhere other than his "website" so BLP mandates that it be removed
	These points have been raised, but hornplease and TwoHorned keep adding them in and mass revert-warring with a clear intent to defame Elst on wikipedia (as their talk page posts indicate) based on political biases and various degrees of ethno-religious bigotry expressed by hornplease.//<b><font color="saffron">]</font></b><sup><b><font color="red">]</font></b></sup> 16:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
	:'''Concur'''<b>]]</b> 03:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
	:'''Concur.''' TwoHorned's BLP violations , but we assumed good faith and didn't take any action then. ] is a member of the BLP project, and regularly and often deletes "pov" from other BLP articles, so he should know better than , and should also treat articles about people he dislikes the same way. (Though to his credit he recently from the article.) --] 14:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Kathy Boudin}}==
	{{article|Kathy Boudin}}
	The article shows rampant POV, seemingly looking to paint her as a one-dimensional mad leftist radical. The writer knows nothing about her or her views or the work she did in prison, or her dedication to peaceful change in the current time.
	Note: The articles on her husband, as well as the Weather Underground as they are on the same touchy subject show the same bias. Fair treatment of individuals does not mean an indictment of their beliefs, no matter how radical they may be.
	] 01:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Tony Martin (professor)}}==
	This biographical article falls considerably short of the standards of Misplaced Pages; it is full of unsourced claims and it is completely biased in its presentation of a controversial, if obscure, individual. Tony Martin is "considered by many to be the foremost scholar on the life of Marcus Garvey"? Really: by whom, exactly? What is the rating system for evaluating scholars of Marcus Garvey? The article also claims that Martin's work, "The Jewish Onslaught"--one of the most patently and ludicrously anti-Semitic diatribes to have been published in America in recent years--was written in response to efforts by the Anti-Defamation League and other Jewish groups to repress Martin's scholarship. Is this claim documented? Is it even credible? It is further worth asking why this article stops its narration of Martin around the year 1993: has he done anything of merit since then? Has he published a book since "The Jewish Onslaught"? Or have "the Jews" succeeded in their efforts to "silence" him?
	Far from being a first-rate scholar of Marcus Garvey, Martin since the mid-nineties has been nothing better than a second-rate Leonard Jeffries. His Misplaced Pages article, to the extent that he merits an article at all, should reflect this.
	:I have attempted to clean up that article as much as possible to make it compliant with our content policies. It still needs the attention of an editor knowledgeable on the subject, though. ] <small>]</small> 23:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Viera Scheibner}}==
	The information contained in the Criticisms of this living person's biography is POV and potentially libelous, and therefore should be deleted. POV criticism of the critics has also been removed demonstrating a bias. The habitual replacement of libelous material seemingly indicates a vendetta against Viera Scheibner.
	:Agreed that this needs watching, but not with the reason. This is about a content dispute between mainstream/skeptical editors (who view Scheibner as a quack) and supporters of her medically unqualified anti-vaccination activities. The article is under major sockpuppet attach from the latter. ] 15:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
	==]==
	He was a Scientology leader but has dropped out and seemingly become a non-person. About half of his article is taken up by conspiracy theories about him by another ex-Scientology leader, ]. She seems to be saying that he is a bigamist. I tried taking this part of the article out but it was put back by the group of people who handle the Scientology-related articles here. ] 16:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
	:: She never wrote that Mr. Rathbun is a bigamist. The problem is that people pick data from her life story and twist it to cause her and Mr. Rathbun harm. These articles on all living persons should be deleted as these kind of reportings on Mark Rathbun, Barbara Schwarz, or others, destroy lives. Misplaced Pages editors are living in the delusion that they have a right to exploit and destroy private lives with rumors and lies and come away with it. There a thousand rumors about these two individuals but also others, and it comes down to that Misplaced Pages editors really do not know these people. My advice to Misplaced Pages contributors/editors/admins: go for quality and not quantity, and stop hurting people and harassing people on Misplaced Pages. - Watchdog2007
	:If the material is sourced, I don't see a good reason to remove it. I put in some {{tl|fact}} tags, because sources ''are'' needed. It seems that he's notable for two things: becoming a Scientology Unperson, and being the subject of Barbara Schwarz's delusions. Because he's notable on his own, it's worth including the stuff about Schwarz. If he were otherwise not notable, that material would be better merged to her article. ''']''' <small>]</small> 19:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Barbara's theories are already well covered in her own article. ] 23:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Mr. Dufour's claims are ill-founded. He is improperly combining what ''he'' believes to be true (i.e., that during the period in question, Mark Rathbun was married to Anne Rathbun) with what Barbara Schwarz believes to be true (that during the period in question, Mark Rathbun was married to her, Barbara Schwarz.) Mr. Dufour has not presented ''any evidence whatsoever'' to support the theory that Barbara Schwarz shares ''his'' beliefs about Mark Rathbun being married to anyone else. Only if one holds ''both'' beliefs would bigamy be implied, and Mr. Dufour has not presented ''any evidence whatsoever'' to indicate there is anyone out there holding ''both'' beliefs.
	:For Mr. Dufour to file this report (with no mention of it made on the relevant talk page, I might add) falsely presenting ''his conclusions'', drawn from combining Barbara Schwarz's beliefs ''with his own'', as what Barbara Schwarz "seems to be saying", is manifestly irresponsible. -- ] 01:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
	::If Barbara's theories are patently false then I don't think so much space, about half of the article, should be devoted to them. If her theories might be true then the article shouldn't present his marriage with Anne as a fact, as it does. ] 06:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::The last time I read ] I didn't get the impression that it said "you must either describe what the vast majority of the world accepts as the truth as only something ''possibly'' true, or you must abstain from discussing the fact that anyone else has ever believed anything else." If you don't think that "about half of the article" should discuss Barbara Schwarz's claims regarding Rathbun, then please find us more information from reliable sources about Mark Rathbun and then the single paragraph discussing Schwarz won't be as large a part of the whole. -- ] 06:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::Should half of Queen Elizabeth's article talk about the theory that she is really an alien lizard from outer space? ] 07:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Thank you for removing that parenthetical claim "(which quite a few believe)". It's good to avoid straw man arguments. -- ] 07:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::At least a million more people believe the queen is an alien lizard than believe Mark and Barbara are married. :-) ] 16:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::And so far not even ''one'' person has been presented who believes that Mark was married to Barbara ''and'' to Anne -- certainly not Barbara, which makes it an irresponsible misrepresentation for you to bring this here claiming that she "seems to be" making claims of bigamy. -- ] 00:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::In that case maybe Barbara's theories should be removed from Mark's article. ] 00:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::::No, Mr. Dufour. Please read carefully. The fact that no one believes '''your original research combination''' of Schwarz's beliefs and the general beliefs contradicted by Schwarz does not say a single thing about what should or should not be in the article. One might as well say that because no one believes that the Apollo moon landings were both real '''and''' faked, it means that Misplaced Pages should never discuss anyone believing that they were faked. Frankly, it seems you are trying to game the system -- first, filing a completely false report that Schwarz "seems to be saying" Rathbun is a bigamist to get the article onto this noticeboard, and then continuing to argue what ''you'' think should be done with the article even after it's been clearly shown that your excuse for bringing it here is purely your own misrepresentation. -- ] 02:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
	What is wrong with having the article mentioned on the notice board? Do you not want people to notice it? ] 06:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)p.s. If only one person believed the moon landings were fake I don't think it would be mentioned in the WP article on them.
	:What is wrong with sticking with the truth, Mr. Dufour? What makes you think that you are entitled to manufacture an issue to try and make things go your way? What you are doing is the Misplaced Pages article namespace equivalent of POV forking, and just like any determined POV-pusher called out on his misdeeds, you are trying to pretend the issue is whether you get your way, not the fact that you ''already made'' all the same arguments and when you didn't convince consensus, you did an illegal end-run to try and dodge consensus. -- ] 19:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Are you saying that the consensus of opinion of Misplaced Pages editors is that a conspiracy theory believed in by only one person, as far as I know that is, should be allowed to take up half the space in an article? ] 20:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::I'm saying that if you had a concern about the article which was actually based on the facts and which had not already been ''rejected'' by consensus, you would have had no reason to resort to submitting this false report. -- ] 20:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
	I went ahead and edited the article so that it was clear that bigamy was not implied. I hope this is a fair representation of Barbara's views. ] 20:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
	:My edit lasted about a day until someone reverted it so that it still looks as if Mark is accused of bigamy. Hopefully a new version will be writen which is acceptable to all. ] 16:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
	::I went ahead and added the words "the real" in front of Mark's name the first time it was mentioned in Barbara's theory. I hope this is ok with both Antaeus and Tilman as being a fair representation of Barbara's views. ] 14:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
	== Matthew Taylor (footballer) ==
	There is an edit war going on at this page between at least 2 people concerning the name of his wife and child/children! Neither person quotes sources or signs themselves, nor do they seem to read the talk page asking them to do this. ] 17:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Fred Phelps}}==
	] has about subject, and was reverted. He , but included a {{tl|fact}} tag, and was reverted. The second reverter (who beat me by seconds) also on user's talk page; I with further explanation. Hopefully, that will take care of the issue, but 143.81.252.12 may come back, and the material is a rumor which has been floating around a while; if he doesn't bring it back, someone else might. ''']''' <small>]</small> 19:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Edward Speleers}}==
	There is an edit war concerning this actor's date of birth. In particular, various sources I have found provide two different years (including the and ). There is a small discussion as to the what the correct birth date is on the talk page, but the article is generally unstable due to the rate at which the birth date is change. We have also seen in increase in vandalism lately, but that is easy enough to remove on a per-case basis. // ] 21:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Norman Finkelstein}}==
	This is a dispute concerning a edit I made to the biographical section of the article on Norman Finkelstein, a political scientist and professor at DePaul University. Dr. Finkelstein is well known for works challenging certain facts about the Holocaust and the State of Israel.
	In all of his publications and public appearances, Dr. Finkelstein makes the point that his parents were survivors of the Holocaust. He has stated that his mother and father were both survivors of the Warsaw Ghetto, as well as concentration camps and labor camps.
	Whether of not Finkelstein's parents were indeed Holocaust survivors is important because it lends his positions a degree of credibility that would otherwise be absent.
	My edits changed the categorical statement that Finkelstein's parents were survivors to statements that these accounts were due to Finkelstein himself.
	My changes were removed by another editor who made no attempt to contact me and characterized my changes using extremely disparaging language. I engaged him on the discussion page of the article, and offered to soften the language while preserving the fact that the status of Finkelstein's parents as Holocaust survivors is due to Finkelstein himself and has no independent, third-party verification. I have not been able to resolve this matter in that context.
	I have read the guidelines on biographies of living persons and feel that my edit can be worded within those guidelines and that it adds important information about Dr. Finkelstein.
	I would like assistance in resolving this dispute. The record of it can be found in the section on "claiming" in the discussion page of the Norman Finkelstein article.
	Thanks for your assistance.
	Robert E. Rubin
	] 22:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)roberterubin
	:The question here does not seem to be so much a matter of ] as of ], as I assume the parents are no longer living. Have any critics of Norman Finkelstein cast doubt on whether his parents were Holocaust survivors? If the answer is no, then there is no real issue. If the answer is yes, then the dispute can be described. I would avoid writing "the only source is Finkelstein himself" or some such wording, because it implies "I think he's wrong but cannot prove it". ] 13:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
	::There's a serious problem protecting the BLP of anyone who has criticised Israel, even if they have credentials as good as Norman Finkelstein. It's very, very wearing to take out, over and over again, these unsubstantiated and utterly pointless edits.
	::Meanwhile, of course, it's impossible to insert any evidence against Zionist politicians, no matter how well referenced and indeed proud they may be of their murderous racism. ] 20:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Itche Goldberg}}==
	* {{article|Itche Goldberg}} - Two days ago an anon listed this person as having died. I can find nothing in news.google.com which even mentions him, let alone his death. I have reverted pending a source. ]|] 22:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
	**His death has been reported again, with the only reference being alt.obituaries. Still zero refs at news.google.com. ]|] 04:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
	**Finally found a reliable source for his death - . ]|] 20:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
	==]==
	Dispute between {{user|Momento}} and {{user|Andries}} about repeated removal by Momento of sourced information from the talk page that Momento considers poorly sourced.
	This dispute deals with more or less the same material as the Criticism of Prem Rawat dispute that is also listed on this noticeboard in another section hereabove.
	] 08:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
	==]==
	There are a number of problems with the addition of a "Critical" section under "External Links". This article is about the religious belief that calls saints in Heaven "Ascended Masters" and is not exclusive to any one organization or church. It is not about a political party position or a scientific theory; it is simply a religious belief.
	Having these "Critical" links does not fit the external links guideline because it is not relevant to the article, rather these links are related to the Church Universal and Triumphant and / or Elizabeth Clare Prophet. Therefore these links could be on the ] or ] pages if desired by other editors.
	Another issue, is from the Misplaced Pages: Three Revert Rule ]: '''Reverting potentially libelous material''': "All users are encouraged to remove unsourced or poorly sourced blatantly defamatory, potentially libelous information about living persons, whether within a biography of a living person or elsewhere, including associated talk pages. As with vandalism, the repeated addition of such material is best dealt with by blocking and page protection, and repeated reversion should be used only as a last resort. Reverts made to enforce this provision are generally not considered contentious, because they are necessary."
	>>> The repeated adding of blatantly defamatory, potentially libelous external web site links attacking any person or organization on a page describing the belief in Ascended Masters, a religious belief held by a number of organizations both in the past and present, is totally out of place - and a violation of the Misplaced Pages policy quoted above (''Elizabeth Clare Prophet is still living''). This type of behavior interferes with the possibility of Misplaced Pages becoming an objective, neutral, and useful academic reference resource. At the very least, it should be obvious that under no circumstances should "External Links" to defamatory personal attack web sites directed against any individual or church be on an encyclopedia article that is NOT about that individual or church organization. ] 01:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I am currently mediating a dispute on ], and I would like some opinions regarding whether the links in the critical section of the external links would violate the living persons biography rules or not. ] feels that they are because he believes that they are either unsourced or not sourced properly. --] | ] 02:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
	:To clarify a bit more, do external links fall into the living person's rules, and if yes, would these links violate it. --] | ] 02:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Nick Baker (disputed conviction)}}==
	I would be grateful for some guidance on editing this article. User ] is repeatedly reverting back potentially libelous material on this BLP. His cited sources are of an unreliable nature as the contentious material only appears in two self-published articles contrary to ]. Sparkzilla cannot show that the author is a well-known professional journalist with articles appearing in reliable third-party publications. Now he is trying to invoke the WP:BLP "Using the subject as a source" section to justify it's inclusion. However I believe this to be irrelevant to the case. An authoritative interpretation would be much appreciated. ] 03:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
	:The user David Lyons is attempting to remove any criticism of the Baker case on the grounds that the criticism comes mainly from an editorial written by Mark Devlin, the publisher of Japan's largest English magazine, and a follow-up article in the same magazine. David Lyons want this removed as self-published material.
	:Contrary to Mr Lyons opinion, NONE of the information in the section comes from articles published by Mr Devlin. I have shown in the talk section, by going through each part of the disputed content, that Mr Devlin's criticism of Mr Baker's support group has at least one third-party confirmation (Swindon Advertiser article) and that in fact, most of the items in the criticism section come from the support group themselves, or directly from comments by Iris Baker, Nick Baker's mother.
	:Even so, if there were no third-party confirmation I believe that Mr Devlin's reversal of opinion is sufficiently notable, even if self-published.
	:I have also argued that when a person who is mentioned in an article has made a definitive statement about the case on their personal websites (as both Mr Devlin and Iris Baker have), that their comments should be seen as authoritative as per "the Subject as a source" section of BLP. I would be very grateful for comments and advice. ] 13:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
	I won't bore the authoritative editors here, except to say that my response to Sparkzilla appears on Nick Baker's talk page. ] 17:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I commented in that article's talk page. ] <small>]</small> 21:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Salah Choudhury}}==
	* {{article|Salah Choudhury}} - Bangladeshi editor. Uncited negative content is being added. One solution would be to block the person adding negative content, but that editor probably won't be the last, given the level of dislike against him. ] 09:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Graham Coutts}}==
	* {{article|Graham Coutts}} - currently lacks sources, which given that we're talking about a man convicted of murder is totally unacceptable. I haven't deleted anything because (a) it should be easy to find sources for most of it, but I don't have time right now, and (b) I think the article is important as it documents a key part of an ongoing political debate in the UK. ] 15:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Tahir-ul-Qadri}}==
	* {{article|Tahir-ul-Qadri}} - completely unsourced and a major cleanup project. The article is periodically subject to the insertion of an opinionated paragraph deriding this individual's teachings and linking to a youtube video. --] 07:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Anshe Chung}}==
	Blatantly, blatantly, violates BLP. This article is about a person best known through an online avatar, and it seems like all her online enemies have added unsourced negative material to the point where the largest part of the article is the "Controversy" section, almost all unsourced, accusing her of various things. Someone else helpfully added citation needed tags, but didn't delete the negative material. I'm going to delete it, but it'll probably get restored; someone please keep a watch on this. ] 03:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Debbie Schlussel}}==
	More unsourced "controversies" being added. Need some extra eyes and perhaps someone who's better at working with newbies to deal with this. --] <small>]</small> 04:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
	:I have left a message on the user's page referring him/her to relevant policies and guidelines. It seems like the additions in question are message board posts, which are not ] anywhere. --] 04:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Rush Limbaugh}}==
	We're having trouble on ] with ] consistantly reverting additions quoting Rush Limbaugh on his views of appropriate punishment for drug crimes in the section about his personal drug debacle, claiming that the placement of the quote is POV and libelous per ]. There seems to be a consensus against this view and in favour of inclusion of the quote, if one can consider collaboration in phrasing the quote to be consensus for inclusion. Could someone please come by and offer us a fresh pair of eyes? ] 05:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
	:This appears to be a content dispute, not a BLP issue, as the statement is sourced. Please consider making a request for comment at ] to ask for an outside view, if desired. --] 05:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Julia Allison}}==
	I along with ] are having a dispute with ]. The ] of the article (an "opportunist") is constantly reverting (violation of 3RR) , , and facts and is claiming via e-mail to "report" me for editing "her" article, as well as other threats. I removed her last name, because she was stalked in college, and is afraid of her last name being revealed, because she doesn't want to be stalked in New York City, since she is a '''sex''' columnist (Note: Sex is not included because this will harm her "image"). So, I have agreed. But, she wants to upload pictures that I don't feel is necessary to be involved in the article. I pointed to ], but I don't she is understanding or ignoring the policy all together. Would someone please comment on this, because I really am too nervous to sleep over this because I am afraid that she might sue Misplaced Pages over some bull. She has also been a part of controversies as well (i.e. ] an article in college...I didn't source this because of legal threats) and wants to re-write history. <b><font face="trebuchet ms" color="FF9999">]</font><font face="trebuchet ms" color="A6F591">]</font></b> 11:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
	::I posted a somewhat lengthy comment at ]. I hope it leads to a constructive conversation. · '''<font color="#709070">]</font>''' ''<font color="#007BA7" size="1">]</font>'' · 16:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
	::Thanks for the reports Bearly. First, please ] and be ] in your comments here: 1. Calling her an opportunist is not necessary; 2. The diffs you posted do not show a violation of 3RR; 3. She followed ] and commented on the article talk page about it and hasn't edited the article since; 4. Saying she is part of controversy and has plagiarized is also unnecessary; 5. What legal threats?; 6. Re-write history?? --<b>]</b> (]) 14:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
	:::She took out information after I e-mailed her about ]. I am being civil on my comments here. What I mean by threats is: that she was going to report me to Misplaced Pages because I edited her "article" and she is the only person to edit her article. And, she wants certain facts to be said about her...etc. <b><font face="trebuchet ms" color="FF9999">]</font><font face="trebuchet ms" color="A6F591">]</font></b> 01:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
	(reduce indent) I think she is currently editing the article via IP address. If she is currently editing her biography, I think this should fall into ]. <b><font color="#6495ED" face="georgia">]</font></b> 17:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Talk:Warren Kinsella}}==
	It seems that a couple of editors, one anon {{user|209.217.124.237}} and one new-ish account {{user|Happy Fun Toy}}, are keen to promote an attack site critical of the subject of the article. Deleting the offending posts should be sufficient. ] 14:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
	==]==
	Berlin is a historian who writes about slavery and editor joelrosenblum (who has a huge beef with Berlin) has repeatedly posted assertions that Berlin is pro-slavery. He bases this solely on a reading of one of Berlin's books done by students at a high school, citing no scholars who agree with him. I have repeatedly removed the Berlin-is-pro-slavery section (called "Controversial Book Passages") because I think the argument that Berlin is pro-slavery is unbelievably wrong, because I think there is no "controversy" just because one editor and some high school students who obviously don't know much about history say there is, and because calling a historian of slavery who is still alive "pro-slavery" risks libel charges as far as I'm concerned. I'm sick of the edit war and am hoping someone else can weigh in. For now the "Controversial Book Passages" section is in the article (joelrosenblun re-instated it) but I'm arguing that it should be removed entirely because it is absurd and, more importantly, potentially libelous. There is relevant discussion at ]--] 21:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
	==Danny Pinaturo link to pornographic web site==
	The following was added to the Danny Pinaturo Misplaced Pages page by user 172.193.116.59 on January 7th at 19:28. It was removed by CieloEstrellado at 22:19 and reinserted again by 172.193.116.59 on January 8th at 4:41am.
	According to Campfire Video , Mr. Pintauro has taken out an add on the adult gay male website ''<nowiki>http://www.manhunt.net/</nowiki>'' advertising that he is looking for sexual playmates. The ad includes nude photographs of Mr. Pintauro.
	"
	I think the link is inappropriate for both the content the link points to and the link connection to a "for profit" web site. It also violates the Misplaced Pages living biography policy in my opinion:
	Articles about living persons, which require a degree of sensitivity, must adhere strictly to Misplaced Pages's content policies. Be very firm about high-quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page:
	I have removed it again and advised on talk it has been turned over to Biobraphies of living persons/noticeboard.
	] 14:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
	==Biography on ]=={{blpwatch-links|Les Balsiger}}==
	There is a page on a Les Balsiger that is an obvious bio of a non-notable living person and is also an attack on this individual. "] 22:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)",
	*'''Comment''' - this article is currently being considered on ]. I took a look at the article and don't see it as an attack article. --] 05:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' - the article is about a living individual who is really not notable at all and is only sourced by religous articles from the source claiming to be wronged and a blog. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 05:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC).</small>
	**'''Self-contradiction''' - This is the exact opposite of the comment made by <span class="plainlinks">] <small>(] • ] • • • )</small></span> in the ] while deleting another participant's comment:
	***''"I do not agree, he is a well known person in Oregon and think he should remain"''
	:--] ] 19:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Bill Huard}}==
	* {{article|Bill Huard}} - subject of the article edits as ]. The article is almost completely unsourced and could use a general cleanup and some assistance, particularly form anyone familiar with hockey, in finding sources. --] 05:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|George A. Ricaurte}}==
	* {{article|George A. Ricaurte}} - This has been a battleground for views on animal testing and the scientific method. Large chunks of unreferenced text with only a peripheral connection to the article subject have been repeatedly added. I have been reverting it to a stub and have said on the talk page that additions require verifiable sources. Could do with someone else having a look to see if you agree with my approach and to help to keep it in shape. --] - ] 09:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
	::I agree with your approach about the retracted article, except that there is need a citation for both the original article and to the actual retraction in this article, rather than relying on the article on "Severe dopaminergic neurotoxicity in primates after a common recreational dose regimen of MDMA."
	::But the article lacks balance. He has presumably done other scientific work, and it might be notable. Put it in, possibly as refs to the firtst paragraph.''']''' 23:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Stephen Gammell}}==
	* {{article|Stephen Gammell}} - this article about an author of children's books stayed vandalized for over a month with some nonsense claiming he was publishing pornography books. Several other editors have added unsourced negative information. Please keep an eye on it. --] 05:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
	:There was no problem when I checked. However...I almost hate to bring this up because he sounds like such a nice guy....but the article is completely unsourced and really gives the impression of a puff piece. ] 05:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Yisroel Dovid Weiss}}==
	* {{article|Yisroel Dovid Weiss}} Edit war, mainly dispute about whether subject is rabbi, per every source, or not per certain editors unsourced opinions. Should be noted that it is debatable whether in the subjects milieu (haredi judaism) there needs to be a formal granting of 'ordination' (semicha) for him to use this title. Although this is a secondary point, as despite claims like 'common knowledge' etc. not a single source has been offered even questioning his claim to the title. There is also the problem that some of these editors wish to introduce rumours about homosexuality, paedophilia, etc. Thanx in advance,&nbsp;<span style="background-color: #000000">&nbsp;<font color="white">'''&rArr;'''</font> <font color="white">]</font>&nbsp;</span> 16:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Clay Aiken}}==
	* {{article|Clay Aiken}} Edit war pushing POV. This article has been through mediation and arbitration was requested and then withdrawn when a consensus for the topic format was reached. The history is in Archives 10-12. {{user|Hoponpop69}} is now pushing POV edits regarding the sexuality issue and has reverted the page 4 times today. I don't want to get into an edit war and put a warning on his talk page which he ignored. Can someone please step in and help. It appears this user has a history of disruptive edits and has just come off a block. This is the edit that has the consensus ] 01:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|2006 corruption scandals in Chile}}==
	* {{article|2006 corruption scandals in Chile}} New, well referenced article with much potentially libelous text. The references are in Spanish, which I cannot read to determine whether the statements are true. The article may need someone to review it who reads Spanish. Thanks. -- ] 01:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	* {{article|Yoshiaki Omura}} This article is a biography of a living person in which the content is clearly disputed. While it is protected from editing and correction, false and misleading, poorly sourced, irresponsible and potentially libelous material is being exhibited, and Dr. Omura's reputation is being damaged. This is unacceptable. I have repeatedly removed such material and it was repeatedly replaced, and now I am disabled from editing the article though I am not unregistered or newly registered. PLEASE HELP. We should not need a law firm to help us remove such material.
	Sincerely, Telomere+ ] 07:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
	:Some of the statements in the article are indeed negative to Dr Omura, but these statements appear to be clearly referenced. What do you mean by "poorly sourced"? <font face="Gill Sans"><font color="green">]</font>''']'''<font color="green">]</font></font> 13:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
	I have explained in some detail in Dr. Omura's article discussion section what I mean by poorly sourced, with examples, prior to removing any poorly sourced portions. My explanation was removed. Why? The main body of this Yoshiaki Omura article seems to have been put together by a person who acts like Dr. Omura's enemy and wishes to damage his reputation. To someone who knows Dr. Omura and works with him, as I do, the negative statements are obviously false and placed with an intent to damage. '''Please read my explanation in the "my talk" section of Telomere+.'''
	In addition, some references found to contain erroneous information have been changed by their owners already, with apologies to Dr. Omura, and are outdated. My goal is not just to remove the poorly referenced and obviously false information that misleads people, but to publish the truth. As I stated, I have not newly registered; why preclude me from the right to remove damaging untrue material according to Misplaced Pages policy?
	Please do not refuse to enforce the relevant Misplaced Pages Policy in this case.] 02:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
	== ] {{blpwatch-links|Kelsang Gyatso}} ==
	{{article|Kelsang Gyatso}} - nothing specific at the moment, but the primary editor of the article is a critic of the subject. There seem to be few other editors, the article is dense, and I think it could use a few more eyes... ] 14:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
	:I've put it on my watchlist. <font face="Gill Sans"><font color="green">]</font>''']'''<font color="green">]</font></font> 14:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
	{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
	|-
	! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | ] – resolved/stale – 11:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
	|-
	| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived ] incident concerning the article above <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
	|-
	| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Wayne Huizenga}}==
	* {{article|Wayne Huizenga}} - Not an experienced editor - This page keeps getting both vandalized and random possibly libelous comments added to it. I am having a hard time keeping up and I am not sure how much of the unverified information to delete. // ] 05:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
	**I just deleted some more potentially controversial information from this page. As to how much to delete - I think it's safe to say that ANY unsourced material which you might think is negative ''should'' be aggressively deleted - see Jimbo's note here ] 16:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
	|-
	| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archived ] incident concerning the article above. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
	|}
	{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
	|-
	! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | ] – No concern – 11:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
	|-
	| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived ] incident concerning the article above <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
	|-
	| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Nathan Braun}}==
	*{{article|Nathan Braun}} The subject of this article was once accused of having sexually groped a woman while they were among a group sleeping on the floor at some conference. The accusations were widely disseminated on the internet, and a special website was even created for the purpose. Some time ago I removed the allegation from the article due to the lack of a reliable source. A better source has been found and the allegation has been added again, by {{user|70.111.245.52}}. I'd appreciate a different set of eyes to look at this and decide if this new source is sufficient. (Slightly complicating matters is that the subject appears to have edited Misplaced Pages in order to promote himself in a number of articles. He hasn't been active recently, so far as I know). -] · ] · 00:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
	:I'll take a look. ] <small>]</small> 00:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
	:The sources seem to be sound, Will. ] <small>]</small> 00:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
	::Thanks. This is one of the bios which made me glad to see ]. -] · ] · 10:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
	|-
	| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archived ] incident concerning the article above. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
	|}
	== ] {{blpwatch-links|Andrew Cohen (spiritual teacher)}} ==
	In {{article|Andrew Cohen (spiritual teacher)}}, several editors seem intent on adding information from and a link to an anti-Cohen blog. It has been repeated pointed out on the talk page by several other editors that blogs are not reliable sources and may not even be linked to in external links, but these editors persist in resinserting these unreliable sources. ] (]) 16:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
	:Read the entire discussion related to the blogs, Ekajati, not just what you want to read. You claim Cohen's blog is inherently permissable because he is the subject, but what is being said is that to the extent Cohen's blog and associated blogged statement of "Integrity" in response to critic's charges, which does really not meet the criteria for use because it contentious; unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing; and makes claims about third parties and their motives for criticism; and whose claims are to be treated with caution per wikipedia; is being cited, then a critical blog containing responses to those charges by named subjects of Cohen's criticism should be referred also to retain NPOV. If as an alternative material from neither blog is mentioned, or the mere fact that Cohen and named critics have both established blogs advocating their respective positions without further information is mentioned, then you do not have, as you try and suggest, an issue with ] that justifies your claims here. Your actual statment that:
	:"Also, please note that the use of the ''subject's'' blog ''is'' permitted, but only in an article about the subject. Do not attempt to retaliate by removing reference to and links to Cohen's blog. That could also result in administrative action."
	:not only mistates the actual policies for when a subject's blogs are not suitable, but does not adequately justify keeping reference to Cohen's blog entries based on wikipedia criteria just because you desire to retain the blog, and does not justify your a priori assumption of bad faith and "retaliation", and threats of adminstrative action based on claimed "retaliation". It is not "retaliation" to respond to your assumptions and POV editing. --] 06:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
	::Your assumption that I am working from a POV is incorrect. I have nothing to do with Cohen whatsover. I am attempting to apply ] as written and intended. It is you who have a POV issue, and don't seem to be able to allow ] to take precedent over your apparent need to smear the subject. ] (]) 19:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
	:::You openly consider editors who disagree with you to be apparently motivated by "smearing" the subject, an admission of a biased and unsubstatiated judgement which proves the POV you deny. Ekajati, Misplaced Pages has three content policies: ], ], and ]. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Since the policies complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. Your POV edits do not take this into account. It is you making personal attacks, issuing threats of blocking and talking about "reprisals" when your one sided, POV edits are challenged. Your repeated explanation for your edits, that "blogs are not permitted per ]", is not what ] actually says, and therefore your edits will be evaluated accordingly. --] 02:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
	:"Information found in self-published ... websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject (see below)." "A blog or personal website written by the subject may be listed in the external links/further reading section, even if the subject is not used as a source."
	In summary, his own blog is permitted as an external link, and his own blog may be used as a source for NPOV biographical facts. No other blog may be, for BLP. ''']''' 02:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
	:I assume from this summary you may not have read the full discussion here and in the article and considered it carefully as it is written. What I object to is use of selective cites from ] and applying them to ]without considering all applicable guidance, the impact on NPOV, and the discussion of other editors who already know all that. Per WP:LIVING, if it were true that "information" from the blog was was being cited in the article, it would not be permitted. And per WP:EL, if were true that Cohen's blog did not include "information" including criteria that WP:EL sites as an exception to using material from Cohen's self-published blog, that is being contentious, self serving/aggrandizing, and making unsubstantiated charges about third parties, it would be permitted, either if information was used in the article as Ekajati proposes, or simply kept as a link. But that is not the case. And, this does not mean as Ekajati alleges "links to blogs are not permitted per WP:EL". Rather, WP does not prohibit links where the blog is authoritative and when the link improves the overall article (in this case NPOV). It does not mean Cohen's blog and/or statements from it MUST be referenced or links or face charges of "retaliation" when it skews NPOV and is not really biographical in nature. Further, none of the proposals we were current disputing were to cite information from the critical blog in the article, but simply to identify the existence of (relative to Cohen) the best critical and authoritative link on a reply to Cohen's assertions, whether to provide the link or just reference that it exists, thus WP is not providing derogatory information in the article. Whereas Ekajati proposes to leave as information not even just that Cohen has responded to critics on his blog, to which there is no objection, but that he is quote "setting the record straight" regarding his critics which is a matter of judgement, not fact, while excluding even the fact that critics have responded to his claims when there was no attempt to include information on what those responses were. WP also says both the claims of religious partisans and their critics are to be considered carefully. The intent here is not to put WP in the middle of the dispute or cite poorly sourced information in the article, but simply point out in neutral language the NPOV fact that the dispute exists, and leave it at that. Ideally, true NPOV considers both sides cautiously, and since both sides are using blogs, NPOV would be crafting a way of simply saying something along the lines of Cohen makes assertions on his blog about his actions and critics, and named critics have made assertions about his actions and responded to his assertions about critics on their blog, which keeps to the verfiable facts and without implying Misplaced Pages has taken a position on this particular issue, which omission of either side would. The only concern here of the editors in question preserving NPOV within the framework of BLP, and avoding liability, of course. --] 03:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
	Exaggerated unsourced criticism keeps being added to the article. ] 20:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
	:Agree, and since citation not provided, your deletion was justified. --] 07:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
	===This case should be closed===
	Ekajati, who brought this unjustified complaint against other editors here rather than engage in dialogue, has been banned for repeated sockpuppetry. Ekajati, A Ramachandran, and Hanuman Das, who have been tag teaming in making similar complaints about editors in various articles, are in fact the same person, along with other "socks". A Ramachandran and Hanuman were confirmed to be sockpuppets of Ekajati. See ]. --] 07:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
	==Sourced Rumors==
	What is the policy on sourced rumors in general? Also here are a couple of particular instances I have questions about:
	*What is Misplaced Pages's policy on properly sourced but completely unfounded rumors? Rumors which have absolutely no evidence to back them up, but nonetheless are well known rumors such as the insidious ] gerbilling rumor that people keep re-inserting into his article.
	:I'd say, if rumours are really widely circulated (in published sources), and are shown to be false (ditto), it is probably appropriate to mention the fact, with references both to a source for the rumour and to a source for its falsity. <font face="Gill Sans"><font color="green">]</font>''']'''<font color="green">]</font></font> 13:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
	*How about completely unfounded rumors which exist but are completely relegated to a small group of people. Such as the little known rumor that ] retired in 1993 because he was banned from the NBA for a period of time for gambling? ] 22:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
	:If restricted to "a small group of people", that suggests to me that the rumour is not published and is not notable. For both reasons, not appropriate to a Misplaced Pages article. <font face="Gill Sans"><font color="green">]</font>''']'''<font color="green">]</font></font> 13:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
	== ] {{blpwatch-links|Lu Sheng-yen}} ==
	;Also ] {{blpwatch-links|True Buddha School}}
	*{{article|Lu Sheng-yen}} & {{article|True Buddha School}} - unsourced critical information and editorial comments are being inserted into these articles by anons. ] 23:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
	:I'll add them to my watchlist. If the negative opinions of other Buddhist groups can be documented from published sources, I see no reason not to mention them. But if this claim is added to the article without documentation, I agree it should be reverted. <font face="Gill Sans"><font color="green">]</font>''']'''<font color="green">]</font></font> 13:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
	== ] {{blpwatch-links|Silver Ravenwolf}} ==
	A number of people with negative opinions of the subject are adding links to what appear to be their personal websites espousing this negative opinion. These are self-published personal essays by non-notable people. Some sites ''appear'' not to be personal sites, but if you check the copyright notice and compare the name to the site registrant, you will see that they own the site. ] (]) 19:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
	:Be careful about neutrality. Since there is controversy, mentioned in the article but referenced only to a pro-Silver Ravenwolf page, the article is at present slightly unbalanced. It's not a good idea to remove all the opposition. <font face="Gill Sans"><font color="green">]</font>''']'''<font color="green">]</font></font> 20:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
	:''all'' of the linked articles are personal sites, and given that 1. they're sites of otherwise published authors (not random geocities people) and 2. they're being linked mainly for analysis and things clearly stated as opinion, not spreading of rumors, this seems to be a good way to add legitimate criticism that deserves an airing. ] (]/]) 11:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
	==Policy on Biographies of Living Persons==
	Thanks for the reminder re: this policy.
	I am reviewing entries on living persons in the "List of Surnames of European Royalty and Nobiity" to make sure this Misplaced Pages policy is adhered to.
	I am also reviewing the available materials on the Internet to discover any "sensitivity" or "respect" issues (i.e., if an action for libel has been filed by the "offended" personality) have been raised against a "nickname" of a living person which is in this "List".
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Kazimieras Garšva}}==
	* {{article|Kazimieras Garšva}} - Recently a user has started to remove referenced information that may present this person in negative light (he is a leader of an organization described as 'extremist' among other things). Comments on the talk page appreciated; I am pretty sure WP:LIVE does not mean 'remove all information that does not present the person in positive light'.<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 01:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
	The contributor above in particular article began to adding doubtful and poorly sourced information . Among other information, which he added, was doubtful and poorly sourced statement that particular person in question leads and “extremist” organization. Contributor produce only one doubtful and insufficient for such statement source: . Please note that particular source does not talk bout Mr. Kazimieras Garšva at all. The only lead to Mr. Kazimieras Garšva in this source is only one time mentioned word “Vilnija”. As I stated several times in different positions it is not clear if the “Vilnija” mentioned in source actually is the same companionship “Vilnija” which Mr. Kazimieras Garšva leads. Because simple googling yields dozen of words “Vilnija” . I informed that such partial mentioning and use of one doubtful source to label organization lead by person is not enough., agreeably by WP:living I removed doubtful and controversial information , but particular contributor restored it , provided “motives” by him on talk is clear violation of WP:living, which states ''“Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources, or is a '''conjectural interpretation of a source'''''. What this particular contributor demonstrated is conjectural interpretation. Question about ratability of source in this context was raised and by different contributors , (as well as ) but was once again restored by this particular contributor. WP:Living policy stats that ''“Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate No original research and Verifiability, and could lead to libel claims.”'' Rejecting doubtful source about "extremist" other provided sources on this particular article is not third-party sources. These sources exclusively Polish, note that Mr. Kazimieras Garšva have interests and investigates committed crimes by Poles, as well as Polish support for soviet regime during national awakening. So these Polish sources should be used with care, especially then particular contributor do not hesitate to mislead labeling these sources such as providing information that source is ''“Lithuanian embassy site“'', while in reality it is some sort of tourist site. Please note that in current article still there are badly described sources, which even do not mentioned who is author etc. But problems with this issue is taking place and in different article ] (please note with what inspiration article was created ) And yet again particular contributor Piotrus failed to stick to the policy. He motivates that ''“For starters, WP:LIVING concenrs itself with people, not organziations.”'' (speech not corrected), while WP:Living clearly states: ''“These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in '''other articles'''.”''. In this article (]) we already have the same doubtful statements about “extremist”. But this article goes even further. Mr. Garšva works here described as ''“quasi-academic”'' (once again WP:OR; WP:NPOV; WP:Living violation) (please note person has ]) and even stated that ''“the quasi-academic works of its leader, Kazimieras Garšva, have been very negatively received by Polish government, media , and on occasion criticized by the Lithuanian government as well”'' while provided source do not concur provided text about Lithuanian government actions at all. Seeing such mislead such statements were corrected , , there was asked that sources and text should be checked . But every thing, including and article clarification and added facts, was removed by particular contributor Piotrus.. So particular contributor do not provide any third party sources, but also ignores and Misplaced Pages policies. Could anybody urgently intervene in this matter?<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:04:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)|&#32;04:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
	== ] {{blpwatch-links|Sahaja Yoga}} ==
	{{article|Sahaja Yoga}} - {{user|Bothi}} is adding libelous commentary, first to the , then to the . ] 03:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
	== ] {{blpwatch-links|William Moseley (actor)}} ==
	* {{userlinks|Gir29456}} -This user has consistently added uncited and unverifiable personal information to ]. They have not responded to messages placed either on their usertalk page or the article talk. It seems to me that a final warning (You '''will''' be blocked if you continue this behavior) is called for but need, obviously, administrator input and approval for such a remedy. //] 07:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
	== Frank Rosenblatt ==
	It is unclear why the Frank Rosenblatt page links to the biographies of living persons page, as Rosenblatt is not a living person and hasn't been one for some time.
	] 16:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Kate Middleton}}==
	{{article|Kate Middleton}}. I recently added in some information from PEOPLE magazine about Kate Middleton to the article. According to the rules on this site, it was reliable information worth mentioning. I read the article and linked to the website where it can be found. However, there has been some disagreement on that. I have tried to discuss the situation with the other party on the discussion page, stating that right now the only information about Kate Middleton is in magazines and media coverage. I also stated, if that is not allowed to be in the article then there really is no point for there to be an article on Kate Middleton as there are no other sources of information about her but the media and magazines. The other party still has insists on deleting the information from PEOPLE magazine stating their magazine sources are more accurate. I guess my question is, what is the best way to resolve this? What is the best thing to do? If any of the information is incorrect to post on the article, then I would happy to delete it. ] 21:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
	*PEOPLE is a magazine that is acknowledged worldwide. What is their source? If it's a tabloid newspaper or similar magazine they can be shown to be inaccurate. Otherwise, can't both sources be used? - ]|] 09:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
	Yes, that was my point, nothing wrong with both as long as they accurate. I do not know what sources they are using, the editor stated several times they had read numerous reiable sources, however, when I suggested they add them into the article the editor never did. As of right now, two third parties have stated the information can stay in, so that part of the dispute seems to be over. ] 13:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
	== Larry Darby {{blpwatch-links|Larry Darby}}====
	The ] article is currently the subject of a minor edit war. The subject of the article has been repeatadly blanking the page claiming libel but not naming any particular statements as libelous. I attempted to deleted the unsourced statements but Mr. Darby apears to want the entier thing removed. I have decided to stop editing and mark the current version (an offer to represent anyone who believes they have been slandered in lawsuits against "Misplaced Pages") as autobiographic.
	--] 00:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
	::Looking from outside at the article, a good deal of it is poorly sourced BLP--just read it. Possibly a NPOV article could be written. ''']''' 03:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
	:::He appears to be editing it himself now and actually keeping some of the challenges. He did, incedently change the word ''holocaust'' to ''holohoax'' and then back again. --] 05:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
	Selkat has again caused Misplaced Pages to post poorly sourced, atrociously written, content designed to disparage the subject. After an exchange of e-mail with general counsel for Misplaced Pages it was agreed to not re-post the libelous content and leave only the factual statement "Larry Darby was the runner-up candidate for Alabama Attorney-General in the 2006 Democratic Primary. Darby garnered 43% of the vote, carrying 33 of 67 Alabama counties. " For a few days Misplaced Pages abided by the settlement agreement. Then Selkat comes along and undoes the agreement. Selkat even accused me of being unethical! Obviously Selkat has violated Misplaced Pages policy and has some personal vendetta against the subject.
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Michael Prue}}==
	{{article|Michael Prue}} - An anon user, ''known'' to be the same person as the ] violator above, has repeatedly edited both ] and ] to assert that Prue's byelection campaign in 2001 orchestrated a smear campaign against Hunter. The controversy in question ''did'' take place, and ''does'' need to be discussed in a neutral fashion in both articles, but ''no'' verifiable media source has ''ever'' found that Prue or his political party were the orchestrators of it. Prue's article has been sprotected; at present, Hunter's has not. Editor continues, however, to respond to any reversions with the same tactic as at DiNovo, alleging that any objection to their material is a partisan attempt by "NDP attack queers" to hide the truth, rather than a straight and neutral application of Misplaced Pages's BLP and ] policies. As at DiNovo, IP numbers vary but always resolve to ]. Temporary blocks have been applied, but because the user is on a dynamic IP blocks don't necessarily resolve the issue for any length of time. ] 01:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
	'''Update''': Hunter was sprotected on January 24. ] 05:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Gordon Ramsay}}==
	{{article|Gordon Ramsay}} - It appears from the page on Celebrity Chef Gordon Ramsay that he has died today, January 23rd. However there is no account in the article as of how and when this should have happened, and a google search did not turn up anything about him being dead. Does anybody know if this is true or not? ] 20:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
	:There must have been a confusion with the death of David Dempsey, a top-chef of Gordon Ramsay . ] 20:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
	{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
	|-
	! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | ] – Offending material removed – 11:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
	|-
	| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived ] incident concerning the article above <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
	|-
	| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Beetlejuice (entertainer)}}==
	There are zero references in this page which meet out requirements at ]. This page seriously violates ]. ]|] 22:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
	:I've cut out unreferenced material and trimmed referenced material so extreme nature of it does not unbalance the whole article. ] 17:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
	|-
	| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archived ] incident concerning the article above. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
	|}
	== ] {{blpwatch-links|Charles Csuri}} ==
	{{article|Charles Csuri}} - This stub was created recently and there has been ] on whether detailed information about his relatives should be included. A recent indicates that there might be two or more of Csrui's relatives adding or modifying this personal information. I would say that this content is inappropriate for an encyclopedic entry. - ](]|]) 18:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Jimmy Swaggart}}==
	{{article|Jimmy Swaggart}} - Please see ] for explanation. ] 19:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Abdullah II of Jordan}}==
	{{article|Abdullah II of Jordan}} The text "Mathematically, His was considerably less than nine months at the time , which might confirm the claim that he is an illegitimate son to King Hussein" has been repeatedly replaced on the page. I assert that it's both ] (as indicated by the "might confirm") and a ] violation unless the assertion of illegitimacy can be supported by references. Other editors disagree with me. Additional opinions and advice would be welcome! --] 22:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Dare Obasanjo}}==
	{{article|Dare Obasanjo}}Should be reverted into the article ?
	== ] {{blpwatch-links|Michael Savage (commentator)‎}} ==
	* {{userlinks|EnglishEfternamn}} - User continually makes unsourced allegations that Savage is a ]. Several warnings have been given to the user both on the article talk page, and the user talk page, but he continues to insert this potetnially slanderous material. No sources have been given to substaniate the claim, and the only link provided says nothing of the sort.
	Diffs on the article
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	ect
	Most recent warning on article talk page:
	*
	Relevant warning on user talk:
	*
	--] 04:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
	:I agree with RWR8189's assessment. EnglishEfternamn continues to be disruptive by inserting unsourced allegations, most specifically with regards to Savage's defense of Marines accused of crimes. He takes a section of text meant to describe Savage's position and adds a final sentence such as "Critics see this as proof that Savage is fascist", adds a fact-tag and moves the entire paragraph to the "Criticism" section, making a description of Savage's believe seem like a criticism. Regarding ], Jimbo has already weighed in saying that placing a fact-tag on unsourced info is not acceptable, the unsourced info has to be swiftly deleted. This has been explained to EnglishEfternamn many times, yet he ignores it and continues to be disruptive.--] 05:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
	<p>Good day, I would like to take this time to talk in my own defense. The cited content in question carries proper references. It can be hard to find these references at times because the layout of the website is designed in such a manner that makes it constantly changing. Therefore, involuntary redirections have taken place in some instances. I apologise for this and will work to make sure these citations are DIRECT. The citations are correct, nonetheless as long as the server on the website in question does not redirect.
	<p>I don't know the degree of revelance this holds, but I must state that to assess the credibility of these users, one must consider their past conduct. RWR8189 has been following about every page I edit and giving blanket reversions without reason, and accusing my edits of being vandalism, which I have warned him/her about.</p>
	<p>WilliamThweatt on the other hand has been a bigger hinderance to my wish to edit articles. As soon as I begin trying to contribute to the Michael Savage page, this user made false complaints to administrators, one of which sent be threatening e-mails, and I received a few threatening e-mails from WilliamThweatt himself, how he found out what my e-mail is, I don't know, but I was willing to overlook this at the time. He has now resorted to personal attacks once again, and I feel as if my right to contribute to the pages has been subject to strong, un-dying intimidation. I wish to peacefully co-exist with these users and seek a resolve.(] 18:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC))
	::I will not respond to the above accusations as this is not the correct forum to do so, however is the source that the user inserts in the article to allege support of fascism. It seems to be a fan site of Savage and is not a reliable source. Regardless, this fan site does not accuse him of fascism, and implication that it does would be ] This uncited implication is potentially slanderous and cannot be tolerated.--] 18:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
	Again, are you being directed properly? I'm looking right at the references now...(] 19:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC))
	:The word "fascist" does not appear on the cited page. Implying that the content of the page on this ] proves that Savage is somehow a fascist is ] and not acceptable.--] 19:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
	To both users: How about this? I propose a mutual truce. Both of you apologise and state you were wrong for making these un-warrented complaints, and I'll take my edits elsewhere, at least until I can perfect the citations, which are in fact gennuine. Deal?(] 19:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC))
	:I most certainly will not apologize for attempting to enforce such an important Misplaced Pages policy in ]. Thanks.--] 19:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
	<p>You've done no such thing. A violation of the rules must take place beforehand for such a situation to occur. Thanks.(] 20:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC))
	<p>And once again, are you viewing the right page, or the redirection page?(] 20:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC))
	::I'll refer you to this section of ] and what ] has said:
	:"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." <ref name=Jimbo/>
	He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity:
	:"Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia." <ref name=Jimbo2>Jimmy Wales. , May 19, 2006</ref>
	--] 21:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
	I think you need to apply this concept to your own editing style, to compell you to be more honest. Real resources on a real individual have been used, you have refused to listen to my explanation as to why the link does not always show up, I'm working on that. I have also offered a truce, a peaceful co-existence, and you have refused that as well.(] 01:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC))
	:], I and other editors have gone to great lengths to explain this to you. The allegations of fascism you are inserting are not sourced on the page you are directing the reader to. Until you actually have the proper citation for your allegations, do not insert them, as it would be in violation of ]. In regards to your edits to the Hamdania paragraph, we have repeatedly explained to you why this can't be included as it is OR. Please think long and hard about your actions. Its good that you are passionate about editing this encyclopedia, but there are rules that you must follow, including ], ], and ]. (To anyone interested, I and ] already had a fight with him over this same material back in december.)--] 04:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
	I can't believe this is still going on. A number of editors from all sides of the political spectrum have been very patient with this user and have tried to explain to him why he is so very clearly in the wrong. They shouldn't have to put up with this any longer. ] 05:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
	<p>I should also note that various users have sent me threats. This is a violation of a number of rules, and the users here going out of the way to intimidate me are being supported by crooked admins. Gamaliel, if these threats persist, I will have no choice but to report administrator abuse.(] 17:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC))
	:Please provide a link to these alleged threats and I will investigate them myself. ] 17:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
	<p>And for the 29th time, the references are gennuine, but it can be hard to be directed properly. Try clicking to the link several times, it could be your browser is not up to date. Again, I should mention that earlier in this section, I was willing to take my editing ambitions elsewhere on the grounds that ] and RWR apologise for unwarrented accusations. We all have much to contribute here and I feel a peaceful resolve is in need here. My offer still stands, and I hope we can stay on good terms.(<i><font face="Times New Roman" color="darkblue"></font></i> ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 19:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC))
	*EnglishEfternamn has once again inserted the disputed content which violates ]. It can be seen .--] 21:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
	<br><p>Again, have you checked the citations, because I am reading them right now, at this very moment.---<i><font face="Times New Roman" color="darkblue"></font></i> ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 23:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
	:::You have cited Savage saying a couple random stupid and offensive things. That's fine. What's wrong with the section is that you have strung them together to push a claim that he advocates fascism and then attributed that claim to unnamed and unsourced (and probably nonexistent) "critics". ] 23:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
	::::What about the fact that such critics in question are indeed both sourced and existent?----<i><font face="Times New Roman" color="darkblue"></font></i> ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 23:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
	:::::If that's the case then please source them and end this problem. Do not once again reinsert the same ] and claim it says something that it doesn't.--] 23:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
	:::::There is no footnote or other source for this claim that I can see: "For statements such as this, critics state that Michael Savage takes a militaristic approach to solving problems in American society." ] 23:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
	::::::I don't really know what to say as I am looking at the refs right now...I'll have to try to get the link right again, I guess.---<i><font face="Times New Roman" color="darkblue"></font></i> ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 23:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
	== ] {{blpwatch-links|Neil Clark (journalist)‎}} ==
	{{userlinks|Citylightsgirl}} has complained on the ] noticeboard about the editing of the British journalist's article. The user posting here is involved in this dispute, but has done so in order to speed up the resolution of this issue. ] 20:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
	== Steven Kagen ==
	] went to Appleton West HS but graduated from Appleton East
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Mike Huckabee}}==
	* {{article|Mike Huckabee}} - Repeated insertion of a paragraph criticizing Mike Huckabee (a former governor of an American state with possible Presidential ambitions) for not ordering a new investigation of a criminal case. Includes no sources for any claims except a single quotation (and that source may be inadequate), and editorial statement like, "The West Memphis Three ordeal has become internationally known as a debacle of the Arkansas justice system." ] 21:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
	== ] {{blpwatch-links|List of male performers in gay porn films}}==
	A disaster waiting to happen. Hoaxes, kids adding people on there, etc. ''All unverified''. ]<sup>]·]</sup> 21:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Ruth Kelly}}==
	* {{article|Ruth Kelly}} - On the ] to article ] ] left the following comment about Ruth Kelly: ''there's plenty of evidence she's a ...'' (deleted as recommended) ''...-cat.''. I recommended him to reconsider (aka delete) his comment as it is a derogatory, insulting statement that, even if viewed as an users personal opinion, violates ] and especially ]. As ] has no intent to retract his comment, I’m seeking advice about whether the statement in question really violates our policies and must be deleted or not. -- ] 16:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
	**Yes, insulting people violates ]. I've deleted talk and left a message on the talk page. ] 19:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
	::Thanks. -- ] 19:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
	===Reply===
	I think there are two issues here.
	#I wasn't aware that it was against policy to do that, and for breaking policy I apologise.
	#I don't think that it should be against policy to express an opinion about someone on an article talk page, especially when it is clear that it is an individual user's opinion. How does one go about getting a debate on this policy? ] 19:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
	==Har Gobind Khorana==
	72.64.122.196 is vandalizing ] page with unsourced claims and even changing the name in the narrative. I think this person wants to somehow make him into a Sikh, even though his own Nobel biography does not mention it. I have reversed this vandalism but I suspect he will be at again soon.] 18:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Free Republic}}==
	Prior to mid-2001, ] was not registered as a non-profit corporation. Under the law, it was a sole proprietorship. Therefore any libelous statements about the period prior to mid-2001 are libelous statements about Free Republic's owner and founder: a living person named Jim Robinson.
	Jim Robinson has successfully sued the City of Fresno and won an out-of-court settlement of $60,000 (and cost the city $100,000 or more in legal fees) for a press release describing Free Republic as a "hate group." This proves that they are inclined to litigate. Litigious people must be handled with care.
	The Free Republic article here at Misplaced Pages is being "owned" by a pair of left-wing partisans from a rival website called ]. I'm convinced that they don't care whether Misplaced Pages gets sued. Their only concern is to insert or link, in the Free Republic article, the most derogatory information on the Internet that they can find.
	Some time ago, they found a very derogatory article from 1999 (in the pre-2001 period I described) that was purportedly written by The article cannot be found on TJ Walker's website, although an inaccessible link bearing a title that is similar to the title of the article can be found. This was self-published anyway, and could not be used under ] guidelines even if it could be found.
	It was, however, republished by a partisan left-wing website called This website carefully couched its republication in weasel words such as "TJ Walker claims ..." Clearly this would also fail to qualify under ] guidelines. Nevertheless, it was inserted in the Misplaced Pages article about Free Republic.
	The purported "TJ Walker article" claims that death threats against Bill and Hillary Clinton had been posted at Free Republic and allowed to remain there for several months. This is a lie. Threats of violence have always been removed immediately from Free Republic. Abruptly, and without explanation, AmericanPolitics.com pulled the article and blanked the page a few weeks ago. They did this because it was libelous, and they didn't want to get sued like the City of Fresno got sued.
	The partisan Wikipedians from Democratic Underground, undaunted, scoured the Internet and found an archived copy, and it is now linked at the Free Republic article with the "death threat" accusation, <b><FONT COLOR=RED>in the lead of the article.</b></FONT> Anyone who attempts to remove it is immediately targeted with verbal abuse and accusations of sockpuppetry.
	Please do something about this before Misplaced Pages gets sued, the way the City of Fresno got sued. Thank you. ] 14:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
	::'''Comment''': Free Republic was '''not''' a sole proprietrship as Dino claims. It was a LLC. From L.A. Times vs. Free Republic ''"Unable to present any evidence of transformativeness, Defendants are forced to falsely portray “he site a not for profit enterprise.” Defendants’ Motion 6:20-21, 7:5 (relying on the Declaration of Howard K. Szabo). In fact, the Free Republic website is a for-profit limited liability company in the business of “Internet discussion and marketing.” Wayland Decl., §§ 9-10, Exhs. H & I (fictitious business name statement for Free Republic). Free Republic is not -- and never has been -- a non-profit entity."''
	::'''Also see :''' ''"Thanks to section 230 of the Federal Communications Decency Act (CDA), which became law in 1996, Misplaced Pages is most likely safe from legal liability for libel, regardless of how long an inaccurate article stays on the site. That's because it is a service provider as opposed to a publisher such as Salon.com or CNN.com."'' - ] 19:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
	::'''Note : ''' That Admin ] who is heavily involved with BLP, LIVING, and re-writing RS V to ATT is of the opinion that the source is fine, even as he accepts as fact Dino's unproven claim that the article was 'pulled' for being libelous! Jossi wrote : ''"Let me understand this. An article was written in the past by a person named TJ Walker, right? That article was later removed by the author from his website, on the basis that it was libelous? Is there any official retraction by TJ Walker to that effect? If that is the case, you can cite both the article and the retraction. If there is no retraction, citing the article would appropriate as per WP:V, even if it is from a cached version or an Internet archive"''. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC) Why is Dino even persuing this, when Jossi, who is the long time mediator on the Free Republic article, said it was OK? - ]
	'''Note :''' Dino writes above : Re: ''"The purported "TJ Walker article"... Abruptly, and without explanation, American Politics.com pulled the article and blanked the page a few weeks ago. They did this because it was libelous, and they didn't want to get sued like the City of Fresno got sued."''
	Dino claimed on Jan. 15, 2007, that he contacted TJ Walker personally and that Walker told him that he never wrote the article in question!''' ''"I contacted TJ Walker and asked him whether he authored the article. He said, "Of course not." He contacted AmericanPolitics.com and asked them to remove the article from their website. They complied immediately"''''' Troubling - Very Troubling. (TJ Walker and APJ have been asked to confirm or deny Dino's very public claims that noted author TJ Walker plagiarized the article attributed him - or had it ghost written - or whatever it is that Dino claims) ] 21:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
	::Regardless of any question of immunity from liability, Misplaced Pages has strict policies against the posting of libelous information. One admin who is involved in rewriting those policies does not a consensus make. Those policies have been continuously disregarded with regard to this article. ] 22:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
	:::Er.... uh... sorry to break the bad news to you Dino, but you're suffering from a '''total''' misunderstanding of Misplaced Pages and its policies. The first words in WP:V say '''"The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth."''' That's why, for instance, articles are allowed on Wiki using claims by Fringers who argue that Saddam '''did''' orchestrate, fund and direct the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Cause these nutty claims were published somewhere notable - this making them WP V. The fact that I can cite the US Gov and the words of Bush himself saying Saddam was '''not''' involved in 9/11, does not mean that I can get the claims saying he '''was''' deleted from Wiki. It behooves you to read some WP, Dino. Seriously. - ] 22:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
	::::Saddam Hussein falls under "Significant Public Figures" as described in ]. Therefore, an article related to him can contain notable accusations. Jim Robinson is not such a public figure.
	::::The accusations made against Saddam Hussein are notable all by themselves. Although most people don't accuse Saddam Hussein of directing 9/11, the number of people who do is a lot more the number of people who accuse Jim Robinson of publishing death threats.
	::::The accusation that Saddam orchestrated 9/11 is (or should be) described as a minority opinion. Even if that justified including the reference, you'd have to say "a small minority of people including TJ Walker believe that Free Republic posted death threats".
	::::Also, if there is significant doubt that TJ Walker actually wrote the article, then it isn't a reliable source even for TJ Walker's opinions. We don't need to *prove*, using an official statement from Walker, that Walker didn't write the article in order to reject it as a source.
	::::I think you're trying to distort ]. Unproven accusations (even implicit ones) of posting death threats are exactly the thing the policy was meant to prevent. ] 07:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
	:::::No one is accusing Jim Robinson of making death threats. There are multiple RS V sources documenting (not alleging) death threats posted '''on''' Free Republic, as there are other political forums. Dino's 'claims' that TJ Walker's admitted to him that TJ plagarised his own 1999 article entitiled 'Is FreeRepublic.com really Deaththreat.com' (or had it ghost written - or whatever it is that Dino claims - he won't exactly say - except that Dino says TJ 'denied' writing it to him) (then the story changed) are not credible, and his smears against this notable published author are reprehensible. They will be addressed. - ] 10:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
	Whether the accusation is "making death threats" or "publishing death threats" is irrelevant. And whether TJ actually published the article is only partly relevant. Even if he really published the article, it isn't a notable accusation unless it's been published in a lot of places. And even if it was as notable as the accusations against Saddam Hussein, you'd have to say "a few people accuse Free Republic of posting death threats", just like you must do with Saddam. You can't just write the article as if the posting of death threats was a fact--any more than you could write an article that Saddam being responsible for 9/11 was a fact. ] 17:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
	:If there's no ], remove -simple. AmericanPolitics.com wasn't an RS in first place. ] 12:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	While I thought that the text was legit due to the source (]), it turns out that the referenced articel doesn't exist! I've commented out everything but the 1st sentence for now, but would appreciate some help on it. Also note, I only found out because of a blog picking up on it. ] 18:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
	:I nominated it for deletion. Or suggested it anyway. He doesn't seem to be that important yet, even if one reporter at the Journal-Constitution is a fan. :-) ] 21:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
	::I've readded the information you deleted - it's well sourced (and the source is not the Journal Constitution). I also object to your prod so you'll have to take it to AfD. I'm not trying to be contentious but I disagree with you on these issues. --] 23:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
	:::I'm letting the article alone. As I said on the talk page he is a borderline case for notability. I would think that his arrest for DUI wouldn't be proper to mention under WP policy, but I am not an expert on that. ] 05:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
	== ] and ]==
	] repeatedly and persistently cites a blog] in articles ] and ] to make the controverisial claim that Al Amoudi(a dark skinned Arab) is the richest black person in the world contradicting a reliable source which claim Oprah Winfrey is], and also contradicting a reliable source that classifies Al Amoudi as the world’s 8th richest Arab!]. I see no evidence that Al Amoudi self-identifies as black and he is actually of predominantly Middle Eastern origin. His father is Yemeni and though his mother is Ethiopian, many studies claim that Ethiopians have substantial caucasoid admixture from the Near East]. (] is notorious for using original research to dismiss such genetic studies in an apparent effort to label everyone black, including Europeans! ] ).
	As a mixed race person, I find it incredibley offensive and presumptuous of certain editors to simply brand mixed race public figures with racial labels they do not neccecarily accept. I also think it’s incredibley inappropriate to state that someone who is less than half black in ancestry is black because this is a throwback to the racist ] of the segrated South and is inconsistent with how millions of mixed race people self-identify]. All of this puts the statement in violation of wikipidea living person policy which states: '''Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, and user pages. These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Misplaced Pages, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim.''']. ] ignores such warnings claiming Nazret.com is a reliable source, however he is citing from the Ethio-blog section and ] clearly prohibits the use of blogs saying '''Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book.''' Blogs are further condemed by ] which states that '''Self published sources such as personal web pages, personally published print runs and blogs have not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking and so have lower levels of reliability than published news media (e.g. The Economist) and other sources with editorial oversight, which is less reliable itself than professional or peer reviewed journal (e.g. Nature).''' If blogs are not considered acceptable sources in regular articles concerning noncontroversial topics then how in the world can they be considered acceptable sources for discussing topics as controverisial as race in articles as sensitive as those dealing with living persons, where stanadards are supposed to be much higher? ]
	:Part of the problem is the word "black" itself. No human is literally black in color; the word "black" is just a label put on certain people with darker skin color shades. In the United States Mr. Amoudi would be considered "black" although he would not be in many other countries. Many African Americans would not be considered "black" in other parts of the world. I think Mr. Amoudi should be mentioned on a "Black Billionaires" page, but with some kind of disclaimer explaining his ancestry. ] 20:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)p.s. I just checked out the ] article. It was quite interesting and a great example of the kind of information WP can provide. p.p.s. ] is "black", that is American culture would put the label "black" on him, even if he is not African American.
	::Oh I agree that anyone with any known degree of ] ancestry should be mentioned in the article but I object to someone who is not predominantly black being described as black without a reliable source giving that opinion. And I'm not sure that he would be considered black in America. Many members of the Saudi Royal family look blacker than he is but they're not regarded as black in America. Generally mixed race people are only considered black in America to avoid calling them white, but if there's another ethnic group they fall into such as Arab, Hispanic, or Asian, they are often described by those terms. ]
	:::We seem to be agreeing. Mention him in the article, along with Tiger Woods, but don't say they are black---just that some people have said they are. ] 05:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
	::::The problem is the source they're using to quote people describing Al Amoudi as black is a blog. As I showed above, wikipedia does not consider blogs to be reliable sources, and when making statements of a controversial nature in a living person biography, wikipedia requires the sourcing be excellent. Technically he's not black. I bet the vast majority of his DNA would come from the middle east which makes him Arab. There are black people in the article who are almost billionaires, so there can be billionaires in the article who are almost black, but I don't think we can quote anyone calling them black unless it's a reliable source which we don't have. ]
	:::::It's not WP's job to give the final answer on these kind of questions. I think the article would be incomplete without mentioning him and saying that some people do count him as black. ] 06:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
	::::::Well the article does have a chart showing he's the richest billionaire with '''any known''' sub-Saharan ancestry, while Oprah's the only billionaire of '''predominantly''' sub-Saharan ancestry. But what concerns me is that some editors have gone further and quote Nazret.com's Ethioblog describing him as a black billionaire. I prefer to let readers decide for themselves if a billionaire who is only half Ethiopian (and Ethiopians are only about half black) is a '''black''' billionaire, rather than quote a source as unreliable as a blog making the incredibley controversial claim that a prominent Arab billionaire is a black. ]
	Again we seem to be in agreement. The article should mention him, but not say for sure that he is "black". ] 15:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
	:Thanks for your help in the article. We need more objective outsiders like you to keep an eye on it as so many people try to use to promote political agendas. Did you notice how ] tried to change the opening sentence from '''this article refers to actual or incipient black or part-black billionaires''' to just '''this article refers to actual or incipient black billionaires''' in a POV pushing attempt to brand everyone mentioned in the article as just black even though people like Tiger Woods have publicly stated that it bothers them to be described as black. Editors like that are the reason I hop you and others continue to keep an eye on that article. ]
	::Stop mischaracterizing my actions Vexperiential. I never said he was a black billionaire, nor did the article ever say that he was. It simply stated that Nazret.com (see the talk page of the article and of the individual's article for my comment on Vexperiential's charactrization of the page as a blog that anyone can post articles to) considered him as such. It never defined him as a black billionaire outright. &mdash; ] | ''']''' | ] • <small>] • ]</small> 02:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
	== Notability question ==
	I have been doing research on a person for non-WP purposes, and a colleague has pointed out to me that he might be notable enough for a Misplaced Pages article. To summarize the commonly available information:
	*He is a member of British/Irish nobility and a descendant of William the Conqueror
	*He is mentioned by name in the existing WP article about his father, specifically with reference to his nobility
	*He is a senior corporate executive in a company that is developing an international reputation in its area of specialty (which is admittedly quite narrow)
	*He is the inspiration for a song that is on one of the all-time top-selling British albums
	*He was recently interviewed and photographed for an article in a major magazine with international circulation.
	**As a side point to this, the magazine is a "men's magazine" and the link to this article is NSFW for many of our readers, so a link to the article would probably not be appropriate.
	Before I invest the time to write up this article, I'd appreciate some feedback on whether more experienced editors would feel this person is notable. Feel free to reply to my talk page, and I will also check back here. ] 11:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
	:He sounds like he is notable enough by the standards that usually prevail here. ] 15:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)"
	:Well for me the key question is can every fact in your article be REFERENCED by a reliable source (preferabley an on-line source so that others can fact check you). If the person is notable enough to have mentioned in reliable on-line sources I would say he is notable. Otherwise you have an article with no references that can be easily checked and seeing as it's a living person article where standards are so much higher, that's potentially problematic. ]
	'''Allison Munn File'''
	I keep going to Allison Munn, to find someone keeps saying that she is engaged, well... she is not!So who ever is putting this,IMDB.com is very trustworthy, and is claiming cleared that "she single"!] 19:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Jarosław Kaczyński}}==
	Recently in the article on current prime minister of Poland some users have started using references that seem dubious to claim he is gay. It appears few if any of reliable media has repeated such views. See ].--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 21:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
	----
	==]==
	Someone is amusing themselves by indicating that Ambassador Khalilzad is Jewish instead of Muslim. While, as a Jew, I would be very pleased to welcome to the tribe a person with the caliber of Ambassador Khalilzad's outstanding accomplishments, his other biographers seem pretty clear that he professes the Muslim faith. Unfortunately, these kinds of edits targeting a living person reflect poorly on Misplaced Pages when they remain unaddressed. I hate to see such a great project be attacked by weakminded folks who think they are somehow insulting either Jews or Muslims, or anyone else by such antics] 01:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
	:Article appeared to be okay per above on my check. Removed uncited details about subject's personal life. ] 22:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Sofie Zamchick}}==
	Doesn't seem this person is notable enough to have an article on Misplaced Pages. Also, other than filmography, this article contains no verifiable information. I also suspect this article may be an ]. Thoughts? ] 02:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Brian McLaren}}==
	FYI - an anonymous user keeps spamming the ] article with a link to a blog with inaccurate and libellous information regarding the living person. I have tried to reason with the anon in discussions to no avail, and even recommended the reading of ] explaining that articles on living persons are not to be used for grandstanding and as a repository of links to critical articles.
	I can't spend my time on editing wars, so if someone is willing to take this on and deal with it I would appreciate it. --] 14:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
	:Made post to incidents to have anon IP banned for 3RR violation. See ]. ] 06:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
	== ] {{blpwatch-links|Talk:Cult#Misrepresentation of Rick Ross website}} ==
	* {{Talk:Cult|Talk:Cult#Misrepresentation of Rick Ross website}} - An editor has to describe cult exit counselor Rick Ross . The . The editor was recommended to delete the defamation as a slander-like statement. The editor refused and repeated the defamation, apparently claiming a . The problem is that Mr. Ross was not convicted of the actions that might or might not marginally justify the defamation word. Even if the editor is metaphorically justified in describing Mr. Ross this way, as a public figure under libel/slander law, there is an issue of WP:NPOV, since Mr. Ross was alleged to have committed a crime but was acquitted. ''(I don't know who's correct, but I feel it's my duty to report my concern of a possible slander/libel legal exposure to Wikimedia Foundation.)'' // ] 03:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Audrey Seiler}} Would someone mind checking this very confused page out? ==
	] was recently tagged as a hoax, was missed by the rampant {{tl|blp}} tagging spree, and, to me, just sounds wrong. Would someone else read through this and let me know if this is "just me"? ] 20:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
	:I deleted the substantial unreferenced information and information containing insufficient source per WP:BLP. I added fact templates to the remaining text, where needed. The article is about a hoax. The article is not a hoax. -- ] 21:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
	::Just adding support to the above actions here. ] 10:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Edith González}}==
	The source for the paragraph called ''Controversy'' comes from the Spanish article ''''. That article translates as:
	''It is now being said ('''by no credited reliable source''') that her baby was conceived by articial insemination'' and that '''''each week the rumor is growing stronger''''' that the baby belongs to a former presidential candidate who is not named in the article.
	This is rumor built upon ] and should not be in the bio of a living person. While her pregnancy is mentioned in her IMDb article, there is no reference to this there. ] 06:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
	:I removed the entire "Controversies" section which was entirely unsourced. Nothing of such an uncited nature should be in a BLP. ] 06:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Tariq Ramadan}}==
	Hi. I don't if this is the right place or not, but this article is attracting a lot of ip vandalism and edits like . Please check the page history. Is it time for semi-protection? ] 12:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
	:I'd try ] first. ] 12:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
	::Page looks quite good from a ] perspective. ] 22:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Jacqui Abbott }}==
	Why does this page have a biography of another apparently unrelated musician tacked on? http://en.wikipedia.org/Jacqui_Abbott If there's a reason I'm missing I apologise for wasting your time! -- ] 18:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
	:I added a mergeto template to the article. The Jacqui Abbott article has been a stub for exactly one year today. -- ] 20:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
	== Jenna Bush, Barbara Pierce Bush, Al Gore III ==
	There's a long-term tit-for-tat war going on between editors of the articles ], ], and ]. The cycle goes something like this:
	#Editor "Dem" (not real username) adds detailed info about Bush twins drug/alcohol arrests to their respective articles.
	#Editor "Rep" complains, but can't get consensus to remove the material. In retaliation, they add info about Al Gore III's drug/alcohol arrests to the Al Gore III article (which is basically just a stub).
	#Editor "Dem" complains, but can't get consensus to remove the material. Stalemate.
	#Editor "Admin" removes material from all the articles citing ].
	#Repeat.
	I'm giving up on this one. If anyone else wants to give it a shot, be my guest. ] 00:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
	:Delete all three articles? :-) ] 19:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Paul Simonon}}==
	Can someone fix this and get factual evidence with some sources.
	He married Pearl Harbour in 1566. The couple divorced in 1666. He is currently married to Shilpa Shetty CBB racism representative, Tricia Ronane, with whom he has two sons, Louis and Claude. Louis is right now in a relationship with another mam. Their godfather is Justin Timberlake and their godmother is Jade Goody. It is reported that he has left his wife for Serena Williams.
	:I am not an admin but I removed all potentially controversial uncited info and personal details per WP:BLP, noting in edit history that that sort of information simply MUST be cited before re-adding. ] 22:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Banjee}}==
	I deleted the images in '''Banjee''' as being potentially libelous to the persons in the images since the images appear to be of living people, the persons in the image are associated with being thuggish men who have sex with men, and the article does not include Misplaced Pages reliable sources to support such an association. The images quickly were restored by another editor and the article now is in need of a BLP administrator to review the situation. -- ] 19:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
	* The images were uploaded under the GFDL by the reported author of the images. Click on the images to see. If there is a good faith belief that the photo's subject did not authenticate them for such release, this can be taken to ]. But given that the subject's face is largely hidden, I doubt there is considerable grounds here. ] 07:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
	**GFDL does not authorize potentially libelous uses of images. Although the person's eyes are hidden in the photo, I believe that his identity still can be known, especially by those who are familiar with him. Since the article does not include Misplaced Pages reliable sources to support the use made of the living person images in the article, the images should be removed from the article if his identity can be known even with his eyes covered. Further comment/action still is needed to resolve this implementation of Misplaced Pages WP:BLP policy -- ] 18:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
	***So, what do we do next? ] 10:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
	== ] {{blpwatch-links|Mark Turgeon}} ==
	At the end of the article the start of the Wichita State basketball season is highlighted and identified as begining with a "bang." After looking at previous revisions, people have tried to edit and include the team's success after the "bang" where they didn't play very well. Other revisions have also included trying to delete an mention of the "bang." If the biography hopes to be view point neutral, then there are two options: 1) Eliminate the talk of the begining of the season, or 2) Include the team's poor play.
	*I stubbed it. See rationale . ] 07:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
	**It has been reverted by ], who added one source but which does not support the controversy. ] 07:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
	*I reviewed the situation and it does not seem to require outside intervention related to the policy of Biographies of living people, which is a basis for posting on this noticeboard. -- ] 16:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|John Grisham}}==
	* {{article|John Grisham}} - A fellow Wikipedian brought my attention to this website and was concerned that another user was trying to introduce potentially libellous material. I reviewed the article and the history and it turns out that one user kept reintroducing material paraphrased from one of the cited references, which is related to a current lawsuit involving John Grisham; a Google search suggests that this is a current event. I also noted that the user who kept introducing these changes, {{userlinks|ChasAlmy}}, appears to be related to the plaintiff in the case vs. Grisham (according to the referenced magazine article, the husband of the plaintiff is named Charles). This user kept on reverting other people's edits to a version that is to his/her liking. Just to be sure, I changed the title to something more neutral, and also reverted the section to a shorter version (i.e. with shorter content). Other than this, I'm not sure what else I would need to do. Any help and suggestions would be appreciated. --- ] 22:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
	**''Note''. A few minutes after I made this entry, ] to longer contents, although the section title I created was not changed. --- ] 22:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
	**I am not so sure the lawsuit info should be included in a WP BLP, since it is still ongoing and the is questionable as a source. Probably the reason why big news outlets have not reported on the matter is that the matter is not resolved. I think WP should avoid commenting on the matter until that time. Better safe than sorry, so I am going to remove it until the lawsuit is subject of *multiple* reports in reliable sources per ] and ]. ] 07:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
	***] requires only that the article not neglect major facts and details. The lawsuit does not seem to be a major fact or a major detail in Grisham's life, which further supports your deletion actions to help bring this matter under control. -- ] 16:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Billy Burke (evangelist)}}==
	Please look at the article ] {see "Billy Burke (evangalist)", I don't know how to wikilink it directly}. I thought it violated the ] in many respects, and quickly pared away the criticism section-I didn't have time or knowledge how to be more precision oriented to potentially retain certain parts of it without making a very pro-POV slant behind. But instead of it being improved, an editor restored the whole thing and since the editor thinks I'm an "agent" of some kind, is unlikely to want to work well with me to improve it. I suspect he will revert me again. I also don't know enough to make the judgement call on one source he wants to keep from a publication called "Creative Loafing" which the editor describes as an "alternative" newspaper in Fl. My sense was that for controversial attacks against the subject of the article that a higher standard would be required for sources, but I would value input from an editor with more experience with kind of question. ] 02:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
	:I deleted some POV material in the article and added fact templates. The facts in the article are slanted against Mr. Burke, but the article itself probably could be balanced with additional facts. -- ] 03:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|James Dobson}}==
	* {{article|James Dobson}} - Yet another article under the guise of biography that is little more than a slagfest of controversies and critcisms, with the subject's own views described from primarily his critics' POVs. I have made ''some'' NPOV changes in the "Social views" section of article and, given the POV perspective of most of that section, deleted the entire very long and article-overwhelming "controversies" section per ]. I have described my concerns further at ] // ] 06:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
	:*I reviewed the situation and it does not seem to require outside intervention related to the policy of Biographies of living people, which is a basis for posting on this noticeboard. -- ] 16:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
	==Jonathan Corrigan Wells==
	] is a leading advocate of intelligent design. From this someone has said that he "rejects" evolution itself, which he does not seem to. I removed the sentence but it was put right back. ] 19:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
	:I did not find the word "reject" in the text when I visited it. I did find a problematic section and removed it to talk for re-writing, see ]. ] 06:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
	::Thanks for doing that. I rather over reacted to the situation I'm afraid. The article is showing some improvement. ] 08:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
	:::Make that "was" showing some improvement. :-) ] 08:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
	The Wells article continues to include false and petty attacks on him from people who despise him for his criticism of evolutionary biology textbooks. The sources given for the slanderous attacks include a left-wing political blog, and a web site that gives Misplaced Pages as its only source! ] 18:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Anderson Cooper}}==
	*{{article|Anderson Cooper}} is in a state of near constant revert warring over speculation about his sexuality. Please can some people take a look and see who's arguments are a correct interpretation of ]?-]<sup>]</sup> 23:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
	**The more conservative ones, per ]. I have removed the material in question and posted my rationale at ]. ] 01:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Tom Cruise}}==
	The biographical article about Tom Cruise contains a story originally printed in the tabloid 'The Sun' which claims that David Miscavige, current head of Church of Scientology, told Tom Cruise that he would be worshipped as a Christ-like figure. Jeff Quiros, President of the Church of Scientology of San Francisco, denies the story. So does Greg Churilov of the Scientology Parishioners' League. Since the story is about a living person, potentially libellous and poorly sourced, I edited it to delete it. It has been reverted each time. Please remove it.
	:I removed the material per ]. I can only put the page on my watchlist and help revert. Most of that entire "biography" reads like tabloid journalism, by the way. ] 05:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
	==]==
	Thanks, CyberAnth. I also had the same thing (revert) happen when I edited the David Miscavige bio to remove the Sun story. Please delete it from the Miscavige bio also.
	Here is a link to the President of the Church of Scientology of San Francisco's denial of the whole stupid story, in case you are challenged for removing it;
	http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/...a/16591805.htm
	] 06:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)S. M. Sullivan
	:Done. ] 08:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
	==]==
	===Miscellaneous===
	There is a paragraph that states, " In February 2006 an article in Life & Style magazine reported that Cruise and Holmes were splitting up, but keeping up a public pretense until the spring...."
	Please remove this paragraph. It is manifestly untrue, as Cruise and Holmes are now married, and spring is long gone. Moreover the sources on it are anonymous, so it's worth less than a double handful of flea dirt, IMO.
	] 08:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)S. M. Sullivan
	:Done. Let us hope it stays. ] 08:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
	::Poor Katie Holmes! <nowiki>:-(</nowiki> --] 05:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	Subject is a writer and broadcaster on alternative medicine. We need some advice on whether the fact that he is mentioned on the website ] can be included. And more generally on how the subject's critical views on mainstream medicine can be represented in an NPOV way.] 18:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	It is continually being added to this profile that Gaiman is the son of a famous scientologist called David Gaiman, and that Neil Gaiman may have been schooled as a scientologist. This is SHEER speculation, any web references just point back at each other in some form of mobius loop, with no official or concrete proof.
	There is no official sources even identifying Neil Gaiman as son of a man called David, let alone the SAME David (a common name surely!).
	In closing I will add that Neil Gaiman has a very large web presence, with a blog which he writes to daily, he talks about EVERYTHING and ANYTHING, at NO point does either scientology come up, or the name David Gaiman. Yet Gaiman will often talk about his jewish/church of England roots, the fact that he himself obviously never talks about scientology, coupled with the absolute absence of andy official proof means these references should not be added. It may be true, yes certainly, but until there is proof, it must be removed.
	I welcome any discussion on this.
	--] 18:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
	== ] {{blpwatch-links|Ismail Ayob}}==
	Ismail Ayob was ]'s lawyer but he was sued by Mandela in 2005. This high profile lawsuit was widely reported by multiple reputable South Africa media oulets, for example:
	. However, ], has repeatedly removed references to the lawsuit from the article, and in 2006 did it on the Nelson Mandela article as well (it has since been re-added to the Mandela article). . Given the editing of someone who might be potentially close to the subject of the article (apparently Ayob has a son called Zayd, although that proves nothing), I think that this could get quite tricky. Should references to the lawsuit be left out? ] 22:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
	: I agree this could get tricky. Hagiographical articles often become an embarassment to the author or subject when other editors add the "other side" of the story. If the article no longer even mentions that Ismail Ayob was Mandela's lawyer, then I would argue that it no longer shows that Ayob is notable enough for inclusion in Misplaced Pages. How about <nowiki>{{prod}}</nowiki>, nn-bio? ] 16:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
	::Actually the article did mention the lawsuit and Mandela's relationship with Ayob from the start, and wasn't a hagiography (in fact it had a rather hostile tone) , but then mention of the lawsuit was removed . It effectively became a hagiography, and all attempts to re-add information about the lawsuit and Mandela's relationship with Ayob have been removed. Ayob was a prominent struggle lawyer and still has a high political profile (if we get rid of his article, we may as well throw ] out as well). The subject is noteworthy and the article can be kept. As for the lawsuit, the details should be kept in, but the possible conflict of interest issues need to be dealt with.] 17:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
	:::I think it did start as a hagiography - most of the early edits were anonymous by ], with the first mention of Mandela and the artwork dispute coming but being deleted by ] a few minutes before the user Zayd first edited. ] may not have been Zayd, but the same IP address made some unpleasant on the ] article starting on the same day. ] 21:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
	::::OK, I stand corrected. Regardless, I have re-added the section on the lawsuit to the article (and added a BBC source as well), and expanded on Ayob's other anti-apartheid activities (he represented ], for example), and I have tried to add some balance to the sections both in ], and ]. It should be noted that Zayd Ayob is now quoted in the Nelson Mandela article. ] 21:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Kara Borden}}==
	There has been an ongoing conflict with ] and others over the inclusion of exact birthdates for underaged victims of crimes. My interpretation of ] is that these people are not public figures nor are they particularly notable outside of the fact that they were involved in a sensational crime, and I have been following my interpretation of policy by replacing their exact birthdays with simply their birth years. Tommypowell disagrees and has reverted my changes at ], ], and ]. Any help and input would be greatly appreciated. ] 23:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
	:It is near impossible to find a source for the date of birth for this article. Through much searching, only one possible link has been found which isn't even accessible to the general public due to it requiring a subscription to view. The lack of any other sources would imply to me that the birthdate is not readily available and thsu should not be included. A third party's opinion on this would be helpful. <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 00:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
	*) Those birthdates were put up in 2005 by other users and have been up for 2 years without complaint. I have asked you many times for language in the BLP which distinguishes between birthdates for people of different ages or different occupations (actors/musicians only as you have claimed). You have been unable to respond. Birthdates, where available, are routinely included on Misplaced Pages pages-there is NO exception in the BLP for alleged crime victims.
	* By the way, the link is accesible to the general public without subscription-http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&safe=off&q=lancaster+new+era%22+kara+borden%22+ludwig+2+06+91&btnG=Search and again-the birthdate has been up for 2 years without complaint, posted by User Detour in 1995; not by me. ] 14:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
	:You're correct that there's no exception in the BLP for birthdates for alleged crime victims.
	:There's an exception in the BLP for birthdates for *everyone* (except major public figures). ]
	<blockquote>
	Misplaced Pages includes exact birthdates for some famous people, but including this information for most living people should be handled with caution. While many well-known living persons' exact birthdays are widely known and available to the public, the same is not always true for marginally notable people or non-public figures. With identity theft on the rise, it has become increasingly common for people to consider their exact date of birth to be private information. When in doubt about the notability of the person in question, or if the subject of a biography complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth rather than the exact date.
	</blockquote>
	] 19:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
	* I think when you have been the focus of massive international media coverage including TV appearaces and hundreds of thousands of google hits you qualify as a "well-known living person" Where your birthdate is globally available in a 10 second google search the BLP concern about "identity theft" is not present. ] 14:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
	::I think that WP should have higher standards than the "massive international media". What is the value of reporting the birthdays of child victims of sex crimes? ] 17:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
	I checked out these articles. In my opinion the last two, at least, should be deleted. What value does it have to give personal details about children who have been victims of sex crimes? ] 19:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Richard Bridgeman, 7th Earl of Bradford}}==
	*{{article|Richard Bridgeman, 7th Earl of Bradford}} {{User|Ghost rider1000}} adds permanently two weblinks and which use an aggressiv and slanderous tone and seem to lead a smear campaign against the earl. Both links contradict ] and ]. He was noticed on his talkpage, in a revert's summary and on the article's talkpage. <span style="color:darkgreen">~~ ] <sub>]</sub> 20:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC) ~~ </span>
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Daniel Brandt}}==
	Isotope23 claims at ] that "I'm about 2 reverts away from protecting this article from editing because of the constant flipping back and forth between having this section and not having it" refering to the section I delected that has been restored (see the deleted paragraphs at the bottom of diff). Anyone have an opinion on how the BLP policy applies to the material I deleted? ] 22:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
	:The paragraph concluding that "Since November 19, 2005, the Misplaced Pages Watch site has included a page" is ] and should be deleted from the Daniel Brandt article. The site <nowiki>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org</nowiki> generally may not be qualify as a ] Even if wikipedia-watch.org generally were a ] for other articles, it is not ] and thus any material in the Daniel Brandt article that cites wikipedia-watch.org as its source should be deleted from the Daniel Brandt article. As for BLP policy, Brandt probably is a public figure, so ] would apply. -- ] 16:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
	{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
	|-
	! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | ] – Vandalism report - already reverted – 13:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
	|-
	| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived ] incident concerning the article above <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
	|-
	| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
	==] article claims the singer is dead==
	I'd like to report that the foo fighters frontman's page is claiming the singer dead.
	I don't think it's true Ihaven't heard any such thing on any news channel as of yet.
	So i'd like to report abuse. ]
	|-
	| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archived ] incident concerning the article above. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
	|}
	==] article is potentially libellous==
	Article reads like it was written by an extremist offshoot branch of the John Birch Society. It's not just biased, but pure character assasination and right-wing extremist propaganda. Of all the NPOV violations I've seen on wikipedia, this is BY FAR the WORST, and given the lack of sourcing, exhibits a high risk of containing libellous information. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:{{{2|}}}|&#32;{{{2}}}|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
	The article probably should be nominated for deletion. He is not that notable unless there is something more that could be said about him. ] 19:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
	::He is quite notable,and a good deal more can be said. Since he is well-known to be proud of defending leftists, even those involved with criminal activity (and as it is part of American constitutional law that lawyer defend criminal cases) , saying so does not violate BLP. Since the crimes of the accused, some of whom have been convinced, are not relevant, the refs to the WP articles on them is sufficient, and I have removed the descriptions of the crimes. ''']''' 21:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
	:::If things have been written about him then bring that information into the article. I am on your side. However just doing a job, and defending criminals is a lawyer's job, does not make a person notable on WP. ] 21:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
	::::It depends somewhat on the notability of the criminals. But the refs will bring that out.''']''' 22:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Leonard Weinglass, one of the country's most prominent defense lawyers since the Vietnam era, is easily notable enough for an article. As of this writing, the current version of the article contains no improper material. ] 00:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
	It could use some more references however. ] 02:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
	{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
	|-
	! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | ] – Reliable source substantiating most claims added. Others removed. – 13:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
	|-
	| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived ] incident concerning the article above <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
	|-
	| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
	==]==
	THE PAGE ON VIKTOR KOZENY IS VERY SLANDEROUS AND HAS ABSOLUTLEY NO CITATIONS WHATSOEVER. EACH TIME I HAVE ATTEMPTED TO EDIT THE SLANDEROUS, UN-SOURCED MATERIAL, AND LEAVE ONLY THE HARD FACTS, AT LEAST FOR THE TIME BEING, IT HAS BEEN ALMOST IMMEDIATLEY REINSTATED IN ITS ENTIRETY. THANK YOU. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:{{{2|}}}|&#32;{{{2}}}|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
	|-
	| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archived ] incident concerning the article above. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
	|}
	== ] {{blpwatch-links|Peter Roskam}} ==
	POV warriors are battling out with no winners but Roskam is the loser. Starting to read like a hit piece or campaign bio instead of an encyclopedia article. potentially false light libel issues. Please keep an eye on it. --] 04:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
	:I'd welcome as many people who understand WP:BLP as possible to come and comment on the changes to this article that are said to be based on BLP. Thanks. --] 16:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
	::Since you asked, I've been studying ] (among other Misplaced Pages policies) for about a month in my spare time. Generally speaking a Wiki biography about a living person must be written conservatively. It must strictly adhere to ], particularly ]. A side-by-side comparison between the Peter Roskam article, and the article about any living Democratic politician you'd care to name, proves that the former is a hatchet job. Much the same can be said about the rest of the Republican congressional delegation from Illinois and, I suspect, the rest of the Republicans in Congress. Misplaced Pages must not be put into a position of appearing to side with the critics of a living person. Any negative information must have ironclad RS V sourcing or it must be removed without hesitation. Thanks for asking. ] 19:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
	:::I don't think anything can be done if people supporting or opposing a candidate put in true, cited information. (The pupose of the information being to sway voters for or against the subject of the article, not to add to our intellectual understanding of that person's life or importance in history.) I think that readers are smart enough to make up their own minds anyway. ] 20:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
	::::The information in dispute is all true and all cited in RS-V sources. And *my* goal is not to sway anybody against the congressman. He is not up for re-election for one thing. It is to make a good article. A good article ought to be the verifiable truth whether or not that makes the person out to be a saint or a sinner or (where most of us lie) somewhere in the middle. I will not allow all negative information to be removed in the name of some tortured interpretation of WP:BLP any more than I would allow the good he has done (like returning lost dog tags to vietnam vets and/or their survivors) to be removed. --] 20:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
	:::::: I'm not familiar with the article at hand, but there is still the "undue weight" aspect to consider, whether or not the information is verifiable. For hypothetical example, if a subject is caught peeing on the side of the road at the age of five, and there happens to be newspaper articles about it to cite, is it really important enough of an incident to rate a paragraph (or even mention at all)? - ] 21:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::Thanks for that. In this article there is "undue mass" as well as "undue weight". That is the total mass of information is way too much for a person who is not that important. ] 21:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::: Interesting. I would usually think that an article would have whatever was available in it since Misplaced Pages Is Not Paper. Is there some standard? What would you think the correct size should be? --] 21:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::::There is probably a policy somewhere. I would think that an ideal article could be read in one sitting and give some basic understanding of the subject and why he, she, or it is important. If every bit of information that is out there is included no one will make it to the end of the article. ] 21:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
	::::::: Crockspot, you are exactly the sort of person we need on this article because you are fair and civil. Please head over there? Thanks. --] 21:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::I'm sure that there is at least one editor working that article who would disagree with your opinion of me vehemently, and since I have made the committment to avoid that editor if at all possible, I'll probably take a pass on your invitation. But I will try to take a look at it. - ] 21:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::Not me! I 'buried the axe' regarding any conflict we may have had a long time ago. Sorry if you haven't. I'd welcome your participation. - ] 10:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::::It's not a matter of burying the axe for me. It's the way that you (continue to) conduct yourself that I wish no part of. - ] 15:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Oh the irony! Someone who supports and defends the Swift Boaters chastising me for my conduct! That's rich! - ] 15:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::: Your comments would be appreciated in any case. --] 22:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Congressmen are up for re-election every two years. Otherwise I agree with what you say. :-) ] 20:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
	::::::Well, you have me there, but the campaigning is a year off at this point. --] 20:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::Congressmen such as Roskam are already fundraising and picking out key campaign staff. Serving in the House means constantly preparing for the next election. ] 23:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::Really Dino? Fundraising is highly regulated by the FEC. Unless he has a federally registered 08 campaign, fundraising for 08 would be illegal. You're claiming he has a FEC 08 campaign in place, Dino? Another one of your 'claims', eh Dino? - ] 10:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::::I think he was making a general comment that in a democracy politicians are always "up for re-election." ] 17:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
	It looks like the article is being edited by people with political agendas. This shows how powerful WP has become if they think the best way they can influence the outcome of an election is to edit a WP article. ]'s article is about the same. I don't think there is anything that can be done about it, unless you want to get in on one side or the other that is. Cheers. ] 19:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Samuel_Hook}}==
	I'm new to this, but this is my brother-in-law. Yes, he has some links with Abramoff, but I find it unneccessary to see that Sam has its own Wiki page.
	Is it possible to nuke it in its entiretiy?
	== Norah Jones ==
	So sorry, I'm not sure where to write this, or how to fix it.
	It says "norah jones is a crazy indian lady who makes lots of music that puts people to sleep... shes a fuckin pimp!!"
	on Norah Jones' page.
	I couldn't find it when I tried to edit it out.
	== Mel Gibson DUI Incident ==
	There is a very interesting debate taking place on the ] AFD discussion page regarding breakout articles on controversial incidents in the lives of living people. I think editors involved with the biography project may be interested in weighing in on this. ] 02:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
	==John Travolta==
	My 'Family' section cleanup attempt has been reverted by some unknown person. I added the year he and Kelly Preston were married and the names of their kids. My source was the wiki bio on Kelly Preston. I also deleted the parts about Jett having untreated autism because the sources were Operation Clambake,( an anti-Scientology message board), and a couple of gossip media. Not reliable sources. Some of the allegations were not sourced at all. All that I deleted were potential legal trouble for Wiki. Please consider blocking the editor who reverted to remove my changes, and protect this bio if you agree with my changes.
	] 03:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)S. M. Sullivan
	* Just off the cuff, Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source, so unless there is a RS cited for marriage date and children's names in the Preston article, that info is not reliably sourced. Children's names are particularly sensitive, unless they are already notable themselves. (If there is an RS in the Preston article, it should be used directly in the Travolta article, not cite the Preston article.) - ] 15:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Eben Pagan}}==
	* {{article|Eben Pagan}} - Negative information about this (non-notable, but let's ignore that for now) individual is sourced only to messageboard posts. Edit-warring is ongoing to keep said information in the article. ] - ] 16:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Christopher Michael Langan}}==
	This article is being used to harass the bio subject. Some of the content in the article and history is potentially libellous. Please see the article talk page for complaints from the subject of the article. ] 16:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
	==] {{blpwatch-links|Shawn Hornbeck}}==
	* {{article|Shawn Hornbeck}} - Do we really need to mention the specific and embarassing details of the crime comitted on this man in the lede? 'In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm"'// ] - ] 18:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
	:I took the word out and it was put right back with the justification that it was cited. I don't think there should be articles on child victims of sex crimes at all. ] 18:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Latest revision as of 20:14, 19 January 2025

Misplaced Pages noticeboard for discussion of biographies of living people

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here. Shortcuts

• WP:BLPN
• WP:BLP/N
• WP:BLPNB
• WP:BLP/NB

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

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

---

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

Additional notes:

• Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
• For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
• Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Notes for volunteers

How do I mark an incident as resolved or addressed? You can use {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section containing the report. At least leave a comment about a BLP report, if doing so might spare other editors the task of needlessly repeating some of what you have done. More ways to help Categorize: Potential BLPs Monitor recent changes to BLPs: BLP watchlist (may be long to load) Remove BLP violations: Unsourced statements, All unreferenced BLPs (recently created), BLPs lacking sources, Negative unsourced content Possible vandalism or libelous edits (as detected by edit filters 39, 339 and 189), Removal of Category:Living people (filter 117) Check if these people could in fact be dead, or if articles about them were removed Manually search BLPs for violations by using advanced search parameters. This link will search for X in the category of BLPs. Change X in the URL to the keyword you are looking for; alternatively, type X incategory: Living_people (the underscore is necessary) in the search bar. Request article protection, report edit-warring users or report a specific user (in contentious topics recognized by ArbCom or elsewhere). Today's random unreferenced BLP Tunku Nadzaruddin (random unreferenced BLP of the day for 19 Jan 2025 - provided by User:AnomieBOT/RandomPage via WP:RANDUNREF)

Centralized discussion

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

Poorly sourced Russian spies/ex-spies poisoning claim of Bashar al-Assad

Bashar al-Assad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) BLP attention is needed. On the talk page I have warned about the Russian spies'/ex-spies' Telegram claim of Bashar al-Assad being poisoned being too poorly sourced. Probably because of al-Assad's status as a fugitive wanted for war crimes and crimes against humanity and as an ex-dictator, few people seem to be bothered with leaving the rumour in place, despite the low quality of the sourcing that all point to a viral rumour based on the General SVR Telegram channel. The WP:WEASELly "may have been" and "it was reported that" seem to be seen as sufficient to justify propagating the rumour, without attribution to General SVR as the source of the claim. After half a day, none of the more regular mainstream media sources appear to have said anything about this, including independent reliable Russian sources such as Meduza and The Moscow Times. Currently there are two sentences with the rumour (one in the lead, one in the body of the article). Diffs:

• Adding the rumour:
  • 08:50, 2 January 2025 by BasselHarfouch source = WP:THESUN
  • 18:49, 2 January 2025 by Bri source = The Economic Times
  • 02:04, 3 January 2025 by Richie1509 source = The Economic Times
  • 04:24, 3 January 2025 by Geraldshields11 source = WP:NEWSWEEK
• Removing individual instances of the rumour:
  • 02:14, 3 January 2025 by me (I didn't realise that other occurrences remained)
  • 04:33, 3 January 2025 by Nikkimaria

Boud (talk) 13:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I see, thanks for letting me know about it. Richie1509 (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

See also: Claims of Vladimir Putin's incapacity and death#October 2023 claims of death from the same source. Boud (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing up this point, i was not aware of it. I will be careful in the future BasselHarfouch (talk) 07:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Dear @Boud: Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I understand how important it is to maintain high standards for sourcing on Misplaced Pages. When I added the reference to Newsweek, I did so in good faith, as I recall it being a respected publication during my upbringing. I wasn't aware that the community's perception of the source has shifted over time, and I appreciate you pointing this out. If we had talked about it first, I would have gladly reverted it myself. Collaboration and communication are key to building a better encyclopedia, and I value the chance to learn and improve. Thank you again for bringing this to my attention, and I'll be more careful about vetting sources in the future. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do to help address this matter. Geraldshields11 (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Joe Manchin

Today we have an unnecessary edit war on BLP outgoing Sen. Joe Manchin (and perhaps many other articles this morning) about the addition of infobox data which is factually incorrect at the time of insertion (, diff]). Nobody is arguing the data, just the timing of the edit. While User:Therequiembellishere is one person jumping the gun, they are a longtime contributor here. Their position should be taken in good faith, IMHO. Also in my opinion, these edits are technically BLP violations because they impart incorrect information. Under policy, such clear BLP violations must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion (bolding from the original) by ANY editor. This sort of thing might lead to an edit war in which everybody is trying to do the right thing. Note: the page was correctly edited for the change; one click would have changed it at the proper time of transition.

1. Does this sort of thing happen every opening of congress?

2. Isn't this a potential future problem for BLPN, since edit wars on this are built-in to the apparent excitement of awaiting the actual moment of transition?

3. I'm inclined towards timed page protection, but page protection is not normally done preemptively. Here's the page today literally under attack for BLP violations. If we know this is common for transitions of administration, isn't this an exception?

While this noticeboard doesn't normally discuss policy, should we be aware of such disruption in advance? Making it harder for sooner editors like Therequiembellishere who feel... Well, I'll let them make their own affirmative position here if they wish. BusterD (talk) 14:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Page protections is the only way. IMHO, most editors who do these premature changes every two years, don't actually realize it's too early. They seem to assume once mid-night occurs, start updating. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I raise this issue not to cause a problem today. I'm not trying to unduly embarrass any editor for taking a position I don't agree with. On the other hand, we have established BLP policy the hard way through sometimes brutal disagreements about how to carefully calibrate opposing positions based on good faith argument. I trust the BLP policy because we earned it. We don't need to re-learn these lessons. But we could discuss how to proceed next time. BusterD (talk) 15:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Under policy, it would be within the responsibility of any editor to revert these edits and report the editor to this board. But for my starting this conversation, it would be within my remit to revert the edits, fully protect the page and warn Therequiembellishere (and others). I haven't done that. I want the discussion about what to do next time. BusterD (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I understand, this is for the next time around when terms end & begin. PS - I should note, that the premature changes in the BLPs tend to have a ripple effect on related pages. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I've said everything I want on this on Manchin's talk. It's just a lot of pedantry by a few editors with obsessive fealty and exactitude that doesn't meaningfully help anything or anyone, least of all a casual reader. Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Verifiability is not "pedantry". Members aren't sworn in until noon EST, correct? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I can understand changes being made about 1 or 2 hrs before the actual event, when dealing with so many bios. But 12 hrs before the event, is too early. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Obvious BLP violations are not pedantry. Those edits added provably incorrect information. Can User:Therequiembellishere provide a policy-based answer why those edits do not violate BLP guidance? This is just bad acting under the cover of labelling others. Do they not see that? BusterD (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Therequiembellishere's response here demonstrates we actually have a problem, at least with that user, whose reply here is non-responsive to the issue. BLP policy does indeed require obsessive fealty and exactitude, as long experience with this board has shown. As my OP suggested, any user might justifiably have reverted Therequiembellishere right into 3RR and immediate blocking, just by merely diligently following policy. Therequiembellishere might bookmark this thead for when it happens to them two years from now. I could have done it this morning, but instead chose to create this thread and invite the user to comment. Would preemptive full protection be a reasonable solution to such flippant disruption? BusterD (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I oppose pre-emptive full protection. I strongly support an immediate sitewide block of any repeat offenders, with the block to expire at noon Washington, DC time on the swearing in day. Cullen328 (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm with Therequiembellishere on this: a prediction, especially one based on clear US law, is not a false statement or a BLP violation. Joe Manchin's term does end on January 3rd, 2025, and that was still true on January 2nd, 2025. It's, in fact, been true for over a month now. The only way it could end on a different day would be if Joe Manchin had died before then, which would obviously be a BLP violation to assume.

(Unlike Therequiembellishere I don't even think the opposition is pedantry. Pedants are technically correct; to say that the end of Joe Manchin's term was not January 3rd before January 3rd is not even technically correct. It's just false.) Loki (talk) 07:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

IMO the issue is not the term ending time but the claim Joe Manchin served as senator etc when he was still serving as a senator at the time. Nil Einne (talk) 10:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

For further clarity. I think our readers reasonably understand our articles might be outdated. So if the article says Joe Manchin is serving and his term ended a few hours ago or even a few days ago that's fine. I mean in other cases it's reasonable to expect them to even be weeks or months out of date. But if out article says Joe Manchin served, I think they reasonable would expect he is no longer serving. As I understand it, there's no more issue. But if this reoccurs, I'm not sure Cullen328's solution is correct. I mean if some admin is volunteering to mollycoddle each repeat offender then okay I guess. But otherwise the norm is we expect editors to obey our policy and guidelines by themselves without needing handholding in the form of continual blocks everytime something comes up to stop them. Therefore I'd suggest either an admin subject them to escalating blocks quickly leading up to an indefinite if they repeat perhaps under BLP or AP2; or we do it via community bans. While I'd personally be fine with a site ban, it might be more palatable to the rest of the community if we instead do it as a topic ban on making such changes. With a clear topic ban, hopefully an admin will be more willing to subject them to escalating blocks. Even if not, I think the community would be much more willing to siteban such editors if they repeat after a community topic ban. As a final comment, I also don't see why editor feels it's something so urgent that they need to do it 12 hours in advance. This almost seems one of those lame edits we sometimes get at the ANs resulting from the apparent desire of an editor to be first or get the credit so we have editors creating "drafts" with basically zero content long before there's anything to write about then some other editor is sick of this editor doing this and so ignores the draft and makes their own. Nil Einne (talk) 12:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Technically speaking, if you are still serving you also have served. So it's not technically speaking false, although this really is pedantry and I would not say it's the most true possible statement.

I'm still not convinced it's a BLP violation, though. Loki (talk) 04:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the argument is being made @LokiTheLiar:, that editing in someone is no longer holding an office, when they still are & somebody has assumed office, when they haven't yet, is problematic. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I concur with User:GoodDay. The problem is that such an edit violates WP:NOT, specifically WP:CRYSTALBALL. Yes, it was highly likely and in fact Joe Manchin did survive to January 3, 2025 and completed his last term as a senator as everyone had expected. But posting that information to his infobox before that date was horribly premature. There was no way to know in advance if his term would have been ended prematurely by any number of unpredictable awful scenarios. For example, the end date for the term of Secretary of Transportation Ron Brown is April 3, 1996, the day he died in a plane crash. WP is not in the business of predicting those scenarios. We simply designate a current office holder as "incumbent" and then we add on an end date when we actually reach an end date one way or another. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@BusterD: maybe a RFC or something is required, to establish how to handle future premature changes to such bios. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Taylor Lorenz BLP issues and harassment of subject based on article contents

The Taylor Lorenz article has an unusual history in the sense that the contents of the article have led to harassment of Lorenz in the past, or other issues impacting her financially.

Most recently it was regarding her date of birth and Misplaced Pages choosing to use a date range, with the allegations being that it was Lorenz choosing to keep her birthdate off of the Internet or being deceitful.

1. FreeBeacon
2. TimesOfIndia
3. Lorenz Substack
4. SoapCentral
5. RedState
6. Lorenz BlueSky
7. Twitchy
8. FoxNews
9. BlueSky
10. FreeBeacon

There have also seemingly been issues according to Lorenz with errors in the article causing her lost business opportunities See here

"This insane 100% false story is affecting my brand deals and some partnership stuff I have in the works for 2025, so I really need it corrected ASAP!!!"

An addition of a 'Harassment and coordinated attacks' section was added in August of last year, with additional information being added shortly after regarding a Twitter suspension. I moved the text around recently in an attempt at a more neutral article that was quickly reverted. A TalkPage discussion followed shortly after but there hasn't been a policy based consensus.

My question- should we have a devoted harassment section included for someone who has been harassed based on her Misplaced Pages profile previously? It seems like WP:AVOIDVICTIM comes into play with directly focusing attention on her being a victim and could lead to further harassment by highlighting it with equal weight as her career section.

Personally I think the material could be presented more neutrally per WP:STRUCTURE but wanted to get a wider opinion.

There is also a discussion currently going on if we should include her year of birth here. Awshort (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC) 04:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC) Fixed incorrect diff

@Awshort it looks like the paragraph below got moved past your signature, and therefor appears orphaned.

Delectopierre (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Removing the harassment section furthers the narrative that there are no coordinated harassment campaigns against her, and acts to diminish the effect those coordinated campaigns have wrought upon her. Generally speaking, victims of harassment don't want what they've gone through to be diminished.

I am unaware of any evidence that discussing harassment on wiki for her, or in general, leads to further harassment. If that evidence exists, I'd certainly be wiling to change my stance.

Delectopierre (talk) 08:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

We don't take a stance on supporting a narrative for something - we neutrally present both sides of an argument based on their prevalence in reliable sources; nothing more and nothing less. Our only priority is making sure it's presented neutrally, above all other content policies. In essence, we don't take a side and if something reads as though it is biased to one side it should be rewritten.

Regarding coordinated harassment - If an incident regarding a public figure is significant it will have received plenty of third party sources reporting on it. I spent a few hours looking over sources for anything mentioning her harassment being coordinated and third party coverage supporting it and came up almost empty on third party coverage. And the main source of her mentioning harassment was her ,while on her book tour.

I did find that Lorenz mentioned being harassed in several deleted tweets. The only two sources I could find in support of anything involving the words "coordinated harassment campaign" or similar were from Lorenz discussing the Libs Of Tik Tok backlash (It’s eye opening to see how sophisticated & vicious these coordinated attacks have become.,

1. IWMF organization post the day after the Carlson incident (Carlson’s commentary is a deliberate, deeply dangerous effort to mobilize harassment toward Lorenz. which included a quoted Tweet from Lorenz stating she had suffered from a smear campaign
2. Media Manipulation brief by her friend Emily Dreyfuss Lorenz is a frequent target of coordinated harassment campaigns that include being swatted, stalked, which would be a WP:COISOURCE due to the friendship, and more than likely not considered a reliable source due to no fact checking on a brief or editorial oversight and a lot of it is opinion based.

We present information neutrally and let readers come to their own conclusion. "The aim is to inform, not influence."

Going by "we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public." in WP:DUE, there doesn't seem to be support for her harassment being considered coordinated.

You had previously listed sources in support of the above. I mentioned both IWMF and the Media Manipulation brief from your list above, but wanted to cover the other two as well.

1. TheInformation link - No stranger to digital harassment, doxxing or the dangers of online celebrity, Lorenz Does not support the above.
2. Forbes link - Right-Wing Figures Attack Journalist Taylor Lorenz For Revealing Creator Of ‘Libs Of TikTok’ Fails WP:RSHEADLINES.

If you have other sources in support of it then I am open to reconsidering my position. My main concern is just presenting the text neutrally and if there could be further issues for the article subject that could arise from having a dedicated harassment section. It's a low possibility, but I also never thought I would see a range for a year of birth used to harass someone so that was a first.

Awshort (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

You asked a question

My question- should we have a devoted harassment section included for someone who has been harassed based on her Misplaced Pages profile previously? It seems like WP:AVOIDVICTIMcomes into play with directly focusing attention on her being a victim and could lead to further harassment by highlighting it with equal weight as her career section.

and I replied to it.

Delectopierre (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I see that. I thought you had replied to work towards a policy based consensus since this was also in the above A TalkPage discussion followed shortly after but there hasn't been a policy based consensus., and since it was a section you added I also assumed you wanted to address the neutrality issues.

Awshort (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Delectopierre I believe you meant your post, but I wasn't sure. I attempted a fix that looked good on the post preview but if this was not what you meant please feel free to revert my edit and accept my apologies.

Awshort (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

You're right. My mistake. That's what I get for editing late at night. Delectopierre (talk) 02:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

List of pornographic performers by decade

• List of pornographic performers by decade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of pornographic performers by decade is a remarkable article in that it has existed for 20 years and yet, if I were to follow WP:BLPREMOVE to the letter right now, I would have to cut the article down to its first sentence, the section headings, and a single see-also. Saying "X is a pornographic performer" is, obviously, a contentious claim, and as such every entry needs its own citation; it's not enough to rely on the articles as their own de facto citations, as is the tolerated practice for noncontroversial lists like List of guitarists. This is all the more the case because the definition of "pornographic performer" is subjective. With help from Petscan, I've found the following people on the list who are not described in their articles as pornographic performers: Fiona Richmond, Amouranth, F1NN5TER, Kei Mizutani, Uta Erickson, Isabel Sarli, Fumio Watanabe, Louis Waldon, Nang Mwe San, Piri, Megan Barton-Hanson, Aella (writer). Many (all?) of them are sex workers of some sort, so in each case, there may be a reliable source that exists that calls them a pornographic performer, but without one, it's a flagrant BLP violation. And if it were just those, I'd remove them and be done with it, but even for the ones whose articles do call them pornographic performers, there's no guarantee of being right. I removed Miriam Rivera from the list after seeing that an IP had removed the mentions of porn in her article, which had indeed been sourced to a press release about a fictionalized depiction of her life. No, each of these entries needs an individual citation appearing on the list article so that the claims can be judged.

So, there are about 650 entries, and we know at least some are questionable, and we cannot assume that any of the rest are correct. What do we do? Again, the letter-of-BLP answer here is to remove the unsourced items, but that would leave literally nothing. The only two citations in the whole thing are to search pages on two non-RS porn databases. So at that point we might as well apply WP:BLPDELETE. Another solution would be to find sources for, I don't know, two or three people in each heading, just so it's not empty, remove everything else, and stick {{incomplete list}} there. A third option is AfD. Does anyone have any ideas?

P.S. I haven't even looked at other lists of pornographic performers. Are they all like this? -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 05:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't have a solution to this @Tamzin, but the first name I looked at was Isabel Sarli. Her article references her full frontal appearance and describes it as sexploitation. Sexploitation films are not pornographic films. I can't see any mention of pornographic acting in her article? This is a problem. Knitsey (talk) 05:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Doing some spot-checking, Kōji Wakamatsu is described in his article as a director of pink films but not as an actor – and it does not seem as though pink films are necessarily pornographic; Harry S. Morgan is categorised as a porn actor but the text of the article does not seem to support this. Clearly there's a problem here. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 05:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Hm, yes, per WP:BLP each LP on this list should have a decent ref (better than Internet Adult Film Database, see ), and it wouldn't hurt the others either. I'm slightly reminded of a complaint I made at Talk:Holocaust_denial/Archive_21#Notable_Holocaust_deniers. It's not the same, but it's still sensitive. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Btw, per List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films and List of actors in gay pornographic films, it seems they're not all like that, but List of British pornographic actors lists people without WP-articles, my knee-jerk reaction is that that's not good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

List of British pornographic actors most seem to be referenced using "International Adult Film Database" which is user generated. Imdb for born actors. Knitsey (talk) 07:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_British_pornographic_actors#People_without_WP-articles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I thought we'd dealt with this before and it was no longer a problem. I'm sure in previous discussions we're generally agrees such lists should only contain notable individuals with articles i.e. no black links or red links (if an editor believes someone is notable they need to create the article first). I thought we'd also agreed to strictly require inline citations when adding names regardless of what the individual articles say. I couldn't find many of the previous discussions though but did find we seem to have a lot more of these lists in the past. Nil Einne (talk) 09:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm aware of a few circumstances in which pornographic actors faced serious obstacles in their lives after leaving the industry and tried hard to separate themselves from their prior career. I would hope, in these cases, we respect their wishes and just leave them off. Simonm223 (talk) 12:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Depending on situation, we might or we might not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

My main concern is for people who have explicitly expressed that they no longer want to be public people, being honest. Those who have struggled to transition to non-pornographic acting, music, etc. is less of my concern. Simonm223 (talk) 12:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

That's understandable but it runs into issues with WP:PUBLICFIGURE where editors think that once someone is a public figure, it is forever.

Recently there was I believe the son of a lady who had appeared in Playboy a long time ago who had asked for her article to be removed on BLPN. The specifics that I remember are vague, but essentially she had been a Playmate one year and editors had built an article for her even though she was a relatively private person other than the fact she was in Playboy in the early 80's. The family member had suggested that the article basically loomed over her head and caused harm to her reputation since it was something she did once 30+ years ago and distanced herself from almost immediately. I can't say i disagree that in cases like that, there shouldn't be an article.

Awshort (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that specific case but that is precisely the sort of circumstance under which I think a private person's right to privacy should be weighed more important than Misplaced Pages completionism. Simonm223 (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm reminded of Richard Desmond per . Other end of the scale, perhaps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Nil Einne You may be thinking of this discussion which you commented on.

Awshort (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it was really that, although I did forget about it so thanks for reminding me. One of the issues with that list is since it was such a high profile case I felt it likely there would at least be secondary source coverage, and also as pornographic appearances go, I feel being Playmate is a lot less controversial than other stuff; so while it was bad, I didn't feel it quite as severe as most of the other stuff we're doing or have been doing. I was thinking of older discussions probably especially the RfC below. Nil Einne (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't know where to get sources for this. I would suggest doing as you say, and cutting every non-verifiable person from the page. Anyone interested can hunt down acceptable sources for each entry. GeogSage 01:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Given the lack of referencing and the entries included in error, pointed out above, then I would be in favour of removing every unreferenced entry on the list. If that leaves literally nothing, well - AFD. If somebody really wants this information, well, categories exist. Bastun 14:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I would support this as well, and honestly would probably still vote to delete a list with only the referenced entries if it were brought at AfD. A list page doing the job of one or several category pages and nothing more has no purpose. Choucas Bleu 🐦‍⬛ 13:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Would a blank-and-soft-redirect to Category:Pornographic film actors be a good solution here? That way the list is still in the history for anyone who wants to restore it with references. The "by decade" might be misleading in that case, but we could first reverse the hard redirect from List of pornographic performers, which this probably should have been at anyways. Another option would be a list of lists at Lists of pornographic performers and redirecting there. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 18:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I think your first suggestion is a good idea, I'd support that for sure. Definitely less favorable to a list of lists though. Choucas Bleu 🐦‍⬛ 20:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• I knew we had a lengthy RfC/Discussion about this subject matter, it just took me a while to find it though – Unreferenced lists and porn stars RFC, and also this AfD as well. Discussions are ten years old, but I don't think anything in the lengthy close of the RfC has changed. I was one of the volunteers who helped add refs to this article → List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films, which if I recall correctly, was the impetus for the RfC. Good luck, sourcing these types of lists are a massive chore. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  RFC closer said in 2014:

  Q: Should all pre-existing lists of porn performers have a reliable source supporting each entry?

  A: The rough consensus below is that it's always more controversial to call someone a porn performer than to say they're engaged in most other professions. A reliable source should be added for every entry that's challenged or likely to be challenged. But as a concession to the practicalities, editors are asked not to go through the pre-existing lists making large-scale and unilateral challenges, as this will overwhelm the people who maintain these lists with work, and there is a legitimate concern that this is unfair. If you do intend to remove unsourced entries, please proceed at a reasonable, non-disruptive speed dealing with what you judge to be the highest-priority cases first. If you could easily source an entry yourself, then removing it as unsourced is rather unhelpful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  Well, removing ~650 entries after 10 years of the list's maintainers doing nothing to fix this would average out to, what, ~1.2 per week since that RfC? That seems like a reasonable, non-disruptive speed to me. Courtesy ping @S Marshall. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 16:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, I do vaguely remember making that close ten years ago. I agree that it's appropriate to implement its outcome in full now.—S Marshall T/C 17:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  I support that. GeogSage 01:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Based on discussion above, I have redirected the list to Category:Pornographic actors. This way, the content is still there in the history, and can be restored by any editor willing to take the time to dig up the sources. If anyone objects, I'm happy to argue the case at AfD. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 03:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

For the interested, Talk:List_of_British_pornographic_actors#People_without_WP-articles is ongoing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Citations are a WP:SURMOUNTABLE issue. In 2018 (example here), every BLP entry required and had WP:RS citations. Editors at the time considered the requirement to be overkill, and a requirement for an existing WP article supported by good references was deemed sufficient. It was a compromise among editors. Does selectively restoring the sourced 2018 content and then re-adding male, non-binary and new female entries that can be sourced sound like a viable plan to you? • Gene93k (talk) 11:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you consider AVN (magazine) a good enough source in context? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

AVN's newsroom content is considered reliable as noted at WP:RSPS. Caution must be applied in distinguishing hard news reporting from repackaged press releases. If an AVN citation is not good enough, other references that sustain notability for the existing stand-alone WP article can be brought in to overcome any BLP concerns. • Gene93k (talk) 11:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Gene93k: I find it very strange for an article to have had a recentish consensus to move away from a more BLP-compliant version. But I guess overall I'm relieved to know that there was a more compliant version once. Yes, definitely no objection to restoring the sourced version, as long as the sources used are reliable, and then to adding back previously-unsourced entries as people find sources for them. If you do so, let me know, and I'll go retarget all the redirects that have just been retargeted to the category. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 00:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Kith Meng

This person's Misplaced Pages page is being continually changed to remove any mentions of well-documented accusations against him, often by Misplaced Pages accounts that are named after his companies. Now somebody who seems to be a bit more knowledgeable about Misplaced Pages has removed all of the references to crime and corruption, despite them being widely reported on by the press, claiming that it violates Misplaced Pages's policies to mention any accusations if they haven't been proven in court. But many of the incidents mentioned are verifiable, even if he wasn't actually convicted of a crime over them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khatix (talk • contribs) 07:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

FYI, this is the disputed edit by Georgeee101 who raised BLPCRIME. I guess the question is whether Meng is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE for the allegations to be reinstated. That could be done through a RfC. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I have to be honest, I don't know what that means. I am not a big Wikipedian, I just do edits to articles about Cambodia. Kith Meng is pretty notorious here, there are countless independent articles about some of his antics. But I noticed that his Misplaced Pages page kept getting updated by somebody whose username was the name of one of his companies. I kept undoing them, which wasn't a big deal because they were mostly unsourced, written in poor English. But these new edits are also sanitizing his Misplaced Pages page, removing all of the corruption and scandals and reading like one of his publicity announcements, but this time by somebody who seems to know what they're doing. clicking undo didn't do anything. I assume he hired a specialist. Khatix (talk) 14:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

It means you should start a discussion on the talk page of the article on whether the allegations should be included given the available sources that are reporting on them. If there is not enough participation, you can notify Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Cambodia or request a WP:RfC for outside comment. You should also assume good faith on the intentions of other editors and not presume that they are undisclosed paid editors. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I started a discussion and included some different sources from the different media outlets. If nobody responds for awhile, is it alright for me to unilaterally edit it again? I am not sure what the rules are for trying to settle these sorts of disagreements. I used to always change it back when the account removing the corruption allegations was openly his PR team, but I am a bit nervous about being seen as a vandal if I undo it now that it's somebody else. Khatix (talk) 11:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Now that it's been disputed under BLP grounds, you must gain consensus before reinstating them. That is why I encourage you to notify Wikiproject Cambodia of the discussion and then a RfC to gather more participation. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Uncontentious but still poorly/not sourced info about a living person

On Chetan Bhagat#author's page (since I can't copy and paste the message, his article is short and you can find the parts on there, it's under the "author" section of career) there are areas where it says "citation needed", but I don't think the material is contentious. Do I still need to remove the material ASAP? Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I am personally very strict with unsourced content, regardless of it being contentious or not. Generally, however, if the content has been tagged for a reasonable time and remains unsourced, feel free to remove. GiantSnowman 10:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, but how do I find out how long it's been up for, and what counts as a "reasonable time"? Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Edit the article, and you will see the date tag - on Chetan Bhagat they are October 2024, so 3 months. Reasonable time is a judgement call. GiantSnowman 22:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Is there at least a rough range for what should count as reasonable time? Weeks? Months? Years? Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

42 seconds. Or days. YMMV. JFHJr (㊟) 23:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

For me, how long to wait to remove depends on the type of content. For example, clearly promotional unsourced content I may just remove without tagging, but other content I may never remove regardless of how long it's been tagged. In this particular article, I would be inclined to remove a sentence such as "It became India's fastest-selling book of its time" pretty quickly. However, a sentence such as "The story was adapted by film director Rajkumar Hirani into a film named 3 Idiots starring Aamir Khan, R. Madhavan, Sharman Joshi, and Kareena Kapoor" with blue wikilinks to the film and the actors is likely something I would never remove unless it appeared false since it is not a lot more effort to go the wikilinked page and copy a citation for something as basic as that information. – notwally (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Alright, I removed the sentence about it being one of India's fastest selling books of all time. Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Yes this article is heavily unsourced, however, I don't see anything harmful here thus I think "citation needed" tags for sometime will be fine before cleanup of unsourced information. Devopam (talk) 04:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Scott Ritter Biography - Noncompliance with MOS and BLP Guidelines

I am requesting approval to fix issues in the Scott Ritter article regarding the description of his convictions. The article states in its second sentence: He is a convicted child sex offender. Labeling Ritter as a "child sex offender" carries moral judgment and appears to be name-calling, which the MOS explicitly warns against. According to MOS:CONVICTEDFELON: Labels such as "convicted sex offender" are imprecise and could be construed as name-calling or a moral judgement. It is better to describe the specific crime itself. The current wording fails to comply with this guideline.

2) Undue Weight: MOS:CONVICTEDFELON states that legal issues should only be highlighted in the lead if central to a person’s notability, which is not the case with Ritter's convictions. His notable career as a UN weapons inspector and outspoken critic of the Iraq War is the basis for his fame, not his convictions. Placing this legal information in the second sentence gives it undue prominence, overshadowing his primary achievements. Convictions for online communications with an undercover officer are not what make Ritter notable, as many non-notable individuals face similar charges and nobody is writing their Misplaced Pages bios.

3) Imprecision: The term child sex offender in the Ritter bio links to the article for child sexual abuse, which that article defines as a form of child abuse in which an adult or older adolescent uses a child for sexual stimulation, whereas Ritter's convictions involved contact with an adult undercover police officer posing as a minor. This distinction is significant and misrepresented by the current label.

To bring the article in line with Misplaced Pages's policies, I propose we replace He is a convicted child sex offender with: In 2011, Ritter was convicted of several criminal offenses following an undercover sting operation, during which he engaged in sexually explicit online communications with a police officer posing as a minor. This phrasing avoids imprecise labeling and provides accurate context.

Placement Adjustment: Move this information to a "Legal issues" or "Controversies" section later in the article, ensuring balance and compliance with the undue weight guideline. However, since this information is already covered in the body, we should simply remove the statement from the first paragraph, or move it down to the bottom of the second paragraph.

I attempted to edit the article to reflect these changes, but my edits were reverted with the explanation that "there was consensus found to include this in the lead." However, no justification was provided for how the current wording and placement comply with MOS and BLP policies. I raised my concerns on the article's Talk Page, but they have not been addressed. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think "convicted sex offender" is particularly useful in a lead given the breadth of its meaning, and I think it makes far more sense to describe the conviction. The current lead does seem to violate the MOS guideline. – notwally (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I've changed this per the suggestion. Hopefully the problem is solved. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

An editor just reverted the changes without discussion () after I had already made an article talk page comment about this BLPN topic and the violation of MOS policies (). Lardlegwarmers (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

We're instructed not to make stand alone controversies sections etc so that would be the opposite of balance and compliance with the undue weight guideline unless I'm missing something here. Do you mean as a seperate section of the lead? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Doing like it was in this diff: would be good; a more accurate sentence, at the bottom of the lead, that gives details about the conviction. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes that is preferable, in the lead but not in the first sentence. I think we could say less than that though. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Please note that That One Editor has once again reverted it to being the less-detailed version in the first paragraph (after having been stymied on a campaign to add unsourced or miss-sourced material to the full sentence.) Can we get more hands on this? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back Would you like to propose some language? The key is that we should briefly but accurately state the facts of his conviction instead of labeling his person as such. It seems notable that the convictions resulted from a sting operation (versus contact with an actual minor). Lardlegwarmers (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

How about "In 2011, Ritter was convicted of criminal offenses after engaging in sexually explicit online communications with a police officer posing as a minor." Pretty close to OP's proffer but a little shorter. JFHJr (㊟) 01:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Now at AE, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Luganchanka. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure it should be in the lead at all as it doesn't seem like the thing that made him notable. However, if he is only notable for the combination of his offense plus his other work then the lead should make that clear. As a stand alone fact it should either be at the end of the lead or not at all. Springee (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

He is only notable for his other career activities. The criminal offenses by themselves fail notability. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:LEDE is supposed to summarize the article rather than merely stating the notability of the subject. The article has a top-level "§Arrests and conviction for sex offenses" section, so a sentence in the lede noting that aspect of the topic is reasonable. Per CONVICTEDFELON, the fact that it's not specifically relevant to his notability means it can go fairly late in the lede rather than in the first sentence where the person is identified and notability established. In contrast with the CONVICTEDFELON thought about not including it at all per Tim Allen, that person's article does not have a top-level section about it. And unlike that case, where it seems to be an isolated biographical aspect, here there is at least a mention in the criminality section that does relate to the Iraq aspect, which is a major part of his notability. DMacks (talk) 04:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

RfC:

To settle the issue once and for all, I have created an RfC on the adice of RTH at AE, see Talk:Scott_Ritter#RfC:_Ritter's_sexual_sex_offenses_convictions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: the consensus ("Providing clarity that Ritter's offenses were not with an actual child was the consensus of the BLPN discussion and I think is the most reasonable position.") you describe on that talk page as existing here doesn't appear to exist. Was it a different discussion being referenced? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree that there is no consensus about the "actual child" aspect. The consensus that seems to be forming here is that the crime should be described per MOS:CRIMINAL rather than merely using a term such as "child sex offender". – notwally (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Peter Berg

There seems to be some editing back and forth going on in the Personal Life section re: Caitlyn Jenner controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fearlessfool (talk • contribs) 01:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

What's the back and forth? There don't seem to be recent back and forth problems in the edit history. Do you mean WP:UNDUE discussion in the prose? Please feel free to voice your concern on the article talkpage before escalating here. This is a forum for when consensus isn't apparent or serious BLP violations occur. JFHJr (㊟) 03:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any back and forth either, but in my view, using WP:TMZ as the sole source for that paragraph is a BLPVIO. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I gave it a shot. If you'd still like to replace the TMZ cite with a cn tag, I wouldn't dispute it. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 00:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think leaving it unsourced is the best solution, so I just replaced TMZ with better sources, since it received widespread coverage in multiple sources. I do appreciate your effort though. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Sandra Kälin

This article and its references are a combination of two different people (de:Sandra Kälin to see the german article for both), how should this be best addressed? Split and 2 Stubs? Nobody (talk) 09:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Yep. JFHJr (㊟) 21:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Coréon Dú

I tried removing promotional-sounding text and irrelevant citations on this article a while back. I also rewrote the section on nepotism and his work which has now been blanked.

Theyve been reverted and the sections on criticism marked as disputed, by an account that has only edited this article: .

Could someone take a look? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FossilWave (talk • contribs) 20:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Michael Caton-Jones

This article features the following paragraph thatwas removed today by an IP (wwho otherwise seems to be engaged in puffery - adding various unsourced awards cruft, referring to the subject by his first name)

Caton-Jones has been accused of sexual harassment with Sharon Stone alleging in Vogue Portugal that during the shooting of Basic Instinct 2 he asked her to sit on his lap to receive directions and refused to shoot if she did not do so. She stated "I can say we all hated that and I think the film reflects the quality of the atmosphere we all worked in”.

It previously linked to this as a source - https://www.vogue.pt/sharon-stone-interview, a page which no longer exists but did as recently as December 19 last year https://web.archive.org/web/20241219112132/https://www.vogue.pt/sharon-stone-interview

In that original article the actual quote is "I loved doing most of my films. Hated? Well, I worked with a director on Basic 2 who asked me to sit on his lap each day to receive his direction, and when I refused he wouldn’t shoot me."

Basic Instinct 2 was directed by Caton James but original source doesn't name him. The subsequent source cited at the end of the paragraph does however - https://www.ibtimes.co.in/you-got-hired-if-you-were-fkable-says-sharon-stone-recreate-basic-instinct-scene-797651

The orginal story about "a director" is well sourced in various pirces from around the time of the publication of Stone's memoir. https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2021/03/sharon-stone-on-how-basic-instinct-nearly-broke-her?srsltid=AfmBOoqO1KjUnXmRZSUZYl3RHgCqkYT8itBvDv6BJg7kNDOESs8wjd-5 , https://deadline.com/2021/03/sharon-stone-me-too-experiences-the-beauty-of-living-memoir-news-1234718660/

Should this paragraph be in the article? It feels like SYNTH to name him as the subject of the allegation, but there is at least one source that does so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golikom (talk • contribs) 12:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:Syn is intended to stop us connecting different things when no reliable secondary source has made the connection. It does not apply to connections made by reliable secondary sources. However per WP:RSPS International Business Times is not generally considered reliable so if that's the only source then there are no sources and it would be syn to add it to Caton-Jones article based on sources talking about Stone's allegation and other sources which say he was the director but which don't mention Stone's allegation. Nil Einne (talk) 06:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I should further clarify that appearing in a reliable secondary source doesn't guarantee inclusion, it just means syn isn't really our concern any more but instead issues like WP:UNDUE etc. Nil Einne (talk) 09:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ido Kedar

This one is a bit strange. I am bringing it here because I do not wish to be directly involved but it may warrant neutral eyes. The subject, Ido Kedar is non-verbal and suffers from autism. He has two books which are said to be authored by him, runs a blog, and does presentations. At one stage he was using facilitated communication which has serious problems and is certainly pseudoscience, but videos also show him independently typing on an iPad keyboard. Those videos makes it look a lot more like augmentative and alternative communication, which is credible. Anyway, the AFD is going down the lines of accusing the subject, who is a living person whether or not he has autism, of not having written anything and being incapable of communication. I'm concerned that such accusations are degrading, especially if, as the sources claim, he is capable of communication and also considering that there are no BLP sources that say he is not. I am not sure of the best way of tackling this, but if he can communicate, as the sources claim, unsourced accusations that it is faked and that he is having his fingers dragged by someone else across a keyboard seem like BLP violations instead of the usual AFD discourse. - Bilby (talk) 10:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Wow, yes, it's completely clear that he can communicate independently at this point. I was hoping Misplaced Pages had got over this panic of erasing everybody who has ever used anything that looks anything life FC/RPM. Thanks for bringing it here.

One video of him communicating independently, for reference. Oolong (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm less concerned as to whether or not he communicates independently. I am concerned that he may communicate independently, and statements such as "Someone grabbed his fingers and moved them on a keyboard to type a lot of stuff" or "our article about how he has written books is fiction" are degrading and feel like BLP concerns. If there is a possibility that he can communicate, direct unsourced accusations such as this are extremely insulting. - Bilby (talk) 09:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Bilby, what do you suggest? The BLP policy clearly applies to the AfD discussion. I agree that there are comments in that discussion that are contrary to some of the BLP policy, especially the parts about removing "contentious material ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced" (I'd say your quotes falls into this category) and never using SPS "as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article" (some people have linked to / referenced blogs). Once or twice I've removed content from articles for BLP violations, but I've never removed an editor's comments from a discussion, and I'm hesitant to do so, partly because I'm not that experienced an editor (though I'm not a newbie) and also because of my extensive participation in that AfD discussion. I guess I'll start by simply posting a reminder of the relevant parts of the BLP policy and asking people to check their own comments (and I'll check mine). Do you have any guidance about whether something else should be done? And if any other editors have guidance, please weigh in. Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Kevin Cooper (prisoner)

It seems to me that great chunks of this article are in breach of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and WP:NOTBLOG. Just checking whether other experienced BLP editors agree? Looking at the article history, it seems there's been some problem editing, which isn't too much of a surprise, given the state the article is in. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 12:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

OK, I guess I'm on my own on this. I'll get out a scythe. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 18:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Darrel Kent

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

User:Earl Andrew keeps adding contentious material about the article subject back into the article:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Darrel_Kent&diff=prev&oldid=1269810226
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Darrel_Kent&diff=prev&oldid=1269816467

I posted a notice on the talk page, see User talk:Earl Andrew#January 2025. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

How on earth are those edits in any conceivable way contentious? -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll bite. How is the parenthetical (Ottawa would eventually get a light rail tunnel in 2019.) in any way relevant to this guy's bio? The last time he ran for office was in 1991. If a reliable source has pointed out that such a clear and decisive rebuke to Kent's ideology occurred 28 years later, that should be sourced. Woodroar (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

While it has nothing to do with Kent himself, I do think giving readers some context on that issue is relevant.-- Earl Andrew - talk 18:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

But it's not up to you or me to decide that. We need to let reliable, secondary sources decide that it's DUE to mention it in Kent's article. Woodroar (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence from the article, including a source that doesn't even mention the subject. Woodroar (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Allan Higdon

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

User:Earl Andrew keeps adding uncited content to the article including content about immigration status and employment by organzations who make controversial decisions:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Allan_Higdon&diff=prev&oldid=1269810502
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Darrel_Kent&diff=prev&oldid=1269810226

There is a notice on his talk page, see User talk:Earl Andrew#January 2025. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I will find sources for that article in time. I reverted your edits to this article as you have been going around removing information from articles in bad faith, citing that you are removing contentious information, when in fact you are not. Most of what you are doing is removing non contentious information only because it lacks proper sourcing. Instead of going around and being a destructive force, why not try and improve articles by finding sources? -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

If you want to succeed in adding information to articles, do it with a source. Don't be surprised if people aren't willing to take your additions on faith. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

"Adding" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. I simply reverted their edits because I didn't believe they were constructive, based on the user's recent editing history of removing non contentious information from various articles. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN is clear that, whether you're adding or restoring content, you need to include a source. Woodroar (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I understand. I am just concerned about this particular user's decision to quickly remove non contentious content from several articles. They are within their rights via WP:BURDEN, but it's not typical user behaviour (from my experience), which is why I believe we should exercise some caution. Especially considering they removed information that was sourced, albeit not with inline citations (of course, within their rights via WP:BURDEN, but I mean, feels very bad-faithy to me, no?) -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Would placing a citation tag, been a better option? GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this is usually the best way of handling uncited, non contentious claims. Or at least, the most common way.-- Earl Andrew - talk 18:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

No because in my opinion, these claims are contentious and they're about a living person, so under WP:BOLP they must be removed immediately. Legend of 14 (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

How are they contentious, especially when everything is sourced (though, not with an inline citation) with the reference at the bottom? Why actively destroy an article, when you can make things better by adding inline citations? You can cite policy until the cows come home, but your actions are quite unusual, and are certainly raising suspicions, from me at least.-- Earl Andrew - talk 18:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Working for people who make controversial decisions is a contentious claim like tribunals and government departments. Information about immigration status is contentious, especially with the recent controversy around wage suppression https://www.newcanadianmedia.ca/temporary-immigration-programs-are-pushing-down-wage-growth-in-canada-economists-say/ and the article's specific claims about him working for the PC party while which seemingly conflicts with their principal of training Canadian workers to do Canadian jobs https://www.poltext.org/sites/poltext.org/files/plateformesV2/Canada/CAN_PL_1984_PC_en.pdf. Legend of 14 (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Whatever you want to call it, birth place is definitely not something which should be in the article without a source. Feel free to add such information back when you find a reliable secondary source but it stays out until you have. Nil Einne (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I already put an inline citation (it was already sourced, just not properly)-- Earl Andrew - talk 01:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Ali Khademhosseini

I have been trying to add a new section about the scientific concerns raised by Elizabeth Bik and another data sleuth against a very large number of articles by Ali Khademhosseini, and this research's subsequent responses.

A new user was created immediately after (Special:Contributions/EvandorX) and has started a series of long edits to the page, including some reverting of my own edits. While some of these edits appear reasonable, others are not (e.g. reverting ‘citation needed’ tags or introducing typos in headings). I would appreciate another pair of eyes on the page (I sent a request for page protection too). I haven't been active on WP for at least a decade and I'm a bit rusty with the policies, but I'm not convinced that the page meets NPOV. 81.109.86.251 (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Călin Georgescu

WP:NAC: The revert was actually fixing a WP:BLP problem, and the talkpage is the place to go instead of userpages for most editorial discussions. Other complaints go to another forum. JFHJr (㊟) 04:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Now are we WP:CENSORing The Atlantic? tgeorgescu (talk) 02:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Misogynistic explanation at . tgeorgescu (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

An opinion piece is usually not worth everlasting biographical WP:WEIGHT. And it's accurate to describe its author as one woman. I would have said one person. The fact that it's an opinion is the WP:BLP concern. If you feel someone is being misogynistic, WP:ANI is your forum. BLPN isn't generally for editor behavior problems. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't look like anyone did anything to The Atlantic. It looks like someone edited Misplaced Pages, doubting that this one opinion piece was worthy of inclusion. That sort of discussion seems appropriate to the article talk page; even though it's in a BLP, it's not a BLP issue per se. Looks like you added it, someone else reverted the addition, and that's a good time to get into the WP:BRD cycle. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

JD Vance & Jon Husted

Ohio governor Mike DeWine hasn't announced his pick (yet) for the US Senate. Yet already, IPs are jumping the gun & attempting to update JD Vance & Jon Husted, as though Husted were picked. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

PS - I've given up, trying to hold back the premature updates. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Deb Matthews

See below 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 18:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

This article contains various uncited election results. Elections are contentious topics. Thousands of people go to the polls to decide who should represent them. Many people did not get their way.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Deb_Matthews&oldid=1269868441 and User talk:Adam Bishop#Deb Matthews. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

These results don't appear to be contentious, though. There are citations at the linked articles about the elections themselves. Have you considered copying those citations over rather than deleting the results? MrOllie (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

No, I'm not touching that page, because I've been reverted by an admin. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ministry of Education (Ontario)

Just realized: It's nothing but the one crying for something wrong with a minister on another minister on... Ya'know what? Likely to get nowhere. If Legend of 14 presists, than take it to WP:ANI. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 18:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Ministry of Education (Ontario) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article charges with being Minister of Education, without citation. In accordance with the principal of Ministerial responsibility, this is a very serious charge. A Minister is responsible for all actions that go on in their Ministry. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Ministry_of_Education_(Ontario)&oldid=1269877806. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@Legend of 14: Are there any BLP claims in this diff that can't be sourced by copying a source from the person's article or doing a quick Google search? If nothing else, it seems that would take up less time in the long run than removing, discussing on talk, and then discussing here. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 17:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

There is an uncited table with over 14 living people. It isn't practical to quickly find a source for every one of them. I only posted here because my talk page discussion was removed by an administrator. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

We don't have a deadline here, it is not needed to 'quickly' find a source. MrOllie (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The content should be removed immediately under WP:BLP, because it is uncited and contentious. There actually isn't time to find a source. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Why is it contentious? Do you have some reason to believe these people were not in fact Ministers? We're trying to build an encyclopedia here, not robotically delete uncontentious, easily sourced material. MrOllie (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Most of the people were probably Ministers of Education. Are the dates right though? Sometimes people can confuse the date of announcement or election with the date of appointment. If it so easy to source, why don't you source the content. I'm not touching the article, I've been reverted by an administrator who wants me blocked. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

'Sometimes people can confuse the date' does not equal contentious - we're not claiming somebody committed a crime. MrOllie (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

It just a claim that people responsible for the actions of dozens of people access decades. These are serious claims. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Serious perhaps, but not contentious in the manner envisioned by WP:BLP, so there is no rush to delete this noncontroversial information. Please do not blank anything like this again, from this or from other articles. MrOllie (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

If researched, maybe. But how about checking the sources (like Tamzin said) for yourself? Or perhaps, as a gesture of good will, a send-back to the pit of fire. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 17:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

You mean reverted. With good reason (I'm sure that you've paid attention), and you should kind of clearly understand by now that there are ways to constructively do so. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 17:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I used the article talk page. See above. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

That sounds like something that would take roughly 14 minutes—less if you find an RS that lists multiple or all of them. Look, I like removing unsourced BLP content as much as the next BLP/N-watcher, but there's a common-sense limit, and I think you've surpassed it. Just find the damn sources. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 17:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Not my WP:BURDEN. I wasn't aware of the clause in the WP:BLP that says contentious material must be removed immediately, unless you've already removed a lot of BLP material recently. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Correction: *BLP violating material. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@Legend of 14: I don't mean limit on quantity. I mean limit on scope. You're taking an extremely broad definition of "contentious" and then making zero effort to find sources even when they exist in linked articles. This is not a pattern of editing that improves the encyclopedia, and Misplaced Pages is not a court of law where "but technically..." works. Stop it. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 17:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Any advice about article editing practices directed towards me is moot because I'm done editing articles. But, thanks for trying to help me anyway. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Right. Is that all you got? Is that what you said when your world went to crap?

It's still on you, especially if these sources have never been contested. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 17:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm struggling to understand the logic here but I'm going to take a shot: @Legend of 14 is your argument that, without citations that clearly indicate which minister was responsible for the ministry at any given time, Misplaced Pages might accidently assert that one minister was responsible for the actions of another minister's administration? Because that seems pretty inside baseball. It's deeply unlikely that anyone outside of, like, a provincial archivist is going to be so sensitive that you can't take the time to validate the dates against plentiful reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Kinga Surma was accused of being responsible for things that happened before she became a Minister: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s75dKt5FDwc. I don't think Misplaced Pages was the source of the bad date, but this shows that a high level of care should be taken with regards to dates of appointments and that information about Cabinet appointments should be treated as contentious. Legend of 14 (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

A YT video's not a reliable source. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 18:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that's the point of the YT link. Which, for the record, is actually a recording of the Legislature of Ontario question period for December 5, 2024. I think their point is that an MPP accused Surma, during question period, of being responsible for things that happened during her predecessor's ministry. The concern is reasonably legitimate. However the urgency is not evident. Just find sources and make sure the dates are right. Simonm223 (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, just to note, the Kinga Surma situation involves the Ministry of Infrastructure rather than Education. Simonm223 (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The urgency is based on WP:BLP. The content should not be present, as it is contentious, unless and until it is sourced. Legend of 14 (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

So find sources. These are routine details and while being accurate is a good thing here - not least of all to prevent some well-meaning NDP or Liberal MPP from accusing Jill Dunlop of making a decision actually made by Todd Smith - there isn't even really any reputational risk here for the BLPs in question - especially as we are currently four education ministers deep into this administration. It might take you half an hour to find all the necessary references - you've probably spent as long defending your decision to delete them. Simonm223 (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Something being "routine" has no effect on if or not it needs to be sourced to stay in. Legend of 14 (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

It absolutely does. This is the root of your misinterpretation of WP:BLP. Many things are not 'contentious' and do not need to be immediately deleted without discussion. MrOllie (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Certainly not one that involves questions asked by some MP conservatives over something allegedly controversial. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 18:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Laurel Broten

(non-admin closure) No discussion on talk page and no allegation of serious BLP violations. – notwally (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

The article has various uncited election results. See #Deb Matthews for why this a problem. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Eric Hoskins

(non-admin closure) No discussion on talk page and no allegation of serious BLP violations. – notwally (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

This article has uncited results about the 2008 Canadian Federal Election which involves living people. Elections are contentious topics. Many people voted for someone who didn't get elected. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

You may wanna try to be bold and try talking to others on either of these articles before you put them here. One too many. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 17:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

What's the point if they're just going to get deleted by an administrator, see https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Ministry_of_Education_(Ontario)&diff=next&oldid=1269877806 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Deb_Matthews&diff=prev&oldid=1270038770. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jim Watson (Canadian politician)

(non-admin closure) No discussion on talk page and no allegation of serious BLP violations. – notwally (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The article has various uncited election results. See #Deb Matthews for why this a problem. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

John Gerretsen

(non-admin closure) No discussion on talk page and no allegation of serious BLP violations. – notwally (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The article has various uncited election results. See #Deb Matthews for why this a problem. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Please stop filling the noticeboard with these redundant sections. MrOllie (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Imran Khan

There is a content dispute at DRN which is about a biography of a living person, Imran Khan, a Pakistani politician. The dispute is at Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Imran_Khan. The question involves allegations made by his ex-wife, Reham Khan in a memoir, Reham Khan (memoir). The book itself is a primary source, and secondary sources are preferred in biographies of living persons, and secondary sources have discussed the allegations. So the question is whether the inclusion of the allegations in the article would violate the biographies of living persons policy by being tabloid-like. I am bringing this issue here because I think that the volunteers at this noticeboard are familiar with similar issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Of course it is a clear violation. A primary source is still primary no matter how notable the primary source is. The more adverse/contentious the claim, the more that's true. The DRN discussion is such a dense wall of timesink that I can't begin to want to participate there. But it is a clear violation. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 05:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with JFHJr. I'd also add that WP:PUBLICFIGURE requires multiple third party sources covering an allegation. A quick glance at the DRN discussion listed five sources that the editor considered secondary in support of the allegation and (from what I could tell) the references didn't seem reliable.

DNAIndia article is attributed to 'DNA Web Team', Deccan Chronicle is attributed to 'DC Correspondent', and Hindustan Times is attributed to 'HT Correspondent. TheNews is attributed to 'Web Desk'. And lastly the Mumbai Mirror is an interview so definitely not secondary. Several of the articles seem more promotional than anything, and aren't independently reporting on anything; they are stating what she says in her book. The original WP:GRAPEVINE removal that sparked the DRN discussion seems more than justified.

Awshort (talk) 07:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@Awshort @JFHJr What about the following? The discussion in secondary sources suggests that this topic warrants some coverage in the article. While we can include differing perspectives, such as Imran Khan’s stance on the allegations, a complete exclusion seems unwarranted. It's all about Imran Khan then why exclude it. NPOV requires representing all viewpoints, and we can ensure fair coverage by including all angles rather than outright exclusion. The original content was attributed to Reham Khan, and no one is suggesting treating these claims as facts. However, they are allegations made by a notable individual with a personal connection to the subject. These can be presented as attributed allegations, alongside other relevant perspectives, such as lawsuits or differing narratives.

• Imran Khan’s Ex-Wife Reham Khan Wins Defamation Case In UK High Court, NDTV
• Tell-all memoir ‘risks derailing’ Imran Khan election hopes, The Guardian
• Imran Khan: why a tell-all memoir is causing uproar in Pakistan, The Week

Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

The included sources don't mention the allegations about his children. I don't think who is making an allegation, nor how close they are to a subject, is what is important - I think it's what secondary sources do independant verification or investigations regarding the claims that matter. WP:NEWSORGINDIA seems relevant due to the quality of sources that mention this.

I also removed text from Reham Khan (memoir) which seemed to focus on every negative thing regarding Imran Khan mentioned in the book that was also only supported by questionable sources. Drug use, same sex relationships which named other third party people, illegitimate children...I would consider this the epitome of gossip that needs high quality sourcing.

Awshort (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon For me @Awshort's feedback is good enough, I accept this as consensus for removal, we will keep those allegations out of that article, you can close the DRN thread. Thank you, @JFHJr and @Awshort for their help for sorting this out. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment: @Awshort @JFHJr While a discussion is opened at this noticeboard about this BLP, I have concerns over the Imran Khan#Controversies section which User:SheriffIsInTown has been told not to create per WP:CSECTION in the past, but has created nevertheless. I have proposed it to be merged into the rest of the article in the past and given due weight, which multiple editors have supported but they have opposed it. Not sure if a separate thread is required for this issue if a thread about this BLP is already opened. Additionally, some of the allegations in the controversies section are supported by only one source and did not receive significant media coverage such as Imran Khan#Misogynistic remarks, the amount of weight being given to them is too much and the whole section seems to be astray from NPOV. Thank you. Titan2456 (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

There are 47,556 articles on Misplaced Pages with a “Controversies” section, including one for another former Prime Minister of Pakistan, Nawaz Sharif#Controversies, which user @Titan2456 significantly expanded. They seem to object to a “Controversies” section for Imran Khan, due to their declared support for him and his party, but showed no such concerns while editing Nawaz Sharif. This demonstrates the kind of POV pushing in their editing that I’ve been highlighting for some time. Their claim that misogynistic remarks by Imran Khan are covered by only one source is false; even a simple Google search disproves it. One source being included in the article does not imply a lack of support from others. Here are four sources that corroborate it:

• Dawn
• Tribune India
• Times of India
• ANI News

Do we need more? Because there are plenty. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• According to my understanding, memoirs reflect personal memories and interpretations, and the book publisher cannot fact-check or ensure the content's accuracy. Therefore, one cannot claim that the book is reliable simply because an Indian version of HarperCollins published it. I agree that secondary sources have covered it; however, they are merely quoting what is written in the book. That being said, I have no issue including allegations where she was an eyewitness to events (for example, claims that she saw Imran Khan taking drugs). However, her allegation regarding extramarital childs with Indian partners is very contentious, as she stated that she heard this from Imran Khan. Imran Khan denies the claim, and there is no way she could have been an eyewitness to it. In the last six years, no child or mother has come forward to confirm or refute this claim, so we can safely assume it is false. Furthermore, it is a textbook case of hearsay and does not belong on Misplaced Pages, especially in biographies of living people. Veldsenk (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Veldsenk What is your opinion on including Reham’s allegations under the Controversies section instead of the Public Image section, where they were previously covered before you removed them? Also, How about simply including Reham’s claim that Imran Khan acknowledged Tyrian as his daughter? Tyrian is mentioned in many sources, so we only need to state that his former wife, Reham, alleged he admitted in a private conversation that Tyrian is his daughter. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Raegan_Revord#They/Them_Pronouns

If you have an opinion, please join. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Palesa Moroenyane

WP:NAC: WP:Articles for creation is the best place for this kind of comment. JFHJr (㊟) 19:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Palesa Moroenyane Political Activism

• Joined the African National Congress in 1998.

• A product of the Walter Sisulu Leadership Academy 2011.

• A volunteer of the ANCWL Greater Joburg Regional Office from 2009 - 2012.

• A Convener of the ANCWL in 2010 for Ward 28 Moses Kotane branch Ward 28 Greater Joburg Region.

• ⁠The Chairperson of the ANCWL 2011-2013 Moses Kotane Branch Ward 28 Greater Joburg Region.

• Secretary of the ANCWL of Ward 31 Jongilanga Mzinyathi branch 2013-2016.

• Relocated to Ward 125 Eric Molobi branch and was elected the Secretary of the ANCWL from 2017-2022.

• In 2021 - 2023 served as the Deputy Chairperson of the ANC in Eric Molobi Branch Ward 125 Greater Joburg Region.

• Member of the SACP 2010 to date 2023.

• 2019 National Elections was number 65 candidate of the ANC for the Gauteng Member of Provincial Legislature List .

• Joined Umkhonto WeSizwe on the 17 December 2023. She was then appointed as the Ward Coordinator with immediate effect. The position she held until the 19 March 2024.

• Appointed by the Secretary General of MK Party, Advocate Tshivhase Mashudu as the National Election Coordinator for the 2024 National and Provincial Elections.

• Umkhonto WeSizwe Candidate number 10 for the Gauteng Representative List.

156.155.168.84 (talk) 13:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

We don't have an article for this person. This noticeboard is for reporting issues regarding articles that we do have. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Violin scam

WP:NAC. Resolved. JFHJr (㊟) 19:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello. The article violin scam is currently linked to the main page. It includes this file: File:Violin scammer in Italy.png. The title was chosen by @Di (they-them):, but it is incorrect because that's Florida, not Italy (refer to the plates), only the person claims being Italian, according to how it develops in the video. Although the video is free to use, naturally, personality rights apply to this person. Regardless of what occurs on the incident and whether the person was scamming or not the people in the area, BLP applies anywhere in Misplaced Pages, including images. As far as we known, this person was not arrested or charged for fraud, so saying the person is scamming can have legal repercussions. In Florida, personality rights are codified in F.S. §540.08:

No person shall publish, print, display or otherwise publicly use for purposes of trade or for any commercial or advertising purpose the name, portrait, photograph, or other likeness of any natural person without the express written or oral consent to such use given by:

• (a) Such person; or
• (b) Any other person, firm or corporation authorized in writing by such person to license the commercial use of her or his name or likeness

It is clear that in the video, this person is not consenting to be filmed. (CC) Tbhotch 18:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, I will remove the image. I added it because I thought it would be useful to illustrate the article but it's clear I didn't think too deeply about the potential BLP issue. That's my mistake. Di (they-them) (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Categories:

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution