Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Curly Turkey (talk | contribs) at 06:10, 4 February 2016 (→Bernie Sanders). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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.

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.

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

List of supercouples move discussion

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:List of supercouples#Requested move: Move back to List of fictional supercouples. It concerns whether or not living people should be included on the list. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear: This move discussion concerns whether or not real-life people should be on the list. If you really have no problem with the list reverting back to how it was years ago (the inclusion of real-life people), then (going by the current lean of the move discussion) there is no need to comment. If you do have a problem with it, then now is the time to comment. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Armond White

Is it just me or does Armond White strike anyone else as problematic in several ways? The biggest problem, to me, seems that his page is being used to make vicious attacks on other living people, including multiple accusations of racism and fascism. There is little in the way actual biographical detail, and instead seems to be dumping ground for personal attacks and other invective. Not really sure where to even begin on cleaning this up, though I did remove a huge quotation that was copy-pasted into the article. Is it just me, or are these attacks BLP violations? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• NinjaRobotPirate, it's not you. Holy moly. I'm looking at this too--huge bloating, opinions lacking secondary sourcing, namedropping...I may "prune" this some. Drmies (talk) 02:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Iftikhar Ahmed (Swiss lawmaker)

Iftikhar Ahmed (Swiss lawmaker)

This person is NOT a swiss "lawmaker" since he is NOT member of Parliament, which holds the legislative power.

This person is ONLY a Town Council member (Conseil communal in French).

I have already added some modifications in the "Life" section and thoroughy referenced them.

Please CHANGE THE TITLE in order to STOP this MISinformation, on the basis of my modifications and its sources/references/citations.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiger Geneva (talk • contribs)

You are disputing the disambiguating description "lawmaker"? What would you propose as a disambiguator? --ukexpat (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

How about we move the page to Iftikhar Ahmed (Swiss politician)? Psychotic Spartan 123 05:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Mark Shurtleff

I've pruned this considerably: article suffered from lack of neutrality due to likely COI editing. I've tagged it as such; if one or more of you can have a look and check it for neutrality etc., perhaps that tag can be removed. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I've done some heavy editing and reorganizing both with the accolades and criticism. I've also removed the tag. Additional eyes are welcome.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

David Irving

The wording on the David Irving article is particularly troublesome as it stands; it blatantly says he is an 'English Holocaust Denier', without additional qualification, but a source. It doesn't go further to explain what exactly he denies, what it is he denies, just that he is an "English Holocaust Denier", as if that is the most notable thing about his career (which it isn't, if you've followed it throughout).

I have tried to re-word this so it reads "David Irving is an English author on WWII books...and is most recently notable for his views which minimise/deny the Holocaust" or something akin to that.

1.) David Irving is still alive, so this is a huge WP:BLP concern;

2.) We don't go around calling Stalin or Trotsky "killer of millions" in his biographical open; Why shouldn't David Irving's article be afforded the same courtesy, especially since he is still living? ;

3.) much of the page consists of original research

Is there any way to get it changed so it doesn't direct BLP so blatantly? 10-year old arbitrations are being referenced in an attempt to silence the debate, yet as David Irving is still alive, I can't help but see how the opening sentence is anything but blatant violation of BLP

(And I know that a lot of people here hate Holocaust negationists, revisionists and outright deniers, so please try not to think about that as you edit his article, for the good of wikipedia and for the good of neutrality everywhere).

Solntsa90 (talk) 04:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• I agree, he is an author who is primarily known for his holocaust denial.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

One user (of which another user has ungraciously accused me of being a sockpuppet of) has put it better than I ever could, copy and pasted below for your perusal:

*  *  *

To compare: *We don't call Adolf Hitler an "Austrian Holocauster" or "German genocider", or a "World War 2 starter" for that matter. We call him "an Austrian-born German politician who was the leader of the Nazi Party (NSDAP) ... effectively dictator of Nazi Germany, and was at the centre of World War II in Europe and the Holocaust."

• We don't call Lee Harvey Oswald a "President killer" or "Kennedy shooter", we call him "an American sniper who assassinated President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963."
• We don't call Judas Iscariot a "Jesus-betrayer" etc.

Even though all of the previously given examples are known primarily for one thing, it's just awkward to use a designation that in no way relates to a profession or occupation. It crosses WP:BLP1E. Anyhow, I don't plan on changing it myself. Just trying to help. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

*  *  *

It is in that spirit that I wish to see the David Irving article better reflect encyclopedic standards. Solntsa90 (talk) 04:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Waste. Of. Time. . Not a BLP violation. See discussion talk as well. Here, the two users are just repeating what they said on talk... except this time Solntsa90 has managed to refrain from characterizing Holocaust denial as "heterodox views on the Holocaust".Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This has been discussed lots of times in the past (including, from memory, in a formal RFC) and the consensus has been that 1) Irving is commonly described as a "Holocaust denier" in both academic/specialist works and the general media (there have been significant searches of references in the past) and 2) as a result, it's the appropriate term for Misplaced Pages to use to describe him. This topic gets raised about once a month or so, with the consensus on the talk page consistently being that the description remains appropriate. WP:BLP doesn't mean that we shouldn't describe people in a negative way if that's how they're commonly described. I agree that Solntsa90 seems to have an axe to grind here (as well as the above, "Irving didn't spend his life being 'Holocaust Denier', he spent his life as a historian and an academic, who later on, held views that some would label Holocaust Denial (at least, in the always funny European Courts they did)"). Nick-D (talk) 07:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I would like a second opinion from a less biased administrator who hasn't unsuccessfully accused me of being a sockpuppet before. Solntsa90 (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm the one who asked you if Prisgezine was your sockpuppet or vice versa, seeing as how the two of youse showed up together at two unrelated controversial articles, pushing the same edits. Nick just suggested an SPI.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

What opinion would you like? The lead of articles should reflect the content. In biographies this will mean that people who have high profile controversies associated with their views/actions, may end up with negative statements. Irving's views are well known and publicised and there are numerous reliable sources that describe him as a holocaust denier - which is accurately reflected in the body of the article. Given its a highly controversial viewpoint I would expect it to be mentioned in the lead. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Base Oumar Niasse

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

vandalism -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.80.125 (talk • contribs)

The article is now protected. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Nicholas Schorsch

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

The wikipedia article seems to include everything up to June 2014, when in October 29, 2014, his company American Realty Capital, reported accounting errors that had been previously covered up in q2 2014 10-q. His company has since fractured, he has been rumored to be investigated by the FBI, the SEC and the State of Massachusetts for everything regarding the accounting scandal to allegations concerning proxy voter manipulation. He had a lot of his other non work related positions tarnished, and has had to close down his business. This article only shows the Nick Schorsch everyone in the industry knew of before the bombshells dropped. Its a less extreme example of only writing a wikipedia article on Bernie Madoff that only goes up to June 2008.

Jamie Leigh Jones

A floating IP at Jamie Leigh Jones is really invested in adding claims that Jones has various personality disorders. They eventually produced a source which said this, rather than one that just said that her court opponent claimed it, but even if that claim is to be kept, I don't agree that it's appropriate to put her in the categories for people with these various personality disorders. The other members of those categories 1) were actually examined by doctors and 2) are criminals, and I don't think that this is strongly supported enough to justify the categorization even with (one) source in the text - the doctor in this case didn't actually examine her. What does BLPN think? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

We wouldnt use court records/transcripts to source claims as they are primary sources, but since there are reliable secondary sources that have reported on it thats not a problem. The information is relevant in context given the reason she was in court and why her accusations were rejected. So essentially your argument boils down to Original Research as to the quality of the diagnosis of her mental condition. Thats not something we do. Now I am the last person to encourage categorising people (my views on jew-tagging here are well known) however this is a bit tricky. The categories are named and the information that causes the subject to be listed in them is present and reliably sourced in the article. While it may not be nice, sadly the wikipedia category system does not allow us to differentiate between positive/negative categories in that manner. Her not being a criminal is irrelevant unless the category was named "Criminals with X". I suppose there is an argument that it places undue weight on the diagnosis. Personally if I wanted to make an argument against it, I would point out the category is named as "People with <mental illness>'" not "People diagnosed with". A past diagnosis of illness is not a reliable source that they currently still have the condition. Sure its a bit weaselly but it certainly serves the spirit of BLP. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Any statement that "sadly, Misplaced Pages policy requires ___" should fall under WP:IAR and the policy should be ignored. Ken Arromdee (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Well quite. However to justify IAR you need to make a good case that ignoring the rules improves the encyclopedia. Thats a bit difficult to make against background/administration edits - categories by their nature are to enable navigation of wikipedia and so are almost always technically an improvement from a functional point of view. Just not necessarily a moral/ethical one. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Apparent POV edits to Gerald Ronson

I'd like some extra eyes please on the slew of recent edits to Gerald Ronson, all of which seem to be with the intention of extending the coverage we already had of his criminal conviction. --Dweller (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Fix attempted. I hope this works. Collect (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Very well. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 09:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

sam chachoua

Hello I am working with Dr. Sam Chachoua's team to create a relevant and factual wiki page. https://en.wikipedia.org/Sam_Chachoua

The page that is up now is incorrect and has multiple libleous citings on it that we request removal of.

The descriptive owrds used in his current "biography" are highly negative in the terminology and it is a labelous action on the part of whoever is posting that content.

let me know what I need to do.

I have submitted a picture.

I have all the links and information we would like to put up.

I am new to wikipedia and have not used it.

I do not know how to "cite" the information- I cant find an easy way to attach a reference site to the content.

If anyone can help me understand how to create this page, I would be most appreciative of your time!!

Sean— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maritmemaine (talk • contribs)

Before you do anything else, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID.--ukexpat (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

This is the quack who claimed to have cured Charlie Sheen of HIV, despite the fact that he still tests positive, right? I have news for you: Misplaced Pages is not interested in promoting these kinds of practitioners. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Guy, that is an unwarranted personal attack on a newbie. Please reconsider your comments.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no personal attack, only unequivocal words. Delta13C (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

You gotta wonder, who'd want a biography like that up on Misplaced Pages? I mean, can't the team figure out how we work, and that the article would not resemble something like this for long? Drmies (talk) 03:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Re "libleous", I refer you to Misplaced Pages:No legal threats --Dweller (talk) 10:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• I am concerned that this article does not even meet GNG, per living subjects notable only for one event. Please discuss on article's talk page. Delta13C (talk) 10:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you may be right. Guy (Help!) 10:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Sabine Ohmes (Encore)

The Birth Date is not 1974, but April 1975— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.76.152 (talk • contribs)

Do you have a source supporting his birth date? Meatsgains (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Abhay Sharma

• The article Abhay Sharma is about an Indian former first-class cricketer. It was started on 20:17, 19 January 2016‎ by Dee03. At 01:02, 2 February 2016‎ it was {{db-g7}} tagged for "speedy deletion by author request", but not by Dee03 but by AbhaySharmaCric "I requested deletion of this page as it speaks about me.", who claims to be the subject of the article. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the inappropriate speedy tag, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Jonathan Mitchell

• Jonathan Mitchell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The subject is an autism "cure" advocate, and unsurprisingly the article majors on how wrong he is and how much the autism community hate him for it. Much of it is he-said-she-said style recounting of spats with other autistic people. I think the article would be twice as good if it was half as long. Guy (Help!) 12:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Darren Wilson (police officer)

I attempted to edit the article that contained skewed and incorrect information by editing the following paragraph.

"On August 9, 2014, Wilson shot Michael Brown in Ferguson, which sparked considerable unrest in the town, as well as protests nationwide. Wilson was named as the officer who killed Brown on August 15. In March 2015, a report by the Justice Department corroborated Wilson's claims that Brown reached into Wilson's car and struck Wilson. Wilson has said that this shooting made him "unemployable" and that he was turned down from a Ferguson Police Department job after being cleared by a grand jury."

Flyer22 Reborn (talk) intervened and removed the accurate edits.

The edits including quoted information about the sequence of events as told by several news sources. The article as it currently reads is libelous and is subject to being flagged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.66.116.224 (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Goodluck Jonathan

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

This article is currently pending-changes protected and as a pending changes reviewer I came across a request by an IP to add information about corruption and this info was reliably sourced form The Economist and so I approved it. I noticed in the history of this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Goodluck_Jonathan&action=history) a small edit war has been going on regarding this exact same information. What should the next step be regarding the article or edit warring? Thank you for your time. In veritas (talk) 03:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Stephanie Seneff

Stephanie Seneff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There has been some back-and-forth editing to remove, and then restore, lots of negative content about Seneff's research sourced in large part to blogs. See for example this edit in which some of this content previously removed on NPOV and BLPSPS grounds was restored because the sources that content was cited to were "appropriate...for a a fringe BLP in line with BLP policy." I would like to know what other editors think about whether or not this content violates any BLP related guidelines. Everymorning (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Es Devlin

Es Devlin has been the subject of a load of promotional editing by people who don't understand WP. I did a bunch of cleanup, but if there are any theatre-lovers who watch this board, it could use some attention. It is a shame our article on someone like this is so crappy. Jytdog (talk) 03:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders

There is an open RfC at Talk:Bernie Sanders#Request for comments -- religion in infobox which proposes to call Bernie Sanders Jewish. This is supposed to be done only for religious Jews, and only if they publicly identify as such. Sanders does not. Consequently, only one outcome would not be a clear BLP violation and the RfC needs to be closed. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

you do realize that his press kit states "religion: Jewish?" Sir Joseph 04:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I realize that when explicitly asked about his religion two weeks ago he said some vague humanistic things followed by "This is not Judaism." --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Please be aware of the consensus established at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes and note that "Jewish" is explicitly listed as a special case. Many commenters in the RfC do not seem to be aware of the standards. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I will comment briefly about this controversy, which I am keeping at arm's length these days. Sammy, if you have not read this article in the Washington Post, please do, because it is a very in-depth report about this stuff. Additionally, I will only say that it is extremely perplexing why so many Misplaced Pages editors are glad to parenthetically mention denomination in infoboxes, and to mention conversion dates parenthetically, and to mention previous religions parenthetically, but when it comes time to say "Jewish (inactive)" or "Jewish (secular)" or "Jewish (non-observant)" then that is some great offense in their estimation. I have already made clear that I support such a parenthetical in this instance. If such a parenthetical is not included, then saying "Religion: Jewish" in the infobox would be highly misleading and contrary to the subject's own caveats --- and thus an obvious BLP violation.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I just read it. It does not identify Sanders as of the Jewish religion, quotes him demurring on the subject, and quotes his brother as saying he is not of the Jewish religion. Note there is confusion between Jewish ethnicity an Jewish religion. The RfC result said "Jew/Jewish" is a special case. The word has several meanings, so the source cited needs to specify the Jewish religion, as opposed to someone who lives in Israel or has a Jewish mother. This is not one we should leave to democracy. The discussion should be closed. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

And @Anythingyouwant: it is not a "great offense", but forgive me for thinking we should not be misstating a major US Presidential candidate's religion. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

You're absolutely right that we should not misstate it. If you haven't studied WP:Primary yet, it may be worth a look, since the press kit is a primary source.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Sammy1339, please be aware that (a) the RfC at Template talk:Infobox to which you link explicitly says The determination if something is a religion or a non-religion should be based on reliable sources and not on the personal opinions of Misplaced Pages editors, per WP:No original research. (b) in his his press kit, Sanders describes himself as "Religion: Jewish" (c) the Washington Post article to which you link says "Sanders would be our first Jewish president." (d) yet absurdly, you try to argue that "Sanders does not identify publicly as Jewish." What the hell are you smoking? — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 05:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: You are misreading that RfC result. It is about whether Judaism is a religion, and "Jewish" is explicitly mentioned as a special case. The guideline for whether someone can be categorized in a religion is WP:BLPCAT: Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The statement that "Sanders would be our first Jewish president" is equivocal as to the sense of "Jewish" (culturally vs. ethnically vs. religiously). The press kit is a primary source and therefore of questionable utility by itself (we don't even treat a secondary source in isolation from other relevant sources).Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if he clarified this tonight or, for our purposes, made it more confusing, but he seems to be differentiating between practicing a formal religion, and practicing spirituality:

delivered some of his most candid remarks on religion and spirituality at the CNN Democratic Presidential Town Hall on Wednesday evening, saying that his "very strong" Jewish faith underpinned his belief in social justice...It's a guiding principle in my life, absolutely, it is. Everybody practices religion in a different way. To me, I would not be here tonight, I would not be running for president of the United States if I did not have very strong religious and spiritual feelings...So my spirituality is that we are all in this together and that when children go hungry, when veterans sleep out on the street, it impacts me. That's my very strong spiritual feelings."

Will that fit in an infobox? petrarchan47คุก 05:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Petrarchan, that source also says: "By winning even a single delegate in Iowa, Sanders, a secular Jew of Polish ancestry, has now won more delegates than any non-Christian presidential candidate in history." The word "secular" would fit nicely in parentheses, in the infobox.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Petrarchan47 Watch the video. The secondary source editorializes it as "his Jewish faith" but he never says anything of the kind, referring instead to "my spirituality" with no mention of Judaism or God. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. You're right Sammy, I watched the video. The question mentioned Judaism, but the answer didn't. Oy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: what do you have to say to Sanders' explicit statement that what he believes "is not Judaism"? Do you propose to ignore RSes that don't conform to your opinion? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Stephanie Seneff

The article has 7 references. One is a primary source for her employment details. The remainder are non-notable blogs criticizing her glyphosate study (note that glyphosate is the base for Monsanto's main product, RoundUp herbicide). The final reference, from Keith Kloor for Discover is perhaps not as reliable as it may appear, given that recent FOIA records landed him in this article: Journalists Failed to Disclose Sources’ Funding from Monsanto.

I bought this to AfD, and at her talk page, asked Sarah SV to weigh in on PAGs. She said:

"No self-published material is allowed in BLPs, even if written by an expert in the field, unless the author is the subject of the BLP". And: "See WP:BLPSPS, which is policy: "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs."

"BLP is a strongly supported policy, and that part of it is very clear, so anyone can remove an SPS from a BLP. If someone restores it report it to an uninvolved admin or WP:BLPN."

Based on this advice, I removed the following blog posts in this edit:

• https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/seneff-claims-gmos-cause-concussions/#more-38833

• https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new-bogeyman/

• http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/12/31/oh-no-gmos-are-going-to-make-everyone-autistic/

• http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2013/04/26/when-media-uncritically-cover-pseudoscience/#.VrLfLsdH2V5 (Keith Kloor)

My work was reverted by Kingofaces43, with the edit summary:

"Partial restore per WP:PARITY, WP:FRINGEBLP and Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons#Balance. Edit caused undue weight and removed appropriate sources for a a fringe BLP in line with BLP policy."

Thanks in advance for any help with properly applying PAGs, petrarchan47คุก 05:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Not commenting at all on the content or the underlying dispute, but Discover is a reliable source and I don't think a blog post including this Discover author in passing amongst a long list of journalists criticized for an omission only tangentially related to this article is sufficient to cast doubt on its reliability in this case. Gamaliel (talk) 05:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

That's fine. Do check out the article, though, would you? I'm not sure she's notable. And her page is now an attack page. There is no underlying dispute - this is a matter of blogs used to attack someone whose page looks to have been created for this express purpose. I cannot keep the blogs out of the article with King et al around, but someone should do so. One day someone is going to take action against this website if it continues to host attack pages like this one. petrarchan47คุก 06:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'll reiterate my post at AfD, but the article is appropriately sourced for a WP:FRINGEBLP. We can't violate WP:BLP and remove the fact that most of the subject's notability comes from controversial publications without the appropriate critcism of the fringe views. Sources such as blogs.discovermagazine.com are not truly self-published sources even though they have the term blog in the name. They are selected contributors for the website as opposed to an open blog anyone can post. www.sciencebasedmedicine.org is a recognized reputable source for dealing with fringe subjects and is also appropriate per WP:BLPSPS. BLPSPS does mention,""Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." We're basically looking at open blogs not being reliable, but sources that are considered professionals in some fashion, experts in the field, etc. that don't allow just anything to be posted in line with the policy. Both BLP and WP:PSCI policies are at play here, so editors need to take care in upholding both.

As a note for anyone else, the article is under GMO discretionary sanctions, along with a 1RR restriction that also includes some warning against trying to edit war once the WP:BRD process has begun. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution