AndyTheGrump (talk | contribs) →Nikki Yanofsky: explain the significance, Bus Stop. |
|||
Line 974: | Line 974: | ||
::::I believe the above edit to the ''Personal life'' section of the article, made by me, is completely supported by sources. In fact, that is the primary issue here. Is the assertion that ''"Yanofsky is Jewish"'' supported by sources? I think that is what we should be primarily be discussing. [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] ([[User talk:Bus stop|talk]]) 22:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC) |
::::I believe the above edit to the ''Personal life'' section of the article, made by me, is completely supported by sources. In fact, that is the primary issue here. Is the assertion that ''"Yanofsky is Jewish"'' supported by sources? I think that is what we should be primarily be discussing. [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] ([[User talk:Bus stop|talk]]) 22:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::::Can you please stop posting in discussion format, engorged and elongated comments in links? what part of [diff] don't you understand? [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 22:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC) |
:::::Can you please stop posting in discussion format, engorged and elongated comments in links? what part of [diff] don't you understand? [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 22:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::::No. What we should be discussing is whether the fact that Yanofsky is of Jewish descent is of any significance to the article. Since you utterly refuse to explain why you see any significance to this, I can only assume that you consider imposing your own neuroses on Wikipedia as more important than the stated aims of the project. On this basis, I would support a call for you to be topic banned from any BLPs of persons of Jewish descent, ethnicity or faith. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 22:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Alena Gerber == |
== Alena Gerber == |
Revision as of 22:58, 6 April 2011
Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here. | ||
---|---|---|
This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.
Additional notes:
| ||
Aaron Saxton
Would any editors be available to have a look at the Aaron Saxton BLP? This includes an embedded video, originally self-published as part of a series on YouTube which has been uploaded to Commons (see Commons category). The YouTube video itself is, as far as I am aware, non-notable, in that no reliable sources have commented upon it. It, and the other videos in the series, make statements about third parties, and I am unsure if the embedding of the video in the article is in line with WP:BLPSPS. Views? --JN466 10:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- I did notice how the videoes were uploaded to youtube and uploaded from there to here and now removed from youtube, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgSWH64wmJE - I wonder if the permission we have is actually verified as the subject in question? I was wondering, if it was him , he will be aware they are all now hosted here and why the uploader to youtube removed them? The uploaders channel has basically been blanked - http://www.youtube.com/user/aaronsaxton1#g/c/B1EB614764CFDF0B - Perhaps someone with OTRS at commons could have a look at https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=4052753 and see who dealt with the original OTRS and what kind of verification of permission is there. As for the notability of the video itself as its self published and discusses other people that would create serious issues or a violation in my mind in regard to SELFPUB.Off2riorob (talk) 11:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'll take a look. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, permissions seems ok, although no extra effort has been expended to ensure the granter was Saxton, but this is normally done only if someone challenges the copyright, or there is some other reason to expend extraordinary effort. So you'd be back to SEFPUB and other arguments for/against inclusion. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Who dealt with the original OTRS details. Off2riorob (talk) 14:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- You don't need to know that. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) - Seems a bit unnecessarily secretive - So the OTRS permission - was it an email from the copyright holder or was it just that the youtube account was in the name of the person in the video? Is there actually any verification at all? As regards not allowing a question as to who dealt with the original OTRS details, could you direct me to that policy/guideline, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- At the risk of violating BEANS, I'll simply say I'm concerned about the Wikimedia privacy policy, and leave it at that. The person self-identified and used an email address which would indicate they were who they stated. More was not done, as I have mentioned before. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- OK, well, thanks for looking. Off2riorob (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- At the risk of violating BEANS, I'll simply say I'm concerned about the Wikimedia privacy policy, and leave it at that. The person self-identified and used an email address which would indicate they were who they stated. More was not done, as I have mentioned before. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) - Seems a bit unnecessarily secretive - So the OTRS permission - was it an email from the copyright holder or was it just that the youtube account was in the name of the person in the video? Is there actually any verification at all? As regards not allowing a question as to who dealt with the original OTRS details, could you direct me to that policy/guideline, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- You don't need to know that. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Who dealt with the original OTRS details. Off2riorob (talk) 14:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- So, its so hard to assess when you are not an OTRS or an administrator, - this video was uploaded to wikipedia commons by User:Cirt on the 19th November 2009 from a youtube account in the name of Aaron Saxton and the next day after a verification email from Aaron Saxton the subject of the video had been received at OTRS, User:Cirt then added the ORTS verified permission template? Off2riorob (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, an OTRS volunteer "verifying" his own uploads... The secret documentation is an effective threshold against copyright challenges. As to the BLP issue, yes, the article is stronly dependent on this self-published source. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps its a side issue but the Aaron Saxton BLP was also written by ... User:Cirt - Off2riorob (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- This is one of several videos of critics of the Church of Scientology uploaded to Commons by Cirt and collected at the Free-use Scientology-related video project. Although Cirt verified their own upload, Cirt is an OTRS volunteer and the ticket can be reviewed by any editor with OTRS access (as KillerChihuahua has done). The issue here is the use of the video on en.wiki, if claims are made about third parties. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- I had a look at it, the written transcript of the video is here at commons - uploaded to the chat forum of the anti Scientology activist group Anonymous (group) on november 19, 2009 - uploaded to wikipedia by user:Cirt the next day. Off2riorob (talk) 01:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC) - as I see it, he is mostly talking about himself and his experiences in Scientology but doesn't mention any individual specifically , but, as per BLP an org or company such as Scientology is a group of living people - as per WP:SELFPUB it is touch and go I would say take it out, if in doubt take it out. The GA reviewer had issues about it himself see Talk:Aaron Saxton/GA1 but appears to have let it ride. It could be asserted that he is an vocal oppositional of the Organization and his negative comments about the Org are self published negative opinion and should be removed from the article. Off2riorob (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- He is making statements that the Church disputes. The embedded video is part 1 of 7; there is more in the other 6 parts, including allegations against named persons: [1]. The article shouldn't be a platform for his allegations. We should remove the embedded video, but leave the Commons link to them. As far as the use of the videos as sources for article content is concerned, it's mostly basic biographical detail, which is alright. The article also says "While a member of the Commodore's Messenger Organization (CMO), Saxton attempted to make sure those under his supervision had adequate nourishment.[23][24] As a recruiter for the CMO, Saxton typically tried to get Scientologists between ages 13 to 14 to join the organisation.[25]", sourced to these self-published videos. The first sentence could be perceived as self-serving. Other than that I don't see a problem with how the videos have been used to source content. --JN466 11:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- I had a look at it, the written transcript of the video is here at commons - uploaded to the chat forum of the anti Scientology activist group Anonymous (group) on november 19, 2009 - uploaded to wikipedia by user:Cirt the next day. Off2riorob (talk) 01:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC) - as I see it, he is mostly talking about himself and his experiences in Scientology but doesn't mention any individual specifically , but, as per BLP an org or company such as Scientology is a group of living people - as per WP:SELFPUB it is touch and go I would say take it out, if in doubt take it out. The GA reviewer had issues about it himself see Talk:Aaron Saxton/GA1 but appears to have let it ride. It could be asserted that he is an vocal oppositional of the Organization and his negative comments about the Org are self published negative opinion and should be removed from the article. Off2riorob (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- This is one of several videos of critics of the Church of Scientology uploaded to Commons by Cirt and collected at the Free-use Scientology-related video project. Although Cirt verified their own upload, Cirt is an OTRS volunteer and the ticket can be reviewed by any editor with OTRS access (as KillerChihuahua has done). The issue here is the use of the video on en.wiki, if claims are made about third parties. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps its a side issue but the Aaron Saxton BLP was also written by ... User:Cirt - Off2riorob (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
This appears to be a situation similar to that discussed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 62#Self-published Youtube video. In that case a similar anti-CoS video, also uploaded by Cirt but with the OTRS confirmation added shortly after by User:Kmccoy (who did not appear to be an OTRS volunteer at that time) was removed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't get that - why would User:Kmccoy be verifying OTRS claims when he wasn't an OTRS volunteer? Off2riorob (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sure there is a simple explanation. I've left a note on Kmccoy's talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Kmccoy does not appear to be very active, so I have asked on the OTRS talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sure there is a simple explanation. I've left a note on Kmccoy's talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- note - removed in this edit as per the policy issues raised and as per consensus in this discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Ronn Torossian (old)
Ronn Torossian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
BLP edits were made which are inaccurate (Drive people out of Jerusalem never stated), not which he is noteable for (owns a PR agency), and not well sourced given BLP issues. Pls assist with cleanup as user is very agressively harming this live active person. --108.21.128.55 (talk) 13:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- The criticisms in that article were attributed to the New York Times, the Forward (considered a reliable newspaper), The Atlantic, the Haaretz newspaper, and Ad Age. One quote was attributed to Herbert Nolan, a writer on the Gawker website. I would not consider Gawker to be a reliable source for information, even though it is highly respected within the PR community. However, I did not rely on that source for information, but only quoted Nolan's opinion. Nolan himself is well-known and a respected media critic.
- The anonymous editor 108.21.128.55, in the article 5W Public Relations has used an interesting tactic - he has removed all the footnotes from the section critical of 5WPR, so that he can now contend that the information is unsourced and removed it. I am wondering if he used the same trick at Ronn Torossian. This editor has since been blocked for sockpuppetry. --Ravpapa (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- (... or block evasion - take your pick.)
- To echo the comment I made on Talk:5W Public Relations, I would suggest writing ultra-conservatively in this instance. Although the NYT tends to be used as almost the definition of what a WP:RS is, it also sometimes manages to host editorial pieces ("op-eds") that are definitely not the sort of material we want to be basing negative BLP content on. I would also consider leaving out the Gawker material unless it was itself discussed in a WP:RS. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to punish the sockpuppets by our even subconsciously allowing non-neutral negative material to enter articles that we believe the sockpuppets had a COI with. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. I was, perhaps, carried away by my anger at someone trying to make a mockery of this noble institution. On the other hand, we have to take into account that the only really notable thing about Ronn Torossian is the controversy he stirs, both because of his aggressive tactics and because of his fringe views on Israel. If we excise those from the article, we might just as well delete it, as what remains is a mediocre PR hack with a crewcut. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Ernst and young named him a semi finalist to ent of year pr week ad age 40 under 40. His clients (who may or may not be right wing) are for his firms webpage not for personal stories on him. He's been featured in ny times and business week feature stories none of which mention Israel. Your personal political bias are apparent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.72.4 (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- The avatars of babasalichai and associates continue to surprise me with their inability to compose a simple English sentence, and their complementary inability to read and comprehend the written word. Here is what the New York Times profile has to say about Torossian's involvement with Israel:
- While leading a group called the Coalition for Jewish Concerns, a 20-year-old Mr. Torossian protested at a presidential rally for Pat Buchanan in New Hampshire.
- His first public relations job came in 1998 when Peter Vallone, then the City Council speaker and a candidate for governor, needed someone to organize a business trip to Israel. He hired Mr. Torossian, who was living in the country at the time.
- In an oft-told story, Mr. Torossian said he persuaded the speaker to tour the settlements along the West Bank, despite the controversy surrounding their status. "There's no Arab voting bloc in New York," Mr. Torossian recalled telling him. "What's your downside? Who are you going to alienate?" A meeting was arranged with the mayor of the West Bank city of Hebron. "When we got out of the car," Mr. Torossian said proudly, "there were 40 reporters waiting."
- In other words, the New York Times, while focusing primarily on his PR career, does indeed mention his commitment to Israel. Moreover, dozens of other sources discuss this aspect of Torossian exclusively. I am sure that Torossian himself considers his commitment to Israel an important part of his persona, and would consider a profile of himself that did not include that to be incomplete. Perhaps, 66.65.72.4, you could ask him yourself. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- What I don't get is the incessant need to write just the controversy. This Ravpapa editor seems ti believe that Gawker is the end all of genuine news, when in fact it is a blog that thrives on controversy. As for the Gawker writer writing about him being smart or not, is this writer a Mensa tester, a Regents adviser or other? Why is that quote relevant or treated as more than hearsay? Please be balanced and be fair.
Also, the Pistons piece - is that all there is in the article? Ronn Torossian being aggressive and brash is established, why can't balance be added to the piece to reflect possibly comments from those who don't mind it as much as those who do?
Abigail7 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC).
- I think one of your problems, Abigail, is with understanding the nuances of the English in the NYT quote. I am guessing from your many errors in writing that you, like NYCdan, babasalichai, and the others, are not a native English speaker. So I will explain: the quote "the consummate scrappy publicist" is meant as a compliment. The quote from Nolan is meant to balance this compliment.
- By now, I have read quite a bit about Torossian, including interviews and things he has written himself. I have found no one who has not described his PR style as aggressive, brash, pushy. Some, like the NYT writer, find this an admirable aspect of his personality. Others, like Nolan, think that Torossian's aggressiveness is excessive. A legitimate disagreement, one that should be documented in this profile of him. That is what balance is all about.--Ravpapa (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm reading this too - and I am new here, but not new to news and happenings, and I see that while the NYTimes is a valid reference, the balance should be equally as strong. Gawker is not that. If you wish to argue Gawker, maybe the comment on his style would be balance (if you want to argue Gawker=NYTimes), but the part about Torossian not be that bright is just unnecessarily mean and only there for the purpose of disparaging. I would hope that other true objective Wikipedia editors would see this and realize that this while edit war it about highlighting the issues that make Torossian look as bad as one can.
--BetHillel (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Another new user who just happens to have a fascination with a particular PR firm and its owner? That's like the fourth in 48 hours.
- Anyway I have trimmed out 90% of the quote, purely on the grounds that it's not Wikipedia's place to be relaying opinions about the lack of intelligence of living persons. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Don’t people love to sling mud at those who are more successful and accomplished than themselves? Torrosian has made a place for himself in the highly competitive world of PR at such an early age. His awards and success stories speak for themselves and naturally cause much bad blood which often results in his unfair criticism. But Wikipedia is no place to vent such negative emotions. Offensive article from Gawker which is libellous and include secondary sources and slander should be removed right away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelbstinnett (talk • contribs) 12:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- As I indicated on the Ronn Torossian talk page, I agree that Gawker is not the best source for this kind of criticism, and that I would remove it. I have duly done so, replacing it with quotes from two sources that are unarguably reliable.
- I am pleased to note that the debate over Ronn Torossian and 5W Public Relations has inspired three new editors, hitherto anonymous, to create usernames and contribute to the Wikipedia. While the similarities in writing styles and in interests of Abigail7, BetHillel, and Michaelbstinnett are, perhaps, surprising, I nonetheless believe that each will bring his or her unique contribution to building the encyclopedia. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- RavPapa - you might wish to notice that I am not editing the page, but adding to the proper talk pages to help combat the spin that some people feel necessary to include. I am well aware that any change I make to the page will be promptly attacked and changed back for no other reason that I did it, regardless of what it said.
- --BetHillel (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm helping out here, too. There's some critical material that needs to be reviewed, and some balance material gone from previous versions that may be reintroduced if it checks out. --Dweller (talk) 12:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Whereas Torossian began his career with Israel advocacy, he has since done a lot more. He is on the record commenting on the antics of Lindsey Lohan and Tiger Woods, and even Charlie Sheen. While he was once almost solely about Israel policy, he is now about public relations and commenting on how public figures can do it the right way or wrong way. Shouldn't his Wikipedia presence, as it is a living and evolving encyclopedia, evolve with every year he adds more notable commentary to the pool the editors seem to be choosing from?
--BetHillel (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Quoting someone else's comments from Torossian's talk page:
"There is not need for this article to simply define Torossian with a spin; it should just be an article on what makes him who he is. That is, the good, the bad and the facts - none of which should overemphasize any others. To simply leave the faux pas in a career spanning two decades without also speaking equally of the facts that his style and methods have also been received well enough by different people than he may have offended, is disingenuous to say the least.
- Torossian pissed off the rabbis mentioned, but he counseled an Israeli Prime minister, has served many Israeli Parliament members, and represented the Israeli foreign ministry, ministry of tourism and a host of others. To say that the two Jews mentioned define him is just inaccurate and frankly - weighted."
--BetHillel (talk) 00:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- I urge administrators and impartial editors here to look - don't gloss over Torossian's dark clouds, but don't make them the only ones in the sky.
Lara Logan
Lara Logan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Comment on whether these details of her sexual assault are encyclopedic and compliant with BLP guidelines. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lara_Logan&action=historysubmit&diff=421189231&oldid=421163799 Mindbunny (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- My opinion: delete Mindbunny (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd delete the information, but only because it seems to imply that the attackers were protesters. If the information was to be retained, I would at least delete the last sentence about the Times with the long quote, simply because it's too much information vis-a-vis the noteworthiness of the event.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I went into the article, and all I did was correct a date error and move a sentence up to the paragraph above. An editor reverted me, apparently believing I was removing the information. How he could believe that is beyond me. Meanwhile, another editor then actually removed the information. I then made the mistake of looking at the Talk page. The issue of what to put in the article about the assault goes on forevever, and I can't figure out what the conclusion was or whether there even was a conclusion. One thing stands out is the heat of the discussion. I'm withdrawing my comment above, if for no other reason than Mindbunny, who was a participant in this extended discussion, could have alerted us to the contentiousness and history of the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hm? It's a contentious issue. That's why I'm requesting outside views (again). If outsiders refuse to get involved in anything contentious, it removes a basic way of resolving contentious issues. Just to be clear: the page has been fully protected more than once over this matter, although the main issue was actually different from what seems to be the issue now. (Previously, it was mainly, but not exclusively, shouts of "Jew" whose appropriateness was contested.) Mindbunny (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- The page has been fully protected several times because there has been ownership issues and edit warring. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] Previous votes and consensus efforts have been deemed irrelevant by Mindbunny. This is a part of the continuing effort whose objective is made clear by the above diffs.V7-sport (talk) 04:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- There has been never been consensus to include the material. While there was a poll, with respect to the material under discussion, the result was 6-6, no consensus, which means in a BLP that the details should not be included. Note that the "partial keep" vote specifically states that the 'stripped, punched, slapped, beaten with poles' stuff should be left out. That means that with respect to the specific material under discussion, which is precisely what is quoted, the "partial keep" vote is actually a "delete" vote. That's 6-6 and doesn't include me. I'll go ahead and add my !vote, even though 6-6 is no consensus anyway. Yworo (talk) 04:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, to wade through all that talk page discussion would take a full-time scorekeeper and hours, if not days. Give us an executive summary of the over all dispute. I think in most cases when a professional international journalist, her colleagues and her employer assert that she has been sexually assaulted, she most likely was sexually assaulted. How much more detail do we need to know? I don't care which orifice, if she was fully or partially stripped or bitten rather then pinched. I do care about the level of violence and any racial or national overtones if they are well sourced and most especially that she is receiving care and there is some hope of an investigation. The diff posted by the complainant does not on its surface appear to be overly graphic or lurid, even though it is more info then I personally care to know, I don't see much harm in that diff though I am a male so may be missing something. Beyond that, what exactly does V7-sport (no, I'm not sloshing through your 17 diffs to figure out your issue without some direction, give us a summary) insist must be published and what exactly does the privacy sensitive group apparently led by Mindbunny wish to keep private? I suspect that there is much more to this debate then the diff provided in the complaint. Veriss (talk) 05:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- There's no value in just transferring the arguments from there to here. I was hoping for uninfluenced views. The basic concerns are that these details haven't been authorized or confirmed by the victim, the ultimate source is anonymous, and whether this much detail about a sexual assault violates due weight principles. Mindbunny (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Authorized? Is that the criteria for inclusion now? And no, the sources are not anonymous, there is the NY Post, the London Times, Fox, CBS, etc. etc.
- Your ideas of "due weight" have resulted in an article that devotes more space to the "Michael Hastings controversy" and the utterances Glenn Greenwald and "Matt Taibbi (who) wrote a Rolling Stone blog entry titled "Lara Logan You Suck"... As the article stands now the reader has idea what happened there or any insight into the reasons why she has been off the air for 2 months.
- And when you, several times, write things like "There is an obvious agenda among a surprisingly large group of editors focussed on Judaism and the Middle East who are intent on pushing a POV" as another excuse to cleanse the article of anything that might reflect badly on the people who sexually assaulted her it makes it difficult to believe that you are just interested in "due weight principles". V7-sport (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Just back up , and stick to the content issues or move along, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Re Veriss, I agree with you that the minute details of her assault needn't be posted, however I also agree with I do care about the level of violence and any racial or national overtones if they are well sourced and most especially that she is receiving care and there is some hope of an investigation. That material has been purged from the article. V7-sport (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- The "level of violence and any racial or national overtones" simply aren't pertinent to the subject of the article being discussed. They should be integrated into Egyptian revolution of 2011 where they would actually add something to the article! Yworo (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- The level of violence and any racial or national overtones are pertinent. It establishes what she was doing and the level of risk involved in doing it. Funny how we can devote space to Glenn Greanwald and Matt Taibbi taking potshots at her from the safety their rec-rooms but no mention of dangerous environment that she put herself into in order to get a story or the consequences there of is permissible. It's a sliding scale of what is "on topic". V7-sport (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- The "level of violence and any racial or national overtones" simply aren't pertinent to the subject of the article being discussed. They should be integrated into Egyptian revolution of 2011 where they would actually add something to the article! Yworo (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Re Veriss, I agree with you that the minute details of her assault needn't be posted, however I also agree with I do care about the level of violence and any racial or national overtones if they are well sourced and most especially that she is receiving care and there is some hope of an investigation. That material has been purged from the article. V7-sport (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Just back up , and stick to the content issues or move along, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
To reply to Mindbunny's original query, I suggest that WP:BLP be interpreted to mandate that we don't include highly specific details of a sexual assault of a named living person unless she herself has disclosed them.Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- She could have been "beaten and sexually assaulted" in Cleavland. What is sourced is that she went into a highly charged crowd, was mobbed, stripped, beaten with flag polls as the crowd chanted "Jew Jew" and "Israeli". The way the article stands gives the reader no idea of any of that while, for instance, it does go into detail on the opinions of her various detractors because she reported something they disagreed with. V7-sport (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think the article is quite clear about where the event occurred and the general conditions present. You started a poll and the !vote went against you. Now you need to honor it. Yworo (talk) 23:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- She could have been "beaten and sexually assaulted" in Cleavland. What is sourced is that she went into a highly charged crowd, was mobbed, stripped, beaten with flag polls as the crowd chanted "Jew Jew" and "Israeli". The way the article stands gives the reader no idea of any of that while, for instance, it does go into detail on the opinions of her various detractors because she reported something they disagreed with. V7-sport (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
My name isn't Berean–Hunter and no, the article certainly isn't clear about the event or the conditions therein. V7-sport (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Regarding "authorized", yes. The details of the sexual assault of a named living person should be restricted to what the victim has confirmed, as a general rule. I can imagine exceptions, but I see none here. I certainly don't see grounds for an exception in the publication by the New York Post (voted the least credible publication in New York) of details that are anonymously sourced. Mindbunny (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- The threshold for inclusion is not "confirmed by the victim" and that an assault occurred isn't even in question. V7-sport (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Logan's privacy should trump even reliably sourced details under WP:BLP and WP:NOTNEWS. Off2RioRob, any thoughts here? Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not Rob, but I agree with Jonathan. It's a blend of policy and editorial judgment. In addition to the privacy issue, the details are simply not necessary to document the event. A line needs to be drawn. Wikipedia is not a tabloid of gratuitously graphic material.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." -WP:WELLKNOWN Jonathanwallace, I'm not advocating inclusion the details of this assault above and beyond that it was sexual in nature. The actions of the crowd however are important to the understanding of what transpired. V7-sport (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, in this case there aren't a "multitude of reliable published sources". There's a multitude of unreliable sources and perhaps *one* reliable source. So WP:WELLKNOWN doesn't apply. Yworo (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- The inclusion of details about the sexual assault is the only thing this thread is about. That's the text of the diff I brought here. That's the text that has been re-inserted and re-deleted recently. So, what does V7-sport mean when he says he doesn't advocate it? He reinserted it [19]. Mindbunny (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Logan's privacy should trump even reliably sourced details under WP:BLP and WP:NOTNEWS. Off2RioRob, any thoughts here? Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- So, as long as unneeded lurid detail is kept out of the article, you do not object to edits pertaining to this phrase "I do care about the level of violence and any racial or national overtones if they are well sourced..." I think addressing the level of violence and any racial/national overtones issue is most definitely relative to her situation, her career as a woman international journalist and why she has been absent for over a month. Racial and national overtones of the assault illustrate how terrifying the experience was for her and the intent of the mob assaulting her. Was she a symbol? That matters in this case. Logan apparently spent more then a few days recovering in a US hospital. I am not a doctor but it seems to me that injuries requiring that much hospitalization must have been serious and the level of violence must of been extreme. The article as it stands makes no mention of her extended hospital stay, the level of violence, what the overtones were, the fact she was overwhelmed by a group of "200" (that is a significant and terrifying amount) according to one NYT article, that it is was serious enough for President Obama to telephone her or that the incident has affected her career as she now has a new position. She is not a waitress in some restaurant, she is a high profile, notable, international journalist. The other unanswered questions need to be addressed. Are there concerns addressing the non-lurid issues as well? Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 04:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see any problem with giving it a paragraph. Reputable sources gave it some space. 1 paragraph is not going to give it so much prominence that nothing else in the article is noticed. It might be lurid but we are not here to censor material. If reputable sources didn't censor it we certainly shouldn't.Cptnono (talk) 04:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- So something like this? [20] or this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lara_Logan&diff=416991271&oldid=416981775} Losing the part "and red marks on her body initially believed to be bite marks turned out to be the result of pinching"? V7-sport (talk) 23:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- No , nothing like that, this is getting tendentious, such additions have been rejected for the last month - its old hat, I suggest you take down your tent give it a rest - thousands of bytes here and there and still good faith objections from experienced editors and no vision of a consensus on the horizon - the incident is already in the BLP and well written according to BLP guidelines. Off2riorob (talk) 23:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- So something like this? [20] or this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lara_Logan&diff=416991271&oldid=416981775} Losing the part "and red marks on her body initially believed to be bite marks turned out to be the result of pinching"? V7-sport (talk) 23:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see any problem with giving it a paragraph. Reputable sources gave it some space. 1 paragraph is not going to give it so much prominence that nothing else in the article is noticed. It might be lurid but we are not here to censor material. If reputable sources didn't censor it we certainly shouldn't.Cptnono (talk) 04:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- So, as long as unneeded lurid detail is kept out of the article, you do not object to edits pertaining to this phrase "I do care about the level of violence and any racial or national overtones if they are well sourced..." I think addressing the level of violence and any racial/national overtones issue is most definitely relative to her situation, her career as a woman international journalist and why she has been absent for over a month. Racial and national overtones of the assault illustrate how terrifying the experience was for her and the intent of the mob assaulting her. Was she a symbol? That matters in this case. Logan apparently spent more then a few days recovering in a US hospital. I am not a doctor but it seems to me that injuries requiring that much hospitalization must have been serious and the level of violence must of been extreme. The article as it stands makes no mention of her extended hospital stay, the level of violence, what the overtones were, the fact she was overwhelmed by a group of "200" (that is a significant and terrifying amount) according to one NYT article, that it is was serious enough for President Obama to telephone her or that the incident has affected her career as she now has a new position. She is not a waitress in some restaurant, she is a high profile, notable, international journalist. The other unanswered questions need to be addressed. Are there concerns addressing the non-lurid issues as well? Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 04:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
The current version is unsatisfactory on many, many levels. It does disservice to her as a professional international journalist and the risks she and other journalists, male and female, face daily. It makes no mention of the affects the incident had on her health or career and it completely sidesteps the issue of if she was a 'symbol' and whether nationalist or racist remarks were chanted while she was raped. As it stands this section of her article is a travesty. "Jew, Jew, Jew" and "Israeli" were sourced and chanted while she was raped while she is apparently not Jewish nor Israeli but is blonde and of South African descent. These political overtones are very germane to the discussion. Is this information left out due to lack of interest or opposition which may be politically driven in nature? I have seen a glimmer of the latter in this discussion so far. Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- It would help if you got your facts straight. No reliable source states that she was raped. No reliable source states "Jew" was chanted while she was assaulted. No reliable source states what effect the incident had on her health or career. The sexual assault is recent and she has not yet commented on it--which is natural. The question of interpreting her as a symbol hasn't been discussed. The "information" is omitted because the one company originating it (various News Corp companies) ultimately has not named any sources, because it is not confirmed by the victim, because it is about something deeply sensitive and private, and BLP requirement stipulate high quality sources and sensitivity. Mindbunny (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Burning Spear
Burning Spear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
To Whom It May Concern, Sir/Madam. This email is to inform you that the information you have is incorrect with regards to my Date of Birth- recording History. I Winston Rodney Aka Burning Spear want no mention of MRI/Mega Force with regards to Distribution your article is very misleading. I ask that you remove this article from Facebook. Thank You. Winston Rodney. <<redacted email>> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.205.170 (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- On general principles, depuffed and removed material which would be of marginal importance in any case. Added cn to date of birth. Collect (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think if Winston was to tweet or blog his date of birth as he would be making himself three years older and that is not something people usually do for vanity reasons then we could consider accepting the date as self published. Off2riorob (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Collect: You added a cn tag to the birthdate in the infobox, however there are two citations already included for the info in the lede (ref 1 and ref 2). There are a large amount of music compendiums via Google Books that also confirm the 1948 date as well as the San Diego Tribune (here). --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Noting that the DoB has been changed to 1945 - the cn was absolutely spot-on. TYVM. Collect (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- What I had been attempting to point out to you was that you had added the cn tag in the infobox, but not in the lede (which already included two refs). It was confusing for a cite to be requested in one area where there were already two listed for the same information in another area. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Noting that the DoB has been changed to 1945 - the cn was absolutely spot-on. TYVM. Collect (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Collect: You added a cn tag to the birthdate in the infobox, however there are two citations already included for the info in the lede (ref 1 and ref 2). There are a large amount of music compendiums via Google Books that also confirm the 1948 date as well as the San Diego Tribune (here). --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- I would be happy to have the 1945 dob if some means of verifying it could be provided. I would be happier if properly-sourced details of the MRI deal and subsequent dispute could be included (why is it misleading?), but can live with it being removed if that's the consensus. Removing mention of which Marley the article talks about and of the influence of Marcus Garvey, who is obviously a major influence is, however, definitely not an improvement.--Michig (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- I have removed the 'citation needed' tag from the infobox, given that the date is supported by two citations elsewhere, and restored the deleted content about Marcus Garvey and Bob Marley, as it is necessary for the article to make sense. Not controversial, I hope.--Michig (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- No , not controversial as far as I can see, perhaps the subject will tweet or blog a selfpub update for us to consider, thanks all. Off2riorob (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- I've done some further digging, and a book by Colin Larkin from 2002 states DoB as 1 March 1945 where an earlier book by him from 1998 stated simply '1948'. Given this apparent correction by Larkin I have changed the DoB in the article. I trust this is satisfactory to all.--Michig (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Kudos for the extra research - my only suggestion would be to add a note to the talk page in case this crops up again. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- I've done some further digging, and a book by Colin Larkin from 2002 states DoB as 1 March 1945 where an earlier book by him from 1998 stated simply '1948'. Given this apparent correction by Larkin I have changed the DoB in the article. I trust this is satisfactory to all.--Michig (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- No , not controversial as far as I can see, perhaps the subject will tweet or blog a selfpub update for us to consider, thanks all. Off2riorob (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think if Winston was to tweet or blog his date of birth as he would be making himself three years older and that is not something people usually do for vanity reasons then we could consider accepting the date as self published. Off2riorob (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Mordecai Tendler
Mordecai Tendler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am attempting to recify this clearly one-sided and biased article, that by it's very nature appears to violate the biographies of living persons policies. I assumed that it was an honest error, until my attempts to correct the article by adding newspaper sources and omitted data was blocked by editor User: Avraham. All relevant concerns and source material is posted on the discussion page. Please assist in resolving this issue. Thanks. Koltorah (talk) 04:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, the version you edited to does seem to me to not be compliant with some of our WP:Policies and guidelines, and a little messily formated, neutrality and uninvolved reporting are a core part of those guidelines. Discussion is also key to resolving disputes. Saying that this http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/06/prweb1024704.htm does look like a WP:RS and perhaps an update is required but I have only had a quick look. Although you have been reverted by multiple users as you mentioned user:Avraham I have left him a note with a link to this thread. Off2riorob (talk) 10:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- PR Web is not a reliable source -- it is merely a web site for posting press releases, with no editorial control whatsoever. This is an astonishing error on your part, O2RR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it is some kind of information aggregation site, as I said I only had a quick look and does look like a RS - and perhaps its not, I will look more later, it is some kind of reliable as it is an external one thousand and four hundred and ninety six times on this wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- PR Web is not a reliable source -- it is merely a web site for posting press releases, with no editorial control whatsoever. This is an astonishing error on your part, O2RR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- The requirement for verifiable information from reliable sources has been explained to this editor on the article's talk page. In this case, I believe the BLP strictures are being carried out properly, simultaneously preventing unacceptable demonization or hagiography. -- Avi (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- PRWeb is a site which will publish any press release sent to it. It does no fact checking and is not a reliable source for any assertions except those permissible under the rules on self published sources. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Right thanks, I was wondering - what is his major wikipedia notability? is it inherited notability? or is it the sexual allegations, and has he been found guilty of anything? From a UK perspective, he just looks like a minor local priest of very limited independent wikipedia notability. Off2riorob (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- "Priest"??? For the love of pasta -- please just stay away from Jewish topics... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- You didn't answer the question - please stop focusing on me and discuss the actual issue, as I requested - what is his actual qualification for wiki notability - at present it appears to be - inherited and a large portion of sexual allegations that have no charges at all. Off2riorob (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ah -- but you haven't answered my question either. Let me pose it again: "priest"??? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- You didn't answer the question - please stop focusing on me and discuss the actual issue, as I requested - what is his actual qualification for wiki notability - at present it appears to be - inherited and a large portion of sexual allegations that have no charges at all. Off2riorob (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- "Priest"??? For the love of pasta -- please just stay away from Jewish topics... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Right thanks, I was wondering - what is his major wikipedia notability? is it inherited notability? or is it the sexual allegations, and has he been found guilty of anything? From a UK perspective, he just looks like a minor local priest of very limited independent wikipedia notability. Off2riorob (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- PRWeb is a site which will publish any press release sent to it. It does no fact checking and is not a reliable source for any assertions except those permissible under the rules on self published sources. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Also, how about the list of published newspaper articles listed on the discussion page, which is ignored completely by Avi (talk). He keeps on talking about the press releases, but simply ignores the fact that there are multiple independent newspaper articles that contradict the content of the wikipedia article. In addition, the newspaper articles independently confirm (by making refference to) the content of the press releases. I really think that Avi (talk) should be held to task for what seems to be (at best) very questionable editing habits on the article. Koltorah (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Where are these "multiple independent newspaper articles" ? I see many links to Jewish Press, is all. Tarc (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
"The Jewish Press" is a newspaper that is a reliable source according to wikipedia policy. Why is that not sufficient?
Koltorah (talk) 04:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
For a little forum shopping by Koltorah see EAR here.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree with Off2riorob here. Tendler's notability outside of the legal case is hazy at best. WP:PERP suggests that this case is insufficient grounds for a biog article and as is well understood, his lineage is also insufficient for more than the case being briefly referred to in his illustrious relatives' articles. And can we grow up a little and avoid red herring discussions about words like rabbi and priest. --Dweller (talk) 12:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Based on my opinions above, and the fact that the closing admin's words in the 2007 AfD haven't been heeded, and our greater awareness of BLP issues in 2011, I'm going to nominate this for deletion. --Dweller (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mordecai Tendler (2nd nomination) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Kim Thomson
Kim Thomson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There is no reliable source quoted for birthdate 1960 or 1959. That is because they are both incorrect. One was created first by an unreliable fan site. The Daily Record used wikipedia as its source (please do conform). I could give you hundreds of newspaper articles with conflicting dates. This is wholly inaccurate information that you are propagating. If necessary legal action will be taken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KTLT1 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- There is no evidence that the Daily Record used Wikipedia as a source. You may wish to read WP:NLT if you continue to edit here. MarnetteD | Talk 15:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict):I removed the birth date as it is disputed. We are always happy to do so when facts can't be reliably sourced, or the information is taken from Wikipedia and is therefore circular. However, legal threats are not taken kindly here, see WP:THREAT, and in fact editors who make them are usually blocked until the threat is resolved. Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, the source is weak and disputed..so I see Johnathon has removed it, which under the circumstances, for the time being I support. She is of minor note anyways her specific age is of little value. We do need to watch out for this - recently (and I encourage others here to do the same) i have been noticing and tagging as uncited and removing - a lot of uncited claims of a specific date of birth - these have been sitting in our articles for far too long, - challenge then and remove if there is not a strong WP:RS that actually supports it. We are WP:MIRRORed all over the web and it is happening more often that we might imagine that some low grade source is referenced wikipedia without admitting that they got it here, and when you look here it was uncited in a BLP for years.. This is the reason that we should be pro - active in either citing to the strongest reliable externals or removal of weakly supported claims from BLP articles primarily but also wikipedia in general, this imo is especially true is regards to personal details about a living person, such as a specific date of birth and children and marriage etc. Off2riorob (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your posts JW and Off2. I was making a long post on Ms Thompson's talk page and did not see these until now. I will certainly defer to your assessments of the situation though I am still leery of the long term socking that went on. On another note - having seen her performances over many years I wouldn't call her of "minor note" but that is POV on my part (Off2 this is me trying to be humorous - if it causes offense then I most certainly apologize.) My thanks to you both for taking the time to post here. MarnetteD | Talk 16:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, I agree, looking at her viewing figures and career and celebrity activities, medium note is much more correct. A picture would help, as at least that give readers a focus point as to her general age. Perhaps readers here can google-foo and strong claim for her DOB.Off2riorob (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your posts JW and Off2. I was making a long post on Ms Thompson's talk page and did not see these until now. I will certainly defer to your assessments of the situation though I am still leery of the long term socking that went on. On another note - having seen her performances over many years I wouldn't call her of "minor note" but that is POV on my part (Off2 this is me trying to be humorous - if it causes offense then I most certainly apologize.) My thanks to you both for taking the time to post here. MarnetteD | Talk 16:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, the source is weak and disputed..so I see Johnathon has removed it, which under the circumstances, for the time being I support. She is of minor note anyways her specific age is of little value. We do need to watch out for this - recently (and I encourage others here to do the same) i have been noticing and tagging as uncited and removing - a lot of uncited claims of a specific date of birth - these have been sitting in our articles for far too long, - challenge then and remove if there is not a strong WP:RS that actually supports it. We are WP:MIRRORed all over the web and it is happening more often that we might imagine that some low grade source is referenced wikipedia without admitting that they got it here, and when you look here it was uncited in a BLP for years.. This is the reason that we should be pro - active in either citing to the strongest reliable externals or removal of weakly supported claims from BLP articles primarily but also wikipedia in general, this imo is especially true is regards to personal details about a living person, such as a specific date of birth and children and marriage etc. Off2riorob (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict):I removed the birth date as it is disputed. We are always happy to do so when facts can't be reliably sourced, or the information is taken from Wikipedia and is therefore circular. However, legal threats are not taken kindly here, see WP:THREAT, and in fact editors who make them are usually blocked until the threat is resolved. Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
My (apparently minority) view is we should not have removed the birth year. We had a source for it, and I still can't follow why that source is unreliable or the basis for KTLT1 saying the source copied Wikipedia. Seems to me we're kowtowing to the user's threat, which is pretty damned silly anyway. What's her legal claim? Libel? She'd be laughed out of court. At the same time, I do agree that whether or not we list her birth year(s) is not particularly important, although the same could be said about many other articles, and Wikipedians, for reasons I often disagree with, generally love to include DOBs, ethnicity, religion, nationality, etc.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- BBB23--of all the edits I have made this month, that's probably the one about which I feel least strongly. However, here is my mild argument in favor. The editor who included her age looked at a source which said she was 49, and decided (as an act of synthesis) that she was therefore born in "1959 or 1960". So I still think it came out appropriately under our sourcing rules, and not because of the threat. Jonathanwallace (talk) 02:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- (I think the editor was me but haven't gone back to check.) If a source newspaper article says that Thomson is 49 at the time of the interview and the newspaper article is dated, how is that synthesis rather than math? I mean, I just used an article to source a precise birth date based on an article that didn't say the subject was born on that date but was born 8 days earlier (or later) than another date. I don't see the difference. I (or whoever) also put a note in explaining the process. (Technically, synthesis is combining two or more sources, whereas, here, I'm combining a source with my brain, but that can hardly be called original research.)--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- WP:OR states: "This policy allows routine mathematical calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the sources." I think the best solution is "circa 1960". It would satisfy the general reader and they will understand it may be plus or minus a year. Encyclopedia Brittanica uses "circa" in many articles, especially where the only source is the age at death. Looking at her tired face in Google Images I would guess she was ten years older, so the reader is aided by the best possible reliable estimate to know she was not born circa 1940 or circa 1950. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Except we do not have any figrues to work from. Her birthyear (assuming the source is accuarte) could be any of three years (1959,60,61). Thus this is at best a guess.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see why it should be a choice of three years: we have a dated source (The Daily Record, 18 October 2009) which states (para. 11) "Kim, 49, who is single". We can therefore feed those figures into
{{Birth based on age as of date}}
, to give born 1959 or 1960 (age 63–64). Hardly WP:OR and definitely not WP:SYN but since it is from a single source, it is WP:V. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see why it should be a choice of three years: we have a dated source (The Daily Record, 18 October 2009) which states (para. 11) "Kim, 49, who is single". We can therefore feed those figures into
- Except we do not have any figrues to work from. Her birthyear (assuming the source is accuarte) could be any of three years (1959,60,61). Thus this is at best a guess.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- WP:OR states: "This policy allows routine mathematical calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the sources." I think the best solution is "circa 1960". It would satisfy the general reader and they will understand it may be plus or minus a year. Encyclopedia Brittanica uses "circa" in many articles, especially where the only source is the age at death. Looking at her tired face in Google Images I would guess she was ten years older, so the reader is aided by the best possible reliable estimate to know she was not born circa 1940 or circa 1950. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- (I think the editor was me but haven't gone back to check.) If a source newspaper article says that Thomson is 49 at the time of the interview and the newspaper article is dated, how is that synthesis rather than math? I mean, I just used an article to source a precise birth date based on an article that didn't say the subject was born on that date but was born 8 days earlier (or later) than another date. I don't see the difference. I (or whoever) also put a note in explaining the process. (Technically, synthesis is combining two or more sources, whereas, here, I'm combining a source with my brain, but that can hardly be called original research.)--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Circa 1960
- Approve --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Approve--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Born 1959 or 1960
No date
- More reliable resources are available, they just haven't been tracked down yet. Gamaliel (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, a this is a better direction to progress. Off2riorob (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Dennis Genpo Merzel
Dennis Genpo Merzel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am posting notice of this article here again. Ongoing BLP violations, besides a host of other problems, continue to make this article either contentious in its current state, a state which has been reverted a couple of times, or unacceptable in a previous state. Why is the latter unacceptable? Too much basic information is sourced to the subject's own website (even with dead links), too much information (on wives, children, etc) is unsourced, and many of the claims to notability are improperly verified (look, for the heck of it, at footnotes 10 through 13 in the unacceptable version. Note also, in that version, that the references to reliable sources that were there are removed, and that also is unacceptable: I have warned User:Golgofrinchian, who was responsible for that in the first place, that this cannot be: future removal of such reliable sources I will consider acts of vandalism, since they remove validly sourced information contrary to a host of guidelines--and Golgofrinchian, with over 6,000 edits, should be aware of that.
The article's talk page contains some running indictment of me, and Golgo has accused me of "unskilled" edits--I'll gladly set that aside. I have no involvement with this subject or the broader topic; what I care about is that a bunch of editors seem to be ganging up and making a mockery of our BLP policy--and one editor's ignorance of such policy is pretty evident from a comment they made on the article's talk page, in bold print, Several of the links people are pointing to are websites Merzel himself has written. How is that improper source? It is not. He wrote it, it is his website, it is perfectly acceptable as proof. I rest my case. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- This article has been "reported" on BLPN twice before this year. First here and second here. Very little discussion took place on BLPN about the substantive issues or the contentious editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yep, and the same
shitstuff is happening all over again. Drmies (talk) 19:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)- Let's keep it civil. I have started a new section on the article's Talk page with suggestions as to going forward with this article. I believe the best approach is to start with Drmies's stripped down version and rebuild the article, keeping in mind that everything has to be relevant to the subject's notability and everything has to be reliably sourced. Rehashing of the past will not serve any purpose. Nor does it help for editors to use the word "vandalism" in edit summaries reverting other editors' changes.
- I don't know if anyone will heed my suggestions, but I promised to revert any knee-jerk restorations of the article with tons of problematic, improperly sourced material. That said, I can only do so much without falling into the edit warring abyss.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yep, and the same
Ronn Torossian (new)
Ronn Torossian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ronn Torossian page has bias and multiple untruths which an individual user Ravpapa has gone wild on accusing many of sockpuppets (as if that would permit him to post the wild untruths). Torossian has won awards from Ernst & Young and Inc Magazine and owns 1 of the largest PR agencies in the US for which the NY Times, Business Week and others profiled him. His page went through many edits for many years and had multiple discussions. This user has now completely biased the page.
Of note is that user fancies himself an expert at inserting bias and has succeeded. www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:Ravpapa/Tilt
Years ago he was a spokesperson for Israel government and perhaps thats worthy of 1 line mention. In addition, review the post: His claim: "which urged Arabs to move out of Jerusalem[2]." Isnt supported by the source he claims - should be removed. 2 Rabbis who criticize: 1 criticizes a company not Torossian, and the other was in 1 politically slanted left wing newspaper which is a questionable source on a living person. (and he removed multiple positive quotes). Source is a blog and nowhere does it say he is a spokesperson: "He is spokesman for the Hebron Fund, a US foundation that supports Jewish settlers in the occupied West Bank city of Hebron[7]. --Greenbay1313 (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Why another thread? There's already an active one above. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Its been dominated by 1 user who has continued with negative sources solely. May we ask that you review the material. --Greenbay1313 (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- There's another thread because the article is locked, and the daily barrage of socks and SPAs are looking everywhere for some kind of loophole. I've told this latest editor on his page to please take his concerns to the relevant talk page, and to stop forum shopping. Dayewalker (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Greenbay1313 has now filed a COI complaint, complete with borderline personal attacks on another editor. I think we are officially through the looking glass on this one. The Interior (Talk) 18:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- There's another thread because the article is locked, and the daily barrage of socks and SPAs are looking everywhere for some kind of loophole. I've told this latest editor on his page to please take his concerns to the relevant talk page, and to stop forum shopping. Dayewalker (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Unsure of what socks and SPAs are but may I ask if you reviewed said sources in the article. Ask users to visit the article and review the material which is blog sources and dangerous material. Greenbay1313 (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC) No personal attacks am saying simply user Ravpapa has biases he admits. Article has blogs and inaccurate sources of BLP. Opening up Wikipedia to a libel lawsuit. greenbay1313 (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Ronn Torossian page may have had sockpuppets but stay focused on the libelous material which is now there. Blogs, inaccurate statements and slander. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenbay1313 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- I would like to reiterate the response on my talk page here. Greenbay1313: By posting two complaints here at BLP/N, as well as complaints at editor assistance, RfC, arbitration requests, COI/N, AN, requests for feedback, AIV, and the talk pages of random and uninvolved administrators, you are actually making things more difficult. Please stop forum and admin shopping, or your edits will go from being simply uninformed mistakes to disruptive edits, and could even warrant a block against your account. Furthermore, please watch your wording. What you said above could be perceived as a legal threat, and making legal threats is also something for which you will be blocked. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 19:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- In all fairness, I think that Greenbay is suggesting that Ronn Torossian, not Greenbay, might sue us for libel - a reasonable concern if the article is, in fact, libellous. For the time being, in spite of all the circumstantial evidence to the contrary, we should assume that Greenbay is not Ronn Torossian, and, therefore, I don't think we should consider his post a legal threat.
- Sometimes it is hard to understand exactly what Greenbay, NYCdan, Abigail7, et al, is/are trying to say, because his/her/their English is so bad. I think that is the source of the confusion.
Hebron reference 12 is a blog. Binyamin Elon is not referenced on his site (and why is 5wpr.com used as a source and if so couldnt corporate clients be included ?) Those who wish to use Israel why have only negative sources been used and not sources which say he was a government spokesperson or praise of Rabbis ?
In terms of opinions others are included how about these ? 2011 - NY Times - For Grey Line - 1 of largest transportation companies in world - Is this not bigger than Israel 13 years ago views ? http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/tour-bus-post-to-sked-for-7am/ Publicly traded Soupman company ? http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-21/soup-kitchen-creditors-file-to-force-bankruptcy-update2-.html Musician Lil Kim: http://www.nysun.com/new-york/bar-worker-arrested-for-murder-at-lil-kim-party/83480/ Spokesperson for Israeli gov't: http://www.newprophecy.net/madonnawatch2.htm Restaurant chain Phillipe Chow: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/entertainment/confidential/sienna-gisele-caught-on-camera/story-e6frf96x-1111115728651 All of these: http://www.holmesreport.com/agencyreport-info/1930/5W-Public-Relations.aspx
Balance is required. --greenbay1313 (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Greenbay: Until reading your post, I thought that you and your chums were one person. You all write with the same typos and bad grammar, you all make the same arguments about the same articles. Yet I now begin to doubt this. Not only might you not be the same person, I am not sure you even talk to each other.
- I say this because of this discussion at the 5WPR talk page. In that discussion, we suggested to theNYCdan that he rebuild the client list based on reliable secondary sources, which he partially did. And here you are, listing a bunch of reliable secondary sources saying who are 5WPR clients, yet you haven't added these to the client list at 5WPR.
- Greenbay, get on the stick! Add these guys to the client list at 5WPR. Do some good for your boy, for a change! --Ravpapa (talk) 06:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Can I ask simply that users review the page for a few issues: 1: Where are any statements Torossian is active supporter of Israel as lead states. They appear to be clients - a few of many. 2: which according to Nathaniel Popper writing in The Forward, worked to push Arab citizens of Israel out of Jerusalem.[3][4] Thats inaccurate as Ravpapa himself knows. Push Arab citizens of Israel out of Jerusalem ? Most Arabs of Jerusalem are not citizens and noone can say Our Jerusalem (of which a cofounder was the head of Kadima coalition, Yoel Hasson) works to do that. An honest broker would use The JERUSALEM POST source, for what Our Jerusalem was: http://www.jpost.com/Features/InTheSpotlight/Article.aspx?id=150936 During what would turn out to be a two-year stint in this country, Torossian was one of three founders - together with fellow Betar alumni and peers, today Likud MK Danny Danon and Kadima MK Yoel Hasson - of Yerushalayim Shelanu (Jerusalem Is Ours), a secular organization promoting the right of Jews to live anywhere they choose in the city of Jerusalem. ... and amazing that a 4 page Jerusalem Post feature has no positive quotes in Wikipedia bio. 3: Rabbi Morris Allen, who heads an organization that exposed fraud in one of 5WPR's clients, called the firm's tactics in defending the client "outrageous, to say the least."[9] Allen is speaking about the firm should be removed from Torossian page. 4: Who says Torossian works closely with Christian supporters of Israel and are more than clients. Should be removed. There are many more issues but these are libelous, leaving apart unbalance. Instead of getting worked up about sockpuppets why not work to clean up possible legal issues dont be emotional simply review the content. Its wrong. greenbay1313 (talk) 12:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- One might think that if Ronn Torossian represented both, both Ehud Olmert and Benjamin Netanyahu, he cannot be as extreme as the bio esits show - If that were the case, neither could really work with him politically. Additionally, if these people are clients - not pro bono causes that were taken - they were jobs, not advocacy. A PR Company often takes on clients with varied opinions and the representatives cannot always be presumed to agree or disagree - it's just a job.
- Then there is the fact that Torossian represented Sean Combs & Pamela Anderson and neither of that is deemed qualified for inclusion - Yet, with that fact, should the article say that Torossian is an entertainer, a hip hop star or Baywatch supporter?
Posted a proposed Torossian re-write article here for compromise. Welcome edits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Greenbay1313/Sandbox greenbay1313 (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Theres now about 75% of the article about his Israel views - But he's a PR guy why relevant ?? 1: Why is Our Jerusalem mentioned 2x ? Incorrect mention @lead should be removed immediately. 2: 1 article says not many blue chip clients, but every other article says otherwise and so too does his website. Should be removed. 3: Current Wiki entree says "especially Israeli" ??? Whats the source for that. Absolutely incorrect. 4: Last 2 lines which on this page has been agreed should be removed still exists. Why ? 5: Why so much on Israel and nothing at all on what makes him prominent ? Folks this is absurd and undue balance. greenbay1313 (talk) 12:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenbay1313 (talk • contribs)
update SPI - just as a note for reference, the creator of this report/thread has been blocked as a sockpuppet the report is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Babasalichai - Off2riorob (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Lord Ahmed
Nazir Ahmed, Baron Ahmed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Sir
Lord Ahmed has not been expaled by the Labour Party. He is a Labour Peer and belongs to the Labour Party. He was jailed for 15 days and the Court of Appeal overturned the sentence and released him . Technically he has never been to the prison —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.110.101 (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- We need WP:RS reliable sources for such information. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- I removed the phrase about expulsion from the Labour party from the lede; it was unsourced. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- According to Sky News "He was expelled from the Labour Party when found guilty". [23] The Guardian article about his appeal refers to him as a "Labour peer" though, [24] so this is unclear. This article states that he was jailed, but was freed on appeal. I don't see how this could be interpreted as suggesting that "technically he has never been to the prison". AndyTheGrump (talk)
- According to this recent article he was only "briefly" expelled from Labour although I haven't found a source explaining how or why this was overturned. January (talk) 11:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- According to Sky News "He was expelled from the Labour Party when found guilty". [23] The Guardian article about his appeal refers to him as a "Labour peer" though, [24] so this is unclear. This article states that he was jailed, but was freed on appeal. I don't see how this could be interpreted as suggesting that "technically he has never been to the prison". AndyTheGrump (talk)
- I removed the phrase about expulsion from the Labour party from the lede; it was unsourced. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
John Lurie stalker
The actor, musician and artist John Lurie was the subject of a BLPN report here February 2011 because of a new editor who was posting nasty, mean-spirited little Lurie quotes in the article. Lurie certainly was cited as saying those things but they were trivial offhand comments unimportant to the man's biography—unencyclopedic and petty. They were gathered together by the editor to make Lurie look bad.
I am dead certain the BLP-violating editor is John Perry, a former friend of Lurie who was reported in The New Yorker in August 2010 as having had a "rupture" with Lurie in 2008, and then stalking Lurie. The BLP-violating editor repeatedly posted a link to John Perry's website, www.johnperrynyc.com.
The stalker-editor, Special:Contributions/Lurielurie, has been active on the page since February 3, calling John Lurie a hysteric, and saying Lurie was making up the story of having a stalker, and that Lurie repeatedly says Perry intends to kill Lurie, with "no evidence to support his claims".
After I jumped in to ride herd on the article and make sure it was neutral and well-sourced, Lurielurie began attacking me on my talk page, saying "You are in big trouble." (And again here.) Lurielurie followed that with several copy/past annoyances posted to my talk page: [25][26][27]
Lurielurie continues to edit war at John Lurie, change wording, altering the tone so that it makes Lurie look worse and the stalker look better. What is to be done here? Is there anything actionable? Does any of this madness merit an indef block for Lurielurie?
At the very least, I would appreciate more eyes on the case. Binksternet (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree, more eyes would be appreciated. If erasing exchanges, then wholesale, his talk section wherein he acknowledges being self-serving is not reflective of his non-neutrality, so be it. Though based on properly sourced material, my early edits were clearly not in the spirit of Wikipedia. That they were removed is fair. If I am blocked by a truly neutral third party, fine. My recent edits, however, conform to NPOV, and are accurate based on sourced material.
Binksternet, by his elimination of source references which show that Lurie's claims are unsupported, and editing at the behest of the subject should likewise restrict his edits.Lurielurie (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I hope that some third party will not allow Lurie to disseminate his defamatory claims on Wikipedia, as Binksternet has now elected to capitulate.Lurielurie (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Added to my watchlist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- One thing I note here, the article made reference to and characterized user comments on the Dangerous Minds blog. User comments are not reliable sources, and certainly shouldn't be discussed as primary sources. In fact, we shouldn't be linking to the article with comments displayed, but rather to the article without the comments displayed. If a reliable source discusses and analyzes the comments, we can report what that says, but we can't report directly on the comments. Yworo (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Fair enough. When I put up the summary of the blog comments, I did so because they were the subject of previous edit warring, and because the blog was not notable by itself, but was made so because it attracted comments from the main actors: John Lurie and John Perry. At any rate, I can see the reasoning for your removal of that summary. Binksternet (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
We would suggest that you remove the link to Dangerous Minds completely. As you have stated the site is not notable, thus including this without the comments by Lurie and Perry is pointless. It is not a reliable source as it is Marc Campbell's uninformed opinion based on a phone conversation with John Perry. Thank you for your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yabangulu (talk • contribs) 02:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- A complaint about edit-warring has been opened at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Lurielurie reported by User:The Interior (Result: ). Anyone familiar with the issues on this article is welcome to comment there. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Anil Kumar
Anil Kumar (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There is a consistent effort in the article about Anil Kumar to downplay his guilty plea in the Galleon insider trading case. Any efforts made to provide balance to the article are imm.ediately deleted. The overwhelming focus of the article is a glowing treatment of his illustrious business career, with his guilty plea for receiving 2.6mm in exchange for providing insider information treated as practically a footnote — Preceding unsigned comment added by SDPearson (talk • contribs) 01:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- I edited the article in an attempt to create a more neutral version. I re-added the mention of his arrest and plea to the lede where I believe they belong, removed both some tendentious and peacock material from the body, eliminated an unreliable blog source and added a couple of "citation needed" tags. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Wes Mannion
Wes Mannion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Someone has registered the URL wesmannion.com (already black-listed on meta) that redirects to this rather nasty version of our article. Please revdel that revision and preferably also [28], [29], [30] and possibly more. --Wasell(T) 07:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Henry Kissinger
Henry Kissinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The first sentence:
"Henry Alfred Kissinger (pronounced /ˈkɪsɪndʒər/;[1] born May 27, 1923, dead April 2, 2011,[2]) was a German-born American political scientist, diplomat, and recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize."
Henry Kissinger did not die on April 2, 2011.
Is this an April Fool's joke? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.233.106 (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- "Joke" or not it's puerile vandalism and has been reverted. – ukexpat (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Richard Pipes
An anonymous user who keeps hopping from IP address to IP address keeps adding unsourced personal opinion into the Richard Pipes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. Corvus cornixtalk 04:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Bill Nighy
Bill Nighy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This actors page was moved incorrectly today by a user who has been inactive for over a year. The page4 move as been entirely inaccurate. I am about to log off. If someone could report this to the right page to get fixed that would be deeply appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 05:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- This has been reverted but seems like it was a good faith attempt to resolve some naming issue. Bill Nighy 2 not to be confused with Bill Nye - Off2riorob (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Paulo Nozolino
Paulo Nozolino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Please view a page of one of Paulo Nozolino's book: http://www.steidlville.com/books/140-Far-Cry.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgomezphoto (talk • contribs) 10:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- There is no WP:BLP issue for us to take action on here. Also, the link you've provided would not be suitable as a source or for establishing notability, since it is just a website trying to sell one of Nozolino's books. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Dave Hensman
Dave Hensman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User:Ponyo has suggested that I raise an issue relating to the Dave Hensman article here. The article has just been protected for the second time this year as a consequence of one or more contributors inserting an extremely verbose disciplinary ruling that relates to what seems to be a sideline activity of the article's subject involving real estate management/investment.
The questionable content is referenced to a pdf (pages 18-19) but it has been queried by me and others whether:
- including it at all is relevant, since the infringement appears to be technical & the punishment imposed appears to be a small "rap on the knuckles" in the scale of things. It is not even certain that Hensman actually did anything wrong as the issue could well be a consequence of his titular position with the business rather than direct involvement. So, is it even a notable event in the Wikipedia scale?
- including the full text of the ruling in the article amounts to undue weight and contravention of BLP policy
There seems to be a degree of sockpuppet and/or meatpuppet activity going on and to my mind there it is also POV-pushing and possibly COI by a disgruntled investor. The contributors seems to be single-purpose accounts.
I know nothing about this guy and am involved purely at a policy level. For this reason I have been reluctant to try to edit the additions down into something that might be acceptable to WP and have instead been reverting them. There have been attempts to discuss with the major contributor but they hit a brick wall & consequently umpteen vandalism notices have been issued over a period of time.
Thoughts would really be appreciated here. - Sitush (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Unless its been reported by independent reliable externals it shouldn't be included at all, never mind the whole text of the ruling as it was presented - nothing in the article to assert its notable at all, no independent reports to assert any notability to the issue, just keep it semi protected for the foreseeable future. Off2riorob (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- The relevant contributors have recently introduced the sourcing cite mentioned above. That is an official bulletin, but I can find next to nothing else about it - hence my summary that it is a minor technical infringement rather than a significant event. - Sitush (talk) 15:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, should have added: is semi-protection going to stop this happening? Some of the contributors are named accounts and have > 4 edits already, just by their work on this article. Am a bit clueless about what to do, as you can see. - Sitush (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thats a primary report with no assertion of notability - irt is not our job to report such issue unless other reliable sources have established secondary notability. Block them all as quacking sockpuppets of the indef blocked original account - add pending protection to stop the additions being continued to be visible to the public and block on sight. Off2riorob (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- That sounds like a plan. Thanks for your help. - Sitush (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hm....User:Katsmeow777/Legal Suits and Dave Hensan(this is an attack title and could/should be sent to WP:MFD)...User:Jlcharger(needs blocking indefinitely as a sock of an indefinitely blocked user} - User:Katsmeow777(needs blocking indefinitely as a sock of an indefinitely blocked user} - User:Tiredofdavehensman??(blocked) - User:Stratawatch(blocked) - article created about his company - "Teamwork Property Management" deleted (WP:G10: Attack page or negative unsourced WP:BLP ... you can be too polite, the user has been pointed to policy, reverted, warned, blocked and still they are creating multiple accounts to attack this living person using en wikipedia.. This is the user under an IP:70.70.16.233 from Langley, British Columbia (city) - it is highly likely to be disruption from a single user. Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed#Autoconfirmed users is ten edits and four days which if all the users accounts they have used so far are blocked will at least slow them down and will either force then to discuss or make them very easy to spot and block when new accounts make nine edits to mickey mouse and then add this cut and copy post to this BLP, I have found the case is that they usually realize the game is up and move along. Off2riorob (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- (ec) I'm not often accused of being too polite! My problem is that, despite being registered for years, I've not done a lot here until January, although since then have clocked up a fair mileage. I'm basically not as experienced as some might think/it might appear. I'll take the various accounts to SPI and the page (didn't spot that at all) to MFD. Got to learn sometime. - Sitush (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- I would leave it for a few days and see what happens, a passing admin might block them as quacking socks but if not I have them all watchlisted and there should be enough eyes to deal with it if the user returns. Off2riorob (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- (ec) I'm not often accused of being too polite! My problem is that, despite being registered for years, I've not done a lot here until January, although since then have clocked up a fair mileage. I'm basically not as experienced as some might think/it might appear. I'll take the various accounts to SPI and the page (didn't spot that at all) to MFD. Got to learn sometime. - Sitush (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hm....User:Katsmeow777/Legal Suits and Dave Hensan(this is an attack title and could/should be sent to WP:MFD)...User:Jlcharger(needs blocking indefinitely as a sock of an indefinitely blocked user} - User:Katsmeow777(needs blocking indefinitely as a sock of an indefinitely blocked user} - User:Tiredofdavehensman??(blocked) - User:Stratawatch(blocked) - article created about his company - "Teamwork Property Management" deleted (WP:G10: Attack page or negative unsourced WP:BLP ... you can be too polite, the user has been pointed to policy, reverted, warned, blocked and still they are creating multiple accounts to attack this living person using en wikipedia.. This is the user under an IP:70.70.16.233 from Langley, British Columbia (city) - it is highly likely to be disruption from a single user. Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed#Autoconfirmed users is ten edits and four days which if all the users accounts they have used so far are blocked will at least slow them down and will either force then to discuss or make them very easy to spot and block when new accounts make nine edits to mickey mouse and then add this cut and copy post to this BLP, I have found the case is that they usually realize the game is up and move along. Off2riorob (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- That sounds like a plan. Thanks for your help. - Sitush (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thats a primary report with no assertion of notability - irt is not our job to report such issue unless other reliable sources have established secondary notability. Block them all as quacking sockpuppets of the indef blocked original account - add pending protection to stop the additions being continued to be visible to the public and block on sight. Off2riorob (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Out of interest here - does anybody have any evidence that it's the same David John Hensman who runs the company & recieved the disciplinary action as the DJH that the articles about? All we have is a link to 'Teamworks' webpage identifying the companies president as A DJH, suggesting that they must be the same is blatant OR and a massive BLP vio. Someone needs to either take this claim down or provide some evidence, especially since his websites official bio makes no mention of it. If anyone can show it's him, then maybe we can discuss the relevance of this action. Bob House 884 (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- He mentions it in the bio on his official website, in Ext Links of the article. - Sitush (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Dave is the president of Nex Gen World Leadership, a ministry focused on training young Christian leaders. His Kingdom focused company, Big Sky Ventures has three components: Big Sky Management, Big Sky Music, and Big Sky Motivational Presentations. In 2003 he purchased one of BC’s leading property management companies: Teamwork Property Management, which enables him to fund missions around the world. He pastors and teaches bi-weekly at The Bridge, a church he planted with his friends Dean Richmond, Brian Doerksen and Irv Esau. - Sitush (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for clearing that up Bob House 884 (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- The whole thing is totally undue, he was disciplined for a case of professional misconduct and fined by the council under some subrule section and fined jointly 2500 Canadian dollars, even if had been widely reported in WP:RS it wouldn't warrant inclusion, a single line at a push. Off2riorob (talk) 17:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- I've blocked User:Jlcharger and User:Katsmeow777 as sockpuppets of indef blocked User:Stratawatch. Same edits, same harassment crusade. User:Katsmeow777/Legal Suits and Dave Hensan has been deleted under G5 criteria (created by a blocked user in violation of their block). Did I miss anything? --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Possibly ip 70.70.16.233 ? - Sitush (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- The semi-protection will bar any IPs from adding the contentious info to the article, so no need to block unless they start editing disruptively elsewhere. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- OK. Thank you to everyone who has co-operated here & on the related pages. - Sitush (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Cool, wikipedia should not become the primary vehicle for such content. Off2riorob (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- The semi-protection will bar any IPs from adding the contentious info to the article, so no need to block unless they start editing disruptively elsewhere. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Possibly ip 70.70.16.233 ? - Sitush (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- I've blocked User:Jlcharger and User:Katsmeow777 as sockpuppets of indef blocked User:Stratawatch. Same edits, same harassment crusade. User:Katsmeow777/Legal Suits and Dave Hensan has been deleted under G5 criteria (created by a blocked user in violation of their block). Did I miss anything? --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Gene Chizik
Gene Chizik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alabama fans have edited the article and used completely untrue information. All you have to do is read the first paragraph and it will become clear what the false statements are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.194.148.238 (talk) 04:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- I've tried to clean up the obvious problems. Thanks for bringing this up. Dayewalker (talk) 04:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Anti-union violence
Anti-union violence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
[31] appears to directly accuse a living person of asking a Governor to kill pro-union protestors. Then another person is accused based on [32] . The issue is primarily one of coatrack against Governor Walker, who has not been alleged to have paid any attention at all to the suggestions - but the linking of him to the proposed violence is possibly a BLP concern. Is there a valid concern over the way Walker is named in the edit? Is there a concern over the way the other living people are handled in the edit? The editor making this new article states [33] fairly clearly that it was created as WP:POINT because his AfD on Union violence failed. Collect (talk) 08:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- This argument about WP:POINT is entirely mistaken, in my view. See Talk:Anti-union violence.
- The sources for the living persons-related content are the American Bar Association, and CBS News. The information is factual, and reflects exactly what the sources state. The content is not in any way directed at Governor Walker, but rather, is about two other individuals, each of whom made an effort to contact Governor Walker to convey controversial information. Both lost their jobs as a result of these attempts, which is a notable fact. Richard Myers (talk) 11:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
(ec) [34] shows the same information added by the same editor to Union violence which would have the same BLP implication for Governor Walker. COATRACK is still COATRACK, and WP:POINT is still WP:POINT. This standard proposed by that editor would allow us to list every single email sent to a person suggesting violation of a law, and mentioning that person's name every time. I doubt that such is proper under WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 11:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Disagree. The news items are notable, they relate to unions, and are in articles about unions. Richard Myers (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- As an uninvolved editor, I think the material is reliably sourced and relevant to the article. There are no WP:BLP concerns in the case of such widely and reliably reported information about the two people. Nor is there any implication that Governor Walker solicited or planned to act on these suggestions--and someone has now added his statement he would never consider violence. Therefore, I don't see any BLP concerns about him either, or a WP:COATRACK. The WP:POINT argument is not really for this noticeboard, and anyway the Talk page material you cite can be construed as a plea for the inclusion of opposing or balancing information, rather than the making of a tendentious point. (For the all time classic example of a WP:POINT, see Judaism and bus stops). The whole section might be slimmed down a little for weight and possibly added to the "Recent examples" list. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Kevin Jennings
Kevin Jennings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I wasn't sure where better to ask - [35] a lot of these links don't seem to be from sources we can use. Is it OK to put them as external links? Jnast1 (talk) 14:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Good question and thanks for asking. The general answer is no. Better to park those yet unused sources on the talk page for future use. The External Links (see WP:EL) should be kept to a minimum and should feature links that are give broad insight into the life of the subject. For example the links to bio's and his official web site are appropriate but the others should be removed. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Paul D. Hanson - in Alan Dershowitz article
Alan Dershowitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This appears to be a BLP violation to me. The Alan Dershowitz article contains a paragraph about a controversy involving Dershowitz and Paul D. Hanson. The text only quotes Dershowitz' accusations and paraphrases his justifications. Here is the text in full from Alan_Dershowitz#Harvard-MIT_divestment_petition:
- Randall Adams of The Harvard Crimson writes that, in the spring of 2002, a petition within Harvard calling for Harvard and MIT to divest from Israel and American companies that sell arms to Israel gathered over 600 signatures, including 74 from the Harvard faculty and 56 from the MIT faculty. Among the signatures was that of Harvard's Winthrop House Master Paul D. Hanson, in response to which Dershowitz staged a debate for 200 students in the Winthrop Junior Common Room. He called the petition's signatories antisemitic, bigots, and said they knew nothing about the Middle East. "Your House master is a bigot," he told the students, "and you ought to know that." Adams writes that Dershowitz cited examples of human rights violations in countries that the United States supports, such as the execution of homosexuals in Egypt and the repression of women in Saudi Arabia, and said he would sue any professor who voted against the tenure of another academic because of the candidate's position toward Israel, calling them "ignoramuses with Ph.D.s."[26]
Any thoughts on this would be appreciated. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Wow, thats an impressively subtle hackjob. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 15:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Looking over the source I would suggest immediate removal, this seems to be non notable campus drama rather than anything substantial. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 15:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
If anything, this makes Dershowitz look bad. My initial take is that the "campus drama" comment above is right on the money. Gamaliel (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- eh its all subjective on whose side of the I/P conflict you abscibe to and whether people think such a petition was a good idea The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Reza Moridi
Reza Moridi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Would you please keep an eye on the biography of Reza Moridi Canadian politician? It seems that the individuals who might not have good faith or/and respect the neutrality of this Wikipedia biography are trying to misrepresent the facts in this biography of living person. Looking at the history of this Wikipedia page one could see that in the past there were biased changes done by some users. In the past users Jonathanwallace (talk) and Collect (talk) spent time cleaned up and editing this this Wikipedia biography, to make certain that the neutrality of Moridi’s biography is preserved. The nationality of Moridi is Canadian and his ethnicity according to the facts, documents and evidences is Azerbaijani. User Marmoulak (talk) have changed the ethnicity of Moridi from Azerbaijani-Canadian to Iranian-Canadian without providing any proper evidences and/or inline citation. The current inline citation and evidences clearly indicate that Moridi’s nationality is Canadian and his ethnicity is Azerbaijani. Starback (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- The following important piece of information was added to Moridi's Wikipedia biography. Bill 63, Nowruz Day Act, 2006 received Royal Assent in 2006, and March 21 in each year was proclaimed as Nowruz Day in Ontario. Starback (talk) 01:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Almine Barton
I have a concern with the edits and removal of pertinent parts of this article that I did extensive research on. Due to the simultaneously editing mishap/misunderstanding in 'not good faith' and claims of 'edit dispute'(see User talk:theonelife 'Warning'), I was told I am not allowed to make changes as it is deemed as edit warring under threat of blocking. I will try to make this as brief as possible, please bear with me.
- Appreciation is extended to the earnest efforts of 'clean up' of the article, however I must state some recent erroneous edits that demean, and discredit the purpose of the BLP in question to the following guidlines per wikipedia standards WP:BLP.
PLEASE REVIEW: Erroneous Deletions and Edits by the following three editors:
Extended content
|
---|
NOTE: 'The edits done by this User:JohnInDc below(#1), subsequently after he deleted 'credible' resources and sections, he requested deletion of his username space (see [here User:JohnInDc]).
I added the above catagories under criteria in WP:BLPCAT. In respect to other parts about her that were deleted should have been left due to the description of a Biography- which states: ' "A biography is a detailed description or account of someone's life. A biography is more than a list of impersonal facts (education, work, relationships, and death), it also portrays the subject's experience of those events. Unlike a profile or curriculum vitae (résumé), a biography presents the subject's story, highlighting various aspects of his or her life, including intimate details of experiences, and may include an analysis of the subject's personality." ' These were referenced from her own accounts of her experiences and ancestry. |
I request this article be put in 'incubation' or 'semi edit protect' status so I may 'clean up' the erroneous edits that discredit 'notability' and 'verifiability' on the key elements I stated above or 'adopted' by a guide who in 'good faith' will guide me on this and work with me on content and citations,etc without threats of blocking.
Thank you for your time, User:theonelifeTheonelife (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Okie doakie moving it into my userspace shortly for incubation and will adopt and guide user The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Now at User:ResidentAnthropologist/Almine Barton The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Richard P. (Dick) Haugland
Richard P. (Dick) Haugland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This page is a blatant resume. Please note all the references are websites, without a single neutral, objective citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jupiterdasa (talk • contribs) 22:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, and it doesn't really indicate what Haugland is notable for. If his philanthropy can be reliably sourced, maybe that is relevant, but otherwise I don't see why there should be an article at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- It and Starfish Country Home School Foundation look like the work of a paid editor. Will Beback talk 23:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Frank Bleichman
Frank Bleichman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An IP editor has just introduced some material from a Polish newspaper into a new section he has called "Controversy". Someone has translated a the quote into English (presumably the IP editor). I've formatted it all for him but this article is a BLP and the allegation is potentially quite serious. Are there any Polish speakers who could check out the cite please? - Sitush (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- removed pending verification its a very serious charge The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'd already reverted twice & so needed to adopt a different tack. - Sitush (talk) 00:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Watchlisted as well, I'm gonna keep an eye on it in the mean time if true is it WP:RS to make such an allegation The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it appears to be a mainstream Polish newspaper, albeit one with a right-wing(ish) past. However, my gibberish is better than my Polish, so I'll leave it to the experts. - Sitush (talk) 01:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- So if true translation... The question is this the same "Franciszek Blajchman" as the one in the article? Was there a retraction or other editorial statement in the following days? This accusation seems to fly in the face too many other accounts of the official story.... The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- It is not an impossible scenario by any means: these things do come out of the woodwork & obviously it would be in the interests of (potentially) both the US & the individual to have avoided the issue. However, I'm concerned that I struggled to find English language versions of the story as these sort of news items do not tend to stay confined to one country. Also, the IPN organisation which seems to be behind the allegation appears from its own WP article to have a somewhat controversial image at times - I realise that this is circular, but I'm just working with what I've got. Sometimes I wish that I didn't patrol the category for pages with missing refs ... Let's get the translation out of the way & then maybe it needs to go to WP:RSN ? - Sitush (talk) 01:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- I funneled "the source" through google translate and as added to the article it could be accurate translation. I use google translate on occasion but nuances of language are often lost. The Google Translation says "In fact, Francis Blajchman - such that his name was included in the materials of" Which depending on how accurate that is could be "such a name" meaning possible coincidence or indeed "it was him." I we need some one who can tell us exact translation. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- It is not an impossible scenario by any means: these things do come out of the woodwork & obviously it would be in the interests of (potentially) both the US & the individual to have avoided the issue. However, I'm concerned that I struggled to find English language versions of the story as these sort of news items do not tend to stay confined to one country. Also, the IPN organisation which seems to be behind the allegation appears from its own WP article to have a somewhat controversial image at times - I realise that this is circular, but I'm just working with what I've got. Sometimes I wish that I didn't patrol the category for pages with missing refs ... Let's get the translation out of the way & then maybe it needs to go to WP:RSN ? - Sitush (talk) 01:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- So if true translation... The question is this the same "Franciszek Blajchman" as the one in the article? Was there a retraction or other editorial statement in the following days? This accusation seems to fly in the face too many other accounts of the official story.... The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it appears to be a mainstream Polish newspaper, albeit one with a right-wing(ish) past. However, my gibberish is better than my Polish, so I'll leave it to the experts. - Sitush (talk) 01:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Watchlisted as well, I'm gonna keep an eye on it in the mean time if true is it WP:RS to make such an allegation The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'd already reverted twice & so needed to adopt a different tack. - Sitush (talk) 00:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
There may also be an issue regarding a possible copyvio - I've put a note on the talk page.AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)- There is an OTRS ticket quoted there. - Sitush (talk) 01:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Oops. Sorry - didn't see that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- There is an OTRS ticket quoted there. - Sitush (talk) 01:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- I have spammed one person who speaks polish and one person who probably speaks polish to get assistance. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- I also speak polish (I saw the spam you had sent to the other person). Rzeczpospolita and Gazeta Wyborcza are the two main national daily polish-language newspapers in Poland. So it's like comparing the NYT to the WSJ. Give me a few minutes to type up a reply here. IPN is the government sponsored entity researching into the records of the past (WW II and the People's Republic), so there are bound to be controversial items that come up. Ajh1492 (talk) 01:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Did Frank Bleichman just publish a book last September (2010)? Can anyone verify this? Ajh1492 (talk) 02:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Here's the key passage from the article:
- Kim jest autor książki? Według wydawcy Blaichman jako 16-latek był świadkiem napaści Niemiec na Polskę, stworzył żydowski oddział partyzancki na Lubelszczyźnie, który walczył z Niemcami, a po wojnie pracował w UB w Pińczowie i Kielcach. Ale to tylko pół prawdy.
- W rzeczywistości Franciszek Blajchman – takie jego nazwisko figuruje w materiałach Instytutu Pamięci Narodowej – w 1945 r. był p.o. kierownika Wydziału Więzień i Obozów WUBP w Kielcach. Jego wizerunek znalazł się też na wystawie "Twarze kieleckiej bezpieki" zorganizowanej przez IPN.
- Which translates into (now, I am NOT a "certified" translator, so it's not going to hold up in a court of law):
- Who is the author of a book? According to the publisher, Blaichman, at the age of 16, witnessed the German invasion of Poland. He created a Jewish partisan unit in the Lublin area, which fought with the Germans, and after the war he worked at UB in Pińczów and Kielce. But this is only half true.
- In fact, "Francis Blajchman", or at least how his name was noted in the materials of the Institute of National Remembrance (IPN), in 1945 was the head of the Department of Prisons and Camps (WUBP) in Kielce. His image was also at the exhibition "Faces of the security the Kielce", organized by the IPN.
- So the quote is a reasonable translation of what was stated in the article. Ajh1492 (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- The question was is the quote in the article a reasonable translation of an article from one of the two leading daily national newspapers in Poland. The answer is yes, it is a reasonable translation of the article. I am not making a judgment on the allegations in the article, just stating that it is what was written in Polish. The IP Editor is citing an article from a mainstream source in Poland. Ajh1492 (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, then ResidentAnth queried whether even if the translation was ok, was it the same person. I think that the book storyline fits exactly with the article storyline (bar the recent edition, obviously). Since the book uses Blaichman as his name, that s/b the article title etc. Yes? No? - Sitush (talk) 02:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- The question was is the quote in the article a reasonable translation of an article from one of the two leading daily national newspapers in Poland. The answer is yes, it is a reasonable translation of the article. I am not making a judgment on the allegations in the article, just stating that it is what was written in Polish. The IP Editor is citing an article from a mainstream source in Poland. Ajh1492 (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- The IP Editor is from Poland coming in from a mobile/wireless connection from Plus. Possibly Warsaw. (apn-95-41-128-164.dynamic.gprs.plus.pl ) so definitely via a mobile connection - either a cell or more likely a gprs modem on a laptop. Ajh1492 (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Two more articles from the paper Żołnierze AK chcą śledztwa and IPN zbada książkę ubeka.
- Newsweek Poland [36], Polish Radio [37], Jewish Institute in Poland [38], TVN24 [39], etc. Jut because it doesn't show up on CBS or the NYT doesn't mean that the story didn't exist. And never trust Google or Yahoo. Ajh1492 (talk) 02:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- That takes a pressure off us since multiple RS are reporting the same thing. Are they all treating treating the assertion the same? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but you are still missing my point. I searched for Bleichman because that is the name of the article. got very few hits. Then you introduced the alternative spelling & I can get loads of hits. In other words, the article (& the Holocaust museum page upon which it is based) appear to be using a mis-spelled name. The article needs renaming & then it needs sourcing with all these various items. You can do the translations <g> - Sitush (talk) 02:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- If you want to find it you have to search with the proper phrase in Polish - Franka Blaichmana. They appear to be all treating the assertion the same. I would add the original Polish in the article along with the proposed translation and footnote it with all the cited sources. It could easily be the the Holocaust Museum page is wrong with it's spelling. Ajh1492 (talk) 02:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Exactly ... and the article was a copy/paste of that museum's content. I'm starting to fix it now but ultimately will move the entire thing so that the article title also matches the authorial name.
- If you want to find it you have to search with the proper phrase in Polish - Franka Blaichmana. They appear to be all treating the assertion the same. I would add the original Polish in the article along with the proposed translation and footnote it with all the cited sources. It could easily be the the Holocaust Museum page is wrong with it's spelling. Ajh1492 (talk) 02:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Pratibha Patil
Pratibha Patil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The entry has outrageous and libelous comments that are unsubstantiated. The entry claims that Pratibha Patil lived with Allen Ginsburg in Varanasi and was involved with Timothy Leary. These claims are incotrect, abusive, and must be removed immediately from the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.72.232 (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- I have removed the uncited statements. I agree that they may be detrimental to her. However, if someone does come up with a reliable, verifiable citation then you'll just have to live with it. All I could find in a quick search was blog entries and comments to recent news stories about Wikileaks on MSN News etc. I'm watching the page now. - Sitush (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Sarah-Jane Redmond
Sarah-Jane Redmond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
could you please clarify your statement? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Cuyahoga Heights High School
Cuyahoga Heights High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Having second thoughts on a deletion
I deleted this as a BLP violation. Taking a second look, I see that the source is not a true blog, it's a Cleveland Plain Dealer article with reader comments enabled. Now I'm wondering if the item could be restored if the technology coordinator's name is omitted. Thoughts? --CliffC (talk) 03:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Its a reliable source. There are possible WP:NOTNEWS and WP:WEIGHT issues. The statement could be included that the district is under financial scrutiny, without getting into individuals and resignations--or left out for now just to see what develops. Jonathanwallace (talk) 03:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- If he's the technology coordinator for the whole school district, why should this be mentioned in the article of a single school? Gamaliel (talk) 06:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Ralph Drollinger
Ralph Drollinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Would someone be able to take a look at the Ralph Drollinger article? The "Ministry" section has been subject to long-term edit wars. (The article has been brought to the BLP noticeboard before; see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive99#Ralph_Drollinger.) Zagalejo^^^ 04:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- I took a look and have watch-listed it. The information seems reliably sourced and relevant. Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- It should be noted that every user who has attempted to remove controversial information from the article from November 2010 until now has been blocked because they were sockpuppets of User:RK Drollinger (indeed, it was User:RK Drollinger who brought the article to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive99#Ralph Drollinger). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RK Drollinger/Archive. OCNative (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Freda Payne
Freda Payne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hello,
can You check the date of birth of Freda Payne and her middle name. In the "Guinness Encyclopedia of Popular Music" she was born September 19, 1945 and her middle name is "Charcilia". Joel Whitburn's book "Top Pop Singles" has the same date of birth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.71.79.161 (talk) 06:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- I've corrected the spelling of her middle name in the article but a quick check of some databases shows both the 1942 and 1945 date. I suggest you post on the discussion page and discuss the matter with other editors. Gamaliel (talk) 06:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Mary G. Enig
Mary G. Enig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Quick question about application of WP:BLPPRIMARY. This ref from a state government agency is being used as a reference (ref #2) for citing that Enig was a licensed nutritionist between 1988 and 2008. I rarely edit BLPs, and was wondering if this violates WP:BLPPRIMARY or not (public document, etc). Thanks! Yobol (talk) 12:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Mary G. Enig Link to article. Colincbn (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it falls under the BLPPPRIMARY ban on public records. Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that BLPPRIMARY is an actual ban on the use of government records. Just a very strong caution to how they are used. In fact, the policy in question specifically says there are times it is acceptable to use them in BLPs. Colincbn (talk) 05:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- BLPPRIMARY is categorical: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." This is a case of a public record being used to support an assertion that a living person was a licensed nutritionist for 20 years and is no longer. So its not a permissible usage. The exception stated in the section (using primary sources to supplement secondary) doesn't apply in this instance. Jonathanwallace (talk) 06:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that BLPPRIMARY is an actual ban on the use of government records. Just a very strong caution to how they are used. In fact, the policy in question specifically says there are times it is acceptable to use them in BLPs. Colincbn (talk) 05:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it falls under the BLPPPRIMARY ban on public records. Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Alejandro Peña Esclusa
Alejandro Peña Esclusa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rd232 introduced slander and libel on this page Alejandro Peña Esclusa and is reverting all my attempts to remove it. I will continue to revert in spite of the 3 revert rule because this is a long-standing issue that has gone on for YEARS on the Italian Wikipedia article about this politician, who is presently a political prisoner in Venezuela. May I suggest that you ban Rd232 from editing that page. Lindorm (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindorm (talk • contribs) 14:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Cough, not content to spew legal threats everywhere over an issue which got him banned from the Italian Wikipedia, not content with a spurious COIN report, he forumshops to BLPN too. Well I'm quite happy to have more eyes and hands involved. Rd232 talk 15:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Unless I'm misreading this diff, you appear to believe that merely moving the text and adding an WP:OR claim that the Venezuelan government is persecuting Esclusa solves the alleged libel problem. Hum. Also, you're at about 5RR. I can't be bothered to report you, especially as you appear to believe WP:BLP exemption applies, but really, can some others chip in here please? Rd232 talk 15:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- You are partially right. By presenting the same information in a different manner it becomes a good Wikipedia article. The overall goal of an article is to be accurate and being accurate entails more than containing accurate facts, it means to convey an accurate impression of the subject. That is why the same sentences can be or not be libelous, depending on how they are presented and framed. Lindorm (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- The problem continues: User Rd232 is contributing to improve the article, but at the same time consistently and persistently introducing biased (POV) language that reflects the propaganda message from Venezuela's socialist government. Every day I find myself having to clear about a half dozen or so biased (POV) features from the article. This has to stop, we cannot allow Wikipedia to be a propaganda vehicle for a dictatorship wishing to crush its dissidents by spreading patently false information that gets picked up by editors here and presented in the manner that they designed it to be presented. We have to use judgment! Lindorm (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm only adding sourced information; there are some disagreements which one ought to be able to work through without hyperventilating, and mostly we are. Incidentally, I've pointed this out several times, so here it is again, crystal clear: NPOV is the objective. The N in WP:NPOV stands for Neutral. That you can't get this straight suggests you never got round to even reading this key policy. Rd232 talk 17:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Fixed typos (NPOV -> NNPOV, biased, POV). Rd232 undid a number of times revisions of that article without addressing the concerns I had expressed in edit comments and talk page, and continued many times to edit the article into a form that clearly gave more prominence to the views of the dissident's political enemies, than a balanced and neutral view. This long-term editing pattern of Rd232, editing in a way that is biased pro-Chavez and against regime dissidents, is very troubling, especially given that he is an Admin. It endangers the very credibility of the Wikipedia project, unless the project demonstrates that it is able to effectively handle the situation. Lindorm (talk) 11:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, user Rd232 is clearly working on that article as an editor and not as an administrator and I think if you ask him/her they will say as much...as I mentioned yesterday, you guys are discussing and clearly capable of working towards some agreements and meeting in the middle, remember - there is no deadline, choose a single issue you have with the content and either add a cited rebuttal or agree some consensus wording, for issues you are unable to agree on, its better to request outside comments such as using the Wikipedia:Third opinion for minor issues and WP:RFC on the talkpage for larger issues. You are both allowed to hold an opinion about the subject but requested to edit from a neutral point of view. WP:NPOV Off2riorob (talk) 11:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it's irrelevant here that I'm an admin - I'm not wearing that hat. Lindorm seems to wish to use the article to promote his anti-Chavez activism, but is gradually, slowly, grasping what NPOV actually means and I think we've actually made a lot of progress, though his tone often doesn't reflect that. Dispute resolution remains an option, but the talk page has been a bit underused (for detailed editing issues) so far. Rd232 talk 12:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, user Rd232 is clearly working on that article as an editor and not as an administrator and I think if you ask him/her they will say as much...as I mentioned yesterday, you guys are discussing and clearly capable of working towards some agreements and meeting in the middle, remember - there is no deadline, choose a single issue you have with the content and either add a cited rebuttal or agree some consensus wording, for issues you are unable to agree on, its better to request outside comments such as using the Wikipedia:Third opinion for minor issues and WP:RFC on the talkpage for larger issues. You are both allowed to hold an opinion about the subject but requested to edit from a neutral point of view. WP:NPOV Off2riorob (talk) 11:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Fixed typos (NPOV -> NNPOV, biased, POV). Rd232 undid a number of times revisions of that article without addressing the concerns I had expressed in edit comments and talk page, and continued many times to edit the article into a form that clearly gave more prominence to the views of the dissident's political enemies, than a balanced and neutral view. This long-term editing pattern of Rd232, editing in a way that is biased pro-Chavez and against regime dissidents, is very troubling, especially given that he is an Admin. It endangers the very credibility of the Wikipedia project, unless the project demonstrates that it is able to effectively handle the situation. Lindorm (talk) 11:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm only adding sourced information; there are some disagreements which one ought to be able to work through without hyperventilating, and mostly we are. Incidentally, I've pointed this out several times, so here it is again, crystal clear: NPOV is the objective. The N in WP:NPOV stands for Neutral. That you can't get this straight suggests you never got round to even reading this key policy. Rd232 talk 17:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- The problem continues: User Rd232 is contributing to improve the article, but at the same time consistently and persistently introducing biased (POV) language that reflects the propaganda message from Venezuela's socialist government. Every day I find myself having to clear about a half dozen or so biased (POV) features from the article. This has to stop, we cannot allow Wikipedia to be a propaganda vehicle for a dictatorship wishing to crush its dissidents by spreading patently false information that gets picked up by editors here and presented in the manner that they designed it to be presented. We have to use judgment! Lindorm (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Category:Rape victims
Hello! I am Minerva and I made the Category:Rape victims. That page was deleted before, I don't know the reason, but I want to know if it violates WP:BLP in some way. I would like to get some viewpoints here. --Minerva97 (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Minerva, without having spent time thinking about your question, I did want to at least point you at the 2007 deletion discussion that was the basis for the category originally being deleted, it's here. That discussion also evoked a comment from Jimbo, here. --joe deckertalk to me 18:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about this, but is there any way we can speedily delete the category? It was deleted in 2007, and Wikipedia has become much stricter on BLP issues since then. Having looked at the previous discussion, I can't believe for one minute that this would survive another deletion debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Aside from how mind-boggingly offensive such a category is, the fact that it currently holds only 7 indivduals, when it clearly could hold thousands, is itself a sign of how unfeasible it is to have a category. Are we to have subcategories for survivors of incest, of children abused by teachers, etc etc etc? This should be culled from wikipedia asap. Echoedmyron (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of tagging it now. Tarc (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm the editor who recommended that Minerva97 bring the category up for discussion here. I didn't realize it had previously been deleted, but I did think it posed a problem both in terms of BLP and as inconsistent with the other subcategories of Category:Crime victims. Though I disagree with some of the objections being made here, I agree that the category is not really a good one. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Allison Parks and other Playmates
Allison Parks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This Playboy Playmate of the Year is reported to have died in 2010. No genuine RS reference confirms that the person who died was in fact the Playboy model; the association is made via self-published sources associated with a Yahoo fan group. Tracing the history, it appears that most of the information supporting the identification was in the WP article long before the person died, so the identification appears reasonably reliable -- but still falls well short of BLP/RS standards. Other articles report Playmate deaths with far less reliable sourcing, mostly coming from mailing lists -- see Cathy Larmouth, Debbie Boostrom, Melodye Prentiss, and Tiffany Sloan. There are probably more. How should the situation be handled? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- If you ask my opinion, what you need is an obituary that confirms that this is the same person; at minimum matching birth dates and rudimentary biographical information that confirms something else reliable about the person, if the obit doesn't mention Playboy appearence. I.e. if one source confirms that Jane Doe the playboy model was born on Date XXX, was born in city YYY, attended high school ZZZ, and the obit states that a Jane Doe, born on XXX in YYY and went to high school ZZZ died on AAA, then you are probably safe, even if the obit doesn't mention the Playboy appearence. However, if its just "Jane Doe died on AAA" with no confirmational data, or if the sources are all unreliable, it should be taken out of the article until such time as a firm, reliable source is found. --Jayron32 20:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Michael Frost Beckner
Michael Frost Beckner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Michael Frost Beckner, the subject of this Wikipedia article is a living person. I am an associate of Mr. Beckner and have contributed the bulk of this article with his direct knowledge and guidance.
An anonymous editor is repeatedly posting a false, unsourced, irrelevant and potentially libelous statement about Beckner's original, and entirely fictional story for his original screenplay, "Spy Game". This anonymous editor also attempted to insert the same information into the Spy Game article. Editors of that page removed the inappropriate addition and explained their decision in its discussion section.
The inappropriate text can be found in the Diff page: [40]
Mr. Beckner has never heard of this person and has confirmed this statement is a complete fabrication. Beckner's continued value as a writer of original fiction is undermined by this statement so it must be considered libelous.
The anonymous editor cites his references as:
--This is a PR news release made by Tom Golden's own company and merely repeats his false statements.
2. "http://latesthollywoodnewsrelease.blogspot.com/2010_02_01_archive.html"
--This is a blog article that repeats the false information from the PR release. The author of this blog article has been contacted and notified about the error.
3. "The Hollywood Reporter, Nov 20, 2003, Cathy Dunkley 'The Beckner Story'"
--This article does not exist. The anonymous editor simply changed the date of one of the actual references in the Beckner article and took Beckner's company's name (The Beckner Story Company) fabricating a new title for the article. Additionally, the cited author did not work for the Hollywood Reporter in 2003. She worked for Variety at the time (ref: http://www.variety.com/toc-archive/2003/20031117.html, 11/20/2003, Cathy Dunkley, Dana Harris, "Village Roadshow taps marketing, distrib exec" Dwwinter (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting us know about this issue. If the IP editor is fabricating sources in this way then it's very concerning. I have left them a warning on their talk page and have watchlisted the article. If they keep re-adding the same material without discussing the disputed sources, then we can consider some form of protection for the article. Incidentally, you may wish to read our guidelines on conflict of interest. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- I just did a database search of the Hollywood Reporter and that article does not appear to exist, nor anything written by Dunkley. Beckner does pop in three articles, but none from 2003 and none of them mention Golden. Gamaliel (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Dwwinter's own contributions don't seem to hold up much better. Large chunks of the article were poorly sourced/unsourced promotion; some of his sources seem quite dodgy ("Fortean Times" on US intelligence agencies?!), and other text clearly distorts the sources cited (eg, the EW article "Blue Chip Scripts" states exactly nothing about "the highest prices ever paid for spec scripts up until that time" -- it only presents a selection of high prices paid. Anybody who thinks that statements like "By this time Beckner was firmly established as the most prolific and foremost visual storyteller of espionage in Hollywood" belong in a Wikipedia biography needs to go back to square one, read WP:BLP, and inform his client/employer/whatever that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
wilbert keon
Wilbert Keon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A user has repeatedly removed negative yet factual and referenced information on this person's biography.
Please see the diff:
Can this article be locked or the user in question be blocked from further vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curiousottman (talk • contribs) 02:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Everyone involved in this edit dispute should be encouraged to use edit summaries and to discuss their issues on the article Talk page. WP:BLPREMOVE says: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced..." The link you are using is a connection to a site which claims to be an aggregator of interesting information, and which is presenting what purports to be an Ottawa Citizen article. This may be a copyright violation, or may not be an accurate copy of the article. For something this sensitive, you need a better source. On a quick Google search, I did not find a better source, so I have deleted the information from the article. If you can solve that problem, you may still hear from other editors here with objections on other grounds such as WP:UNDUE. Personally, I believe that the information should remain under WP:WELLKNOWN, only if it can be much better documented.Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia would be better off if we deleted all of the celebrity DUIs, one-night stands, and similar transient public embarrassments. Almost all of them are given undue weight. "Factual and referenced" doesn't mean significant enough to be included in an encyclopedic article. It's also interesting to note that the "factual" content you're insistent on keeping is itself misleading, since the article subject's resignation was rejected, and he stayed in his post for almost a decade more. And since when does disputing an edit twice over 10 months constitute impermissible edit warring? Especially if the complaint comes from someone who reinserted the same content twice in only a few days. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Since I reverted the edit, we're talking in the abstract here. However, the example given in WP:WELLKNOWN, which is policy, is: " A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but The New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing The New York Times as the source." Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, well known is part of BLP policy - "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article" - Currently there is only a single external to his official biography, so I was asking myself how public a person is he? Another issue would be weight with such almost nothing known about his private life, which this occurred in, I would say it would get undue weight in the article also a HW says, it actually had little effect on his life, he continued along in the same position. His public figure position would be at the senate - I don't know how public this actually would be considered, he was not elected and so did not stand as a candidate. IMO the lack of citations suggests he is more of a private person than public. Anyways, under the present conditions and cited to that source I agree its better out than in. Off2riorob (talk) 13:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- This is an easy one because we all agree on the deletion. However, I think he is a public figure as a senate member, regardless of whether he is appointed or elected. I agree that the "multitude' of sources envisioned by WP:WELLKNOWN are lacking. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Cool, if its replaced without any changes or discussion I recommend semi protection, I will watchlist it also, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 13:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- This is an easy one because we all agree on the deletion. However, I think he is a public figure as a senate member, regardless of whether he is appointed or elected. I agree that the "multitude' of sources envisioned by WP:WELLKNOWN are lacking. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, well known is part of BLP policy - "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article" - Currently there is only a single external to his official biography, so I was asking myself how public a person is he? Another issue would be weight with such almost nothing known about his private life, which this occurred in, I would say it would get undue weight in the article also a HW says, it actually had little effect on his life, he continued along in the same position. His public figure position would be at the senate - I don't know how public this actually would be considered, he was not elected and so did not stand as a candidate. IMO the lack of citations suggests he is more of a private person than public. Anyways, under the present conditions and cited to that source I agree its better out than in. Off2riorob (talk) 13:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Since I reverted the edit, we're talking in the abstract here. However, the example given in WP:WELLKNOWN, which is policy, is: " A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but The New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing The New York Times as the source." Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia would be better off if we deleted all of the celebrity DUIs, one-night stands, and similar transient public embarrassments. Almost all of them are given undue weight. "Factual and referenced" doesn't mean significant enough to be included in an encyclopedic article. It's also interesting to note that the "factual" content you're insistent on keeping is itself misleading, since the article subject's resignation was rejected, and he stayed in his post for almost a decade more. And since when does disputing an edit twice over 10 months constitute impermissible edit warring? Especially if the complaint comes from someone who reinserted the same content twice in only a few days. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
David Di Sabatino
David Di Sabatino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am David Di Sabatino. This article is about me, and it is simply riddled with wrong information.
Please take it down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.65.68 (talk) 04:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Could you be more specific and let us know what is incorrect? Thanks. Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- - One thing that is incorrect is that someone that claims to the subject of a BLP who makes a report here and it take eight hours for them to receive a welcome template or any policy or guideline advice at all. (note - this is not directed at anyone, just something to consider in general) - Off2riorob (talk) 11:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yup, missed that--good catch. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- I suspect that the fact that the IP followed up the complaint here with an immediate act of vandalism [41] both reduced its credibility and the inclination editors might have had to welcome it. That's not something most folks would do under their real name. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I missed that. Off2riorob (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- I suspect that the fact that the IP followed up the complaint here with an immediate act of vandalism [41] both reduced its credibility and the inclination editors might have had to welcome it. That's not something most folks would do under their real name. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Jas Dhillon
Jas Dhillon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Look like a vanity publication to me. 38.98.7.86 (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC) JF
- I did a bit of tidying, he is of limited note, could use improvement if there are additional reports out there. Article has existed since May 2008 doesn't appear to have ever been prodded ... might survive a WP:prod. Off2riorob (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- A Google search didn't disclose any third party sources of the type we favor, mainly his own web site and social media. Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- PROD'd. Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- A Google search didn't disclose any third party sources of the type we favor, mainly his own web site and social media. Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Abdul Nazer Mahdani
Abdul Nazer Mahdani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article is a stub, it lacks a neutral point of view and most of the claims made by the article are not verifiable. Most of its external links are dead too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vyttilavarkey (talk • contribs) 18:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- IMHO without checking all the links, just a sample, they worked. The wording does not seem to be POV (I have never heard of the person before). For someone who has a specific view about the person it might seem POV by being NPOV. This is a person considered to be a political prisoner it seems, although it is not expressly said in the text. In cases of this kind it is notoriously difficult to get good sources since media inside the country have to be careful, and media outside have little reason to write about it nor much information to base their writing on. However, the article needs a bit more text to explain the context. Lindorm (talk) 11:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Matt Howarth
Would any editor be able to take a look at Matt Howarth? Apparently he is a cartoonist of some kind, but the whole article looks like a vanity to me. Most of the info is gleaned from [42]. Thanks. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- It's a lousy article, but Howarth is quite notable in his field. Article history shows the likelihood of vanity editing to be pretty low. One IP may have copied a laundry list of guest appearances from the website, but that's a cleanup issue at worst. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- He's important but not mainstream, so sources may be difficult to dig up. I'll see what I can find. Gamaliel (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- He drew a bit for DC comics and has a minor note but no more than that - imo there are about five articles that could easily be merged there without any loss to readers. Off2riorob (talk) 22:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Taryn Southern
Taryn Southern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is a messy bio of someone who achieved brief fame in the 2008 American election cycle for a viral video. She describes herself on her website as a "Webutante". It's almost completely unsourced (i'm not counting "the Wrong Hole" on Youtube as a source!) The early life section contains some eyebrow-raising claims, such as her two degrees by age twenty (if this is true, much respect Ms.Southern) I'm thinking this needs to be stubbed right down, or even AfD'ed. Thoughts? The Interior (Talk) 22:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, it's an awful article, no doubt. A quick look at Google News (and the IMDB, and the ARS) tells me that AfD probably is not the best place to go--she is certainly marginally notable. But stubbing seems fine to me. Drmies (talk) 04:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Bill Vorn
Bill Vorn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I already wrote about it in the talk page of Bill Vorn, but I thought it would be better to bring it up here. It seems like there has been a "copying and pasting" from his personal website. What should be done about this? Edit it so as to make it seem original, or simply erase that portion of the article? Or should it simply be re-written? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ourhomeplanet (talk • contribs) 03:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- You're right--that does seem like a copy and paste job. That is not acceptable for various reasons, including copyright issues--and I don't see permission for such copying. Here's what I'm going to do, and you can do this as well. I'm going to go through the history to find an untainted version if I can. If I can, I'll revert to that and take it from there. If this was copied from the get-go, I'm going to find a few reliable sources on this character and write a stub using the sources I can find, deleting the rest of it (which is then unverified). If I can't find any sources, I will nominate it for deletion.
That's what I think should be done, but there are other options--rewriting certainly is an option, but it begs the question of sources: this is a BLP, after all. Tagging it with a bunch of templates is also an option. Thanks for letting us now. Drmies (talk) 04:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Dieudonné M'bala M'bala
Dieudonné M'bala M'bala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The following is from WP:Editor assistance. I think the discussion really belongs here. Hans Adler 08:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Template:Blockquotetop
There is not a correspondence in translation between the french page and the english one in the french text is clear that the actor was accused of anti-semitism and to be rightist, but also that he reject those accuses in the english text instead the translation give him a sure appartenance to the Front National party and his leader Jean Marie Le Pen, i am not agree a translation have to be strictly tied to the original text and not allow anyone to interpretate facts with personal opinions, I think that the cause is that who did it hated Dieudonné for his anti zionism and used Wikipedia non in an honest way, i wish in a correction as soon as possible, cause what i saw in my research is absurde and show how much can be manipulated the information :
Dieudonné, nom de scène de Dieudonné M'bala M'bala, est un humoriste, acteur, et militant politique français né le 11 février 1966 à Fontenay-aux-Roses (Hauts-de-Seine).
Dieudonné se fait connaître comme humoriste dans les années 1990. Dans la deuxième moitié de cette décennie, il est de plus en plus engagé en politique, participant notamment à plusieurs scrutins électoraux.
Particulièrement controversé en raison de plusieurs de ses prises de position, Dieudonné voit son image publique se modifier progressivement au cours des années 20001 : alors qu'il était classé à gauche dans les années 19902, il est désormais condamné par diverses associations antiracistes et considéré comme une personnalité d'extrême droite par de nombreuses formations et mouvances politiques3, ainsi que par une grande partie de la presse nationale1,2,4, qui l'accusent notamment d'antisémitisme5,6. Lui-même conteste ces accusations et se présente comme un républicain antisioniste anticommunautariste7, affirmant représenter « la vraie gauche »8.
Dieudonné
Dieudonné M'bala M'bala (born 11 February 1966), generally known simply as Dieudonné, is a French comedian, actor and political activist. Initially a leftist, and an anti-racism and anti-Israel activist, he has moved to the far right of the political spectrum of France, developing close political and personal relationships with the Front National party and its leader Jean-Marie Le Pen as well as with prominent Holocaust deniers such as Robert Faurisson; however, he claims to be leading a 'justified fight' against Zionism, and Israel which he deems racist and oppressive.[1] Dieudonné has been condemned in court several times for antisemitic remarks. Since 1997, Dieudonné has regularly stood in parliamentary and European Union elections as a candidate at the head of fringe or splinter parties, and has tried and failed to run for two French presidential elections (2002 and 2007). Dieudonné M'bala M'bala —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.239.124.46 (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- The place to post this is at Talk:Dieudonné M'bala M'bala where it can be seen by editors who an interest in the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't have the time to deal with this right now, but I note that the English Wikipedia article is not supposed to be a translation of the French one. For French people the French Wikipedia is likely to have more detailed and more NPOV coverage than we do, but there is no guarantee that this is the case. Without actually having looked at it, I guess carefully considering the French article and its history in addition to ours could in fact help us here. Hans Adler 08:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- There is no built in relationship between English and French or any other language Wikipedia. We can have articles on the same topic which are completely unrelated to each other in their origins, wording and sources. In the case of an article originally translated from French Wikipedia, the editor may chose not to include all of the material and references, or may diverge from them if there is a good reason to. Once that translation becomes an article here, it can be edited by anybody and will continue to diverge from the original. So the only real question for consideration here is whether the statements which are causing your concern are reliably sourced, give proper weight etc. I will take a look at the article and see if I spot any issues. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- I read the article, randomly checking a few of the French language sources. They are mainly large circulation, mainstream newspapers that say what they are cited for. The guy has staked out some pretty clear positions on French Jews and Israel. There is some coatracky material and a broken link or two. On the whole, the article seems to have been written or heavily edited by someone who wants to make sure the world knows the subject is an anti-Semite, so there may be weight issues (though if someone is notable mainly for bigotry, there may not be that much you can do to add "balance" to an article). This probably warrants an edit, cutting out some of the more extraneous, coatracky material (for example, one of his colleague's correspondence with Carlos the Jackal in prison). Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
luc tuymans
Luc Tuymans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
before 11 feb 2011 there were details on the family of the artist which could explain his political engagement this info was canceled on 11/02/2011 and i regret this because it was an essential point of view —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.130.203.162 (talk) 08:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- I am not seeing a February 11 edit, and am having trouble finding the former content to which you refer. Can you give more details? Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Nikki Yanofsky
Nikki Yanofsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sources seem clear enough to me in support of our stating in our article that Nikki Yanofsky is Jewish, yet it is being objected to. It is being discussed at Talk:Nikki Yanofsky#Religious Views. Can we have further input from others?
It was brought here previously, by me. There is an additional source at this point in time. Here we have the previous discussion at this Noticeboard. Bus stop (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Can anyone explain why her apparently being of Jewish descent is of any significance to her notability, or indeed of any significance to the article at all? Or is this just another example of Bus Stop's obsessive ethno-tagging project. (BTW, has anyone ever seen him demonstrating this obsession with other ethnicities?) AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Apparently, according to the article, it is a prominent part of her parents life, though her parents are not notable outside of the fact of being her parents. I personally don't see anything wrong with the current version. I do think it is obsessive ethno-tagging, but there is nothing wrong with mentioning her family background.Griswaldo (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Re Andy, I thinks this is indeed simply more of Bus Stop's obsessive ethno-tagging project, and no, I've never seem him demonstrating this obsession with other ethnicities. It's clear from the sources that her parents are quite active in the Jewish community, but it's not at all clear that the daughter shares this self-identification. Many religions and religious people, including Jewish newspaper sources, assume that a child is of the same religion as the parents: however, this is simply not true and kids frequently rebel. Niki may well consider herself a Buddhist or a Pagan or an athiest, we have no way of knowing unless she says. Given that she's a minor and hasn't make any declaration of religious affiliation, the most we can state in the article is that she is born into a Jewish family. Most people will read that as a Jewish identification and we've not put any possibly false statements into the article in the process.
- As for Bus Stop's weak synthesis using such details as going home for Passover: many people go home for social events such as Christmas, Easter, Passover, and join in even though they don't consider themselves Christian or Jewish. It's a social thing and proves nothing. Yworo (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
But we do have sourcesThe following 5 excerpts from 2 sources would I think pretty clearly serve to establish for Wikipedia purposes that Yanofsky is Jewish:
- "“She comes from a close-knit Jewish family. Her parents, Richard and Elyssa, who manage her career, support many Jewish causes, including the Israel Cancer Research Fund. The singer will be home next month to celebrate a Passover seder with her parents and two brothers ." Bus stop (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Here we go again... Can you explain why her apparently being of Jewish descent is of any significance to her notability, or indeed of any significance to the article at all? If you can't, then your obsessions are best directed elsewhere. Wikipedia isn't intended to be therapy... — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs)
- All the sources presented above which actually say she is Jewish (only the first two) are Jewish news sources which don't explain how they know she considers herself Jewish, they make assumptions and don't provide sources for their claims. The rest are unusable because they rely on implication or interpretation, which we don't allow on any articles, much less BLPs. None of the last three directly state that she is Jewish. They say some other artists are Jewish, that Yanovsky found performing in Israel "moving", that her parents are Jewish, and that she will be at home for Passover. I attend seders, but that doesn't mean I'm Jewish. None of these are reliable sources for this specific detail, and none establish that even if she is Jewish that it is a significant part of her notability. Now, if you had some non-Jewish sources that state that she is Jewish and how this relates to her singing career or otherwise contributes to her notability, that would be different. Having the Jewish community note that she is Jewish doesn't really mean anything for the general notability of her alleged Jewishness. The fact that other, non-Jewish, sources don't even mention it means it is not significant to her notability. If it were, it would get mentioned in the non-Jewish sources. Yworo (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- I also note that the "five" sources you present above are only two sources. The first two are one article, the last three another article. When you present sources, please try to do it in a way that is not misleading about the number of sources involved, hmmm... Yworo (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yworo—the content of an article is not limited to that which shows a clear relation to notability according to my reading of policy:
- Nope. What limits this is discussion on the talk page with regard to reaching an editorial decision regarding the significance of such matters. As always, it is for those wishing to assert significance to provide evidence of such. So where is this evidence to be found? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Also, Yworo—you seem to call for "non-Jewish" sources. Do you find support for that in policies, guidelines, and essays?
- And you say the 2 reliable sources I've provided "don't explain how they know she considers herself Jewish". Do you have a source that would show that she might not consider herself Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- They are not reliable source for this particular piece of information because they are sources which have a bias with respect to that particular piece of information. So you have no reliable sources. Furthermore, it's not simply a matter of whether or not she is Jewish, it's a matter or whether or not her alleged Jewishness is part of her notability. Jewish sources can't establish that. Yworo (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yworo—you say, "…it's a matter or whether or not her alleged Jewishness is part of her notability."
- I find at WP:NOTE that:
- and:
- No. It would imply that you should read the next sentence in the notability guidelines: "For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons". Now provide evidence of significance, or stop wasting everyone's time with your facile wikilawyering. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Yworo—we require reliable sources. You have not demonstrated that The Jewish Tribune and the Canadian Jewish News are not reliable sources. Like all news organizations they have their reputation to protect.
So far you have not pointed to wording in policies, guidelines, and essays that might guide us in evaluating sources in the way that you are suggesting. Where do you find differentiation between sources on this basis? Bus stop (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- AndyTheGrump—you say, "provide evidence of significance". Note that at this point in the article's evolution, it is not being suggested that this particular characteristic be expanded upon. All that is being suggested, by me, is that it be perfunctorily noted. Do you think there has to be great significance—like she has to be basing jazz syncopation on cantorial rhythms? Bus stop (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Since you have still provided no evidence whatsoever to demonstrate why Yanofsky's Jewish descent is of any significance, I'd assume that there isn't any. On that basis, there is nothing to debate here. Can somebody hat this section please? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- - I am not seeing any support for her having any religious views, is there some support for that claim? Off2riorob (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Off2riorob—you say you see no "religious views." Bear in mind that Wikipedia is "not finished". If "religious views" come to light they can be added at a later time. Bus stop (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- note - the post above from user:bus stop is posted out of the timeline and confuses the discussion making it look like a post from user Griswaldo is a reply to the user bus stops post but this is false, the post above is actually posted after the one below - Yes, indeedy, but that is not the question - so clearly we have not reliable support for her religiousness. As I had a look at the content and the reliable support is very good at present and without more reliable reports this is well resolved, a quality update, thanks to all. Off2riorob (talk) 22:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Off2riorob—you say you see no "religious views." Bear in mind that Wikipedia is "not finished". If "religious views" come to light they can be added at a later time. Bus stop (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Off2riorob—you mention "religiousness" but of course that is not the issue. This was my edit to the Yanofsky article:
- I believe the above edit to the Personal life section of the article, made by me, is completely supported by sources. In fact, that is the primary issue here. Is the assertion that "Yanofsky is Jewish" supported by sources? I think that is what we should be primarily be discussing. Bus stop (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Can you please stop posting in discussion format, engorged and elongated comments in links? what part of [diff] don't you understand? Off2riorob (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- I believe the above edit to the Personal life section of the article, made by me, is completely supported by sources. In fact, that is the primary issue here. Is the assertion that "Yanofsky is Jewish" supported by sources? I think that is what we should be primarily be discussing. Bus stop (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- No. What we should be discussing is whether the fact that Yanofsky is of Jewish descent is of any significance to the article. Since you utterly refuse to explain why you see any significance to this, I can only assume that you consider imposing your own neuroses on Wikipedia as more important than the stated aims of the project. On this basis, I would support a call for you to be topic banned from any BLPs of persons of Jewish descent, ethnicity or faith. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Alena Gerber
Alena Gerber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- - Alena Gerber - self-published/relatively unknown
There have been major issues with Ms Gerber's German Wikipedia article. The entry here has seemingly been created to repeat claims that have already been proven false and have, as a consequence, been deleted by the German Wikipedia community.
This article is being used as an advertising platform for a still rather unknown model and aspiring TV host - something that Wikipedia clearly disapproves of, for a reason. Ms Gerber is not widely known in her country of origin, Germany, in either of these roles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabiaflora (talk • contribs) 18:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- - Such issues are pretty much outside the remit of this noticeboard -
- This noticeboard is for reporting and discussing issues with biographies of living persons. These may include editing disputes and cases where contributors are repeatedly adding troublesome material over an extended period.
- It is not for simple vandalism or material which can easily be removed without argument. If you can, simply remove the offending material.
- For general content disputes regarding biographical articles consider using Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies.
- All Wikipedia editors are encouraged to assist fellow editors regarding the reports below. Administrators taking actions they consider to be "special enforcement" may wish to note this in the enforcement log.
You should WP:BEBOLD and either edit the article to improve it or WP:PROD it or WP:AFD it. Off2riorob (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Sarah Carey
Sarah Carey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sarah Carey is best known in Ireland for her role in the Esat Digifone mobile phone licence scandal. Any attempt to make this known is deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emerald ire (talk • contribs) 18:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Please don't WikiLink to Corruption in Ireland in someone's name.[43] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- If that is what she is best known for then she is not notable and the BLP should be deleted - she is of total minor note - wikipedia isn't about millions of articles about people of trivial note that you can find three citations with a mention of them in - not at all. Such is the weakness of the project. Esat Mobile Phone Licence Scandal is at AFD and Carey is not mentioned and she is not even mentioned in the Moriarty Tribunal article. Off2riorob (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esat Mobile Phone Licence Scandal ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
bobby gonzalez
Bobby Gonzalez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I Wednesday, April 6, 2011FROM A DAILY DOSE OF HOOPS http://jadendaly.blogspot.com/
GOOD READ FROM SOMEONE FAIR. have added numerous links on my talk page so that this biography can be properly edited. Here is another one as you asked for: I also have another bio coming from SHU.Lindag3333 (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm putting together some references about this article at User:Demiurge1000/Bobby Gonzalez sources, with a view to addressing the perceived problems of balance and neutrality in the article. I've copied that URL there, but, with this comment: "Unfortunately, as a blog, this is unlikely to be suitable as a source, unless we can put together some verifiable information about its owner". Let me know about the info from SHU when it arrives. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)