BrownHairedGirl (talk | contribs) |
Scott MacDonald (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 681: | Line 681: | ||
::::::The Merriam-Webster isn't very helpful here. It is very short and unnuanced. It simply does not address the semantic range in the type of depth needed to settle this debate. It does say the term is "chiefly British" and gives the example of a "phishing scam" - it doesn't answer the pertinent quesiton of whether the term is neutrally used to describe expenses fraud etc..--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac]] 00:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC) |
::::::The Merriam-Webster isn't very helpful here. It is very short and unnuanced. It simply does not address the semantic range in the type of depth needed to settle this debate. It does say the term is "chiefly British" and gives the example of a "phishing scam" - it doesn't answer the pertinent quesiton of whether the term is neutrally used to describe expenses fraud etc..--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac]] 00:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::::::If you don't accept a dictionary as a source for the meaning of words then please provide a better source. So far all I've seen are Wikipedia editors saying what they think the word means. <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]] [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]] </b> 00:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC) |
:::::::If you don't accept a dictionary as a source for the meaning of words then please provide a better source. So far all I've seen are Wikipedia editors saying what they think the word means. <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]] [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]] </b> 00:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
::::::::I'm not "not accepting it", I'm simply saying it doesn't address the issue. This argument is about the nuance or semantic range of a term, which is not something an entry as short as that addresses. I'm looking for something that might help here (either in supporting or contradicting what I'm saying) unfortunately I'm not finding it. I agree that simply resorting to my interpretation of the word's range, or that of those who say "it is to fraud what murderer is to murder" isn't idea. Hopefully we can find some detailed sources to solve this one way or another, otherwise we'll need to go with people's impressions.--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac]] 00:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*See [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 26#Category:Persons_convicted_of_fraud]]. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#996600; cursor: not-allowed;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 00:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC) |
*See [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 26#Category:Persons_convicted_of_fraud]]. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#996600; cursor: not-allowed;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 00:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:52, 26 January 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:
| ||
Talk pages
Is it appropriate for an editor to refactor a talk page discussion to remove assertions of criminality, when the assertion of criminality is relevant to the discussion? In other words, if he didn't do it, no article, and if he did do it, probably article? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- The talk pages in question, so far, are Talk:Jared Lee Loughner and Talk:2011 Tucson shooting. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I think at this point stating that is stating fact, which means it cannot violate BLP; otherwise, we would have to remove all references of Charles Manson's crimes from his page, etc. Toa Nidhiki05 22:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Manson was found guilty. Otherwise, his page would say that he was "charged with" x, y and z and the result of the trial. Instead, as a result of the trial, have a look at what Charles Manson actually says. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- What you're essentially arguing is that Wikipedia should always trust the court system; if that is so, then we should remove all 'contentious' accusations against ruthless dictators from their pages. This man is guilty, and it is so widely sourced it is ridiculous. Toa Nidhiki05 22:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I am bowing out of this discussion at this point, unless directly questioned. The material on Talk:Jared Lee Loughner has been restored by another editor. I am leaving it in the capable hands of this noticeboard. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Same here. Who's next? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Anybody? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Is this thing on? - SummerPhD (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Without a pointer to the specific discussion that was removed, it could be tricky to discuss this in the abstract. Real-world BLP concerns are often a lot more clear than generalized discussions. But overall, as long as the discussion is on topic (cogent and reasonably related to improving the article) there is no BLP rationale for removing it. The guy just killed six people, seems to have planned it out, and people are observing that he is obviously insane and speculating about the broad implications. He is probably the subject of a million different online discussions, most far less respectful than ours here. For us to discuss this on a Wikipedia article talk page frequented by editors and not the general public for purposes of writing encyclopedic content about him is not going to further tarnish his reputation, form the basis for a lawsuit against Wikipedia or its editors, or otherwise hurt him. That he is innocent until proven guilty is a matter of American criminal law procedure, not a question of sourcing or respect for living people. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- "people are observing that he is obviously insane and speculating about the broad implications" shouldn't those be your clues? COD psychologists, are no more capable of providing reliable information than the guy on the bus. Armchair pundits speculating about the speculation, in the snug seems a little bizarre. John lilburne (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Reliable sources are not saying "The guy just killed six people... (and) is obviously insane". Reliable sources are saying he is suspected of killing six people. There's more than a bit of difference. This is contentious. So what? He's guilty, right? - SummerPhD (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Afraid that's not the case. The sources do say he was the gunman, and they do say that it is clear he has some severe mental problems. As well as sources can source anything, they've sourced that. When they are talking about the criminal procedure they say he is accused, when they talk about the mental health system they describe his place in it, etc. We would have to be careful in how we describe it in the article. Merely calling him a suspect doesn't cut it. But we cannot say out and out that he did it (it isn't our place to make such a declaration). None of that matters. We're discussing the talk page, and for purposes of improving the article we can discuss his criminal culpability, mental state, etc. Again, I haven't seen the specific material removed, but as a general matter we have to be able to talk about the subject of the article in order to write about it. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- I looked at one of the sources and apparently smoking marijuana most days is common enough pastime in Arizona, really? That article also quotes someone saying "he was really fascinated with semantics and how the world is really nothing" truly fascinating as that sort of think can be heard by most pot smoking 18-22 year olds, and a good number of those in their 30s-90s too. Quite simple that one article is not a reliable source with regards to anything other than what people said, and is probably spun too. John lilburne (talk) 09:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Afraid that's not the case. The sources do say he was the gunman, and they do say that it is clear he has some severe mental problems. As well as sources can source anything, they've sourced that. When they are talking about the criminal procedure they say he is accused, when they talk about the mental health system they describe his place in it, etc. We would have to be careful in how we describe it in the article. Merely calling him a suspect doesn't cut it. But we cannot say out and out that he did it (it isn't our place to make such a declaration). None of that matters. We're discussing the talk page, and for purposes of improving the article we can discuss his criminal culpability, mental state, etc. Again, I haven't seen the specific material removed, but as a general matter we have to be able to talk about the subject of the article in order to write about it. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Reliable sources are not saying "The guy just killed six people... (and) is obviously insane". Reliable sources are saying he is suspected of killing six people. There's more than a bit of difference. This is contentious. So what? He's guilty, right? - SummerPhD (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- "people are observing that he is obviously insane and speculating about the broad implications" shouldn't those be your clues? COD psychologists, are no more capable of providing reliable information than the guy on the bus. Armchair pundits speculating about the speculation, in the snug seems a little bizarre. John lilburne (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- The question was;"Is it appropriate for an editor to refactor a talk page discussion to remove assertions of criminality, when the assertion of criminality is relevant to the discussion?" In this case it was not appropriate. Maybe this question is better answered on a case by case basis. 1 of my comments was redacted and it really felt bizarre and unexpected; maybe this is something someone should get some kind of consensus agreement before doing (to a lot of different comments)? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion", WP:BLP - SummerPhD (talk) 15:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, you are correct about the words, but that raises 3 points:
- "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion", WP:BLP - SummerPhD (talk) 15:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- 1: "contentious"? maybe not.
- 2: virtually none of our language on the talk pages is sourced and thus "unsourced or poorly sourced" is moot,I think
- 3: There are lots of Reliable Sources using the word "murder"(which is what you redacted from my talk page comment).
- I am very much with you in principle and I urge you to have a look at [1] which I think is much more relevant to the points you make. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- I fail to see the relevence to the Assange article to this issue. Allegations have been made about Assange, we report the fact. He denies the allegations, and we report the fact too. We are making no assumptions of innocence or guilt there, per Wikipedia policy (and per libel law, and common sense). What is being asked is that the same thing should be done on the Loughner etc talk pages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- The guy is not going to sue Wikipedia for discussing coverage of the event, nor is anything we say on the article talk page going to materially affect his reputation. Getting the article wrong because we cannot have a reasonable discussion about it could actually do some slight amount of harm to the world. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Stating that Loughner has been accused of murder is factual, and cannot be a problem. Stating that he is a murderer is prejudging the legal process, and potentially libellous. It isn't our job to decide innocence or guilt. And neither is it necessary to make such a judgement to write an article. Regardless of how 'clear-cut' an individual case is, once people on Wikipedia talk pages start making such assumptions, they are laying both themselves and the WikiMedia Foundation open to legal action (and incidentally, engaging in WP:OR). Frankly, I think that people who can't understand this simple point would do better to avoid getting involved in articles like this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree. Can we get real for a minute? It doesn't pass the straight face test to think he may not be the shooter, that discussing the obvious on the article talk page could harm him, or that Wikipedia has any legal liability over this. Wikipedia reports sourced information as to all facts about the world, not all facts as filtered through the lens of the American criminal justice system. It serves that aim to discuss article content frankly and openly on the talk page rather than engaging in disclaimers and formalities of avoidance. Original research is not an issue here either. I understand this point just fine, thank you. Again, nobody has pointed out the comment in question so this is all academic at this point. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Here are the words that were redacted from the talk page. The justifications given here for such unilateral redaction of good faith discussion certainly don't pass the straight face test (that's a good term). On the positive side, I think this episode is a good canary in the coal mine early warning that censorship is creeping into areas of public discourse, like right here on Wikipedia discussion pages, it hitherto feared to tread; so everyone has some time to decide whether or not to be compliant. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- WP:BLP is our policy. You have a choice, comply with it or go somewhere else. If you feel all of the material I removed fails the "straight face test", I invite you to repeatedly add it to the article. It will be repeatedly removed. The idea that talk pages are somehow exempt from WP:BLP does not pass the "reading the policy test". - SummerPhD (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- ok; I hear you, but,the benign material you removed was reinserted by another Editor and remains there, so I'm not sure what you're talking about with "repeatedly add"; in my case it was the 1 word "murder" on the talk page which you redacted and has since been restored and archived. Also, this disagreement is a matter of interpretation of BLP policy rather than willingness to adhere to it, at least from my end. Its unfortunate if you have a different impression. I am not suggesting that you exit Wikipedia because your interpretation may be different from mine. Also, its important to not misread; I said that the "justifications" for removal didn't pass the straight face test, not "all the material". In re-reading what I said above, I do apologise if my words and tone were combative or annoying in any way(although you graciously didn't say that); that is definitely something I must improve on. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- WP:BLP is our policy. You have a choice, comply with it or go somewhere else. If you feel all of the material I removed fails the "straight face test", I invite you to repeatedly add it to the article. It will be repeatedly removed. The idea that talk pages are somehow exempt from WP:BLP does not pass the "reading the policy test". - SummerPhD (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Here are the words that were redacted from the talk page. The justifications given here for such unilateral redaction of good faith discussion certainly don't pass the straight face test (that's a good term). On the positive side, I think this episode is a good canary in the coal mine early warning that censorship is creeping into areas of public discourse, like right here on Wikipedia discussion pages, it hitherto feared to tread; so everyone has some time to decide whether or not to be compliant. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree. Can we get real for a minute? It doesn't pass the straight face test to think he may not be the shooter, that discussing the obvious on the article talk page could harm him, or that Wikipedia has any legal liability over this. Wikipedia reports sourced information as to all facts about the world, not all facts as filtered through the lens of the American criminal justice system. It serves that aim to discuss article content frankly and openly on the talk page rather than engaging in disclaimers and formalities of avoidance. Original research is not an issue here either. I understand this point just fine, thank you. Again, nobody has pointed out the comment in question so this is all academic at this point. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Stating that Loughner has been accused of murder is factual, and cannot be a problem. Stating that he is a murderer is prejudging the legal process, and potentially libellous. It isn't our job to decide innocence or guilt. And neither is it necessary to make such a judgement to write an article. Regardless of how 'clear-cut' an individual case is, once people on Wikipedia talk pages start making such assumptions, they are laying both themselves and the WikiMedia Foundation open to legal action (and incidentally, engaging in WP:OR). Frankly, I think that people who can't understand this simple point would do better to avoid getting involved in articles like this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- The guy is not going to sue Wikipedia for discussing coverage of the event, nor is anything we say on the article talk page going to materially affect his reputation. Getting the article wrong because we cannot have a reasonable discussion about it could actually do some slight amount of harm to the world. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- I fail to see the relevence to the Assange article to this issue. Allegations have been made about Assange, we report the fact. He denies the allegations, and we report the fact too. We are making no assumptions of innocence or guilt there, per Wikipedia policy (and per libel law, and common sense). What is being asked is that the same thing should be done on the Loughner etc talk pages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- I am very much with you in principle and I urge you to have a look at [1] which I think is much more relevant to the points you make. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Steven Rattner
Steven Rattner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am concerned that some of the information in Steven Rattner violates WP:NPOV, WP:SYN, and WP:BLP. Specifically, it's the last two sentences of the Personal section, which specifically calls out the person who introduced him and his current wife, as well as one particular person he used to date. It is my belief that this information is being included to imply an improper relationship, because of their relationship to the New York Times. I'm especially concerned that there is simply no reason to mention that he "briefly dated" someone, given that said someone is a person with a highly negative reputation as a journalist. Another editor states (see Talk:Steven Rattner) that because the information is verified, it should be included. Thoughts? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- If a person briefly dates someone unless there are additional details that specifically effect their life it is not notable - lists of the dates people of had etc, of no note in their biography, engagements and established relationships of note get a mention but less than that is trivia - As is who they were introduced by cited to some obscure book, with no added detail, so? What is notable about that? It hasn't been reported anywhere in the press? It asserts something that is not written - some kind of unspoken conspiracy issue which readers can only imagine. User:Joysent explains the unspoken conspiracy WP:SYN in an edit summary it's important, especially considering Times coverage of Rattner pension pay-to-play scandal. - User:Becritical removed the briefly dated comment and on investigation I removed the obscurely cited introduced by content as trivia.Off2riorob (talk) 12:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- These verifiable facts illustrate Rattner's strong social ties to the New York Times. Perhaps this would be better accomplished with a sentence such as "Rattner is a close friend of Arthur Sulzberger, Jr, the publisher of the New York Times." The Washington Post sees fit to cite this information in its profile on WhoRunsGov, yet illustrative details are called unimportant trivia here. Your allegations of a "conspiracy theory" are also bogus. There is nothing secret about Rattner's friendship with Sulzberger, and saying this is important when considering coverage of the pension scandal is not implying that there was any conspiracy at the Times. On the contrary, I though the Times' frequent front page coverage of the issue was remarkable, considering these institutional ties to Rattner. But that is just my personal opinion. You can conclude whatever you like, I'm just trying to put relevant facts out there. Joysent (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well thanks for commenting Joysent, it still sounds like trivia and unspoken synthesis to me that WT article is about 4 pages long, I struggled to find the name you mentioned I imagine he has lots of friends and I just don't see that its worth adding in his notable details of his life story, like its his friend, so ? do they go on holiday or something at least to explain what is noteworthy about it. It sounds like investigative journalism to me when you say your desired addition serves to, "illustrate Rattner's strong social ties to the New York Times" - I am even less impressed with the desired addition. Off2riorob (talk) 00:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- The Sulzberger friendship is already noted in the Rattner article. Yes, I'm sure he has many friends, but his friendship with Sulzberger has been noted by numerous publications, including, as it turns out, Wikipedia. I'm not sure why you have become so absorbed by this, as you seem to have very little familiarity with this topic. I'm also not sure what you are advocating for and on what grounds. Joysent (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well thanks for commenting Joysent, it still sounds like trivia and unspoken synthesis to me that WT article is about 4 pages long, I struggled to find the name you mentioned I imagine he has lots of friends and I just don't see that its worth adding in his notable details of his life story, like its his friend, so ? do they go on holiday or something at least to explain what is noteworthy about it. It sounds like investigative journalism to me when you say your desired addition serves to, "illustrate Rattner's strong social ties to the New York Times" - I am even less impressed with the desired addition. Off2riorob (talk) 00:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- These verifiable facts illustrate Rattner's strong social ties to the New York Times. Perhaps this would be better accomplished with a sentence such as "Rattner is a close friend of Arthur Sulzberger, Jr, the publisher of the New York Times." The Washington Post sees fit to cite this information in its profile on WhoRunsGov, yet illustrative details are called unimportant trivia here. Your allegations of a "conspiracy theory" are also bogus. There is nothing secret about Rattner's friendship with Sulzberger, and saying this is important when considering coverage of the pension scandal is not implying that there was any conspiracy at the Times. On the contrary, I though the Times' frequent front page coverage of the issue was remarkable, considering these institutional ties to Rattner. But that is just my personal opinion. You can conclude whatever you like, I'm just trying to put relevant facts out there. Joysent (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Pradip Baijal
Pradip Baijal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The current version of the page protected is not neutral, and is libelous. It promotes the point of view being pushed by Ashlonerider; who is a politically motivated editor who has a history of working on biographies of Indian politicians and government officers. Please revert back to a more neutral version which does not promote a view on Mr.Baijal and sticks to facts. He is one of the most distinguished and successful officers of the Indian Administrative Service. While some controversies have happened recently, none of the conclusions are correct. Let us not try to destroy the reputation of an officer who has served the country for 40 years - based on a Wiki editor's view on what is a very complicated issue in India. I would suggest introducing a neutrally worded protected page; as the current version is biased and defamatory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.75.195.178 (talk) 09:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
The reference to pradipbaijal.com should also be made, as it at least lays out all the achievements and history regarding Mr Baijal's biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.75.195.178 (talk) 09:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- I left user Ashlonerider a note to let him know his additions have been mentioned here. I had a look at his contributions and they do appear to have been adding a lot of accusatory speculation. Off2riorob (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hi. First off I am amused by the references made by the original unidentified IP complainants about my editing other political articles. That has no relevance to this debate because the Pradip Baijal is not a politician but retired as a civil servant. It is important to remember, that the said article on Pradip Baijal has been the target of repeated vandalism by 2 users and a number of IP-based users. The attempt each time was to eliminate the controversies section and focus ONLY on the positive aspects. Further the users in question refused to come on the talk page or to respond to queries raised on their talk pages and instead resorted to edit wars forcing me to apply for a lock: the second of which expires today. The reference to "juniors like us" in one of the vandalised edits is I believe a give-away on who these individuals may be. As for the controversies section: The said individual has had an illustrious career and this has been CLEARLY mentioned in the "Accomplishments" section. However the end of his career has been controversial. And this is not opinion but fact backed up by the fact that the individual has been the subject of investigation by agencies investigating into the Telecom and other scams. I believe in the interest of neutrality and indeed of completeness, an article on an individual must mention both the accomplishments as well as controversies if any without attempts to justify either. All the controversies mentioned, have been backed up with with the relevant links provided to media coverage of the incident and so does not constitute grounds for either libel or defamation. If anything, similar references need to be provided for many claims being made in the "accomplishments" section. The fact remains that the individual remains deeply mired in controversy at this point and is the subject of an investigation by authorities and has been questioned repeatedly as well had his houses raided. This is not "speculation" but reality known to everyone and backed up links to media articles. Are we saying that this entire part should be ignored and edited out and the focus should be on the positives only? Would this be neutrality? There has been a sustained attempt on the part of some individuals to edit out these negative references. Such attempts are clearly vandalism and should be penalised not condoned. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashlonerider (talk • contribs) 13:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- The fact remains that your addition imo have been to add such speculative allegations that has created the reason for users to come and reduce the speculative content, your suggestions that it is all the others are vandals is undue, the content looks to me like it needs a NPOV write as soon as possible. Off2riorob (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
The additions made are not speculative, but taken from published articles from reputed media houses. It is NOT Original Research. Details of this discussion can be found on the talk page of the said article. I am calling it vandalism because the edits being made are selective (again details clearly mentioned on the talk page). Further the users in question have consistently ignored the requests to sort out the matter on the talk page and instead resorted to edit wars as soon as the locks were removed. Infact 2 such selective edits have happened on the page today after the lock was removed: both by unidentified IP's. I think a NPOV edit can be done, however there should be no deletion of valid content unless it can be proved that the content put there is illegal or libelous in any manner. Negative aspects of an individual need also to be covered as long as they are not speculative but backed by reliable references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashlonerider (talk • contribs) 10:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
John Etnier
John Etnier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
SHOULD BE TAGGED FOR SPEEDY DELETION? Is a possible autobiography w/COAs - see edits by John Etnier as well as IP addresses close to this one (from Maine on Road Runner ISP) (NPOV)- Neutral point of view is NOT maintained - (NOR)- Appears to possibly contain Original Research - Notes are presented as part of References and NONE of the notes/references can be verified. The single reference/note that appears to be verifiable is a link to music store site ecstaticpeace.com - Byron Coley, one of the owners of the store is also quoted in the main body. That link takes the reader to another link . (V)- Verifiability is NOT present - The other reference/notes have no verification or site OCLC Online Computer Library Center, but follow-up reveals none of the material is available... "If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." A7. No indication of importance. There are MANY musicians in and from Maine and the US who have as much or more published material. Volume of work is not indicative of importance. Neither is being from wealth and having a famous and talented father. The inclusion in WIKI is what is most notable about this particular person for the average American reader... A9. No indication of importance (musical recordings). "The Same Band" ?? G11. Contains Unambiguous advertising and self-promotion. See ALL of the EXTERNAL LINKS -74.75.249.135 (talk) 05:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- - The article has been tagged for speedy, seems a bit extreme to me, its been around for a year, a prod might have been better to allow anyone interested to address the problems raised.a local band with a small degree of note - Maine - if anyone is interested enough to remove the speedy. Off2riorob (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well I'm pretty sure it's not a WP:CSD#G11 because it doesn't come across as unambiguous advertising, and WP:CSD#A9 doesn't apply here because the article isn't about an album or musical recording, it's about a person. The problem with proving or disproving WP:CSD#A7 is that none of the references are easily verifiable. But there are references and claims to notability, and speedy deletions have been turned down in the past on a lot less. I too would support swapping the speedy tag for a prod. -- roleplayer 14:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Respectfully: There needs to be some discussion before a perfunctory fundamental change this edit!
We are an IP but certainly familiar with this. Again, most every guideline regarding what WIKI is and does is violated here. Several criteria for speedy deletion have been very clearly demonstrated. This article has no reasonable chance of surviving unbiased discussion. "In this context, "speedy" refers to the simple decision-making process, not the length of time since the article was created."
- This is an autobiography. Please review WIKI guidelines Regarding This Topic specifically:"Articles that exist primarily to advance the interests of the contributor will likely be deleted."
- This is an autobiography. Please review WIKI guidelines Regarding This Topic specifically:"Articles that exist primarily to advance the interests of the contributor will likely be deleted."
- I also would refer you to the WIKI policies on Biographies of living persons [[2]]. This article violates most if not all of the major guidelines listed there. The autobiography is presented as a hybrid of topics--
- WP:CSD#G11 is at least germane as this is clearly a "self-promotion" Conflict of Interest. Please refer to the WIKI Guidelines on [COIs ].
- WP:CSD#A9 is also germane as the article is primarily about an obscure discography. There is not a clearly specific tag for this particular instance, and remember that, there are no rules only guidelines and common sense.
- WP:CSD#G11 is at least germane as this is clearly a "self-promotion" Conflict of Interest. Please refer to the WIKI Guidelines on [COIs ].
- WP:CSD#MULTI is correct and the deletion of that tag should be reversed.
- WP:CSD#MULTI is correct and the deletion of that tag should be reversed.
- Because this has been around for some time is actually MORE cause for speedy removal, certainly not less!! The author/subject is a marketing professional as per information he's provided in the article and in sites to which he has provided as "outside links". All 3 of these links are sites directly selling his personal goods and services.
- This is a clear and substantial COI - He actually uses the WIKI article he created as a reference for potential customers Right here.. If this was an organic incarnation of the page, created because there is merit, support and verifiable documentation for such, that would be one thing, but this is simply another page he has created and is using to self promote.
- Because this has been around for some time is actually MORE cause for speedy removal, certainly not less!! The author/subject is a marketing professional as per information he's provided in the article and in sites to which he has provided as "outside links". All 3 of these links are sites directly selling his personal goods and services.
This should have been posted as a proposal before being written by the original author/editor ABOUT himself! This article has no chance of surviving reasoned and unbiased discussion, demonstrating not one, but several clear criteria for speedy deletion. Further, it serves to imbue undue importance upon a single individual who holds no significant place even in the relatively small, but coherent community of the music industry from the Southern Maine area. In this way it has also become a well-promoted disparagement of the real depth of that community. To that point speedy deletion is also harm reduction. We're reinstating speedy deletion tag based on the above and the hope is that this proper WIKI procedure will not again be interrupted, it means that there will be correct process and if there is deletion, we know that it is not necessarily permanent. 74.75.249.135 (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- A few points that you need to bear in mind:
- At Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Speedy deletion it states: Anyone except a page's creator may contest the speedy deletion of a page by removing the deletion notice from the page. - As I'm a registered editor who patrols recent changes regularly I know the speedy deletion criteria quite well, and therefore am within my right to remove the speedy tag if I think the article doesn't fit the category.
- The wording of WP:CSD#G12 states: Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. - that doesn't cover this article, which is written in an encyclopedic style. Someone may have been using it to promote themselves, but that doesn't mean it's promotional.
- The wording of WP:CSD#A9 states: An article about a musical recording that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant and where the artist's article does not exist (both conditions must be true). - this article is not solely about a musical recording and it is about the artist so it doesn't satisfy this criteria either.
- The wording of WP:CSD#A7 states: An article about a real person... that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources - this article does say why the subject is significant, it just can't back it up with verifiable sources. As the text says that is outside the bounds of this criteria also.
- Therefore the article does not meet the speedy deletion criteria. However that doesn't mean it should be kept, which is why I have proposed the deletion of the article, and have warned the creator of the article that I have done this. I will also continue to watch the article, and will follow the deletion process through according to Wikipedia policy, meaning that if the prod notice is removed without changes being made to the article to my satisfaction, I will nominate it through afd instead.
- However as it stands it does not qualify for speedy deletion, and any reviewing admin would have seen that and turned your nomination down. You need to understand that, and the reasons why. -- roleplayer 00:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your points to remember Roleplayer- This seems to be looking like a struggle of personalities of sorts or perhaps an edit war, and that is not productive. We should try for some resolution here. While we wait for that, here is a different position, again submitted respectfully in disagreement with yours.
Your rights are certainly acknowledged, but sometimes exercise of such rights are counter-productive.
- Please be assured, there are rights on this side that have not been exercised because these may be counter to the intent and spirit of WIKI-
- There has been and will continue to be restraint on this end.
- Please, do not instruct as to what is "needed" to be understood. This is your understanding and it is acknowledged as legitimate, but most often a point of view is not a singularity.
- There is no fundamental lack of understanding demonstrated on either side, there is however a difference of opinion - it will be more productive to work with that in mind.
- You have pointed out guidelines(rules) to support your position, but let's not forget the 5th pillar-
- Rules on Wikipedia are not fixed in stone, and the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule...
- It is still believed that the criteria have been more than met- an autobiographical article of this nature should not have been permitted to start, and being used as it has been it should not exist. There certainly exists a good deal of precedent and guidelines to support these assertions. More importantly, the spirit and intent of WIKI has been transgressed in several important ways, as pointed out.
- The article in question is not solely about any one thing, and looking at the 5th pillar, there are no rules. Common sense, and the intent of WIKI, not the letter of guidelines must prevail.
- No matter the formatting, the article was created for and is being used as; promotion for personal services, vanity and monetary gain!
- Please point out the indication of significance? It seems to be based on recordings presented in the article. What are the particular and specific assertions of significance?
- It all seems quite common from the view point of persons who have direct experience and a deep understanding regarding the music industry in Maine over the last 40 years. Do you have this? If so why do you not reveal that connection? If not, perhaps you might consider deferment to a much more authoritative source? What he lists as accomplishments have been superseded by many in the same environment and time period and are not considered of note by the local, regional or national community. Seriously, where is the significance in any of the material presented?
- The article could have been deleted or stripped of much of the content, but has not been and will not from here. We have at least 2 well established accounts that could do so, but because this is coming from a location and knowledge base that could be construed as having a COI - it is preferred to have ADMIN take a look.
- Unfortunately, this process seems to have been subjugated for whatever reason(s). On the talk page, comments have been compressed with formatting stripped- this renders the text much less accessible and readable. To that point- the rational has not been clearly read even once by that editor, (or perhaps any?)- "it" posts an internal link suggesting this IP should review the contents of such... That same link is posted as reference in the very text being changed, challenged and critiqued. Seems to perhaps be less than good faith-
- The same approach, style and actions as have been used by this Roleplayer account here...
- Let's try to be productive, if you must change formatting by someone who is more concerned with progress than prettiness, please do not simply strip spacing thus rendering solid blocks of text making the information much less accessible for readers. Consider insertion of a couple of symbols- take the same effort. This exact same reformatting has been done on the talk page- by what is apparently a different and unconnected editor? Let's try to stay with the intent of WIKI and not the letter- to be productive.
- Please be assured, there are rights on this side that have not been exercised because these may be counter to the intent and spirit of WIKI-
Putting the editing contention aside, Why do you think this article belongs on WIKI for even another day? Thanks for your productive reply to this question. 74.75.249.135 (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Since you now appear to be accusing me of something and I'm not even entirely sure what I'm being accused of: The same approach, style and actions as have been used by this Roleplayer account here... I'm taking the same stance as User:Off2riorob: WP:TLDR. It would take up way more of my time than I am willing to forego in order to understand what your problem is with me so I'm going to watch the article, follow proper process until it's either vastly improved or deleted, and that's my involvement in this situation ended. Thank you. -- roleplayer 12:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Since you now appear to be accusing me of something and I'm not even entirely sure what I'm being accused of: The same approach, style and actions as have been used by this Roleplayer account here... I'm taking the same stance as User:Off2riorob: WP:TLDR. It would take up way more of my time than I am willing to forego in order to understand what your problem is with me so I'm going to watch the article, follow proper process until it's either vastly improved or deleted, and that's my involvement in this situation ended. Thank you. -- roleplayer 12:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to review these comments you apparently see as TLDR. It is unfortunate that it's felt your reply needed to focus on a single point near the end of this TLDR... Least germane to the real issue here. Please accept all apologies for any impression you may have that there was implied criticism. This is only accurate observation, it is quite direct and pointed and requires no time to understand- your procedure/methods are questioned. Seriously, how can you conscientiously edit, post or even comment if you don't have time to read a couple of paragraphs?
From the top of the page ["TLDR Page"]: " As a label, it is also effective as a tactic which thwarts the kinds of discussion which are essential in collaborative editing. TL;DR is a shorthand observation very much like the complaint that Mozart's music has too many notes. The label is used to end discussion rather than engaging it. "
It has thus been used by both of you.
This particular log seems to be drifting away from proper ["Wikiquette"] on both sides. Proactively, let's try to focus on a few of those points;
- Work towards agreement.
- Argue facts, not personalities.
- Do not make misrepresentations.
- Do not ignore questions
You stated "this article does say why the subject is significant" could you please elaborate- where and how is this accomplished?
Again, Why do you think this article belongs on WIKI for even another day? Thanks for your productive F/U to these questions.--74.75.249.135 (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
charles phu
Charles Phu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Poorly referenced article indicate that the biography could be promotion or marketing related. A wider search on Charles Phu on the internet does not indicate that a biograpy is useful or required on Wikipedia. Could moderators please take a look at the article to verify if it is self-promotion. (unsigned report was from User:1981editor - added by Off2riorob (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC))
- A quick Google search finds some mentions of him as architect and set designer which suggest he meets minimum notability requirements. "Only a few days ago, the Russian media reported that RMJM architect Charles Phu mentioned at a public meeting that the firm is in regular receipt of ‘memoranda’ from Vladimir Putin personally, ‘encouraging’ them to go ahead with the project despite the controversy." http://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/pavel-stroilov/lebedevs-tangled-web Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Israel and the apartheid analogy
Israel and the apartheid analogy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In the ongoing dispute over the name and scope of this article, one protagonist now claims that the state of Israel " is a legal personality in international law, and any unsourced claims of a crime committed by this legal person would, or should, from legal point of view, also come under the same WP:BLP policy."[3] Would a regular of this page care to disabuse her/him of this absurd notion? RolandR (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- - its completely ridiculous at least here at wikipedia the country Israel is not for the benefit of BLP policy a person. Off2riorob (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- So you are saying that individually living persons are not to be slandered in Wikipedia because they may take that to court, but when taken collectively as a country, Wikipedia editors can slander as many people as they want with no fear of legal repercussions? The Wikipedia legal representatives do not recognise international law as binding? And yet Israel has same legal rights in national law also, and can be taken to court. I'd like a comment from the Wikimedia Foundation. I should also note that the policy is in fact in plural Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, so I gather it applies to groups of notable living persons also, for example Nobel Prize winners, and since the Government of Israel has a number of such persons, and therefore constitutes a group, they are in fact being collectively accused of apartheid crime using contentious material that is...poorly sourcedKoakhtzvigad (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- BLP applies to living people, and to no other entity or thing. It does not apply to dead people, fictional people, companies, or nations. All articles, regardless of topic, should comply with the core content policies of NPOV, NOR, and V. Unverifiable material does not belong in any article. Will Beback talk 22:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- One thing that repeatedly causes great surprise, is that the primary purpose of WP:BLP (a policy) is not to protect the Wikimedia Foundation, or individual Wikipedia editors, from litigation. So Koakhtzvigad's point is confused in that respect at least (and probably in other respects). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- And if we go to WP:BLPGROUP, it says there "A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources." Now the "Israel" in the article is really the Cabinet of Israel, which consists of a fairly small group of 30 ministers and nine deputy ministers, all living. At some stage editors need to realize that the allegations made in the article ultimately link to these living people. So what is going to happen when I start adding names to supposed apartheid policies? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 13:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- So Wikipedia is now to exclude any negative commentary about any government, on the basis that it violates international law? Are we going to extend this to non-government organisations too? The Tea Party? WikiLeaks? Hamas?... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm just asking if editors realise that behind corporate entities there are living people. It seems unavoidable to mention at some stage the people who are claimed to have instituted and perpetuated apartheid in Israel in the article in question. And, this spans several decades. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 06:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- So Wikipedia is now to exclude any negative commentary about any government, on the basis that it violates international law? Are we going to extend this to non-government organisations too? The Tea Party? WikiLeaks? Hamas?... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- And if we go to WP:BLPGROUP, it says there "A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources." Now the "Israel" in the article is really the Cabinet of Israel, which consists of a fairly small group of 30 ministers and nine deputy ministers, all living. At some stage editors need to realize that the allegations made in the article ultimately link to these living people. So what is going to happen when I start adding names to supposed apartheid policies? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 13:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- One thing that repeatedly causes great surprise, is that the primary purpose of WP:BLP (a policy) is not to protect the Wikimedia Foundation, or individual Wikipedia editors, from litigation. So Koakhtzvigad's point is confused in that respect at least (and probably in other respects). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- BLP applies to living people, and to no other entity or thing. It does not apply to dead people, fictional people, companies, or nations. All articles, regardless of topic, should comply with the core content policies of NPOV, NOR, and V. Unverifiable material does not belong in any article. Will Beback talk 22:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Louis Zorich
Louis Zorich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- - Is this enough detail to assert that the subject is an ethnic Croatian, although it isn't clearly stated and requires a smidgen of OR, or at least a combination of sources. If it is, is anyone experienced with footnotes to add the detail and the combined citations, or perhaps the details would be better added in the body of the article? This is a bit of a lingering long term back and forth between Croatian and Bosnian although the ip that is adding Bosnian has made no attempt to explain his reverts. Presently I added Yugoslavian in an attempt end the issue because when the subject was born the country was under that name but apparently this is also incorrect as they would be more accurately described as Austro-Hungarian immigrants, another pair of eyes would be appreciated - Can we use the comment below to assert the subject is an ethnic Croatian? Off2riorob (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- - Chris Zorich is half Croatian and half African American - his mother was therefore a Croatian - Zora Zorich http://www.chriszorich.org/biography/ - Zora's sister in law was Olympia Dukakis - http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-4034185.html - Sometimes Chris Zorich's Uncle Louis and his Aunt Olympia--Olympia Dukakis helped pay Zora's rent http://articles.latimes.com/1991-05-12/sports/sp-2728_1_chris-zorich ... so Zora is the sister of Louis http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20114272,00.html making Louis Zorich ethnically Croatian. .... Off2riorob (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- - I would be grateful if the editors could make a ruling on this topic, please. Many thanks. Grabovcan (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Andrew Battenberg
Andrew Battenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article is about a living person, and presently lacks any reliable sourcing, while making extreme claims. It says the subject is Irish nobility, in contrast to what the Sydney Morning Herald says:[4], [5], [6] and the Scotsman:[7]. Presently it is a BLP lacking a neutral point of view and lacking reliable sourcing (by Wikipedia standards). Someone has Prod'ed it since I began this post, so that would take care of it unless the Prod is removed. Edison (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- In the meantime, I have reduced the article to a stub due to the presence of controversial statements about living persons that were incoherently referenced or unreferenced. It would be great if you or someone else could use the references you list to try to improve the article, rather than leaving it to its likely fate of imminent deletion. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- The creator of the article - User:Letshavethetruestory2011 replaced the content - theres a fair bit of attacking content - basically uncited as the couple of blogspots were not reliable, I left the only really reliable cite and stubbed it back to almost nothing. If I was an admin I would speedy delete it, as an unremarkable person but that does not actually describe him. The first section of this http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/28/1048653853635.html tells you all about this person. I left it as a prod, if a passing admin doesn't speedy it, the more or less uncited content attacking judges and and some club in Sydney reporters/the press should really be reverted on sight. Off2riorob (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Igor Morozov (singer)
Igor Morozov (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm unable to link the article to the Russian, German and French articles about this artist. I'm also unable to wikify it in the correct way (in the other languages it was no problem, but as the English spelling is different, it's too complicate for me.I need help! Thank you very much!Angelika-Ditha (talk) 08:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Kenneth O'Keefe
Kenneth O'Keefe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Starting with this last AFD there has been a number of single-purpose-accounts, that have repeatedly tried to keep and reinsert content, that is all poorly sourced, and sometimes promotional. Some were proven socks, though not all. But all have a common purpose. Semi-protection reduced it, but Anna O'Leary (talk · contribs) has been the most recent violator. Anna O'Leary was blocked for 48 hours for violating WP:3RR, but as soon as the block lifted, has done it again. The user has made some non-O'Keefe AFD contributions, but those seem to be a token attempt to not appear to be a SPA. I think a longer term block of this user is warranted. --Rob (talk) 09:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Content inserted by user Anna O'Leary seems argumentative, not neutral or encyclopedic. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- An admin has blocked User:Anna O'Leary and User:Katie Sweetmore indefinately for being sockpuppets. --Rob (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
ashanti (entertainer)
Ashanti (entertainer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Entry is biased, serves subject's commercial gain, and is outdated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.182.175 (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- The article contains a couple of questionable statements but otherwise seems par for the course for a pop star in detail and sourcing. Perhaps if you mentioned specific assertions that bother you, you would get more feedback? Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Binayak Sen
Binayak Sen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Can someone please take a look at this? Indian doctor found guilty of sedition last month. Dougweller (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Detailed discussion of criminal case against individual who has wide support in the international human rights community, sourced to BBC, Human Rights Watch press statements, and to several Indian newspapers. The article may be somewhat sympathetic to Sen but doesn't seem like a puff piece, as it lays out the charges against him and quotes various government officials who believe he is guilty. Did you have more specific concerns? Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Alan Johnson
- Alan Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am concerned that there are a number of unsourced negative statements throughout this biography. I also think that the section concerning his time as Shadow Chancellor would not be neutrally weighted even if were sourced. Because Alan Johnson has very recently resigned as Shadow Chancellor, this biography may receive more attention in the near future than it typically might.
I have a conflict of interest in this subject area (and a particular conflict with regards to this article) and so I would be grateful if someone else could review these issues.
CIreland (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- The editing history shows that a couple of the regulars here have now done some editing on the article as a result of your post. It looks to me as if there are not WP:RS problems, as everything seems to be sourced to BBC, the Guardian, etc. The "Shadow Cabinet" para may still violate WP:UNDUE. It would probably best be repaired by someone who follows British politics, though. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Jack Gerard
Jack Gerard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This was the last line on Mr. Gerard's biography: "Personal: Jack Gerard has committed his life to serving others and his family as vigorously as he defends the petroleum industry. See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#37408577"
I'm not sure how the link "http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#37408577" corresponds to the line about Jack Gerard committed his life to serving others and his family.
Please see the CCAIN Institute page on Jack. There is better biographical information on that page: http://www.ccainstitute.org/who-we-are/our-board-bios/jack-n-gerard.html
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.253.20.210 (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- - Thanks I added that citation to the article about his company API. The article has been prodded, really a bold redirect to the American Petroleum Institute might be a good idea, noteworthy CEO, major company ? Off2riorob (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
John Cornwall South Australian politician
John Cornwall (South Australian politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The section about legal claims by Dawn Rowan (headed Controversy) is inaccurate and libellous. Cornwall as Minister convened a panel to report to him about claims of maladministation at the shelter, a quite legilmate and propoer thing for a Minister to do. He released the report once it was completed. Rowan pursued claims in defamation and misfeasance against 10 defendants, inlcuding Cornwall, but she was ultimately unsuccessful (not acknowledged in the entry). The entry implies the case (Cornwall's career was overshadoed by...) was of much greater significance to Cornwall's career and reputaion than it was in fact. The entry should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exhibition08 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC) This template must be substituted.
- The text in question appears to be based on two reliable sources: ABC and The Age. Are there any sources to refute those two news organizations? —C.Fred (talk) 05:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- The story in The Age says "Justice Debelle found that the accusations were a "shocking libel" motivated, in the case of some defendants, by malice (which removed the defence of parliamentary privilege) and found Dr Cornwall guilty of misfeasance (releasing the report under parliamentary privilege knowing it was false).[8] That appears to support the claims that Cornwall was found guilty. —C.Fred (talk) 05:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- The best additional information I've found so far is the Diamond Valley News (local paper) which states:
- JUNE 21, 2002: Supreme Court Justice Bruce Debelle finds the governments, Network Ten and the ABC guilty of defamation and awards Ms Rowan a total of $585,000. He finds Ms Roberts and two other review committee members acted with malice, and Dr Cornwall guilty of misfeasance.
- NOVEMBER 2004: The Full Court of the Supreme Court overturns Justice Debelle's finding of defamation against the television stations and the federal government. The ruling of defamation against state government defendants is upheld, but the finding of malice is overturned.
- I'll see if I can find some more, but my question concerns "...but the finding of malice is overturned". Would this mean that the finding of "misfeasance" was overturned, as my understanding from The Age was that this was possibly dependent on the "malice" finding? anyway, I'll check press reports from 2004. Maybe something will be clearer. (I do remember the case, but it wasn't something I closely followed). - Bilby (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Two more, if it helps: The Advertiser, 2 April 2005, in relation to the second court decision "Although it upheld the earlier rulings against Dr Cornwall and committee member Judith Roberts, it dismissed the earlier finding the other committee members had acted with malice." And The Advertiser, 25 November 204, "Ms Rowan took legal action in the Supreme Court, which found Dr Cornwall had acted with misfeasance and the committee with malice. Yesterday, the Full Court of the Supreme Court upheld those findings, despite an appeal by many of the 13 defendants. However, Justices David Bleby, Anthony Besanko and John Sulan reduced the amount of damages for which Dr Cornwall was liable to $305,000." It seems he was still found guilty, irrespective of the "malice" issue. At least according to the newspaper sources. I can't find anything else post 2004 in Newsbank that adds any more to the account. - Bilby (talk) 06:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- The best additional information I've found so far is the Diamond Valley News (local paper) which states:
Exhibition08 appears to be a single purpose account who has repeatedly removed sourced information from the article. Edward321 (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Jennifer Connelly
Jennifer Connelly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is http://www.starlounge.com/index.cfm?objectid=101881 a good enough source to assert that Jennifer Connelly has Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder? Jayjg (talk) 06:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'd say no for this assertion. It's a BLP issue and I'd like something from a more mainstream source. You'd think if this is true it could be easily found. Dougweller (talk) 10:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, stating that a living person has an illness should require a quality citation - preferably a comment from the subject themselves - there are also a few un reliable looking cites supporting some of the names here List of people diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder such as www.celebretieswithillnesses.com and www.popdirt.com Off2riorob (talk) 11:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Cameron Diaz
Cameron Diaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is http://www.gnepse.com/cameron-diaz-has-attention-deficit-disorder-it-prevents-her-career/ a good enough source to assert that Cameron Diaz has Attention Deficit Disorder? Jayjg (talk) 06:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Definitely not. Dougweller (talk) 10:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Agree. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- That source is so "reliable" it can't even get the title right: "Adult Deficit Disorder". That sounds like some type of economic upheaval.--Scott Mac 11:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- As far as I can track it down, the original interview is this one where she does say she has ADD. However, it feels like a throwaway comment - like saying "oh, I can't do that - I just don't have the patience" - so I'm not certain this equates to a medically diagnosed claim to have ADD. I wouldn't be inclined to include her in a list based just on this one mention of the disorder. - Bilby (talk) 11:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- I reverted an attempt to add her name to the List of article [9]. Dougweller (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- As far as I can track it down, the original interview is this one where she does say she has ADD. However, it feels like a throwaway comment - like saying "oh, I can't do that - I just don't have the patience" - so I'm not certain this equates to a medically diagnosed claim to have ADD. I wouldn't be inclined to include her in a list based just on this one mention of the disorder. - Bilby (talk) 11:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- That source is so "reliable" it can't even get the title right: "Adult Deficit Disorder". That sounds like some type of economic upheaval.--Scott Mac 11:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Agree. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Marcel Rodriguez-Lopez
Marcel Rodriguez-Lopez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Article does not meet notability guidelines and reads more like an advertisement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.175.190.177 (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- A decent article will be beneficial to the subject. - he does look of limited note, music experts? - the content isn't controversial or contentious just weakly cited, perhaps he is not individually notable yet and a redirect to his brother ... I have tagged it as BLP reference improve. Feel free to add some improvements yourself, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Euan Semple
Euan Semple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is just a self-congratulary advert for someone who works in social media and wants to promote their company and blog. He worked on the BBC Intranet, not even the public facing social media areas, so I don't think that this qualifies him for a wikipedia article about himself. He's not important or famous enough, just another social media dude trying to get his name out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helen Edwards (talk • contribs) 15:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Mechele Linehan
Mechele Linehan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There are serval issues incorrect in the Mechele Linehan file. Nurmerous times they have been changed and continuously reverted back. Specifically in the early years, marriage and education. More importantly for the wiki folks is the litigious material referring to disdproved via trail(already litigated) information. Please correct the issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mechelelinehan (talk • contribs) 16:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- You need to read WP:COI and WP:AUTO. Then, rather than editing the article yourself, you can suggest changes to the article based on reliable sources on the article's Talk page. And you should be specific as to what changes should be made. Even here, you don't specify precisely what is incorrect and why. In any event, it's better to do this first on the Talk page of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd like some third, fourth, and fifth opinions on the notability of this journeyman boxer, esp. since WP:ATHLETE has no guidelines for boxers. In other words, I can't establish if the guy fought at the highest level, which is one of the rules of thumb for athletic notability. The article is currently up for deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Rumbolz, and I am putting my delete vote on hold until one of you experts can have a look at the article. Note: I am not trying to canvass one way or the other--I don't care so much about this particular article. Please weigh in--and maybe someone smarter and more pugilistically inclined than me can add something to WP:ATHLETE. Thanks in advance! Drmies (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Katie Puckrik
Katie Puckrik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Please delete the date of birth because of identity theft / privacy issues. It's been deleted before but a user keeps re-posting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doowylloh (talk • contribs) 01:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Looks like you already did it. We don't have a rule that would prevent the info being re-added on those grounds specifically, but you're within your rights unless a citation with a reliable source is provided. --FormerIP (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
WP:DOB permits the subject of an article to complain about including the person's date of birth based on privacy. If you are not the subject, though, you have no basis on which to complain. Your edit summaries seem to indicate that you are removing the DOB, not because of "identity theft" but because of lack of sources ("Removed birthdate. Not verifiable content."), which is a wholly separate issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- From WP:DOB: "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth where these have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object". I'd say this is the principle we should apply here - anyone wishing to include Puckrik's DoB should be required to provide WP:RS that meets this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Eyes on Keith Olbermann please
MSNBC just announced his contract is over; there's very little official info and I'm already seeing the OR come in. Perhaps someone who actually cares about Olbermann could watch his article? :P /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Ray Kampf
Not sure about if this is a BLP problem or another problem, but I think somebody else should look at it. One possible problem is that some of it is written by User:RayKampf (although please don't bite the newby). Another possible problem might be notability, and another lack of references. Another possible problem might be a mention of a life style preference, which some folks might consider perfectly normal and others might consider libelous. In short there are several things which just don't look right. I'll defer to the judgement of others on this. Smallbones (talk) 03:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, difficult. Thought I'd spotted a problem with cite, but I'd misread. Frankly, I'd be inclined to suggest deletion on the basis of non-notability, rather than getting entangled in who is who, and whether it is libellous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- The book exists, http://www.amazon.com/Bear-Handbook-Comprehensive-Guide-Homosexual/dp/1560239972 , and is merely cited in the article, so no WP:BLP issues (unless the author is a different Ray Kampf?) Anyway, note that the article has since been nominated for deletion since the original posting here. Jonathanwallace (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I represent Mr. Nielsen (and the band "Cheap Trick")'s management. We have made unsuccessful attempts to correct his date of birth on his Wikipedia page and we are asking for assistance. The correct date is Dec. 22 1948 - he is 62, not 64 as listed. If verification is needed then please contact webmaster@cheaptrick.com. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.89.167 (talk) 05:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- You are best to e-mail info-en [at] wikimedia.org . However, we require verified published sources, so e-mail verification is unlikely to suffice. Can you point us to any publications that have the correct information.--Scott Mac 13:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Editors are reporting his death with no reliable sources. Corvus cornixtalk 07:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Has been reported in Indian Express -- [10] among others. —SpacemanSpiff 08:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
notable people from Puerto Real
Pedro de Mathew the painter it is not from Puerto Real...terrible mistake. Dr. Jose Lopez Fernandez is missing from the list of Notable people from Puerto Real History. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.25.139 (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- You can edit the page yourself if you wish, even without a Wikipedia account. The article as it stands now is completely unreferenced; please include reliable sources indicating Pedro de Mathieu comes from somewhere else, and associating Dr. Fernandez with Puerto Real. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Beth S. Green
Re: Beth S. Green
Several edits of mine have been removed today as deemed either a COI or non-neutral viewpoint with the subject. Hereto, I am not related to the subject and propose that her bio (as originally presented) was composed to be factual, supported with references (both internal and external to wikipedia), and appropriate for the purpose of such an online or e-Encyclopedia, such as Wikipedia's guidelines and purpose.
Since two of my edited pages have been literally reduced to just a few lines of text after much work, care and research on the subject, would someone please explain to me exactly what the issues are since "multiple issues" are now cited on the page?
Thank you.
Drmidi2010 (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
[Redacted to remove email] Jonathanwallace (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- The deleted edits consisted mainly of trivial and sometimes unsourced material, and were written as if they were an interview or article about the subject, not an encyclopedic biography. They also give the impression that you know the subject personally and may have interviewed her, which is not acceptable under Wikipedia's policy barring original research. Sad to say, though she seems like an interesting and good person, she is probably not notable enough to have a bio here; the hits in a Google search on "Beth Green photographer" are to her own web site and pod casts, and seem to lack the kind of reliable third party sources needed to support a bio on Wikipedia. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Jiang Xueqin
It seems all but one of the sources are self published sources. I think I removed all COI issues that were little more than advertisements for his language center. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imasomething (talk • contribs) 04:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- I added the reflist tag and fixed some references which were incorrectly embedded in the article, also added a lede and put the text in chronological order, as it started with a 2008 job and then circled back around confusingly. Agree with you about the conflict of interest problem and also wonder about notability. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I did a look up for notability. About 45% of the listings for him are linked to Wikipedia through other search engines (for example "Ask Jeeves".) The others seem to be from his personal website , his work on the diplomat and several videos on You Tube!and similar services. But about 45% of his references are on other search engines directly linked to Wikipedia. I don't know what the criteria for notability is. Imasomething (talk) 09:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC) I was tempted to edit the mention of his deportation. The source he cited was actually a promotion for the film he was involved with at the time by the company that paid for it to be filmed. There was an official statement about his deportation made by the US State Department but the writer chose to use one with a direct advertisement for his movie. It seems to me to be a tricky way to get around some issues that Wikipedia with making unverifiable claims or to direct users to advertisements for his movie. Imasomething (talk) 11:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
John Cornwall South Australian politician biography
Under a heading 'Controversy' diannaa is using poorly sourced material to justify misleading claims that are potentially defamatory. She is persisting in misdescribing the outcome of a defamation case against Cornwall, using a misleading newspaper article about the case instead of the court report i.e. the text is poorly sourced. She is persisting in claiming the court found Cornwall guilty of malice, which even the newspaper report acknowledges was overturned on appeal. She uses the term 'guilty', which implies criminal conduct when the case was civil and there was no issue of guilt. She has also created an incorrect link for the term 'misfeasance' (part of the claim for damages)so that it takes readers to the wikipedia link for 'malfeasance'. Malfeasance involves unlawful acts by a person in public office and would warrant dismissal. It is clear in the court reports that there was no claim of unlawful conduct against Dr Cornwall, and the newpaper article on which Dianna relies makes no such claim either. Finally, it is not uncommon for public figures to sue or be sued in defamation. It therefore not sufficiently remarkable to rate a mention in a political biography unless the case had a particular bearing on the person's career. In the present case, according to the dates in the court reports, the case was first heard in 1998, some 7 years after Cornwall had left public office, and were still being appealed more than 15 years later. So it is diffucult to justify even mentioning in Cornwall's biography that he was found liable to pay damages in a defamation case. It appeas the only reason is to harm Dr Cornwall's reputation. The case is Rowan v Cornwall, which on appeal to the Supreme Court of SA in 2004 is [1] http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinosrch.cgi?method=auto&meta=%2Fau&mask_path=&mask_world=&query=rowan+vs+cornwall&results=50&submit=Search&rank=on&callback=off&legisopt=&view=relevance&max= — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exhibition08 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC) This template must be substituted.
- We just dealt with this above, posted by the same user. Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Rick Nielsen
There is debate at Rick Nielsen as to the subject's year of birth. An IP user claiming to represent the subject is claiming a date that is different than that published in most online biographies I perused. As a stopgap I removed the birthdate information altogether, but this probably is not a long-term solution. VQuakr (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- An inquiry was posted above by a representative and received the reply, "You are best to e-mail info-en [at] wikimedia.org . However, we require verified published sources, so e-mail verification is unlikely to suffice. Can you point us to any publications that have the correct information." Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Andrew Mitchell MP
Andrew Mitchell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Citation 7 to a Guardian article is accurate but wrong. The Guardian is in fact quoting the cv of Andrew Michael Mitchell a Conservative candidate in 1997 and 2001. Please have this removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.201.153 (talk) 09:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, that's much appreciated. I've looked into it and removed that material that relied on The Guardian's article. - Bilby (talk) 10:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- The Guardian is a reliable source. If the statement is in their bio of Mitchell, and has not been challenged, we can accept this as established fact. There was no candidate named "Andrew Michael Mitchell" in the 1997 or 2001 general election. The information that Mitchell worked for Touché Ross, Lazards and other financial institutions can be found elsewhere, such as Africa Confidential's Who's Who entry [11] and Debrett's[12]. The statement is not pejorative; indeed, it has been cited in his support by various bloggers and commenters [13] [14]This information seems well-attested and notable, and I have restored it to the article. RolandR (talk) 14:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've added more on the talk page - basically, it looks like The Guardian made an error. This doesn't mean that it isn't an RS, but that it slipped up. - Bilby (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- There doesn't seem to be any dispute that Mitchell spent several years at Lazard. Other than the questioned Guardian article I don't see any reliable support for the statement that he was at Touche Ross, Stonehouse, or WH Everett. (One of the links that RolandR gives is to comments on a blog, which may well have just quoted the Wikipedia entry; the other link mentioned Lazard but not some of the others.) Most significantly, Mitchell was the MP for Gedling from 1987 to 1997; is it possible that he was simultaneously serving in these various other, full-time, positions? I know that MPs are allowed to have some outside interests, but I don't think they would have concurrent full-time positions in the City. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- (update) I've gotten some input on the article talkpage by a knowledgeable editor with the right reference books. Based on his comments there, I think this is resolved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- I am marking as resolved - many thanks to the IP:109.152.201.153 for pointing out this issue. Off2riorob (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've added more on the talk page - basically, it looks like The Guardian made an error. This doesn't mean that it isn't an RS, but that it slipped up. - Bilby (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- The Guardian is a reliable source. If the statement is in their bio of Mitchell, and has not been challenged, we can accept this as established fact. There was no candidate named "Andrew Michael Mitchell" in the 1997 or 2001 general election. The information that Mitchell worked for Touché Ross, Lazards and other financial institutions can be found elsewhere, such as Africa Confidential's Who's Who entry [11] and Debrett's[12]. The statement is not pejorative; indeed, it has been cited in his support by various bloggers and commenters [13] [14]This information seems well-attested and notable, and I have restored it to the article. RolandR (talk) 14:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Carl Truscott
Carl Truscott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is having contentious material from a primary source repeatedly inserted. And the source does not even back up all the claims :) Collect (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- I left him a welcome template, his page was still a redlink after over a dozen reverts... and a note asking him as the content is disputed to not replace it without discussion and consensus here. The user has been trying to add this content about fourteen times for fourteen months ... The issue appears to be that all he wants to add to support the claims is the primary report and a couple of comments that are probably just known facts. - The report http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/doj-truscott.pdf is 175 pages long and there does appear to have been some issues regarding allegations of mis appropriation of resources and such like but without secondary reports but without secondary independent wiki reliable reports none of it can be added....looking at the outcome a lot of the allegations were not proven, the report closes with .. "Because Truscott resigned as the ATF Director on August 4, 2006, we make no recommendations regarding his actions.Off2riorob (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Robert Yarber
Robert Yarber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
As per note 2 of the Biographies of Living Persons page, I have repeatedly removed defamatory information from this page. Advocacy type publications are linked as "sources" but do not seem to fit the standard of "reliable." Unverified claims about the subject's behavior are not in compliance with Wikipedia policy on the biographies of living persons. If this behavior continues other action may be necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wetwarexpert (talk • contribs) 20:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- - User:Bilby and a couple of others have tweaked the article up a bit and the disputed content has been removed, which going forward I agree with keeping it out also especially with the citations provided, one of which was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&target=http%3A%2F%2Fspme.net%2F - totally undue association to antisemitism through the cancellation a students art exhibition. Off2riorob (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Toto Wolff
Toto Wolff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I think it more likely that Toto competed in the Austrian Formula Ford series, not the Australian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.202.43.54 (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've taken a look. There certainly was an Australian Formula Ford series that year (1992), and according to one of the references [15] he competed in the New Zealand Formula Ford Championship in 1994, so Australia doesn't sound particularly unlikely, on the other hand the source definitely states that he competed in the German and Austrian Formula Ford Championship in 1992. Given the mobility of racing drivers, it is entirely possible he competed in both, so it comes down to which was first, if indeed he did compete in Australia. I think all I can do for now is to put a query on the talk page, and see if I can find confirmation. Thanks for drawing this to our attention though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
User:LovelieHeart
It seems to me that this recent addition to User:LovelieHeart is a BLP violation. She's been notified that it is on her Talk: page, but insists it's not. Do others also think this is a BLP violation? Jayjg (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes and I've just removed it, we'll see where it goes from there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) - Yes, its clearly an attack comment against living notable people. Off2riorob (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- She's also added a sentence about it to the article on Bullock, based on http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail?entry_id=62343 . Is that a reasonable source or reasonable material to add to the article? Jayjg (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- I removed that without even looking at the cite . its gratuitous personal detail about a child. BLP requires us to write conservatively about living people, adding a child's circumcision which is not (even though found in a citation) encyclopedic, or noteworthy at all, is a clear breach of that request. Off2riorob (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- She's also added a sentence about it to the article on Bullock, based on http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail?entry_id=62343 . Is that a reasonable source or reasonable material to add to the article? Jayjg (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
It's a proper citation and Christina Aguilera has a quote about her son's brit milah. Bullock's son had a brit milah, which requires circumcision. (LovelieHeart (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC))
Esther Schapira
Esther Schapira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
TEST
Y | This user is a member of Generation Y. |
has been persistently adding this ethnicity claim to the infobox and article on Schapira, despite there being nothing in the article itself about this. He's also added it to the article's lede and to other articles. For some background, here is Unitrin's first edit using this account, and here are some others:[16][17]. Is this material appropriate for this article? Jayjg (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've removed the Jewish references in the article (infobox and cat). There's no support for either, let alone that it has anything to do with her notability.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
pat monahan
see in CSI NY as SAM becker S6 E11. he sings "hey soul sister" . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.4.188.101 (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, welcome to enwikipedia, this is not the place to request edits to articles, I left you a template with some handy links, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Will Rosellini
Will Rosellini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This Wiki appears to be self written and closely mirrors other exemplary posted internet information. No information to contest the posted achievements shy of inventing the internet, but smells strongly of self promotion. Did not think individuals were allowed to create their own facades on Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.229.112 (talk) 01:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- It does appear to be something of an online resume, lacking references. A Google search reveals a scarcity of third party coverage, mainly company's own website and PR sites. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Couldn't find anything to indicate notability. Imasomething (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sent to AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Will Rosellini. – ukexpat (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Roderick "Rod the Bod" Moore
Roderick "Rod the Bod" Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Although the person is a real person, the biography is fiction. The person who created this page is an employee of our company and he is creating pages (false) of managers under different personae. Roderick 'Rod the Bod' Moore is not a boxer and all the information in the article is false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.150.182.2 (talk) 03:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- There are some traces of a real boxer by this name, who started fighting in about 1983 and retired in 2001, http://www.hickoksports.com/history/boxgoldg.shtml It does not seem to be a hoax. The article has been PROD'd for lack of notable references which is probably the right result. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Thomas Jefferson talk page
Thomas Jefferson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In a series of edits on the Thomas Jefferson talk page, beginning here [18] and ending here, [19] the editor apparently makes contentious clams about living writers (Paul Finkelman- specifically named; & David Brion Davis, alluded to) that are derogatory & unsourced. I'd remove it, but it will just cause an edit war.Ebanony (talk) 05:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Editing talk pages is a last resort. The rhetoric you are complaining about seems to me to be at the limits of angry editor rhetoric without crossing the line into the deletion zone. I don't think either statement is likely to be understood by anyone as an assertion about a particular living person. Anyway, such edits should be made by an admin. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Billy Wingrove
Billy Wingrove (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lacks references, does not meet notability guidelines and is mostly self-promotional material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.32.2 (talk) 13:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- It could do with a bit of a re-write (including introducing inline citations), but I have suspicions the subject of the article might well be notable. There's significant repeated coverage in national level media over an extended time period. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Ljubodrag Simonović
Ljubodrag Simonović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There has been a poorly-sourced stub article about this Serbian basketball player since last February. Since March, it has been tagged for {{BLP sources}}; there has been no attempt to address this problem. Over the past two weeks, two IPs (both registered to Belgrade University, and probably the same person) have repeatedly added a large portion of completely unsourced text, claiming that this person is actually an author and philosopher, and quoting long extracts of text allegedly from an (unidentified) book by him. The only English-language references to him I can find link back to a blog in his name. I have twice removed this material, and asked for some evidence or citations, in line with BLP policy; the only response has been to re-add the unsourced material. The article could do with more eyes; it might help if a Serbian speaker were to have a look, too. RolandR (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
At least the kerfuffle has turned up two citations even if they are Serbian - as a basketball player he clearly meets notability and with the writing seems a keeper..if any user speaks Serbian and can read the original that might help, he seems to have been a quality basketball player and there is a mention of some books and some philosophy, needs more investigation. reliable citations The recent large uncited text was attributed to the subject and supplied his contact details. I removed it as well self written. I will say, he is an interesting person. I left a note requesting assistance at WikiProject Serbia, here - Off2riorob (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- - gooble book search result it does appear pretty much all to be true, just uncited/weakly cited. Off2riorob (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Here is a simple explanation of who he is and his books http://cirqueminime.blogspot.com/2007/05/new-world-is-possible-by-dunja.html
White Argentine
Another dispute at the 'White Argentine' article (though on much the same topic as before). User:Sherlock4000 wishes to include an infobox for a supposed 'White Argentine' ethnic group. I have repeatedly asked for evidence that this 'ethnicity' is valid: i.e. that a significant proportion of the supposed members actually self-identify as 'white Argentine' (or any reasonable translation thereof), but none has been provided. In addition, the infobox includes images and captions for living individuals, without any WP:RS which indicates their ethnicity, which seems to me to be a violation of both WP:BLP and WP:V. Given that WP:3RR excludes removing clear violations of WP:BLP, I'd like to know whether I can safely remove the contested infobox without falling foul of WP:3RR. As the article history shows (and the talk page, though those supporting the infobox have sometimes been reluctant to debate the issue), this has been ongoing, but has now escalated to the extent that Sherlock4000 has posted an edit-warring warning template on my talk page: User_talk:AndyTheGrump#Infobox_deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- I looked in Infotrac and couldn't find any sources mentioning "White Argentines". I searched in Spanish on Google and didn't see anything. I notice there doesn't seem to be an article on it in the Spanish Wikipedia, which is where an article on that topic would likely be found. If there is a common name for Argentinians of European descent, "White Argentine" may not be it. Cla68 (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- I believe that an article on the subject was deleted from the Spanish Wikipedia, though I'm not sure on what grounds, and they may well have different policy in any case.
- After more reverts, the article has now been page-protected - unfortunately with the policy-violating infobox in place. I'm unsure how to proceed here, and have contacted the admin who blocked the page (User:SlimVirgin) of the problem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Noticeboard members:
- I regret that we must waste valuable time on this, especially since the dispute was initiated by the user above, and another one (GiovBag) who has been warned not to do so as far back as November.
- All minimally sizable cultural, ethnic, or religious communities (including those on the white communities of practically all nations that include them) have an article on the Wikipedia, and just about all include an infobox with basic numbers, as well as illustrated examples of some of the better-known members in their community. His assertion that no literature exists to that effect is simply not true, and it took me a minute to find several that I contributed here (playing the devil's advocate, he'll say that the word "white" appears nowhere, when there are ample mentions of "European identity," and so on). I'd like to add that I find the entire discussion, and its racial overtones, in incredibly poor taste.
- If Andy's problem were merely one of semantics, I suggested to him that moving the page to "European Argentine" may be a good idea (pending consensus, of course). His unwillingness to cooperate forced me to initiate a edit war thread (here), and the matter is awaiting their review, as well as yours.
- Thank you for your time, and for your patience.
- Regards, Sherlock4000 (talk) 02:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Please note that none of these sources actually give evidence for a self-asserted 'white Argentinian' ethnicity. In any case, for the purpose of this noticeboard the issue is that the infobox is making unsourced assertions of ethnicity for living persons: violating WP:V and WP:BLP. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- None of those people should be in the info box described by color unless there is a citation to support that they are or have been described as a while Argentinian. Off2riorob (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Please note that none of these sources actually give evidence for a self-asserted 'white Argentinian' ethnicity. In any case, for the purpose of this noticeboard the issue is that the infobox is making unsourced assertions of ethnicity for living persons: violating WP:V and WP:BLP. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Here I provide links to fore-sights and citations where the phrase "argentino blanco" (white argentine) appears in several books or publications in both Spanish and English language, and they speak of all the Argentines of predominantly European descent. The phrase in not used now in Argentine websites in Spanish for reasons of "political correction". In the last years there has been a movement pro-indigenist in Argentina that has caused the phrase argentinos blancos to be considered racist, and that's why it is avoided by many and replaced by argentinos descendientes de europeos or other equivalents. That was also the reason why the article was deleted in the Spanish wikipedia.
- Argentina: Land of the Vanishing Blacks. by Era Bell Thompson. Ebony Magazine. October 1973.</ref>
- [20] Los wichí en las fronteras de la civilización: capitalismo, violencia y shamanismo en el Chaco Argetino. Una aproximación etnográfica. Javier Rodríguez Mir. Página 24. Editorial Abya Yala. “Brasil se transformó en un país marcadamente blanco, mestizo y negro, mientras que Argentina se volvió un país eminentemente blanco. ... Las diferencias en el modo de representar la pertenencia al Estado-nación, impulsados por sus respectivas elites, está claramente presente en las distintas imágenes homogeneizadoras que cada identidad nacional proyecta; en Brasil se realizó a través de la imagen de una democracia racial, formada por blancos negros e indios, mientras en Argentina se ha realizado bajo la imagen del "crisol de las razas", formada por la composición de muchos argentinos blancos europeos. ...”
- [21] Argentina en marcha, Volumen 1. Comisión Nacional de Cooperación Intelectual. 1947. “Para 1826 se admiten 630.000 almas, así repartidas, según Ingenieros: Blancos extranjeros 5.000, Blancos argentinos 8.000, Indios 132.000, Mestizos 400.000, Negros…”
- [22] Folclore en las grandes ciudades: arte popular, identidad y cultura. Escrito por Alicia Martín. Páginas 77 y 80.
- [23] Our Good Neighbor Hurdle. By John W. White. Page 168.
- [24] Crisis and hope in Latin America: an evangelical perspective. Chapter “The Races of Latin America”, page 23. Escrito por Emilio Antonio Núñez C.,William David Taylor. William Carey Library. 1996. “The population of Argentina, for example, is 90 percent European in origin, whereas that of Paraguay, is Guarani Indian in about the same proportion… Here are white Argentines and black Venezuelans who speak the language of Castile;… ”
- [25] Embodying Argentina: body, space and nation in 19th century narrative. Escrito por Nancy Hanway. Chapter 5, The Injured Body. Page 170.
- [26] Revista de Filosofía. Vol. 14, Parte 2. 1921. “Y aquí conviene observar que "argentino blanco" no designa una aproximación, sino que quiere decir lo que expresa literalmente, "argentinos blancos" puros, sin mezcla, de ascendencia directamente europea. Sin la "color-line",…”
- Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana. Nº 63-65. 1952. “... se levantó una Argentina sin indios y sin gauchos, con argentinos blancos, nacidos de inmigrantes europeos,…”
- “los argentinos blancos que sentimos la necesidad de llamarnos hispano-argentinos para que no se nos confunda con cualquier otro producto de mestizaje blanco, los que somos auténticamente argentinos por los cuatro costados,” El Antisemitismo en la Argentina. Leonardo Senkman. 1989.
- Revista Internacional de Lingüística Iberoamericana. RILI: volumen 5, Nº 9-10. Escrito por Klaus Zimmerman y Armin Schwegler. 2007.
“…. Hasta ahora hemos analizado cómo los hablantes han construido un límite entre argentinos 'blancos' e inmigrantes ... cómo una argentina con antepasados indígenas construye los argentinos como un grupo exclusivamente blanco. ...”
- I give you another source Etnia, condiciones de vida y discriminación, where it provides information and some statistics in a survey where at least 63% of Argentine people who were asked, self-identified as "argentinos blancos".
- Furthermore, here there are several international sources that assess the percentage of "Whites/Europeans" in Argentina in at least 85% of the total population. They speak of "White/European" or "Criollo" Argentines, not of Italo-argentines, Spanish-Argentines, etc. separately. The Joshua Project: Ethnic people groups of Argentina, World Statesmen.org: Argentina Argentina: People: Ethnic Groups., Composición Étnica de las Tres Áreas Culturales del Continente Americano al Comienzo del Siglo XXI, Ethnic Groups Worldwide: A Ready Reference Handbook..
- At last, I must point out that user Andy the Grump is one of those who invented that sub-rule to the BLP policy regarding ethnicity, and now he tries to inforce it everywhere. All the people mentioned in the article and appearing in the infobox has undoubted Caucasian phenotype and has proved European ancestry, so that BLP policy regarding ethnicity is just an excuse to be looking for a cat's fifth leg in the article.--Pablozeta (talk) 11:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Andy that ethnic tagging of living people, without self identification or notability on ethnicity-related issues, is inappropriate and far too widespread on Wikipedia. Out of curiosity, I went to look at White American and sure enough, there is a similar composite of photographs of Ronald Reagan, John F. Kennedy, Megan Fox, Norman Rockwell. I suspect in many cases, we are making the ID based on the appearance of the individual, which fails every known criterion of verifiability, sourcing, and care in handling asserions about living people as well as being completely unencyclopedic. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- A correction to Pablozeta's assertion that I "invented that sub-rule to the BLP policy". I have made no amendment whatsoever to BLP policy. I have argued for clarification of where statements of ethnicity must be self-asserted, but as yet, as far as I'm aware there has been no clarification. In any case, this has no significance whatsoever where statements of ethnicity are unsourced, violating WP:V.
- As for the broader issue, as to whether 'white Argentine' constitutes an 'ethnicity' at all, this has been an ongoing dispute, with the 'pro' faction coming up with sources that indicate the usage of the term by outsiders, but no evidence that it it is in general usage in Argentina itself. As Pablozeta (an Argentine himself, apparently) said on my talk page '...this term is not common in Spanish language sources, it is probable that all the living people I mention in the article -if asked about their ethnicity- will not answer "White Argentine", but '"Argentine of European/Spanish/Italian/German/Arab/Armenian descent", because the exact term argentino blanco is not commonly used in Argentina. But this is also explained in the section Usage of the term, so we are going round in circles over and over again' (User_talk:AndyTheGrump/Archives/2010/November). I strongly suspect that there is an internal Argentinian political debate driving this issue, but this does not justify the unsourced usage of a contested 'ethnicity' to construct a synthesis, which is essentially what the article was before it attracted the interest of 'outsiders'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Are you sure she is an African American, have you got a cite? a cite? you just gotta look at her man. - Is it alright if I add the cat - Black British musician to this article? have you got a cite? No man, just look at the (link) pic, how black does she have to be to be included? This sort of thing is all over the wikipedia. I think what we should start doing with these articles White this and white that and black this and black that and Yellow people is remove the pictures from all of them we can still describe and explain the geno type and racial phenotype or whatever it is , and then, only add pictures of people that have defined themselves as such or have been well cited as such. Off2riorob (talk) 5:21 pm, Today (UTC+0)
Sirindhorn
Sirindhorn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Potentially libelous and poorly sourced material removed (only 1 source using non-confirmed material). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imasomething (talk • contribs) 23:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- - This here is the offending content - especially the gratuitous claim of which gender she prefers the company of, added by User:Kauffner - Off2riorob (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
The material in question is a direct quote from Paul M. Handley's The King Never Smiles. We have quite a write up on this book with 14 citations, including reviews in the Wall Street Journal Online and the New York Review of Books ("tough but I think fair-minded analysis"). It's Yale University Press, so this is a top-grade academic source. To be honest, there are very few other sources available on the Thai royal family. Kauffner (talk) 11:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- We don't add such titillating speculative trivia about living people unless it is part of the reason for their notability no matter what book it is in. Off2riorob (talk) 12:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- I checked WP:GOSSIP, but I don't see a formal rule of this kind. The production of an heir to the throne is obviously a matter of the highest state interest, since monarch is the most powerful position in Thailand. Sirindhorn is often considered as a possible heir; It's the "the reason for [her] notability", if you will. The fact that she is childless is a disadvantage in this regard. The law against lèse majesté means that the Thai public has very limited knowledge of these matters. Kauffner (talk) 14:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- None of that belongs in her BLP, we are instructed to write conservatively with a mind for subjects privacy. Has she herself said publicly that she prefers women and that is why she won't be having any heirs to the throne. Perhaps other here will support its inclusion but I see it as weakly claimed and gratuitous claims of sexual preference. I also note - The book was banned in Thailand before publication and the Thai authorities have blocked local access to websites advertising the book.Off2riorob (talk) 14:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- I checked WP:GOSSIP, but I don't see a formal rule of this kind. The production of an heir to the throne is obviously a matter of the highest state interest, since monarch is the most powerful position in Thailand. Sirindhorn is often considered as a possible heir; It's the "the reason for [her] notability", if you will. The fact that she is childless is a disadvantage in this regard. The law against lèse majesté means that the Thai public has very limited knowledge of these matters. Kauffner (talk) 14:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- "Knowledgeable Thais and diplomats say the princess prefers female companionship," according to biographer Paul Handley. (unauthorized) The King Never Smiles, 2006, p. 305.
- I disagree with Off2riorob above. It's not mere news gossip. The source is a notable book by a reputable publisher, and as Kauffner says, the willigness or capability of giving an heir to the throne is a notable and fundamental information on a royal subject. WP:WELLKNOWN allows this kind of cases. --Cyclopiatalk 16:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- The link between a sexual preference for women and inability or unwillingness to bear an heir is really unclear (line of reasoning which requires several potentially dubious intermediate steps). If this is what makes the information worthy of inclusion, I'm against it. Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Is there any other confirmation of this outside this one book? Are the "diplomats and well known Thais" actually sourced in the book or do the remain anonymous? What is the Wikipedia policy on unnamed sources? I am only asking because I don't have the information ad wasn't able to find it myself. Imasomething (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Irgun
Irgun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Following the misconceived attempt above to apply BLP to the state of Israel, another user is trying to apply this to an Israeli political party. The text "The Irgun was a political predecessor to Israel's right-wing Herut (or "Freedom") party, which led to today's Likud party. Likud has led or been part of most Israeli governments since 1977" has repeatedly been removed from this article, with the spurious argument that "WP:BLP policy compels me to remove poorly sourced material about living persons, Likud members." The statement in the article is actually attributed to Israeli Society, a standard mainstream study by SN Eisenstadt, one of Israel's leading sociologists. It is not in any way defamatory, it is a significant fact and relevant to understanding the continuing significance of the Irgun in Israeli politics. Nor does it refer to any living persons. Could an uninvolved editor please look at the article and confirm my view that BLP does not apply here. RolandR (talk) 11:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that WP:BLP policy should not be construed to apply to entities such as political parties. However, in looking at the article, I note that the placement of the Eisenstadt footnote suggests that the source (which is offline) supports only the first proposition (that Irgun became Herut) and not the second (that Herut was a predecessor of Likud). I think if anything this is a source issue, not a BLP issue. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but that's only because the book was published in 1967, before the establishment of Likud. Eisenstadt's subsequent volume, The Transformation of Israeli Society, published in 1985, does discuss this. But surely it isn't contentious or in question, and I didn't want to overburden the intro with footnotes. RolandR (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Sanela Diana Jenkins
Following an OTRS inquiry (ticket# 2011012510006899), I went through the edits made by User:Maximillioner. I seems this account serves the singular purpose to harass the article's subject. I'll look closer at the individual statements to see if any of them should be referred to Oversight for permanent redaction. Would you please take whatever action you deem appropriate? Asav (talk) 13:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- All edits oversighted. Article looks on first glance quite tidy - Sanela Diana Jenkins if anyone wants to add it to their watchlist in case the user returns Off2riorob (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Hjálmar Þórarinsson
Hjálmar Þórarinsson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Would like this page to be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.208.78.194 (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Please see WP:BIOSELF. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
K1 fund
K1 fund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I came on this account because a new user AFLawyer (talk · contribs) tagged it for speedy deletion as an attack page. I declined the speedy and restored a paragraph he had removed. AFLawyer has identified himself as a lawyer involved in the case, who considers that the article "doesn't maintain a neutral point of view about Mr. Frerichs, who died without a trial. Furthermore, by adding the last paragraph to this article you are involving someone who has nothing to do with the subject discussed here, and furthermore, is not true that is the stepdaughter of Mr. Frerichs." He has explained more on his talk page: I have advised him there to say on the article talk page what changes he would like to see. I am posting here because of the step-daughter's involvement. Experienced eyes on this would be helpful. JohnCD (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- AFLawyer has a conflict by own admission and should not be attempting to edit or delete the K1 article. However, the deleted material contains a lot of biographical detail about the "step-daughter" which does not seem really relevant. Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
"Fraudsters" category and UK politicians
Eric Illsley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) David Chaytor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) John Taylor, Baron Taylor of Warwick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A number of UK politicians have recently been convicted of fiddling their expenses. Some have already gone to jail. (Some have been convicted on multiple heads - but all relate to the same scandal.) Some editors have been adding Category:Fraudsters to their BLPs.
I have objected to this category as seeming less than neutral. There would be no problem with adding Category:Persons convicted of fraud. However, to label the individual with a term that implies a career criminal seems to be not to be in the spirit of BLP or neutrality - certainly not when we have a far more neutral way of describing. Frank Abagnale was a "fraudster" - a person convicted for fiddling their expenses is not in the same place.
Since we have Category:People convicted of theft, this should be treated the same.
There's some discussion on my talk page, but centralising here.--Scott Mac 22:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- It sounds like what you're asking for is to rename the category. There was an extensive discussion of the criminal categories a while back. Maybe someone can find it.
- On the broad issue, if a hypothetical persona serves one term in parliament and is convicted on one count of fraud, why would we treat those two differently? Both "accomplishments" are officially designated by the state and both tend to be part of one's biography. I see no reason to delete categories concerning criminal convictions where those crimes have a significant impact on the subject's career or life. Will Beback talk 23:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- "persons convicted of x" is accurate, and doesn't run the risk of smearing the subject by implying career criminality. Labeling someone as a "fraudster" is not neutral. We don't do assessment.--Scott Mac 23:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Will Beback's assessment, and have also pointed Scott to the fact that Merriam Webster defines fraudster as a person who engages in fraud. It's a pity that Scott did not acknowledgfe that before posting here.
- have reinstated Category:Fraudsters to John Taylor, Baron Taylor of Warwick, with a supporting reference: [27].
- Scott may wish to open a CFD discussion on the naming of these categories, but since the current category name is supported by a dicdef and by RSs, I see no BLP grounds for removing it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have no problem with the category for people who have made a career of fraud. I object to it being used in the above cases. It IS a BLP violation to use language that may reflect more negatively on the subject that the facts suggest. "Fraudster" carries the implication (or at least will to some readers) of career criminality. It does violate BLP. In any case the categories have now been removed under the BLP policy and so they stay out until there's a consensus I'm wrong. (And I'm not the only one with this concern.)--Scott Mac 23:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Scott. I think FWIW it will strike US readers as pejorative, definitely not neutral. Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have no problem with the category for people who have made a career of fraud. I object to it being used in the above cases. It IS a BLP violation to use language that may reflect more negatively on the subject that the facts suggest. "Fraudster" carries the implication (or at least will to some readers) of career criminality. It does violate BLP. In any case the categories have now been removed under the BLP policy and so they stay out until there's a consensus I'm wrong. (And I'm not the only one with this concern.)--Scott Mac 23:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- What aspect of BLP is violated by saying that someone convicted of fraud has been convicted of fraud?
- We add the category for "MPs of the United Kingdom House of Commons, by Parliament" to someone who wins only one election, not just for career politicians. I don't see why a category for a conviction of a serious crime should be treated differently. Will Beback talk 23:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
it is a linguistic fallacy to imply all "foo-ers" mean the same. "Murderer" implies only one murder committed (we use mass murderer or serial killer for more). Perjurers have seldom done more than lied in one case, and that's implied. Fraudster, burgler, etc. tend to imply a career made of it. Why use a pejorative label which carries ambiguity, when we can be more accurate. We ought to err on the side of not painting an over-negative picture. Whatever we do we need to consider the possible semantic range of each foo-er world. We cannot assume all carry the same they MUST be treated differently, depending on that range.--Scott Mac 23:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Those are a lot of assumptions based on your own views of the meaning of words. Will Beback talk 23:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- (ec)Scott, your claim seems to be based on a belief that:
- a person convicted of one count of perjury is perjurer
- a person convicted of one count of murder is a murderer
- but a person convicted of one count of fraud is not a fraudster
- Do you have any reliable sources to support this linguistic claim? I note that yuo have not commented on the dicdef I referenced above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- (ec)Scott, your claim seems to be based on a belief that:
- Those are a lot of assumptions based on your own views of the meaning of words. Will Beback talk 23:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Note omission of relevant links. This matter has already been discussed extensively on Scott's talk page: see User talk:Scott MacDonald#Fraudsters, and to a lesser extent at Talk:John Taylor, Baron Taylor of Warwick#Fraudster_category. By posting here without linking to that discussion, Scott has been engaging in a form of forum-shopping. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- FFS, I posted in both of those places suggesting we centralised it here. Please stop with the attacks and assumption of bad faith. It is quite possible to have a civil discussion about this. No?--Scott Mac 23:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- FFS, what's so hard about posting a few links? The purpose of posting at a noticeboard is to involve other editors. In order not to mislead them about the state of discussions so far, you should have linked to the other discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- FFS, I posted in both of those places suggesting we centralised it here. Please stop with the attacks and assumption of bad faith. It is quite possible to have a civil discussion about this. No?--Scott Mac 23:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I suggest that we just create "Category:Persons convicted of fraud" and put the contested articles in that category, then hold another discussion at CfD as to what the best names of the criminal categories are. Will Beback talk 23:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm happy with the first bit. But a CFD won't solve it. I've no particular objection to a category fraudsters for some article of career fraudsters. I'd object to these and any similar BLPs being in it.--Scott Mac 23:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- If a renaming of the category won't resolve your concerns about your personal and unref interpretation of the words, then it seems that your objection actually a broader one to categorising people convicted of crimes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've not really considered the wider categories. I tend to look at each BLP on its merits. In this case, this is an unnecessary ambiguous negative category. "persons convicted of fraud" is better and avoids the problem.--Scott Mac 23:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- If a renaming of the category won't resolve your concerns about your personal and unref interpretation of the words, then it seems that your objection actually a broader one to categorising people convicted of crimes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- As long as a crime is specific and worthy of reporting in the BLP then a cat reflective of that can be added, if beneficial to the article. Off2riorob (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Note that the category has been just been removed from John Taylor, Baron Taylor of Warwick, along with a referenced quote to support its inclusion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I left you a note on your talkpage to explain, please allow discussion here to resolve before replacing the cat under discussion and please don't replace the attacking content addition again without consensus support to include it. Off2riorob (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)As long as a crime is specific and worthy of reporting in the BLP then a cat reflective of that can be added, if beneficial to the article. note - adding Category:Fraud is not my idea of specific for a politician that had to repay 700 pounds on his over claimed expense account. Off2riorob (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Your "idea of specific" would be more relevant if you had done some fact-checking, and didn't try to dismiss this as a £700 issue. Chaytor was convicted of "false accounting totalling just over £20,000." Taylor was convicted of false accounting totalling £11,277. Illsley fraudulently claimed more than £14,000 in parliamentary expenses.
- All three have been convicted by a court.
- As to whether it is "worth reporting", just try a google news search. The crimes and convictions of all three of three criminals have been extensively reported. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)As long as a crime is specific and worthy of reporting in the BLP then a cat reflective of that can be added, if beneficial to the article. note - adding Category:Fraud is not my idea of specific for a politician that had to repay 700 pounds on his over claimed expense account. Off2riorob (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I left you a note on your talkpage to explain, please allow discussion here to resolve before replacing the cat under discussion and please don't replace the attacking content addition again without consensus support to include it. Off2riorob (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Your POV may have some personal definition of "Fraud", but "fraud" is the term widely used by the news media: see e.g., Gnews hits for "David Chaytor"+Fraud. You removed a ref which specifically used the term "fraudster", and now you appear to claiming that your unreferenced view of the meaning of a word shoukd override its usage in dozens of reliable sources. Please stop this POV-pushing, and start using reliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've created Category:Persons convicted of fraud and added it to the three articles in question. Will Beback talk 23:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. That seems wise.--Scott Mac 00:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- I will now nominate Category:Persons convicted of fraud at CFD for merger to Category:Fraudsters. It appears to me to be a duplicate, and no evidence has been offered in support of the claim that a person convicted of fraud is not necessarily a fraudster. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Its a mainly British usage, and has been defined as "con man", http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fraudster It is a slang term, with no precise legal meaning, unlike "murderer" or "burglar". It is not widely used in the US and sounds pejorative, and in fact it tends on a Google search, to pop up in highly politicized and judgmental usages here, as in "Scott was best known as a record-setting fraudster whose bilking of Medicare reached cartoon-villain proportions", http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/04/florida-welcomes-rick-scott-fraudster-king_n_804123.html So it is completely inappropriate for a Wikipedia category name. Jonathanwallace (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe but given the number of categories at stake (seeCategory:Fraudsters_by_nationality) that is something that should be decided by the wider community.©Geni 00:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see any evidence that "fraudster" is slang,[28] or that it only refers to career con men. Will Beback talk 00:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- The Merriam-Webster isn't very helpful here. It is very short and unnuanced. It simply does not address the semantic range in the type of depth needed to settle this debate. It does say the term is "chiefly British" and gives the example of a "phishing scam" - it doesn't answer the pertinent quesiton of whether the term is neutrally used to describe expenses fraud etc..--Scott Mac 00:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- If you don't accept a dictionary as a source for the meaning of words then please provide a better source. So far all I've seen are Wikipedia editors saying what they think the word means. Will Beback talk 00:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not "not accepting it", I'm simply saying it doesn't address the issue. This argument is about the nuance or semantic range of a term, which is not something an entry as short as that addresses. I'm looking for something that might help here (either in supporting or contradicting what I'm saying) unfortunately I'm not finding it. I agree that simply resorting to my interpretation of the word's range, or that of those who say "it is to fraud what murderer is to murder" isn't idea. Hopefully we can find some detailed sources to solve this one way or another, otherwise we'll need to go with people's impressions.--Scott Mac 00:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- If you don't accept a dictionary as a source for the meaning of words then please provide a better source. So far all I've seen are Wikipedia editors saying what they think the word means. Will Beback talk 00:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- The Merriam-Webster isn't very helpful here. It is very short and unnuanced. It simply does not address the semantic range in the type of depth needed to settle this debate. It does say the term is "chiefly British" and gives the example of a "phishing scam" - it doesn't answer the pertinent quesiton of whether the term is neutrally used to describe expenses fraud etc..--Scott Mac 00:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see any evidence that "fraudster" is slang,[28] or that it only refers to career con men. Will Beback talk 00:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe but given the number of categories at stake (seeCategory:Fraudsters_by_nationality) that is something that should be decided by the wider community.©Geni 00:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Its a mainly British usage, and has been defined as "con man", http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fraudster It is a slang term, with no precise legal meaning, unlike "murderer" or "burglar". It is not widely used in the US and sounds pejorative, and in fact it tends on a Google search, to pop up in highly politicized and judgmental usages here, as in "Scott was best known as a record-setting fraudster whose bilking of Medicare reached cartoon-villain proportions", http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/04/florida-welcomes-rick-scott-fraudster-king_n_804123.html So it is completely inappropriate for a Wikipedia category name. Jonathanwallace (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 26#Category:Persons_convicted_of_fraud. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- That's unhelpful. We're having a discussion of particular articles here, and you go make a pointy nomination of a category created an hour ago. What does that achieve? If you merge the categories, I'm only going to re-remove the fraudster cat from those BLPs and we are back to square one. We need to continue this discussion until we've got consensus. Please wait until some more people comment. We've only been here a couple of hours. What's the hurry?--Scott Mac 00:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- What's unhelpful, Scott, is that is you have raised all of this without offering any evidence to support your interpretation of the word, and that you have chosen to remove articles from a valid and long-standing category rather than propose renaming the category.
If you have some evidence to support your interpretation, then you can post it at the CFD discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- What's unhelpful, Scott, is that is you have raised all of this without offering any evidence to support your interpretation of the word, and that you have chosen to remove articles from a valid and long-standing category rather than propose renaming the category.
- That's unhelpful. We're having a discussion of particular articles here, and you go make a pointy nomination of a category created an hour ago. What does that achieve? If you merge the categories, I'm only going to re-remove the fraudster cat from those BLPs and we are back to square one. We need to continue this discussion until we've got consensus. Please wait until some more people comment. We've only been here a couple of hours. What's the hurry?--Scott Mac 00:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Frances Fox Piven
Currently an edit war regarding criticisms/attacks made by Glenn Beck. One editor feels there are quotes from unreliable sources being used to attack the subject of the article, while the other feels these are legitimate and that the article is being censored. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 23:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- The sentence in the lede is completely non-neutral and has to go: "Her writings have long been controversial due to her calls for protests and bureaucratic disruption." As does the reference to "commonly referred to as the 'Cloward-Piven' strategy". A quick Google search reveals that she is mainly controversial, and the name "Cloward-Piven", is mainly used, on sites like www.infowars.com, which contains the following in an article with "Obama" and "New World Order" in the title: "In addition, the bankers have supported 'communism' in the United States. Considering this, it should come as no surprise the anti-capitalist 'Cloward-Piven Strategy' was published by The Nation, a magazine with a well-documented connection to the CIA..." Not NPOV, not RS. I see you reverted Flyboy again a few moments ago, however, and would suggest you both look at the 3 revert rule. Jonathanwallace (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- ^ CORNWALL & ORS v ROWAN [2004] SASC 384 (24 November 2004)