→[[Adam Kline]] {{blpwatch-links|Adam Kline}}: Missed one: + {{userlinks}} for 63.168.67.183. |
Crystal Gail Mangum, Jeff Jarrett, Mike Sholars - to Archive 18. |
||
Line 169: | Line 169: | ||
:::Historically, equerries have achieved notability either because the position was traditionally a stepping-stone to higher things, or because they have leveraged their positions of extreme closeness to the sovereign. (George III's equerry wrote a tell-all memoir.) Not really the case any more. In any case, why is a BLP issue? [[User:Hornplease|Hornplease]] 01:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC) |
:::Historically, equerries have achieved notability either because the position was traditionally a stepping-stone to higher things, or because they have leveraged their positions of extreme closeness to the sovereign. (George III's equerry wrote a tell-all memoir.) Not really the case any more. In any case, why is a BLP issue? [[User:Hornplease|Hornplease]] 01:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
::Itcan can be thought of as a notification though not proof of potential notability, because it now typically goes to those who are prominent from social position, military notability, or more usually both. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' 22:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC) |
::Itcan can be thought of as a notification though not proof of potential notability, because it now typically goes to those who are prominent from social position, military notability, or more usually both. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' 22:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
==[[Crystal Gail Mangum]] {{blpwatch-links|Crystal Gail Mangum}}== |
|||
→ ''<u>See also</u>: Crystal Gail Mangum section in [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive16|BLP/N Archive 16]] - section #14.'' |
|||
* {{article|Crystal Gail Mangum}} - this one looks seriously unbalanced. It's sourced OK, but most of the content is not relevant to her, and while it's sourced, the article is almost entirely derogatory in tone and balance. Wikipedia is not here to destroy her legal case. The article on her should not be used to allege, without any address, that she's a liar. Needs some attention. // [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] <sup> [[User talk:Moreschi|Talk]]</sup> 10:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
**Update: I've been boldish and cut the very worst bit - check the page history - but this still needs more eyes. I'd appreciate some extra feedback. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] <sup> [[User talk:Moreschi|Talk]]</sup> 11:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Assuming you mean the criminal history section, I think most of the information should stay. She is notable for the rape accusations. This makes information about other accusations and about her credibility much more relevant to her notability than it is for, say, a musician. |
|||
And it's derogatory in the sense that it makes her look bad, but merely being factual about her makes her look bad. [[User:Ken Arromdee|Ken Arromdee]] 14:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:If nothing else, there shouldn't be any unsourced claims. Sounds obvious but I already took one out.--[[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#0F0;background:#006">Wizardman</span>]] 15:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Of course there should be no unsourced claims, but the original complaint above is that "while it's sourced," the article is derogatory. [[User:Ken Arromdee|Ken Arromdee]] 18:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Actually, its that its ''irrelevant'' and makes her look bad. It appears that the question is which aspects of the case are notable enough to be on her article, rather than on the case article. I support stubbing that section and writing it again from scratch. [[User:Hornplease|Hornplease]] 01:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Personally, I think the whole thing is a blatant coatrack. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] <sup> [[User talk:Moreschi|Talk]]</sup> 14:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
: It is. Good definition on [[User:Weregerbil/Coatrack]]. — [[User:Athaenara|Athaenara]] [[User talk:Athaenara|✉]] 18:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Coatrack accusations (or the non-neologistic equivalent) can be improperly used. Sometimes most of the material is negative because the subject is noteworthy for a lot of negative things, rather than because someone's biasing the article. [[User:Ken Arromdee|Ken Arromdee]] 20:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::: They [[Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words|can be]] but were not "improperly used" here. — [[User:Athaenara|Athaenara]] [[User talk:Athaenara|✉]] 23:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
This article was turned into a [[Wikipedia:be bold|redirect]] by me the other day because all relevant information about Ms Mangum appeared to be already in the target article. the one about the Duke lacrosse team rape scandal. After that David Gerard turned it into a salted deletion. This went to a rather ugly deletion review which seems to be being used as a battering ram by people opposed to administrator discretion in BLP cases, and a fair number of POV pushers (that whole case should go to arbitration soon, I think). Somebody tried a close, but it didn't take. The history is now back. |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 23#Crystal Gail Mangum]] |
|||
We can but hope to get a closing admin who is BLP-competent. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 04:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
: Oh it was closed as a redirect and promptly protected citing "BLP and DRV closure". Result! --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 19:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==[[Hockey stick controversy]] {{blpwatch-links|Hockey stick controversy}}== |
==[[Hockey stick controversy]] {{blpwatch-links|Hockey stick controversy}}== |
||
Line 392: | Line 360: | ||
::I'll tag the images for deletion. In afterthought, they may not be appropriate. [[User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey|Jeffrey Vernon Merkey]] 00:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC) |
::I'll tag the images for deletion. In afterthought, they may not be appropriate. [[User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey|Jeffrey Vernon Merkey]] 00:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
==[[Jeff Jarrett]] {{blpwatch-links|Jeff Jarrett}}== |
|||
⚫ | |||
Might wind up being nothing, and stands as quite minor right now, but this might become an issue. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeff_Jarrett&oldid=133077534 This revision] of the article contains a meager 'Personal Life' section that details nothing but his wife who passed away last night. It should also be noted that that section didn't exist until edits made today, specifically [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeff_Jarrett&oldid=132985480 this revision]. I feel it contributes nothing to the article, so I was a little [[WP:BOLD|bold]] and took it out. Any comment will be helpful. [[User:Nosleep1234|Nosleep1234]] 05:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:An anon re-added the section with no explanation other than "yes, it's notable." I re-removed it. [[User:Nosleep1234|Nosleep1234]] 10:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::The notion that a biographical article should omit the highly-publicised passing of the article subject's spouse is farcical. [[User:McPhail|McPhail]] 16:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==[[Adam Kline]] {{blpwatch-links|Adam Kline}}== |
==[[Adam Kline]] {{blpwatch-links|Adam Kline}}== |
||
Line 422: | Line 381: | ||
: (Added userlinks above.) — [[User:Athaenara|Athaenara]] [[User talk:Athaenara|✉]] 03:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC) |
: (Added userlinks above.) — [[User:Athaenara|Athaenara]] [[User talk:Athaenara|✉]] 03:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
==[[ |
==[[Mohammed Asif Mohseni]] {{blpwatch-links|Mohammed Asif Mohseni}}== |
||
⚫ | |||
* {{article|Mike Sholars}} - I removed the speedy tag from this article, as notability was asserted. The main author, however appears to be the article subject (registered as {{user|Golddiggers}} but apparently editing as a variety of IPs). Discerning whether or not the coach of the Svendborg Admirals is notable is beyond my powers, and the article is entirely unsourced. Perhaps some European sports fan could take a look and set things right? Thanks, [[User:William Pietri|William Pietri]] 12:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::A quick survey of "Mike Sholars" (about 300 results) and "Michael Sholars" (one single result) on Google seems to indicate there is insufficient public discussion of this person to merit an entry. In fact I could not find any non-trivial results. [[User:Quatloo|Quatloo]] 13:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I can't find any independent sources after a (brief) look. If the author cannot provide some, take it to AfD, I think. [[User:Trebor|Trebor]] 13:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I have tagged it as a prod. After Mr. Sholars removes the tag, it will go on AfD. [[User:Quatloo|Quatloo]] 13:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
: I see that Doc has speedy-deleted this as an A7. Was I too cautious in removing the speedy notice before? I figured that his claim of winning N gold medals with his team was an assertion of notability, which seemed to put it out of bounds. But I've only just started doing speedies, so advice is appreciated. Thanks, [[User:William Pietri|William Pietri]] 19:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I didn't think it should be speedied either but meh, would've surely been deleted at AfD anyway. [[User:Trebor|Trebor]] 19:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::: All three comments on the AfD (including my own) suggested speedy deletion, and the article was particularly poorly written. Anybody can apply at deletion review for the content. It would have been deleted anyway. So we just saved ourselves five days. Good call. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 21:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::Oops, didn't realise it had already been nominated at AfD. That's fine then. [[User:Trebor|Trebor]] 21:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Mohammed Asif Mohseni]] == |
|||
I came across a completely unsourced stub of a (possibly?) living person. I don't have any time to research this as the moment so I just removed the problem info. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohammed_Asif_Mohseni&diff=prev&oldid=133457668 diff] Someone else might want to look into this more closely--<i><font color="#9966FF">[[User:BirgitteSB|Birgitte]]</font><font color="#CC99CC" size="2">SB</font></i> 17:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC) |
I came across a completely unsourced stub of a (possibly?) living person. I don't have any time to research this as the moment so I just removed the problem info. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohammed_Asif_Mohseni&diff=prev&oldid=133457668 diff] Someone else might want to look into this more closely--<i><font color="#9966FF">[[User:BirgitteSB|Birgitte]]</font><font color="#CC99CC" size="2">SB</font></i> 17:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:33, 26 May 2007
Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here. | ||
---|---|---|
This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.
Additional notes:
| ||
Ongoing WP:BLP-related concerns
The following subsections may apply to any or all Biographies of living persons. — Athaenara 00:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
→ In re {{BLPC}} template and WP:BLPC
I created this page as a simple category to flag BLP concerns quickly: WP:BLPC. It seems like a good idea. - Denny 21:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Good idea. Watch it fill up. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hopefully it clears even faster. :) - Denny 21:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Very good idea. Nice one. -- ChrisO 07:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Recent changes to BLPs
A link to Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Living people has been added to the RecentChanges page under the "Utilities" row, titled BLP. This can facilitate the finding of vandalism to biographies of living persons to avoid a "Sinbad (actor)-type" incident happening in the future. Cross-posted to WP:VPN, WP:AN, WT:BLP, #wikipedia, and #wikipedia-en. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Unreferenced BLPs
There are over 8300 articles on living people that have the {{unreferenced}} tag. This is a list of them. (warning: pretty big page) —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 00:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oh shit, that's worse than I thought.--Docg 00:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Just looking through a few of them, they have the unreferenced tag at the top but with no indication in the text what the problematic unreferenced material is. It would be good if people could be encouraged not to use the general unreferenced tag, but to add the fact/citation-needed tag to the contentious issues. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, {{fact}} should NEVER be used on contentious issues on BLPs. Uncited contentious material should simply be removed.--Docg 02:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Aye, and originally the list was going to include {{fact}}-transcluders AND {{unreferenced}}-transcluders but the latter is a bigger priority, so let's do that first. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 11:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, {{fact}} should NEVER be used on contentious issues on BLPs. Uncited contentious material should simply be removed.--Docg 02:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
For now, I have completed my search. The result: 17 lists of articles (16 of which contain around 1000 articles) on living people that contain {{unreferenced}}, {{unreferencedsect}}, {{more sources}}, or {{fact}}. Over 16,000 articles on living people that are not completely referenced. Let's get working. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 16:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Unreliable BLP sources
NNDB Notable Names Database
Is the National Names Database a reliable source? The Talk:NNDB page discussion leans against using it. One editor mentions that Jimbo is very against it, especially as a primary source. It seems to be used quite frequently on biographies. I've challenged it on the Paul Wolfowitz page, but would appreciate more input from others. Notmyrealname 20:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- No, it is not a reliable source for any sort of controversial or disputed information. FCYTravis 22:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Is this an official policy or just an opinion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Notmyrealname (talk • contribs) 19:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
- From WP:RS: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." We do not know who the authors of the NNDB are, and thus we have no way of knowing how credible or trustworthy the information is. What we do know is that many of the articles (c.f. the NNDB article on Michael Jackson) are written from a clearly-biased perspective with the intent of generating maximum lulz. Our biographies of living persons policy demands the absolute strictest standards of sourcing and neutrality when we maintain a biography of a living person, and further requires that we use great caution in sourcing any claim which may be controversial, derogatory or disputed. Citing NNDB for something like a birthplace is one thing, citing it for a claim that someone was arrested for <insert scandalous crime here> is entirely another. Even then, it shouldn't be cited unless it's absolutely the last resort - and if it is, we probably shouldn't have an article on the subject anyway. FCYTravis 21:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Is this an official policy or just an opinion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Notmyrealname (talk • contribs) 19:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
- I ran into one case where the NNDB said a person was born in 1954 but his WP article said he was drafted into the army in 1962. Steve Dufour 00:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Here's the quote from Jimbo Wales-Why on earth should we consider it a valid source? It seems to me to be riddled with errors, many of which were lifted directly from Wikipedia. To my knowledge, it should be regarded like Wikipedia: not a valid source for anything in Wikipedia. We need to stick to REAL reliable sources, you know, like newspapers, magazines, books. Random websites are a very bad idea.--Jimbo Wales 18:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Notmyrealname 02:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- I ran into one case where the NNDB said a person was born in 1954 but his WP article said he was drafted into the army in 1962. Steve Dufour 00:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a similar problem as above with the Jewish Virtual Library, especially as a source for biographical information. Sourcing seems to be very vague and often cites wikipedia itself. A few examples: [1], [2], [3], [4]. As with the NNDB, if a source is determined to be unreliable, shouldn't it be prohibited from being listed in the references section as well? It seems that this might be used as a way to sneak in information that otherwise wouldn't make it into the wiki article. (I've tried to raise this issue on the Talk:Jewish Virtual Library page and the Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources pages as well but this seems to be a particular problem for biographical info).Notmyrealname 12:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I would treat it as a convenience source, with great care taken about POV. The sponsorship is by "The AMERICAN-ISRAELI COOPERATIVE ENTERPRISE (AICE) was established in 1993 as a nonprofit 501(c)(3), nonpartisan organization to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship by emphasizing the fundamentals of the alliance — the values our nations share." The material posted there is only as authoritative as the source or poster may be authoritative--it always gives the source, but only sometimes the exact link. Looking at their index [5] of biographies, the individual ones link to a variety of useful sources of varying reliability. It obviously cannot be used to prove anything contentious--but since it usually omits negative information, little contentious is likely to be found.DGG 21:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, one concern is that it's a back-door way of implying a person's religion when there isn't a proper way to do it that complies with WP:BLP. It's extremely rare for them to site any of their sources with specificity (I haven't seen any cases of it other than "Republican Jewish Committee" or "Wikipedia"), so there's no easy way to fact check them. I don't see how this resolves any of the concerns that Jimmy Wales raises above about the NNDB. Notmyrealname 22:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Tucker Max (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Recently, edits have been made to the Tucker Max entry which violate the Wikipedia standards against slander and libel and are entirely unsourced, unverifiable information. These have mainly been made by the user Antiscian and anonymous editors.
Generally speaking, the whole article has devolved into a slander-fest with little or no NPOV content. Most NPOV immediately information is removed and the focus remains on making unsourced, or marginally verifiable negative comments about the subject. At one time, the article had a fairly decent mix of neutral, balanced information, but over the past few months, that has been shaved away. It's best summed up on the talk page.
In the interest of full disclosure: I am the IT Director for Rudius Media, Tucker Max's company. However, I think that it can be objectively said that the article as it is written (especially with the recent edits) is decidedly non-NPOV and definitely violates the BLP policies. It's certainly not encyclopedic. If this article is ever to resemble a quality entry, it's going to require some monitoring and perhaps even some protection. --ljheidel 19:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Antiscian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 75.8.237.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 74.237.35.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 74.214.101.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 66.205.148.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Added userlinks. I don't know whether or not this issue has been resolved. — Athaenara ✉ 12:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The content regarding Max's appearance on the Opie and Anthony show and his engagement at South by Southwest that editors keep entering into the article is also severely POV and non-encyclopedic. In both cases, editors have taken statements out of context, combined them with opinion and personal slant, then stated the amalgam as fact. (i.e. Opie and Anthony did not throw a book at Max, Max did not admit at SXSW to "spamming" anything, etc.) Thus the issue hasn't been resolved. --ljheidel 17:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Add GeorgeMichael69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to the list. --ljheidel 23:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
→ See also: {{Gibraltarian}} and Wikipedia:Long term abuse#Blocked User:Gibraltarian
- Gibraltarian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Juan Carlos I of Spain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Unfortunately it seems that this article and now this noticeboard are being attacked by the former User:Gibraltarian. He has an appalling record of sustained abuse, edit-warring, sockpuppeting and vandalism (he even repeatedly vandalised his own request for arbitration, which I've never seen happen before or since). He was banned by the Arbitration Committee in January 2006 - see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltarian - and has now been permanently banned from editing Wikipedia. However, he's continuing to use 212.120.*.* IP addresses to edit/vandalise articles and talk pages. He is essentially an obsessive xenophobic crank whose M.O. is to delete anything (even if sourced) that doesn't fit his POV and add anything (which he never sources) that supports his POV. He's now taken his campaign to Juan Carlos I of Spain where he's repeatedly deleting Juan Carlos' title of King of Gibraltar, which is verifiably part of the Spanish royal titles. He's also deleting this message from the noticeboard.
I would be grateful if BLP watchers could add this article to their watchlist and revert any edits coming from 212.120.*.*. Please don't block an individual IP for more than a few hours - he's using Gibraltar's largest ISP and indiscriminate blocks cause too much collateral damage for our saner Gibraltarian editors. -- ChrisO 17:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- In this edit (which was rightly reverted within minutes) he also (as 212.120.239.37) removed quite a lot of material from other sections of this noticeboard. — Athaenara 02:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- He's doing this repeatedly now. I just reverted his latest attack. He's simply rolling back to the rant that he posted at 14:43, 5 May 2007, and wiping out everything that everyone's posted since then. It's completely typical of the egocentric vandalism which he's inflicted on Gibraltar and Spain-related articles for nearly two years now, unfortunately. -- ChrisO 09:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- 212.120.239.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) hit Talk:Juan Carlos I of Spain here and this noticeboard's talk page here. — Athaenara ✉ 13:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- 212.120.231.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) hit both COI & BLP noticeboards today. ChrisO is all over that, I'm just reporting here. — Athaenara ✉ 22:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- 212.120.238.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) hit five pages today. — Athaenara ✉ 18:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- 212.120.231.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) hit four pages today. — Athaenara ✉ 15:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- 212.120.239.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) hit four pages today. — Athaenara ✉ 16:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- You know, what makes this all the more insane is that the material Gibraltarian is complaining about isn't even in this article. It was split out into a separate article weeks ago. -- ChrisO 18:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Project for the New American Century (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I came across this article while checking the through the contributions of user Boscobiscotti whom I had met on the Harvey Mansfield talk page. I found numerous problems (weasel words, unsourced or poorly sourced comments, original research) in the controversies section and moved most of them to the talk page. A disagreement ensued between me and Boscobiscotti after he restored most of the content. I admit that I may have been a little harsh with him initially, and to his credit, he has made substantial improvements to the article since that time. I am asking that someone not directly involved in the content dispute review the article for neutrality and conformity with biographies of living persons due to the notability and high profile of the subjects of the article in question. Best, MoodyGroove 20:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
- The first 2/3 or so is OK but there are problems with the "Controversy" and "Criticisms..." sections. The former, in particular, needs to be better sourced. In its present form it reads too much like soapboxing. The relevance of the latter section to PNAC is not clear. Raymond Arritt 20:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- What about the Criticism section seems irrelevant? and how exactly is BLPC involved? Discuss please?--Boscobiscotti 03:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- The narrative in the "Criticisms" section doesn't mention PNAC explicitly. To this outsider it reads like a general critique of U.S. policy, with mentions of various individuals. The connection to PNAC presumably was obvious to the writer but it is not obvious to the reader. Raymond Arritt 14:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I added {{BLPC}} to the article to put it in Category:BLP Check and added {{Blp}} to the talk page. There is a little bit of friction on the article talk page about this because it's not immediately obvious to all editors why there are WP:BLP policy concerns. — Athaenara 02:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- yes. how is discussion of how to characterize the theories of a think-tank a biography question?? Also I want to note that MoodyGrove mentions coming upon the article in question by looking at my contributions. The implication is that the content was produced by me. In fact my contribtions to this article prior to Moodys deletion of the entire controversy section were minimal. When I stumbled upon the deletion, I reverted it because I felt it deleted much material which was well sourced along with some questionable items. I felt it was not done in good faith, because the entire Controversy section was removed, including sourced material. I have put alot of effort into sourcing as much as I can, and removing any POV. I have agreed with some of MoodyGroves criticisms and asked him/her to help by countering controversies with alternate POV.--Boscobiscotti 03:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- A couple of points here. First, I did not mean to imply that you originated the content, although I did find the article while looking through your contributions. In fact, I may have found the article by clicking on a wikilink in an article that you edited. I only mentioned that I found it while looking through your contributions in the interest of full disclosure, because I have nothing to hide, including the fact that we had a disagreement on the Harvey Mansfield talk page. It was an attempt to be transparent, and I regret any confusion. Second, I don't appreciate your comment that my edits were not in good faith, and I ask you to retract that comment. I didn't just delete material, which I had every right to do (and perhaps should have done). Rather, I moved the questionable content to the talk page, with bullet points for each. The "sourced material" you're referring to was part of a connect-the-dots narrative that was original research, in my opinion (a fact that I explained where appropriate). That's hardly a bad faith edit. Finally, it's clear that all material on the Wikipedia needs to be well sourced and accurate. Considering the notability and high profile of the members of PNAC, and the fact that the article lists them by name, I believe that the intent of biographies of living persons applies. Arguing that this article is somehow exempt from Wikipedia policy on the grounds that it's not, strictly speaking, a biography, borders on WikiLawyering. We are currently discussing on the talk page whether or not to include an alleged controversy that implies PNAC members somehow condone genocide, based on a book review in a Texas newspaper. Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, George W. Bush, Dick Cheyney, Dan Quayle, et al. That is reason enough for the article to be seriously reviewed for compliance with all Wikipedia guidelines, including biographies of living persons (for obvious reasons). MoodyGroove 14:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
- Although this edit was a huge improvement, based on this line of reasoning, user Boscobiscotti now acknowledges that the genocide controversy is not notable and was most likely added to the article to spread misinformation about the PNAC. As such, I am asking that all traces of it be removed from the talk page in compliance with biographies of living persons. I would be bold and do it myself, but I have been directly involved in the content dispute, so I'm looking for support from the community first. Best, MoodyGroove 12:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
- I don't acknowledge that it was "most likely added to the article to spread misinformation about the PNAC" - That is a mischaracterization of my view. I simply agreed to the logic that it was a minority opinion, and therefore not of great enough note to be included in the article. The PNAC themselves have a letter published on their website on the subject, and the article with the inital concern is available via the Austin-American Statesman - without a retraction. In additon there are well documented sources http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2004/03/02_400.html which point to an uptick in secret bioweapons research in the US. This is not to say I support the Austin-American Statesman view, I am agnostic on this. I think it is not sufficiently sourced to be currently credible. I think that my proposed NPOV analysis should be left in the talk page as a neutral note on this controversy - to be available as counter-evidence to people seeking to promote this theory.
- "Kip Keller in a book review of an article on a historical book on eugenics in America. [6] quoted the following line from the 2000 PNAC report: "Advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool."[1] as evidence that PNAC supported a "gene bomb", which horrified him. He continued
The Austin-American Statesman refused to issue a correction stating that the quoted sentance was "ambiguous." PNAC responded with a letter > refuting the claim, and explaining that the context of the quote was "methods of warfare U. S. forces may face, not ... actions we recommend." and that indeed no recommendation for use of biological weapons was made in the report. The letter went on to state:That anyone could support the targeted extermination of a specific ethnic group -- i.e., genocide, the ultimate eugenic practice -- is unthinkably appalling; that Wolfowitz, Perle, Kristol or any other Jew could do so is an irony too tragic for comment.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boscobiscotti (talk • contribs) 19:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC).Keller's outlandish accusation ... is both disgusting and utterly false.... [to] selectively use a quotation from the report without providing appropriate context but also then accuse people of supporting "genocide" is truly appalling.
- To clarify my statement above: 1) It is very unlikely that PNAC supports genocide -2) I do find a more likely reading that PNAC supports US research on "gene-targeted bioweapons" for defense reasons. . 3) I think my NPOV statement does a decent job of presenting the PNAC defense against 1) and it, or something similar should be left on the talk page to point to for people who come along promoting 1) .--Boscobiscotti 20:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Take another look at how the genocide "controversy" was portrayed in the article, and tell me with a straight face that it was not intended to spread misinformation about the PNAC. Regards, MoodyGroove 18:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
- Looks more like WP:SYN than "misinformation" per se; of course, SYN is not permissible either. Raymond Arritt 20:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- "Critics will often quote..." is a weasel phrase, and "as evidence of a violently racist lean" is not only unsourced and unsubstantiated (hence pseudo-information), but intends to stigmatize or injure (in my opinion). I agree that the second half is a snythesis to advance a position. Regards, MoodyGroove 20:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
- Much of the offending material has now been removed, but there's a lot still to come out. Blog posts of the sort referenced on this page are generally inadmissible even under WP:RS; few of those linked are written by avowed experts on anything. That said, there's a deeper point here: can the strict rules of BLP be taken to apply to articles about thinktanks? I don't think they should be; it's a slippery slope from there, to companies, to political parties, to entire countries, which are, after all, collections of living people. Hornplease 02:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm glad this situation is being resolved, but I'm concerned about extending BLP to organizations too. Not that we should insert unsourced material anywhere, but the special enforcement mechanisms of BLP need to stay restricted in order to remain practical. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- The only real difference between BLP and non-BLP articles is that in BLP articles, we enforce all the normal rules strictly, with less discussion required. The normal rules are still the normal rules. No group, organization, or person, living or dead should be slandered with poor sources. Blogs shouldn't be sourcing anything except information about the blog itself, provided certain criteria are met. There was some discussion recently about a modified version of BLP for organizations. I'm not sure what came of it. - Crockspot 03:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- A slight caveat: blog posts - self-published sources more generally - are permissible under WP:SPS if written by a generally agreed 'expert'. (Not sure why Melanie Phillips, for example, is considered an expert on anything.) Hornplease 06:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- As for the question about whether we should extend BLP to political parties or countries, it depends on context. A claim that America supports genocide probably isn't an attempt to suggest that each individual American does so, let alone each of a list of Americans named in the article. Ken Arromdee 13:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- A slight caveat: blog posts - self-published sources more generally - are permissible under WP:SPS if written by a generally agreed 'expert'. (Not sure why Melanie Phillips, for example, is considered an expert on anything.) Hornplease 06:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- The only real difference between BLP and non-BLP articles is that in BLP articles, we enforce all the normal rules strictly, with less discussion required. The normal rules are still the normal rules. No group, organization, or person, living or dead should be slandered with poor sources. Blogs shouldn't be sourcing anything except information about the blog itself, provided certain criteria are met. There was some discussion recently about a modified version of BLP for organizations. I'm not sure what came of it. - Crockspot 03:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm glad this situation is being resolved, but I'm concerned about extending BLP to organizations too. Not that we should insert unsourced material anywhere, but the special enforcement mechanisms of BLP need to stay restricted in order to remain practical. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Question: Are credited blog or web-magazine sources generally allowed as sources for that persons own views, opinions or analysis? -- Boscobiscotti 23:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- He's referring to the sources that are currently being used in the controversy section, including CounterPunch, the New Statesman, the American Free Press, Democracy Now!, Scoop, Antiwar.com, Truthout.org, and other similiar political newsletters and web magazines. I have done my best to identify them in the main text of the article (because I am trying to avoid an edit war) but I don't think that a Wikipedia article about a think tank should be a podium for conspiracy theories that aren't taken seriously by the mainstream news media. Are these to be considered reliable sources that contribute to a neutral point of view? Best, MoodyGroove 15:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
- I would say that when discussing political views, Counterpunch and Scoop and Truthout are definitely sources. They are most certainly not blogs. Antiwar.com is no longer a source at the article. Democracy Now stands separately, it is a true news source. Like Fox News it is a news source with a viewpoint, but I daresay it does more original honest-to-god reporting. These sources can most certainly can be sourced in an NPOV way. When you are discussing political debate on ideas, it is most reasonable to include these RS sources. . Democracy Now mainly does interviews, so the opinions expressed and cited in its transcripts, such as those cited in this article, are those of the interviewees. --Boscobiscotti 01:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Why is there a \{\{BLP\}\} tag on the talk page of this article now? Is the consensus of this page that all organizations which contain living persons are to be tagged BLP now? --Boscobiscotti 01:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Arbuthnots and circular referencing
→ See also: Arbuthnot family section in the Conflict of interest noticeboard archive 10
I am sure some of you have been following the sad tales of the notable and non-notable members of Category:Arbuthnot family. While looking through them, I have found a worrying amount of those that are referenced are linked to references which have also been written by the primary author User: Kittybrewster (Kittybrewster infers on his talk page that he is in fact "Sir William Arbuthnot Bart" and it is Sir William Arbuthnot Bart who is listed as a contributor to many of the references concerned. What is the policy if any on this, and what action should be taken? Giano 11:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Here is another relation of Kittybrewsters Michael Broadbent again the only ref a family tree is on a site of which Kittybrewster is the webmaster. Giano 13:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- There's nothing wrong with citing oneself as long as you knew what you were talking about when you wrote it. See Citing oneself and Vanity guidelines.
Have you considered programming a bot to automatically delete all of his articles? I'm really worried you might miss one and leave a single spec of worthwhile information somewhere on Wikipedia.Chris Croy 16:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)- Giano, I apologize for being overly aggressive. After spending more time perusing his articles(I checked out about a half-dozen before I posted and all appeared to be fine in a C-class sort of way), they would seem to be generally undercited and sometimes read very...listyish. Chris Croy 00:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- No problem Chris, but I do object to my edits being removed by others [7] Giano 11:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- It seems to me that if one were searching for editors who have caused Wikipedia to lack worthwhile information, User:Giano II with his collection of Featured articles would be a rather poor place to start. Newyorkbrad 21:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that is a strangely aggresssive attack against an editor trying to keep Wikipedia articles encyclopedic and properly referenced. Even if you do know "what you were talking about when you wrote it," that's got nothing to do with proper referencing, since it's not something a reader has a chance to check. Basing an article on knowing about your own relatives is something that militates against Wikipedia's credibility; as Jimbo has stated, the time has come to go for quality, not quantity. Clicking on Chris's links, I find that Citing oneself reads in full: "This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, then s/he may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy." That's not what User:Kittybrewster's Arbuthnot stubs do, unfortunately, please see the discussion here. As for Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines, also invoked by Chris, it's a redirect to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, a long page. Not sure which part of it is meant to apply here. Is it "Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, try to identify and minimize your biases, and consider withdrawing from editing the article"? Bishonen | talk 23:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC).
- I think Bishonen has summed up the situation well. I've asked Kittybrewster to stop editing the articles about himself and his immediate family, and to stop adding his website as a source or external link. I don't think that deleting the bulk of the material he's already contributed would be helpful, though particular articles may be dispute or AfDed (List of Provosts of Peterhead, for example). -Will Beback ·:· 01:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that is a strangely aggresssive attack against an editor trying to keep Wikipedia articles encyclopedic and properly referenced. Even if you do know "what you were talking about when you wrote it," that's got nothing to do with proper referencing, since it's not something a reader has a chance to check. Basing an article on knowing about your own relatives is something that militates against Wikipedia's credibility; as Jimbo has stated, the time has come to go for quality, not quantity. Clicking on Chris's links, I find that Citing oneself reads in full: "This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, then s/he may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy." That's not what User:Kittybrewster's Arbuthnot stubs do, unfortunately, please see the discussion here. As for Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines, also invoked by Chris, it's a redirect to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, a long page. Not sure which part of it is meant to apply here. Is it "Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, try to identify and minimize your biases, and consider withdrawing from editing the article"? Bishonen | talk 23:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC).
- Giano, I apologize for being overly aggressive. After spending more time perusing his articles(I checked out about a half-dozen before I posted and all appeared to be fine in a C-class sort of way), they would seem to be generally undercited and sometimes read very...listyish. Chris Croy 00:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
How is the WP:BLP policy implicated here? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 18:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Independence of third party sources? LessHeard vanU 20:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- None of the articles brought to AfD so far are about living people. DGG 01:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, one was: the article on Kittybrewster himself. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 03:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Plus, BLP concerns derogatory or controversial information about those people and there is no indication above that such information is present in the articles. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I hadn't looked at any of the articles before making my suggestion. However, BPL does have guidelines regarding the use of ones own publications as references (as it is indicated is used by the author) which might be applied to biographies generally. Also, and I realise that this is stretching it a bit, it appears that the family is still extant and the series of articles is about them. Knowing a little bit about British family tree culture it could be argued that the family is a living entity and could fall under the scope of BPL.
- I should think that Giano is the appropriate person to ask, although he hasn't yet responded to ObiterDicta's initial enquiry. LessHeard vanU 20:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- I share the belief that WP:BLP/N need not worry very much about the Arbuthnot articles. Even if all the concerns (above) are well taken, the most that could be said is that too many articles are being kept, and the info is too genealogical. There is still an Arbuthnot issue open at WP:COI/N and it's not so clear what to do there. The genealogy site kittybrewster.com is sometimes actually helpful, so asking for all those links to be removed might not be the best plan. Individual Arbuthnot articles can certainly be nominated for deletion, if you have concerns. The propriety of adding the link to kittybrewster.com without an individual Talk page consensus can be questioned. EdJohnston 00:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, kittybrewster.com is owned by User:Kittybrewster, who is Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet, so you can understand why this is beginning to look like spam to some. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- This may be irrelevant, but I live under a mile away from the area of Kittybrewster in Aberdeen, Scotland, which I have no doubt that this is connected to. Very coincidental.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, kittybrewster.com is owned by User:Kittybrewster, who is Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet, so you can understand why this is beginning to look like spam to some. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- None of the articles brought to AfD so far are about living people. DGG 01:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Equerries
I am wondering how notable half these living people are in Category:Equerries, the majority of Equerries are unreferenced, and is the position notable? - It is usually a short term draft from one of the Armed Forces to be basically a male Lady-in-waiting to the British sovereign - the appointement usually lasts two years and is appointed on affability rather than any military honour. What is the feeling on this? Obviously some qualify as heros of baronets but the others. Giano 13:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Per se - perhaps not. But take each on a case by case basis. If the information is verifiable, and otherwise unproblematic, then there is no pressing reason to delete.--Docg 13:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- It does seem to be a reward, and most certainly a personal honour, meted out to senior (but not the most senior) military officers. It may be viewed as an "honorary chairman/vice president" type of recognition, although the post does carry some responsibilities. It is what the British refer to as "jobs for the boys". As suggested by Doc, treat it on a case by case basis. If it is the only matter of note for an individual then I would be inclined to delete it, but would try a quick Google search to check if there were any other (marginal?) claims to notability. LessHeard vanU 21:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Historically, equerries have achieved notability either because the position was traditionally a stepping-stone to higher things, or because they have leveraged their positions of extreme closeness to the sovereign. (George III's equerry wrote a tell-all memoir.) Not really the case any more. In any case, why is a BLP issue? Hornplease 01:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Itcan can be thought of as a notification though not proof of potential notability, because it now typically goes to those who are prominent from social position, military notability, or more usually both. DGG 22:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hockey stick controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Editor RonCram has alleged that Michael Mann, a prominent climate researcher, knowingly made false claims in an article published in Nature (one of the most prestigious journals in the sciences). Note that the editor is not merely stating that Mann's claims were false, but that he knowingly made false claims. This is the most serious charge one can make against a scientific researcher. So far, the allegations have appeared only in edit summaries[8] and the article's Talk page[9], but given the seriousness of the allegation it is still a concern. I'd appreciate guidance from those more experienced in these issues. Raymond Arritt 22:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've reviewed the talk page discussion; there does not appear to be an RS for this allegation. Unless one can be provided, Ron Cram should obviously cease making accusations in edit summaries. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 14:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Jim Gilchrist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I. The first paragraph refers to his separation from the Minuteman Project only from the point of view of those who seized control, without reference to Gilchrist’s counter-allegations of criminal conduct on the part of the board members that engineered it. I corrected this to give an objective account, listing both sides of the dispute, but it was reverted.
II. Under the section “Minuteman Project” Gilchrist’s role while he was head of the Project, is referred to as “former head of the Minuteman Project.” This is obviously a factual error. Gilchrist was obviously not acting, at that time, as the “former head” but as the “head.” It would be the same to say, “Abraham Lincoln led the Union Armies as the assassinated Commander-in-Chief” The fact that it was phrased that way, drawing attention to the one-sided coverage of the controversy noted in (I.) above, is a clear indication that the intent of this article’s author was to give a negative spin to Gilchrist. I corrected this to read “as head of the…” but it was reverted.
III. Gilchrist’s lawsuit against the MP board of directors is noted and its legal status. But while all of the board member’s allegations against Gilchrist are detailed, no part of Gilchrist’s side of the story is told. This is biased coverage. I corrected this, including reference to Gilchrist’s side, and not removing the defendants’ side, to regain some objectivity, but it was reverted.
IV. Under the section “2005 Election Bid” Gilchrist’s ballot results are negatively spun by the very deceptive phrase: “He was the only one running under his party, and therefore automatically advanced into the run-off.” It gives the impression that the only reason he made the general election ballot, was that he was the single candidate in the primary from his party (a common occurrence in all political parties). That impression is absolute fiction. Gilchrist would have been on the ballot in every system in the country that files candidates by Party. That Primary not only reduced the number of candidates from each Party to one, it established that among that group Gilchrist finished SECOND. I corrected the article to reflect the reality but the correction was reverted.
V. Although the section entitled “Religious Views” was designed to stereotype Gilchrist, it is offensive, on its face, to every social conservative, as well as the pro-life and marriage movements. Referring to the conservative postitions on abortion, homosexual civil unions and same sex marriage as “Religious Views” is a propaganda tactic of the Left. It would be comparable to calling support for Abortion Rights or Gay Marriage “Atheist views.” Gilchrist’s Roman Catholicism is “Religious.” His political positions on human rights and marriage are “Political.” This is another blatant example that this is not an encyclopedia article but a liberal propaganda piece. I corrected it, including all the existing information and wording, adding nothing, but the corrections were reverted.
VI. The section entitled “Criticism” is no more valid as an entry than would be a section entitled “Praise.” It is also unquestionably biased. It falsely implies racism against Gilchrist. It gives undocumented and one-sided allegations by a radical left-wing organization (that supports illegal immigration) quoting only an unnamed person as the source. This alleged person is quoted at length but no quotation (by an actual person) refuting him is allowed. The opposition organization was also allowed to question Gilchrist’s sincerity, but their own sincerity was held above suspicion. This is a hit piece. I corrected it, leaving in the SPLC allegations, but the correction was reverted.
VII. The section “Criticism” includes the inflammatory sentence “In a March, 2006 interview with the Orange County Register, Gilchrist stopped just short of calling for his followers to pick up their guns.” This incredible sentence floats a statement Gilchrist literally DID NOT MAKE to engineer slanderous implications about him. Let me give you a similarly constructed sentence that is equally true: The Wikipedia article about Jim Gilchrist stops just short of saying he is a Nazi who plans to incinerate Jews. // 76.22.9.247 06:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- I. You'll need to cough up a citation for this.
- II. This would appear to be a good change. Chances are the reverter simply looked at some of the changes, noticed a few key words, and reverted the lot of it.
- III. Again, you'll need to add a citation, especially if you/we are accusing them of criminal acts.
- IV. I'm having some trouble understanding you, but I think you're right. I'd throw a few related citations in there and see if the changes stick then.
- V. Generally speaking, abortion views do cleave sharply along denominational lines. If you believe God puts a human soul into every single little embryo the moment it's conceived and all human life is equal in value, it's pretty clearly murder. If you don't agree with the logic every step of the way, it's not. I'd look for an infobox like what Rudy Giuliani has and put the religion part there, then move the stuff from religion to politics like you did.
- VI. Criticism sections are standard in most articles. For example, look at the article on the SPLC. It's criticism section is called 'controversy' but it amounts to the same thing.
- VII. Yeah, that one's a little inflamatory. I'd suggest replacing it with a quote or two from his interview with John Lofton. "If I have to say yes or no, then I would say, yes, [homosexuality] should be outlawed." or "Oh, yes. [The government's] organized, it's legalized, organized crime."
- Chris Croy 07:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Our policy says:
The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.
Are the critics who criticize this person a minority or a majority? That is, are there a lot of critics who say he works with neo-Nazis, or just a few? Moreover, the views of critics must be based on reliable secondary sources. These critics use an anonymous source as the secondary source; that is not reliable.
It's true that the SPLC has what is in effect a criticism section, but the SPLC is not a living person. Ken Arromdee 14:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Anna Schmidt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I have been carrying on an ongoing discussion with a man who says he is Anna Schmidt's stepfather and would like to add information about her current custody arrangements -- specifically that her mother has custody of her and she has not seen her father since March 2006. The stepfather wants to know the correct way to submit a personal statement that can be used a reference for this article. The information is currently included in it, but I added a citation needed tag. Who does he send his personal statement to, what can he include in it, what's the proper procedure, etc.? Can sealed court records be used as a reference?--Bookworm857158367 18:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Under the guidelines and caveats at WP:SELFPUB we could consider including material published by that person in his blog, or personal website. But it needs to be published somewhere outside Wikipedia first. Sealed court records cannot be used as these are not verifiable ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- An article called Ryan St. Anne Scott references a personal statement submitted to Wikipedia by the subject of the article. That personal statement was vetted by someone on the living persons noticeboard. There's also a statement in your guidelines that people are allowed to correct facts or improve upon their own articles. It seems that this man should be able to submit a personal statement like Ryan St. Anne Scott did, as his stepdaughter is a minor and he is one of her legal guardians. Who should he send it to and how can it be added as a reference? --Bookworm857158367 01:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm the editor who did some work on the Ryan St. Anne Scott article after a report on this board. I'm not entirely sure that the same approach would apply to information from someone claiming to be Cara's new husband and Anna Schmidt's legal guardian. Scott was the subject of the article and wanted to correct information about himself. That was only possible to a very limited extent; the editors who had worked on that article had done a good job. The stepfather is not the subject of the article and the information (have not been in contact with their father since March 2006) is not about himself but about the biological mother and father (as well as the daughters).
- Jossi is obviously right about the necessity of an independent secondary source in a general sense. However, common sense indicates that this specific information could be used if provided by the biological parents or the subject (who is now 16 years old) without any secondary sources reporting on it if we're reasonably sure of the identity of the person(s) providing the information. I'm not sure however about Anna's current stepfather.
- Having said that, someone claiming to be Anna's current stepfather, like anybody else, is allowed to comment anything on the Anna Schmidt talk page. There are also other ways such as mailing a request to the Foundation. Once the information is made available to Wikipedia editors, they are free to use, ignore or (if it violates policies) remove it. (In Scott's case I started by removing a lot of unacceptable material and integrated what remained into the article, using common sense and BLP in equal proportions.) AvB ÷ talk 10:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- At the moment I'm inclined to leave his statement in the article with a citation needed tag. I advised him on the article's talk page to write or fax a statement to the owner of Wikipedia and to provide some proof of his identity. Whatever he's doing is apparently with the input and at the request of his wife and stepdaughter. --Bookworm857158367 12:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. The "designated agent" User:Jimbo's response should be interesting. It should be noted though that unsourced info has to be removed if another party (especially Dan Schmidt) were to dispute it. If in doubt, don't include. AvB ÷ talk 02:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- I did send an email to info-en@wikipedia.org <info-en@wikipedia.org> but have not heard back as of yet. It was sent 5-17-07. I sent along a copy of our marriage certificate, which i don't think just anyone can get....so that should help to move things in the right direction. I suppose i could include a driver's license or something of that nature as well....if needed...but we'll see what happens for now. crocodyle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crocodyle (talk • contribs) 06:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. The "designated agent" User:Jimbo's response should be interesting. It should be noted though that unsourced info has to be removed if another party (especially Dan Schmidt) were to dispute it. If in doubt, don't include. AvB ÷ talk 02:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- At the moment I'm inclined to leave his statement in the article with a citation needed tag. I advised him on the article's talk page to write or fax a statement to the owner of Wikipedia and to provide some proof of his identity. Whatever he's doing is apparently with the input and at the request of his wife and stepdaughter. --Bookworm857158367 12:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- An article called Ryan St. Anne Scott references a personal statement submitted to Wikipedia by the subject of the article. That personal statement was vetted by someone on the living persons noticeboard. There's also a statement in your guidelines that people are allowed to correct facts or improve upon their own articles. It seems that this man should be able to submit a personal statement like Ryan St. Anne Scott did, as his stepdaughter is a minor and he is one of her legal guardians. Who should he send it to and how can it be added as a reference? --Bookworm857158367 01:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- John Sweeney (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Dispute at the moment over some information that some are calling a "smear campaign", against a living person, and others are calling... not. However, notability of the information is also not necessarily relevant in article about living person. This article is becoming more heavily trafficked, related to the recent "Scientology and Me", program, that aired on BBC One's Panorama program, on May 14, 2007. // Smee 11:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- What is the objectionable information? I just looked at the article and didn't see anything untoward there. -- Really Spooky 12:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- I assume the objectionable information is the section removed in this edit. However, that information is both well-sourced and neutral, meaning that it is an editorial issue about whether to include it, and not one relating to WP:BLP. Trebor 13:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree. The BLP policy has a section about private figures which specifically says that material must be relevant to the figure's notability, something which we don't do for articles in general. By your reasoning, all the allegations that had to be removed from Richard Gere would also not be BLP, and I don't think that's correct. Ken Arromdee 13:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Being sued for libel strikes me a highly relevant to a person who is notable as a journalist. What was the nature of the information removed from Richard Gere? It's difficult to see what point you are making about without at least a diff link, and I can't be arsed to go fishing around the archives to try to understand something you haven't bothered to explain yourself. -- Really Spooky 14:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with Spooky here. The libel trial got major press coverage and he is a journalist. JoshuaZ 14:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- What they said. I presume the Gere information is related to this RfC (which appears fairly widely debated anyway). In which case, I'd say there's a difference between including an allegation about someone's personal life, and an actual event which relates to someone's career (as libel relates to journalism). Trebor 15:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree. The BLP policy has a section about private figures which specifically says that material must be relevant to the figure's notability, something which we don't do for articles in general. By your reasoning, all the allegations that had to be removed from Richard Gere would also not be BLP, and I don't think that's correct. Ken Arromdee 13:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
The whole "Controversy" section could be removed as it just talks about this libel suit and a tiff he had with a Scientologist the other day. As it is these two minor incidents take up about half of the article. He seems to be well respected and accomplished as a journalist. Steve Dufour 06:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree, I'd say his notability has stemmed primarily from the recent controversy. But either way, I still feel this is an editorial issue - the information is neutral and sourced. Trebor 13:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've never heard of him, but I don't live in the UK. The article says he has had a 20 year career as a journalist and has won several awards for his work. Steve Dufour 15:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- FYI, the Church of Scientology is using the libel case as a way of indicting Sweeney's credibility, per its long-standing policy of "dead agenting" its critics. This isn't to say that the libel case shouldn't be mentioned in the article, but editors should be aware of undue weight considerations. -- ChrisO 18:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- I suggested removing the material on both minor incidents. Steve Dufour 21:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
A.J. Pierzynski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article is a tireless, unreferenced rant about controversial incidents that this professional baseball player has been involved in, how much of this can be confirmed is unknown, but it is badly POV the way its topic is presented, the language of the text is irrelevant, it is the content that sways this article. I didn't know where else to go because comments as such in the past have been roundly dismissed or unacted upon. I stumbled on it because I added an image replacing a blatant copyvio I tagged for speedy deletion. Thanks and if you can let me know what happens with this on talk page too.IvoShandor 18:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think that this article clearly violates the undue weight section of NPOV. As it currently stands, it consists of about 15% discussion on Pierzynski's life and professional career, and 85% discussion of various "incidents," many of them relatively minor. The section "Pierzynski and the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim" should be removed; there are no sources, and the incidents described (fielding errors and intentional beanings) are not at all unusual by MLB standards; these kinds of things happen quite often and shouldn't be specifically noted here unless there was significant news coverage of that particular event. As for "Pierzynski and the Chicago Cubs": Pierzynski was fined two thousand bucks by the league for relatively minor misconduct. Is there any evidence that this was widely reported on? Again, no sources are given. Any unsourced information should be removed, and, if reliable sources can be found for the above, they should be summarized in one sentence apiece (giving the proper weight; i.e. very little) rather than droning on for paragraphs. *** Crotalus *** 19:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Just from memory most of the reporting revolved around Barrett's conduct. But the other stuff, I have no idea whether or not it can be confirmed. I haven't really looked, as I said I just kind of stumbled on the page, so I tagged it and commented on the talk page, but I don't edit it or anything, I hadn't even seen it until today actually. : ) IvoShandor 19:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Shane Ruttle Martinez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I received a complaint from the subject of this article, which indicates that libelous info is being added by IP address 72.143.225.236. This is information I won't repeat here, but this is the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shane_Ruttle_Martinez&diff=131832585&oldid=131831879
The subject's complaint to me continues as follows:
"This is serious slander, completely untrue, and I demand that this claim be deleted from the history of the article, and that the user who posted it be disciplined. Additionally, he and Dogmatic and Swatjester have violated my privacy by adding a reference to my having been arrested. This is very misleading, since while I was arrested, all charges were dropped and I have never been convicted of anything. Moreover, there are legal proceedings underway in which I am suing the police.
My understanding of accepted norms and practices within the media is that old arrests which never resulted in convictions, are not usually mentioned, because they are prejudicial. Furthermore it is a violation of my privacy, as I was found innocent of all charges, and the grounds of arrest were called into serious question before the court (hence the lawsuit against the police). Also, the source of information is a tabloid newspaper which is not considered credible by any reputable researchers.
Lastly, these editors keep adding references and a link to a libelous DVD about me, produced by a neo-Nazi group which has sent me repeated death threats, and has attempted to engage in witness intimidation during my participation in a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal against neo-Nazis and white supremacists. Adding references to this DVD in the article is a form of personal harassment, and since the DVD is also libelous and will soon be the subject of a libel lawsuit, it is unacceptable for Wikipedia to include a reference to it, let alone make it easier for people to find it and order it from this neo-Nazi group."
Frank Pais 13:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- A BLP violation warning was placed on that anon user's page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- BLP template added to talk. I will add this page to my watchlist for a while. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Shane Ruttle Martinez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Too many links that don't deal directly with the subject at hand, and no sources to provide proof that he attended, worked, or anything else to have him as involved with the subjects provided in the linksSanchiTachi 21:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Frank Pais (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - refuses to find proper sources, refuses to allow deletions of sources that violate WP:SOAP, refuses to allow information that he didn't put in personally, is violating WP:OWN, is possibly Shane Ruttle Martinez/claims to know him personally, see above article by Frank on this issue SanchiTachi 21:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- CmrdMariategui (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Newly created name that did the exact same thing as Frank Pais via reverting, yet has no previous edits to his credit, and has put a message on my talk page ("Stop editing this page you are in the wrong. --CmrdMariategui 20:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)") SanchiTachi 21:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- An addition: The article in question, along with Canadian Marxist Candidate Page and the Paul Fromm (neo-Nazi) were edited/created by the same people, lack properly sourced information, contain lots of POV and other descriptives that are unsourced/unncessary, and don't seem to follow notability requirements of "he person has been the subject of published1 secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" (the independent aspects). SanchiTachi 03:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
See also: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt
- Carl Hewitt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Ruud Koot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- TheHoover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 64.75.137.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 72.235.115.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ruud Koot has placed an unflattering photograph of of Professor Hewitt on the article about him. Did Professor Hewitt give permission for this photograph to be taken?--TheHoover 18:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- The photo was taken at a conference and then loaded to Flickr. He's wearing a Wikipedia T-shirt, and this is the only appropriately licensed image of the Professor I can find in a Google image search. Take a look at the full size image. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 22:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter that it's free, it's entirely inappropriate for this purpose and I've removed it. If we can't find a good photograph of Mr. Hewitt, no photograph at all is preferable to that one. FCYTravis 23:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, FCYTravis. Could you please leave valued project member User:Ruud Koot a friendly message explaining what you've done. Perhaps he could email Prof Hewitt to ask for a more appropriate image. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 04:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter that it's free, it's entirely inappropriate for this purpose and I've removed it. If we can't find a good photograph of Mr. Hewitt, no photograph at all is preferable to that one. FCYTravis 23:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Note that there is no requirement for Carl Hewitt to have authorized the photo. However, as a poor representation, it's arguably no better than no image. I see no evidence to back up TheHoover's implicit assertion that this was done maliciously rather than in an attempt to improve the article.
- Also note that this is TheHoover's sole topic of contribution in his four Wikipedia edits; I suspect that he is either Carl Hewitt himself (yet again) or an associate - in which case he should make himself aware of our policies on conflict of interest. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
A point which is worthy of consideration: "Unflattering" is a subjective assessment, one which I (and perhaps many others) do not share. — Athaenara ✉ 23:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, the picture is not particularly unflattering - it's not a glamour shot, but neither is he puking into the rosebushes - it's a fairly normal looking shot of him laughing. Makes him look like a fun guy, if anything. WilyD 13:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree the image looks quite bad when thumbnailed (he seems to be yawning, while it is quite clear that he is laughing on the full size image.) It certainly isn't the best picture we could wish for, but I personally don't find it "unflattering". However, if Carl himself objects to this image that wish should probably be respected. —Ruud 19:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Inaccuracies in biography of Prof. Hewitt
Repeated reverts by Arthur Rubin and Ruud Koot have introduced inacurracies in biography of Prof. Hewitt by depriving researchers of proper credit for their work. -- 64.75.137.250 01:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- The above IP address resolves to Honolulu, HI. Prof. Hewitt coincidentally was scheduled to be at a workshop in Honolulu on May 14. [10] How odd is that? If I went to a conference in Hawaii after the end of scheduled classes, I certainly would extend my trip for a week or two. There's an ArbCom decisions (see link above) banning Prof. Hewitt from autobiographic editing. He's used a bunch of sock puppets in the past to circumvent this ruling. User:TheHoover appeared on May 10, and has only edited the Carl Hewitt article, and shows uncanny knowledge for a new Wikipedia user. I think blocks are in order. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 13:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't understand the objection Hewitt has here. My best interpretation would be that by only listing selected papers in his bibliography, instead of each paper and conference presentation he has ever written or given, we are not giving enough credit to the co-authors of the papers not listed. —Ruud 19:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Edit war at article on Prof. Hewitt
Supporters and detractors of Prof. Hewitt are having an edit war. Each side says that the other is acting unethically. The detractors claim that the supporters are acting unethically because of conflict of interest. The advocates claim that the detractors are acting unethically because academic standards should prevail.--72.235.115.241 17:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- The above post is likely a sock puppet of a user banned from editing this topic. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/CarlHewitt. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 17:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Jeffrey Gold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Wikipedia bio of this guy is dubious. It is not clear whether it is libelous or just sophomoric. It needs attention. Greg Kuperberg 22:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Isopoda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Circuspeanuts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 71.199.62.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I added {{BLPC}} to this article and restored the version which existed prior to complex serial vandalism by three userIPs (userlinks above) in early April. — Athaenara ✉ 23:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- There's another issue here: the content is in many ways identical to the IMDB bio which gives as its source indivisiblePR.com which in turn links to JeffreyGold.com where much of the same content is on subpages. It is a {{primarysources}} problem. — Athaenara ✉ 01:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I found five news articles relating to this person, and posted them to the talk page. (Links go to abstracts.) - Crockspot 05:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Richard Huggett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A multitude of very stark statements about the actions, motivations and consequences of behaviour of this man. But not a single source is given. Mais oui! 13:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
A ghastly mess. I have stubbified and would appreciate help in rebuilding with sources. Sam Blacketer 22:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Having just read the un-stubbified version, I believe it was largely accurate - Huggett was a notorious "byelection troll" and I recall reading about him at the time. I might have an opportunity to trawl Lexis-Nexis in a few days' time to verify the old version's statements. -- ChrisO 23:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Accuracy may be helpful but what we really need is sourcing. He seems to have had it in for Liberal Democrats in particular (I have heard rumours as to why which are broadly what was in the article) but we really need some good sources for them. Sam Blacketer 14:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Charles Bennison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User:Barbaraalton has expressed the concern ([11],[12]) that this section is potentially libellous. It looks adequately sourced as far as I can tell. Additionally, it appears User:Barbaraalton may have a conflict of interest: she describes herself in an edit summary as "Exec Asst to Bishop Bennison". I tagged the article BLPC and would appreciate guidance from those more familiar with WP:BLP --Rrburke(talk) 21:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- This article has been targeted[13] for "cleansing" (my words) and under attack by mutliple WP:SPA accounts[14]. A careful review of this material for liable by a few experienced editors without conflicts of interest would greatly benefit Wikipedia. Rklawton 22:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Michael Snow has done a dramatic rewrite that resolves any BLP issues that may have been present. Chris Croy 06:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Tony Zappone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User:k72ndst has expressed the concern ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tony_Zappone) that this entire long biography of a photographer with a tie to the assassination of President Kennedy has zero sources or references. I tagged the article BLPC and would appreciate guidance from those more familiar with WP:BLP. --K72ndst 11:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
→ See also: Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard#User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey
- Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- David Cornsilk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Mostly unsourced article that appears to be a hit-piece on a non-notable individual. Thick skins required. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Bad faith nomination of sourced article. Subject is notable and mentioned in several articles including Cherokee and Cherokee Freedmen Controversy. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- This one has been fixed by a rewrite by Uncle G that left everyone happy! SqueakBox 23:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I suggest keeping an eye on this article. I just deleted 2 over-the-top political cartoons drawn by the subject of this article (Cornsilk) depicting Cherokee Chief Chad "Corntassel" Smith in KKK regalia. I'm not sure the cartoons are needed in an article on Cornsilk, even if he did draw them. Here is the earlier version of the article with the cartoons.
This article is apparently controversial and wrapped up in much older disputes going beyond Cherokees to involve Linux, etc.; see:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Cornsilk
- Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey2 (see some of the diffs cited)
I don't know who's right and who's wrong in these disputes, but BLP concerns must be monitored in the meantime. --A. B. (talk) 22:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'll tag the images for deletion. In afterthought, they may not be appropriate. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 00:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Adam Kline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 67.183.128.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 67.168.61.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 63.168.67.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I just made major revisions to Adam Kline (mostly removals). It was a lengthy, more or less plagiarized (unless the contributor was columnist David Postman) diatribe about Kline's opposition to off-road vehicles. I have reduced that part of the article enormously, and cited to Postman for what remains. I suggest that people concerned with BLP keep an eye on the article, because in my experience it is likely that whoever added the diatribe in the first place will be back to restore it, plagiarism issues (and non-encyclopedic character) notwithstanding. - Jmabel | Talk 05:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- I trimmed it more. The still rather large blockquote, in a section of its own, was in my opinion giving too much weight to that aspect of his politics, so I took an axe to it. --Tony Sidaway 06:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Paul Magriel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello, there is somebody adding a comment on the biography of Paul Magriel, a living person, declaring that a "Susan Silver" is the author of his work, "Backgammon". With this notice I assert, as the co-author of the book, and the book's editor, that this is not the case, and I would really appreciate it if you could stop whoever is adding this specious information from doing so. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roserose1 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- 12.75.163.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 12.75.161.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 12.75.162.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- (Added userlinks above.) — Athaenara ✉ 03:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
* Mohammed Asif Mohseni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I came across a completely unsourced stub of a (possibly?) living person. I don't have any time to research this as the moment so I just removed the problem info. diff Someone else might want to look into this more closely--BirgitteSB 17:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- ^ Kip Keller, Austin American Statesman, November 16, 2003