Fabio Barraclough Options

[Peter Damian]

There's been a lot of work going on with this article, by Jimmy and others, removing blatant unsourced allegations
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=469771969

What I'm interested in is the claim here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fabio_Barraclough that this got into a DYK. Has the original DYK been oversighted?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[EricBarbour]

According to the BLP noticeboard:

The subject of this biography has contacted me with strenuous complaints. It looks like a serious BLP case. I'm forwarding this to OTRS as well, because I think we need a lot of eyes on it.

The first line of his biography states that he was a money launderer and spy - without a source. He objects strongly. I have not yet checked the strength of the sources more generally, but it is not ok to start a biography in that way without a source front and center.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Very much agreed. Per policy, should it not be immediately removed (at least normally) if not oversighted? Ah, been done. fredgandt 16:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Appears to be promotion for a book - which does not even seem to support some of the claims made. Collect (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

On a related note, should we have a [[Category:Possibly living people]]? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I also made a couple of reducing edits. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. If the content is to be expanded a bit, it will require strong citations and attribution to whoever is claiming this or that contentious detail. Youreallycan (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to confirm that OTRS has got this: ticket is 2012010310014919. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone bothered to look at the source? Jimbo's assertion that there was no source is incorrect: it was given in the subsequent section where the details of this claim were presented: Bell, Terry; Dumisa Buhle Ntsebeza (2003). Unfinished Business: South Africa, Apartheid, and Truth. Verso. p. 103. ISBN 1859845452. The discussion on pp. 101-102 is sufficient at least for the assertion that he was a spy (I don't see anything there about money-laundering, but then there are other parts of the book discussing Barraclough). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that discussion, which does not mention the word 'spy' at all, is not sufficient to make that claim. But in any event, my point was that this was in the first sentence of the article, and that sentence did not cite any source for this.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The use of "spy" in relation to Barraclough comes on p. 100. Leads often do not repeat references given in later sections. It's fine to insist on one -- and there's no problem, because one is available. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

And this book is reviewed, and the allegations of being a "paid informer" are repeated, in current reference [5], this article in the THES. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)