Resolved

 – Article semi-protected for one week

• Pinarayi Vijayan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - An article with wild POV swings. Deleted a piece of libelous writing // Weblogan | Talk

I'd say this needs s-protection. The anon IPs re-adding dubiously-sourced content are not responding to Weblogan's repeated concerns aired on the talkpage. Relata refero (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

• Cobaincase (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This user is rather insistent on adding material from what may be his/her own (given the username) website cobaincase.com to the Love article. cobaincase.com is a repository of "evidence" that Kurt Cobain's suicide really was not. // Tarc (talk) 13:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

the same user has returned after his 24hr block and made the same edits to Courtney Love. He has also made new entries pushing his agenda; Love and Death: The Murder of Kurt Cobain. Chickpeaface (talk) 23:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't this fall under an easy spamming/COI matter? • Lawrence Cohen 23:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No need to waste time here. This user is headed for a swift boot. If the behaviour continues, let me know and I'll do the necessary myself.--Doc^g 23:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Why wait? This user has a history of nothing but these types of edits, and obviously is only here to push this agenda, at least under this user name. - Crockspot (talk) 03:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

On review, I have banned the user.--Doc^g 08:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Easy on the trigger finger there. Isn't there some discussion or approval process before issuing a ban? I see no valid warnings here and little or no misbehavior, just newbie-biting that lies somewhere between WP:BLP enforcement and WP:OWN. I would have made these comments on the talk page but that's now edit protected so I'll give a case history below.Wikidemo (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Cobaincase, a brand new user, came to Wikipedia during a period of chaotic editing of the Love article, including serious unsourced nonsense and incivility by anon IPs.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. This one stands out: "you are one sick fuck. get a life."[6] Cobaincase's contributions were, by comparison, utterly benign. His first act here was to add a couple citation links[7] to a seemingly unreliable website justiceforkurt.com to a section already in place regarding a theory that Love's former husband Kurt Cobain had been murdered. In response User:Chickpeaface, a near WP:SPA who has done little on WIkipedia but edit the Courtney Love article and issue warnings to other editors [8], reverted the edits and gave vandalism warnings to Cobaincase[9] and an anonymous IP[10]. The warning was clearly wrong. Whatever it is for a newbie to add a weak source to somebody else's BLP violation, it is not vandalism.

A full day later, after some intervening edits anonymous editors [11], Cobaincase added (and to some extent reversed reversions of) material about the murder theory and Love's inheritance of Cobain's fortune, cited to several sources [12]. Chickpeaface gave another incorrect vandalism warning[13]. After yet more nonsense form anon users [14] User:Reaper X, a fairly prolific editor with some history of constructive edits to the article, reverted various editors' contributions en masse, correctly citing WP:V issues due to unreliable sources, and NPOV concerns over the attempt to discredit Love (he could have cited BLP as well but did not).[15] Reaper X got into a brief edit war with an anonymous IP. About fifteen hours after his last edit Cobaincase restored the portion of his addition that was deleted by Reaper X's revert.[16]. Chickpeaface gave a third and "final" incorrect vandalism warning.[17] and Reaper X gave a fairly reasonable but incorrect warning that any further edit would violate 3RR[18] (in fact he was on 2RR). A few hours later [User:MastCell] semi-protected the article, which seemed to quiet some of the contentious editing.[19] There were only a few edits, mostly minor, over the next week.[20]

About a week later Cobaincase added a linking from Love article to the suicide controversy section of the Cobain article, and refactored a small amount of unsourced material to be more encyclopedic in tone [21]. Chickpeaface issued yet another warning, this time accusing Cobaincase of adding unsourced derogatory information in violation of BLP. The warning would have been apt for the edits a week ago but not for these new edits, which were not derogatory and did not add material.[22] User:Tarc, a long-time contributor to the article, reverted, making the dubious statement that adding the link was endorsing a "tinfoil hat conspiracy theory". [23]. Two days later Cobaincase restored his edit.[24] With his edits still in place, Cobaincase participated in a discussion on the talk page about the appropriateness of the edits.[25]. A few hours later Tarc opened this case with the false claim that Cobaincase was repeatedly adding material from cobaincase.com (he was adding no material and it had been over a week since he added any material or linked to an external site at all. Hours after that User:Coren issued a 24-hour block citing the incorrect information provided by Tarc.[26] (the block was also questionable because blocks are supposed to be to prevent ongoing misbehavior - it had been many hours, the evidence and cited reasons were all wrong, there had been no legitimate warnings, any dispute was then at 2RR, and the parties were talking on the talk page at the time).

Starting before and continuing after the block Cobaincase did exactly what he was told to do, started adding sourced information to Wikipedia. He created three new articles, one for a New York Times bestselling book in which some prominent investigative reporters had questioned the official accounts of suicide, and one for each of the authors of that book.(see Love and Death: The Murder of Kurt Cobain, Max Wallace, Ian Halperin). Nevertheless, editors from the Love article attacked his edits. Chickpeaface questioned the notability of one author[27] and Coren, the blocking administrator, inexplicably reverted some edits and removed sourced content and links, accusing Cobaincase of vandalizing two of his own articles.[28] [29] With the other articles in place Cobaincase then linked to them and mentioned the book [30]. Chickpeaface issued yet another bad vandalism warning[31]. Coren added yet another inapt warning to Cobaincase's talk page, this time an "only warning" accusing him of adding "spam links"[32] (in fact, the external links were to a book by the subject of the article).

At that point user:Doc glasgow banned Cobaincase [33] and deleted the discussion from the Courtney Love talk page[34]. Cobaincase reposted the discussion on his own talk page, along with some uncivil comments apparently directed at Doc glasgow.[35], which Doc glasgow later deleted before protecting the page.

The problem, as detailed above, is that Cobaincase was never warned. Every single one of the warnings he got, as mentioned above, was either inappropriate entirely or cited incorrect reasons and thereby gave him no notice how he should improve his edits. Both his block and his ban were based on faulty information and incorrect application of policy. Cobaincase clearly seems to have issues. His only interest on Wikipedia seems to be theories questioning whether Cobain's death was a suicide. Once banned for life from Wikipedia he responded with incivility. But none of that, even if he was warned, comes anywhere near to justifying lifetime ban from the project. Although the material he adds may look like a conspiracy theory, it is the subject of several bestselling books by otherwise reputable journalists, and has been the subject of major coverage. But for the connection with Courtney Love and the fact that she is still alive, these would be the subject of valid coverage on Wikipedia. The existence and prevalence of these theories, and actions of the participants, is all sourced or sourceable to significant coverage in major independent reliable sources. They are extensively covered elsewhere on Wikipedia, in fact. The only problem is connecting them with Courtney Love, who has never been a official suspect in his death. A controversial, and troubled, public figure, she is nevertheless entitled by Wikipedia policy not to have hints or accusations of murder on her biography article unless some threshold of reliable sourcing is reached. A far better situation under the circumstances, if the concern is that Cobaincase is a single purpose account set up to defame Courtney Love, is to simply insist that he not do so. He should have been blocked under the usual escalating discipline policy, and ultimately if he would not stop adding the theory to her page, told that he may only edit on Wikipedia if he refrains from editing her article. Wikidemo (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh get a grip. Wikipedia isn't therapy. This user was here just to push a pov on a BLP. They were warned repeatedly. Nothing at all useful came from the account. We need to start putting the interests of the subjects of biographies (and indeed those of good editors) before wikilawyering about the right to due process for people who have contributed nothing useful at all. Now, sure we can wait until this user has caused more disruption and possibly chased away good editors, and then we can ban them - or we can use common sense. As for 'life ban' - that's over-dramatic twaddle. I indef blocked an account with no useful contributions - if the users wishes to create a new one and begin useful editing, there is nothing to stop them.--Doc^g 14:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That comment, telling me to "get a grip", calling my comment "twaddle", and the summary "rubbish", following your questionable actions in banning a user, are not becoming of an administrator acting in official capacity. You should consider refactoring. Process is important because without following procedures "common sense" leads some of our 1,400 admins to obstruct constructive editors or even go rogue in the name of the project. You have the tools. Please use them carefully. You're flat wrong in claiming no useful contributions. There are three new articles from the user. My understanding is that a banned editor is not free to create new alternate accounts. Am I wrong? Wikidemo (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the warnings in this case were less-than-ideal, but this user does indeed seem to be an SPA. Do you propose a topic ban for Courtney Love instead? Given this user's history, I doubt they could abide with such a topic ban. Even when editing own talk page, user pushes this conspiracy theory; there's no reason that user wouldn't defame Love in any number of other articles and talk pages. Not worth the overhead, in my opinion. Keep 'em blocked. Cool Hand Luke 14:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow. This user has regularly pushed two websites in talk page discussions, cobaincase.com and justiceforjurt.com, using the latter in the actual article. As far as I am concerned, the two sites are no different as this user name-dropped them both frequently. So if we wish to be technically correct, then we may substitute the latter site in place of the former in my original BLP posting. Wikidemo's assertion of a "false claim" though is highly disingenuous. Tarc (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Civility in WP:AGF and a little humility, please. You made a seriously inaccurate claim in bringing this case and the user you complained about was blocked based on that. I show by cite to the record that despite your statement that he was promoting his website, he had never linked to that website and it had been ten days since he linked to the other one, which is clearly a different site owned by a different person. Feel free to show me if I am wrong. Wikidemo (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Calling you out for making nitpicking, meritless criticisms of my BLP report is not uncivil. That this user actually used one unreliable website instead of a different unreliable website within the article itself really has no bearing on this serious and persistent violations of policies regarding living persons. Article talk pages are subject to the same BLP policies as well, and this user frequently cited cobaincase.com there in his attempt to defame/slander the subject. So either way on this, you are quite wrong. Tarc (talk) 16:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Just what I thought. Unless you want to continue claiming black is white, accusing someone of a serious violation they did not commit is more than a nitpick, and turning the attack on me by calling me "disingenuous" is uncivil. Please try to do better. Wikidemo (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The user committed BLP violations by citing justiceforkurt.com in the article.

The user committed BLP violations by citing cobancase.com in the article's talk page.

The user continued to commit BLP violations after numerous warnings, discussion on the talk page, a 24-hour timeout, a BLP report opened and resolved, and finally resorted to vulgar invective towards an admin.

Warnings, a short block, input from un-involved users, etc... changed the user's behavior not one iota.

An indef solves it quite nicely. They are free to create another account with a fresh start, while this WP:SPA is frozen.

Q.E.D. Tarc (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think perhaps there is a misunderstanding of BLP here. You suggest that banning user from Love's article would be enough, but that's not true. BLP applies everywhere, even on talk pages, and user has done nothing but post this poorly-cited Love-centered conspiracy on every page sen bothered to edit. Even putting aside the possible COI issue and the user's history of incivility, there's plenty of grounds for this indefinite ban.

Editing is not a civil right. We're just trying to make an encyclopedia here, and this user—in short time—amply demonstrated that they do not share our goals whatsoever (BLP, NPOV). This SPA was an advocacy account plain and simple. Cool Hand Luke 17:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe I understand BLP pretty well. The Cobain conspiracy theories have been tolerated and treated as encyclopedic content elsewhere, but not in the Love article. That actually raises some interesting issues. Whether or not editing is a right, and whether this user potentially can be a productive editor or is allowed a right to start over with a new account, administrative actions ought to make sense and be based in policy. This one was sloppy, and if you are uncareful you will snare good editors with the bad. Wikidemo (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed this again, but I think my action was the most appropriate in the circumstances. I am confident that I am not "uncareful" enough to snare good editors. If I am, on that occasion, I'm sure someone will point that our.--Doc^g 18:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There was absolutely nothing at all sloppy about Doc's actions. He defended the encyclopedia by removing bogus conspiracy theories which libel and slander a living person, which had been repeatedly inserted by a POV-pushing single-purpose account in violation of Wikipedia policy and common sense. Ultimately, if an encyclopedia user cannot contribute in keeping with our policies, they're blocked. Doc should be applauded for taking this bold action, not nitpicked. FCYTravis (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, I can see why it looks like WP:OWNership of the Love article, but user's edits appear to have been outside of acceptable limits on every page they contributed to. I share FCYTravis' opinion. Cool Hand Luke 19:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like some people who know about these things to examine the following in light of WP:BLP and in the interests of neutrality and balance. Whilst this tinfoilhattery may merit mention, I'm not sure it merits this - I've already removed some weasel wording.

Please examine: Love and Death: The Murder of Kurt Cobain and Kurt Cobain#Suicide dispute and Tom Grant (private investigator)--Doc^g 19:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If this hadn't blown up so quickly I would have recommended that. Also the articles on the two authors of Love and Death (you can follow the links from that book). Notability and verifiability are clearly not the problem. It's clear there is a conspiracy theory and the theory itself is widespread and notable. But what to do when the defamatory claims people make against each other become an encyclopedic subject all their own? Perhaps one can cover the theory and simply excise any accusations against Love. Wikidemo (talk) 00:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I see the book article has been stubbed, which seems best. I would suggest the murder conspiracy theory about Kurt Cobain be moved to a separate article on the subject, and the mention in the main article limited to a subheading and a short paragraph plus link. At the very least it's got a weight / fringe problem. There's enough smoke there for the subject to be notable on its own, but a low-odds theory about a famous person's death shouldn't take up such a large part of the article. The article should focus on his life and work. Wikidemo (talk) 00:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't have time to do anything today, but I'd like to register my uneasiness with the idea of forking out the theory from Kurt Cobain. Yes, it does have too much space in the Cobain article, but the answer to that is to edit it down to the essentials. It seems noteworthy enough to merit a reasonable degree of coverage, but we don't need to go into as much detail. Think of the poor journalists whose book we might stop people buying! Xmas is coming and they need the money. Anyway, Kurt's death was a big deal, however he died. I'm not happy with the Grant article either right now, but that seems easier to fix. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – In AfD

• Article name (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Irrelevant person, personal page possibly made by friends for jokes/popularity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.150.155 (talk • contribs)

Separation of church and state in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Talk page thread

Revert war brewing over poorly sourced comments attributed to GHW Bush; most recently, an editor requested that I provide sources showing that the statements are poorly sourced. Would appreciate a second set of eyes. -- Vary | Talk 16:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, googling for a combo of George Bush and Robert Sherman turns up quote a few places where either the incident itself is mentioned or the attempts by atheist groups to get him to apologize in the incident's aftermath. All eventually go back to the original interview and an article written later on by Madalyn Murray O'Hair, a famous atheist advocate. May be more of an issue with primary sources and such, rather than a BLP concern. I know citing other wikis is frowned upon in articles, but I'd point out that this has also been touched upon at Bush's Sr.s Wikiquote entry, and has remained intact so far despite challenges on its veracity. Tarc (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the discussion was pretty clear against considering it a reliable quote; "attributed to" is a way of saying that somebody claimed that he said it. This is too weakly sourced.[36] Cool Hand Luke 17:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It certainly seems to be widely assumed that he said it. I find articles in the Austin American-Statesman and the Denver Post. Has an official denial been issued? If any statement has been made denying it or qualifying it, it should be included as well. Relata refero (talk) 11:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ilan Pappé (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Continued addition of extremely hostile, and potentially libellous, attacks by Steven Plaut, sourced to Think-Israel, an extreme right-wing, anti-Muslim. anti-Arab and anti-Israeli left propaganda site. The allegations in Plaut's attack can all be countered, but it is being argued that Plaut himself (a Professor of Business Studies) is "a scholar" and a reliable source, and therefore the comments must be allowed to remain. RolandR (talk) 01:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if we were to use these statements by Plaut (and an Israeli court found him guilty of libel), we'd not accept "Think-Israel" as a source since it tars the great majority of Muslims as extremist. Top of the Home-Page: "Judging by their behavior, Muslims are anti-West, anti-Democracy, anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, anti-Buddhist, and anti-Hindu. ... Doesn't this mean that extremist Islam is the norm and normal Islam is extremely rare?"

A second reason for labelling sites as worryingly unfit (the way the Daily Telegraph did to David Irving in 1969) is on grounds of "gross historical fabrication". Again on it's Home Page, Think-Israel makes statements such as: "Little has been said in print about what Israel will lose in the creation of a Palestinian state, carved out of territory that legitimately -- by international law -- belongs to Israel" which must be questionable even to their own government. PR^talk 14:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, this site has no respect for Israeli politicians either, as an offensive "joke" on their home page makes clear. The site is registered to Bernice Lipkin, of Bethesda Maryland; she, and her site, are so extreme that Oliver Kamm, a noted pro-Israel journalist, has written that "She is one friend Israel could do without." [37] We should certainly not reproduce the lies of Steven Plaut from a Kahanist hate site. RolandR (talk) 14:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Plaut's opinion is non-notable even without the BLP policy. The Le Soir quote might be notable, depending on who said it in what context, but we'd need a direct ref. —Ashley Y 22:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Should a Wikinews interview interviewing a third party, who accuses the subject of—among other things—two extra-marital affairs be in the body of an article on the Wikinews template?

I think that Wikinews interviews shouldn't even be allowed as external links in such case. It's hard to imagine that a interview like this would satisfy the requirements of WP:EL. On the prominent Wikinews template in the body of the article, it looks like a clear BLP/WEIGHT to me problem.

Full disclosure: I have a very rocky past with user adding this article. He considers a lot of my recent activity harassment, but this is a good-faith BLP concern that I have about third-party Wikinews links in BLPs generally. Cool Hand Luke 16:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing good faith about this. Wikinews is a sister project of the Wikimedia foundation. In fact, links to the interviews are even Wikified and there are templates. All interviews are recorded and transcribed. They are all conducted with notable people on a subject. The interview in question is with Vanity Fair contributing editor Craig Unger, who is also a Fellow at New York University Law School, former editor-in-chief of Boston Magazine, former deputy editor of the New York Observer. He is a New York Times best-selling author, and is well aware of libel issues. He is a journalist of the highest degree. We include notable journalists and their research and insight on almost every article, whether it be Bob Woodward or William Kristol. Indeed, Craig Unger is cited as a source on the Dick Cheney article.

The problem is that:

1. Cool Hand Luke is harassing me and he has been for a few days because he was on the losing side of a contentious ArbCom where he represented User:THF in a dispute I had.

2. Cool Hand Luke doesn't like what Unger says.

All of Unger's statements are researched; indeed...the information is already found on other Wikipedia articles. One only has to look at Shaha Ali Riza to see. Luke's harassment, where he is seeking to suppress information he doesn't like in an effort to bother me, is becoming a problem. In fact, I could easily cite to Unger's book in these articles with ALL of the same information that is found on a sister project interview. And I could cite to the same sources Craig Unger cites. Instead, there is a box leading to an interview if people are curious. But it is all information that is already found on Wikipedia. --David Shankbone 16:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It is good faith. I think BLP is an important policy, as my frequent participation on WT:BLP suggests. There does not seem to be any information about this first affair. To include this information we would normally have to say it's an op-ed or Unger's view. We shouldn't make irresponsible BLP claims, nor should we link to those claims without qualification.

I'm not sure I have an opinion on Wolfowitz‎, but I think we should be careful including potentially defamatory links in all biographies. Cool Hand Luke 16:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not true. We link to articles that cover these things anyway. We aren't Craig Unger's fact checkers - Craig Unger is and he has sources and he is a very credible journalist. You are basically questioning someone who has written a book that is well-sourced, and that's great since it's selective. You are a known conservative on the project, so no need to be coy, and you simply don't like what Unger has written and said. But that is not a policy issue since he is a journalist who has his sources, and Wolfowitz's affairs aren't undocumented in other places.[38] [39], et. al. This really comes down to your politics, CHL. You are second-guessing a highly credible source, and what you are doing just boils down to musing. --David Shankbone 17:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

When did I become a known conservative on the project? What do you know of my opinions? I think most conservatives are not exactly fond of Bush or Wolfowitz. Does this go toward commenting on the contributer? I really don't have a view. This is just not a reliable source nor an EL-compliant link from BLPs. Cool Hand Luke 17:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The "interview" is laced with David's POV, and he is the one edit warring to link it here. This raises many red flags for me, given that there seems to be a fast track from David's POV to the encyclopedia:

• David puts on his "Wikinews" hat and interviews someone who agrees with his POV. He then steers the interview to reflect his own POV (I can point to several examples of this).
• David "publishes" his interview on Wikinews.
• David removes his "Wikinews" hat and put on his "Wikipedia editor" hat. He then links to his Wikinews article as a reliable reference on the BLP articles of those who were subject to criticism in the interview.

Does anyone else have serious concerns about this fast-tracking of one editor's views into Wikipedia articles, especially BLP articles? Even if Wikinews is a reliable source (questionable), even if the interview were conducted with a neutral tone (it's not), should the author of the interview himself be adding links to it in BLP articles? ATren 16:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

And now we have the other ArbCom warrior who is also adept at trolling my edits. Both CHL and ATren were on the losing side of an ArbCom, and now they are trolling my edits and work. I have not only interviewed liberals like Craig Unger, but conservatives like Evangelical Senator Sam Brownback and Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo, and I am going to be interviewing a third Republican Presidential candidate tomorrow. In fact, my interviews are all across the board, they are all transcribed, and if somebody doesn't like what one of those people say, they can talk to them. But this is exactly what Wikinews was designed to do by the Wikimedia Foundation; we just happen to have two people who left an ArbCom without the results they wanted harassing me now. --David Shankbone 17:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Do not call me a warrior and a troll. You are the one who harassed me for several weeks by bringing up a year-old conflict. Why is it that everyone who disagrees with you is a "warrior"? ATren 17:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Is the problem with Paul Wolfowitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on Wikipedia or with an article on Wikinews? Please show diffs. In general, I do not believe Wikinews meets reliable source criteria (if Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source, can Wikinews be considered so?), especially in any situation where the reporter on Wikinews is also the editor on Wikipedia. Thatcher131 16:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• • OK, I see now. I'd like to see an example of a conservative Wikipedia editor interviewing a conservative author and then linking to the interview in an article about a liberal figure about whom the author has written. Thatcher131 17:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That would in effect be like saying we can't link to Wikiquotes or Wikisource. And yes, I've interviewed conservatives as well. For instance, my interview with Senator Sam Brownback is linked to on the Traditional Marriage Movement. I'd be happy to link to articles criticizing liberals by conservatives, I just don't have one. --David Shankbone 17:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

ATren: I don't generally see a problem with it. Interviews with a subject are sensible links from that subject. What I find problematic is using that subjects views about a third party to link that interview from third party articles. This is basically self-published commentary on BLPs, which has been discussed a lot on WT:V and WT:BLP recently. Cool Hand Luke 17:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

We link to other Wikipedia articles all the time. Inter-wiki links, including to sister projects, are not verboten. Other Wikipedia articles aren't reliable sources, either, and contain commentary. Should we not include them, either? --David Shankbone 17:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, I think such links are generally good, but they don't belong in third-party BLPs. Cool Hand Luke 17:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Journalists are used as sources throughout the Wolfowitz article, and this is no different. Aside from that, there is no reason not to include a recorded and transcribed interview with a source that is entirely incredible, just because Wikinews conducts it. Especially since that person is discussed at length. If you want to do a laudatory interview with Wolfowitz or someone at the AEI, then that should be included as well. I myself would be happy to conduct such an interview. --David Shankbone 17:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I would not be happy with that. Dueling partisan links are not an encyclopedia. I'm here to work on an encyclopedia, not to praise or demean living people.

Removal is not because Wikinews hosts it. If this were any other interview, we wound never include it in the body of the article as a sidebar. If we included it at all, it would be as an op-ed EL, and if Wolfowitz‎'s links were properly pruned, it wouldn't have a place there either. Enumerable similarly "expert" people have opinions about others. They are interviewed, post on their blogs, and even publish about it. We should not treat Wikinews differently in the case of third-party interviews. It fails WEIGHT & NPOV, RS, BLP, ect. Cool Hand Luke 17:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You are applying policy and guideline as if I took the entire interview and planted it within the article, and that's not the case. NPOV is not the issue here, and it does not fail WEIGHT (Wolfowoitz and The Office of Special Plans, and its development under Wolfowitz, are not minor issues); nor BLP nor RS. You cite policy and guideline without providing any reasoning - as it it's just obvious, and it's not. You're just wrong. --David Shankbone 17:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't David an accredited journalist, and Wikinews a valid source for linking to in general? I ask as I see that on the Reliable Source noticeboard, we endorse linking to sources that are penned or authored by people who are also Wikipedia editors, even if they are in some sort of conflict with them, such as User:Dking and his LaRouche website, which is generally all negative towards it's subject? Wouldn't the same standard be applicable here according to policy? I was specifically thinking of this discussion where the idea was endorsed, and that outside website by a journalist (Dking) is amazingly more negative overall than the odd comment in this Wikinews interview by the interview subject. • Lawrence Cohen 17:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yikes. User seems to have monumental COI issues.[40] I don't think this behavior should be held up as a model. Cool Hand Luke 17:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned it as I had David's page on my watchlist after working with him before, and I watch the sources board pretty reliably. It seems that precedent is accepted that journalists who have outside work are free to link sources related to them back into Wikipedia. Unless theres a policy against that, I don't know if I see a problem with David's linked Wikinews story. • Lawrence Cohen 17:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Much of this sort of discussion is covered by William M. Connelly. I also note ATren was railing against him over some of these same issues, which were addressed there. --David Shankbone 18:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• No no no. Wikinews is as unreliable as Wikipedia. Such an interview may be includable in the article about the person being interviewed, but third party references are clearly a violation of the spirit of the various rules in WP:V and WP:BLP regarding self-published sources. What editorial process/oversight stands between David Shankbone and the publishing of his interview? None that I am aware of. I would revert such an inclusion until the cows come home, and do so exempt from 3RR, per the BLP policy. - Crockspot 18:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews is not a reliable news source? Is Signpost? Why? ^{[citation needed]} • Lawrence Cohen 18:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have asked at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Wikinews. • Lawrence Cohen 18:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Do I really have to explain this? It is fairly well spelled out in WP:V. Reliable sources have editorial oversight. They are also not wikis, which can be edited by anyone, and no assurance can be given that a reader will not get a page full of "POOP" when they load the source. Can you show me anywhere where Signpost is used as a reliable source in an article on information about a third party? - Crockspot 18:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I linked your question back to this discussion, since you failed to mention that your question is in the context of a BLP article, and third party commenting on a living subject, which makes a huge amount of difference. - Crockspot 18:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, and thank you for that. David, Atren, Luke, and yourself all appear to be a bit too close to the Wolfowitz issue as semi-involved to having a possible COI stake in this case which is why I wanted to try to offer an outside view, and get more visibility on the case from the RS board. Thanks! • Lawrence Cohen 18:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that assumption of good faith, considering that I do not recall ever editing the Wolfowitz article, and have been a volunteer on this board since the day it was created. - Crockspot 19:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sincerely, no disrespect was meant. It was a bad turn of phrase on my part. Sorry. • Lawrence Cohen 19:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me to make sense to link when the interview is with the person directly. For example, on Craig Unger. Linking to general interviews that happen to talk about someone seems problematic not just from a BLP concern but also because they simply aren't the thrust of the interview and so the interview is only marginally related (if it were as an external link we would likely say no even without the BLP concern). JoshuaZ 18:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion then is that in general, Wikinews is a fine source, but not in this case? I'm just curious what the standard would be if CNN aired this interview, or Time Magazine printed it. Would it be acceptable then in this case to include on Wolfowitz? • Lawrence Cohen 19:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be attempting to draw a conclusion that is unrelated to the comment he made. He said nothing about the suitability of wikisource, he commented generally about interviews as sources. Interviews are generally to be treated as primary sources, since there is not usually a process of fact checking that goes on, other than to verify that the printed words are what came out of the interviewee's mouth. When the interviewee is commenting on a third party who is living, we get into a BLP issue, no matter where that interview was published. - Crockspot 19:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, that is fair. I'm genuinely curious about the suitability though of Wikinews, and on BLPs especially. In regards to interviews, though, what if the interview subject is himself a reliable source or expert on a topic? I would imagine, for example, that any comments about George W. Bush made by Laura Bush in an interview would be perfectly fine to include at least under BLP in GWB's article. Likewise, an interview with an expert on a given person I imagine would be acceptable, as well. Or am I wrong? • Lawrence Cohen 19:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have the same question. --David Shankbone 19:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• There are probably several million possible permutations of hypothetical situations I could comment on. Let's stick to actual issues and situations. - Crockspot 19:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The main problem here is using a third party to comment on a living person. The Wikinews aspect merely exasperates the problem because of the prominent and official-looking template. I posit we would never use such interviews, unqualified, for BLP information, but we should certainly not link to the article in a bold sidebar. Cool Hand Luke 20:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

So BLP would prohibit passages such as, "In an interview, journalist and expert on New York Mafia, Mitch McSmith says, 'Johnny Jones is known for his ties to New York Mafia," if the interview is about some other topic, such as NASA, or specifically an interview about Mitch McSmith, it's forbidden? But at the same token, if Mitch McSmith writes in a book that Johnny Jones has gangster ties, we can use it as he's an expert? Does his expert status have a BLP clause because he made his statement in a different forum? That confuses me and doesn't seem to square with other notions of reliable sourcing, as it puts a big clause on there. It's like saying we can quote George Bush for calling the President of Iran the President of the Axis of Evil on a State of the Union, but we can't use that if Bush says it while giving an interview on the Today Show about his favorite Texas recipes. • Lawrence Cohen 20:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

CHL: I think I see your point on this. However, I disagree with Crockspot's take on it, which appears to be unequivocal. If you could take off your fighting gloves, how would this affect the recent interview I published with the Dalai Lama's representative, where we specifically discuss the status of the 11th Panchen Lama, who disappeared when he was six years old because he was not the Chinese government's deigned religious leader? I put a "See also" on his page. Does this fail your criteria, or is it different? I'm asking in all good faith; I realize there is nuance here. --David Shankbone 20:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

We can make quotes with attribution, but this is not a notable attributed quote (which would be reported by other sources). It's not even classified as an opinion link, like the op-eds are. It should be a regular opinion link at the bottom of the page if included at all. Cool Hand Luke 20:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

So Unger isn't an expert on Wolfowitz, having written a published book on the whole thing as a journalist? I thought the established precedent for DKing and Cberlet that I saw on the RS Noticeboard covered comments from experts on BLPs from various forums being fine sources. • Lawrence Cohen 20:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

First, isn't an expertise exception to BLP—BLPs adhere to a higher standard. Second, writing a book about the Bush administration does not make all of ones remarks about a dozen living people automatically notable and deserving of a special sidebar. Books and political criticism is not rare, and an encyclopedia is not improved by prominently linking to the unverified off-the-cuff remarks which were fortunate enough to find their way to a Wikinews reporter's ears. Cool Hand Luke 20:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• So the main issue is BLP? There is not an issue with the article on Office of Special Plans, then, since it's about the office and not a biography of a person? --David Shankbone 19:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

  BLP applies to information anywhere on wikipedia, whether it is in a BLP article, a non-biography, a talk page, or in user space. But I'm sure you already know that. You wouldn't be trying to wikilawyer some kind of loophole here, would you? - Crockspot 19:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what your bad faith question infers, but how would BLP be an issue on such an article? --David Shankbone 19:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Using it as a source of biographical information. A bare link is probably not against BLP, although it should be on-topic. Cool Hand Luke 20:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

As an additional note (unless I'm misreading; there is a lot of information), the contentious information about Wolfowitz that Unger said in his interview with David, that some don't want to link from the article via Wikinews, is functionally in the Wolfowitz article already in the extensive coverage of his romantic relationship with that World Bank staffer, from various sources. It appears that David's Wikinews interview just has an affirmation of all that, and basically functions as a supplemental source. • Lawrence Cohen 20:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. In BLPs, no source (and no claim) is better than a poor source. All of his claims are not currently covered in the article, so I fail to see how it's confirming anything, but insofar that it acts as a confirmation, we should keep the reliable sources and dump the unreliable ones (including this interview of a third party). We can't use reliable sources to excuse unreliable ones. Cool Hand Luke 21:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Unger is not an unreliable source. --David Shankbone 21:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Unger is a person, not a source. Your interview with Unger is presumably a reliable account of Unger's views. The interview, however, is not a reliable source for biographical details about other living people. Cool Hand Luke 21:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

How does it differ from the multiple journalists quoted in the section Paul_Wolfowitz#Wolfowitz.27s_relationship_with_Shaha_Riza? --David Shankbone 21:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

None of those sources has its own sidebar (the WEIGHT issue I mentioned), none of this is presented without qualifications. That is, they all have controversial or derogatory claims have sources and attribution, which makes their point of view clear. Finally, there's a measure of fact-checking that tends to make non-self-published sources more reliable for biographical details. Cool Hand Luke 21:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, both The Telegraph and the Washington Post (the first two citations) have editors, and editorial policies that require that reporters talk to multiple sources, and lawyers who make sure that potentially libelous content is properly sourced and vetted. None of that applies here. It might apply if you were quoting from one of Unger's books, which presumably has gone through a similar process. Your interview might qualify if it was published in Mother Jones or Vanity Fair or The New Republic etc., where it also would have been subject to editorial review and oversight (although it still would be unacceptable to cite yourself and then edit war when questioned). But your unfiltered interview does not meet those standards. Thatcher131 21:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• My view is that this is not a BLP issue because the only fact that was being added was that Wikinews had an interview with Craig Unger who discussed a subject relevant to Paul Wolfowitz. That fact is undeniably true - such an interview is on Wikinews. The contents of the interview are a matter for Wikinews to debate. However, I would agree that it is probably inappropriate per external links policy to link the interview from Paul Wolfowitz, not because of the discussion of his private life, but for three separate reasons. Firstly Craig Unger is talking in fairly abstract terms about the administration and not in specific terms about what Paul Wolfowitz himself did. Secondly, he is known to be a high-profile critic of the Bush administration generally. Thirdly, Unger does not state his sources but simply says "My sources say ..." which does not allow for further checks on the basis of what he is saying. It would be legitimate to link this interview from Craig Unger's page but not, in my view, from the pages on the people he happens to mention in his interview. Sam Blacketer 21:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed. David has linked his interview to 7 or 8 other articles. Thatcher131 21:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Craig Unger is a super reliable source. Certainly his writings on October Surprise have stood the test of time, and remain a fine example of inves5igative journalism .... its not like he has a bone to pick or an axe to grind, and he certainly wouldn't stoop to the level of using any source, regardless of reliability, to bolster his work. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well said (if sarcastic). The notion that a partisan reporter's extemporaneous remarks are a reliable source for living people flies in the face of WP:BLP. Partisan books don't put a commentator above BLP. Cool Hand Luke 22:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't take that as sarcastic because on the Ari Ben-Menashe Unger specifically cautions, back in 1992, using him as a source. And just because you do not like a reporter's politics doesn't mean their information is inaccurate. --David Shankbone 22:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"claimed caution" after using him as a source for years ... what that about page A1 stories and page D15 retractions ...... Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Just because they're partisans who have written two books against the Bush administration doesn't mean all of their uttered claims are reliable. The burden in BLPs is on those who wish to demonstrate the source is reliable. There is no "expert" exception to primary self-published claims in BLPs, and even if there were, partisan books do not demonstrate expertise. Cool Hand Luke 22:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute. This is as much OR as if David Shankbone had performed the interview and just added it direct to the Wikipedia article. Posting it first in Wikinews doesn't change the OR violation one iota. Corvus cornix 03:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

OR isn't allowed on Wikipedia, but it allowed on a sister project. The OR policy states that WP is not to be used for OR - but that doesn't mean that OR, as evidenced with many other editors, is disallowed to make it on here, especially since it's the words of a notable person (as opposed to a study, etc.) --David Shankbone 03:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with CoolHandLuke and Thatcher131. This is inappropriate. It's not as if there is any shortage of journalists, even journalists at major papers, with strong opinions about Paul Wolfowitz, we have many better sources than this, which smacks of original research. In this interview, Unger is speaking off the cuff, he is using his memory, he isn't checking his sources for every statement he makes. We can cite his books, if Unger wrote an article, we can cite that, because then he probably is checking every sentence is in the right place, but this interview can really only be cited for Unger's views on Wolfowitz. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well and have withdrawn support of including it. --David Shankbone 17:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm coming late to this discussion, but I agree that we shouldn't link to a Wikinews interview in an article on a 3rd party. I'd set the same standard for self-published interviews. While we may assume that the interviewee actually said what's attributed to him or her, we can't be sure that the 3rd party has been made aware of the comments or has been given an opportunity to set the record straight. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

User has reinserted links to the article by quoting it as reference, which I still question. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Wikinews redux. Cool Hand Luke 20:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned this article from BLP problems in the past. It to be edging towards a being a problem again. changes since my cleanup. I am worried that one statement goes to far right now, but I am not certain were the line is on this. Others eyes, please check out.--BirgitteSB 18:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

An anon user has been inserting that Chris Ivery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a convicted felon and also has also put the information at his wives article, Ellen Pompeo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Originally no sources were included so it was a simple matter of removal. However, the anon has now found a source but it's Star (magazine). Is this a proper source for the material? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The Star as a reliable source? Bloody hell. Revert it. Supermarket tabloids are never considered reliable sources for controversial and negative material. If it's really an issue then he can find a better source than that. Furthermore, there's absolutely no reason to put it in the wife's article - whether or not he was a convicted felon, it has no relevance to her and is guilt by association. FCYTravis (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

'Course not. Gave a biog4, block on sight if it happens again. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I forgot all about this. When I checked I found that all the sources were tabloids. Should have been The Morning Star. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Was going to "speedy" the article as was Pigman due to violations of BLP, not on the subject, but on the husband. Looking for confirmation that this would be appropriate in this situation. (Looking at the AfD, it's 100% delete w/ 4 opinions). SkierRMH (talk) 05:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Alison took action on this. I should have trusted my first instinct and done it myself. Love her summary: "Utterly unsourced / POV-laden / massive BLP nightmare" Fits the article to a T. Pigman☿ 22:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe this article is written to be intentionally biased and portray the subject as a victim, which serves the subjects political, professioanal and personal agenda.

I have made several attempts to add a simple reference to sworn depositions, by Edith Balas, and Joan Maier, in a 1998 Federal Court case, US District Court, Case number: 2:98-CV-01516, Pittsburgh, PA, on discrimination. Edith Balas and Joan Maier were not part of the lawsuit, but were witnesses for the plaintiff. Steve Kurtz was not part of the lawsuit, but was a witness for the defendant. The depositions reveal valuable historical information about Kurtz.

Edith Balas is an Auschwitz survivor, and was part of a small art history department, that Steve Kurtz joined as a faculty member, in 1995. In her deposition, she describes her experiences with him, which contradict the articles POV, and Steve Kurtz as an innocent victim. Joan Maier, in her deposition, supports the statements by Edith Balas.

This is not an active case, and there is no agenda, other than to offer readers access to information which is not biased towards painting Kurtz as an innocent victim. The reference does not contain the subject of the lawsuit, nor is it's subject being discussed here.

The editor, FreshAcconci, repeatedly removed my entries. He cited shifting WP rules, on why they should be removed. When I then, only tried to post the reference to the case, under the "see also" heading, it too was deleted.

Later, when I defended my entry in the discussion section, I inadvertantly made a reference to my identity. I later removed this reference, because I had previously received physical threats during the lawsuit in Pittsburgh. I emailed Fresh Acconnci offline, and asked him to keep these edits out, because it put me in harms way. He ignired this request, and then, immediately added the edits back in, and used them to insight further accusations towards me. Finally, after several attempts to reason with him, he agreed to remove them. But within minutes, another editor, also involved in the arts, removed a complete entry I made on the discussion page, and then later, addded the reference to my identity back in, in another edit.

The efforts these 2 editors have made to keep out the reference to the 1998 deposition of Edith Balas, has been very aggressive. They say it is because they wish to keep the article neutral, but in truth, by only including information which supports one view of Kurtz as a "victim", they have created a biased article to serve their agenda.

They are both colleagues of Kurtz, as they work in or participate in his profession. They have something to gain professionally by maintaining the article in this light. I am not in the arts professionally, and have nothing to gain or lose, by adding this reference.

It is not derogatory to add the reference. It does however allow the readers access to a legal document, that offers more information about Kurtz and his history, which does not paint him with a singular brush.

I am not trying to provide a new analysis on Kurtz. I am only wishing to add this reference into the article, as it is a primary source on him.

Thanks,

67.170.116.209 (talk) 07:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Other2

You must immediately refrain from any attempts at inserting the information, as you have an irreconcilable conflict of interest on the issue. In keeping with your wish for privacy, I have redacted my previous posting, which contains a diff in which you admit the conflict of interest, but you cannot have it both ways. You cannot simultaneously demand privacy while pretending to be a disinterested party - which you are not. If you again insert the information, you will be blocked from editing the encyclopedia. FCYTravis (talk) 09:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not have a conflict of interest with Steve Kurtz. This is an incorrect accusation, based on no legitimate facts. WP allows for direct observation. As I mentioned before, I worked with Steve Kurtz in the past, and observed the depostions in question. This is no more of a conflict of interest than anyone else currently working with him, or working in his field who will gain by supporting his agenda, or someone who shares his political agenda and wishes to see it maintained. I think it is pertinant to include the reference to the testimony of Edith Balas. It is a legitimate primary source. I would like to add it to the See Also section. I have been stopped from doing this. I believe there is an active bias on the part of the editors involved in this article, to not allow other information in which does not support their agenda. This is against WP policy. Other2 (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Other

Once again, you cannot have it both ways. You have admitted your conflict of interest in the issue at hand. If you wish the specific conflict to be kept private, you will refrain from involving yourself in the article in question. You cannot keep inserting it and simultaneously demand that users refrain from discussing your potential self-interest in inserting it. FCYTravis (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

My Reply-- You are using circular logic, in order to convey a false premise. There ALREADY has been a discussion of my possible self-interest, and there is no legitimate claim. What about your self-interest? How can you block me from adding a citation, to a legitmate historical public document: the sworn legal testimony of Edith Balas. This has nothing to do with me. It is from a case long ago closed, and settled. The premise of the case has no relation to Steve Kurtz and should not be included. But the depositon of Edith does. And again, what is your background? Where do you work, in what field? Where did you go to school? How do we know you are a neutral editor? 67.170.116.209 (talk) 01:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Other2

I will say it one more time. If you insist on pressing this issue, then you may not make any claim to "privacy" as to the matter of the lawsuit. You have admitted your own potential bias here, and you may not continue to edit the subject behind the shield of "privacy." Either cease editing the article, or I shall cease giving you the courtesy of not spelling out the true extent of this matter. There is a clear question as to why you may want to insert unsubstantiated and potentially irrelevant statements from a legal deposition into the biography of a living person.

I am happy to make clear the fact that I am entirely non-involved in the case and do not personally know any of the parties. FCYTravis (talk) 03:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You talk as though you have some other interest than you have stated. In any case, it is a moot point, as I believe it is more meaningfiul what detail you and others want kept out of this documement. I will not attempt to add anything further to the article, as I said earlier. I believe as it appears in other sources it will make the omission here seem meaningful.67.170.116.209 (talk) 04:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Other2

• Hans Köchler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - BLP concerns. I made an edit some time ago, without realising that an edit war was in progress. Article now protected, but I suspect in the wrong version. Prominent international lawyer and philosopher; SPA warring to put unsourced claims of links with Gaddafi in the lead, possibly prompted by subject's acting as UN observer at the Lockerbie trial. Unprotection, blocks, editing, and watchlisting suggested. // Relata refero (talk) 22:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've removed it - the link is broken and there's no source for the claim of "ties to" Gaddafi. "Ties to" is classic weasel wording intended to create guilt by association. FCYTravis (talk) 04:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The bio of Douglas Arlo "Doug" Ose (born June 27, 1955) is full of inflammatory material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SingingDetective (talk • contribs) 18:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I've redirected this to Bilderberg Group, and protected the redirect, because of inadequate citation. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Even though prisonplanet.com is considered by some editors as unreliable source, this case appears to me different. Alex Jones was on site for the Bilderberg meeting, and the images of the guest list look authentic. So what you are suggesting here is that an eye witness account is an unreliable source.

The participant list for 2005 has a different source, or do you consider all sources regarding this topic unreliable, because the Bilderberg Group itself has no spokesperson? --Lord Chao (talk) 09:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Prisonplanet.com is not a reliable source for anything but the opinion of its operator. A reliable source would be the Washington Post, the BBC, or maybe the organization itself. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Several mildly defamatory remarks, probably not NPOV. Dave.Dunford (talk) 18:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed unsourced material as per WP:BLP. Will add to my watchlist for a while. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Major sections, if not all of this article has been copied from here http://www.freddiemac.com/bios/exec/syron.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.99.255.250 (talk) 07:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

And so it is. There is no clean version. The article has been deleted, and the article's creator has been notified of copyright policy. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This is more of a heads-up. The subject is a 13-year-old driven to suicide by a MySpace boyfriend, who was a hoax perpetrated by an adult neighbor (being ironically overprotective of her own daughter). This woman has not been named in any reliable source at this time, but has been outed by blogs. It was in the article, but I removed it, as the footnoted source was either a) the original newspaper article which carefully avoided naming her and her husband, or b) the gossip blog Jezebel.com. There will almost certainly be attempts by anons and maybe editors to reinsert the information. There are no criminal charges against this person, nor any civil suit. The article remains full of blog sources, but it has hit the wire services in the last day or so. I hope that some BLP patrollers will add it to their watchlists. --Dhartung | Talk 08:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist, and I have also created a google news alert for the story. If any blog sources are used to name the family who did this terrible deed, I will remove the information. The first instant that a newspaper actually mentions the name, I will insert it. Jeffpw (talk) 10:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I nominated it for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megan Meier. Also, the blogs were not acceptable sources. • Lawrence Cohen 11:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That article needs to be deleted. Hope it does: a person does not become notable just become the person kills herself. 02:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand the idea of becoming the subject of a WP bio could deter people from doing it. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Oversighting is probably in order, even after deletion. - Crockspot (talk) 03:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Feh, I see the nom was withdrawn. Unfortunate. It should be deleted and oversighted anyway. - Crockspot (talk) 03:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The article was renamed earlier to Megan Meier suicide controversy after notability was established. Just posting again to ask that a couple of people watchlist it. It is semi-protected right now, but you never know what might creep into the talk page. • Lawrence Cohen 21:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

70.181.230.51 (talk · contribs) has repeated insertion of unsourced controversial material, despite a warning that this will lead to being blocked. I've reverted the material again.[41] This is a long term problem with this article with different user names. Tyrenius (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Watchlisted - block and semiprotect at next sign of problems. Others should watch too.--Doc^g 16:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done April Eden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I stumbled on to this article where the subject was apparently quite upset about personal info being revealed and mistaken. See contribs for 76.168.243.243 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). This is from several weeks ago but I thought maybe a notice here would be a good idea regardless (I've little experience with WP:BLP and thought maybe speedy deletion and/or WP:OVERSIGHT may be in order given the nature of the complaints). The subject appears to be below the notability threshold anyway so I've brought to WP:AFD. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD was bound to delete this anyway - and given someone is upset I see no point in waiting. Deleted as an A7 with a bit of IAR compassion thrown in.--Doc^g 17:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I thought someone might come to that conclusion, hence why I brought it here. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I was about to !vote delete also. The person, if their career keeps up the way it has, will be notable enough in a year or two I'd imagine. I tried to find good sources here, but drew blanks despite being a TV personality and published author. • Lawrence Cohen 17:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done Possibly entirely accurate and uncontroversial, but contains absolutely no references and so currently fails tests of verifiability and no original research. Ros0709 (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It is marked as needing sourcing, as it is not negative, it is not a BLP issue. Nothing for us to do here.--Doc^g 00:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done

This article is autobiographical, created by its own subject and aggressively defended; he has repeatedly blanked the discussion page removing NPOV/autobiography tags, and edited under several user names/IPs. The page doesn't seem to meet the criteria for BLP or even "notable" person status. 71.218.185.244 (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Being handled at afd. Nothing to do here.--Doc^g 00:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Richard Windmann is up for AfD right now. An anonymous editor claiming to be the subject of the article appeared today and replaced the article with a legal threat. I've asked in ANI for the editor to be blocked. I just wanted a few more eyeballs on this article. Thanks! --ElKevbo (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. It's already been deleted. --ElKevbo (talk) 01:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Many users are inserting content that says Khaleel Mohammed believes some Muslim scholars "demonize Jews".[42] The source for this is apparently FrontPage mag.

In October I raised this issue here, citing BLP concerns in particular. The consensus was that the Front Page mag was an inappropriate source.

Some users, however, think that WP:RS and WP:BLP don't apply because the article is regarding "criticism".Bless sins (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the BLP issue in this case. If he said it, it can be used. Is there any dispute as to whether he said it or not? FCYTravis (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

"If he said it, it can be used." The question is did he say it? Or rather, do we take FrontPage's word that Khaleel Mohammed said XYZ? The consensus was that no, we can't simply trust FrontPage as it isn't a reliable source. Note, that I did some searching, and found no other sources for the interview except for front page.Bless sins (talk) 04:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It may not be a reliable source for BLP issues like gossip, scandal and whatnot, but it may be a reliable source for reporting what a person said at a conference. Is the idea that he even said it, disputed? FCYTravis (talk) 08:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

FrontPage, according to a discussion at RS/N, should not be used as the sole source for a controversial statement of fact, such as that "X said controvesial thing Y". Relata refero (talk) 09:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this is a stretch, Khaleel has written on the subject of the demonization of the jews previously. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Then quote that previous piece, if notable. Relata refero (talk) 10:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that the statement is controversial. It would be a stretch if he said something that could technically violate BLP, but the statement that he believes that muslim scholars have demonized jews is well documented and quoting him saying what he's said in the past should not raise any red flags. This is a case of a biased editor seeking a friendly forum to gain a "club" to beat her POV into an article she does not like over the apparently consensus of the rest of the editors of said article. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Possibly. The point is that if alternative sources are available, an unreliable one should not be used; in the case of disputed information or quotes from a living person, an unreliable one should never be used. There's really no discussion here. Its a non-issue if he frequently makes the same point; if he doesn't, you can't use the source anyway. Relata refero (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that BLP is clear that it is only negative or libelous quotes that require exceptional sourcing. This is pretty much par for the course. Mohammed's written books on the subject of the demonization of the Jews. This quote does not seem exceptional in any way. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

BLP says 'contentious'. This is contentious, or this thread wouldn't be here. If he's written a book and it is notable, cite that instead. Relata refero (talk) 08:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

One could equally state that it's a case of a neutral editor seeking a neutral forum to gain attention to beat POV out of an article dominated by an apparent clique of editors of said article who don't like Wikipedia policies. <eleland/talkedits> 17:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, it only took you seven hours to show up Eleland, you feeling ok? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Nick Sun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Either the same person, or a series of IP editors, keep adding rubbish to the article on Nick Sun. I'm not sure if some of what's still there is also garbage, but certainly the additions are a sorry litany of lame attempts at humour, rounded up with the news that he has died of AIDS. I would usually say it's just a simple case of vandalism, but the fact it seems to be coming from a number of places and is persistent makes it a bit more unusual. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected. Looks like simple vqandalism.--Doc^g 17:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Trent Lott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There are unsubstantiated rumors floating across the Internet about reasons as to why Lott is resigning, which are repeatedly making their way into the Trent Lott article. I've removed the most recent version, but more eyes are needed. Corvus cornix_talk 22:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)