Knowledge

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

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

Please note that the references for this page lead to links that do not reference this person at all. For example:

• http://www.vuenosairez.com/cds/bossa-n%C2%B4-stones/314
• http://www.sion.com/musica/notas/html/201007151745/lanzamiento.html
• http://robertoramasso.com/contratar-a-daniela-herrero/
• http://www.mtv.pt/

make no reference whatsoever to back up the claims made in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UCBerk (talk • contribs) 10:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The sentences they are attached to make multiple claims, and they're intended to back up just one. The VuenosAirez one is for the album's sales, not for whether Crespo produced it. RobertoRamasso likewise only says Herrero won the award.

But yeah, still misleadingly formatted and undersourced. I took the MTV bit out altogether, till someone points out a specific page. As for BLP, do you have any reason to think the unsourced stuff is false or damaging? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I am requesting action to be taken in compliance with BLP#Non-article space.

The allegation that I, User:Fæ, "attempt to subvert the committee through position as chair of the UK Wikimedia chapter" has been made at Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Statement_by_Kurtis and despite this being challenged as unsourced with repeated requests for evidence to be put forward, @Kurtis: has refused to remove the allegation or provide sources that can validate the allegation. Kurtis appears to be misinterpreting the Arbcom proposed remedy - "For numerous violations of Knowledge's norms and policies, Fæ is indefinitely banned from the English Language Knowledge. This ban may be appealed one year after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter." - which had a consensus support from Arbcom, with individual comments (this ban was successfully appealed six months later). Individual comments were not supported by Arbcom as a whole, they are comments and were not themselves evidence. None of the individual comments by Arbcom members states that I used my position as chair of Wikimedia UK (I was the Chairman of the UK charity in 2012) for subversion, I am certain that any Arbcom member would be aware that this would require verifiable evidence. This is potentially a claim of an unlawful act and requires robust sources to support it. I firmly refute the allegation, and am deeply concerned that Knowledge is being misused to make false allegations about the real life of one of its contributors. In the UK all trustees of registered charities are required to have their legal identities on public record, consequently this is an allegation about my real life identity and my professional career, rather than my Knowledge account.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

From my perspective, I did not make any allegations; I was repeating what several members of the Arbitration Committee asserted in 2012. Review the comments featured in this subsection, specifically those of SirFozzie, Jclemens, Hersfold, and David Fuchs. Other comments in the findings of fact section further establish a consensus among the active Arbitrators in the 2012 committee that this event took place. I will however apologize for saying that he was "using his position as chair of the Wikimedia UK chapter" in requesting action, which is erroneous in that he likely never used his position to try and get the WMF involved. It was not my intention to slander Fæ (just the opposite, in fact), or mislead anyone about his intentions. Kurtis 08:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It is public knowledge that I approached a WMF employee during Wikimania 2012 about a private matter. In the months previous to the Arbcom case they had helped me in support of a related police investigation. This was in response to a campaign of off-wiki harassment including multiple claims about my personal life. They decided to approach a friend of theirs on Arbcom to discuss the matter, someone I do not believe I have ever met myself. This was not at my direction nor request, as I made explicitly clear with a complete and uncontested statement before the Arbcom case was closed, you can refer to my statement on the related talk page history (the page was removed from view due to concerns raised by other parties about non-respectful comments made during the case). I have never seen any related statements made about the approach to Arbcom, nor had it explained to me who made statements, this has remained confidential to Arbcom. Consequently I have never had the opportunity to refute or respond to evidence presented, nor provide any additional context. I have had no formal nor informal contact with any employee of the WMF since with regard to the case.

Individual comments by Arbcom members are neither evidence, nor are they the consensus reached by the committee. It would make sense to stick to quoting findings of fact, rather than interpret individual comments.

Thank you for striking some of your words. I would prefer that any unsupported allegations are removed from public view. The comments do not help the case in hand, and even when struck are likely to cause later readings to be taken with an assumption of bad faith along the lines of "there's no smoke without fire". --Fæ (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I just did some digging around at this page, and I have to say, it's one of the more convoluted messes I've encountered in my time here. I was not aware of the extensive talk page discussion taking place at the time. However, I'm not entirely sure I'm willing to throw my full weight behind your account of the events that transpired. Your claims of privacy concerns would hold more water if your real life identity was not already public knowledge. This factoid is just one of many discrepancies that leave me unconvinced. I'm sorry, but that's just how I see things. I will say this much: my initial parroting of what I had read was at least somewhat erroneous, and I apologized for it. But I doubt my comments will in themselves cause you any harm, especially when similar (or worse) allegations from far more credible sources remain intact. Kurtis 15:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree the case was convoluted and messy. I found it hard to follow at the time. I am not asking for you to "throw full weight behind account", I am asking you provide a verifiable source for the allegations that you have made about me, and have now left published on Knowledge and seem to believe that is okay because you have struck the text but repeatedly refused to remove it. I am uninterested in your beliefs about my privacy, my legal identity is public knowledge, I said as much above, this was not the privacy issue and is not the issue here.

Your defensive statement that others have made worse allegations, is not a free pass to use Knowledge to publish your own unsourced and false allegations. --Fæ (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

First of all, how was I being defensive? All I said was that my comments will do very little in the grand scheme of things. Anyone can Google your name, and they will find all sorts of relevant information about your activities — much of which has been blatantly misrepresented, and that is a shame. I'm sorry you've been the victim of such a vicious harassment campaign, and that the situations you've been involved in here have presented obstacles to your employment opportunities. But the hard lesson here is that the internet is in the real world, and what you do here can have actual consequences. This is something I know all too well, believe me.

As to your second point, I really don't think I've said anything that isn't already considered public knowledge by a broad variety of people, and my statement is no more accessible than any others made about it. Nevertheless, I have acquiesced to your request to remove the stricken text. If that's all you wanted from me, and you feel so strongly about it, then I don't see why not. Hopefully what is in place now is to your satisfaction. Kurtis 16:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Can this be changed for the betterment of black people in America this is not jim crow. this is 2014 and I feel Knowledge is better than this. Thank You, A concerned College student.

It's not clear precisely what you are asking for. HiLo48 (talk) 08:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

If you have ideas about improving the article Nigger you are welcome to discuss them on the article's talk page. Before you do so please read WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. This is not a BLP issue as such - unless the term is being used inappropriately in an article about a living person. If that is the case please tell us which article has the problem. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

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

I am Amar Talwar. I just happened to look at my Knowledge page. There is some utter nonsense in there: 1. My father was not a minor IAS officer who amassed money. He reached the top of the service and was celebrated for his honesty and administrative abilities. 2. My genitals were not mutilated ever and are in perfect functioning order.

Where do you get this libellous information? Please make the necessary corrections immediately or you will be liable to legal action.

Yours sincerely,

Amar Talwar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.59.242.182 (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The vandalism has been removed. Thank you for pointing it out and I apologize for the embarrassment it has caused. --NeilN 14:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Following on from this discussion, but will summarise: User:Nazgul02 added derogatory information to the article about a year-old twitter scandal that was reported in one tabloid source, it was then removed by User:Cloudz679 as there was only a single source of questionable reliability, now it has been re-added with a second source, not a tabloid, but whose main topic is "why you shouldn't post on twitter when you're drunk" and gives the scandal a passing mention in a small subsection. Note that this information being added coincides with Štěch being called up to the Czech national team. More opinions on whether this is appropriate or not would be welcome. As I said in the WP:FOOTY discussion, the information is accurate, I'm just not convinced it's notable since it didn't seem to have much of an impact on his career. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 20:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Does WP:WELLKNOWN not cover this. The allegation is that he has tweeted racism. We do not have multiple, reliable third-party sources to back this up.--Egghead06 (talk) 04:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

There are three sources, in fact. Blesk (tabloid), Sport (regular sport newspaper) and Miloš Čermák's column, published at Ekonom (weekly newspaper). Please note that Blesk and Sport have the same owner Ringier AG, and they both use the URL isport.blesk.cz, but they are different newspapers with different editors. As for I'm just not convinced it's notable since it didn't seem to have much of an impact on his career. - I don't think impact on one's career matters. If we were to delete all information that have no impact on one's career in the end, we'd have to erase most of the articles on people. Nazgul02 (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

And take a look at Mario Balotelli#Personality, reputation and legacy. There is much negative information about him, often sourced by only one source. And most of it did not have much impact on his career. Does it mean that it should be erased from the article? I don't think so. Nazgul02 (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

There has been a burst of editing at Elaine Brown today, which began with a new editor blanking the article with an edit summary using leftist rhetoric. Brown is a former senior leader of the Black Panther Party. After that was properly reverted, editing zeroed in on problematic sections of the article. Conservative activist David Horowitz, a zealous political opponent, has accused her of involvement in a killing 40 years ago. She was never arrested, tried or convicted in connection with this killing. I believe that the section describing these accusations is a BLP violation, and have removed it twice. It has been added back in. I would appreciate other opinions on the issue. Thank you. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no knowledge or particular interest in the subject, my role involved patrolling recent changes, when I reverted an edit that nearly blanked the whole article. As for the section in question, my impressions hint that WP:BLPCRIME may apply, assuming the subject is not markedly notable for this accusation. — MusikAnimal 04:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The allegations are sourced only to a fringe right-wing writer and were published only in his own FrontPage Magazine, a highly-dubious and markedly-partisan source that is unacceptable for contentious claims about living people. It all unquestionably stays out unless there is evidence that someone outside Horowitz takes these allegations seriously. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

There needs to be some strong secondary sourcing on this. Horowitz is an eminently primary source and we cannot be a conduit to the spread of serious allegations such as these, regardless of their validity. WP:BLPCRIME is crystal clear on that point. The onus for said sourcing is on the user that is interested in inserting that into the article. Otherwise it should stay off the article. §FreeRangeFrog 05:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

First, the argument against inclusion has so far been based on ad hominem allegations against Horowitz. While I do not dispute that Horowitz is a strongly partisan source, we should also note that at the time of the murder, he was a close friend/colleague of both the victim and the person he is accusing, and was himself part of the Black Panther school project. His allegations are based on personal experience and knowledge, and should not be so easily dismissed based on his contemporary politics. In fact, he points to this particular experience as the start of his turn from left to right. Second, there was another journalistic source cited in the blanked passage: the East Bay Express. I believe other sources can be located, but I will not be able to include them for a few days. I believe Hugh Pearson's Shadow of the Panther would be one, but can't get to it from where I am right now. Third, Brown has addressed the murder in her own autobiography, in which she smears the victim. In my opinion, as a key event during Brown's time as Panther head, the issue needs to be addressed in the article, within the guidelines of WP policy of course..Pokey5945 (talk) 12:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I trust you won't try to restore this material again until there's a consensus for doing so… Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss and research in a collaborative manner. I'm disturbed that some of the opposition is based on false assertions that Horowitz was the only source cited. I wonder how many editors have actually read the other sources.Pokey5945 (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Then you need to cite sources that aren't David Horowitz specifically making the claim that Brown was responsible - not sources that make oblique connections that may or may not have any relevance to the situation. You are talking about allegations of murder - this is not something we play with or allow to be inserted lightly. Who besides David Horowitz today claims that Brown was responsible? If the answer is "nobody," then it stays out permanently. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

There is another source cited: Ken Kelley.Pokey5945 (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The source does not claim that Brown was responsible. Kelley is also not an independent reliable source, because by his own admission, he was personally involved in the matter as well (as "PR agent"), and has a vested interest in putting forth some point of view. We're looking for independent coverage by disinterested reporters. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, if you read the article you'll see that Kelley actually does indict Brown. He was not personally involved in the matter; he did not start working for Newton until some years later. And he is a reporter, who, like most reporters, is on speaking terms and sometimes more with his sources.Pokey5945 (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a re-insertion of a claim that BLP Elaine Browne received an order to kill based solely on a self-reported account. It doesn't matter what the article says if the person reporting it is also the same person involved in a "confession" that is not found in a single reliable source. This wouldn't fly at the Elaine Browne page or Huey Newton page, sneaking it on to a sub-page as settled fact is disruptive. it's a contentious claim about a BLP and needs strong secondary sourcing before being inserted. Anywhere on Knowledge.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, I would ask you to assume good faith and not accuse me of "sneaking" anything in. I understand the basic purpose of BLP, I agree with the policy, and I try to abide by it. I don't understand the entirety of your argument. First, I don't understand why this "wouldn't fly" at Huey Newton, since BLP does not apply to him. Second, I don't understand why you consider this publication not to be a reliable source.Pokey5945 (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

BLP applies to any claim you make about any living person, even in an article that is not about a living person. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I do get that much, and it's why I removed the mention of Brown when I restored the cite to the Van Patter page. Another question: Why would BLP:CRIME apply to Brown? She has run for public office multiple times, been on TV multiple times, had her autobiography published by a major house and widely reviewed. It seems to me that BLP:WELLKNOWN is more apropos for Brown.Pokey5945 (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

This new edit is a clear attempt at directly linking the BLP to the murder. You didn't remove mention of Brown. Poorly sourced content about BLPs should be removed.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I did remove menton of Brown from the Kelley cite accusing her of involvement in the murder. This cite does not accuse Brown of murder, but merely explains the context. There is no question that Brown was involved with the victim prior to her death. Brown mentions it in her own autobiography. I don't understand why this is controversial. Pokey5945 (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

And to your question, WP:WELLKNOWN is completely relevant here. You are attempting to put in BLP content that is not well-documented. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. Things like Huey Newton's "confession" about Elaine Brown are not treated as known fact by anyone but the original person who said it happened. That's not multiple reliable third-party sources. If these things were treated as more than unsubstantiated rumor, it would be a different story, but you can't spread rumor and insinuation about a BLP in Knowledge's voice.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted it and request that Pokey refrain from adding any material to the article until consensus indicates that it is well-sourced, meets BLP requirements and does not unduly attempt to draw connections where no mainstream sources have done so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I am feeling a bit piled on here with the accusations. I would ask some of you guys to please see me as your colleague, not your enemy. I support the intent of BLP, and want to achieve a consensus. That out of the way, off the top of my head, here are some of the relevant sources: Heterodoxy, Mother Jones, New Times, East Bay Express, Salon, Hugh Pearson's book, Elaine Brown's book. Which are RS, and why or why not? Looking forward to a productive discussion....Pokey5945 (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Heterodoxy was published by David Horowitz. Not an RS. The Salon op-ed is by David Horowitz and doesn't make any accusations against Brown, presumably because Salon didn't want to publish potential libel. None of the other articles appear to make the claim that Brown was responsible. Oblique references and insinuations do not cut it. Name and quote the reliable, non-Horowitz-linked sources which claim that Brown was responsible. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

(1) Why is anything linked with Horowitz unworthy of mention? It pains me to ask this, because I don't like the guy. I don't agree with his politics or his style, and he once ripped me off by republishing my work without asking permission. But he is one of the voices accusing Brown of involvement in the murder, and that is a noncontroversial fact. (2) The East Bay Express piece explicitly accuses Brown of involvement in the murder. (3) The other sources, including various other Salon articles, discuss the context of the murder and Brown's involvement in that context. As does Brown herself. To achieve consensus, we need to agree on RS. I understand that direct accusations of murder will most likely not be in the article as part of this consensus--let's move on to the next step and discuss what will go in.Pokey5945 (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Because it's like citing Michael Moore for the accusation that George W. Bush committed treason. It's an inflammatory accusation coming from a known polemicist, and it doesn't belong in Knowledge. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

(1) I completely agree that it's an inflammatory accusation coming from a known polemicist. However, polemics are not totally verboten on WP. If Michael Moore had been a member of Bush's cabinet, I think we would want to include the accusation. Horowitz had an analogous position wrt to Brown and Van Patter. (2) In the interest of reaching a productive consensus, I would ask you to suggest which sources and what information about this murder you think does belong in WP?Pokey5945 (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Colleagues, let me try to summarize where we are: (1) A source that editors have so far found non-controversial states that it is widely assumed that the Black Panthers were responsible for Betty Van Patter's murder. (2) Two people who worked for the BPP have publicly alleged that Elaine Brown was involved in ordering the murder. (3) Numerous sources, including Brown herself, discuss topics such as Brown's involvement with Van Patter shortly before the murder, and the circumstances leading up to the murder, and the suspicions of BPP involvement. In conclusion: What goes in, and what stays out, and why? Let's do some productive work together!Pokey5945 (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The BLP noticeboard is a poor place to start synthesizing murder theories from the primary sources you listed. Collaboration is great. Collaboration to roughly insinuate that a BLP is a party to murder is not. This is inviting speculation based on accusations that were not respected by sources when they were made. You admit the actual accusation is inflammatory. As it stands, there's an argument that heavily relying on Horowitz's opinion piece without secondary sources fails WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:PRIMARY. We can't use sources that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. "Directly involved co-worker has a hunch unproven for decades" is an episode of True Detective, it's not a reliable source. If there's any credibility to this, it should be found in multiple reliable third-party sources and not somehow concocted here. If this requires synthesizing, it shouldn't go in, even if it wasn't a BLP. The sources call this an unsolved murder, where no one know what really happened. We can't go beyond the sources and we can't spread rumors just because rumors exist.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I would once again ask you to assume good faith. No one has made any suggestion that we synthesize murder theories or insinuate anything at all. Perhaps we could start here: Which of the sources I listed do you consider primary sources and why?Pokey5945 (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The addition you proposed on the article talk page relies entirely on speculation, rumor, guilt by association and suggestive innuendo. Someone opining that "so and so is suspicious" is not sufficient to support republishing allegations of homicide. You cite nobody who presents any direct evidence that Brown was involved - only scurrilous gossip-mongering of the "she must be involved because she sounds guilty to me" sort of nonsense that may have a place on Nancy Grace's tabloid trash TV show, but not this encyclopedia. Knowledge is not a place to dredge up 40-year-old allegations that have never resulted in arrest, charge, indictment or trial. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that WP should not accuse Brown of responsibility for the murder. However, when a multitude of scholars remark on her involvement with the victim and express skepticism as to her rendition of events, that in itself is notable. Again, I invite you to do your own research and writing if you don't like my version. So far, I seem to be the only editor who is knowledgeable about this topic and doing any constructive work on it. It would be nice to have some productive collaborators.Pokey5945 (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, no, it's really not notable and it doesn't belong in her Knowledge biography. We're not a scandal sheet or tabloid. There is no evidence of any active investigation, there is no evidence that Brown is considered a suspect and there's no evidence anyone other than David Horowitz takes the claims seriously today.

The scholar you cite unequivocally states "no material evidence has ever been produced to link Brown directly to the murder." That pretty much ends the story — if there's no evidence, then there's nothing but speculation, rumor and innuendo. Knowledge doesn't publish those things. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

An objective reading of the sources shows no evidence of "speculation, rumor, or guilt by association and suggestive innuendo." The basic argument here from people who object to including Betty Van Patter in the article is that Horowitz is not a reliable source. This objection, it seems, is based on Horowitz's politics. Horowitz is not a "fringe right-wing writer" has some have said. I personally don't care for his politics either, but he was in the Black Panther inner circle at the time of Van Patter's death. As a witness and reporter of these events, he must be considered reliable. Chisme (talk) 22:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, no, we don't have to consider him reliable, and we don't. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

You flat-out say "we don't have to consider him reliable," but you don't say why. Apart from your objections to his politics (you are the one who called hima "fringe right-wing writer"), why should Horowitz not be considered a reliable witness. Horowitz says how Huey Newton said Elaine Brown ordered the killing. Do you think Horowitz would make this up? On what grounds? Chisme (talk) 22:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Because FrontPage Magazine is well established as a non-reliable source on Knowledge. See the myriad discussions on this issue over a period of years. There is a longstanding consensus that FrontPage is not a reliable source, and is particularly not a reliable source for claims about living people who hold political beliefs and views which are opposed by Horowitz. He is a highly-opinionated polemicist with an axe to grind against anyone remotely toward the left side of the political spectrum, and anything he writes must be viewed through this lens. There is a very good reason Horowitz's claims have apparently never been published outside of Horowitz's own house organs. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

So, for you, it all boils down to Horowitz's magazine being unreliable as per a Wikepedia discussion? What about Horowitz himself -- I mean his writings apart from his magazine? Some of this Bay Area Panther history comes from his book. Is that also to be dismissed? I point out again that Horowitz was in the Panther inner circle. The Betty Van Patter murder precipitated his moving away from his former left-wing views. Are his left-wing views -- the ones he held when he worked for Ramparts -- considered valid? Chisme (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes. It boils down to the fact that Horowitz's claims about anyone are suspect at best, and his magazine is a fringe right-wing house organ. He is well-known for producing scurrilous accusations, conspiracy theories, lies, fabrications and general nonsense. (For example, he has repeatedly claimed that American leftists are allied with Islamic terrorists.) Given that reputation, it is perfectly acceptable for Wikipedians to consider the strong likelihood that anything he writes about anyone who is today in opposition to his political views may be similarly baseless and unfounded.

When we consider that not a single other person can be found making these accusations, then it is blindingly obvious that Horowitz's fringe views do not have significant support in mainstream thought and are not taken seriously. When we further consider that these accusations are of a capital crime, it is again blindingly obvious that they have no place in an encyclopedic biography of Elaine Brown - just as the conspiracy theories about Vince Foster have no place in an encyclopedic biography of Bill Clinton. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

We're going to have to disagree. Believe me, you put me in an odd place when you have me defending Horowitz. I don't care for him either. But I do think his views as an eyewitness to the Panthers of the 1970s are valid. I also have no illusions about the kind of violence the Black Panthers were capable of. I saw it firsthand. It was painful to a lot of people. Chisme (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

There is absolutely no way that including such claims, based on a single source - any source - can be remotely compatible with WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, we disagree. The fact remains that policy prohibits us from including this material in an encyclopedic biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Jai Prakash Menon is a BLP about an Indian IT-executive which since he unexpectedly left his previous employer has included information about his very abrupt departure, a story that is sourced to multiple very reliable sources (The Hindustan Times, The Economic Times India and others), and was also carried by many other major news sources in India (including The Hindu Business Line). The material was not added by me, all I have done is "defend" the article against SPAs with a possible COI removing it (and also adding promotional material to the article). Suryasingh31 (talk · contribs) is the most prominent and determined of those SPAs (a determination that lead to full protection of the article, with Suryasingh31 starting his work again as soon as the protection expired). The only source that contradicts the other news stories is a short interview with Menon himself, without editorial comment, which I see as a primary source.

I have no interest in the subject or the article as such, and as I said I did not add the material, but I would like a review of what the article says about Menon's quick departure from Bharti Airtel, i.e. if it's being given undue weight and should be removed, as Suryasingh31 and the other SPAs want. Thomas.W 10:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• TheRedPenOfDoom has now gone through the article and removed tons of puffery and peacockery, but there's still a need for a review of the part I mentioned above, just to have something to show future SPAs. Thomas.W 17:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• TheRedPenOfDoom has edited the article and it looks balanced. However, in a BLP, dedicating 1 complete paragraph (4 lines) to single negative event is against the philosophy and spirit of wikipedia which clearly states that, without named references and supporting artifacts, any defamatory/negative statements should be avoided in BLP.suryasingh31 12:35 07:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.160.104.254 (talk) (Corrected time stamp of edit) Thomas.W 07:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• "A single negative event" makes it sound as if it's a minor event. If it had been a minor event it wouldn't have been covered by virtually all major newspapers and news sites in India, all telling the same story. And it's quite telling that the only source I managed to find that carried Mr Menon's denial of it is a news outlet owned/controlled by the HT-group, his new employer. Thomas.W 07:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment: And Suryasingh31, as IP 59.160.104.254 (see above where the IP self-identifies as Suryasingh31) is right back at whitewashing the article again. Thomas.W 07:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Base article - Jai_Prakash_Menon With reference to the coverage of Jai Menon leaving Airtel, the statement in the Biography of living person is declarative/conclusive and allegations rather than informative.

The key issues with the article: 1) All the information sourced by author is basis random news-paper articles with no primary research. Even after repeated requests, the author has not been able to produce a statement on record by a named personnel / legal law-suit against the subject on the allegations in discussion.

2) All the key information is incorrect - A) Jai Menon was never appointed Chief Technology and IT officer for Airtel Africa. His offical designation said - Director - Global Innovation & IT. He never ran IT and Network for Airtel Africa B) He did not joined AT&T as CTO C) He never developed "the model of outsourcing network". He was CIO and was responsible for IT and not network. Network and IT are 2 very different functions. 3) The article is WP:UNDUE and WP:IMPARTIAL 4) It violates the key wikipedia policies for writing biographies of living personnel:

General guidelines Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Attack pages Further information: Knowledge:Attack pages and Knowledge:Criteria for speedy deletion § G10

Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced

Request your intervention to remove the article. For any supporting documents / on-the-record artifats to substantiate the facts stated, kindly feel free to drop a mail at google

Theamigosinc (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2014 (IST)

• Theamigosinc (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account that has tag-teamed with Suryasingh31 (talk · contribs) on the article, both of them with an obvious COI. Thomas.W 16:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Thomas.W is the only account who has been trying to insert defamatory statements in the article and the author has not been able to produce a statement on record by a named personnel / legal law-suit against the subject on the allegations in discussion. Thomas.W has obvious COI as it looks like a paid campaign from his side to insert contentious material in biography of living personnel.

I have been requesting to write the incident in a neutral language In Dec 2013, Bharti Airtel Group CIO and the company’s director of global innovation & IT, Jai Menon, has stepped down from his post to go back to research and innovation of new technologies and intellectual property (IP). However, multiple sources reveal that he had been asked to leave for alleged violation of the company’s code of conduct, even though Menon has denied the charges.

However, Mr. Thomas is a single purpose account to write the incident in a defamatory language which indicates towards possible COI.

Dear Thomas - for your kind information, 1 of the credible sources listed by you (hindustantimes) is also present employer of subject in discussion. Below are the neutral coverage of his exit:

http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/bharti-group-cio-jai-menon-steps-down-113120600625_1.html http://www.medianama.com/2013/12/223-bharti-enterprises-group-cio-jay-menon-exits/ http://www.cxotoday.com/story/bharti-airtel-group-cio-jai-menon-quits/

Since beginging, I have been requesting to re-write the article so that it is factually correct and neutral rather than defamatory and allegations. Request kind support from Administrators to balance the article as informative rather than full of anonymous referenced contentious material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theamigosinc (talk • contribs) 02:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• The text above is nothing but a bunch of endlessly repeated deliberate lies, intended to cloud the issue. First of all, accusing me of being a "single-purpose account" is outright silly, considering that my account has been around since December 2006 and has made well over 15,000 edits on about 6,000 different pages. Secondly, I did not add the "defamatory material", what I have done is defend it against a number of obviously connected SPAs and IPs (with all IPs geolocating to New Delhi, India), who have repeatedly tried to whitewash the article, removing a very well sourced mention of Mr Menon's abrupt departure from his previous employer, in addition to adding tons of unsourced/improperly sourced promo and resumé material. And thirdly, as can be clearly seen on the talk page of the article, both TheRedPenOfDoom and Mr. Stradivarius share my opinion that the mention of Mr Menon's departure from Bharti Airtel is well sourced and has not been given undue prominence. And, finally, accusing me of COI is nothing short of ridiculous; the only one here with a COI is the person behind Theamigosinc, Suryasingh31 and the other SPAs and IPs. Thomas.W 07:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

  I have to agree with Thomas.W here. I can't see any BLP problem with the current version of Jai Prakash Menon, but I can see a lot of WP:IDHT behaviour on the talk page by Theamigosinc. I think the expiry of full protection on May 27 is a reasonable deadline for productive discussion to occur. If that discussion doesn't materialise, this may be better handled with semi-protection coupled with judicious use of the block tool. — Mr. Stradivarius 09:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

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

There is a disagreement between myself and another editor over a factual question: whether the subject of the article dawn Landes should be referred to as dawn Landes or Dawn Landes. The other editor, who believes that dawn is the correct usage, has reverted several dawn -> Dawn edits by others over the years (most recently my own). I contend that Dawn Landes is currently the correct usage, based on the way her first name is spelled (with a capital D) on her website (http://www.dawnlandes.com/), Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/dawnlandes), and record label site (http://westernvinyl.com/artists/dawnlandes.html), as well as the liner notes of her most recent album, plus virtually every reference to her in music websites. The other editor counters by citing her MySpace page (https://myspace.com/dawnlandes) and covers of her earlier albums, adding that the references that I cite are not under the subject's control and being produced by people who are ignorant of her wish to use lowercase for her first name. I would counter that the references he cites are older and may be evidence the subject may have once wished to be known as dawn, but has since dropped that wish.

This issue seems to revolve around several interesting questions: What should be done in an edit dispute when otherwise reliable sources conflict? In such a dispute, is higher weight to be given to more recent sources? Is it legitimate to make claims that some sources should be considered unreliable because they are not under the control of the subject? And where does the burden of proof lie in a question of whether a person prefers to use non-standard case in their name, with the editor claiming that the non-standard case is correct or with the editor claiming that standard case is correct?

I think both editors agree that the bottom line is that the article should spell the name that this living person wishes to go by. The dispute is over determining what that wish is. The other editor has adopted the position that dawn/Dawn Landes clearly wishes to be known as dawn, but I am dubious that the references he cites are sufficient to draw that conclusion. Without a clear statement from the person herself, I believe that recent sources outweigh older sources.

Does anyone have thoughts on how to resolve this impasse? Thank you. Rickterp (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

On the surface, this seems to parallel the situation in the E. E. Cummings article, which uses capital letters. —C.Fred (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I think this is very simple: Use the legal name of the person for the article, and mention in the lede the alternative spelling, as in: Dawn Landes, also known as dawn Landes (born December 5, 1980) is an American singer-songwriter and musician originally from Louisville, Kentucky. See also Knowledge:Manual of Style/Biographies#Pseudonyms, stage names and common_names. Cwobeel (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

See also bell hooks - another person using a non-capitalised name. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It appears that this has come up often enough to merit mention on the MoS (Knowledge:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Items that require initial lower case):

Some individuals do not want their personal names capitalized. In such cases, Knowledge articles may use lower case variants of personal names if they have regular and established use in reliable third-party sources (for example, k.d. lang). When such a name is the first word in a sentence, the rule for initial letters in sentences and list items should take precedence, and the first letter of the personal name should be capitalized regardless of personal preference.

AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

bell hooks and k.d. lang are good examples of how to handle cases where a person has made it clear that she wishes to be known by a name with non-standard case. The crux of the dispute over dawn Landes is whether she has indeed made it clear that she wants to be known as dawn Landes and not Dawn Landes. For both bell hooks and k.d. lang that wish seems pretty clear and is evident in both references officially associated with these persons and third parties writing about them. In the case of Landes, I would argue that the evidence is ambiguous at best (official sources conflict and third-party sources overwhelmingly use Dawn Landes) -- however, the other editor in this dispute believes the evidence is clear and convincing that dawn Landes is correct and the cases of Dawn Landes are erroneous. Rickterp (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Rickterp and Mareklug: I see a smattering of sources using a lowercase dawn all in 2007 (presumably when a myspace username could have been created), and a tidal wave of sources (from her and third-party) after 2008, including the name on her book, her tour posters, and a current fact-checked interview in the New Yorker where it uses an upper case Dawn. The New Yorker asked her how she spells her name before they ran an interview with her. Usually I would say that preference here should be taken into account, but this is not a k.d. lang situation and I don't see anything like a clearly stated preference or common usage here. It strains credulity to think that she has had no control over anything she's been involved with for the last six years. k.d. lang is clear and consistent with everything she is involved with (right down to her Facebook page), and throughout her career. E.E. Cummings famously used lowercase on a couple of projects but he preferred caps in most things; we use his main preference. We shouldn't use a preference we only guess she may have theoretically had in 2007 and has never shown again. Even the myspace page bio uses an uppercase Dawn now. Places like No Depression use uppercase, and they wouldn't shun a fun preference in a performer's name if it existed. I think the lowercase spelling should be mentioned as an alternate spelling, but I don't see anything that would be a BLP issue with using an uppercase Dawn in most places.__ E L A Q U E A T E 03:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Here is a current project she has undeniable control of, today. I see no evidence that she prefers the usage on her 2007 album above her clearly more common usage. In 2008 she was clearly touring upper case and that's consistent to the present day. I don't think we should act as if she prefers something she shows no evidence of currently preferring.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your scholarship and reasoning, such as they are. I see that you already took upon yourself to resolve this issue the "Dawn" way. Rather than continue more in this vein, please allow me this one note on the thread post facto:

1. The bio on her up-to-the-minute MySpace page complex is authored AND signed by some Heather. Heather glosses incompetently, or perhaps in keeping with some manual of style where she initially published that blurb "dawn's music", which is in lower case as a matter of historical record.
2. The album "Fireproof" where dawn famously did the cover and put her name on it reads "dawn Landes" and is not from 2007 but later.
3. The argument from New Yorker's typographical choices is spurious. We know that The New York Times famously decided once upon a time to reverence everyone per Mr. and Miss, Mrs., persons of non-honoric preference be damned, never mind transsexuals with obvious distaste for one of the choices. Let's don't reason speciously that this implies dawn had any say in how they printed her name. Ditto the above mentioned Heather's bio evidence.
4. It is a matter of your assumption that dawn regulates in any way her Kickstarter page typography, or that she controls it or pays it any attention, even if she does. It may be a contracted-for or friend-provided item. Or Kickstarter's own defaults/preferences. Suffices to say it is DAWN LANDES in all caps everywhere there, except in the one typographical place where it may well function as chez typographical manual of style.
5. Everywhere else but in Heather's bio copy, dawn consistently has dawn Landes on her MySpace page, be it the main navigation (incidentally, for your amusement, click to see who shows up as the top fan) and again, it is your assumption, rather curious at that, that all this dawning results from the page itself dating from early bronze age, and that dawn just could not be bothered to update it to up cased, correct as of now. Please note that all the credits for her as composer -- on subpages dedicated to albums -- are ...dawn Landes. On every song, including songs well after 2008.
6. Yesterday I wrote her a personal note, but suppose she replies, I will just sit on it and have quiet satisfaction. Knowledge process has deviated me into an information pervert. Shall we say. Kindly regardez (ici, sic), --Mareklug 01:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Lower case use: an album in 2007 and her MySpace page (partial).
Uppercase use: her concert posters from her last few tours, her Twitter, a published book, all of her post 2008 albums, her Facebook, her current Pledgemusic campaign, her homepage, iTunes profile, and every single one of her personal interviews in both tiny and massive publications.
I'm sorry, but it's far more likely she had the ability to exert personal control over any single item in that list than a MySpace page that you admit has a bio that she didn't write herself. Without disrespect, I think you should consider the possibility that she's not as committed to a single stylistic version of her name as you seem to be. You have to admit that most instances of her name in the world, including the stuff she's produced herself, are not lower-cased (MySpace page notwithstanding). I think a requested move on the article title would find consensus pretty easily, on both preference and common name grounds, but it's probably not pressing, as it's probably BLP-compliant either way.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

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

This person may have died. a forum post is the only reference I can find.--Auric talk 11:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

He was the founder of Ayerst Environmental, an asbestos abatement company. The company website is reporting his death: Passing of Peter Ayerst. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I've moved him out of the living people category, but it would be nice to have an actual newspaper obituary.--Auric talk 21:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Just bringing some BLPVIO activity at Santhosh Pandit here for editors information. Over a period of about 36 hours from May 16 to May 18 (today), four different named accounts made the same/ very similar unsourced derogatory edit to the 'actor, director & internet celebritys' page. In 3 of those cases it was their first WP edit, and this is the only WP page they have edited.
Apparently he made a movie back in 2011, Krishnanum Radhayum that is so bad, it became somewhat popular.
The edits concerned are , , , and . FYI! --220 of 07:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

And another 'new' editor . --220 of 11:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a week. Dougweller (talk) 12:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Doug! --220 of 00:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello! About a month ago the subject of an article, Charles Denham, complained about negative information which I put into the Knowledge article about him. In Talk:Charles_Denham#Talk_with_Charles_Denham I list sources which published this information and asserted that I summarized those sources on Knowledge. In summary, the United States Department of Justice issued a statement saying, "CareFusion paid $11.6 million in kickbacks to Dr. Charles Denham while Denham served as the co-chair of the Safe Practices Committee at the National Quality Forum, a non-profit organization that reviews, endorses and recommends standardized health care performance measures and practices. The government contends that the purpose of those payments was to induce Denham to recommend, promote and arrange for the purchase of ChloraPrep by health care providers." Denham objects to having this information in the article about him, perhaps because he was not involved in the court proceedings (which were between the US Department of Justice and the company CareFusion) and because he committed no crime (perhaps because accepting kickbacks is not a crime, or at least no one charged him with this). My counterargument is that since multiple reliable sources reported this information then it belongs in Knowledge, but I agree with him that I would not want to lead anyone to conclusions beyond what sources say.

After a month of no reply from Denham I re-inserted the contested information into Knowledge. I would appreciate any comments on the Denham page from anyone who would check or comment upon the procedural validity of what I did. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

This source only allegations even against the company involved. Due to settlement they they aren't pursuing those allegations. WP:PUBLICFIGURE I think would be the relevent policy here. Charles could meet the standard of at least a limited public figure in this situation. If so that would require multiple reliable third-party sources. It seems to me that the USDOJ in this case is a first part source being involved in any investigation and the proceedings along with the eventual settlement. It's also a Primary source. I don't think the sources provided are enough.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Concord International High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article has been re-edited now, but still contains factual errors - including a reference to the school accepting students who used drugs. I was the Director of the school for nearly thirty years - and that was not the case! Please see www.archive.org - type in www.concordhs.org - for the years prior to 2007 (Concord Prep altered the website after those years). Please also see the Press Release authored by Henry David, Attorney at Law, The David Firm, Los Angeles, CA, on the "About Susan" page of www.susanpackerdavis.com to understand what occurred. Thank you.Packerdavis (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at Knowledge:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Does material on the so-called "War on Terror" belong in Persecution of Muslims or Islamophobic incidents? as new material added today (by an inexperienced editor and IP) implicitly is calling individuals Islamophobic without sources. At least one of them, Lynndie England, has nothing in her article about either persecuting Muslims (her photo is at Persecution of Muslims or being Islamophobic. Dougweller (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, what she and the others did was terrible, but I've looked for evidence that this was out of hatred for Muslims rather than just hatred of the enemy and all I find is material such as . Dougweller (talk) 19:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no indication that she is islamophobic, that is the one name that you mention. She indicates that she was following orders and there was an indication that she was trying to please her lover. To me her position reminds me of the Milgram experiment. I can understand how some might feel her actions were islamophobic but without evidence that would seem to be original research. I'd say just in the case of this one person your correct.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It would be great if you would take down the warning about family members editing the page in light of the fact that we were absolutely candid about who we were and the screamingly obvious fact that we needed help in correcting factual errors. You will see that this is no "puff piece". We were able to add the languages the book has been translated into with the valiant aid of one of your editors, "Theroadislong", and hope you will add Spanish to the list of translations. Again, verifiable and factual. So please, Random House, not Knopf. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruth Stiles Gannett (talk • contribs) 22:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

@Ruth Stiles Gannett: Not sure if that info is needed but I've at least fixed the incorrect info (per the book articles). --NeilN 22:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

No reference are provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.213.3.4 (talk) 06:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

In which article?--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Angus Taylor (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I noticed at Knowledge:ANI#Heavily implied legal threats that an editor who appears to be the subject's spouse has expressed concerns about some currently removed content. I don't know for sure that there is a problem, but it strikes me that at the very least the content seems to have weight issues since it's an awful lot about a single issue with very little else about the subject. While it's been suggested the editor contact OTRS, it may help if someone experienced with dealing with BLP issues and subject or those very close to them contact them directly as I know OTRS often direct concerns here yet we don't know precisely what was said which can make dealing with such concerns difficult. So if the editor is happy commenting here and make their concerns public, it may be better to keep it open. Nil Einne (talk) 06:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

BTW, the primary disputes parts of the article seem to be although a bit more was removed before it was locked . The editor who appears to be the subject's spouse is User talk:Louiseclegg . There's also User:1955Dewayne and User:Jridley2010, but their connection to the subject, if any, is unclear. Nil Einne (talk) 09:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

There are some words in this article which are not neutral. I am not associated with this guy at all and was just looking up information about Pennsylvania gubernatorial candidates but these did not seem correct to me.. Example below: Thomas W. "Tom" Wolf (born November 17, 1948) is an American pervert businessman who served as Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue from April 2007 until November 2008. A member of the Democratic Party, he is a candidate for Governor of Pennsylvania in the 2014 election.

Wolf is chairman of his shady family-owned business, The Wolf Organization Inc., a building-product company specializing in kitchen cabinets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.177.46.243 (talk) 11:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your report. It was vandalism that was added by an IP in Philadelphia, just minutes before you filed the report. The vandalism has now been removed, and the IP has been warned. I have also added the article to my watchlist and will try to keep an eye on it. Thomas.W 11:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC) ( Thomas.W but not Thomas W. Wolf...)

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

Could I get some advice? Recently, an IP removed large amounts of material in this edit calling it "slander and defamation". I would quite happily believe the IP is David O'List, guitarist for Keith Emerson's first major band, The Nice, who played on early recordings but left the band after about a year. He is taking exception to a book on the band, which I believe is the only one dedicated specifically to it, from about ten years back, and insisting his role in the band was greater. This source is fairly typical of books documenting the band, relegating O'List to a footnote. The book source used in the article also claims O'List turned up to manager Tony Stratton Smith's funeral with a repackaged LP giving him more prominent credit, which did not go down well with the other band members. It's not our role to play judge and jury and decide who's right and who's wrong and we can only go on what sources say, but with only a single source backing up the claims in contention, I'm not sure it's going to be enough to make the facts stick. How might we proceed? Ritchie333 13:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I would invite them (if this goes on) to discuss adding perhaps a sourced counterweight to the claims in the book(s) if one exists. Simply removing the information and replacing it with links to their website is obviously not acceptable. We say what the sources say, within reason. I don't think there's anything libelous about the paragraph in question, but there would need to be some kind of discussion with them. §FreeRangeFrog 01:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Without going through every detail - and speaking as someone who remembers The Nice with some affection and knows something of the period - it seems to me that the only part of the text which is possibly inaccurate, only sourced from a single source, certainly defamatory of O'List, and in its detail unnecessary to the article as a whole, is the final paragraph starting "During the summer of 1968, O'List's behaviour had become increasingly erratic...". There seems to be no good reason to keep that paragraph as it stands. It could be simply replaced by a sentence along the lines of: "During the summer of 1968, O'List left the band, for reasons which are disputed". But, the remainder of the text - the earlier paragraphs, could be retained - they may or may not be accurate, but they are sourced and are certainly not defamatory. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Note that this issue has been brought to ANI as an IP made legal threats about the content. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 18:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Subject is concerned that article is unfair and not neutral - see talk page discussion. Could people please give it a review and brushup? - David Gerard (talk) 11:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I would, also, like to request any and all editors available please provide input at this article. At the present time it is only me and I am extremely uncomfortable sitting - by default of this fact - as the Judge and Jury of Steve Beren. BlueSalix (talk) 02:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Y'all, please lend your expertise to an edit war in Koenraad Elst. BLP exemption is claimed on one side, and I can't judge it (nor do I want to)--what I do know is that the article is awful, just awful, and a hotbed of contention to boot, with a few SPAs thrown in for good measure. I've protected the article for a week (full protection), and I hope some of you will have a look and weigh in on the talk page. Thank you very much in advance, Drmies (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm bored and will look in.Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The seriousness of the NPOV and BLP violations were explained in great detail by the subject of the lemma here, I recommend everyone to read it:

• The wikipedia lemma on "Koenraad Elst": a textbook example of defamation
• Meera Nanda against Hinduism

--Calypsomusic (talk) 11:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I make it a point to stay away from these types of BLPs, but I will note that there seems to be an awful lot of apparent synthesis in them disputed paragraphs, and they're worded rather poorly. More of the usual anti-fringe POV warrior stuff I guess. Perhaps now that the article is protected you all can come to an agreement on some balance. §FreeRangeFrog 21:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

On the Mark Emmert article, I added information about court cases regarding the NCAA controversy with Penn State, providing links to all of the available court documents and any sources I used. I quotes from those documents, and wrote from a neutral point of view, using only the information from the sources directly to include more recent relevant information on the controversy which was already mentioned in the page. I Am One of Many has deleted my contributions, saying they are not original research and are too negative to be considered for biographies of living persons. I've researched both these claims, and have them insubstantial. I would like to revert my changes back to the article. 97.123.232.199 (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It is not a good idea paste the same issue Knowledge:No original research/Noticeboard#Mark Emmert in multiple forums. It's called WP:FORUMSHOPing and it doesn't help in resolving issues. I am One of Many (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

There were two issues cited when my additions were removed, I was simply bringing them both to light in the relevant forums. If there is an issue with BLP on my additions, that should be dealt with here. If there is an issue with NOR, it should be dealt with there. 97.123.232.199 (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Trial transcripts and court documents cannot, per policy, be used to support article content regarding living persons. Period. Any such use should be reverted.--Jezebel'sPonyo 20:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Can they be used to expand upon content already in secondary sources? Adam Cuerden 20:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

What about correspondence? 97.123.232.199 (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, can you add court documents in the external link section? 97.123.232.199 (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Elizabeth Katz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This page was created to be about the Mexican Actress Elizabeth Katz, Not the American cosplayer Liz Katz. It was been altered and changed away from the original topic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.5.243 (talk) 21:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks like this has been reverted back to being about the Mexican actress, the original change having occurred in this edit. If the cosplayer is notable then an article should be created under another title. That said, the article about the Mexican actress is problematic in that it's an unsourced BLP. Do you have any sources to substantiate any of the claims made in the article? Lankiveil 01:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC).

New reports show Robertson has made some more comments about homosexuality. Please be mindful of all of these related articles as sure as sunshine some will insist the "truth" must out, and right now. I added Jindal to the heading as he was mentioned in one of the sources. Thanks. Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Scott Lash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) request edit

I would like my date and year of birth excised from Wiki page on me. This has hurt my employment prospects and chances of obtaining research grants. A friend of mine has edited my page and deleted year of birth several times, but it keeps being reinstated. Can you please help me on this?

Many thanks

Scott Lash — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicrover (talk • contribs) 08:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I am sorry to hear that the Knowledge article is causing you problems. I believe birth year is a core information about a person that Knowledge will not censor. We are however supposed to have reliable sources for all information and currently I can not see any sources for the birth date so maybe it should be removed on that ground (if sources are not forthcoming). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I re-added the date of birth since it is listed in Lash's authority file at the Library of Congress. However, I am not sure about Knowledge's policy in such cases (see WP:DOB). In 2010, we had a similar case regarding George Lusztig, who wanted his DOB removed although it was published in the International Who's Who. Back then, my opinion was overruled and the DOB was removed. Right now, I feel like Knowledge needs to find a general solution for cases like this, since there are more (for instance, some Brown University IP keeps deleting Oded Galor's DOB, so I suspect similar motives there, too). --bender235 (talk) 11:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: I started a general discussion about the validity of WP:DOB at Talk:BLP. Feel free to join. --bender235 (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I am completely clueless as to how someone's date of birth could affect their employment prospects (unless it is incorrect of course), given that anyone employing someone would ask for their correct date of birth as a matter of course. Could anyone (including the OP) enlighten me? Black Kite (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Not all countries have laws that protect people from age discrimination, as we have it in the U.S. I think it is the case with this person. Cwobeel (talk) 18:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

There was an actual case on Knowledge of an actress wanting to obscure her birth year. She had made efforts to put out she was younger than she actually was, saying that helped her get parts. --NeilN 18:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I totally understand this in the case of an actress, but we are talking about an academic here. Am I being completely naive here when I say I still don't understand the problem for someone who does live in a country with ageism related laws (The Equality Act 2010) in place? Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It's impossible to prove age discrimination, and it happens all the time. I'm a mature person still seeking to be active in the workplace. I've had questions in interviews like "We have a pretty young crew in our company. Do you really think you would fit in?" The implications are obvious, but there would be no record of that question having ever been asked. I sympathise fully with our OP's question. HiLo48 (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I totally understand, but what do you do? Do you lie about your age? I don't know where you live in, but where I do, you are required to provide identifying documents or anyway state your date of birth when you sign a contract -and it is expected that it is the real one. Also, it remains complete nonsense that we are asked to remove public and essential biographical information. If he has problems with his age being public, he could ask the source publishers to remove it; then we would comply since we would have no source to base our claim on. --cyclopia 14:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I've seen similar things in the Australian job market, with a friend of a certain age being unable to get interviews because he had his date of birth on his CV. As soon as he took it off, the interviews started coming and he quickly found a job. So once you get to an interview then, yes, you're going to have to tell them your real date of birth. But once you get to an interview, you also have the opportunity to show that you're not a doddery old fool. Too many HR managers take one look at the front page of a CV, see, "Born in 1955," and throw it on the discard pile. I assume, in this case, that people are seeing his CV, looking him up on WP, seeing his date of birth and throwing his CV on the discard pile. Or at least he has that impression. GoldenRing (talk) 12:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Is the DOB for this BLP, though well sourced, a necessary addition to this article?

• No. Remove it, as it is causing the subject (we assume it's the subject) problems through no fault of their own.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
• No. Remove it. Cwobeel (talk) 04:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
• Yes. Year of birth, and in general the age of a person, are critical quintessential data expected in a bio. The information is fully public so we are not causing the subject any problems which already didn't exist before. If the subject complains about his age being listed, he should ask to the source publishers for it to be removed, not to us. --cyclopia 14:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose removal. I'm not answering the question because it is a leading question. Nothing is necessary to an article (except a name, I suppose). Should it be in the article? Yes. It is standard biographical information. --NeilN 14:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose removal per NeilN - it's well sourced, standard biog info. It's also findable (as it is well sourced) by a prospective employer irrespective of what is in the article.--ukexpat (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
• strong support of removal of month/day as it is a PII identity theft issue, and is currently covered by WP:DOB. courtesy delete on year as a courtesy for this marginally notable person, as the birthdate adds very little of encyclopedic value, and is based on a primary source. This user would probably qualify for WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE of the entire article and I think we should surely extend that to a bit of information that is as unimportant as this. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Your "identity theft" argument is moot, since Lash's full date of birth is available from other sources, including German Knowledge. Deleting it from English Knowledge does not lower the "identify theft risk" (if there is any) one bit. It's pure privacy theater at the expense of encyclopedic precision. --bender235 (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@Gaijin42: I wonder if there's a reply under way for this. --bender235 (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Bender235 I thought I had replied, I must have left it in an abandoned browser window. en.wiki is the #1 hit for the guy. Other sites are much more difficult to come by (Searching for Scott Lash Birthday/Dob/Birthdate etc don't come up with anything.) The de wiki is the first hit for the German google, but as the subject is not german, does not live/work in germany, and has no interaction in german as far as I can see, its much less likely anyone is searching for him in German imo. That information is available in obscure or foreign language sources is not the same as making it be the very first thing that happens on google. Virtually every bit of information about any person is available on the internet - that is not an argument to add it into the biography. In any case, there is a policy specifically covering this for the month and day, and local consensus cannot override a policy such as WP:BLP. If you want to try and change the policy - feel free, but I think it is unlikely to go anywhere. As to the subject's actual objection (the year, due to age discrimination) As I said, I think we can remove it as a courtesy, but there is no policy requiring us to do so, and I do not intend to fight to have it removed at this point (As it has been re-added I believe). Gaijin42 (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Policy aside, you actually believe deleting Lash's birth date and/or year will make it any harder to obtain this data for any criminal person interested in identity theft? Because that is your argument. The picture you're drawing is a criminal who gives up because the information he wants is not the #1 Google hit. Do you actually believe in this fairy tale?

The same goes for Lash's original argument (supposed the OP was actually him). His year of birth is listed on every major national library in the world. Does he really believe erasing it from Knowledge will dumbfound potential research sponsors? Is he a university professor or what? --bender235 (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose removal - Per unconfirmed identity of a warring claimant and that the data is reflected by the Library of Congress. At minimum, a year should be included, if not the precise date per WP:DOB. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Questions:

1. What gives you two reason to believe that the anonymous user above actually is who he claims to be?
2. WP:DOB says if full date of birth is deemed sensitive, just add year of birth. That wouldn't solve the supposed age discrimination issue, would it? So what do we do? Add nothing and claim his year of birth to be missing, based on our ad hoc WP:BLP extension?
3. Since this whole “discrimination on something” and “information that hurts my employment prospects” issue is just the starting point of an awful slippery slope, it'd be interesting to hear how far you guys would go. Is arguing “Knowledge mentioning the fact I did not graduate college hurts my employment prospects” enough of a reason to blank, say Steve Masiello's article? What if a person fears gender discrimination? Do we clear his/her (oops!) article of gender-specific words and maybe the person's surname? --bender235 (talk) 06:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I did make the assumption (and so stated) that the poster is the subject. We know this could be verified if push came to shove, but why bother? If you insist, I'm sure they would verify their identity. If other subjects want to request similar information be removed, we should afford them the same consideration. Two kinds of pork (talk) 07:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

But what is your solution to (2.)? Do we follow WP:DOB by adding his year of birth only, or do we establish a new rule by removing the information entirely? --bender235 (talk) 08:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

My !vote for deletion is much weaker on the point of the year. It is not covered by policy, and is not nearly the privacy/security issue. However, as it is also of minimal encyclopedic value, and the user would probably qualify to have his entire bio deleted if they asked, I don't see the harm in the courtesy. Per your question about Masiello, his educational status has been specifically noted in multiple secondary sources (not just as part of an "infobox" data dump), so no, I would not extend that there. If there were newspaper or magazine articles discussing this guys birthdate that would sway me on that as well. Frankly I think the LOC is a primary source that we should not be using in general. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Imran Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor added some controversial content in the article about a living person Imran Khan, that to me appears BLP vio, closely paraphrased, some of which is non neutral point of view not even supported by the inline source, but the editor is persistent in adding it. Can someone please have a look. Thanks -- SMS 22:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• That article has seen a lot of editor involvement and I note the good efforts by NeilN, Nomoskedasticity, and yourself. I agree that Yousha hashmi (hereby pinged) has edit-warred and has been inserting NPOV material (to put it mildly, very mildly). Well, they've been warned, so they know that a next instance is probably blockable, but I trust (from their comments) that this won't be necessary. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

With the Indian election over I had hoped the partisan nonsense would die down. Alas... An IP is trying to insert a corruption section here. Despite the edit summary, the sources are allegations by political opponents, not any RTI (right to information) report. Some eyes please. --NeilN 21:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Watchlisted. Cwobeel (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The second sentence in the lead of this Sri Lankan MP's BLP reads "He has been accused of and has been involved in several controversies ranging from fraud, criminal record, remand time, fraud bureau investigations, unpaid loans, spying, overstepping and unfulfilled promises." as I write this. I shall revert the latest edit shortly.

I'm no expert in how we deal with BLP's or good sourcing for Sri Lankan based articles, despite having lived there, but it seems to me that if this guy was sharp, he could probably take wikipedia to the cleaners in the US courts for the frankly astonishing things we are saying about him.

I feel like reducing the whole thing to "'Subject' is a Member of the Sri Lankan Parliament for Galle" and waiting to see what happens. Should I, or should I wait for comment here, or at the Talk page? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

That article is a BLP minefield. It needs to be pared down even beyond what you already did there. Cwobeel (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Which you have done, thanks. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

That was so utterly horrible that I just semi'd it for 30 days. §FreeRangeFrog 16:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Fake/defaced article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.75.140 (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Removed vandalism. I think the article does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. Cwobeel (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Sent to Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/Jerry_Messing. Cwobeel (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Did huge edit and update on Evan Wecksell. After a few minutes it reverted back as if I did nothing. Explanation? Or help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evanw219 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

@Evanw219: Assuming you are Evan Wecksell, please read WP:COI for some information about editing articles about oneself. Cwobeel (talk) 01:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

User:XLinkBot reverted your edits. Take a look at the bot's user page for guidance as to why.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Article is now on AFD: Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Evan Wecksell. Cwobeel (talk) 02:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me David Frum was removed from he toronto Sun for making up stuff when reporting about a conservative convention in Canada it would of been near the end of mulroneys tenure as prime minister — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.241.143 (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I moved this article to Ulysses Cuadra instead, as noted on IMDb that is how he spells his name. So I am just requesting that Ulises Cuadra be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheeCakee (talk • contribs) 14:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I've made it a redirect. Not sure about notability… Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Just thought I would drop an FYI regarding my post here. About 50% of this article about a marginally notable local California politician appears to be contentious material cited to op-eds, primary sources, and other low-quality sources. The article appears to have a contentious editing history from last year (some prior poor COI editing, etc.) and I have a potential COI (maybe, kinda, sorta) so I dropped a note on Talk regarding my concerns. I have not taken up the project to actually improve the article yet, because I'm not sure it would survive an AfD. CorporateM (Talk) 22:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

corporateM asked me to comment. It probably would survive an AfD, since he's mayor of a city of over 100,000 people. The current article does seem wildly disproportionate. Some of the sources are questionable, but others seem to be straight news reports. The article would be better in every respect if it were limited to them, and if a proper general bio were added. If he were not a politician, I would consider the present version as speedy A10 territory. I note there seem to be highly oromotional prior versions--it should be possible to do an article with proper balance. DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks @User:DGG. Just to clarify, I would not propose that all the negative material be wiped, but probably 1-2 sentences could be salvaged from the better sources. I might take a shot at a more balanced biography, but it doesn't seem to make sense to offer a re-write of the article if the BLP issues are contested. I've also pinged user:Cullen328 here, who said he/she would take a look when they have time. I am not in a position where I would feel comfortable directly editing the article in contentious areas. CorporateM (Talk) 18:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I am scratching my head here. The claim that 50% of the article is contentious material cited to op-eds, primary sources, low-quality sources seems unfounded; please specify which sources fail to meet Knowledge's rules. My sense is the sources are fine. A suggestion about a possible AfD seems absurd. My sense is the article is in fairly good shape. The article is neutral, showing both pluses of Mr. Butts (bringing business to Inglewood, positive comments about policing) and minuses (questions about whether police observed proper procedures). The twenty-plus sources are solid. The only source which might be questioned is an op-ed piece in a local paper but I feel it is worthy of inclusion since it (1) was made by another local politician (not a crank) (2) concerns a public matter of interest to the entire community, namely, whether police adhered to proper guidelines while conducting investigations (3) is consistent with other sources such as NY Times and LA Times and Associated Press which suggest a pattern of deviation from proper police procedure (4) appeared in a credible media outlet. To suggest that the article is beset with serious BLP violations seems ludicrous.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I, too, was asked to take a look at the article by CorporateM and I will start by answering Tomwsulcer's question about the sources. I object to several of the pieces from CityWatchLA, which are clearly opinion pieces and very negative toward Butts. On the other hand, we have "The Soulvine", an opinion column from the Los Angeles Wave, which vigorously defends Butts. We have several references that go into great detail about the early days of a lawsuit being filed in which he was the defendant, but very little from high-quality sources about the outcome of the suit. That is undue. We've got a court document - a primary source - which is inappropriate as a reference in a BLP. We've got an opinion column, and a guest editorial offering commentary regarding a BLP. Much of the sourcing, pro and con, seems highly opinionated and inappropriate for a BLP. We don't achieve the neutral point of view by battles among editors to insert either favorable unreliable sources and unfavorable unreliable sources. The more determined side wins such a battle. Also objectionable to me are the lengthy quotes in the footnotes, that seem intended to skew the article by inserting material inappropriate to the body of the article. The current version, in my view, gives undue weight to the controversial aspects of this man's career, and the article needs a complete rewrite, eliminating every single controversial thing sourced to unreliable or primary sources. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I read CorporateM's proposed revamp here, read the comments above, and I am somewhat rethinking things. This article has seen a lot of back-and-forth, from pro-Butts people to anti-Butts people, and striking the right balance is tough, and I think most of us here are trying to do that. That said, my sense is the tone of the current article is somewhat negative, and that it should be fixed with words as well as more sources which stress accomplishments, and I think the article should move more in the direction which CorporateM proposed in his revamp (although there are parts of it which seem PR-ish, such as him leading the SWAT team, etc). At the same time, however, I do not think that simply because a news source is negative about an issue, that it immediately brings POV problems. In my view, the CityWatch and Morningside Park Chronicle should not be dismissed, but kept, without going into too much detail about the specifics of their charges. They are both newspapers, with dates and bylines, valid sources in my view, and they make rather serious allegations: threats/abuse/intimidation by a police officer. This is not something to be taken lightly. As we know, police officers have the legally approved power of armed force – they can arrest people, shoot people, jail people – but they must follow proper procedures when doing so. There is little to hold police accountable other than other police officers (who are almost always reluctant to accuse other officers), the courts and public opinion and the occasional unarmed journalist bold enough to challenge authority. That is what is happening here: several journalists, a community school board member, and others allege that Butts and the Santa Monica and Inglewood police went too far, abused authority, played loose with the rules. Clearly there is a pattern: a lawsuit by the ACLU which named Butts as a defendant, which went to the Supreme Court, along with reports from Seattle Times and LA Times about police abusing their authority. So, dismissing this because there is one primary source involved, seems misguided, as well as eliminating CityWatch or the Morningside Park Chronicle as sources. This is not a typical BLP, with a civilian being hamstrung by extraneous cranky charges; rather, this is a politician and former police chief, battling with other politicians and journalists, about the highly public issue of whether police are doing their job properly. I agree the article should strive for neutrality, but I disagree that the way to achieve neutrality is simply to eliminate any strong views, pro or con; for me, the views should be kept, since they're backed by reliable sources, but balanced against each other. Overall, I think the tone is somewhat too negative, and in that sense, I agree, but balance could be restored by writing and by adding more positives.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the accusations of abuse by the police force, in which he was one of the named defendants, my understanding is that City Hall said the accusations were misleading and a federal judge dismissed the case. Additionally, the accusers were two killers and convicted criminals that he arrested. It seems presumptuous to assume any abuse actually happened. In the proposed draft I did include Morningside, but I do not believe CityWatch is a reliable source. Their articles have disclaimers saying that the piece represents the personal views of the author. They are highly opinionated and have outrageous claims not supported by other sources. For example, one of their articles claims that Butts proclaimed "I'm on drugs" loudly interrupting another politician and it often says that the LA Times reported on these incidences of drug abuse and public embarrassment, yet I can find no such articles in the much more reliable LA Times. Their editorial team is filled with people with dayjobs, who are not professional journalists and don't even have an @CityWatch email address. All their articles on Butts are opinionated attack pieces. Regarding notability, now that I have found more proper sources I see how the article should be kept. CorporateM (Talk) 14:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with CorporateM's characterization of the quality of the CityWatchLA pieces referenced in the article. These are clearly political attack opinion pieces which I consider worthless as references in a BLP about a politician. Cullen Let's discuss it 16:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

My personal sense is the CityWatchLA source is good, and is good to counter-balance the pro-Butts sources such as Inglewood Today (which tends to align with Butts and city hall), but I can see how others might feel it was an attack piece (note: there is a video of Butts being thrown out of a meeting; did you watch that?). So I'll agree to removing the CityWatchLA source. However, I disagree with CorporateM's statements that the charges of harassment by Butts and the police force against homeless persons were dismissed; in fact, the charges were upheld by a federal judge, the case which named Butts in the title went to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court upheld the verdict against Butts. This is well documented in the reliable sources in the article, including by the Santa Monica Daily Press here and here, the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, Associated Press, and confirmed in leagle, a legal source here, and the decision was confirmed by the Supreme Court.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

@Tomwsulcer, can you clarify? I think what you're saying is that these sources verify that a court found that Butts abused his police powers, but none of them actually say that. These two are labeled as opinion and the second actually says "has been dismissed by a federal judge" in the first paragraph. Additionally, the other sources you provided are all regarding the lawsuit being filed and accusations made, but I have not found any reliable sources for the outcome of the court case. This often happens when lawsuits appear significant at-first, but turn out to be trivial. The media covers the exciting part, but not the more mundane and boring part of the case being dismissed. CorporateM (Talk) 15:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

@CorporateM, there are numerous sources. The ACLU filed suit in 1995; in 1996, it was dismissed for lack of standing (and that may be what the Santa Monica Mirror article was referring to, but the decision was appealed. In 1999, the the 9th circuit court ruled against the officers; see here also. Check out this source. In 2000, a law firm advised their clients about the law firm advising clients about the ruling. Here is another source. In 2000, the ACLU applauded the Supreme Court decision. In 2000, the Santa Monica city council, in closed session, discussed the Butts case. Essentially, in February 2000, the Supreme Court, by deciding not to review the Butts case, let the lower court case stand (the 9th circuit). In 2004, Supreme Court Justice Souter cited the Butts case. It is a landmark case. It is considered part of the Miranda warning law. Police officers who continue to question a suspect after the suspect has already invoked their 5th amendment rights can be punished.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

@Tomwsulcer Do you feel the sources above pass WP:BLPPRIMARY? The policy reads as follows: "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person...Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." Please also note WP:BLPREMOVE. CorporateM (Talk) 00:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

@CorporateM, there are secondary sources (NY Times, LA Times, Human Rights Watch etc etc) which can be backed up by endless primary sources (see above). The article uses both as is proper. The case went to the Supreme Court. It is a landmark case.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• In my opinion, Corp's version is much to be preferred over the current version, which isn't laid out very clearly and is much too negative. For instance, the alleged claims of racial bias are from a lawsuit reported on in a reliable source, but what matters is the outcome: we do not usually included charges if they are later dismissed or whatever, and doing so in the absence of an outcome is undue, seriously undue. In fact, when I'm done here I'm going to make that edit. I agree also on the long quotes. Now, if there are more reliable sources than those blatantly unacceptable opinion pieces, the rest of that lawsuit story can be included, but no primary sources, and nothing that's even remotely fishy. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

@user:Drmies, @Tomwsulcer I had somewhat the same thought, we usually look for an outcome of a court case to have reliable, independent sources before it should be included for reasons I explain here. If it was a landmark case, we would expect the New York Times or a similar source to have covered how it ended. Just a heads up, another place I was intentionally over-compensating for my COI in the draft is in the Personal Life section. While reliably sourced, it is not within the boundaries of how we normally cover such private issues. CorporateM (Talk) 20:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

@CorporateM, @user:Drmies, I agree; generally I am impressed with Drmies version, highly professional, solved the tone problems, maintained neutrality, cut out the dubious sources. I had been thinking of making similar changes myself but I felt that I was too close to this debate that I felt it was not right to make substantive changes, with so many contributors fussing over it. I don't think we need to bring in the private issues stuff; probably just the battling between spouses for parental rights; I added it earlier only saying there was a dispute, I think it's too much to even bring up words like molestation etc particularly when nothing was proven. What I mean by "landmark" is that the CACJ v Butts case is law, upheld by the Supreme Court; clearly it is not on a par with Plessy v Ferguson etc.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to drop a line here mentioning that I've moved into place CorporateM's version, and wanted to thank everyone who is working on this issue and indicate very strongly that my move was not and is not intended to undermine or remove any of the hard work done by Drmies and others in terms of improving the article. My primary interest here is in making it easy to see the differences between the two versions and I have a general principle that when we have a BLP that has been (by universal agreement in this case as far as I can see) problematic in the past, we should bend over backwards to make sure that the problems are dealt with and we should add back the good work of Drmies and others as quickly as possible where it is stronger than the CorporateM draft. As I mentioned on the talk pages, my edits are done here as an ordinary user with a keen interest in BLP and do not represent a decree or final decision of any kind.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• Robert Garcia (California politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Garcia is a candidate for Mayor of Long Beach. His opponent, Damon Dunn, made false accusations about Garcia during the campaign, just a few weeks ago. These accusations were briefly covered in the local press. The city prosecutor investigated and found no wrongdoing by Garcia. That also got brief coverage. There has been no more coverage of the false accusations.

I do not believe these accusations belong on Garcia's biography page. The election is 2 weeks away, and they serve only to muddy the waters. They do not meet the standard of lasting impact. They fall into the categories of sensationalism, breaking news, and criminal acts found not to be true. If Barack Obama's page doesnt include mention of the birth certificate "controversy", and George Bush's page has no mention of 911 conspiracy theories, which are unverified but have been covered in the press over many years, then Garcia's page shouldn't include these accusations, which have had no lasting presence in the press.

I have removed the material but an editor continually adds it, and has threatened to remove me for "vandalism".

108.0.207.171 (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I've taken a look at both this page and Damon Dunn, the candidate's opponent. It's apparent they're both being edited by editors with conflicts of interest, or at the very least, the intent of making their disfavored candidate look bad. I've stripped material out and made notice on the talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Robert Garcia (California politician) has frequently been in the Long Beach, California news since around mid-April, during which time there have been several news stories in area mainstream newspapers about:

1. The appearance of Robert Garcia lawn signs on private commercial property, frequently high up on poles or in other locations that made them difficult to remove.

2. An incident on March 21st involving the Garcia campaign bussing would-be voters to the City Clerk's office for early voting, the details of which resulted in an investigation for "voting irregularities" by the Long Beach City Prosecutor. The City Prosecutor later dropped the case.

I have added these incidents to the Robert Garcia article in a neutral tone, presenting both sides of the issue(s) along with multiple, quality in-line citations for each from two of the area's major mainstream newspapers (The Orange County Register, The Press-Telegram), two of the area's smaller mainstream community newspapers (The Grunion Gazette, The Beachcomber), and well-known area news websites. These are not conspiracy theories, not "false accusations", and received much more ongoing press coverage from reliable sources than most of the other information present on Mr. Garcia's article. To quote from an article published in The Beachcomber newspaper (http://www.longbeachcomber.com/story.aspx?artID=4367), "Garcia's campaign has attracted unwanted attention on a variety of fronts". These are locally well-known issues and incidents, and the Long Beach area mainstream press has continually made mention of them in nearly all election-related articles about Mr. Garcia.

IP editor 108.0.207.171 has taken to removing all such information from Robert Garcia (California politician), and has also been adding unsourced, contentious material to Damon Dunn (these two are opponents in an upcoming election). I tried to discuss the situation with him/her at length on the Robert Garcia talk page, Damon Dunn talk page, on 108.0.207.171's talk page, and on my own talk page, and have issued him/her warnings: I strongly believe the blanking of well-sourced material to be a form of vandalism, and the addition of unsourced, contentious material to Damon Dunn is in gross violation of WP:BLP. I strongly suspect 108.0.207.171 to be the same editor as 71.9.35.34, who removes/restores the same material and was previously warned on his/her talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:71.9.35.34) by a different editor for vandalizing Bonnie Lowenthal (another of Garcia's political opponents)

I believe this to be a good faith misunderstanding of WP:VNT on the part of the IP editor, especially based upon his/her comments on my talk page and the Robert Garcia talk page, where I tried to explain the concept at length. He/she seems to be editing based on what he/she believes to be true, disregarding verifiability. Ibanez100 (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

At the very least, there was significant undue weight placed on those apparently-minor incidents. They merit brief mentions, if any, and should not overwhelm the remainder of the article. I'm also concerned about the tone of the sections, which clearly were written in a manner tending to negatively implicate the article subject - and frankly, one of them lied by omission, which makes them even more suspect. The campaign investigation was not dropped for "a lack of evidence," it was dropped because the prosecutor determined that no law was broken.

The section discussing that investigation was nearly 300 words - five times as long as the section discussing his entry to the mayoral race. The section about busing students in for voting is a news story, not an encyclopedic event. Not everything that appears in a newspaper belongs in someone's biography.

Frankly, based on your edit history - your only substantive edits since 2011 are to Damon Dunn and Robert Garcia - you appear, at this point, to be a single-purpose account whose sole goal is to depict Garcia as negatively as possible due to personal or political opposition. That is not how we write encyclopedic biographies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The material I added used the phrase "insufficient evidence" (not "lack of evidence") specifically because that was what was used in the newspaper articles cited:

"Citing insufficient evidence, Long Beach City Prosecutor Doug Haubert has dropped his inquiry into one of Vice Mayor Robert Garcia’s get-out-the-vote efforts involving the city’s Cambodian community." (http://www.ocregister.com/articles/city-614323-haubert-garcia.html)

"City Prosecutor Doug Haubert said Wednesday he is closing an inquiry into alleged voting irregularities involving the mayoral campaign of Vice Mayor Robert Garcia after finding insufficient evidence to show any law was violated." (http://www.presstelegram.com/government-and-politics/20140514/long-beach-prosecutor-finds-no-irregularities-in-cambodian-voting)

Would you feel more comfortable if it were phrased in the Knowledge article as "insufficient evidence to show any law was violated"? That would be fine with me, and a bit more descriptive actually. And again, I specifically tried to show the perspectives of both sides of the story, making sure to include sourced quotes from Garcia's campaign in regard to the incidents. The busing of students is a part of the March 21st voter-busing controversy. While I am curious as to why I am a "single-purpose account" (unfortunately true in effect, given that I don't have time these days to make major edits to multiple articles!) yet 108.0.207.171 (a.k.a. 71.9.35.34?) apparently is not nearly so offensive, it doesn't really matter in the end; this should be about how to improve the article at hand. As I said on the Robert Garcia talk page: while I understand that the incidents in question may seem trivial in the big scheme of national or world politics, such is the nature of city politics: I encourage you to read through the various mainstream Long Beach-area newspapers so that you see the extent of the coverage these incidents received. News articles about Robert Garcia are themselves weighted heavily towards these incidents, to the extent that excluding them from his Knowledge article would be in itself a weight issue and a misrepresentation. But I will see what I can summarize, if that helps? Ibanez100 (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for further input: The article has changed significantly since this notice was originally posted. As per the requests of User:NorthBySouthBaranof, I have significantly shortened the material regarding the campaign sign controversy and city prosecutor's investigation; they now appear in one concise, very well-sourced paragraph in the new mayoral campaign section that User:NorthBySouthBaranof created. I believe this now fulfills his/her statement (above) that they merit only brief mentions and should not overwhelm the article, though he/she is still blanking the material and referring to it as "partisan charges" by Garcia's political opponent, despite numerous articles from mainstream newspapers verifying the fact that the two incidents occurred and received very significant ongoing press coverage. Could additional editors please read the article's talk page and comment on this diff (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Robert_Garcia_%28California_politician%29&diff=609872053&oldid=609869182)? I have gone to great lengths to discuss the situation with the IP editor (who seems to have disappeared) and User:NorthBySouthBaranof, but this seems to be reaching an impasse. Ibanez100 (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

You have boldly inserted significant negative imputations about an active candidate for office and your editing history suggests that you have a conflict of interest in this matter - you appear to support Garcia's electoral opponent in this race. Your additions have been reverted several times by three different editors. It is now your responsibility to discuss your proposed additions and gain consensus that they are appropriate for the article before reinserting them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I've discussed the situation at great length with you, both here and on the Robert Garcia (California politician) talk page. My current proposal for the text, visible in the diff in my comment above, addresses all the complaints/suggestions I recall you making:

Make it a lot shorter? Done. Edit for clarity? Done. Keep it to only one place in the article? Done. Remove mention of Damon Dunn's lawyer's letter to the City Prosecutor? Done. Remove the pool party portion of the busing incident? Done. Neutral language? Done to my best ability: I thought the wording was neutral already, though I changed the wording again in hopes of finding something we both could live with, hewing more closely to the cited material by using a quotation.

Unfortunately, your response is still to simply blank the material and then tell me to discuss it, as if I haven't been doing so this whole time. Despite my repeated invitations, you have yet to edit or propose specific changes to the material you apparently find offensive; it amounts to a version of "I don't like it, you fix it!", but of course no amount of my changing it to comply with your stated preferences results in anything more than another blanking of some extremely well-sourced material. Despite my ongoing efforts to find consensus, you seem quite determined to see that consensus is never achieved, perhaps out of a desire to whitewash the article prior to the upcoming election.

Once more, the "significant negative imputations" are in fact two incidents that received significant, ongoing coverage in Long Beach-area mainstream newspapers and respected news websites. Here are some sources for the sign incident:

http://www.longbeachcomber.com/story.aspx?artID=4367

http://www.longbeachcomber.com/story.aspx?artID=4331

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/signs-606820-campaign-garcia.html

http://www.lbreport.com/14elec/indie/indx3.htm

...and the voter-busing incidents and City Prosecutor's investigation:

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/city-610495-garcia-haubert.html

http://www.presstelegram.com/government-and-politics/20140419/long-beach-looking-into-possible-voting-irregularities

http://www.lbreport.com/14elec/voteirr/voteirr1b.htm

http://www.longbeachcomber.com/story.aspx?artID=4367

http://www.gazettes.com/news/early-long-beach-voting-incident-prompts-examination/article_fdc2ce50-cb0b-11e3-8721-001a4bcf887a.html

http://www.loscerritosnews.net/2014/04/21/complaint-against-robert-garcia-suggests-voter-fraud-in-lb-mayor-campaign/

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/garcia-611150-campaign-vote.html

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/city-614323-haubert-garcia.html

http://www.presstelegram.com/government-and-politics/20140514/long-beach-prosecutor-finds-no-irregularities-in-cambodian-voting

I think there are some I forgot to add, but that's a good start. Now it's your turn: could you edit the text in my diff to something you find more agreeable? Ibanez100 (talk) 23:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I have expressed my opinion on the article Talk page, as have others. Not a single editor besides yourself has suggested that this material belongs in his biography. When literally nobody else agrees with you, it may be time to consider whether you should stop beating a dead horse. Just because you want something in his biography doesn't mean it's going to go on his biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

This comment further illustrates my point: by your own admission now, you apparently have no interest in working toward consensus and instead have decided to simply blank whatever you don't personally believe is true, regardless of verifiability (WP:VNT). This is tantamount to vandalism, and the presence of multiple vandals (if they indeed have the same intent as do you) does not override the principles of WP:VNT nor WP:CONSENSUS. Ibanez100 (talk) 02:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how consensus works. There is no consensus that your additions are appropriate for the article. Indeed, you are the only person who has repeatedly inserted them, while at least three separate editors have repeatedly removed them and expressed concern that the material misrepresents facts, places undue weight on minor incidents and is only tangentially, at best, linked to Garcia's biography.

Just because something is verifiable doesn't mean we have to include it. Knowledge is not an indiscriminate collection of everything ever published in a newspaper. It is incumbent on you to justify its inclusion and develop a consensus that the material belongs in the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

IP editor repeatedly inserted material copied from the Times of India regarding a police report filed against Chaurasia. I removed the material, but the IP editor rewrote it.rewrite There are clearly major BLP issues here - we're violating WP:LABEL by calling Chaurasia "controversial", we say that he is "often" accused of accepting money to publish falsified news reports and to tarnish the reputation of others - with a citation to a report about only one such accusation - and we say that a First Information Report (FIR) has been filed against him. I'm not familiar with Indian law, but it sounds like an FIR is a complaint filed by a third-party before any official investigation has begun. I doubt that reporting this is acceptable under WP:BLP. I am at 3RR, otherwise I'd just remove it all myself.GabrielF (talk) 23:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• Ignazio Ciufolini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I do not think that the issue pertaining the use of sockpuppets by him should be censored. An incomplete, positively biased bibliography would result. He does not risk anything since in Italy the acedemic system does not imply any actions for such a behavior: neither his academic position not his salary are at risk. The story is based on several independent sources which cannot be questioned. On which basis, say, a hypothetical article in New York Times would be reputed more reliable if it necessarily would be based on the same sources as here? Or, on which basis it would be decided to deliberately ignore also such a hypothetical article? What would be required to be considered as a reputable source to have this story in his article? 56OKLO34 (talk) 07:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

There has been extensive discussion of this issue on the article talk page. I have reverted your bold edits to the article and you need to gain consensus for your proposal on the article talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you, please, answer my questions listed above? Thank you.56OKLO34 (talk) 07:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion should take place on the article talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing at all inappropriate about bringing this issue to BLPN. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

No, but it helps to discuss things in one place and not duplicate it, considering that this is not the first time the issue has been discussed. @FreeRangeFrog:, @Headbomb:, @Cwobeel: should be notified if this is going to be brought up again here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Notifications are entirely unnecessary and indeed counterproductive. The point of a noticeboard is to get new, uninvolved input -- not to have existing participants cover the same ground in another location. I get the sense you're trying to control this discussion, and it isn't helpful. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

This is not the first time a brand-new single-purpose account has showed up to that article seeking to insert the same disputed material. It has been hashed over several times. If this editor is seeking to form a new consensus that the material is suitable, it is disingenuous to intentionally omit from the discussion editors who have experience with the material. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

There actually aren't "several independent sources" here. You have a primary source (an article by an involved person), an unreliable secondary source (anonymous blog) and a maybe-reliable science blog which does nothing more with the story than post a link to the aforementioned unreliable secondary source. "Elitesecurity.org" is a web forum and obviously not a reliable source. Your other questions are entirely hypothetical and I decline to answer invented hypotheticals other than to say that yes, if there was an article in The New York Times expressly discussing these allegations, then yes, it would belong in the biography. But that's not the case. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• From a first look, I'd say that the source by Iorio justifies some coverage of this incident. Editors should stick to good quality sources -- but it's apparent that there is at least one. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The existing talk page consensus is that there are no reliable secondary sources covering the issue. The Discover Magazine blog is anonymous, and therefore by definition not capable of being a reliable source for negative material about a living person. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • User 56OKLO34 is forum shopping. This should be settled matter by now. Cwobeel (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
    • What rubbish. Another complaint about an editor raising at BLPN a question about a BLP, after having raised it at the talk page but at no other venue. What exactly is your problem with this? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• Alex S. Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Most of the information contained in this article is untrue. And other parts of things credited to him that were done by other people. I highly suggest that you take this page down completely. It contains a lot of false information, plagiarism and exaggeration of facts. It deliberately uses sources that are no longer in business so that they cannot be verified . My source is that I wrote it because he asked me to. And I am sure that you can verify this through the IT number of mine or my son's computer. Charie D. La Marr — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.54.7 (talk) 00:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Sources used in articles should be published reliable sources. Using information directly from the subject violates any number of policies: WP:Primary sources, WP:No original research, WP:Conflict of interest (because you're writing at the subject's request), etc. —C.Fred (talk) 01:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• Right Sector (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Evidence from Ukraine suggests that re-publishing this material (diff) could perhaps harm some members’ lives:

"Other founding groups included the neo-Nazi (or neo-fascist) organizations Patriot of U—— and the Social-National A——."

Restoring the material would go against the response (Oppose 6–3) to the pertinent RfC: Should we say in the lead say that group members are neofascist?.

Only a single verified source has been cited for each allegation. Two of the four sources cited failed verification. WP:PUBLICFIGURE

None of the larger (non-Russian) mainstream publications make these allegations. Nor does the German, Russian, or Ukrainian Knowledge. WP:UNDUE

Several group members have asked editors to remove the material. Two examples: Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2014 and The main characteristic of the Right Sector is incorrect.

"Companies are, at the end of the day, just *groups of people*. And there are very strong BLP considerations for groups of people…." User talk:Jimbo Wales#Legal persons and BLP.

According to Reuters, the subject group believes that Knowledge’s depicting it as having fascist and neo-Nazi views is producing unspecified "appropriate consequences." --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC) 10:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Normally I'm very unsympathetic to BLPGROUP arguments (it gives organisations too much power to spin themselves, regardless of what academic research might produce) -- but in this case there are plenty of good reasons not to characterise Right Sector this way. Mainly, because this characterisation is not used in a wide range of reliable sources. It is virtually absent from Google Scholar search results -- and the main result where it can be found comes from something called the Centre for Research on Globalization (have a look at that link to see where it leads). As a simple matter of WP:V, I think the assertion should not be included. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• Joshua Rogers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Revdel requested of these two edits by Sixxfeetundr, clearly a violation of WP:BLP as it posts alleged personal information including residence address of subject and family members and phone numbers. Dwpaul 02:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done Personal information was revdel'd and oversighted. --j⚛e decker 04:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

This article uses Christopher Jafferlot as a resource who might not be unbiased. Please see the following article: http://www.firstpost.com/politics/debunking-the-facts-on-narendra-modi-and-muslims-1218661.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnathanjacobs (talk • contribs) 14:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Christophe Jaffrelot vs. "Asifa Khan is a member of the Gujarat BJP, and Zafar Sareshwala is a Gujarati businessman who opened a dialogue with Modi to improve the lot of Muslims in Gujarat" Hmmm.... --NeilN 14:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Article omits negative facts and issues — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.99.29.18 (talk) 05:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• Ruby Andrews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Ruby Andrews attempting to edit what is apparently an article about herself, and ignoring all advice about formatting and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. It is inherently unlikely that she had a hit record at age 11 - but, she has been asked to discuss that and other changes, without any effect. Advice welcome. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Material cited to Foreign Affairs, the Washington Post, and the Guardian is being repeatedly removed from this article on BLP grounds. (diff) It describes Nuland's husband Robert Kagan as being "regarded as a leading neo-conservative." Oddly, the same description with the same sources appears in Kagan's own BLP, where it is not being challenged. Are the cited sources too weak to support the text in question? Joe Bodacious (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Only one of those three references mentions Nuland in any manner: "A neocon by any other name" in The Observer, published by The Guardian. I would support telling the reader that Kagan is Nuland's husband, and that he is a leading neocon. Binksternet (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

@Binksternet:Here is a link to aother, more recent article by William Pfaff discussing both Nuland and Kagan with respect to Ukraine, neoconservatism in the Obama administration, etc.What Ukraine really needs.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 17:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be all kind of wrongs with that article. The Multiple versions of the phone recording section is a Original Research mess. There are all kind of interpretations of what she said and what happened with very little sources, mostly just the tapes itself. Iselilja (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this: the same editor has now deleted that material from Robert Kagan as well, claiming BLP violation (diff), so we should probably broaden this discussion to include that article as well. Joe Bodacious (talk) 00:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Both articles have serious problems. In terms of describing Kagan as "neo-conservatism" (and then going off on a long WP:UNDUE tangent about it), the first source Foreign Affairs, doesn't really support it. It says he's sometimes regarded that way but that a different description is more accurate. And this is pretty much the only BLP-standard source. The Guardian and the WP articles are opinion pieces which aren't sufficient for a BLP. This is especially so since apparently Kagan does not see himself that way. If there are some academic or scholarly sources on this, that'd be different.

The rest of that paragraph is just WP:UNDUE, even IF this wasn't a BLP with a bit of sneaky WP:SYNTH thrown in to try and imply certain things to the reader.

For Nuland's article, Binksternet gets right to the additional point - those sources aren't even about the subject of the BLP. And the article has way too much OR in it, though the one being presently disputed (I thought about doing something about it, but don't even know where to start).Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to think of some examples here where a critic of a public figure characterizes that figure in a reliable source, but the public figure does not see himself that way, so Knowledge removes the criticism. Does this happen often? Joe Bodacious (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that happens frequently. Just because one critic calls a person a "meanie", even in a reliable source, does not require that Knowledge reports that so-and-so is a "meanie". We need much more than one critic's opinion to include any contentious characterizations. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you show me one example? There are multiple RS (five refcites now?) describing Kagan as a neoconservative, founder of the PNAC, "well-known right-wing publicist", etc. Obviously WP:PUBLICFIGURE applies to Kagan and Nuland.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 15:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• Agree with the "Whitewashing" characterization. There is no basis for blanking an entire section with the types of edit summaries being left on the Nuland article. Here is a link to a recent article by William Pfaff discussing both Nuland and Kagan with respect to Ukraine, neoconservatism in the Obama administration, etc.What Ukraine really needs. This seems like outright censorship, though I'm not familiar with the BLP policy, so this is a good place to start. The phone conversation is evidence of US State Dept. meddling in the affairs of a foreign country, practically starting a war, obviously this is something that Knowledge should be providing the reading public reliably sourced information about.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 13:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a relevant Talk page thread here Talk:Victoria_Nuland#BLP_restart.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 16:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• Another source for Kagan as "leading neoconservative foreign voice" Note that I noticed that this news article RS A conservative split aids Obama on Egypt, Washington Post was deleted from the Nuland article, and I haven't checked to see if it was in the Kagan article. The text reads

  Robert Kagan, one of the leading neoconservative foreign voices, has been in the forefront of those arguing that the United States needed to be more prepared for a democratic rebellion in Egypt, and he was among the specialists brought to the White House this week for a discussion of the next steps on Egypt.

  Note that it seems that the author meant to write "foreign policy voice".--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 23:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Is he regarded as a neoconservative by neoconservatives and people sympathetic to them, or by their opponents?

I'm fairly certain there are plenty of people who consider Obama a radical leftist or George Bush to have been a fascist. Ken Arromdee (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't follow the point of your question vis-a-vis Wikpedia policy? Reliable sources consider him a neoconservative, and it is basically not our job to question the motivations of each source, but to present NPOV content reflecting all relevant reliably published statements.

The only source that doesn't consider him a neoconservative is the primary source quote by himself referring to himself as a "realist".--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 07:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:LABEL requires that contentious labels be *widely* used in reliable sources. If the label is used only by someone's opponents, even if they are reliable sources, that is not wide use. Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

What criteria do you basis your evaluation of "widely" on? You have no basis to characterize the WP:RS cited as being written by opponents, and I don't see where there is any provision for such a rationale in policy, either. Can you cite the text of the policy statement related to "opponents"? You also appear to be making arbitrary statements with almost no basis in policy. The application of WP:LABEL with respect to the term "neoconservative" is questionable, even though the public figure doesn't like it.

The view that Kagan is a neoconservative appears to be the mainstream view on all accounts in WP:SECONDARY sources, though a discussion on the degree of attribution, etc. maybe blockquotes from the Foreign Affairs piece are open to discussion.

Is that a variation of "I didn't take it, and besides I returned it in perfect condition"?

If it's really the mainstream view in all secondary sources, then the label is not just used by opponents, and there is no need for you to argue that it's okay for the label to only be used by opponents.

Of course, if it's really the mainstream view in all secondary sources, you ought to be able to show some supporters who call him that. If you can't find them, then it's not the mainstream view in all secondary sources, after all. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

BLPs require high quality sources for these kinds of claims. That means scholarly or academic works, or at least NON-editorials and NON-opinion pieces. As far as just labeling him as neoconservative - I'm of two minds on that, that might be supportable (though not by the source being used) although it should also be noted that he rejects the designation. But the edit under discussion also has a whole bunch of other irrelevant crap in it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

What "irrelevant crap"? Stop using crude language and be specific about what you are supposedly objecting to in the text on a policy-based basis.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 15:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The crap that starts with " In a tongue-in-cheek article published ...". I mean, that phrasing right there is a huge big red flag flapping loudly in a wind that this stuff doesn't belong in a BLP.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

You haven't answered the question, because there is nothing (never has been) in the relevant text that could remotely be construed in that manner. I posted the presently (reverted) version as well as a version from 2 years ago in the An/I thread, which are

Kagan has been described as a neoconservative foreign-policy theorist, although Kagan has adamantly rejected being labeled as a "neoconservative". https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Robert_Kagan&oldid=491718396]

and

Because of his association with PNAC and his early endorsement of the Iraq War, Kagan is widely considered a neoconservativeforeign-policy theorist. Kagan rejects that label, however, now preferring to call himself a realist.

Furthermore, the Foreign Affairs piece is a bonafide secondary source, encompassing a review of Kagan's writings placed in the context of his career.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 16:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

From AN/I: This likely only belongs at WP:BLP/N but critiques that a person is not what he says he is are a tad contentious, and this material places excessive reliance on editorial columns. The essence is "He is a neocon, though he denies it. He admits his friends are Straussians, though he denies being one. He said a person who denies being something, is one." The section is a mass of contradictory of "Everyone says and he denies" argumentation which, if it belongs in the BLP, needs massive attribution of the opinions, and should not be laid out in "He is A but denies it" style. When we use opinion sources (and there is no doubt the sources are reliable per WP:RS, but are opinion columns), we must label the opinions as opinions, and not use a debate style to make any argument in Knowledge's voice. (Some of the sources may not be "opinion pieces" but I did not vet every source used - the issue about using counterpoint in a BLP is true in any event) Collect (talk) 11:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• Some of the sources are not opinion sources and are high-quality sources for the purpose of conveying a widely held view regarding his orientation (neo-conservative). The only real issue I see is use of the word "however"; this can be eliminated with no loss of meaning. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Which ones? The Foreign Affairs source, which is the only originally used non-opinion source, doesn't even say what the text claims it says. Also, like I've pointed out several times, this isn't just about the designation of Kagan as "neoconservative" but all the other junk that Ubikwit and Joe Bodacious are restoring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

This one, for example. Any quibbles on that one? It's also worth noting that the sources being used for his preference re "realist" are -- wait for it -- opinion columns. Do we have any reliable sources for this? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

AFAICT, the Foreign Affairs is not an opinion piece. Regardless, if it was, that would just mean that we can't put either the "realist" or the "neoconservative" label in'ere.

And yes, I got quibbles with the Guardian source. It's an opinion piece.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It's nothing of the sort -- it's a "World News" article (look in the banner (News -->World News -->United States). Opinion pieces show up under Comment. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

What are your contentions in relation to the Foreig Affairs article based on? Please cite specific passages. Otherwise we can't discuss the relevant passages. If you don't, it may be construed that you have misrepresented the source, especially if I have to post more passages that problematize the assertion that the term "neoconservative" doesn't apply under Knowledge policy. Moreover, the Foreign Affairs piece fully supports the opening of the first sentence of the text you've been reverting today, particularly with respect to PNAC and the Iraq war. So that couldn't possible be the "crap" to which you have repeatedly referred.

And that is besides the google searching that is referred to below, which I gather you don't dispute, correct?--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 16:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

And let me point out, for the umpteenth time (it's getting old), that at issue is not just the label "neoconservative" but all the other junk that Ubikwit is restoring. Care to comment on that? Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

A google scholar search on the term "neoconservative Robert Kagan" gives a good range of results in which this term is used -- more than enough for "widely". Note that this is a rather restrictive search; with other search strings there would be a much larger list of results. This sort of thing would be much more productive (for both main parties to the dispute). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Funny, I was just looking for same thing on google books and thinking "why do *I* have to do this?" - so thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The Foreign Affairs piece should settle this matter; it strikes me that VM is being tendentious about this. It doesn't matter if the subject prefers the term "hot chihuahua interpretation analyst" — if an ultra-mainstream source like FA uses "neo-conservative," for our purposes the term is "neo-conservative." Carrite (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Carrite, it would help matters if you actually bothered reading a discussion before blessing us all with your opinion. It would also help matters if you actually read the source before you made claims about what's in it. That's how responsible editing works.

So first, the problem with the Foreign Affairs piece is that the whole point of it is that "neo-conservative" is NOT a good description for Kagan, but rather the term "realist" is. That's a funny way to source the fact that someone is a "neo-conservative".

Second, if I am being "tendentious" why the hey do you think I just gave three - actually reliable and scholarly - source for this view that I am supposedly tendentiously opposing? Did you bother clicking on them? The point is that if you're going to put in "Kagan is a neo-conservative" into the article, a BLP, you need high quality sources. And I just provided those.

Third, the main problem with the edit - which I pointed out half a dozen times, so the fact that you somehow managed to miss it says a lot - is not actually the whole "neo-conservative" label, but rather a whole bunch of extra junk that is being tacked on afterwards, based on a "tongue-in-cheek interview".

Next time read and think first, then comment. Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

VM, you are misrepresenting the Foreign Affairs source, as anyone that has read it would readily understand, I hope this isn't a pattern with you.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 21:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

"Yet in this latest rumination on international politics, Kagan largely eschews neoconservative theology and instead sounds themes reminiscent of the great American realists Hans Morgenthau and Reinhold Niebuhr. Kagan once professed to believe that "there is something about realism that runs directly counter to the fundamental principles of American society." But now he deploys realist principles to explain the world.".

Cut it out with the thinly veiled bullshit accusations. See WP:ASPERSIONS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Right. I'll leave it to someone else who has read the article to respond to that.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 22:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Sorry to have to bring it up again, Ubikwit, but posting to two noticeboards simultaneously regarding the same matter reads as hedging your bets. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Apples and oranges. See my reply, here.

More specifically, this revert claimed that "VoR is not reliable" as part of its basis for removing the specific text addressed at RS/N related to the statement of a PM. There was no BLP related rationale for dismissing that text, just a blanket assertion that it is not reliable.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 08:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I've had a bit of a look at the sources, and it seems to me that while Kagan denies being a neocon, there are plenty of reliable sources that characterise him as such (for instance, this one refers to "neoconservatives such as Kagan" and "Kagan the unrepentant neoconservative". It would indeed be a BLP problem to state that Kagan is a neocon if he explicitly does not identify in that way, but I don't think it's unreasonable to mention that such-and-such-reliable-source describes him as such. Lankiveil 01:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC).

Limits of using Google Scholar -- it finds lots of en passant mentions. And en passant mentions are not worth much at all. This is a good case where categorization of a person which is contested by the person is likely something which must be ascribed as opinion. By the way, "Voice of Russia" is not generally recognized as a "reliable source" on Knowledge for claims about living persons -- I have no idea why anyone would assert it meets WP:RS for WP:BLP claims at all. BLPs are not a great place for extensive political discussions for which better articles are available. Oh, and by the way, book reviews are "opinion pieces" and not factual reportage. FA is RS for opinions properly ascribed as opinion - but it is not a source for opinions to be ascribed as fact in Knowledge's voice. Such bits as To be fair, neoconservatives did not concoct the war; it was George W. Bush who chose to invade Iraq, and the chief responsibility for all that has ensued since is his. are pretty clearly "opinion" as is the entire review -- because that is what book reviews are. I am sure that real sources can be found - we can easily say "The NYT has called him a neoconservative" as a fact (many non book reviews) - it is what would be reasonable wording, but we ought to reserve Knowledge's voice for verifiable facts qua facts. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

That response embodies a somewhat pedantic review of the FA article, first of all, because it is not simply a "book review". The article specifically rebuts the claim that Kagan is a realist by examining his writings aginst the context of his career and the impact on public policy thereof as well as the historical development of political "realism" and "neoconservatism".

Second, there is nothing in the BLP policy that excludes "opinion pieces" from use in BLPs, especially when they are written by experts that also happen to be syndicated columnists, like Paul Krugman, and in this case, William Pfaff. We went through this to a fair extent during the arbitration on Austrian School Economics, in particular, with regard to the use of Krugman in the Robert P. Murphy BLP article.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 12:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

@Ubikwit: No, in this instance it is definitely not apples and oranges. See my reply here. Let's just call it a case of wanting to have your cake and eat it, too. Being aware of the context of this discussion, this is being used as an endgame. Promoting a pawn by advancing it to the eighth rank for a BLP is tendentious. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, I don't appreciate the tone of your assertions and insinuations. What exactly is it that you mean to say? In plain English, please. This is not a game, and you are wasting time with such incomprehensible nonsense. What are you referring to as a pawn, for instance? The Russian PM Medvedev? Or maybe you mean VoR? You, too, seem to be intent on dismissing VoR, but in your case with recourse to BLP. That opens a new chapter as far as I'm concerned, but we can go there. Remember, WP:NOTBATTLE.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 02:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

@Ubikwit: "The tone ... incomprehensible nonsense." (sic). You are well aware of the fact that I am not talking in riddles, as evidenced by your response on RS/N: I don't really get the allusions to an "end game" here, but this is of course related to the Ukraine crisis, just from another angle... I'd be equally tempted to remind you of WP:BATTLEGROUND after the WP:COI comment you've just left on my talk page. The arguments you are proposing on both noticeboards read as a desire to conflate all manner of sources, rather than treat them issues to be dealt with per context per article, in order to reach what I understand to be creating journalistic articles (or WP:GAME / WP:SOAP objective per example 1 + example 2). As with VM, you're not merely trying to introduce a couple of sources, it's "all the other stuff" you're creating by stringing sources together that go far beyond a BLP. I'm not exactly thrilled by your tone, either, and I believe that, if had hadn't already made myself clear in plain English before, I have now. If you're intent of bandying around accusations of COI, be wary of who the shoe actually fits. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

First of all, don't falsely accuse me of "bandying about accusations of COI". It is appropriate practice to ask a user on their user page if they may have a COI, and I have not even suggested that you do anywhere, let alone "bandied about". You have been speaking in cryptic terms wasting editors' time here with your "end game". And now you come clean with what it is that's bothering you: "the Ukaraine issue". And then you come back with another somewhat cryptic and absolutely baseless assertion against me regarding COI, which is somewhat exasperating, frankly. That is not acceptable practice, and verges on being a personal attack. If you are not a native speaker of English, please stick to the basics, and don't make unfounded grandiose allusions that can be construed to embody negative commentary on other editors.

The source at RS/N was not "introduced" by me, it was deleted on highly suspect grounds with the blanket dismisall VoR not reliable, but I've already pointed that out to you. It is clearly an issue within the remit of the RS/N noticeboard, but since its scope has been expanded only by two participants at RS/N opposed to its use, I don't mind discussion the BLP related assertions. To that extent, I have introduced some sources as yet unused on the Nuland article that say the same thing, basically, but don't quote the Russian Prime Minister. In the Nuland article we have German Chancellor Angela Merkel and president of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy weighing in on a separate single remark, but people have a problem with an comment attributed comment by the Russian PM? Since you have dragged the material into this thread, you are compelling me to address the matters that should be addressed in the other thread. If an ADMIN would take a look at the situation, maybe the RS/N thread could be tagged onto the end of this thread as a subdiscussion.

Corroborating sources (from RS/N thread):

1. She made clear the United States supported the protesters’ fight
   "The insinuation that the United States incited the people of Ukraine to riot or rebel is patently false," said Nicole Thompson, a State Department spokeswoman.
2. Western Diplomats Are Going to Disappoint Ukraine’s Protesters, Time Magazine, Deceber 13, 2013

   The hand of U.S. diplomacy swept down over Ukraine this week with an odd bit of American largesse — a plastic bag of bread. Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, bore the bag on Wednesday into the crowd of protesters camped out in the middle of the capital, Kiev. As her circle of bodyguards parted, Nuland held it out to an elderly demonstrator in a big blue parka. “Good to see you!” the diplomat chirped. “We’re here from America. Would you like some bread?” Smiling politely, the woman demurred, took a step backward and waved the generosity away.

3. 
   
4. video
   
5. first encounter with this site
   --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 10:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

連絡 , in the first instance, do you have any concept of what walls of text are? If not, please take a look at both this section on the noticeboard and the section on the RS/N. Take a look at the comments by others involved, then take a look at your own. In the second instance, I've yet to see anyone who hasn't encountered another contributor before leaving a comment actually invoking the term WP:COI. You should read their user page and familiarise yourself with their contributions in order to establish whether or not it suggests certain editing patterns. Thirdly, don't just look at one user box: if you'd bothered to look at a couple more of my user boxes, you may have noted that I'm a native speaker of English. Rather than spend your time writing vast tracts of 'evidence' in your favour, perhaps you should have the courtesy to actually attempt to pay attention to others. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:LABEL says don't apply a label in Knowledge's voice -- it should have an in-line attribution. The text in both articles said simply that Kagan is "regarded" as a neoconservative, and since the cited sources, Foreign Affairs, the Washington Post, and the Guardian are influential opinion shapers, I think that this is ample evidence that Kagan is "regarded" as such. I think the problem could be easily settled by an in-line attribution, saying "Kagan is regarded by publications such as Foreign Affairs, the Washington Post, and the Guardian as a leading neoconservative." And it is certainly worthy of inclusion in the Nuland article, since it is somewhat remarkable that Nuland turns up in an administration that most people expected to pursue a different policy than its predecessor. Here's a secondary source for that: Joe Bodacious (talk) 16:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

You'd have to find far more substantial sources than just Nicolas Davies writing for AlterNet, Joe Bodacious. AlterNet is, essentially, a blog. Nicolas Davies is an author, self-promoted journalist and not a recognised scholar. Kagan is one thing; trying to pin Nuland into the picture using spurious sources is seriously WP:TE, particularly when dealing with BLPs. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Gosh, I thought the fact that the article appeared in Salon.com might give it a slightly elevated status. Keep in mind that what this whole debate is about is whether Kagan and Nuland were "regarded" as neocons. There's also a book entitled The Fall of the House of Bush, written by Craig Unger and published by Simon & Schuster, which refers to Kagan as a "highly visible neocon activist/writer," and mentions also "his neocon wife, Victoria Nuland." Joe Bodacious (talk) 14:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

That looks like one RS, I don't know if we are at "Widely" yet with respect to characterizing Nuland as a "neoconservative", too, but this would appear to be one rS supporting such a characterization. I note that the sources is from 2007, quite a bit ahead of its time, and not based on recent events in Ukraine.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 15:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Being Dick Cheney's top security advisor ought to be enough to establish her neocon-ness (provided, of course, that secondary sources say so.) Joe Bodacious (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

No doubt. I totally agree that she is a neocon. I just don't have the time to search for sources. I am probaly more interested in the bag lady bread distributing incident time magazine describes as an "unusual display of US largess" or words to that effect. there are many sources on that and not a single mention in the article.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 21:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no doubt that both of them are neocons... however, this is Knowledge and WP:RS is determined by principles other than the ones you're looking at. Take a little peak at this and explain to me how Salon.com or 'popular' political reads can be interpreted as being essentially anything more than equivalent to tabloid journalism (and that includes being published and having an article about you in Knowledge: all it requires is passing the WP:GNG litmus test). That does not account for reliable sources. Get your noses out of making snarky remarks and try to find some quality research and publications. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I did take a peak at this and if that were the standard for BLPs, it would have a totally revolutionary impact on Knowledge, which I think might well be a good thing. I have seen plenty of BLP articles that featured allegations, by political opponents of the subject, which were a lot more damaging than being called a mere "neoconservative." This may be worthy of a separate discussion at WT:BLP. Joe Bodacious (talk) 10:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we should let this thread die a natural death on this board, Joe Bodacious. If you wish to continue the discussion, you're welcome to bring it to my user page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

This is going to need some more eyes. At first glance it appears to be ripe for deletion under BLPCRIME. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I assume you refer to the crime-related information that several editors insist on adding (e.g. here here here here). Judging from the article, Ben Levin is "relatively unknown" and nothing has been proved in court, which must mean you're right. Incidentally the article's frequent additions and reversions about an alleged crime have attracted attention of bloggers. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 04:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I’ve just added some myself. Helpful material from LPI:

High-profile. Has given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication as a self-described "expert"... Has voluntarily participated in self-publicity activities such as book signings... Has appeared as a featured speaker for an event which garnered significant non-local coverage... Has sought or holds a position of authority in a field of research... Was engaged in high-profile activity as a lifelong endeavor, but is now attempting to be low-profile.

--Dervorguilla (talk) 05:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Have to agree with Dervorguilla here... this isn't a one-shot flash in the pan news item, it's someone notable for significant public activities (including high government office) who's been charged with an unrelated crime. Hard to see how we could omit mention, given the volume and significance of RS coverage. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

LPI is an essay about "high profile" with particular mention of WP:BLP1E. BLPCRIME is a policy about "relatively unknown". Apparently some of us think that Levin is well known (perhaps they could easily name a bunch of former provincial deputy ministers?), but it could be hard to get a consensus about that. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a big controversy in Ontario where it is alleged he had a hand in creating very controversial sex education policy that was pulled by the government at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.200.63 (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The article would be pretty incomplete without this important information about this public figure. The information is well sourced. His notoriety is probably as great in his region as US senators or state attorney generals. Poodleboy (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

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

More eyes please. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Pretty please, BLP expertise urgently required.--ukexpat (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Ukexpat: why are you writing here, rather than on the Ben Levin discussion started by TrPoD on May 22? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Because until recently that discussion wasn't seeing much participation and I was trying to attract fresh eyes to the issue. Happy for it to continue up there.--ukexpat (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Should we create redirects for victims of crimes, in cases where the victim is not likely to be notable? Or should it only be for perpetrators of crimes? example - we have Elliot Rodger (the killer) but not George Chen (one of the victims). This actually makes sense to me, but I'm trying to figure out the general rule.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:POFRED. Basically make a redirect if you think it's likely that people will need it. Will other articles be writing about George Chen and need to place a link? Will people be searching for George Chen who won't already have searched for Elliot Rodger or the killings? Don't make it if it won't be used. --GRuban (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)