User:Filll/BLP Challenge Exercises

BLP | Take the BLP Challenge!

• Some of these problems are repeated from previous sets of Challenge exercises. Of course you can ignore those if you already answered them, or cut and paste your previous answers.

• Note: Although all of these are inspired by real situations, the details of some of them have been altered slightly to obscure the identities of those involved

BLP.1 No negative reviews allowed

An author is frequently in the news for his controversial theory that oil and gas are not the result of millions of years of decomposition of organic material but rather are the result of inorganic processes deep within the earth's crust. This author has published a series of books describing his theories. He is a prominent faculty member at an Ivy League university.

The faculty in his department have put a statement on the department webpage stating that they disagree with his theory. Surveys of other scientists in his field show that over 99% think that his theory is unscientific and contradicted by the evidence. Almost every review of his books by other scientists is negative.

His work is quite popular among the public, who do not want to believe that the supply of fossil fuels is finite, and that the world might run out of oil. He has testified as an expert witness in several trials in which environmentalists were trying to block deep offshore drilling or drilling in the arctic. Scientists testifying in these trials have always ripped the claims of this author to shreds, ridiculing him. However, this author remains very popular with the majority of the public.

An article about one of his books on Wikipedia includes links to several negative book reviews. One prominent Wikipedia editor demands that these negative reviews be removed, since they violate WP:BLP. The editor claims that anything negative book reviews reflect poorly on the author's work, and on the author himself, and therefore violate WP:BLP.

In addition, several editors on Wikipedia have objected to statements in this author's biography on Wikipedia stating that the "scientific community disagrees with his theories". They claim that one cannot measure what the scientific community believes, so this statement does not belong in the article and is invalid.

Do the negative reviews of the author's work constitute a WP:BLP violation? Is it appropriate for Wikipedia to link to these negative reviews? Should Wikipedia state that the "scientific community" agrees or disagrees with his theories, when not every single member of the "scientific community" agrees or disagrees, and there is no good definition of "scientific community"? Do articles on this author's ideas fall under the WP:FRINGE policy since most of the public subscribes to them? What does WP:NPOV state about how these ideas should be presented on Wikipedia? How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia spend to deal with this?

BLP.2 Registration desk

The Registration, a British technology and news website, publishes a series of articles purporting to reveal a secret homosexual cabal operating among the editors of Wikipedia. They claim that the founder of Wikipedia is a closet homosexual who arranges assignations with prominent male Wikipedia editors using a code on Wikipedia talk pages. They claim to draw on interviews with participants at secret Wikimania homosexual orgies. The abbreviated name of the WP:AGF policy is said to be an intentional anagram of the word "FAG", an acronym supposedly chosen to signal the interests of Wikipedia's founder and its elite core of gay editors and administrators.

The Registration reports that Wikipedia editors looking for gay sex purportedly signal their interests by quoting the policy WP:AGF in talk page discussions. Allegedly, if other editors are receptive, they respond by referring to WP:NPA using the coded typography "No PERSONAL Attacks". Further arrangements are supposedly made over email.

Wikipedia's founder also had a short association with a female news commentator from China. The Registration claims that the founder's relationship with the Chinese commentator was short because the founder had originally believed the Chinese commentator to be a male transexual. However, the founder was disappointed to discover that the Chinese commentator was actually female.

The Registration includes "proof" that there was reason to be confused about the sexual identity of the Chinese commentator. The Registration published closeup pictures of this Chinese woman's muscular legs and Adam's apple. The Registration also published what it claims are leaked Chinese court documents that had been previously sealed. These Chinese court documents supposedly describe surgeries to correct hermaphroditic characteristics and prescriptions for female hormones.

An uproar ensues on Wikipedia and on Wikipedia Review and other sites that follow activities on Wikipedia. The dispute even starts to leak into the regular media. A group of editors wants to include this material in articles about Wikipedia's founder, Wikipedia, and this Chinese commentator.

What is appropriate in this situation? Is this a WP:BLP issue? Should the biography articles about Wikipedians be treated differently than other biographies? Should more scandalous material be allowed in biographies of Wikipedians to appear more fair and avoid charges of bias and conflict of interest? Is The Registration is a reliable source for this kind of material? Is speculation about the sexual identity of the Chinese commentator appropriate? Is it an invasion of privacy to publish the material that supposedly comes from leaked and/or sealed court documents? Are pictures of the Chinese commentator that purport to show some sort of Adam's apple appropriate encyclopedic content? How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia spend to deal with this?

BLP.3 The Shoe Prophet(ess)

A woman in Los Angeles had a spontaneous remission from cancer, and now believes that she has received a divine revelation from God. She thinks that she is the Second Coming of Jesus Christ and is able to predict the future of a person by examining their footwear.

The Shoe Prophetess develops a large following; she founds a church, she writes books, and she appears on numerous radio and television shows. People follow The Shoe Prophetess everywhere and are enthusiastic about her powers. An article is written about the Shoe Prophetess on Wikipedia.

A new anonymous editor appears on Wikipedia and starts including information in The Shoe Prophetess article about a business supposedly owned by The Shoe Prophetess in Los Angeles. The business which is supposedly owned by The Shoe Prophetess is a film company producing pornographic videos and rock music videos featuring scantily clad young ladies. An investigation of this claim does not reveal any independent reliable sources for this information. After a fight on Wikipedia, the information about this business is removed.

Soon after, clearly motivated by and partly based on the information first revealed in Wikipedia, the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Sun Times publish articles revealing the connection of The Shoe Prophetess to the pornographic film business. These newspaper stories do not provide much new evidence that The Shoe Prophetess owns this pornographic film company. However, the newspaper stories do reference Wikipedia, even though the information was removed from Wikipedia a few months ago. Several editors want to reinclude this information now that it has been published in a reliable source. Several others claim that there is still minimal independent evidence that this information is correct.

A picture is published of an unidentified woman leaving the pornographic film company's board meeting that appears very similar to The Shoe Prophetess. The supermarket tabloids speculate that it must be the same person.

What should Wikipedia do in this case? What is a reliable source? Should Wikipedia include the picture of the unidentified woman leaving the board meeting? What if the picture is published in the Los Angeles Times? What if the picture is only published in the National Enquirer? What if the picture is leaked to the internet but never published in the regular media? What should be done under WP:BLP in this case? Should this public figure be allowed to "opt out" and have her Wikipedia biography removed? How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia spend to deal with this?

BLP.4 Let he who is without sin

You respond to a request for comment about a living person's biography, Janice Tightbottom. Janice Tightbottom is a prominent conservative Christian commentator and media consultant in the United States. Tightbottom is well-known for controversial statements in the press such as "Let's nuke Mecca and Medina, and let all those diaper-head bastards fry. Let's visit a bit of God's vengeance on those sand n*ggers who are always sodomizing their camels! Let's show them we are true Christians!" or "Faggots are disgusting pieces of dung and should be tortured to death. After all, are we not a Christian nation? Are we not God's Chosen? Should we not show them some of God's Mercy and Wrath? Let us smite those rump rangers, those backdoor buccaneers, those cornhole cowboys, those poophole pirates, those bunghole bandits!" Janice Tightbottom is frequently featured on Fox News television and opinion programs, and has written several books on her views.

Janice Tightbottom's father is Prescott Tightbottom Jr., a retired United States senator. Prescott lives in Sedona, Arizona. An anonymous editor shown by WHOIS to be editing from Sedona occasionally edits the Janice Tightbottom article. When asked to acquire an account, a new user appears on the talk page with the username PTightbottom, and continues to edit in the same manner as the anonymous Sedona user.

The mood at the Janice Tightbottom talk page is tense, and you decide that the article has serious problems. Citations to non-notable blogs accuse Janice Tightbottom of having had a previous career as a pornographic film star and prostitute. The article is fully protected. You raise the problem of unreliable sources on the article's talk page, and some editors vehemently insist those sources are reliable and the information should remain in the article. On the talk page, one of them links to a hardcore pornographic site featuring someone who appears to be a younger version of Ms. Tightbottom performing various sexual acts to provide evidence for their claims. When you remove this link, someone introduces it in an edit summary with some uncomplimentary commentary.

Arguments develop between editor PTightbottom and other editors of the article. PTightbottom claims repeatedly and angrily that there is no proof for the allegations of sexual impropriety on the part of Janice Tightbottom. However, once or twice PTightbottom argues that this material should not be included because even if such things were true, they were just due to youthful curiosity and an adventuresome nature. PTightbottom goes a bit over the top a few times and is banned for disruptive and unCIVIL behavior. Some claim that PTightbottom has violated WP:COI by editing the article.

When you suggest taking the discussion to a noticeboard for independent review, you are accused of playing games, and being a right-wing ideologue, or a shill for the US Republican Party, or a meat puppet for Tightbottom. You are accused of supporting the use of white phosphorus and "nuclear weapons like depleted uranium" in Iraq, supporting torture, and supporting the slaughter of innocent civilians.

What should be done in this case? How should the biography read? What sources should be used? How would you resolve the conflict on the talk page? What content is appropriate and what would violate WP:BLP? What sort of WP:COI issues are there? How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia spend to deal with this?

BLP.5 No true Scotsman

You come across an article about the Scottish Science Education League (SSEL), which advertises on its webpages that it lobbies the government for the teaching of evolution in science classes in publicly-funded schools and the restriction of creationist teaching to religion classes or religious schools. The founder of the SSEL is one Matthew Rimoni, a resident of Glasgow who is of Italian descent. You create an article about the SSEL.

There are three or four attempts to delete the article for lack of notability by assorted anonymous editors, shown by WHOIS to originate in the UK. However, you find several letters to the editor by the founders of the SSEL in prominent newspapers throughout the UK, a mention of the SSEL in European Parliament publications, and a mention of the SSEL in the proceedings of Scottish government debates. The reliability of these sources is hotly disputed by the anonymous editors and edit warring ensues.

The anonymous editors then introduce a section quoting "Matt Rimoni"'s statements, found in the archives of an internet forum. In the internet forum, this "Matt Rimoni" states that parents who are educating their children in a religious tradition are committing child abuse and should have their children taken away from them. The statement is removed as questionable and repeatedly reinserted. Although the anonymous editors are challenged regarding the reliability of this source, they claim this source satisfies WP:SSP and so can be used.

At this point, a new Wikipedia editor named "MRimoni" appears on the SSEL article talk page to argue that the material from the internet forum should be removed, and that the SSEL is notable enough to have an article. The anonymous editors claim that Matthew Rimoni, Matt Rimoni, and User:MRimoni are all the same person, and that it is a violation of WP:COI for User:MRimoni to edit the article or its talk page. Some other editors claim that the inclusion of the internet forum quotations is a violation of WP:BLP, but this is rejected by the anonymous editors since this article is not a biography.

The argument becomes heated, and one of the anonymous editors calls MRimoni a "damn wog", a "greasy dago" and a "spaghetti boy". The anonymous editors tell MRimoni that he does not have the "meatballs" to do anything about this article.

A friend of yours who is an administrator, RipRap, blocks the anonymous editor who is making the racial slurs against MRimoni. The other anonymous editors claim that RipRap should not have blocked the anonymous editor since he is not an uninvolved administrator. RipRap has never edited the article on SSEL, but has extensively edited the intelligent design and creationism articles.

Is the administrator in violation of any policies? Is the administrator involved? Are there any WP:BLP concerns here? Is there a WP:COI problem in this situation? How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia spend to deal with this?

BLP.6 Come with me

"Professor" Richard Tation (sometimes known to his friends as Dick) has written a best-selling book promoting his idea that sexual orgasms are caused by a discharge of energy that he calls gob; he claims that this energy is also responsible for lightning. Tation's book is full of diagrams and complicated equations. He presents statistics demonstrating that people who live in places with more lightning have better sex lives, and he has a company that runs popular tours to some of the places with the most thunderstorm activity.

Tation has also developed a machine called a "gobbulator"; it has a number of cones on it which can be aimed up at nimbus clouds just before a thunderstorm. The gobbulator is supposed to collect the excess gob energy associated with the threatening storm and then store it in an insulated box. People purchase these insulated boxes and open them in the bedroom when they are planning to have sex so that the room is permeated with the gob energy. Tation even sells small attractive insulated containers that people can wear on chains around their necks to attract others.

Several studies by mainstream scientific groups show that the mathematics and statistics in Tation's books are nonsense. They find that there is no measurable gob energy with the properties Tation ascribes to it and they detect nothing in the insulated boxes of gob. Major scientific and medical bodies publish their findings.

Some of the scientific publications point out the similarities between Tation's work and that of Wilhelm Reich and between gob energy and orgone energy. Tation and his followers deny the connection since Reich's work ran into legal trouble with the United States Food and Drug Administration. Tation does not want his products to suffer a similar fate.

Peer-reviewed papers critical of gob energy are published in mainstream scientific journals. Still, the public is enthusiastic about Tation's work and Tation's businesses bring in many hundreds of millions of dollars per year.

A few articles on gob energy, Tation, and his businesses are written for Wikipedia. A few new editors that are followers of Tation's theories appear at Wikipedia. Some editors try to use these skeptical and critical mainstream scientific and medical sources in the article, and a dispute ensues.

First, the Tation-supporting editors that it is a violation of WP:CIVIL to disagree with them. This fails, so then the Tation supporters claim that only neutral noncritical sources can be used to satisfy WP:NPOV, by which they mean sources which do not criticize the concept of gob energy.

Any discussion of similarities between gob energy and orgone energy are contested by the pro-Tation editors. When told that the articles should include statements that demonstrate this similarity with appropriately cited sources according to WP:NPOV, the pro-Tation editors are incensed. One Tation supporter even creates a thread at the Administrator's Noticeboard, starting with:

I'm not interested in opening the debate, just to understand if it has been closed. I have been told that equating gob energy with orgone energy is not a point of view but a principle of the Wikipedia somehow related to the WP:NPOV policy. Was this ever declared as a principle. And if so, where?

Who or what on the Wikipedia has the power to declare such applications of policy as principle?

An angry exchange follows with a lot of wikilawyering.

The pro-Tation editors claim that sources critical of the book and negative reviews of the book violate WP:BLP since they reflect poorly on Professor Tation, a living person. Next, they claim that the "N" in NPOV means that the articles themselves must not judge gob energy, and so the article must be unbiased, containing no negative information or criticism of gob energy, even from reliable sources. After that, the pro-Tation editors argue it is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to include this negative information. Then the complaint is that "If we follow WP:NOR, our article will be exactly as divorced and ridiculous as the reliable sources". Subsequently it is claimed that to include negative sources is forbidden because it is unencyclopedic. When that does not succeed, the claim is made that it is biased to include sources that are critical. Following that, the claim is made that any negative material in a reference is unusable since it must be just an opinion by definition. In addition, it is claimed that only "third party sources" can be used on Wikipedia, and none of the critical sources are "third party sources". When someone lists some major media like the New York Times and the Associated Press and the London Times and the Chicago Tribune which have written negative articles about gob energy, it is argued that "Actually, those really shouldn't be used as sources on this topic because (to my knowledge) they haven't written anything pro-gob energy, and hence really can't be considered third party." Another attempt at removing critical material is justified by the claim that preventing Tation's supporters from editing the article as they like violated their rights to free speech. It is asserted vehemently that applying any standards to the editing process like NPOV constitutes censorship.

Five or ten of Tation's enthusiastic followers appear at Wikipedia, and more seem to come all the time. A few are blocked for overenthusiasm of one type or another, but it seems two new pro-Tation editors appear for every one that is blocked. The complaint is made that experienced Wikipedia editors are not open to outside information and outside ideas and are extremely biased. Many of these editors, although having almost no edits, seem to be well-acquainted with the acronyms and principles of Wikipedia and wikilawyering, right from their first few edits. This is true in spite of many having red links for their user page and sometimes even their talk pages. Some of these accounts were created a few days ago, some a few weeks ago, and some even months ago.

So how should the articles about Tation and gob energy be written? Is it a violation of NPOV to include criticism of gob energy or negative material about gob energy? Are there WP:BLP issues involved with Tation and the articles on gob energy? How would you handle this contentious article? Is it a violation of WP:NOR to compare gob energy to orgone energy? Are the followers of Tation and editors with a similar mindset being treated unfairly? What if several of them went to Wikipedia Review after being blocked or banned and started a campaign to threaten and attack and coerce the Wikipedia editors of this article? What if they issued repeated death threats to the editors advocating retaining sources critical to gob energy in the article? How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia spend to deal with this?

BLP.7 My wife is not a coauthor

Suppose person X has coauthored ten books with his wife, Y; X has also written ten single-author books. All twenty of these books are listed for sale on a website belonging to the couple, and on various other websites, with the authorship for each book listed as either "X" or "X and Y". All of these websites agree with each other. In addition, in interviews, X is quoted as saying that his wife had coauthored some of his books, and in his autobiography he describes the coauthorship process.

Therefore, in the biography of this person on Wikipedia, the article states that X has coauthored some of his books with his wife, Y. X then contacts Wikipedia, using the OTRS system, and threatens to sue Wikipedia for describing his wife as a coauthor of some of his books. He asks Wikipedia to assert that he wrote all of the books himself.

What should Wikipedia do? Should the article state something that is contrary to the reliable sources, which all agree with each other? Should the article state what the biographical subject wants it to state? What is the ethical thing to do? What is the encyclopedic thing to do? What precedent would your actions set, if any? How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia spend to deal with this?

BLP.8 I am the best

"Theobold Johnson III" is notable for having been involved in a football cheating scandal and also writes books about orchids, illustrated with beautiful pictures. Johnson has written several self-published books about orchids, and in their autobiographies and interviews he describes himself as "the greatest living orchid man" and "widely recognized by the academic world as the greatest orchid scholar in the world". Johnson refers to himself as "Dr. Johnson" or "Professor Johnson" frequently in print. Johnson also asserts in print that he is a professor in the Botany Department at the famous "Winthrop College" and has given his mailing address as "c/o Winthrop College" for many years. Johnson often writes that all other people studying orchids are morons and even all other botanists are stupid and vile disgusting fools who should be publicly flogged or worse.

In the course of writing a Wikipedia biography about Johnson, you start to uncover disturbing information. First, you are able to find a mention of a "Theobold Johnson III" on archived versions of the Winthrop College website from 1994-1997, but there is no mention of Johnson on earlier versions of the website, or later versions. A "T. Johnson, III" is listed as a visitor in the Computer Science Department of Winthrop College in the 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997 versions of the website, and a phone number is given. You contact the President's office at Winthrop College and the Dean of Science office at Winthrop College and ask if Johnson is or was a faculty member there. Receiving no reply, you ask a friend who knows the Dean personally to ask the Dean privately. The word comes back from your friend that he has talked to the Dean privately, and that Johnson is an embarassment and never had a faculty appointment at Winthrop College and just has his mail forwarded from Winthrop College due to some arrangement he made with someone in the Winthrop College mailroom 25 years previously. Johnson never was on the payroll of Winthrop College and never had an official position at Winthrop College and has not been on campus for 10 years or more. Johnson was listed for a few years on the telephone list and was a short term visitor, but this was just a courtesy and he was one of 3500 visitors a year who get this courtesy. The Dean's office then, thanks to the probing of your friend, issues a very carefully worded "official statement" about Johnson, stating he was never a faculty member at Winthrop College and inviting further inquiries to their Press Office, and sends you a copy.

You do some more checking, and find no evidence that Johnson has a PhD or any degree in botany or science whatsoever, at least from Liberty Washington University, as he claims. You do find a record at Liberty Washington Community College that Johnson obtained a bachelor's degree in history 30 years previously. You also find a report in the local newspaper that Johnson was expelled from Liberty Washington Community College for theft while he was an undergraduate, and then was readmitted and eventually graduated. You look at various lists and directories of prominent orchid scholars and find no mention of a Theobold Johnson in any edition of these directories. You also dig up 5 reviews of Johnson's books on orchids in various scholarly journals from different botanists and orchid scholars from Harvard and University of Pennsylvania and Yale. These reviews are uniformly poor, and state that Johnson is a charlatan and a fraud and his books are replete with errors and the worst possible nonsense. You then find another interview of Johnson published in Sports Illustrated where it is stated that Johnson has no PhD or other Doctorate, but it is a title that people use for him out of respect for his tremendous knowledge and learning.

How would you write a biography of this person on Wikipedia? What would be reasonable and accurate and ethical? What would be fair? What should Wikipedia do if this person contacts Wikipedia and demands that it write his biography the way he dictates? What if this person threatens legal action if Wikipedia does not do what he asks? How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia spend to deal with this?

BLP.9 Take me to your Leader Extraterrestrial Shape-shifting Reptile

David Icke is one of a suprisingly large group of people that believe that most of the world's leaders, from Bill Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton and George W. Bush to members of the British Royal Family, are blood drinking shapeshifting reptilian humanoids from the Alpha Draconis star system. A little investigation reveals that there are literally dozens of books and videos on this subject, including a number that purport to present "proof" of the truth of these claims. There are also thousands of websites on this subject matter and many many people who believe this to be completely true, and supported by immense bodies of incontrovertable and irrefutable evidence.

An editor appears on Wikipedia and wants to include a paragraph or two in the biographies of many politicians around the world alluding to the fact that these politicians are in fact secretly shape-shifting extraterrestrial lizards of some kind. This editor links to one or more of the sources that are claimed to provide "proof" for these allegations. This editor wants to include this material in several hundred Wikipedia biographies. This editor protests vehemently about any efforts to remove this material from Wikipedia articles. This editor angrily denounces Wikipedia as unfair and biased, and the removal of this material as evidence that Jimbo and Arbcomm and many of the admins on Wikipedia are also shapeshifting extraterrestrial reptiles, conspiring to keep this information secret and from the public.

What should Wikipedia do in this case? What would be fair and reasonable? Should Wikipedia allow these claims only in the biographies of politicians and leaders that are already deceased, to avoid problems with WP:BLP? What is the best course of action, and most journalistic and encyclopedic and ethical? How does one avoid offending this editor? What if this editor is joined by 50 others with the same agenda so they can overwhelm any minor response by Wikipedia editors? What sort of precedent would this set? Are the rules of Wikipedia important in this situation or not? Should they be ignored? Whose rules should be applied and when, to which cases? How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia spend to deal with this?

BLP.10 She lives!

Amelia Earhart, the pioneering female aviator, disappeared during a flight over the Pacific in 1937. She was born in 1897 and declared dead in 1939.

One of her inheritors dies and in his personal papers is found what appears to be Earhart's diary, with all kinds of embarassing personal details. For instance, in this purported diary, it appears that Earhart admits to drunkeness and petty thievery. These revelations cause a minor scandal in the mainstream media.

Some editors want to include information from this alleged diary in the biography of Earhart. A contingent of other editors appears and argues strenuously that this material cannot be included because of WP:BLP concerns. When it is pointed out that Earhart was declared dead in 1939, these editors counter that there were irregularities in the court proceedings. When it is further pointed out that Earhart would have to be 111 years old by now if she was still alive, these editors respond that many women in Earhart's family were very long lived. It is also claimed that to argue Earhart would be 111 years old by now is forbidden, since it is original research. These editors also claim that there is no real proof that Earhart died, and all kinds of conspiracy theories and other poorly sourced arguments start to surface. Some maintain that the diary must be a forgery, and so its contents cannot be included. Gradually the dispute becomes more heated.

Should the diary material be included in the Earhart biography? Does it violate WP:BLP? Suppose another court overturned the death declaration; would WP:BLP apply then?

What if this biography was not about Earhart, but someone who only disappeared 2 years ago? Would WP:BLP apply in that case?

What if the death declaration was not overturned, but there was substantial controversy about the findings of the court and a large public following that maintained that the subject of the article was still alive? At what point can Wikipedia assume that the subject is dead, and WP:BLP no longer applies? How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia spend to deal with this?

BLP.11 Franklin, is that you?

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 32nd president of the United States has been the subject of controversy about his bedroom escapades for decades. His wife Eleanor Roosevelt was also rumored to have been a lesbian, and the nature of their relationship has never been quite clear.

JoJo was the conductor on Roosevelt's personal railway car for several decades was present night and day to attend to the needs of the Roosevelts. JoJo also observed the professional and personal lives of the Roosevelts at close range. JoJo is in his 90s, and recently gave an interview about his experiences to his grandson, who is a New York Times reporter. JoJo told many stories about meeting Joseph Stalin and Winston Churchill, and has a number of signed photographs and other memorabilia of that time. When asked about the Roosevelts' personal activities, JoJo decides to reveal all, and spins a fantastic tale of wild orgies. JoJo's grandson writes this somewhat sensationalistic story up and publishes it in the New York Times Sunday edition.

The leader of an obscure Colorado cult claims to be the reincarnation of FDR, gaining some press coverage. The cult leader has a large number of reasons why he believes he is the reincarnation of FDR, and his followers assert that they believe he has proven this fact beyond any doubt.

A Wikipedia article on FDR has a section describing the New York Times interview of JoJo. Several editors, some of whom might be members of this Colorado cult, appear on the Wikipedia FDR article talk page to demand that any mention of this JoJo interview be removed. These editors claim that the describing the JoJo interview is a violation of WP:BLP, since the cult leader is the reincarnation of FDR, and this is unnecessarily embarassing to him.

When some Wikipedians decline to remove the mention of this NY Times interview of JoJo, the editors who appear to be members of the Colorado cult charge that Wikipedia is violating their religious freedoms and disrespecting their religious beliefs because Wikipedia has not accepted their argument that the cult leader is FDR.

Is this a violation of WP:BLP? What should be done with the FDR article? Should JoJo's interview be mentioned in the Wikipedia FDR article? Are the editors who appear to be members of the Colorado cult violating WP:COI by editing the FDR article, since they are associated with the reincarnation of FDR?

How does this situation relate to the previous incarnations of the Dalai Lama? For example, is an article about Thubten Gyatso (1879-1933) subject to WP:BLP because some believe that Tenzin Gyatso (1935- ) is his reincarnation, and so Gyatso still lives? Do the recent pieces of legislation by the Chinese government, making it a crime to reincarnate after death without official Chinese government permission, constitute the recognition by some official government body of the reality of reincarnation? What if there were United Nations resolutions on reincarnation ; would that constitute some official legal recognition of reincarnation, requiring Wikipedia to apply WP:BLP in these cases?

What if Wikipeda reincorporates itself in California, and is therefore subject to California state law, and the state government in California passes some resolution recognizing Tenzin Gyatso as the reincarnation of Thubten Gyatso? In that case, does WP:BLP apply to the biography of Thubten Gyatso (1879-1933)?

What about mediums that claim to channel the voices of the dead? For instance, suppose that some subject of a Wikipedia BLP allegedly is not really dead but is in Purgatory or is a disembodied spirit or some other variety of revenant, possibly communicating through a medium or by Ouija board to object to how their Wikipedia biography is written? How should Wikipedia respond in that case? What is Wikipedia policy about biographies of the reincarnated, or of spectral entities who are communicating their wishes for their biographies to us from beyond the grave? How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia spend to deal with this?

BLP.12 Bishopric

Shaun Hannesy O'Flannigan is a current Bishop in Northern Ireland. He is a well known and widely respected figure in Northern Ireland. Recently, a document has come to light that indicates that a few years ago, O'Flannigan had been a member of the terrorist group, Green September. Green September was responsible for a lot of violence during The Troubles, and O'Flannigan supposedly signed a pledge of allegiance to the goals of Green September when he was a young man. Reporters from newspapers try to get a comment from O'Flannigan on the matter, but he declines repeatedly.

The Washington Post publishes a story that notes that O'Flannigan signed this pledge of allegiance and has not renounced membership in Green September or made any comments about his activities in association with Green September. Wikipedia includes a section in O'Flannigan's biography describing this. The Wikipedia article notes that the title of the article in the Washington Post alludes to this pledge of allegiance as a "pro-terrorism manifesto".

An editor appears on Wikipedia who claims to be Thomas O'Reilly, and claims to be a close personal friend of O'Flannigan and a drinking buddy of O'Flannigan. User: O'Reilly starts to edit the O'Flannigan article and discord erupts.

• O'Reilly tries to remove all mention of the Washington Post article from Wikipedia
• O'Reilly claims that O'Flannigan never signed the pledge of allegiance
• O'Reilly claims that the Washington Post never called the pledge of allegiance a "pro-terrorism manifesto" since it was in a title
• O'Reilly claims we have no proof that O'Flannigan signed the pledge of allegiance so we cannot include it in the article
• O'Reilly claims that O'Flannigan was tricked into signing the pledge of allegiance
• O'Reilly claims that O'Flannigan signed a blank piece of paper and that the pledge of allegiance was added later
• O'Reilly claims that O'Flannigan does not subscribe to the terms of the pledge of allegiance and never did and has told him so privately
• O'Reilly edit wars to try to introduce long complicated explanations O'Reilly has invented of how O'Flannigan's name came to be on the pledge of allegiance, but O'Reilly has no sources backing up his theories
• O'Reilly wants Wikipedia to include 2 long paragraphs denouncing the Washington Post and the reporter for shoddy journalism and unethical behavior for writing the story
• O'Reilly claims that Wikipedia is being unethical by including the information from the Washington Post
• O'Reilly claims that it is obvious to everyone that a Bishop in the church would never sign such a pledge, and therefore Wikipedia is guilty of violating WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:RS and so on
• O'Reilly belittles and attacks anyone who does not agree with him, spewing acres of venom on the talk pages
• O'Reilly claims that the pledge of allegiance is not a pro-terrorism manifesto, no matter what it looks like or what the media or authorities say
• O'Reilly claims that it is obvious that a man of the cloth would never sign such a thing, and that it is unethical for Wikipedia to include any reference to the Washington Post article or the statements in the Washington Post article.

Wikipedia editors contact O'Flannigan several times to see if he will make a comment or if there is a statement made by O'Flannigan published somewhere that can be referenced to give O'Flannigan's views on the matter. O'Flannigan promises to make such a statement, but never does. Wikipedia editors suggest that O'Reilly arrange for O'Flannigan to make a statement on his position in their Church Newsletter so Wikipedia can use that as a source, but O'Reilly never does, even though O'Reilly is asked to do so over and over.

O'Reilly becomes incensed that this article from the Washington Post is included in the biography of O'Flannigan. O'Reilly claims it is a violation of WP:BLP to include this in the biography, since there is no evidence that O'Flannigan signed the pledge. Wikipedia editors offer to remove the O'Flannigan article from Wikipedia, but O'Reilly objects strenuously.

What should Wikipedia do? How should the biography of O'Flannigan be written? What sort of material violates the WP:BLP standard in this case? Is the Washington Post a reliable source? Is there any evidence that O'Flannigan signed the pledge? Does O'Flannigan support the goals of Green September if he never renounced the goals or made any statements? Can the pledge be described as a "pro-terrorism manifesto" if the Washington Post, several other sources, as well as "plain reading" of the text seem to suggest? Should O'Reilly be allowed to edit unfettered? Does O'Reilly have a strong case here? Is there a WP:COI problem here? How many hours of editor time should Wikipedia spend to deal with this?