Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive4

Cberlet has been, for close to 2 months, incessantly been attemting to insert large chunks of his highly POV, [http://www.publiceye.org/newman/nap6.html politically motivated and obsucre article from 1987]into Fred Newman. The article already has extensive and more than adequate amounts of criticisms included already, including reference to Berlet's writings. Yet Berlet incessantly tries to insert multiple paragraphs from his own largely unknown work into the article, and refusing all that time to address numerous issues about his work, which he feels he has a right to include without needing to discuss with other editors. And despite countless requests, he continually uses the derogatory phrase "Newmanite cult" in the talk pages and in edit summaries. BabyDweezil 04:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

:This is a fantastic misrepresentation of what is a lengthy campaign of apologia by BabyDweezil, who has refused formal mediation, to delete any serious mention of the copious published criticism of Fred Newman as a cult leader, among other claims. I welcome intervention.--Cberlet 15:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

::Interested parties are invited and encouraged to peruse Fred Newman and assess the amount of criticism currently included in the article, including references to Berlet. The most recent attempt to violate WP:BLP was Cberlet inserting three paragraphs from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Newman&oldid=88143400 a 20-year-old letter to the editor in a defunct obscure magazine.]

::The title of the source Cberlet continually attempts to include substantial sections of is "Institutes for Social Therapy and Totalitarian Cultism." The term "Totalitarian Cultism" is an invention of Berlet's, and will not be found [http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=t&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2006-27,GGLG:en&q=%22totalitarian+cultism%22 anywhere in social scientific literature] outside of Berlet's employer, Political Research Associates and a handful of fringe web writers. As such it is original fringe research with no standing in the academic community, and not acceptable per WP:BLP despite it's being "published" on the highly politically partisan PRA website. BabyDweezil 16:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

:We note the criticism, and identify and cite the critics. It is presented as one part of a balanced account. I do not see a blp problem here. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

::Per WP:BLP, as it applies to this source:

::Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject.

::This completely applies to the quotes from Berlet's partisan and obscure "publication.BabyDweezil 17:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

:::I do not see how. Political Research Associates is not obscure, the material is not published without editorial oversight, and they are no more partisan than National Public Radio. Publiceye.org is routinely cited as a reliable source for material within their research expertise. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Show me a source in the literature on therapeutic modalities--(a journal article, a statement from APA etc) that cites Chip Berlet and/or his claims in a discussion of Newman. The only mention to be found anywhere in the scholarly literature is in a review of a Newman book (Nissen M et al Theory & Psychology, Vol. 9, No. 3, 417-426 (1999) where the Berlet report [http://www.eastsideinstitute.org/booksunsciendknowreview.html is mentioned and dismissed.] Berlet's "expertise" is self-proclaimed, and not recognized with respect to Newman. His terminology ("totalitarian cultism") is invented, and has no corroboration in sociological or psychological literature. Please show me a countervailing view if you have one. Likewise, the so-called "editorial oversight" of PRA is self-proclaimed as well, and partisan. It is not suitable as an encyclopedia article. BabyDweezil 17:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

:The article is about Fred Newman, not therapeutic modalities. I do not see why criticism may only be included if it comes from a critic on some approved list. Beyond that, you are no more likely to be persuaded by repeated assertion than I am, so I see no point in simply contradicting each other. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

::Wikipedia seems far more enthralled with Chip Berlet than the world at large. Oh well, the old one eyed man is king sorta thing I suppose....BabyDweezil 19:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"

|-

! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Gay rights in Utah – resolved – 01:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

|-

| style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

|-

| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

This article identifies several Utah politicians and others as being gay or openly gay, without citing any sources. Edison 00:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gay_rights_in_Utah&curid=3248672&diff=88530081&oldid=88527638] Does that work? Metros232 00:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

::The article looks way better so far as BLP issues go after addition of a reference and deletion of a section. Thanks.Edison 23:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

|-

| style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

|}

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"

|-

! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Edward Hayter – The article has been deleted and SALTed – 04:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

|-

| style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

|-

| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

There is repeated re-instatement (by 65.31.34.249) of "axe-to-grind" material relating to this biographee. Two comments have been placed on the discussion page, with no response. RickDC 03:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

:I would say that the whole article should be deleted. There is almost no information given about Mr. Hayter himself, just about his business investments -- which, as you say, seem to be mentioned to promote some person's agenda, or "axe to grind". Steve Dufour 09:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

|-

| style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

|}

• {{article|Kerry Bolton}} - The subject is a New Zealander who may have been a proponent of occultism/satanism, fascism, and Holocaust revisionism. We need help fleshing out this article with proper sources and neutral POV. The subject has complained repeatedly about the contents, so it's been reduced to a near stub. There are reliable sources available including substantial references in two books. -Will Beback · † · 03:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

:Maybe a near stub is all that is needed. Is he all that important? It sounds to me that the only thing notable about him are his shocking opinions. Steve Dufour 08:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

::If we don't include the shocking opinions the there's reason for the article at all. Omitting his chief notability unbalances the article. -Will Beback · † · 06:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

:::Sorry. What I meant to say is that all we need to say is that he is a person with such and such opinions and include links where his opinions can be read and others where they are discussed and criticized. The near-stub article does this. Steve Dufour 16:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

::::BTW one of his shocking opinions is that Hitler was too democratic.Steve Dufour 17:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::The current stub does not include reference to his most notable opinions, and for some reason the bibliography of his books has been deleted too. It also fails to mention the various organizations that he's been associated with or started.

:::::The reason I posted this notice is to help decide which sources are sufficiently reliable to document his biography and opinions. -Will Beback · † · 19:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::I found that the links gave me a pretty good picture of where he is at. I agree that a bibliography of his writings would be in order, without taking out the links to the critical articles of course. Steve Dufour 17:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::::We shouldn't expect readers to view all of the external links in order to get the basic information. -Will Beback · † · 17:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::::To me it seems that the basic info about Mr. Bolton is that he lives in New Zealand and has some really "out-there" opinions. If I want to read his opinions the links are there for me to follow. Steve Dufour 06:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"

|-

! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Don King – Unsourced statements removed, issue resolved – 01:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

|-

| style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived discussion of the article above. Please do not modify it.

|-

| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

This article was full of unsourced negative statements. I have removed everything but a single sentence, however it should probably be deleted entirely. Checking the page history, I see that it has contained unsourced negative statements for nearly four years. Mexcellent 21:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

:It was really bad. I tried to remove the negative statements, not one of which was cited, but someone beat me to it. Steve Dufour 08:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

::Someone reverted it to the previous bad state. It really needs to be deleted and started over Mexcellent 09:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

:::Mr. King is certainly notable enough to have a good article. Steve Dufour 09:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Instead of deleting, perhaps someone can write a nice stub about the guy. Or perhaps there's a WikiProject Scientology that wants to chip in. -- 87.209.70.231 09:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

:::What does Scientology have to do with it? Is Mr. King a Scientologist? Steve Dufour 17:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• I've done some drastic pruning, the current version should be clean of BLP violations. Demiurge 14:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

::Good job. Now if someone wants to include some negative info they can with cites. Steve Dufour 16:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

|-

| style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived discussion of the article above. Please do not modify it.

|}

Mark Rathbun was a top official in the Church of Scientology. Now it seems he has become a "non-person". I think he is notable enough. However about half of his article is taken up by someone's conspiracy theories about him. Steve Dufour 08:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"

|-

! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Louis Walsh – There does not appear to be anything beyond routine vandalism – 01:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

|-

| style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived discussion of the article above. Please do not modify it.

|-

| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

{{article|Louis Walsh}} — under persistent attack for several months from anonymous IPs inserting unsourced allegations and innuendo about his personal life. I've been reverting but it would help if a few other people watchlisted it. Demiurge 13:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

:I didn't see any problems. Steve Dufour 23:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

|-

| style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived discussion of the article above. Please do not modify it.

|}

Describe the dispute using the following format:

• {{article|Landmark Education}}

Adminstrator William Connelley referred me to this section BLP for an organization "Landmark Education" as BLP is supposed to handle organizations as well. One of the sources used for a major negative, defamatory statement is a forgery. Here is the quote first from Admin William Connolley:

I think the crucial point here is the apparent forging by the AmPats. And I don't understand what Sme is doing by adding *both*. The fact that the official one doesn't have Landmark Education suggests at best that Smeelgova hasn't read it. Adding the non-official AmPats, which is near identical apart from the (presumably deliberate) false insertion of Landmark Education, only makes sense if Smeelgova is aware of the difference. In fact I can't think of a way to interpret this that makes sense os Smeelgova's behaviour - you may have a case for complaint William M. Connolley 22:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The article on Landmark Education has a section on a classification by the government of Austria of Landmark Education being a cult/sect. The section gives two references: one from the web site of the US State Department and one from American Patriots (an unoffical site with advertisting on it). Both sites purport to have the same "status of religious freedom in Austria 2006" report, and they differ by two words: "Landmark Education." Request: I request that you redact the whole section on Austria labelling Landmark Education a cult. Sm1969 04:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is the statement in the Landmark Education article, together with the real US State Department reference and the forgery:

In 2006 the government of Austria listed Landmark Education as a Sekte (cult), along with the Church of Scientology, the Unification Church, and other groups:

The vast majority of groups termed "sects" by the Government were small organizations with fewer than 100 members. Among the larger groups was the Church of Scientology, with between 5,000 and 6,000 members, and the Unification Church, with approximately 700 adherents throughout the country. Other groups found in the country included Divine Light Mission, Eckankar, Hare Krishna, the Holosophic community, the Osho movement, Sahaja Yoga, Sai Baba, Sri Chinmoy, Transcendental Meditation, Landmark Education, the Center for Experimental Society Formation, Fiat Lux, Universal Life, and The Family.

International Religious Freedom Report 2006, Austria, Section I. Religious Demography. United States Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. [http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2006/71367.htm], [http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/m-news+article+storyid-16247.html]

Also note that not only has User:Smeelgova re-added this forged-source report, but also put termed "sects" by the Government and Landmark Education in bold. Smeelgova has repeatedly re-added this redacted material, even after being warned of the forgery. Sm1969 04:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

:Tried to check: the American Patriots version doesn't seem to be a forgery; in fact, the official German language version of the same US government report, hosted by the US Embassy in Vienna, agrees with it and lists the group. ([http://vienna.usembassy.gov/de/policy/rel_freedom_rep_austria.htm]). Also, here is the original German text of an earlier version of the Austrian government's report, the Sektenbroschüre of 1999: [http://www.ilsehruby.at/Sektenbroschuere.html]. It lists Landmark Education under "Psychogruppen" (psycho groups) - Other sources: The Roman Catholic church in Austria lists it as a "Psycho-cult" ([http://www.dioezese-linz.or.at/pastoralamt/weltanschauungsfragen/psych-einleitung.asp]). Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC) [That's just Oberoesstereich, not all of Austria.] and it comes with a warning as well: Der Begriff "Psychokulte" wurde ursprünglich geprägt, um Gruppen zu kennzeichnen, deren hauptsächliche Wirkung in der Veränderung der menschlichen Psyche besteht. Diese Definition läßt trotzdem keine klare Einordnung von Gruppen unter dem Begriff zu.

:: I guess then there are several things here. First it is possible that Landmark Education wrote to the US State Department to redact the material becuase LE *never* had operations in Austria. There is a world of difference between being a "Psychogruppe" and a "Sekte." Further, even the Vienna Embassy version merely states that it is an "other group" not a "Sekte." Sm1969 10:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

::: There were court hearings on the subject in Germany where a similar Senate committee was forced to retract the position that Landmark Educaiton espoused a world view. Sm1969 11:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

:::: The other thing I noticed is that: A) This is a publication of the US government, not Austria. B) The German language version of it does have Landmark Education, whereas the English language version of the exact same report does *NOT* have Landmark Education. My guess is that Landmark Education wrote to the US government to remove Landmark Education and only took into account the English-language version. In any event, I don't see any source that Austria ever called it a "Sekte", but a "Psychogruppe." Sm1969 11:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

:Please note that this is not a "forged report", that is an assumption made by User:Sm1969. In fact, please see the User:Will Beback's comment at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Landmark_Education#Take_Notice:__Articles_regarding_ongoing_enterprises.2C_ArbCom_ruling], and also please see the [http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2005/51539.htm International Religious Freedom Report 2005], in which Landmark Education is actually termed a "sect". Yours, Smeelgova 21:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC).

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"

|-

! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Selig Percy Amoils – Please see the article talk page for further discussion. – 04:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

|-

| style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

|-

| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Administrator Runcorn has repeatedly added the category "South African Jew" which I feel goes against the spirit of WP Biographies of living persons, in that it is divisive, insensitive and potentially inflammatory. I have been threatened with blocking by Runcorn for removing the offending category. Paul venter 06:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

|-

| style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

|}

Could you please take a look at the article about Sergei Kovalev including Discussion of the article? A group of Russian users started making libelious and unjustified claims (the "Critique" section) about him and other people from Moscow Helsinki Group who are trying to protect human rights in Russia. All references provided by these people can be found only in unreliable sources that were not translated to English. I tried my best to accomodate some of their concerns and follow NPOV policy. But it seems to make them only more angry. When I tried to incorporate an alternative reliable reference to Dr. Baiev, they simply deleted it. What would you suggest? I am a new person in Wikipedia. That was a fair article just a couple of days ago, in my opinion. Biophys 21:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• {{article|Aysel Sengün}} - about a Turkish-German woman who dated one of the 9/11 hijackers and had to testify in a related trial. Given the sensitivity of the topic, the fact that the person involved has had to go into witness protection, and the corresponding fact that the article has absolutely zero prospects for future development, I thought a redirect was the best solution. Unfortunately, the author is rather attached to having the article in its current form. --Michael Snow 17:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

:I think this article is one of the worst things I yet seen here on Wikipedia. What is the purpose? The poor girl's life could very well be endangered, as well as the lives of her family. And for what? Someone's "right to know"? Steve Dufour 18:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Barbara Schwarz is the subject of her own article, against her wishes, and is also featured in the article on Mark Rathbun. On the talk page of her article one of the regular editors there wrote to me: If you are genuinely "someone [who] cares about her", then recommending a course of psychotherapy by a qualified and licensed practitioner would appear to be a more practical extention of this sentiment than quibbling over words in an article you say "has almost no importance." If this is true do you think that a person in need of psychiatric care should be the subject of a Wikipedia article? Thanks. Steve Dufour 17:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

:Not again. Barbara Schwarz has been discussed here before. Plus, if you have to delete people who need mental help, we would have to delete El Presidente George Bush too. :-) --Tilman 18:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

::I'm going to keep discussing her. You do not have to however. Wishing you well. Steve Dufour 18:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

:::Her psychiatric condition should have no bearing on the matter. I could easily compile a list of Wikipedia articles about mentally ill (or allegedly mentally ill) persons. However, I do think that it should be tightened up - for instance, is reference #3 supposed to account for the claim that "She says she lived in a submarine village beneath Great Salt Lake as a young child until she was kidnapped and taken into Germany at age 4 by Nazi agents"? It's unclear from the article, and the link goes to a newsbank article that can't be directly accessed. wikipediatrix 18:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

::::I still have a problem with an article whose main purpose seems to be to make fun of someone's alleged mental illness. Steve Dufour 16:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

::::: I don't get the impression from the article that it's making fun of her at all. What specific sentences are you referring to? wikipediatrix 16:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::How about the one about the underwater submarine base? Steve Dufour 05:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC) p.s. If you are not making fun what are you trying to do?

:::::::The article makes no evaluation of that statement. However, it is a fact that she publicly claimed to have lived her childhood in an underwater submarine base. Readers may or may not agree with this. Some may think this is funny. Some won't. --Tilman 07:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::::I still don't see why she is important enough to have her own WP article. Steve Dufour 08:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::You know very well that this "argument" of yours has been discussed several times already. You're wasting people's time by bringing it up again and again and again and again. --Tilman 18:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::You have the right to ignore what I say all you like. I'm sure the vast majority of people here already are. Wishing you well as always. the real Steve Dufour 03:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"

|-

! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Ingrid Newkirk – The vandalism seems to have stopped – 04:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

|-

| style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

|-

| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

I'd like to ask for administrative assistance regarding User:Idleguy's editing of Ingrid Newkirk. She is the president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, an animal-rights group. Idleguy's editing in the past indicates that he has strong anti-animal rights views. His editing of Ingrid Newkirk's bio is rising to the level of malice, in my view.

He added to the Early life section, without context [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ingrid_Newkirk&diff=89011215&oldid=87930180]:

In 2003, she made some shocking revealations [sic] stating that "I'd go to work early, before anyone got there, and I would just kill the animals myself" adding that "I must have killed a thousand of them, sometimes dozens every day." [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/23/EDG11DC9BK1.DTL]

The "shocking revealations [sic]" was his own opinion. While the quote is correct, it is not a full quote, and he left one important sentence out that gave some context. The background is that Newkirk used to work in a pound, and was upset by the methods used to put the animals to sleep. She therefore used to go to work early so that she could do the day's killings herself, because she felt she was gentler with the animals. The full quote is here, from an interview with The New Yorker:

I would say, 'They are stepping on the animals, crushing them like grapes, and they don't care.' In the end, I would go to work early, before anyone got there, and I would just kill the animals myself. Because I couldn't stand to let them go through that. I must have killed a thousand of them, sometimes dozens every day. Some of those people would take pleasure in making them suffer. Driving home every night, I would cry just thinking about it. And I just felt, to my bones, this cannot be right. [http://www.michaelspecter.com/ny/2003/2003_04_14_peta.html]

Both the original New Yorker source, and the source that Idleguy used, contained the sentence "Because I couldn't stand to let them go through [that]." Idleguy left that sentence out, joining the sentence before it and the sentence after it with "adding that," thereby giving the impression that Newkirk enjoys killing animals. He should also have included the rest of the quote to give the full context.

His next edit summary was also a violation of BLP: "the lady seems like an unethical person running a so called ethical organization." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ingrid_Newkirk&diff=89018423&oldid=89011215] The edit that accompanied this was meaningless: "She has often made statements that question the ethics behind such statements, especially given that she leads PETA, an organization for ethical treatment," plus a quote from Newkirk, one that is often misquoted. When an anon tried to fix the quote with a correction from PETA in a letter to the editor, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ingrid_Newkirk&diff=89239126&oldid=89233287] Idleguy reverted, saying that letters to the editor aren't reliable sources. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ingrid_Newkirk&diff=89239643&oldid=89239126] But of course they are if they're from the organization that has been misquoted.

I've warned Idleguy about BLP, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Idleguy#Your_edits_to_Newkirk_and_PETA] but he's paying no attention, and I can't take further action because I'm editing the article. An adminstrative warning would be appreciated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

:I will take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

::Thanks. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

|-

| style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

|}

{{article|Georgina Beyer}}

Not a dispute, just something worth looking into. She holds public office in New Zealand. The article gives no references as such, but following up one of its external links I confirm that her own official web site caller her a "transsexual and former sex-worker". It doesn't specifically say "prostitute", though (as does our article), and "sex-worker" can cover a lot of ground. Someone may want to look into this one in terms of improving citation. - Jmabel | Talk 04:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

==Jack Schaap {{blplinks|Jack Schaap}}==

Asking admin to look at this page - there are about 5 entries citing his book (note, the link is dead/invalid) that appear to be an attack. I know nothing about him, but hestiate to do rollbacks, as appears to be a protruded attack "war" going on between several users. SkierRMH 04:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

:I discussed this issue today with the editor who is adding them. I have found off-wikipedia verification that the quotes, though weird theology, are accurate quotes from the book in question. I would suggest, though, that the article should be expanded as it currently gives undue weight to the individual's sexual philosophy. This same user was adding essentially the same paragraph to other articles, for example, Independent Baptist and Eucharist. I have explained to him that WP:NPOV says that we should not give undue weight to minority viewpoints and he has read the policy and agreed. BigDT 04:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

: I've got this one on my watchlist. Schaap is an "interesting" character, there's a lot of history here some of it related to the Gastroturfing arbitration. I'll have a look-see. Guy (Help!) 10:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

{{article|Mwai Kibaki}} has already been listed here but received no response. An anonymous user {{user|160.83.64.83}}, {{user|Patch77}} and various other IP addresses (possibly all the same person, but that doesn't really matter) have been claiming that the article is biased against its subject and have been repeatedly removing content from it. I don't think that it is and neither do various other editors who have reverted. There was some discussion early on in the process, but that has now ended with neither party managing to persuade the other. All that is happening now is one paragraph (reporting on recent media revelations of a secnd wife, I think in a NPOV manner) being repeatedly removed and then reverted. The user has been warned but I'd like someone else to take a look at it to make sure I'm not completely wrong here. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 14:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

:Update: An editor is now discussing the possibility of taking legal action over the article. --Cherry blossom tree 17:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

::Legal threats are to be reported on WP:ANI for immediate action. (→Netscott) 17:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

:::I've pointed out the policy and suggested dispute resolution. I'll wait to see what the response is before looking for any immediate action. --Cherry blossom tree 17:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

: Just had a look at this: The mention of the "second wife rumour" is suitably sourced and is not, in my opinion, given undue weight. — Matt Crypto 18:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

::Thanks for the input. --Cherry blossom tree 22:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Depending on the edit of the moment, the section dealing with Richards' recent onstage racist remarks is longer than the rest of the article, completely ignoring concerns about "undue weight", as well as often being copyright-violation cut-and-pastes of the entire transcript. I recommend the article be completely locked until the throng of editors gleefully eager to overdetail every single nuance of this issue calm down. wikipediatrix 01:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

:This article is definitely suffering from recentism. I wouldn't be quick to lock it up though. That said some extra eyes on it in light of BLP would do much good. (→Netscott) 02:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Possible POV - if I've interpreted that correctly. I don't know if the people reading this are familiar with the Richards' controversy going on right now. Today (Wednesday), Richards hired a publicist who announced that Richards is Jewish after Richards was accused of making anti-Semitic comments as well as racist ones. On the other hand, The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles wrote an article specifically on that Richards is not Jewish. Since this is becoming frequently reported on in the media, I added that Richards' publicist says he is, and the Journal says he isn't. According to our article on the Jewish Journal, it's a reliable source, yet an editor claims it is not and keeps removing the bit about what the Journal said, leaving only what the publicist said. I think it's a clear case of conflicting cases and both should be put it in (i.e. this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Richards&oldid=89605984#The_Laugh_Factory_incident version]). Am I right or does anyone have an opinion on the matter? Mad Jack 08:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

{{article|Moshe Levinger}}

Levinger only sat 2 months in jail and therefore IMO shouldn't be in the category :Category:Israeli criminals. He also had a plea bargain only and on negligence, which lacks the mens rea IMO. Too much [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undue_weight#Undue_weight undue weight] too on the incident - the person is known as a rabbi, teacher, pioneer, politican and many more aspects in life. Amoruso 20:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC) 20:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

We have something on our hands that appears to be a legal threat. This has sat unremarked for several days, I just noticed it. - Jmabel | Talk 20:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

A couple of anonymous users and a newly-created account keep re-adding blatantly libelous material to this science-fiction author's biography, claiming that he expressed 'virulent hatred' of Muslims under an alleged Internet pseudonym, and that 'many readers' believe he likes to 'gratuitously insult' Muslims in his books (among other derogatory accusations). Needless to say, there is no sourcing for any of these allegations. I'm requesting that a few people add this low-traffic page to their watch list to help. - Merzbow 23:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

:as the person libelled by user:Merzbow above, I feel it appropriate to respond that the comments were posted in a section entitled "Criticism" which is wholly appropriate. I editted them a short time ago so as to express a more neutral POV. As these are major criticisms of Stirling's work that reccur frequently, they are appropriate for a section titled criticism, IMHO. Unless these biographies are meant to be panegyrics or press releases? If Merzbow continues his libels against myself and his vandalism of this page, I would request he be banned from further tampering and libel. --Stampcollector 00:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

::None of these criticisms are sourced. Thus removal is appropriate. Libel against you is not as big a concern here as libel against Stirling. --C S (Talk) 02:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

::Regarding your request to ban Merzbow, keep re-adding unsourced libelous statements and you will be banned. Policy is very clear on this. Read WP:BLP, particularly WP:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_controversial_material. --C S (Talk) 02:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Allcriticisms of Stirling have been removed. Is your intention to only have puff pieces?--Stampcollector 02:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

:I removed all unsourced potentially libelous statements. Do you know why? If not, please follow the links above. --C S (Talk) 02:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"

|-

! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Neil Jenman – Article was speedy deleted – 04:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

|-

| style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

|-

| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

{{article|Neil Jenman}}

I just stumbled accross this article (via the random article link) and I think that it, and possibly its authors, need attention from an administrator as the article may be libelous. I don't know anything at all about Neil Jenman, so he could very well be engaging in "insane pursuing of personal vendettas at any cost", but this at least requires a (very good) source. I doubt that Mr Jenman is worthy of an article anyway. --Nick Dowling 08:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• After skimming the edit history, it seems that this article started life as a promotional article on Neil Jenman (the early versions look a lot like as a press release or lift from a personal website) and there's an edit war between Jenman or his supporters and someone who doesn't like him very much. Either way, deletion seems the appropriate solution. --Nick Dowling 08:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

|-

| style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

|}

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"

|-

! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Brandon Davis – The article was speedy deleted – 04:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

|-

| style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

|-

| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

I have stubbed this article IAW the BLP policy. Mexcellent 23:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

|-

| style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

|}

Steven Pinker contains lots of personal information which is irrelevant to the article. While this material is sourced, it repeatedly mentions his multiple ex-wives names as well as the names and occupations of other family members. This seems like a violation of WP:BIO: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy|presumtion in favor of privacy] and simply poor judgement, and poor taste. WP is not a gossip magazine. Various users (at least 3) have tried to remove this information yet user Mikkerprikker insists on adding it again, accusing the users of vandalism. KAdler 01:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"

|-

! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Steve Spurrier – Unsourced trivia has been removed and the Crimson Tide have moved on in their coaching search – 04:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

|-

| style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

|-

| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Article is being changed to indicate an unannounced and unconfirmed rumor that Coach Spurrier has been hired by the University of Alabama. It has been reposted twice so a dispute tag was added. The rumors are weak at best as UA's coach was fired only hours ago. Not even sources have reported to anyone Spurrier has been hired. --Streyeder 09:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

:While unsourced claims are bad, I don't know if this particular case it's really an issue of much concern viz a viz BLP since it doesn't sound to me something that is really libellous or defamatory. Nil Einne 12:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

|-

| style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

|}

Alleged by user:SSS108 violation of prescribed writing style. Other editor (user:Andries) prefers to stay close to the source to avoid inaccuracies and to avoid omitting relevant information. Here is the diff [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=90385176&oldid=90340348] Andries 11:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

:Yes, violation of WP:BLP#Writing_style. Andries is the former webmaster for the largest Anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba website on the internet and is trying to make the Sathya Sai Baba article into an "expose", not an encyclopedic article. SSS108 ^talk-email 07:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

::I disagree. You are removing well-sourced information that is relevant to the person's notability. I will revert. Andries 11:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

::May be the following rewording is acceptable to all parties

:::The journalist Sacha Kester wrote in 2003 an article in the Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant about spiritual seekers who go to India to find a guru. In that article Kester wrote that SSB is a good example of a guru who is a swindler. Kester further wrote in the article that "the sorrow of those who after years of devotion saw through his deception is indescribable. The jewels and watches that he materializes are hidden in his chair. Followers who make large donation are given preferential treatment. He advises ill people not to take their medicine." She further wrote that he "invites good looking young boys for a private interview" and explicitly described SSB's sexual habits with these boys. (source de Volkskrant 7 Jan. 2003 Ticket naar Nirvana/Ticket to Nirvana)

::Andries 19:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

In repose to OTRS complaints, I've three times removed sections from this article for WP:BLP reasons. It is pretty clear that editors with agendas are editing this page in partisan ways. After the first removal, I warned one user, and when he reinserted basically the same material, we had this conversation [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hkelkar&oldid=90117928#William_Dalrymple_2]. When the section was replaced as a 'from the critics' title, bt another users, I protected the article. I have no personal knowledge of, or interest in, the subject, so if anyone wants to try wo work this our with the parties I'd be obliged.--Doc^g 15:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

{{article|Natalie Merchant}} - long lasting (6-7 months) edit war. The article informs the name of the artist's husband as well as her children, citing an interview, but an anonymous IP continues reverting. As the IP modifies the article once or twice per day (games with the system?) it is not possible to block it for long periods. -- ReyBrujo 19:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

{{article|Desmond Tutu}} - there are some citations at the end of this page which appear to be distortions of Tutu's actual comments, and which portray him in an unfair light. Please review my comments on the talk page ("more questions for CJ" and "more comments for CJ"). I'm half-inclined to delete the contentious references myself, except that I've already made three reverts on the page today. CJCurrie 03:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

{{article|Steve Yzerman}} - someone keeps adding "Tsakmakas" to Yzerman's name at the top of the article. The source of the edits appears to come from different IP addresses. I have removed Tsakmakas three times already, and each time it is added back. There is no verifiable source to show that Tsakmakas is indeed part of Yzerman's name. If someone can come up with a credible source that says his full name includes Tsakmakas I will of course not edit it out any longer. However, as a 20+ year fan of Yzerman's, I have yet to see that name mentioned anywhere. This Wiki article is the first I've seen it. I am concerned this is going to develop into an edit war and would like it settled before it does. AuntieNancy19 19:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"

|-

! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Kerry Katona – The dispute has been resolved – 01:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

|-

| style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

|-

| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

User:Magpie1892 insist on insert that Kerry Katona was a pornographic model based on some pictures which he may or may not have seen. It is well known and even publicly acknowledged that there were topless pictures of her, but the pornographic borders on libel IMO. KittenKlub 20:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• I left a note on the talk page. The source used to verify the nude modelling claim, as well as two other claims, does not pass the verifiability test, and should not be used to source any negative claims in that article. Crockspot 20:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• The two editors are in agreement with my comments, and are working it out. Crockspot 21:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

|-

| style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

|}

{{article|Leonid Nevzlin}}: I suspect that what is here is essentially accurate, so someone may want to improve sourcing rather than remove material, but blind external link from our text to a page on the subscription site of the Moscow Times is a pretty weak citation for an accusation of criminality. - Jmabel | Talk 22:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

:[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4381043.stm this] should be a good enough source for the allegations, although it doesn't report the later extradition request. Morwen - Talk 19:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"

|-

! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Header – The IP address vandalizing this article has been blocked. – 04:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

|-

| style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

|-

| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

User 68.53.61.253 has repeatedly vandalized the article, inserting text and photos relating to footwear. RickDC 23:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

:The Ip address has been blocked. Gamaliel 23:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

|-

| style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

|}

As above, I don't doubt that what's here is true, but I don't like it either. Because of that, however, I don't want to just wipe it out and say "...was a Czech", or something. Help? 68.39.174.238 00:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

{{article|Rush Limbaugh}} User:Caper13 and User:Dual Freq are repeatedly editing sourced sections that they admit they have not read the sources for. As can be expected, the sections now attribute misinformation to sources that those sources do not say. For example, they have removed information sourced to the Boston Globe, and then inserted their own points of view in its place to make it appear that the Boston Globe is reporting their own opinions. This seems grossly unfair to any reader who would actually come here looking for accurate information, let alone to the public figure and the newspaper. My attempts to remove such misinformation and misattribution have been greeted with threats of blocking over 3RR rules. They are also removing any sourced information that does not conform to their point of view, claiming that the sole purpose of the article is document "achievements" and any source they don't like (including prominent critics like Richard Roeper) are so biased that their reporting of basic facts can't be used. WillyWonty 04:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Brother of a French presidential candidat, Ségolène Royal. It is written that he is an "accused terrorist bomber". Is it a libel ? 193.56.37.1 13:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

:As the article explains, his brother has claimed he admitted to planting the bombs in the Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior. This claim is made in a reliable source which we mention. This is widely considered a terrorist attack in New Zealand, and was apparently even labelled as such by France. As such, accused terrorist bomber is probably a fair label Nil Einne 19:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)~

::There has been no justice action or indictement whatsoever, in France, New Zealand or anywhere else, therefore the term "accused" is libelous, you just have unsourced hearsay.Hektor 19:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

:::You don't need an indiciment to be accused of something. As per the discussion in the talk page, I feel the current wording is more informative so won't be chaning it but this doesn't mean I think it was wrong to label him an accused terrorist. If someone has been accused by a reliable source of commiting a crime, by definition he is accused of the crime. In this case, there is no doubt he has been accused by his brother of being the bomber. There is little doubt that the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior is considered a terrorist attack. Hence someone accused of being involved in it, would be an accused terrorist. You are perhaps confusing the difference between the legal term (I believe accused has a specific meaning in the legal sense) and the word. You might want to take a look at other articles like :Category:Journalists accused of fabrication or plagiarism and :Category:Wrongly accused terrorism suspects. In many of these cases, AFAIK no indicement or legal proceedings were ever carried out. In the latter for example, in many cases, these people were never prosecuted or indicited, simply held at Guantanomo and then released Nil Einne 11:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:::I think the goal of this policy is to protect wikipedia. The way the article is written, I think Royal could sue wikipedia with good chances of success. Hektor 13:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delicious edits like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kurt_Nimmo&diff=90861550&oldid=90649388 this one]. "Multiple" users repeatedly restore that version, frequently using the summary "reverse vandalism". 130.214.17.20 14:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

:Have reverted, left note. Morwen - Talk 19:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

::The BLP-violating version was reverted to again by the person I left a note to, with no attempt at explanation. I have reverted. Can people please keep an eye on this? Morwen - Talk 23:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

::: I reinforced your note to the user. It's on my watchlist now. That user just registered a few days ago, and has only edited that article, all edits being of the same nature. Crockspot 00:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

:::: I think it is likely that User:Kevin9, User:Janissary3 and User:Randicity are all the same people. Semi-protection doesn't seem to be an option. Does this need full protection yet? Morwen - Talk 09:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

::::: User:Janissary3 reverted again, after my final warning. He is now indef blocked. Morwen - Talk 13:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::: I have had to protect this page. Morwen - Talk 18:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::: Good call. Maybe do a chkuser and mark all the socks too. Crockspot 19:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This article could use some extra eyes for the next week or so. He appeared on The View today in supposedly an inebriated state and now anon IPs are starting to have a field day. (→Netscott) 02:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"

|-

! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Raw Deal: A Question of Consent – Old version deleted, changed to redirect – 06:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

|-

| style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

|-

| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

This articla makes statements that rapes occurred without reliable and verifiable sources.Edison 06:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

:This appears to be a good candidate for speedy deletion and I've flagged it for such. Kyaa the Catlord 08:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

::I'm going to put a redirect to rakontur, the company that produced the film, and a very brief bit of information about the film at that article. I'm also posting a note for User:Uknowthename, who seems to be violating WP:COI. The pages merit watching, given their apparent commercial intent, but I think the company is notable enough to keep. John Broughton | Talk 15:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

:::Well, an admin just blew the article away, to which I have NO objections. I have re-established the page in order to put a redirect there, but note that because of the hard deletion there won't be any page history for the article (or offending text in prior versions of the page). John Broughton | Talk 16:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

|-

| style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

|}

• {{article|Morris R. Jeppson}} Unsourced allegations of theft (as opposed to legally acquiring a souvenir) being repeatedly added by a new user, sometime also adding :Category:Famous thieves. I can't revert again without violating 3RR. // Vary | Talk 08:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

:It's certainly good to ask other editors to get involved, but 3RR doesn't apply in the case of reverting unsourced negative information. (Nor in the case of clear vandalism, which this is not, but I add for the sake of completeness.) John Broughton | Talk 20:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I responded to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&diff=91021130&oldid=91021127 this complaint], which was removed from this board. There appears to be legitimate concern about sourcing and relevance. A claim is being made that is sourced by blogs, and the blogs are being considered reliable, since they are "science blogs". Yet the material being sourced is your average run-of-the-mill blog ranting, not scientific information. I don't think this is proper, and I would like some others from this group to check it out and comment at Talk:William A. Dembski#BLP Noticeboard response. There is also a key issue of relevance, since the comments were not posted by the subject of the article, but by a moderator at his blog at a different blog, if I'm following right. Crockspot 16:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Restoring complaint. JoshuaZ makes a false assertion that it is libelious. The user only says it is "potentially libelious" DLH 21:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a poorly sourced quote (personal blogs quoting an obscure personal blog) of one of the moderators (DaveScot) of Dembski's blog. First of all why is a moderator of Dembski's blog being quoted in Dembski's autobiography when the moderator's quote wasn't even on Dembski's blog to begin with and did not represent any opinion of Dembski? Secondly, why are personal blogs quoting another personal blog allowed as a source? No one can even verify that the DaveScot moderating Dembski's blog is the same DaveScot who commented on the other blog. Anyone can use any name they want for a handle on blogspot blogs. It's the most poorly sourced quote I've ever seen on Wiki and it is a potentially libelous quote. The editor doing the insertion (FeloniusMonk) is adamantly opposed to removing it even though it violates Wiki rules of reliable sources and especially the rule about immediately removing potentially libelous material in living person biographies. 72.183.101.183 08:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

: Update: Now the editors are even removing my comments from the talk page to censor notification of their egregious guideline violations. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_A._Dembski&action=history 72.183.101.183 22:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

: Update 2: Now editor JosuahZ has blocked my usual IP and removed the above update so I can't even go through the BLP complaint procedure. How am I expected to proceed under these circumstances? 66.61.147.69 22:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• I have removed most of the paragraph relating to DaveScot, and there appears to be agreement on the talk page that my justification for doing so is proper. Crockspot 21:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Feh. Spoke too soon. There is a little reverting going on, but an admin/regular editor to the article is backing me up. Crockspot 21:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• The reverting has halted, but I'm getting quite a bit if pressure. Feel free to pipe in... Crockspot 02:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

We’re having serious problem on the Oprah Winfrey board with editor user:David Fuchs. He seems determined to add the following libelous information about Oprah Winfrey:

Others see Oprah as too powerful, wielding too much influence in everything from what people wear to what people buy: appearing on her show can bring greater financial success to the item, as evidenced by several books such as A Million Little Pieces (see Oprah Book Club above). Others are disgusted that Oprah is considered for a Nobel Peace Price when she has done little but thrown "excess money at poor people." These factors and others have led to several anti-Oprah sites appearing.http://www.campusnut.com/column.cfm?article_id=656 Student Article on the Effect of Oprahhttp://www.ihateoprah.com/ Anti-Oprah site: I Hate Oprah.com

It’d be one thing if he had notable sources he could quote for his anti-Oprah rant, but instead all he provides for sources are anonymous anti-Oprah web pages (which he may have created himself & is trying to use wikipedia to advertise) and a student article. It’s my understanding that the references one is required to cite in order to justify trashing a living person should be much higher. I cite the following from Wikipedia’s living person policy:

''Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. In cases where the information is derogatory and poorly sourced or unsourced, this kind of edit is an exception to the three-revert rule. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.

Can someone please explain to him that this sort of thing is libelous and keep him away from this article. '' Timelist 20:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous user (IP={{User|86.133.143.98}}) keeps reverting the page to a previous version which contains libelous material. It also contains factual inaccuracies. I have discussed with the user on the Discussion page. However, he is absolutely certain that he is right. He is also obviously polarized against the political party (Parti Québécois) of which André Boisclair is the leader; thus, this user cannot provide a NPOV on the subject, and it shows. He has also reverted my latest version THREE TIMES, arguing that everything that he wrote is factually correct. His version also contains various typos. It also refers to an external article in the Globe and Mail; however, this article is editorial in nature, and contains information that had been later disproved. Be careful with this user, because he also tends to freely edit his previous entries on the discussion page. By the way, I have warned André Boisclair's politial team of the currently libelous article. Thanks. -- Hugo Dufort 05:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I reverted his latest edit back to your version. Some of the negative info he put in the article was not sourced at all, let alone reliabley sourced. Timelist 06:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I will keep updating the article, as the negative content still seems to outweight Mr Boisclair's achievements as an environment minister in the 1990s, and as a party leader in the 2000s. We must make sure we keep a NPOV and we also need to be respectful; this biography is still quite sketchy. -- Hugo Dufort 07:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

----

The same user (IP={{User|86.133.143.98}}) has reverted the whole article on André Boisclair AGAIN. THIS MUST STOP. He also seems to be going on a crusade against the Cégep network of colleges (which he insists on calling "secondary schools"), as he is editing occurrences of this term in other biographies. See for instance Gilles Duceppe. -- Hugo Dufort 20:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

----

Current content of the biography page:

- Boisclair being called a "party animal in Quebec City's night-life scene", which is unacceptable vocabulary in a Wikipedia article and could be considered libel (note: the fact that this statement was taken from a newpaper's editorial doesn't justify its presence in Wikipedia)

- emphasis on the fact (?) that Boisclair is a drop-out and doesn't have an undergraduate degree (a note about his Master's degree is buried further down on the page)

- focus on allegations (with link to editorial/opinion texts)

- lenghty discussions about purported scandals

- extensive coverage of criminal accusations against a member of Boisclair's team, despite the fact that Boisclair was never accusated ("guilty by association?" our anonymous wikipedian says so in the Discussion page)

- misleading entry about Boisclair being the leader of a "secondary school" students movement (it was at COLLEGE level)

- misleading entry about Boisclair "resigning" right after a financial scandal (in fact, he resigned because he wanted to takes a Master's degree course; the scandal happened years later)

What is missing from the biography page:

- anything about André Boisclair's achievements as a Minister of Environment

- a respectful coverage of André Boisclair's political life

THIS WHOLE ARTICLE IS FILLED WITH LIBEL.

This page has been built by somebody who publicly states that he dislikes André Boisclair and his political party. The man who wrote the page, and who personally controls the content, refuses any improvement, correction, or opinion that is contrary to his own, despite the fact that the new content I tried to add has reliable references. Instead of accepting the changes, the anonymous user simply REVERTS the whole page (he's done this at least FOUR TIMES with my changes) and then cherry-picks some minor modifications. -- Hugo Dufort 04:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

{{tl|unreferenced}} and a 'bot now classify unsourced articles by date. There are a significant number of biographies, including biographies of living persons, that have lacked sources for a year, now. I've ready found one article that has, sans sources, stated that someone is a war criminal for a year. Editors interested in addressing this should see :Category:Articles lacking sources by month and its sub-categories. Uncle G 18:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That's an outrage. Even without knowing who the person is, I am disgusted that someone can be called a war criminal on wikipedia without a damn good source to back it up. There is far too much negative POV that gets into the bios of living people. Timelist 20:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"

|-

! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Bill Freeman – Article was deleted at AFD – 13:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

|-

| style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

|-

| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

This article violates Wikipedia's guidelines for biographies of living persons.

First of all, the article is highly biased. When blatant POV statements are removed, the author promptly reinserts them (See history and discussion pages.)

Second, the article is factually incorrect. For example, it claims that the Freemans own SIX houses, which is not accurate. Additionally, a good portion of the article is actually written about Patsy Freeman rather than Bill Freeman.

It is apparent that the author of this article has a personal vendetta against the Freemans. I am requesting this article be replaced by a neutral article about Bill Freeman's life and his work as a Christian speaker and writer such as his numerous writings and speaking engagements across the country. If a neutral version of this article is repeatedly tampered with, I request that it either be locked to prevent further vandelism, or deleted entirely to prevent the propogation of misinformation.

Wh4ever 00:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

:I have nominated this article for deletion here. Please feel free to participate and help build a consensus. I looked back in the history of the article and every single revision is nothing but an attack page ... so there's no good revision to revert to - it needs to be deleted. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. BigDT 03:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

|-

| style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

|}

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"

|-

! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Mark Bircham – There is no article by this name. – 04:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

|-

| style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

|-

| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Reputation as a 'cheat' - get this **** off here FFS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.189.127.13 (talk • contribs)

:There is no article by that name, nor has there ever been. A Google search [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLD%2CGGLD%3A2003-37%2CGGLD%3Aen&q=%22Mark+Bircham%22+site%3Awikipedia.org] for "Mark Bircham" on Wikipedia finds nothing. What is the name of the article that concerns you? BigDT 19:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

|-

| style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

|}

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"

|-

! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Suzanne Hinn – The page was speedy deleted and recreated as a stub – 01:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

|-

| style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

|-

| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

• {{article|Suzanne Hinn}} - see discussion page under nomination for deletion // Jamie Guinn 13:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• I have no use for either of the Hinn's, but this page clearly qualifies as an attack page (CSD A10). I have to tagged. Robert A.West (Talk) 13:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

|-

| style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

|}

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"

|-

! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | David Westerfield – Ongoing discussion continuing at Talk:David Westerfield. This continues to be a contentious article and uninvolved party views are welcome. – 02:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

|-

| style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

|-

| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Note: the above had previously been archived. Since there is more interest in it, I have unarchived it. BigDT 04:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply to "Fighting for Justice" (see the recently archived discussion, archive4): I pointed to physical (biological) evidence, presented in court (by a prosecution witness), and uncontested, that a little girl might have been sexually assaulted, and you reacted with outrage, as might be expected - except that your anger was directed against ME! Shoot the messenger.196.15.168.40 04:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

:You wasted your time bringing it up again BigDT. I have no interest in conversing with 196.15.168.40. He is a sad being who defends a murderer. Another user tolerated him for a long time, but I will not. He makes me sick. That's all I gotta say. You can archive this section again, if you wish. Fighting for Justice 05:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

::Ok, I'll rearchive it, but please see WP:NPA. Regardless of the correctness of this user's position, there is no reason to engage in personal attacks. BigDT 03:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

:::A week after your reprimand, “Fighting for Justice” hurled the following rude remark at me (see Westerfield History page): “STOP EDITING THE ARTICLE TROLL”. I suppose I should be grateful: this is MILD by his standards.196.15.168.40 08:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment on archiving: What is important is not whether the discussion is archived or not, but that something be DONE. I originally reported it here because my edits to the article were being constantly vandalized. Two MONTHS later, that hasn’t stopped. Someone must explain to “Fighting for Justice” what “neutral” means, and then ensure that he abides by Wikipedia policy. For example, the article MUST include evidence that Westerfield DIDN’T have child porn; and it MUST include evidence that Danielle had prior ACCESS to his motorhome. Neutrality is particularly important in the case of a living person.196.15.168.40 04:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

::I called you that, because you exhibit the behavior of one. You are constantly putting in information to make David Westerfield seem innocent, or wrongly convicted. The article is already very kind to him. Almost all the notes, with the exeception to the last one, put DW in a positive light. Yet you still complain it is not neutral enough. College age does mean adult age. What do you have against calling them adults? Link 8 is biased and YOUR original research. Your other links is the same information as in link 8. Link 8 is your soapbox, which was tagged as biased. You saving it without the tag is deceptive. Link 7 is hard to follow. The replies are all over the place and your arguments with another user are not special. Fighting for Justice 09:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply to “Fighting for Justice”: So you admit you are guilty of a personal attack on me. I put in information which balances an incomplete, biased article. Let’s look at one of the notes (not the last one). Does the “Peeping Tom” allegation really put DW in a positive light? If we look in Link 7 (the Archived discussion), we’ll see how flimsy the evidence for that is. It was based on two things. One is that his estranged ex-wife suspected he spied on neighbors (but admitted she never caught him); the other is that the neighbor behind him said she had seen him - but that was the embellished version of the story, which was after the prosecutor had mentioned the binoculars in his opening statement. Yet you want to delete that link. Both his children were in college at the time, and they weren’t “mature” students but were of normal college age (18 and 21). They were described in a media report (which I quoted) as “college students”, so why are you so strongly opposed to that? Link 8 is a collection of verified evidence pointing to innocence. It states clearly what it is, both in the article (“Critical examinations of the evidence can be found at”), and in the link. And it was due to your soul mate and predecessor, TripleH1976, that it was tagged POV. Which was redundant because it states itself what it is: “Guilty? The verdict left many dissatisfied. ...” And, as I’ve pointed out many times, it’s NOT original research but source-based research. If you can follow the trial testimony - which the lay people comprising the jury were required to do - then you should be able to follow Link 7. And you have advantages over them, such as you can do a computer “Find” on the text.196.15.168.40 04:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

:You've been putting in information since March of this year. How much more do you need to balance? Who is the "many" that were unsatisfied with the verdict? Did you count them? Are they your friends? How much is many? 15? 30? 100? 1500?? What? Source-based research that's a term you invented. Where does wikipedia tell you you can do this? What other changes do you propose? That Damon got his back rubbed? That he kissed and snuggled with another woman who wasn't his spouse? Will that kind of stuff make the article neutral in YOUR opinion? The smoking of marijuana? The fact that the family ate pizza? The cancellation of the ski trip? If it weren't for myself and TripleH1976 I bet this type of stuff would be in the article. The article would be a cry festival for Westerfield. A good chunk of the article is positive to the child-killer. I bet ALL child-killers would love an article like this one. Fighting for Justice 07:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Good grief ... guys ... please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Regardless of what you think of the other's view, this is way over the top. I've gone back and taken a look at some of the disputed edits. 196.15.168.40, I see that a couple of times, you added links to page history and to the talk page. Please take a look at WP:ASR - discussing Wikipedia is a really bad idea - this site is mirrored constantly and having self-references in there breaks the mirrors - that absolutely cannot be there no matter what the reason. Fighting for Justice, when reverting, rvv (with two v's) means "vandalism". No good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is ever vandalism. The current dispute seems to be whether to include the text "Some members of law enforcement, such as Detective Chris Armstrong, concluded that this was not child pornography". Please see WP:AWW. Saying "some people" is a bad idea. Was this detective the only one who believed it was not child pornography? If so, just say that. The other dispute seems to be over whether to call two people "adults" or "college students". Obviously most college students are adults. Can you explain the heartache one way or the other? If they are 30-year-olds working on their second phd, they should probably be called adults ... if they are 18-year-old freshmen, they should probably be called college students. The bottom line on all of this ... please be WP:CIVIL ... and remember that Wikipedia is not the place for pushing an agenda. BigDT 13:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

::Yes, if we can focus on the article and not who is doing what to spin what, etc., maybe we can get somewhere. BigDT, maybe you can weigh in on this - the line about Det. Armstrong appears to be from a raw trial transcript published somewhere. The actual text is a defense lawyer who wants to hear Armstrong say that the material wasn't pornography but the judge refuses to let him say that. That's it. Apparently no one has ever reported on this anywhere. I'm not even sure it's relevant and God knows a defense lawyer is going to be biased (he's paid to be biased!). To me, allowing a line in this article saying that even Armstrong disputes the pornography based on that would be against WP:NOR, etc. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Yeah, I know wikipedia is not a place to push an agenda. I've told User:196.15.168.40 this as well and he just doesn't get it. He thinks this is a place to retry the case again. He wants to right the wrongs he thinks happen. Armstrong's statement should not be included, because the transcript is about a defense lawyer trying to get that statement in. And you know what? He was DENIED. The transcript is hearsay and, not only that, we have no clue if Armstrong saw EVERYTHING Westerfield had. It goes against everything we do know about the child porn conviction. If this man didn't own child porn, why was he indicted for it? Why did the jury convict him of it? His lawyers knew he had that's why they build a defense for it. They tried to pass it off to his 18 year old son. Fighting for Justice 20:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

::::Please try to leave speculation as to 196.15.168.40's motives out of it - Wikipedia is about the product, not the personality. It would be easier to resolve this problem if you guys would quit with the personal jabs. As for the question itself - Detective Armstrong - there are two issues. One is whether he actually said it or not. If he is quoted somewhere as saying it, ok, that's fine, but if the only source is the unsubstantiated statement of the defense lawyer, I don't know how useful that is because there's no context. Did he say it just before the trial in a deposition? Did he say it the first day of the investigation? There's no context there. The second issue is what position he was in. Was he one of 100 detectives working on the case or was he the lead detective? If 100 people looked at it and one thought it was not child pornography, you don't want to give undue weight to the statement ... on the other hand, if he maintained from the beginning until the end of the case that there was no child pornography, then that's a meaningful statement. BigDT 00:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::In that case, will you agree with me the statement is poorly sourced? According to the biographies of living people policy controversial or poorly sourced statements are to be left out. You are right context is sorely lacking. Did he see the same stuff that was shown to the jury? If he did I find it very hard to believe he would say it wasn't child porn. I don't believe he saw all the material. Fighting for Justice 03:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Composite reply to discussion:

The evidence from members of law enforcement that this is not child porn, is (see the Westerfield Talk page): “there was a police report (by Detective Armstrong) quoted by the judge in court; the testimony of a member of the police (Watkins) who had worked alongside the author of that report (and who denied disagreeing with Armstrong’s conclusion) (the judge overruled the hearsay objection); possibly the same police report mentioned in a media report; the decision of an Assistant U.S. Attorney (quoted in the sworn affidavit for a search warrant); and the conclusion of a former member of law enforcement (Lawson) (ex the Secret Service, the DEA, and the US Customs Service, where he specialized in child porn crimes) (in a court document). ”

Very early in the case, Armstrong was asked by Lieutenant Collins, who was in charge of the Robbery and Special Investigations Unit, to evaluate the images. He did so and produced a report. The defense wanted to call him as a witness, but the judge (acceding to the prosecution’s request) wouldn’t allow EXPERT opinion (so much for a fair trial). The judge explicitly stated that he HAD read Armstrong’s report, so I don’t see how there can be any doubt that it says what the defense attorney says it does. As to the opinion of law enforcement officers other than Watkins and Armstrong, someone in the FBI presumably thought there was child pornography there, otherwise they wouldn’t have (unsuccessfully) approached the Assistant U.S. Attorney - unless it wasn’t a serious attempt, but just routine procedure to do so. Regarding the local police, I would quote Lawson’s statement: “None of the images in the computers themselves or the loose media are of the type normally presented for prosecution for child pornography cases. We feel certain that the law enforcement personnel of the San Diego laboratory are aware of this, which in our opinion, calls into question the governments initial refusal to allow the defense to have copies of the media.” That indicates that the DOMINANT opinion (perhaps even unanimous opinion) in the Regional Computer Forensics Laboratory, was that this was NOT child porn.196.15.168.40 20:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

:Take it to an appeals court then. if his conviction is overturned then come back here and we can include it in the article. Until then it doesn't have to be here. Fighting for Justice 06:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

::BigDT asked for more information about Armstrong’s statement so I gave it. I have proved that he DID say it, and that it’s a MEANINGFUL statement. I now await BigDT’s response.196.15.168.40 19:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

:::It matters squat that you proved it. It isn't the article's obligation to defend Westerfield against the charges he was convicted on. It's about time you understand that. Fighting for Justice 19:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

|-

| style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

|}

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"

|-

! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Carmelo Anthony – Article semi-protected, reverted. – 05:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

|-

| style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

|-

| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

72.73.50.2 had inserted "See, e.g., Carmelo Anthony." into the article Sucker-punch. --Arno Matthias 14:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

|-

| style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

|}

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"

|-

! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Michael Walker (headmaster) – Article has been speedy deleted, image will be speedy deleted. – 01:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

|-

| style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

|-

| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

This article contained (until I removed it) a very large section of unsourced and highly critical comment, including a highly insulting image which I will be nominating for deletion. I'm not sure the subject is notable at all but if he is, then this article will need watching. Sam Blacketer 20:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

:Please note the article was speedily deleted under criteria A7 by User:Zoe. I am tagging the talk page for a speedy deletion under G8. However, this still leaves :Image:Fuhrerwalker.jpg. Sam Blacketer 20:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

|-

| style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

|}

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"

|-

! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Beyoncé Knowles – Requested protection at WP:RFP. It is not necessary to report simple vandalism here. – 00:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

|-

| style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it.

|-

| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Many mostly anonimous users keep writing profanities into the article. Considering the large number of different IP addresses that keep vandalizing, i request semi-protection to the article. Thanks, West Brom 4ever 13:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

:FYI, you may request semi-protection at WP:RFP for any article experiencing a large amount of IP vandalism. It is not necessary to report it here. --BigDT 00:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

|-

| style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it.

|}