Goodwinsands (talk | contribs) →Gilad Atzmon: what Holocaust denial is |
Off2riorob (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 769: | Line 769: | ||
:It's sad but true: the one thing that people on all sides of the issue - zionist or anti-zionist - agree on is that the more you listen to Atzmon, the more you recognize that he's an antisemite, and his base is now down to just the true believers (and the stormtroopers I mentioned above). |
:It's sad but true: the one thing that people on all sides of the issue - zionist or anti-zionist - agree on is that the more you listen to Atzmon, the more you recognize that he's an antisemite, and his base is now down to just the true believers (and the stormtroopers I mentioned above). |
||
:So the idea that all this stuff about Atzmon and Holocaust denial is just being made up - well, sorry, that doesn't pass the reality test. Atzmon gets picketed more by antizionists than zionists, because they know the damage he does to their movement. And the fact that Wikipedia hasn't been able to whitewash him as spotlessly as some of his followers desire is a victory for Wikipedia, even though some editors above have strangely decided that it is a defeat. [[User:Goodwinsands|Goodwinsands]] ([[User talk:Goodwinsands|talk]]) 13:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC) |
:So the idea that all this stuff about Atzmon and Holocaust denial is just being made up - well, sorry, that doesn't pass the reality test. Atzmon gets picketed more by antizionists than zionists, because they know the damage he does to their movement. And the fact that Wikipedia hasn't been able to whitewash him as spotlessly as some of his followers desire is a victory for Wikipedia, even though some editors above have strangely decided that it is a defeat. [[User:Goodwinsands|Goodwinsands]] ([[User talk:Goodwinsands|talk]]) 13:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
:Your minimal time at the project and your single issue account speaks for itself - We as a project need to recognize such accounts as your and topic ban them from their POV topic as fast as possible, neutrality is not an option with such single purpose accounts. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 13:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Justin Meacham == |
== Justin Meacham == |
Revision as of 13:19, 15 February 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:
| ||
David Berlinski
David Berlinski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article says he is a critic of evolution but not a believer in intelligent design, in fact an agnostic. However the opening sentence says that he is "within the intelligent design movement." This does not seem to make sense. When I removed the phrase it was put right back. There might be a possibility that being known as an intelligent designer could affect his career.Jaque Hammer (talk) 08:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've removed the material a second time. Jaque Hammer (talk) 09:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Jaque Hammer would have us believe that David Berlinski, a Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, author of Deniable Darwin & Other Essays, co-star of Expelled, is not a leading member of the intelligent design movement (of which the CSC is the hub). It is bleeding obvious that he is, but to satisfy Jaque, I've provided an explicit citation for the fact. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- ID is an argument of form 'not(evolution) therefore intelligent designer(i.e. God)' (a false dichotomy), with most of the emphasis on the 'not(evolution)' bit. Berlinski explicitly agrees with the 'not(evolution)' bit, but has never stated a preferred alternative. Therefore he can quite happily join in with the IDM's evolution-bashing. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- In fact the "therefore intelligent designer(i.e. God)" bit is so vestigial that Berlinski's 1996 Commentary (magazine) piece The Deniable Darwin, was described by Ronald L. Numbers as "a version of ID theory". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Also, being a "member of a movement" does not necessarily mean believing everything we assume one ought to believe in order to be a member of said movement. Of course with BLP this might get tricker. Does the subject have to identify themselves with the movement? This is an innocent question as I do not actually know. I'm not sure how often people do self-identify with social movements. A social movement, after all, is an informal collection of people.Griswaldo (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- AFAIK, Berlinski has never disavowed the movement (which he has prominently participated in on many occasions), just ID's alternate conclusion. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- From a sociological perspective I'd say he's a member of the movement, even if he's not as strongly connected to it as others may be. I'm just not sure of the BLP requirements here.Griswaldo (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- As I said, I've got a citation for that -- Giberson, Karl (2002). Species of Origins. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. p. 202. ISBN 0742507653. explicitly names him as one of the leaders of the movement. And as a CSC Fellow he is definitely "strongly connected" -- so the claim is hardly controversial. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've reverted your addition again. I don't see how you can, for instance, be a leader of the communist movement without believing in communism. Even if some book says you are. I also don't see why the phrase "within the intelligent design movement" is needed in the first sentence which already says he is a critic of evolution. His relationship with the Discovery Institute is also explained in the article. Jaque Hammer (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Jaque, we follow what sources say and not the incredulity of editors. One's involvement in a social movement comes from one's actions vis-a-vis the aims of said movement, and in relation to other institutions and individuals who are also part of the movement. It isn't a matter of explicitly saying "I'm a communist", or "I'm a believer in ID". The ID movement is not synonymous to the sum total of all ID believers either. Perhaps that's part of your confusion. I would say that a vast majority of ID believers are not part of the movement. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- I suggested on the article's talk page that it "just give the facts." It already says he is a critic of evolution and is cited as such by the Intelligent Design people. He is also a member of the Discovery Institute, which supports ID but also does other things. All this is explained in the article. I don't see the need for the opening sentence to also say his work is "within the ID movement." Jaque Hammer (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- The FACT is that a WP:RS states that he is a leader of the IDM. The FACT is that this claim is supported by his being a Fellow of the CSC. The FACT is that this claim is uncontested in reliable sources. The FACT is that I have explained the apparent anomaly. Therefore the FACT is that you haven't got a leg to stand on. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- I suggested on the article's talk page that it "just give the facts." It already says he is a critic of evolution and is cited as such by the Intelligent Design people. He is also a member of the Discovery Institute, which supports ID but also does other things. All this is explained in the article. I don't see the need for the opening sentence to also say his work is "within the ID movement." Jaque Hammer (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Jaque, we follow what sources say and not the incredulity of editors. One's involvement in a social movement comes from one's actions vis-a-vis the aims of said movement, and in relation to other institutions and individuals who are also part of the movement. It isn't a matter of explicitly saying "I'm a communist", or "I'm a believer in ID". The ID movement is not synonymous to the sum total of all ID believers either. Perhaps that's part of your confusion. I would say that a vast majority of ID believers are not part of the movement. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've reverted your addition again. I don't see how you can, for instance, be a leader of the communist movement without believing in communism. Even if some book says you are. I also don't see why the phrase "within the intelligent design movement" is needed in the first sentence which already says he is a critic of evolution. His relationship with the Discovery Institute is also explained in the article. Jaque Hammer (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- As I said, I've got a citation for that -- Giberson, Karl (2002). Species of Origins. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. p. 202. ISBN 0742507653. explicitly names him as one of the leaders of the movement. And as a CSC Fellow he is definitely "strongly connected" -- so the claim is hardly controversial. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- From a sociological perspective I'd say he's a member of the movement, even if he's not as strongly connected to it as others may be. I'm just not sure of the BLP requirements here.Griswaldo (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- AFAIK, Berlinski has never disavowed the movement (which he has prominently participated in on many occasions), just ID's alternate conclusion. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Also, being a "member of a movement" does not necessarily mean believing everything we assume one ought to believe in order to be a member of said movement. Of course with BLP this might get tricker. Does the subject have to identify themselves with the movement? This is an innocent question as I do not actually know. I'm not sure how often people do self-identify with social movements. A social movement, after all, is an informal collection of people.Griswaldo (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
The words "within the ID movement" are rather confusing. However, Jaque's version of the lede does not give enough information. May I suggest the following instead, as the last sentence of the lede: "Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, a think-tank that is hub of the intelligent design movement. Though he criticizes the theory of evolution, Berlinski, an agnostic, has said he reserves judgment on intelligent design."Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- That sounds more factually accurate given the available information.Griswaldo (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree and like that sentence. As I said on the talk page, WP readers are generally smart enough to understand complex concepts. Jaque Hammer (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- This is all rather confusing -- Jaque Hammer just took the fact that Berlinski is a CSC Fellow out of the infobox on that article. The "within the ID movement" wording was a compromise due to Berlinski's ambivalence over "ID's alternate conclusion" (i.e. the intelligent designer that is God). Given concerns over its being confusing, I've replaced it with the less-equivocal (but fully supported by sources) "leader of the intelligent design movement". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree and like that sentence. As I said on the talk page, WP readers are generally smart enough to understand complex concepts. Jaque Hammer (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Got a source for "reserves judgment on intelligent design"? Guettarda (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have no independent knowledge of this guy, but am trying to help find common ground here. My "reserves judgment" phrasing is based on the first paragraph of the "Views" section of the bio, particularly this: ""Unlike his colleagues at the Discovery Institute, [he] refuses to theorize about the origin of life."Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- That is not so much a 'reservation of judgement' as a 'not letting not having an alternative get in the way of a bit of evolution-bashing'. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- The "reserves judgment on intelligent design" claim would appear to be WP:SYNTH of the "Unlike his colleagues at the Discovery Institute, [he] refuses to theorize about the origin of life" quote. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- OK, how about substituting the wording from the "Views" section? In place of "reserves judgment", " refuses to theorize about the origin of life". Or suggest your own which says that he has not come out in favor of intelligent design in his own statements and writings.Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's not notable in the context of ID. It's like saying that Dembski "reserves judgment" on ID because he refuses to speculate on the nature of the designer. Guettarda (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)"Although he criticizes the theory of evolution, Berlinski, an agnostic, refuses to theorize about the origin of life." would be acceptable. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Qualifier on the above -- it is acceptable as being accurate, but whether it is WP:DUE weight is questionable -- see question below. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- OK, how about substituting the wording from the "Views" section? In place of "reserves judgment", " refuses to theorize about the origin of life". Or suggest your own which says that he has not come out in favor of intelligent design in his own statements and writings.Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- (ec)I don't think that's an accurate characterisation of what he has said. "Warm but distant" isn't "reserves judgment". As for that quote - I think it misses the point. The ID movement doesn't speculate about the origin of life. Intentionally. Behe in particular has said that ID could just as well point to an alien genetic engineer as it could to the supernatural. I don't think anyone takes him seriously on that point, but it's an important part of the ID movement not to speculate about the identity of the designer, even though most individuals will admit (usually with some prodding, though it depends on the venue) that their personal belief is that the designer is the Christian God. You need to take the Slate article with a grain of salt, and avoid drawing too great a conclusion from it. Guettarda (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have no independent knowledge of this guy, but am trying to help find common ground here. My "reserves judgment" phrasing is based on the first paragraph of the "Views" section of the bio, particularly this: ""Unlike his colleagues at the Discovery Institute, [he] refuses to theorize about the origin of life."Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, do we have any evidence that Berslinski's occupation is "Academic philosopher"? This seems to be based upon his CSC bio -- which is rather vague, and gives as his last-listed academic post the Universite de Paris -- which split up in the early 1970s. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that "writer" would be a better description if he doesn't have an academic post currently. Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- A question: why is Berlinski's "refus[al] to theorize about the origins of life" any more "factual" than his being one "of the leaders in the intelligent design movement"? Both are inferences that third parties have made about him based upon his statements and actions. Neither is a concrete fact -- but then WP:SECONDARY means that articles should contain "interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims", not just 'concrete' facts (which we can get from primary sources). I would further note that the latter claim probably has more prominence, and thus probably is WP:DUE more prominence in the article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Is that directed towards my usage of "factual"? What I meant was that the following is more "factual" than your proposed text:
- "Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, a think-tank that is hub of the intelligent design movement."
- "refus[al] to theorize about the origins of life" ... wasn't in Jonathanwallace's proposal and in any event isn't a replacement for the "leader of the intelligent design movement" text. Maybe it was not directed at me.Griswaldo (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- It is directed at Jaque's "just give the facts" complaint against "leader of the intelligent design movement". If that isn't 'factual' then how is "refuses to theorize about the origins of life" factual? I am not claiming that one is the replacement of the other, but that the argument against "leader" applies equally to "refuses to theorize" -- and thus the former cannot be excluded without also excluding the latter. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. This thread has become rather confusing. The text you said was accurate, but perhaps not DUE, sounds good to me, and could be included if it is DUE.Griswaldo (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- My point is that we have numerous sources, including some quite prominent ones, discussing Berlinski's leadership/prominent role within the IDM (which goes well beyond his being a Fellow in the CSC), but only a couple of fairly minor sources discussing his equivocations over ID. Yet these equivocations are mentioned in the lead, but readers are left to infer his leadership role in the IDM from his being a Fellow of the CSC. That seems to me to be both WP:UNDUE weight and violation of WP:Principle of least astonishment. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. This thread has become rather confusing. The text you said was accurate, but perhaps not DUE, sounds good to me, and could be included if it is DUE.Griswaldo (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- It is directed at Jaque's "just give the facts" complaint against "leader of the intelligent design movement". If that isn't 'factual' then how is "refuses to theorize about the origins of life" factual? I am not claiming that one is the replacement of the other, but that the argument against "leader" applies equally to "refuses to theorize" -- and thus the former cannot be excluded without also excluding the latter. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Is that directed towards my usage of "factual"? What I meant was that the following is more "factual" than your proposed text:
We are probably veering into WP:RSN territory. Calling him a leader of the ID movement without being able to reference a statement "I believe in ID" doesn't work. You could source statements under "Views" to your references, along the lines of "X has said Y provides covering fire for movement Z". But I don't see how it belongs in the lede. Again, I have no dog in this hunt. I believe in evolution, never heard of this guy, and was trying to help you out (and the opposing editor) with a compromise. Jonathanwallace (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- The IDM spends 99+% of its times evolution-bashing -- Berlinski is happy as a clam evolution-bashing. Where's the conflict? Further, we have a source stating unequivocally that Berlinski is a leader of the IDM. I do not have to rely on weasel-wording "along the lines of 'X has said Y provides covering fire for movement Z'" -- I have a source saying the exact words. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Lets get down to the sex - do you have a source for him believing in a supernatural origin? John lilburne (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- No, but then the fact that Hermann Göring claimed not to be antisemitic does not mean that he wasn't a leading member of the Nazi movement. Agreement with a perfect 100% of a movement's agenda is not necessary for being a leader of it -- particularly in this case where the point of contention is a point de-emphasised and equivocated over by the movement as a whole. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Surly if you want to declare that some one is directly responsible for the extermination of millions of people you need a little bit more evidence of their involvement in the slaughter?
- One might well be sceptical about Darwinian evolution without involving the gods. Currently the way the article is slanted the implication is that he believes that the origin of life was supernatural. John lilburne (talk) 09:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Taking your analogy, we have plenty of evidence that Berlinski is "directly" and prominently involved in the IDM. "One might" -- but when one does so without any particular expertise in the subject, and in the constant company of members of the movement -- then third party commentators are hardly to blame [or incorrect] for considering one to be acting as part of that movement, nor is Wikipedia violating WP:BLP by presenting their "uncontested assertion" as a fact (per WP:NPOV). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Is that the old "Those that borrow clothes of others, shouldn't object to mistaken identity" or the WP:DUCK argument? I note that Dawkins believes that he might be evil, or at least trolling the biological scientists, but that still doesn't mean Berlinski is a believer in ID. John lilburne (talk) 11:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- (outdent)ID is wider than some weird fundamentalist Christian teaching? Does it incorporate a Hindu creation story, an Aztec, and a Inuit version too, or is it mainly variations on a conservative young earth Christian myth? The Jews don't appear to have a problem with Evolution (probably far too sensible), so I'm not convinced that Berlinski would be arguing for a Christian Creation myth. Seems more likely that he has a problem with some of the evidential claims of evolution and is using the ID movement as a soap box. John lilburne (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. It involves at least one Muslim (Mustafa Akyol), at least one Orthodox Jew (David Klinghoffer), and at least one Unificationist (Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)). As stated above, "The IDM spends 99+% of its times evolution-bashing -- Berlinski is happy as a clam evolution-bashing." -- "Seems more likely that..." Berlinski knows sweet FA about "the evidential claims of evolution" (argument from ignorance, anybody?). "...and is using the ID movement as a soap box" -- and this stops him being a leader of said movement, how? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- A mutant individual is not a representative of a species, you should know this. You make much play on these people being Fellows or Senior Fellows of the Center for Science and Culture what does that mean? Do they get together monthly to devise strategy for the IDM or something? Seems from looking a the website it refers to people that the Centre regards as 'good' scientists, some of which they have funded, but not all. It doesn't seem to imply that those so listed are in total agreement with the goals of the Center for Science and Culture or indeed that they have ever applied for some sort of membership. I'll repeat tell us does being a Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture mean. John lilburne (talk) 12:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Which "mutant individual"? Berlinski, Akyol, Klinghoffer or Wells? When you start looking at a sufficient number of 'mutations' they start to represent normal variation in the species in question. "...what does that mean?" It means that they are the leaders of the organisation that runs the IDM -- the movement that is the SOLE reason for this center's existence Most of them aren't even scientists at all, let alone your WP:OR "'good' scientists". "I'll repeat tell us does being a Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture mean." It means that they are the leaders of the organisation that runs the IDM -- the movement that is the SOLE reason for this center's existence
Shorter John lilburne: la-la-la, I can't here you. Shorter Hrafn: What WP:Complete bollocks! HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Having found two Jews, a Muslim, and a Moonie, does not mean that Jews, Muslims, and Moonies (well probably them) are major supporters of ID. You keep mentioning leader what exactly do you mean by that. It implies that they have some authoritative or directing role in these organisations: I can see none. John lilburne (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- I mean "exactly" that I have reliable source saying that Berlisnsk is a leader of the IDM. And now I want to ask you why E_X_A_C_T_L_Y you are asking these pointless, time-wasting knit-picking questions. And why E_X_A_C_T_L_Y you don't just look up wikt:leader? Why am I refusing to answer this question? Because I can see no point whatsoever in getting bogged down on exact meanings, flavours, nuances, etc of "leader". What exactly do you mean by "exactly"? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Having found two Jews, a Muslim, and a Moonie, does not mean that Jews, Muslims, and Moonies (well probably them) are major supporters of ID. You keep mentioning leader what exactly do you mean by that. It implies that they have some authoritative or directing role in these organisations: I can see none. John lilburne (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Or to put it another way, Berlinski works primarily to bash evolution, the CSC (which he is a leading member of) exists primarily to bash evolution, the IDM (which the CSC is leads) exists primarily to bash evolution. Where's the disconnect?
Beyond that, we have the opinion of the foremost expert on Creationism that Berlinksi's widely-publicised The Deniable Darwin (which he later used as the title-piece of an anthology) is "a version of ID theory", numerous sources placing him in a prominent/leadership role in the IDM and a RS explicitly stating that he's one "of the leaders in the intelligent design movement". What more do we need? A confession signed in his own blood? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well I can wax lyrical of the nonsense of Trotskyism but that doesn't make me a Stalinist. I do not see Berlinksi being mentioned as having any role in the IDM or CSC, except as a Senior Fellow (whatever that means). They do seem to have a collection of his articles, papers, and reviews. In some of the independent reviews on his works the the argument seems to be that he casts ID and Evolution as being on par in the nonsense category, and that he is not sufficiently tough in his execrating of ID. It is a bit odd for a supporter of a position, to be saying that the position they are supporting is nonsense. RS's are not always reliable in every instance one should actually check for one's self. From what I've read it seems that he doesn't hold with ID and he doesn't hold with Evolution. John lilburne (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- John lilburne: your analogy is WP:Complete bollocks -- in that it completely fails to capture any relevant details. For example, whether your your lyrical
wankerwaxer would be considered a Stalinist or not, would probably be affected quite considerably on the basis of whether or not he was a member of Stalin's politburo and appeared in Stalinist propaganda films. Given a choice between caring what RSs (including a very authoritative one) thinks and what you think, I'm afraid I don't really give a stuff what you think -- you are neither a RS (nor have cited any), nor provide any convincing arguments for your frankly delusional view that the CSC and IDM are in some way completely unrelated. So please feel free to huff and puff at my disregard of your pontification. And pleasre assume that I won't be answering any more of your pointless questions. Good day. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)- What has this got to do with the relationship between CSC and IDM, their STUPID website says they are the same. What it doesn't say is that Berlinski is some leader of either. To accept that proposal on the basis that he's a Fellow one would have to believe that each and every one of the 1350 Fellows of the Royal Society is a leader of the group ignoring the Governance structure. John lilburne (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- John lilburne: as I already pointed out, I'm sick of answering your pointless questions, so I will ask some of my own. (i) How would any reasonable person expect the difference between a handful of fellows and a think-tank on one side, and over a thousand fellows and a learned society on the other, affect the degree to which an individual fellow acts as a leader? Why would any reasonable person expect the latter to act as a useful comparator for the former? (ii) How would any reasonable person expect leadership to be exerted over a grouping as diffuse and informal as the IDM? Would any reasonable person expect a Royal-Society-style formal governance structure? (iii) When a movement is Neo-creationist, and thus attempting to disguise and downplay its religious origins, would not recruiting a handful of articulate and like-minded Muslims, Jews and/or Agnostics to its senior/leadership positions seem to any reasonable person to be a reasonably logical strategic move? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- What has this got to do with the relationship between CSC and IDM, their STUPID website says they are the same. What it doesn't say is that Berlinski is some leader of either. To accept that proposal on the basis that he's a Fellow one would have to believe that each and every one of the 1350 Fellows of the Royal Society is a leader of the group ignoring the Governance structure. John lilburne (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- John lilburne: your analogy is WP:Complete bollocks -- in that it completely fails to capture any relevant details. For example, whether your your lyrical
- Well I can wax lyrical of the nonsense of Trotskyism but that doesn't make me a Stalinist. I do not see Berlinksi being mentioned as having any role in the IDM or CSC, except as a Senior Fellow (whatever that means). They do seem to have a collection of his articles, papers, and reviews. In some of the independent reviews on his works the the argument seems to be that he casts ID and Evolution as being on par in the nonsense category, and that he is not sufficiently tough in his execrating of ID. It is a bit odd for a supporter of a position, to be saying that the position they are supporting is nonsense. RS's are not always reliable in every instance one should actually check for one's self. From what I've read it seems that he doesn't hold with ID and he doesn't hold with Evolution. John lilburne (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Which "mutant individual"? Berlinski, Akyol, Klinghoffer or Wells? When you start looking at a sufficient number of 'mutations' they start to represent normal variation in the species in question. "...what does that mean?" It means that they are the leaders of the organisation that runs the IDM -- the movement that is the SOLE reason for this center's existence Most of them aren't even scientists at all, let alone your WP:OR "'good' scientists". "I'll repeat tell us does being a Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture mean." It means that they are the leaders of the organisation that runs the IDM -- the movement that is the SOLE reason for this center's existence
- (outdent) You have equated Berlinski's criticism of Evolution with ID and thus concluded that his criticism is motivated in the same way as the IDM is. It isn't that black and white, and I'd rather trust Dawkins on the matter: who doesn't appear to think that Berlinski has any serious belief in ID as a viable theory of origins. Next you have taken the fact that he has been paid by IDers for work critical of aspects of Evolutionary claims, to concluded that he must be a leader of the movement. Yet you have no evidence that a person being paid by the CSC confers any sort of leadership role within the CSC on that person, nor that a person paid by them necessarily hold their same views. In fact as you say in (iii) it would indeed pay them to use someone that is not entirely of their persuasion. John lilburne (talk) 12:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- A mutant individual is not a representative of a species, you should know this. You make much play on these people being Fellows or Senior Fellows of the Center for Science and Culture what does that mean? Do they get together monthly to devise strategy for the IDM or something? Seems from looking a the website it refers to people that the Centre regards as 'good' scientists, some of which they have funded, but not all. It doesn't seem to imply that those so listed are in total agreement with the goals of the Center for Science and Culture or indeed that they have ever applied for some sort of membership. I'll repeat tell us does being a Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture mean. John lilburne (talk) 12:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. It involves at least one Muslim (Mustafa Akyol), at least one Orthodox Jew (David Klinghoffer), and at least one Unificationist (Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)). As stated above, "The IDM spends 99+% of its times evolution-bashing -- Berlinski is happy as a clam evolution-bashing." -- "Seems more likely that..." Berlinski knows sweet FA about "the evidential claims of evolution" (argument from ignorance, anybody?). "...and is using the ID movement as a soap box" -- and this stops him being a leader of said movement, how? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Taking your analogy, we have plenty of evidence that Berlinski is "directly" and prominently involved in the IDM. "One might" -- but when one does so without any particular expertise in the subject, and in the constant company of members of the movement -- then third party commentators are hardly to blame [or incorrect] for considering one to be acting as part of that movement, nor is Wikipedia violating WP:BLP by presenting their "uncontested assertion" as a fact (per WP:NPOV). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- No, but then the fact that Hermann Göring claimed not to be antisemitic does not mean that he wasn't a leading member of the Nazi movement. Agreement with a perfect 100% of a movement's agenda is not necessary for being a leader of it -- particularly in this case where the point of contention is a point de-emphasised and equivocated over by the movement as a whole. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Lets get down to the sex - do you have a source for him believing in a supernatural origin? John lilburne (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Further, as Guettarda has pointed out, there's very little distance between Berlinski's 'I don't want to discuss whether there's a designer' and Dembski et al's 'I don't want to discuss who the designer is.' HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- This sentence, from the lede, is problematic, "Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, a think-tank that is hub of the intelligent design movement." I don't know why the "...a think-tank that is hub of the intelligent design movement" is included there. The Discovery Institute, as I understand it, is more than just a promoter of the ID theory. The sentence should probably just say, "Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture." Cla68 (talk) 04:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- No, John lilburne -- Ronald L. Numbers "equated Berlinski's criticism of Evolution with ID".
- "...and thus concluded that his criticism is motivated in the same way as the IDM is." And AGAIN, John lilburne leaves out all the other evidence supporting Berlinski's involvement with the ID.
- "Next you have taken the fact that he has been paid by IDers for work critical of aspects of Evolutionary claims, to concluded that he must be a leader of the movement." No, John lilburne, it was Karl Giberson who said that.
- "Yet you have no evidence that a person being paid by the CSC confers any sort of leadership role within the CSC on that person, nor that a person paid by them necessarily hold their same views." As I am not conducting WP:Original research, I am not meant to be amassing "evidence" of who is, or is not, a leader of the IDM. But even if I were, I doubt if I could find any that would meet your absurd pseudoskepticism. By the John lilburne standards it would appear that the IDM has no leaders, and must decide on its actions by collective telepathy.
- Where does Dawkins state that Berlinski isn't a leader of the IDM?
WP:SECONDARY states that we must use secondary sources for evaluation or interpretation of primary sources. We have such secondary sources stating that Berlinksi's writings contain "a version of ID theory", and that he is a leader of the IDM. These sources appear to be reliable (and nobody has cast doubt upon them), and are uncontradicted. Why should we not use them? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- What are you shouting for?
- He seems in this new essay to have reversed himself on the merits of the current effort to rehabilitate the ancient argument from design, now holiday-wrapped as "intelligent design theory." This change of mind is all the more praiseworthy because Berlinski is closely associated with the conservative Christian think tank that serves as primary promoter of "intelligent design." He is moreover the author of a flattering blurb for the book of another leading member of that organization. This is William Dembski's The Design Inference, whose argument and conclusions Berlinski here finds to be unsound. Paul R. Gross
- What are you shouting for?
- Berlinski supplied rave blurbs to the books by the prominent advocates of ID, William Dembski and Michael Behe. In this new paper, however, unexpectedly Berlinski casts doubts on the plausibility of the ID concepts so vigorously promoted by Dembski and Behe. Mark Perakh
- It's nice to see David Berlinksi aim his rhetorical guns at a target more deserving than modern biology and cosmology ("Has Darwin Met his Match," Commentary, December 2002). The arguments he makes against intelligent-design theory (ID) suffer only from a lack of originality; critics of ID have been making the same points for years. In emphasizing the logical deficiencies and practical limitations of ID, Berlinski has given a good picture of why most scientists find it unpromising. Jason Rosenhouse
- John lilburne (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- I was shouting because somebody kept insisting that the evaluative and interpretative opinions of secondary sources were my own idiosyncratic personal opinions.
- All three quotes appear to be talking about a single essay written in 2002, and describe its contents as being at odds to Berlinski's earlier views. They thus provide a consensus view that, excepting this essay, Berlinski has been firmly on the pro-ID side of the debate.
- As it appears that Berlinksi never reinforced this reversal, but has in fact appears to have reverted to his pro-ID allegiance since then (e.g. appearing in Expelled and publishing Deniable Darwin & Other Essays), it is therefore more reasonable to view this essay as an anomaly, not as evidence that he is not part of the IDM.
- None of these quotes provide any evidence that any of those quoted think that Berlinski isn't part of the IDM. In fact one of the quoted parties, Mark Perakh, lists Berlinski as an "example" of "the main proponents of Intelligent Design", only a year later.[1]
HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- It appears that Berlinksi never was on the side of ID. This is from Berlinksi (p20+) in a linked to in the comment you deleted.
Some readers seem to be persuaded," I wrote in the September 1996 issue, "that in criticizing the Darwinian theory of evolution, I intended to uphold a doctrine of creationism. This is a mistake, supported by nothing that I have written." A few years later (September 2001), responding to critics of "What Brings a World into Being?" (COMMENTARY, April 2001), I was even more forthright: "If I thought that intelligent design, or any artful contrivance like it, explained anything in any depth, I would leap to the cannon's mouth and say so. I do not and I did not." For the record: I do not believe that theories of intelligent design explain those features of living systems that Darwin's theory of evolution fails to explain. And vice-versa. I wrote "The Deniable Darwin" and "Has Darwin Met His Match?" to say why. For the record: I do not believe that theories of intelligent design explain those features of living systems that Darwin's theory of evolution fails to explain
- In that link that you just deleted an explanation is provided as his motivation. But in any case this is not new to you, you already found the comment back in 2008. Turns out that you actually do know that he isn't a leader of the IDM movement.
- As for you RS people say and write things in polemics that are not fully factual. It is your job as an editor when writing a BLP to sort out the taunts and jibes. What you have in your reliable sources is that "X taunted that Berlinski was a leader of the IDM" you cannot as you appear to have done convert that simply into the statement "Berlinski a leader of the IDM ..." to do so is fatuous. But having spent 2 years casting this guy as "Supreme Master of the God Squad", I don't expect any of the above to have any affect on you. After all you have your
cracked crystal ballRSs, in the heat of polemic, to support your POV. John lilburne (talk) 10:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- As for you RS people say and write things in polemics that are not fully factual. It is your job as an editor when writing a BLP to sort out the taunts and jibes. What you have in your reliable sources is that "X taunted that Berlinski was a leader of the IDM" you cannot as you appear to have done convert that simply into the statement "Berlinski a leader of the IDM ..." to do so is fatuous. But having spent 2 years casting this guy as "Supreme Master of the God Squad", I don't expect any of the above to have any affect on you. After all you have your
- "It appears that Berlinksi never was on the side of ID." John lilburne would have us believe that Berlinski just happened to stumble onto the set of the most prominent ID propaganda film, and a whole host of other ID events, by accident.
- Sayeth Berlinkski the self-published and "unduly self-serving" -- "I have never expressed support for theories of intelligent design". Sayeth your own quote: "He is moreover the author of a flattering blurb for ... William Dembski's The Design Inference" -- the book that introduces one of ID's main theoretical underpinings -- specified complexity. He seems to have a funny way of 'never expressing support'.
- "What you have in your reliable sources is that 'X taunted that Berlinski was a leader of the IDM'" WP:Complete bollocks! What we have in fact is the foremost historian of creationism (Ronald L. Numbers, in his magnum opus The Creationists no less, p379 2006 Ed) and a prominent scholar on the "creation-evolution debate" and the relationship between science and religion (Karl W. Giberson). I see no reason to slander these prominent scholars with baseless accusations of 'taunts', 'jibes' and 'polemics', just because our self-published, self-described crank decides to indulge in a little self-serving revisionism.
- I direct you to my summarisation of the "found the comment" -- "I think this is a fairly explicit disavowal of ID-the-God-shaped-hole (as opposed to the list of anti-evolution that are ID's 'guts')." -- note the parenthetical pointing out that this is not a disavowal of ID's substance. "Turns out that you actually do know that..." John lilburne is misrepresenting me again.
- David Berlinski has spent the past several years swanning around ID events, but it is me who is "casting this guy as 'Supreme Master of the God Squad'"? ROFLMAO!
HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Just because some one has written some thing down does not make it so, or are we all be believing that Odysseus killed Cyclops?.
- Why are you crying about misrepresention? The fact is that in 2008 you had proof that he wasn't an advocate of ID. Instead of taking that information and re-evaluating his leadership of the IDM, you chose to re-interpret the Intelligent Design Movement into something that some one could be a leader of who didn't believe in its central tenets (ID-the-God-shaped-hole). Remind me what is the name for a person who when confronted with evidence to the contrary still clings on to faith? John lilburne (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
The Berlinsky article sure has a lot of material on intelligent design, when it is not known that he has any opinion about it. I say that the intelligent design comments should be removed. Roger (talk) 05:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- WP:DUE -- the sources "sure ha[ve] a lot of material on intelligent design" when they talk about Berlinski -- in fact they talk about very little else. So what should Wikipedia say about Berlinski? What his favourite flowers are? Lacking the attention due to ID, it is rather unlikely that Berlinski would pass WP:BIO. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Due weight? Is that your best explanation that for an article that portrays Berlinski as having views opposite to what his real views are? I see that someone has posted documentation on the Berlinski Talk page that the article is inaccurate, and you removed it from the Talk page? See [2]. There is no excuse for such a removal. That was a positive contribution to the discussion. Apparently there are some evolutionists who suspect him of having creationist sympathies, but his published opinions and interviews show clearly that he is not a creationist. Roger (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)::
- Roger, you've been here enough to know that instead of "no excuse" the rules actually state that all posts by a banned user should generally be removed - and can be removed by anyone. See here, where is stated "their edits may be reverted without any further reason. This does not mean that obviously helpful edits...must be reverted... but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- It seems to me, looking at the article, that Berlinski is known for arguing with Atheists and Evolutionist and that he manages to get both groups riled up. So it is not surprising that there is a lot written against him by evolutionists and atheists. I doubt he cares much especially as he makes a living from the controversy circuit. None of that doesn't make him a leader of the ID movement and any one reading the sources can see that he is not; quoting people saying that he is just makes the people quoted look silly. It should be possible to make it clear that argues against aspects of evolutionary theory and ID, and that evolutionists have answered his criticisms, without dragging the supernatural into it. Perhaps he argue more with evolutionists than IDers because they make for a more stimulating debate and therefore ca better show. John lilburne (talk) 01:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Due weight? Is that your best explanation that for an article that portrays Berlinski as having views opposite to what his real views are? I see that someone has posted documentation on the Berlinski Talk page that the article is inaccurate, and you removed it from the Talk page? See [2]. There is no excuse for such a removal. That was a positive contribution to the discussion. Apparently there are some evolutionists who suspect him of having creationist sympathies, but his published opinions and interviews show clearly that he is not a creationist. Roger (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)::
Comment: I don't really understand how this issue has gone round in circles quite so much. It seems fairly obvious from skimming the article and discussion that Berlinski has worked with ID people and made many of the same arguments against evolution, but because of his personal beliefs doesn't (publicly... we can't get inside his head) support the ID conclusion that if current evolutionary theory is flawed, there must be an intelligent designer. And on one seemingly isolated occasion, Berlinski also made some criticisms of ID. End of? Rd232 talk 02:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- The issue goes round because the editors of IDCab have systematically concocted haphazard theories of mind regarding more than a dozen academics who have commented on the issues raised by the political debate between the science educators and the school boards. Berlinski's criticism of Darwin's model is merely a technical one. He's a mathematician, and he's appalled that there isn't more mathematics in the theory. The problem is that the mathematics is arcane, involving stochastic processes and metrics that cannot reasonably be taught without a graduate level introduction to mathematical modeling. Berlinski is like a math teacher who complains when a student constructs a sloppy proof of a theorem. The question isn't whether the theorem is true; the question is whether the proof is correct. Berlinski complains that the textbooks for evolution rely on evidence that isn't probative of the thesis to be proven. He insists that science be taught with more rigor. Otherwise you have people claiming to prove all sorts of nonsense with sloppy methodology. You see that same sloppy methodology in the way IDCab goes about concocting their haphazard flights of fancy about what this or that academic believes. Publishing haphazard theories of mind about BLP subjects whom one has never met is simply not a viable practice for an authoritative encyclopedia. Wikipedia does itself a disservice by permitting the allied editors of IDCab to continue to concoct meritless claims about the beliefs of controversial figures like David Berlinski. —Caprice 06:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- If the content issues apply to a number of similar pages, you (or someone who agrees) could try an WP:RFC (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/some NPOV title). For the claims of cabalism - random outing and other harassment of editors is not a solution; only something like an Arbcom case will achieve anything (compare the EEML case). At any rate, the content issues must be kept separate from the alleged behavioural mis-steps of both sides, or it will just go on and on. Rd232 talk 10:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- We could try that route again. The last time around (about three years ago), ArbCom was too timid to touch the case. They bounced it back to the community, which was hopelessly divided. The problems fester, having never been resolved. The main method of defense by the allied editors of IDCab is to find some obscure misstep by the opposition and then use that as an excuse to block, ban, and balete them. You will be amused to discover the cause of action which User:KillerChihuahua posted as her specious reason for blocking me. Her official reason was her ridiculous theory of mind that I had "no interest in writing an encyclopedia." She bypassed community review and acted on her on, with support from her allied editor, User:FeloniousMonk. How do the allied editors of IDCab have the power to unilaterally impose an unjust ban, bypassing community review? —Moulton 18:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- The current version has removed a lot of the problems the article had a week or so ago and appears more balanced. Though it would be useful to add his disavowal of ID
For the record: I do not believe that theories of intelligent design explain those features of living systems that Darwin's theory of evolution fails to explain. And vice-versa. I wrote "The Deniable Darwin" and "Has Darwin Met His Match?" to say why. For the record: I do not believe that theories of intelligent design explain those features of living systems that Darwin's theory of evolution fails to explain
- The only significant issue I have with the lede is an IDM think-tank probably doesn't. John lilburne (talk) 11:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Note that the IP signing with his Wikiversity address 'Caprice' is banned user Moulton. Dougweller (talk) 11:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with the points made by Caprice/Moulton. We should not be attributing ID views to Berlinski just because of who he sometimes associates with. Imagine the reverse. An article about a Christian evolutionist would not talk about how he associates with atheists and makes arguments for evolution that are also made by atheists, thereby insinuating that he is some sort of closet atheist. As Rd232 and Caprice said in different ways, we cannot get inside Berlinski's head. I see no good reason for the Belinski article to even mention ID. There are plenty of other articles that argue that ID is some sort of neo-creationist conspiracy. Roger (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Vaughn Walker
Vaughn Walker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There appears to be a serious misunderstanding regarding the WP:WELLKNOWN policy. I would like to receive comment from other editors who have worked with these issues in the past. The understanding of some editors seems to be that the only way something can be included in a BLP article, is if it is explicitly acknowledged by that person. Thus, in the article about Vaughn Walker any attempt to include any reference to the column ran by the San Francisco Chronicle have been deleted. Coincidentally, I am having difficulty with getting people to engage on the talk page. It seems to be that the individuals invoke a policy that "we don't repeat rumors" and then delete the material without responding to substantive points. If this is indeed the policy, then the WP:WELLKNOWN policy page needs to be corrected, as the example in the policy is incorrect. As I read the policy, reprinting of allegations, provided that they are sourced by reliable third party mainstream sources is not only allowed, but encouraged. I would like to get clarification of the policy here in an attempt to solve this issue. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- I tried to use the example of Charlie Crist as a guide, the situation in which is exactly analogous in my mind. I find it a bit puzzling that the allegations are explicitly permitted in the Charlie Crist article, despite the fact that he has denied them, but they are unceremoniously deleted from the Vaughn Walker article, when he has not denied them. In fact, the sources that I published show that he doesn't attempt to hide his orientation at all. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'd also point to the Anderson Cooper article as another example. Also David Dreier, Larry Craig, Ed Schrock, Jim McCrery, Ed Koch, (anyone seeing a pattern here), do I need to find more examples? I am sure I can find others if I look. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see the mention of homosexuality as a problem as long as it is sourced well and impartial in tone. The mention of his homosexuality is a crucial part of the critical response to actions Walker has taken as judge, in fulfilling his duties. Talking about Walker's handling of California Prop 8 without discussing the pro and con reviews—both sides saying the judge is gay—is a failure to talk about one of the foundational political issues. Binksternet (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- The thing is that it is NOT well sourced. It is one newspaper article that has framed the claim as "an open secret" - and not one that anyone is willing to stand behind, and then that "open secret" is the source for the other coverage. Wikipedia is not an echo chamber to repeat unsourced rumors. PARTICULARLY because there are numerous attempts to assassinate Walkers character as an impartial judge by the implication that his "open secret" has affected his impartiality. We need FAR better sourcing for the claims than have been provided.Active Banana (bananaphone 22:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- There we have it folks, as I suspected all along. The reason that some are so opposed to including this very real part of the story, is a fear that it might somehow "undermine the impartiality" of Walker. Hence there is seen a need to "protect" Walker here on Wikipedia in a manner not given to Charlie Crist, David Dreier, Larry Craig, Ed Schrock, Jim McCrery, or Ed Koch. Indeed, the Sources that we have for Walker's orientation are far better than ANY of the sources in the other examples I have given. The fact is, including this information does nothing to undermine Walker's impartiality, indeed the very source that I used said that he had a record of impartiality, and the proposed edit that I offered included a quote from a Law Professor that said his orientation doesn't matter. However, his orientation is a very real part of the story, in that it was part of the reason that some groups cited in their efforts to impeach him, rightly or wrongly. As I said before, Information is power, and we don't whitewash things on Wikipedia. Moreover, Walker is NOT denying or trying to hide his sexuality. The SF Weekly article and other newspaper sources quoted a federal judge who said that Walker doesn't try to hide his orientation at all, and that it doesn't affect his handling of cases. What I suspect we have here, is people trying to apply a different standard to Walker, because of the nature of the Prop 8 case. That is just unacceptable, especially when we have so many other examples on Wikipedia of the policy being applied in the way that it reads. We can't create one standard for Walker out of political expediency and have another standard for all the other examples that I listed. I have yet to have anyone actually give me a reason why unnamed sources from the film Outrage are so much better than a mainstream newspaper with stringent standards for editorial review. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Other articles are worse is not a suitable excuse for violating WP:BLP on yet another article. Active Banana (bananaphone 03:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Except the other articles are not worse. Each of those decisions were reached in accordance with the WP:WELLKNOWN policy which is just glossed over. The fact remains that your rendition of the BLP policy isn't the actual BLP policy. Above, you alluded to your real concern, that being "the impartiality" of Judge Walker. Might I ask, doesn't your position actually confirm that this is a real issue? You acknowledge that some are using the allegations to "undermine Walker's impartiality", which you characterize as "character assassination", given that the allegations and uproar surrounding that were a very real part of the coverage after the Prop 8 decision, what is served by trying to hide them from the public? Should your concerns about "impartiality" play any part in the process at all? Can you point out how your rendition of the BLP Policy fits with the WP:WELLKNOWN policy? The fact remains, that if your policy is the real policy, then many articles on Wikipedia need to be fixed, immediately, and the policy as written needs to be corrected. If my reading of the policy is correct, then some acknowledgment, in a neutral form, needs to go in the article. (I would also point out that you are invoking policies that are completely inapplicable to your case. For instance, the policy you quote here, is in relation to the DELETION policy, and it has NOTHING to do with comparison of other editorial decisions as a guide for the application of the BLP policy.) Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 03:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- The awful addition to Christ by user Binksternet was after user Birkenset had gone on and an and on for months after adding the gay claim - every time I see it it makes me squirm and its all I can do do stop myself removing it every time. I will remove it completely as soon as I can get away with it. Wiki is not a gay activist of gay outing website for rumors that accuse people they don't like of being gay, with reports and films written by gay activists. BLP well known is not a excuse to promote rumors of someones sexuality in benefit of an activist position. Off2riorob (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- The "awful addition" is your version, not mine. I wanted more detail to separate Crist's 2006 local newspaper outing from the 2009 film which says he is gay. Your wish to "get away with it" has already been expressed here where you crept into the article and took out the section against consensus, without making any talk page announcement of you controversial action. This kind of page ownership, non-neutrality and lack of collegiality you demonstrated at Crist and elsewhere is why your attempt to join ArbCom was so poorly received. Expressing your wish to change the Crist article as soon as you "can get away with it" is an expression of tendentious editing, of an edit warring mindset. Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- It was you that wanted to add that gay activist rubbish , that addition has nothing to do with me at all - I object to it then and now - you went at it for months - relentlessly - to add a worthless speculation that a subject of our article was gay - because john and harry said he was, the gay activists like to do that - they say about anyone that stops them propagating their POV - oh they are gay, yada yada yada - and all the gays talk about it and its well known in the gay village POV. Off2riorob (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- What bitter vituperation, connected in no way to reality! Kirby Dick is as straight as they come, a manly man who makes strong political films. Dick accused Crist of hypocrisy in his politics, and demonstrated a connection between politicians hiding their homosexuality, and voting more consistently against laws seen as liberating to gays. Dick reminds me of me but more accomplished; I'm a lifelong hetero male, grandfather to four, happily enjoying my second hetero marriage, now entering its tenth year. I heard about Dick's film on NPR while driving, then I sought out and watched Dick's film, then I looked up the information on my own, online. I, too, do not like hypocrisy in politicians, but of course that description applies to pols of every stripe. You seem to think only fey men who gossip are interested in the topic; if so, you are demonstrably wrong. The topic is hypocrisy—remember that. Unafraid straight men are just as interested in addressing the issue, hence the relentlessness you observed in me. I think I went about it in the most neutral fashion, pushing back against those who would chop the balls off of WP:WELLKNOWN as if it did not exist as a vital guideline, making a space in the article for neutral adherence to our fine NPOV rules. Binksternet (talk) 05:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- It was you that wanted to add that gay activist rubbish , that addition has nothing to do with me at all - I object to it then and now - you went at it for months - relentlessly - to add a worthless speculation that a subject of our article was gay - because john and harry said he was, the gay activists like to do that - they say about anyone that stops them propagating their POV - oh they are gay, yada yada yada - and all the gays talk about it and its well known in the gay village POV. Off2riorob (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- The "awful addition" is your version, not mine. I wanted more detail to separate Crist's 2006 local newspaper outing from the 2009 film which says he is gay. Your wish to "get away with it" has already been expressed here where you crept into the article and took out the section against consensus, without making any talk page announcement of you controversial action. This kind of page ownership, non-neutrality and lack of collegiality you demonstrated at Crist and elsewhere is why your attempt to join ArbCom was so poorly received. Expressing your wish to change the Crist article as soon as you "can get away with it" is an expression of tendentious editing, of an edit warring mindset. Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- The awful addition to Christ by user Binksternet was after user Birkenset had gone on and an and on for months after adding the gay claim - every time I see it it makes me squirm and its all I can do do stop myself removing it every time. I will remove it completely as soon as I can get away with it. Wiki is not a gay activist of gay outing website for rumors that accuse people they don't like of being gay, with reports and films written by gay activists. BLP well known is not a excuse to promote rumors of someones sexuality in benefit of an activist position. Off2riorob (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Except the other articles are not worse. Each of those decisions were reached in accordance with the WP:WELLKNOWN policy which is just glossed over. The fact remains that your rendition of the BLP policy isn't the actual BLP policy. Above, you alluded to your real concern, that being "the impartiality" of Judge Walker. Might I ask, doesn't your position actually confirm that this is a real issue? You acknowledge that some are using the allegations to "undermine Walker's impartiality", which you characterize as "character assassination", given that the allegations and uproar surrounding that were a very real part of the coverage after the Prop 8 decision, what is served by trying to hide them from the public? Should your concerns about "impartiality" play any part in the process at all? Can you point out how your rendition of the BLP Policy fits with the WP:WELLKNOWN policy? The fact remains, that if your policy is the real policy, then many articles on Wikipedia need to be fixed, immediately, and the policy as written needs to be corrected. If my reading of the policy is correct, then some acknowledgment, in a neutral form, needs to go in the article. (I would also point out that you are invoking policies that are completely inapplicable to your case. For instance, the policy you quote here, is in relation to the DELETION policy, and it has NOTHING to do with comparison of other editorial decisions as a guide for the application of the BLP policy.) Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 03:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Other articles are worse is not a suitable excuse for violating WP:BLP on yet another article. Active Banana (bananaphone 03:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- There we have it folks, as I suspected all along. The reason that some are so opposed to including this very real part of the story, is a fear that it might somehow "undermine the impartiality" of Walker. Hence there is seen a need to "protect" Walker here on Wikipedia in a manner not given to Charlie Crist, David Dreier, Larry Craig, Ed Schrock, Jim McCrery, or Ed Koch. Indeed, the Sources that we have for Walker's orientation are far better than ANY of the sources in the other examples I have given. The fact is, including this information does nothing to undermine Walker's impartiality, indeed the very source that I used said that he had a record of impartiality, and the proposed edit that I offered included a quote from a Law Professor that said his orientation doesn't matter. However, his orientation is a very real part of the story, in that it was part of the reason that some groups cited in their efforts to impeach him, rightly or wrongly. As I said before, Information is power, and we don't whitewash things on Wikipedia. Moreover, Walker is NOT denying or trying to hide his sexuality. The SF Weekly article and other newspaper sources quoted a federal judge who said that Walker doesn't try to hide his orientation at all, and that it doesn't affect his handling of cases. What I suspect we have here, is people trying to apply a different standard to Walker, because of the nature of the Prop 8 case. That is just unacceptable, especially when we have so many other examples on Wikipedia of the policy being applied in the way that it reads. We can't create one standard for Walker out of political expediency and have another standard for all the other examples that I listed. I have yet to have anyone actually give me a reason why unnamed sources from the film Outrage are so much better than a mainstream newspaper with stringent standards for editorial review. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- The thing is that it is NOT well sourced. It is one newspaper article that has framed the claim as "an open secret" - and not one that anyone is willing to stand behind, and then that "open secret" is the source for the other coverage. Wikipedia is not an echo chamber to repeat unsourced rumors. PARTICULARLY because there are numerous attempts to assassinate Walkers character as an impartial judge by the implication that his "open secret" has affected his impartiality. We need FAR better sourcing for the claims than have been provided.Active Banana (bananaphone 22:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see the mention of homosexuality as a problem as long as it is sourced well and impartial in tone. The mention of his homosexuality is a crucial part of the critical response to actions Walker has taken as judge, in fulfilling his duties. Talking about Walker's handling of California Prop 8 without discussing the pro and con reviews—both sides saying the judge is gay—is a failure to talk about one of the foundational political issues. Binksternet (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Ghostmonkey as to the use of this article from the San Francisco Chronicle in the Vaughn R. Walker article. While we should treat this issue carefully and avoid implying that Walker is biased (whether or not individual editors think he is biased), it is not an "unsourced rumor" that Walker is gay. The San Francisco Chronicle, the most prominent newspaper in the city where Walker works, and one of the top 25 newspapers by circulation in the United States, is the source. If we don't accept the San Francisco Chronicle as a reliable source, then I don't know what we can accept as a reliable source. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Agree as well. The allegation seems also to have had repercussions in the notable debate, and as such it is more than random gossip. WP:WELLKNOWN covers explicitly well-sourced allegations. --Cyclopiatalk 17:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- WP:WELLKNOWN covers the matter neatly. News reports about Walker should be introduced in an impartial manner, describing how some California Prop 8 advocates declared Walker's treatment of it to be biased because of his homosexuality, and also how other news reports declared Walker to be unbiased despite his homosexuality. The homosexuality is assumed by both sides in the conflict, and Walker has neither confirmed or denied his orientation. In bringing this material to the article, make certain that WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is followed to the letter. Binksternet (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- WP:WELLKNOWN is key here. I agree with the above editors that the matter should be referenced in a very careful and deferential way, focusing on the news story rather than any attempt to paint him as biased. The fact is, this is a major part of the story that Wikipedia has removed, to the detriment of informational exchange. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Agree with Ghostmonkey et al. that the material is well known, reliably sourced and deserves inclusion. Arguments against are only that we are somehow harming the very public figure who has refused to comment...but "The WP:NICENESS standard does not exist."Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- oh its well known that he is gay is a clear BLP violation. here is the sfgate and newyorkdaily titillating BLP violation. Its not well cited and it isn't either well known. Have a look at the desired addition and the low standard of the reporting. Off2riorob (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)* -
WP:BLP - WP:WELLKNOWN is being cited as a support for this desired addition - so the question is - is that is the speculation and this persons claim - NPOV well known requests that the - incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented - is this not notable bloggers opinion that the sexual preferences of the living subject of our article is "an open secret" complies with that?
WP:NPOV - WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV - was also quoted as a reason to support inclusions of this comment, imo is the person who has the opinion isn't himself wikipedia notable and the opinion is contentious then we shouldn't be adding it at all, especially when it is linked to and supported by such low quality reports. Off2riorob (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
comments
Using primary source blogs as your evidence that there is real world impact? o fergawdsake. Active Banana (bananaphone 01:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's not a "Blog" it's a reprint of a story that appeared in the San Francisco Weekly, again a mainstream, reliable, third-party source. The evidence of the real world impact were the calls for the impeachment and the THOUSANDS of news stories that were generated by mainstream papers around the nation. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
As a bit of background, for anybody who is following this debate from elsewhere, in much of the US today an assertion that someone is gay is more like an allegation of being a Republican than an allegation of say, drug addiction. I think this factors in because under WP:BLP we rightly get more excited about protecting people against really disturbing assertions than against everyday ones (there have been cases on this board since I've been here regarding incest and even baby rape). While it is still highly relevant to discuss whether sources are reliable, it is no big deal (as many of the sources say) whether the Judge is gay or not. It is however notable and worth adding to the article because its been widely commented on in connection to the case.Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Let me extend that to the following analogy. A judge who ruled on a campaign finance issue and whose party affiliation is unknown, is "revealed" to be Republican. The information in itself is no big deal, but Democrats start clamoring that he was biased in making the ruling. It seems to me that this very public dispute is notable and belongs in the article, and is not outweighed by any need to protect the judge against the assertion of party affiliation.Jonathanwallace (talk) 00:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- You bring up a good point. As written now, the article takes pains to emphasize that Walker is a Republican, appointed by a Republican, and labels him as an "independent minded conservative." Yet when one wants to add another part to the story, this is opposed quite vigorously. I see a problem with this. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- It is true that there is almost nobody likely to be working at Wikipedia who would regard such a statement as defamatory. It is by now also true that the majority of the general public in English-speaking countries think so as well. Nonetheless a an unfortunately sizable minority does think so, and this probably in some culture areas includes the majority of people. The English Wikipedia is the major world source of information, and our articles are commonly used as the basis for articles in other Wikipedias, especially for subjects connected with the English-speaking world. It is therefore essential not only that we be accurate on matters such as this, but that we do not assign this information to a person unless the person publicly self-identifies as reported by reliable sources, or unless it is commonly reported in extremely reliable sources--enough so to make it clear that this designation is a matter of general public knowledge and of general public interest. The principle is DO NO HARM, and this would apply to many other designations also which are in our general view perfectly honourable. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Again, this is NOT the WP:WELLKNOWN policy. Either the policy is mistaken, and needs to be changed, and thus many articles on Wikipedia need to be changed, or this information needs to go in the article. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 13:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- This content is not supported by WP:WELLKNOWN. You have to weigh all policies and guidelines together and as BLP suggests to ERR on the side of caution with such contentious content - this addition has no place in a wikipedia BLP , not as presented and supported by the provided support. Off2riorob (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- That's just not correct, as demonstrated by the application of the policy throughout Wikipedia, and by a clear and plain reading of the WP:WELLKNOWN policy itself. If the policy is mistaken, change it, and change the other articles I mentioned. Otherwise, this needs to go in the article. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- No - we don't do that - here at the BLPN we deal with the single issue report -we don't care about your claims that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - take those issues to the policy talkpage or the actual articles you feel the issues are causing problems. Or report them separately here in a fresh thread.Off2riorob (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Like another poster above, you are invoking a policy that is inapplicable. Just as it was inappropriate when he did it, it is inappropriate here. The fact is, this issue impacts the BLP policy across the board at wikipedia. The fact remains that the policy as written allows the inclusion of the material. It's also a fact that consensus is against your position here. The WP:WELLKNOWN policy is explicit. It has been applied in a very specific manner across the board. That application is evidence of how the policy works. If the policy is not changed, then the information must be applied consistently. We don't have one standard of the policy for some people and other standards for others, commiserate with the political expediency involved in each article. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 03:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- I realize you are really wanting to include this as you have been trying for a year, but don't accept that wp:wellknown supports the inclusion of this content at all especially through the poor quality of the reports and even if wp:wellknown did apply as I said you can not take a single piece of policy and insist that content must be inserted because of it - you have to take policy and guidelines as a whole and as a user says, wp:donoharm resists this content as does BLP, articles about living people "must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." I also don't see the consensus you claim is there is here to include your desired addition. Off2riorob (talk) 12:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- this particular case is unusual, because whether or not he is gay is possibly relevant to his notability, the relationship of it to his career is a matter of public controversy, and the controversy has been reported in multiple reliable sources. Given the reporting, DO NO HARM seems irrelevant. In this case I'd support the inclusion. (My statement above was intended to be general; in general I would oppose the inclusion for people with notability at his level unless there is some strong reason otherwise—in this instance, there is.) No one case at Wikipedia impacts the across the general policy--we always need to use judgment about the relationship of various guidelines, and the need for individual exemptions. We do try to be consistent, but we do not follow precedent in except very roughly. I wouldn't be concerned about including it here becoming a general rule. DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- I am clearly totally opposite to you DGG, I find that position completely unsupportable - you suggest the weakly cited rumor that he is gay is part of his notability cited to these reports low quality reports, imo its nothing to do with his notability at all, he is totally notable without any opinionated rumors about his sexual preferences. Off2riorob (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- You keep calling it "weakly cited", when we have a very well down article by one of the largest and most reliable mainstream newspapers in the country, after the story had been put through editorial review. AFTER the story was cited, further sources came forward, who stated that Walker doesn't even try to hide his sexuality. It isn't just a rumor. Further, Walker has never denied it. This is as well sourced as many other pieces of information here on the page. It's not like Walker is desperately trying to keep this under wraps. It seems that some here think that unless Walker proclaims it with a bullhorn, that it shouldn't be included. However, that simply isn't the standard. Moreover, in this particular case, the controversy surrounding his orientation set off a firestorm, and become one of the most notable thing about the entire affair. That alone supports mention in the story. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- I am clearly totally opposite to you DGG, I find that position completely unsupportable - you suggest the weakly cited rumor that he is gay is part of his notability cited to these reports low quality reports, imo its nothing to do with his notability at all, he is totally notable without any opinionated rumors about his sexual preferences. Off2riorob (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- this particular case is unusual, because whether or not he is gay is possibly relevant to his notability, the relationship of it to his career is a matter of public controversy, and the controversy has been reported in multiple reliable sources. Given the reporting, DO NO HARM seems irrelevant. In this case I'd support the inclusion. (My statement above was intended to be general; in general I would oppose the inclusion for people with notability at his level unless there is some strong reason otherwise—in this instance, there is.) No one case at Wikipedia impacts the across the general policy--we always need to use judgment about the relationship of various guidelines, and the need for individual exemptions. We do try to be consistent, but we do not follow precedent in except very roughly. I wouldn't be concerned about including it here becoming a general rule. DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- I realize you are really wanting to include this as you have been trying for a year, but don't accept that wp:wellknown supports the inclusion of this content at all especially through the poor quality of the reports and even if wp:wellknown did apply as I said you can not take a single piece of policy and insist that content must be inserted because of it - you have to take policy and guidelines as a whole and as a user says, wp:donoharm resists this content as does BLP, articles about living people "must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." I also don't see the consensus you claim is there is here to include your desired addition. Off2riorob (talk) 12:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Like another poster above, you are invoking a policy that is inapplicable. Just as it was inappropriate when he did it, it is inappropriate here. The fact is, this issue impacts the BLP policy across the board at wikipedia. The fact remains that the policy as written allows the inclusion of the material. It's also a fact that consensus is against your position here. The WP:WELLKNOWN policy is explicit. It has been applied in a very specific manner across the board. That application is evidence of how the policy works. If the policy is not changed, then the information must be applied consistently. We don't have one standard of the policy for some people and other standards for others, commiserate with the political expediency involved in each article. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 03:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- No - we don't do that - here at the BLPN we deal with the single issue report -we don't care about your claims that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - take those issues to the policy talkpage or the actual articles you feel the issues are causing problems. Or report them separately here in a fresh thread.Off2riorob (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- That's just not correct, as demonstrated by the application of the policy throughout Wikipedia, and by a clear and plain reading of the WP:WELLKNOWN policy itself. If the policy is mistaken, change it, and change the other articles I mentioned. Otherwise, this needs to go in the article. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- This content is not supported by WP:WELLKNOWN. You have to weigh all policies and guidelines together and as BLP suggests to ERR on the side of caution with such contentious content - this addition has no place in a wikipedia BLP , not as presented and supported by the provided support. Off2riorob (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Again, this is NOT the WP:WELLKNOWN policy. Either the policy is mistaken, and needs to be changed, and thus many articles on Wikipedia need to be changed, or this information needs to go in the article. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 13:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- It is true that there is almost nobody likely to be working at Wikipedia who would regard such a statement as defamatory. It is by now also true that the majority of the general public in English-speaking countries think so as well. Nonetheless a an unfortunately sizable minority does think so, and this probably in some culture areas includes the majority of people. The English Wikipedia is the major world source of information, and our articles are commonly used as the basis for articles in other Wikipedias, especially for subjects connected with the English-speaking world. It is therefore essential not only that we be accurate on matters such as this, but that we do not assign this information to a person unless the person publicly self-identifies as reported by reliable sources, or unless it is commonly reported in extremely reliable sources--enough so to make it clear that this designation is a matter of general public knowledge and of general public interest. The principle is DO NO HARM, and this would apply to many other designations also which are in our general view perfectly honourable. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- You bring up a good point. As written now, the article takes pains to emphasize that Walker is a Republican, appointed by a Republican, and labels him as an "independent minded conservative." Yet when one wants to add another part to the story, this is opposed quite vigorously. I see a problem with this. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree--good analysis. All too often we seem to be trying to protect living people against reliably sourced information which has been reported everywhere. "The WP:NICENESS standard does not exist."Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thats right, your redlink niceness link doesn't have any content so please either write it or stop adding it because its basically meaningless - no one is trying to be nice here - that is not what BLP requires. Off2riorob (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- - so lets see the consensus to add this content support by these citations as presented above - personally for weakly claimed rumors of someone sexuality I would like to see a clear consensus support for inclusion, but others might disagree -
- By my count it is 6-2 in favor of inclusion. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Presently, I think another 48hours to allow additional input wouldn't be undue. Off2riorob (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- By my count it is 6-2 in favor of inclusion. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- After seeing the addition again to Walker's article, I'm uncomfortable with it. I'm not sure where my discomfort comes from: the fact that consensus is deciding this when it should not, that sexual history and behavior in BLPs is so ill-defined that it takes this kind of discussion to try to sort it out in one article when there are dozens or more that should be clarified, or just the simplicity of gossip and rumormongering posing as fact. I'm willing to start an RfC on the numerous issues of sexual history and behavior on the BLP talk page, as I have stated on Walker's talk page, but for this...ill-defined and questionable process, if we're counting votes...which is not optimal...count mine as oppose. --Moni3 (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
the desired addition
- - In February 2010, Walker was the subject of a column in the San Francisco Chronicle, which claimed that it was an "open secret" that Walker is "gay".
- - Conservative groups seized on the allegations as evidence of bias and called for Walker's impeachment.
consensus
- - support
- - User:Ghostmonkey57 - as the user attempting to add it clearly supports it.
- - User:Jonathanwallace - supports it' - claiming - It is notable and worth adding to the article because its been widely commented on in connection to the case.
- - User:DGG - "this particular case is unusual, because whether or not he is gay is possibly relevant to his notability, the relationship of it to his career is a matter of public controversy, and the controversy has been reported in multiple reliable sources. Given the reporting, DO NO HARM seems irrelevant. In this case I'd support the inclusion"
- - User:Cyclopia - supports its inclusion as presented - saying , "its more than gossip."
- - User:Binksternet - supports a neutral-toned inclusion of Walker's reported homosexuality, keeping to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.
- - User:Metropolitan90 - also appears to support the addition of the presented content.
- - User:Dezidor - Support the addition of information, the wording can be different and more explaining in details than "the desired addition" and should include names of that conservative groups and their reasoning.
- - oppose
- - User:Active Banana - opposes the addition and was the last person to remove it.
- - User:Off2riorob - opposes the addition - imo as I have said, it is weakly cited sexual speculation.
- - User:Bbb23 - opposes the addition for same reason as Rob. His sexual orientation is irrelevant to his notability, any more than a black judge's race would be relevant just because he ruled on a discrimination case. For that matter, a straight judge's sexual orientation is irrelevant if he rules on a sexual orientation case. The media reports are gossipy and don't warrant inclusion.
- - User:Moni3 - opposes any mention of homosexuality
Further comments
Just to be clear, I do believe that the fact that the Chronicle reported that Walker is gay can be mentioned, although I am not necessarily endorsing any particular wording of how this issue should be raised such as the "desired addition" that appears above. In particular, it should be noted that the Chronicle reported this in a regular article, not a column, and that only certain conservative groups called for Walker's impeachment, not conservative groups in general. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- These are good points. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 07:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- @Bbb23: any more than a black judge's race would be relevant just because he ruled on a discrimination case. It looks that race matters in many Wikipedia articles. See all-white jury. Some people believe that all-white juries favoring whites and some people believe that gay judges do not favoring Proposition 8 because of their homosexuality. It is not our mission to judge whether they are right or wrong but inform about relevant facts and points of view. --Dezidor (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- So who are these groups? I am not getting much in reliable source searching, apart from this guy Tim Wildmon, the American Family Association's president - who has put in a statement -- "Judge Walker is a practicing homosexual himself." - here - in fact this whole story seems to go back to this single group and its campaign. As for the claim of a possible impeachment there appears to be no chance at all of that. Also in reply to Ghostofnemo, when I say, "weakly cited" - I meant that if you google this, the only reliable reports are the ones here, it seems to me that many reliable sources in the US have chosen not to report this open secret, and that the national and international reporting of this gay claim or impeachment claim is zero. I would also suggest if an addition is made the claim that it is an open secret - the claims needs clear attribution to whoever claims that. Off2riorob (talk) 12:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- The AFA, FRC, FOF, and several other conservative organizations called for the impeachment of Walker. Edward Whelan wrote several columns on Walker and his handling of the Prop 8 affair, further hundreds of mainstream newspapers including the San Jose Mercury News, Washington Times, Washington Post, New York Times, and others reported on the story. I don't know how you are conducting your google searches, but you seem to be missing a whole lot about this story. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 12:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, perhaps you are more local - could you please provide those links to support that, and the other links that claim the subject is a well known openly homosexual man. Is the FRC THE Family Research Council, they appear to have been labeled a hate group against homosexuality by that Southern Poverty group? thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- note - As its almost the anniversary of Ghostmonkey57's first addition of this claim of the living persons sexual preference - I should give him or her a barnstar, how focused is that to stay as single purpose account for a whole year to get your desired addition into a BLP. - here is the users first addition of the edit from one year ago, - On February 17, 2010, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that he is gay.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/07/BACF1BT7ON.DTL|title=Judge being gay a nonissue during Prop. 8 trial|last=Matier & Ross, San Francisco Chronicle |date=Sunday, February 7, 2010|accessdate=2010-02-08}}</ref>
- - honestly - this detail is stale - its a year old - there are no updates in a year - no additional titillations - no impeachment - nothing at all. Off2riorob (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- - That's it. You've tried everything in the book to keep this off the page, but the consensus is clearly against your position. You've now resorting to calling me a SP account, when I've actually been editing since 2005, over a variety of articles. It is true that lurk more than I edit now, simply because of the tiresome process that one must go through, to include even a single line of information, if another poster thinks that it will somehow harm their political cause. As for your contentions about "staleness" they are utterly without merit. The SF Chronicle first reported the story in February of 2010 (although sources in the gay community were reporting things about Walker long before that.) Since then, several hundred stories were posted by a variety of mainstream newspapers in the United States about Walker and Prop 8, especially around the First week of August 2010, when Walker made his decision in the Prop 8 case. Most of the articles referenced the controversy over Walker's orientation, even if in passing. The last batch of big news about walker occurred in September, when he announced his retirement, and even there, his orientation was mentioned: http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/09/vaughn_walker_prop_8_judge_ann.php. As for your contentions about impeachment, NO ONE said that impeachment was likely. Impeachment is extremely difficult to accomplish, hence the reason that only a handful of officials have ever been removed via this method. However, the fact that groups were pushing for impeachment is notable. You seem to think that you can invent a new policy on wikipedia, that requires continuing coverage from mainstream newspapers on the orientation of a federal judge who is retiring, and then only if that judge had proclaimed his orientation with a bullhorn, in order for a small part of this story to be put into the article. That simply isn't the policy here. It boils down to this... as written, the [WP:WELLKNOWN]] policy supports this inclusion. The policy has been applied in that manner across many pages here on wikipedia. The consensus here is that the policy supports inclusion. That's it. It's over. It is time to move on. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Notability is often an in the moment thing and gets included at the time and later has to be removed as it has no long term value - such as this content - actually it seems like soapboxing to me with no long term value at all - remember the claims are from involved people attempting to slur this living person - opinionated groups the are anti gay attempting to spread rumors about his sexuality in a soapboxing attempt to get him impeached - there was no impeachment and nothing actually happened, it was all a year ago and there is no continuation of the story and imo - its stale and if it ever was worthy of inclusion in a wiki BLP that moment is long gone - this rumor of a mans sexual preference just has no long term notability. Off2riorob (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- You are just wrong here. The Chronicle reported the story in Feb. 2010. The news was again repeated in Aug. 2010. Then again in Sep. 2010. Federal judges simply don't get a lot of press time, unless they are involved in a very notable event, like the Prop 8 trial. Walker will forever be defined by the Prop 8 affair, more than anything else he has ever done in his career. That's just a historic fact. His sexuality was a part of that same affair. That's just history. The policy isn't to require continuing front page stories in order for something to be included. This isn't just a rumor. The judge hasn't denied, and sources, yes MAINSTREAM sources from reliable newspapers, confirm that the judge doesn't even try to hide his orientation. We have consensus here. Since you've now retreated to labeling others as SP accounts, and such, I don't think we can get much further than to just go with the consensus. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- You haven't presented those other reports, are there actually any? And you havent clarified who the groups are and provided citation for that either. Off2riorob (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- You are just wrong here. The Chronicle reported the story in Feb. 2010. The news was again repeated in Aug. 2010. Then again in Sep. 2010. Federal judges simply don't get a lot of press time, unless they are involved in a very notable event, like the Prop 8 trial. Walker will forever be defined by the Prop 8 affair, more than anything else he has ever done in his career. That's just a historic fact. His sexuality was a part of that same affair. That's just history. The policy isn't to require continuing front page stories in order for something to be included. This isn't just a rumor. The judge hasn't denied, and sources, yes MAINSTREAM sources from reliable newspapers, confirm that the judge doesn't even try to hide his orientation. We have consensus here. Since you've now retreated to labeling others as SP accounts, and such, I don't think we can get much further than to just go with the consensus. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Notability is often an in the moment thing and gets included at the time and later has to be removed as it has no long term value - such as this content - actually it seems like soapboxing to me with no long term value at all - remember the claims are from involved people attempting to slur this living person - opinionated groups the are anti gay attempting to spread rumors about his sexuality in a soapboxing attempt to get him impeached - there was no impeachment and nothing actually happened, it was all a year ago and there is no continuation of the story and imo - its stale and if it ever was worthy of inclusion in a wiki BLP that moment is long gone - this rumor of a mans sexual preference just has no long term notability. Off2riorob (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I imagine that my reasoning for inclusion is not the same as Ghostmonkey57's reasoning, but the result is the same. I cannot imagine why we are squabbling about whether or not to present Walker's alleged homosexuality to the reader after the debate has been covered by AOL News, CBS News (using an Associated Press release), USA Today, Harper's magazine, the Sacramento Bee, the San Francisco Chronicle, The Salt Lake Tribune, Deseret News, The Bay Citizen, and lastly (leastly) Stanford's student newspaper, The Daily Cardinal. (See Talk:Vaughn R. Walker for URLs.) We are wa-a-ay beyond do no harm, squarely in WP:WELLKNOWN territory. Binksternet (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Binksternet's version
On January 11, 2010, Walker began hearing arguments for Perry v. Schwarzenegger. The case was a federal-constitutional challenge to California Proposition 8, a voter initiative constitutional amendment that eliminated the right of same sex couples to marry, a right which had previously been granted after the California Supreme Court found that Proposition 22 was unconstitutional.[13] In February, two columnists at the San Francisco Chronicle wrote that Walker, who they said has "never taken pains to disguise—or advertise—his [sexual] orientation", would not be influenced by his own homosexuality in his decision regarding same-sex marriages.[14] Proponents of Proposition 8, including the American Family Association and the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), said that Walker was biased on the issue. NOM chair Maggie Gallagher said that Walker was "substituting his views for those of the American people".[15] Larry Levine, a professor at the McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento, said of the matter, "I think it's profoundly offensive to suggest that a judge who is not of the sexual orientation of the majority or the race of the majority or the religion of the majority is unfit to hear the case."[16] On August 4, 2010, Walker ruled that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional "under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses," and enjoined (prohibited) its enforcement.[17][18]
13: Michael B. Farrell (January 11, 2010). "Gay marriage trial begins with tough questions for both sides". Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 2010-02-07.
14: Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross (2010-2-07). "Judge being gay a nonissue during Prop. 8 trial". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2011-02-08.{{cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help)
15: "Gay Marriage Judge's Personal Life Debated". CBS News. The Associated Press. August 6, 2010. Retrieved February 9, 2011.
16: Hecht, Peter (August 6, 2010). "Irate Prop. 8 backers say gay judge not impartial". Sacramento Bee. Retrieved February 9, 2011.
17: Vaughn R. Walker (August 4, 2010). "Opinion and Order" (PDF). PACER. Retrieved 2010-08-04.
18: Dwyer, Devin (August 4, 2010). "Unconstitutional: Federal Court Overturns Proposition 8, Gay Marriage Ban in California". ABCNews.com.{{cite web}}
:|access-date=
requires|url=
(help); Missing or empty|url=
(help)
I think this version brings the Walker dispute into the mainstream, with neutral quotes from significant players, beginning with the Matier & Ross piece in the SF Chronicle. This version is not an attack on Walker—it is a statement of the dispute including criticism and defense of Walker. Binksternet (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- I won't reiterate my objections to the material. However, I would point out that despite the chronological recounting of the issue, there is a lingering inference that Walker ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional because of his alleged sexual orientation. The beginning of the case and the ending of the case become bookends with the sexual stuff in between. I would favor discussing the case from beginning to end and then separately addressing the orientation issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Despite what it may appear here or on Walker's talk page, I keep trying to think of the best way to write this passage and present it. In this, I keep coming up wrong. Introducing this issue, by the standards of clear and best writing practices must present the facts this way: "In February, two columnists at the San Francisco Chronicle wrote that Walker's sexual orientation is an "open secret", intoning that he is gay. Walker has declined to address the rumors in the press." And then on to the NOM comments...
- Your version skips over that in order to get to the heart of the WP:WELLKNOWN issue. It can't. It's confusing. But by adding it, it just spreads the same unfounded claims. That's what keeps me so uncomfortable. --Moni3 (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Your change is the better version. Binksternet (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Without sounding like an arrogant git, ha, yes, I think the addition of introducing the "open secret" part of the issue reads better, but I can't reconcile that with BLP. I know WELLKNOWN enters into the comments made by the NOM, but they cannot be addressed unless Wikipedia repeats the "open secret" gossip. I'm again back to the issue of Richard Gere. He's famous for acting and rumors about shenanigans with a small mammal, printed everywhere, making that also WELLKNOWN. --Moni3 (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- The difference between Gere and Walker, is that the San Francisco Chronicle didn't report the Gere allegations. I still have yet to have someone explain to me why the Chronicle should be a less reliable source than the Outrage! film. I further have yet to have a single person address why the numerous allegations in various right of center politicians wikipages are perfectly OK. Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing that that information shouldn't be included. Indeed, WP:WELLKNOWN is the rule, and the information fits within the rule. My point is that if WP:WELLKNOWN is the rule, then it MUST be enforced uniformly across Wikipedia, or the policy needs to be changed. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Agree with BBB--case first, orientation stuff after. Jonathanwallace (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Without sounding like an arrogant git, ha, yes, I think the addition of introducing the "open secret" part of the issue reads better, but I can't reconcile that with BLP. I know WELLKNOWN enters into the comments made by the NOM, but they cannot be addressed unless Wikipedia repeats the "open secret" gossip. I'm again back to the issue of Richard Gere. He's famous for acting and rumors about shenanigans with a small mammal, printed everywhere, making that also WELLKNOWN. --Moni3 (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Your change is the better version. Binksternet (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Is there another source, which is not citing the first instance of the two reporters at the SF Chronicle? IOW, are there many sources, or one source cited many times? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- I know of no reliable source--a newspaper, not a blog or some obviously politically affiliated publication--that treats Walker's sexual orientation, identity, or behavior as fact. They only speculate, repeat rumors, or use the "open secret" phrasing. --Moni3 (talk) 22:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Wrong, the LA Times reported on the story separately, and on their opinion pages, treated the allegation as a categorical fact: http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2010/08/proposition-8-judge-walker-and-our-short-memories.html. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Every one that people presented last fall cited back to the SF Chronicle. Those brought up in the recent re-hash appear to be the same ones.Active Banana (bananaphone 22:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- The Chronicle wasn't the only newspaper. So did the LA Times. "The San Francisco Chronicle and the Los Angeles Times have reported that Walker is gay. The judge has neither confirmed nor denied those reports." [1] Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Bbb23 and Jonathanwallace that Walker's involvement with the Prop 8 case, from start to finish, needs to be discussed first, with issues relating to his sexual orientation being discussed separately. I would also note that the San Francisco Chronicle article in question was not a column, but a reported news article. (As an aside, I would further note that there are various possible factual situations which could be true regarding Walker between on the one hand "he's unbiased" and "he's biased because he's gay". For all we know, Walker might have been biased because he has gay relatives, friends, or neighbors, or because he thought he would have a better chance of getting a job in private practice or academia by deciding in favor of same-sex marriage, without being gay himself.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Adel Flaifel
Adel Flaifel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An IP editor added some highly negative unsourced material in August 2009.[3] which I've removed. It would be helpful if someone who knows Bahrain could take a look. GabrielF (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't have the pleasure of knowing Bahrain but I was once a happy shopper in the tax free shop. I trimmed some of the attacking content and the cite farm in the external link section. - as far as I can see, the subject has never been found guilty of or even charged with anything. Off2riorob (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Since when is Bahrain on the way to Rio?!? :-) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, its long ago and perhaps it was Abu Dabi and that was pre Rio so .. the memories are variegated and opaque.Off2riorob (talk) 03:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- don't all roads eventually lead to Rio? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, its long ago and perhaps it was Abu Dabi and that was pre Rio so .. the memories are variegated and opaque.Off2riorob (talk) 03:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Since when is Bahrain on the way to Rio?!? :-) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ian Henderson (police officer) is related although it seems to be better sourced and written. Incidentally the info on the 2010 elections in Adel Flaifel is obviously outdated, unfortunately I'm having trouble finding any English sources discussing the results and the source used in the article for the candicy isn't currently working. From Bahraini parliamentary election, 2010 it looks like he didn't win and [4] or [5] probably cover it but I don't read Arabic. Nil Einne (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Jacque Fresco
I came across this article (Jacque Fresco) doing requests for edits to semi-protected pages. I removed what I thought was a violation of WP:BLP (diff), but it's been restored. Could someone from BLPN please take a look at the article? Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- He's a fringe figure, advocating for a computer-governed world, but seems notable due to NYT and Forbes coverage. The source of the material in the diff you gave, is a 25 minute video supposedly from a New Zealand TV show, Close Up. I didn't watch the video, but in a transcript posted on the site, the individual says he was a Klan member and tells a long, rambling story about how he joined in order to combat prejudice. The story is excerpted in the article in such a way as to give a different impression, that he thought the Klan should go further in the direction of prejudice or violence. As it exists, its a WP:BLP violation. If the information is reliably sourced to the subject's own words, it can stay in the article in some form, such as "He says he once joined the Ku Klux Klan and White Leadership Council in order to bring change to those organizations". In order to validate this for our purposes, someone needs to watch the video and verify that it is Jacque Fresco, and he really said those words.Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Lee Edwards and Mass killings under Communist regimes
Lee Edwards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mass killings under Communist regimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Do comments about Mr. Edwards asserting that he is "involved in a number of extremist anti-Communist organizations" placed in an RfC reach BLP concerns? Does a later edit associating one organization with "a point of contact for extremists, racists, and anti-Semites" in association with that claim reach BLP concerns? Might anyone look in on this as I would normally redact such charges, but they are central to the arguments being expressed by one editor. Note this is not a complaint about anyone - but a request to see at what point article talk pages in an RfC are an immune zone. Thanks. Collect (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Please point us to the RFC, thanks.Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- RfC link is Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#RfC:_External_link_to_the_Global_Museum_on_Communism. Collect (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- The RFC actually contains the assertion he is involved with "extreme" anti-Communist organizations. I think this stays on the permissible side of the line as a statement of someone's opinion about the subject, rather than as a statement of fact. By its nature, an RFC or Talk page discussion isn't held to the very exact standards of an article, and redacting other people's words in such discussions is disfavored--should IMO be done only by an admin and only in the context of "we all know Joe Botz is a slavering baby eater". Also, the second phrase you cite, about anti-Semitism appears to be a direct quote from the Anti-Defamation League criticizing an organization with which (far as I can tell) Lee Edwards is not involved, so no WP:BLP issue there.Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- RfC link is Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#RfC:_External_link_to_the_Global_Museum_on_Communism. Collect (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- - There is no immune zone - BLP applies all over the project - talkpage discussion is part of our process and discussion is required - however if comments being expressed are in your opinion, on the edge of a violation of BLP I suggest you ask the person posting the comments to either - provide a reliable citation to support the claim or remove it asap. As Jonathon says, removing another users comments from a noindexed talkpage discussion should only be done in a case of a clear violation and if the comment is reinserted by the user then administrative assistance is the next step. Off2riorob (talk) 12:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Collect--I see now the other editor was implying Edwards was connected to the organization. In any event the information is reliably sourced. You properly brought in the fact that ADL backed off the assertion--which they did by the way because the org apparently cleaned up its ways, not because ADL was incorrect in the first place. I am not seeing a WP:BLP problem. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Mark Riley (journalist)
Mark Riley (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This person was recently in the Australian news [6]. The page was semi-protected due to vandalism, but it remains very poorly referenced. Chzz ► 08:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- This guy may actually not pass notability requirements so a proposal for deletion may be in order. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed, he is a journalist that gets mentioned in the course of his work but asserts no wikipedia notability unless his work has won notable awards or there is some other notability - which in this case I don't see. Off2riorob (talk) 12:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- note - prodded - WP:PROD - Off2riorob (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- update - prod was removed although there was no improvement - bumped up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Riley (journalist) - interested parties are requested to improve the BLP and or comment . Off2riorob (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Francis Jeffers
Francis Jeffers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Unauthorised and opinionated comments have been added at the end of the article: "Francis Jeffers deserves more than this dismall (sic) attempt" etc etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveindy (talk • contribs) 12:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Already reverted by another user. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Kaveh Farrokh
These discussions have been archived; kindly do not make changes here; a related RfC to these discussions is open here |
---|
Wifione ....... Leave a message 19:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC) |
Kaveh Farrokh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Why this article has been redirected to a publishing company ?!!! Regards, *** in fact *** ( contact ) 13:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
WP:AFD says bluntly: "If there has been no obvious consensus to change the status of the article, the person closing the AfD will state No consensus, and the article will be kept." Care to tell us the Wikipedia policy that says if there is no consensus, anyone can choose to delete or merge the article by replacing it with a redirect? Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Pause for a moment. Some of this makes sense and some doesn't. Things that don't make sense:
Things that do make sense:
I have no pony in this race. I don't know Kaveh Farrokh, but if he's a recognised non-self-published author of any repute (academic in this case), he may well meet the notability criteria. In any case, it doesn't make sense to blank his page and redirect it to a publisher (which in fact suggests he meets the notability requirements). If 'reality' contestants make the cut in Wikipedia, it seems a professor who's actually accomplished something deserves serious scrutiny. Is there some other problem I'm not seeing? --UnicornTapestry (talk) 13:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment While I understand that the page here is a BLP, what is the actual WP:BLP issue at stake in this discussion, because I don't see one. Does it harm the subject to redirect the page like this? I don't think so. This is a basic content/notability dispute with no BLP ramifications. There is now an RFC about that issue. Let's take further discussion to that forum. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC) |
Ro Hancock-Child
Ro Hancock-Child (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'd like some advice as to what to do this article, which is full of (auto)biographical detail for which there are no published sources available, not even on the website of the subject which has this notice:
- "Wikipedia will tell you all about me: many thanks to the generous people who have made this possible for me. Apparently only one-tenth of one percent of musicians get onto Wikipedia, and most of those are pop - but, astonishingly, there I am, too. Wow!" Note: The preceding notice has subsequently been removed from the contents page of her official website. Voceditenore (talk) 11:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
In my view everything that cannot be verified (minimally by her own website) should be removed. But the subject has so far resisted even minor attempts at this, e.g. this met by this and her comments here and here. Note that I have tried myself to find references and failed. What references are there, I added.
The article has been edited by multiple single-purpose accounts ([7] [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]) and by User:Rohancockchild. – Voceditenore (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oh my. I got five pages deep into a Google search without finding a single reference which wasn't Wikipedia, or a mirror, or her website, or Facebook, or LinkedIn, etc. Then started to encounter irrelevant links to unrelated people and topics. Likely non-notable artist extremely proficient at self promotion, see WP:AUTOBIO, WP:PEACOCK etc etc. Candidate for a PROD.Jonathanwallace (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- No point in a prod, there are so many SPAs - I don't have time tonight but I think it is SPI time. Dougweller (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Would it be completely out of the question to configure Level 2 pending changes on the article until the issues are sorted? --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- - User:Orangemike (Protected Ro Hancock-Child: Persistent sock puppetry ([edit=autoconfirmed])
- Do we have any reason to believe this article would survive the AfD process? I have found little or no 3d party coverage of the subject or her work, and I can't really see how she would meet WP:Notability (people). JohnInDC (talk) 11:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- I agree per what i said above. AFD is the way to go. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think it would pass an AfD (or at least it shouldn't). It also fails to meet any of the crtiteria for WP:MUSICBIO (adapted to classical musicians). AfD probably is the way to go. I've rescued several classical musician bios from AfDs but this one is a mission impossible. Voceditenore (talk) 12:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- I agree per what i said above. AFD is the way to go. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Vito Roberto Palazzolo
Vito Roberto Palazzolo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- - Mafia problem
fircks (talk · contribs) and some IPs are making serious complaints about this article and alleged bias and inaccuracies. There are understandable moves to treat this as simple vandalism [17]. However, my spot checking on the article indicates that we have a serious of series allegations on a controversial person, which are open to various interpretations. The sources I checked lead either to dead links, anti-mafia sources of uncertain neutrality, and Italian language stuff. I've no time at the moment, but this article could do with checking. From experience we've a small group of Wikipedians who tend to create Mafia articles sometimes with poor sourcing, and questionable notability. This article may prove to be just fine, but it needs some careful checking and probably some not to tender pruning.--Scott Mac 16:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Huljich brothers
Huljich brothers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I think this article has been here before, but my reason for bringing it now is that about half of the article content is actually about a criminal trial, not about the Huljich brothers, but about one of the sons of a H Brother.
I think the article is running afoul of WP:CRIMINAL and WP:COATRACK but am looking to some editors more experienced with these types of issues to suggest some options for how to deal with the article. Active Banana (bananaphone 22:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- I removed it some of the content - cut and copy copy content violation -- contentious content cited to a single source - with limited usage throughout the en wiki project - without additional support from more mainstream reliable reports. Off2riorob (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- The article is about the Huljich Bros and their money. They are only notable because of their wealth. The brothers constitute some of the richest people in the country. They entrusted their money (and other investors could participate) to the fund managed by one of their sons. When things went wrong the brothers reasserted their control. The prosecution has to be mentioned to explain what the prosecution charges are. All this is not from a single source. It is well covered in all media outlets in NZ. The article contains no more than is in the news coverage. It does not contravene New Zealand Criminal law in any way. One possibility is to split the article into two articles one on the brothers and one on the investment company. Meanwhile I have undone edit.Rick570 (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- No matter how rich they are you cannot cut and paste copyright material into the article. And you have not addressed the fact that the article is purportedly about the Brothers, not the son/nephew. As a criminal, the son and the crime fail to meet WP:CRIME our standards. Active Banana (bananaphone 00:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- The article is about the Huljich Bros and their money. They are only notable because of their wealth. The brothers constitute some of the richest people in the country. They entrusted their money (and other investors could participate) to the fund managed by one of their sons. When things went wrong the brothers reasserted their control. The prosecution has to be mentioned to explain what the prosecution charges are. All this is not from a single source. It is well covered in all media outlets in NZ. The article contains no more than is in the news coverage. It does not contravene New Zealand Criminal law in any way. One possibility is to split the article into two articles one on the brothers and one on the investment company. Meanwhile I have undone edit.Rick570 (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Chris Lee (politician) could use some extra eyes
Chris Lee (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Subject of a scandal that broke earlier. Almost a true sex scandal, but he resigned, although I have a feeling once more media reports pour out, there'll be some nasty stuff added to this article. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Watchlisted. Some regulars from the board are already over there it seems. Jonathanwallace (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Tina Mai
Tina Mai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An attack page with zero sources, and I can find zero Google hits for a person with the name associated with the movie names. My db-attack tag was removed. This article should be deleted immediately. Corvus cornixtalk 00:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Probably not notable and already AFD'd. Jonathanwallace (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- AfD does not resolve the fact that this is an attack page, nor does it resolve the fact that if this AfD runs the normal 7 days, this page will become the first hit on Google for this name. Corvus cornixtalk 01:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- The article has been pruned of the offensive content. However, you can still try to persuade an admin to speedy delete it as G10 (attack page) or more likely at this point, A7 (no indication of notability}. I suggest making your argument at the articles for deletion page. Jonathanwallace (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- AfD does not resolve the fact that this is an attack page, nor does it resolve the fact that if this AfD runs the normal 7 days, this page will become the first hit on Google for this name. Corvus cornixtalk 01:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The Raymond Allen Davis Diplomatic Incident
The Raymond Allen Davis Diplomatic Incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- There is a lot of hearsay and speculation in this article, not even valid claims, just synthesis as to whether this person is who other articles say he might be. Seems to violate WP:BLP1E, as well. Corvus cornixtalk 05:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Much of the information in the article has been reported in The New York Times. There is some coatracky material which should go (like the assertion about the PO box also being used for a chain letter) and an evaluation is probably in order of some of the lesser known and Pakistani newspaper sources to see if they comply with reliable sourcing standards for living people.Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- I concur that there should probably be some more eyes on this article. Just brushing through with a few edits, I saw that there is, what appears to be, a fair amount of OR going on. Don't have time to go through it myself just now. Maybe someone can take a look? (Plus, it has the advantage of being a fascinating story...real cloak & dagger type stuff :) David Able 18:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Klaus Mosbach
Klaus Mosbach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello, this page about klaus mosbach, is not good, Prof klaus dont like this webpage kindly delete this name —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.103.192.253 (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Please let us know the specifics of your or the professor's objections. This seems to be a well-sourced stub regarding a possibly non-notable professor. I did not see any material possibly violating the rules on biographies of living people. It was proposed for deletion but a user who thinks Professor Mosbach is notable removed the tag. The next step would be to nominate the article for deletion, so the notability issue can be discussed.Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Overlake Christian church
Overlake Christian Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is a church, actually it has little Independent noteability but I think it is notable as it say it is a big church in a county. There was some issue regarding sexual allegations in 1998 - there were no charges at all and the content is cited to an archived single local source, although a user on the talkpage suggests there are more, and I see a highbeam has been added in an attempt to suggest the content is well sourced and should stay, - if there are I am pretty sure they will also be local and historic, nothing to assert the continuation of reporting this incident. As per BLP wikipedia should not become the primary host of such controversial content about living people. As there were no charges at all, and basically the church article should actually be about the church and not a record for eternity of such minor incidents about a living person that was never charged, as in WP:Do no harm etc. - content is below - Is this the kind of content about non notable, non public, living people that wikipedia is supposed to become the primary host of? Off2riorob (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Sex Scandal
Bob Moorehead resigned from Overlake Church denying that he sexually molested male parishioners. He was never charged but the allegation brought by several men. He'd concluded the allegations represented a ``stumbling block" to Overlake's ministry.
At the beginning of the allegations the Elders supported Bob but later they changed their opinion.
- note - content brought from the article for discussion by - Off2riorob (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
comments on OCC article
One of my issues with it is also undue weight - in its own section and with the usual dramatic titillating header. So I have trimmed it and moved it to the end of the comments about moorhead, adding an unobtrusive simple comment...
- - He resigned in 1998 after unproven allegations of sexual impropriaty.[2]
Off2riorob (talk) 14:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Seems like a good compromise. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I also don't want it to have its own section. But what's been presented above is very far from the complete picture, either. I won't repeat my side of the talk–page discussion here, but editors will need to review that (currently) brief thread (permalink) in order to understand the question that has been presented here. As I just commented on the talk page, btw, I'll have to be offline for something like the next 12 – 18 hours. But I'll check back here to see whether the OP has accepted my request to continue the discussion on the talk page, rather than here. Thanks, – OhioStandard (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I like the sentence that Jonathan has suggested but I think a phrase could be added about the elders of the church accepting testimony that gave strength to the allegations. That said I shares other editors concerns about avoiding undue weight given the context of the long history of the church. Also we should make sure that any content is referenced to the church in the sources, as this article is about the church and not about the preacher who resigned under scrutiny.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- (Just back for a moment, here.) Those are good points, Keithbob, thanks. However, I feel obliged to point out that the presentation Off2riorob has made of this is somewhat less than wholly candid. People here are getting a false impression about the extent of the coverage of this, and its impact on the church. As I've repeatedly told Rob on the talk page (permalink), there are more than 75 discrete, wp:rs articles available about this. It made the front page of the largest Seattle newspapers multiple times, presumably because it was, at the time, the largest church in Washington State. Since I have no wish at all to drag this church's name through the mud (more about my motivation in this matter on the talk page) I have refrained from disclosing all but two of those. Unfortunately, I can't substantively answer comments here without doing so, and I've requested that Rob mark this resolved and keep it on the talk page for that reason. I'll close by commenting that I haven't been editing this article myself. Rob has just reached 3RR with two different IPs who wanted this info in after he and another editor expunged it from the article entirely. That kind of thing has been going on over this article for years, and my talk-page participation has only been about trying to resolve that. Oh, btw, the suggested sentence above wasn't Johathan's; it was Off2riorobs. He just forgot to sign, and I've since corrected that. In haste, – OhioStandard (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Even if you have 75 discreet citations (which you haven't presented ) imo it won't make any difference they will all be historic and they won't have any charges in them. The issue deserves a simple comment and that enough. Off2riorob (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Quick addition: Any admin is welcome to contact me via e-mail for more sources on this. I have about a dozen of the 75 or so available ones ready to hand, and can easily copy-and-paste them into an e-mail reply. I say "admin" (sorry for that) because I'd prefer not to have those sources splashed across the article by any of the many editors who have added negative content in the past. – OhioStandard (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- No one is discreetly contacting you, make your case here in the open. Off2riorob (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, non-admins with long-established accounts who have never edited the article in question would likewise be welcome to this info. I'd just prefer not to provide ammunition for anyone who might want to damage the church's reputation by creating a huge section on the scandal. Let 'em do their own research. – OhioStandard (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Look, you clearly are overly involved in this church issue - I mean what uninvolved person has 75 citations about something? Look its also a twelve year old minor scandal, please get over it - there were no legal charges or civil suits at all. Please don't top post like that, it messes up the timeline discussion . Off2riorob (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- What uninvolved person has 75 citations? How about one who does his homework before stepping in to try to resolve a years-long, very contentious conflict that he has taken no part in? ( Oh, wait. I did edit the article once, last October. Gosh, maybe I should take a break! ;-) And I don't have 75 citations. I verified that there are 75+ discrete news articles about this present in the ProQuest database, which gives full text in many cases, and lengthy abstracts in the rest. I took the trouble because I expected, correctly it seems, that you would oppose any reinstatement of this information at all, and I wanted to be certain about how much coverage it had received before I even raised the matter on the talk page. I only pulled cites for a dozen or so of the 75+, also because I knew people would demand proof of the extent to which this story created a furor in the Seattle area where the church is located. You really would do better to close this thread, Off2riorob. You haven't done your homework, and your presentation here has left out a great deal of information that editors need to properly render an opinon on the matter. Btw, the very minor top-post, which you've since reverted, was in accordance with wp:indent, as I indicated in my edit summary. If you're that concerned, you should know that your replacing the "unsigned" templates I added with four tildes screws up the continuty, by providing an incorrect timestamp. But this isn't the place to continue the dialog we were having on the talk page. I'll not be responding to you further here, although I'll be happy to address any questions or comments that uninvolved editors have, since you refuse to withdraw this. – OhioStandard (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Please take this down a notch. Opening a discussion here to get the opinions of other editors is a very normal and considerate thing to do, not a betrayal. Also, as I said above, Rob's solution of mentioning the resignation and scandal with a link to one source is a very good and normal compromise here which preserves the information, and allows readers to follow the link to get more information, while respecting our weight standards. I suggest you also read the essay on coatracks, which explains why adding long sections on topic B to an article on Topic A is disfavored.Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- You're entitled to your opinion, Jonathan, but you're mistaken in the assumptions it's based on. The church's pastor of 30 years built the largest church in Washington State, and was certainly a very public figure there before his arrest touched off the firestorm of publicity that raged in the Washington State press, frequently as front page news, for an extended period. Christianity Today reported on the story. I'm familiar with wp:coatrack; you might like to look at WP:BLP#Public_figures if you haven't recently. Moreover, I was never interested in using the article as a coatrack; I proposed a three sentence disclosure only; one that didn't even mention the exact nature of the allegations against the pastor, saying merely "serious misconduct", and that would have required readers to click on refs to discover that. ( Rob's response was to insult me and refuse my request to discuss rather than continue editing unilaterally. ) That was moderate enough, I think, for an episode that took the church's attendance from around 6,500 just before the pastor resigned to around 1,400 at one point subsequently, throwing it into a financial crisis, and that had more press coverage than probably 70% of the individual articles on Wikipedia have. Finally, all I ever asked Rob to do was to use the talk page to develop consensus wording, and not keep expunging all mention of the issue, and then (finally, under pressure) write it his way unilaterally. – OhioStandard (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- firestorm ,- raged, see WP:WEASEL - are your involved position, the issue is clearly in the article, I don't see anything else worthy of discussion. . Off2riorob (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- You're entitled to your opinion, Jonathan, but you're mistaken in the assumptions it's based on. The church's pastor of 30 years built the largest church in Washington State, and was certainly a very public figure there before his arrest touched off the firestorm of publicity that raged in the Washington State press, frequently as front page news, for an extended period. Christianity Today reported on the story. I'm familiar with wp:coatrack; you might like to look at WP:BLP#Public_figures if you haven't recently. Moreover, I was never interested in using the article as a coatrack; I proposed a three sentence disclosure only; one that didn't even mention the exact nature of the allegations against the pastor, saying merely "serious misconduct", and that would have required readers to click on refs to discover that. ( Rob's response was to insult me and refuse my request to discuss rather than continue editing unilaterally. ) That was moderate enough, I think, for an episode that took the church's attendance from around 6,500 just before the pastor resigned to around 1,400 at one point subsequently, throwing it into a financial crisis, and that had more press coverage than probably 70% of the individual articles on Wikipedia have. Finally, all I ever asked Rob to do was to use the talk page to develop consensus wording, and not keep expunging all mention of the issue, and then (finally, under pressure) write it his way unilaterally. – OhioStandard (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
note - this was added by IP:69.22.179.87 with the edit summary - "How many more references do we need?" ... again into its own section and totally undue imo - an additional mention of moorheads life again that is not relevant at all to the church - he was arrested in a tolet in some town and not charged with any offence - imo totally irrelevant to the article about the church, moorhead again there were no charges, as I understand it, this was the incident that was published that started male members of the church coming forward to accuse him, but anyways, the article isn't about moorheads life outside of the church and this issue is outside of that remit completely. The content is posted below, I must say, its uncanny how these IP accounts jump up and add content like this, and personally I think there is some meat puppetry in action here.but thats another issue aside from this. I removed the separate section and added a small addition to the previous content.I will post the new citations here for others to investigate. After this addition I removed the seperate section as undue and added a small comment to address this desired addition and this content is now in the article -
- - He resigned in 1998 after unproven allegations of sexual impropriety, that he had touched or fondled male members of the congregation, there were no charges.http://www.seattlepi.com/archives/1998/9805180079.asp. At first the Elders of the church had supported Moorhead but after a lengthy investigation they withdrew their support for him and said, "they had discovered new evidence that showed he "did violate the scriptural standards of trust, self-control, purity and godly character required for the office of elder and pastor."http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19990521&slug=over21
Off2riorob (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Rob has now twice suggested I've been acting as someone's meat puppet around this article. Once, above, and once on his talk page, despite my previously having explicitly stated that I don't know anyone who's been involved in this conflict, and that my only interest in the article ( which I edited once only, last October ) has been to try to help develop a resolution that both sides could accept, and that would end the long term battle over it. I suggest he either open the investigation he has threatened immediately, or keep his slurs to himself. – OhioStandard (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Get over yourself and be honest - if your not involved then move along - there are plenty of experienced uninvolved editors that can deal with this. Off2riorob (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- You've now suggested a third time that I've been dishonest in some way, or have misrepresented my motive for trying to resolve this longstanding and disruptive conflict. Please retract. – OhioStandard (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Sexual Misconduct Allegations
The controversy involved accusations that Pastor Moorehead had inappropriately touched or fondled young men, usually before adult baptisms and weddings. Such allegations surfaced briefly on and off for several years.He denied the chargers due to these allegations he resigned from the church. Bob Moorehead and another were n arrested by an undercover police officer for lewd conduct in a public restroom in Daytona Beach, Fla., on July 23, 1996.
- - http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/revscndl.htm I don't think this is a WP:RS
- - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_evangelist_scandals#Bob_Moorehead.2C_1998 - we don't use wikipedia to support content.
- - http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-64099591.html - highbeam - valueless as a RS
- - http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19990521&slug=over21 - historic archived local paper.
- - posted for investigation by Off2riorob (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment on the above: The Highbeam ref above is one of two I provided on the article's talk page, previously, and that an IP then introduced into the article itself after I'd posted it to talk. The rest were ones that IPs introduced into the article directly. About Highbeam: It's not a reliable source in itself, but the ref above is actually to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, an AP affiliate that is a reliable source. The Highbeam link is merely a convenience for content that appears not to be available without fee online.
- Further, the objection that most of the available sources are "historic", "archived", and "local", e.g. the Seattle Times, don't make a lick of sense to me. Of course they're local. The church is local to the greater Seattle area; they would be. And historic? Archived? When did we stop using reliable source articles because they were published when the event they document occurred? If we did that, all our articles would have to be deleted. This is an encyclopedia, after all, not "This Week's Top News". Finally, real-time coverage of this matter spanned not months, but years, and it's still mentioned in the news when the church is written about. – OhioStandard (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
More OCC comments
Personally if you add all seventy five of your citations your desired addition is still undue - the mention of the incident in Daytona should not be mentioned at all imo - it has nothing to do with the church and again he was not charged...others might disagree, uninvolved comments are appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- You properly reverted the edit, which was improper for several reasons; besides being UNDUE, it did not mention the charges were dropped, and was sourced in part to Wikipedia itself, and to World Magazine which may not be a reliable source. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- The content as is now seems to cover all the points raised and seems fully policy compliant. Off2riorob (talk) 12:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The actual proposal
I have no idea who Rob might be addressing with his "your desired addition", above. The following is the only addition I've ever proposed. Not made, note; proposed. I've never made any. I've only asked Rob to work with me to develop a wording that might have a chance of working for both sides in this very-long-term conflict, something he's refused to do, apart from one initial attempt before he chose to bring this here. He evidently prefers to edit this article unilaterally. This was, in its entirety, what I'd proposed as a solution that might prove acceptable to all parties in this long, long conflict:
- After leading the church for almost 30 years, and building it from a congregation of about 75 members to a weekly attendance of over 6,000 in early 1998, pastor Bob Moorehead resigned in June of that year, amid allegations of serious misconduct. The church's board of elders hired a private investigator to explore the allegations, and 17 men gave evidence before them, all claiming to have been victimized by the pastor. In a decision that was widely criticized by other area ministers, the elders dismissed their claims and exonerated Moorehead. A year later, however, after Moorehead's departure, the board reversed its earlier decision, saying new evidence had arisen that convinced them of the former pastor's guilt, and issued an apology to the congregation ( although not to the alleged victims ) for their previous handling of the matter.(permalink to context)
This was Rob's response at his talk page after I alerted him to this proposal and again asked him to discuss the wording at the article's talk page instead of proceeding unilaterally: "I had a look but I can't see the content it is small and unclear, your worthless warnings and your completely unbelievable and quite frankly laughable claims to be uninvolved are beginning to bore me. If the situation continues I will consider making a meatpuppetry report against you." Not really the response I'd hoped for from so experienced editor. I do have wp:rs for every single word in the above, btw. – OhioStandard (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
BLP issue resolved
The question as to whether info about the affect of the Moorehead debacle on the church he built belongs in the article about it appears to have been resolved. The answer is that it does, a decision Off2riorob has evidently acceded to by editing the article to include more of that content while this was ongoing. I still think it's unfortunate that he insisted on doing that unilaterally and was unwilling to develop a cooperative solution that would be likely to prevent future edit wars but, like him, I see no reason to continue this thread further, and likewise recommend it be closed. – OhioStandard (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The Raymond Allen Davis Diplomatic Incident
The Raymond Allen Davis Diplomatic Incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article makes reference to Andrew Clapham who is not a family member as suggested - please ensure deletion of references to Andrew Clapham in relation to this article, which we have seen in preview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahonc (talk • contribs) 15:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- NB I just moved the article to Raymond Allen Davis diplomatic incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) per naming conventions. – ukexpat (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- There don't seem to be any references to an 'Andrew Clapham' in the article. 15:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Rose Hill School (Alderley)
Rose Hill School (Alderley) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There is a BLP-relateed discussion, regarding this article; please see Talk:Rose Hill School (Alderley)#Names of new owners of the building.
I'd be grateful if some other editors could add their opinions. Thanks, Chzz ► 15:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Joseph M. Petrick
Joseph M. Petrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Delete - No evidence of notability from reliable sources. Reads like a promotional piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.243.9 (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Suggest you nominate it as described here. Unless you cite a specific part of the article that violates the BLP, you are on the wrong page. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Alexander Voytovych
Alexander Voytovych (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi. Could you advise me when would be possible to take the noticeboards off, please? ({notability|date=January 2011} {refimproveBLP|date=January 2011} {coi|date=January 2011})--Artvoyt (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- When the issues have been dealt with. At the moment the article is little more than a timeline of (mainly non-notable) events. – ukexpat (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- The BLP was very recently Kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Voytovych - but it could use a wikification and copy edit for clarity. Off2riorob (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
William Atherton
William Atherton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I posted a completely new and longer prose portion of the bio on William Atherton on Sunday 2/8. The one that has long been up is inaccurate, incomplete, has an undertone of opinion that is not respectful and is basically filled with wrong dates and other factual errors. I am baffled that when I went online to check it today, the old version was restored by "Astronaut" in the UK. I am not sure why he feels that the restored bio is so verifiable because I represent Atherton in this instance and we can tell you that the facts presented in it are inaccurate. The new bio is accurate, richer in detail and presents the actor in a more complete way. In part, Mr. Atherton provided me with the correct dates, production details and any stories described in it and I put it into prose form. He respects Wikipedia and the service it provides readers and would like any information on him to be thorough and accurate as well as respectful in tone. I don't feel that that is what the restored bio does.
I admit I have had difficulty preparing links and copied most of them from the restored bio. Several new ones I was able to create on my own. I encountered formatting issues simply because I have not done this before. Some new material has not been known previously or is 30-40 years old and there is nothing online to provide a link to verify it. Additionally, I had much difficulty getting links I did copy, to stick. When I went back and checked, I found my text but many links were removed. I restored them several times. Additionally, I have thoroughly read your biographies of living persons policy as well as concerns regarding authorship when you know the person being written about. I can assure you this bio meets those policies, is neutral, and is without the kind of opinion that is present in the restored bio.
I would like to address whatever concerns editors may have, but I need to know what they are. I assume the version I posted is in the 'history' and can be compared if necessary to the one that was restored. If not, I will need some help in preparing the diff.
Please have someone contact me at <redacted> to advise me so we may ultimately correct whatever needs to be done and re-post the newer bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassidyboy (talk • contribs) 01:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Please read: WP:COI, WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:V to start with. Reliable sources must be cited. Personal knowledge or instructions from the subject are not a reliable source. – ukexpat (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've removed the Ghostbusters anecdote, as despite it being part of the movie that even I remember, it's undue weight for the bio and, more importantly, it's currently unsourced.
- Cassidyboy, as for the rest, you should add your ideas on the talk page for the article. As ukexpat points out, we can't use personal recollections, we need sources. However, one common misunderstanding is that the sources don't necessarily have to be available online - just so long as they exist and are independent and reliable. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- ...and verifiable. – ukexpat (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes but the point being, it doesn't have to be available online for it to be verifiable. WP:SOURCEACCESS is clear about it. There is commonly confusion about this; I recently saw a BLP article author actually delete some of the citations to published independent references that they had previously added to their own article, purely because the article was AfD'd after discussion here and the comments made here and at AfD gave them the impression that because the source wasn't online, mentioning it in the article was likely to lead to deletion. (When in fact the opposite was the case.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- ...and verifiable. – ukexpat (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ilyas Kaduji
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ilyas Kaduji
I'm possibly jumping the gun here, but what appears to be a WP:SPA has jumped into the AfD discussion and started making claims about rumoured real world legal cases and police investigations involving the subject. This is in response to another user asserting that they are innocent. Frankly the person doesn't look notable enough to have an article anyway and will probably be deleted at the end of the AfD, but I'm worried that WP:BLP issues might arise in the AfD, which of course is kept after the delete. I'm not sure how WP:BLP applies in project space, the guidelines are a bit vague (unless I've been looking in the wrong place), so I thought it best to err on the side of caution.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 10:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- BLP most likely would be considered applicable in project space; I've heard a few editors say so and it makes logical and ethical sense. However, given that its disfavored to redact other people's comments on noticeboards, I would personally try to get an admin to do it. I took a look at the AFD discussion and agree with you the editor in question has crossed a line. Jonathanwallace (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber
Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I previously nominate this article for speedy deletion (db-g10) due to sources being misused and the fact that the page has an increasingly negative tone and appears to be biased.
The speedy deletion nomination was since removed.
Sources are referred to in the section [Business Interested] that are mis quoted and in some cases assertions are made that are not backed up by the sources.
The article is also biased as looking in to this individuals history there are clearly a number of positive topics that are not mentioned in the article.
It appears to have been hijacked with the sole purpose to discredit the individual.
There are also a number of speculations relating to information that may be harmful to the individual.
I would recommend that the article is speedied as no one seems to be interested in making the article compliant with the bio guidelines.
It has been flagged as both needing citations and advertisement for an extended period of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweboi (talk • contribs) 11:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Notable Saudi billionaire on Forbes list. The article has been nominated for deletion based on the same argument that it should go because not well enough sourced etc. The solution is to fix it, not delete it. Jonathanwallace (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Christian Baracat
Christian Baracat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Propose deletion as irrelevant and not sufficiently newsworthy. The individual in question would like to request its deletion for privacy reasons and the fact that it affects his current professional reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robccfc (talk • contribs) 13:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- As the author of the article, I have removed the deletion template because I can not see anything critical on the article that could "affect his current professional reputation". The article has a number of sources and references, is about a German rugby union international that has played in rugby union world cup qualifiers and is, to my believe, notable. Calistemon (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- NB if the subject of the article has issues with it, the appropriate way to raise them is set out at WP:BIOSELF. Having said that, I do not see anything in the article that rises to that level. – ukexpat (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Doesn't look like there are any RS which establish notability, probably should be deleted. BE——Critical__Talk 18:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Notability (sports) states that players which "have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics" are notable. To me, the European Nations Cup (rugby union) fulfills this requirement as it is a major international amateur competition and the highest level Germany competes in at a regular base.
- User:Robccfc has contacted me and, rather politely, stated that Christian Baracat wishes his page deleted. As Robccfc is an established user I have no reason to doubt his statement and I'm unsure as what to do. Should I nominate the article for deletion myself? Calistemon (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I would say AfD it; notability is borderline. Would make it a lot easier if Christian Baracat were prepared to identify himself via WP:OTRS and repeat the request there (although it wouldn't necessarily guarantee it). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Doesn't look like there are any RS which establish notability, probably should be deleted. BE——Critical__Talk 18:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I suggested as much to Robccfc. As another option, I offered for him to contact me via email and request a deletion. As the creator and only contributor, I can nominate it for speedy deletion under G7. As notability goes, the article easily meets the guidline of Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union (see:Criteria guideline for article inclusion) which requires only one test match appearance to be notable, and Baracat had five. Calistemon (talk) 04:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Gilad Atzmon
Gilad Atzmon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Once again editors are take some new rant by Atzmon, cherry picking quotes to make it sound far more irrational than it is, even admitting their bias against him, and reverting it back after two editors reverted it saying it is WP:OR/cherry picking. (See reverts for policy violations at this diff and this diff and latest revert back to that text diff here.)
This diff is another recent revert of a cherry picked original source Atzmon quote by an editor with a long history of denouncing Atzmon and putting in cherry picked quotes. The editor who reverted it also has denounced Atzmon. I don't want to edit war and revert these again, if some non-involved editor wants to come in and do so. These guys just do not understand WP:NPOV editing of WP:BLP! CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Reverted. I agree it was a case of cherry-picking primary source quotes. Primary-source quotes should be used when secondary sources quote these same passages. Not when a Wikipedian really likes or dislikes a quote. --JN466 17:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree with the claim that primary-source quotes can only be used for BLP's when validated by secondary sources. WP:SELFPUB allows quoting of Atzmon's writings to illustrate his opinions of Israeli policy. Also, "cherry-picking" is not an official Wikipedia term of art, though it gets used a lot. The only reference I found for it is to the WP:Coatrack article, which, though useful, is not an official Wikipedia policy. Also, the motives of other editors are less important than whether the edits themselves meet our standards. I think what you are really saying is that the use of too many of these quotes may violate WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV considerations, and I cautiously agree--but I think you are approaching this by the wrong road, focusing on editor motives, primary source or "cherrypicking" considerations. Jonathanwallace (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, also the quotes were used in their proper sections in the article, and reinforced Atzmon's statements on the subjects which were in the article. Similarly, the claim of "out of context" is completely nebulous. It's simply a smokescreen some editors use to try and hide an author's own words from the public. Why? I have no idea. But it shouldn't concern wikipedia editors. The links to the full articles were provided with the quotes, and anyone can look at them and see that they are in no way shape or form "out of context" Drsmoo (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
The cherrypicking involved here is wearingly familiar from my time on this article two years ago. User:Drsmoo includes Atzmon states that he does "not regard anti-Jewish activity as a form of anti-Semitism or racial hatred", whilst leaving out the second part of the same sentence which provides essential context for understanding Atzmon's view: "I do not regard anti-Jewish activity as a form of anti-Semitism or racial hatred, for Jews are neither Semites nor do they form a racial continuum whatsoever."[18] Rd232 talk 02:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see how the added line changes the meaning of the statement at all. I would happily reinsert the quote with the full statement. Drsmoo (talk) 04:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- "I don't see how the added line changes the meaning of the statement at all." - in that case you should recuse yourself from editing this article on grounds of failing WP:COMPETENCE. Rd232 talk 05:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Please remove your meaningless personal attack. Drsmoo (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- You're either lying about failing to see how the omitted statement changes the meaning, or genuinely failing to see it, in which case linguistic competence is certainly an issue. WP:AGF requires me to believe your own claim that you are unable to understand the issue. There is no personal attack here; merely AGF+logical conclusion, backed up by the fact that this is far from the first time you have had such apparent inabilities to understand the effects of your selective quotation. Rd232 talk 05:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see how the added line changes the meaning of the statement at all. I would happily reinsert the quote with the full statement. Drsmoo (talk) 04:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- It is a personal attack, and if personal attacks persist against me I will take the issue up on a noticeboard, in any case, let's break down the entire statement.
- "Unlike Uri Avneri and Norman Finkelstein who appear in the film and argue that anti Semitism is exaggerated, I actually believe that resentment towards Jewish politics is rising rapidly and constantly. However, I do differentiate between the Judeo centric notion of anti Semitism and political resentment towards Jewish ideology. I do not regard anti Jewish activity as a form of anti-Semitism or racial hatred for Jews are neither Semites nor do they form a racial continuum whatsoever.
- The rise of hatred towards any form of Jewish politics and Jewish lobbies is a reaction towards a tribal, chauvinist and supremacist ideology. If political Jews whether Zionist or ‘Jewish anti Zionists’ are concerned with themselves losing popularity, all they need to do, is to learn to look in the mirror. Self-reflection is liberation as long as one is courageous enough to face the truth" - Gilad Atzmon
- In the section which I quote, he states that he does not regard anti-Jewish activity to be a form of anti-semitism or racial hatred of Jews. What is implied is that the term anti-semitism is different in meaning from "anti-Jewish" or "racial-hatred for jews." Anti-semitism is defined by merriem-webster as "hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group" Saying he doesn't regard anti-Jewish activity as a form of anti-semitism or racial hatred towards Jews is like saying one doesn't regard anti-Homosexual activity as a form of Homophobia or sexuality hatred. He is obviously applying a unique definition to the term. The second part of the sentence does nothing but elaborate on the first (and demonstrate Atzmon's lack of knowledge on the subject of Jewish genealogy). It provides no additional information to anyone familiar with the definition of anti-semitism.
- In the opening and closing lines, before the selected quote he conflates anti-semitism with being a resentment towards "Jewish politics" (including anti-zionist Jews, as he includes "jewish anti-zionists" as also being victims of hatred) and not an attack on individuals (this is consistent in his writing.) His underlying statement in the two paragraphs is that anti-semitism is not on the decline, but rising, as a political resentment towards "Jewish ideology" which he finds to be chauvinist (he has conflated "jewish ideology" and "jewish politics" (on both sides of the spectrum) consistently in his writing. Citing Jewish Ideology/Zionist ideology as being derived from violent statements in Deuteronomy recently. (http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/jewish-ideology-and-world-peace-by-gilad-atzmon.html) Drsmoo (talk) 06:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- OK, so you've confirmed that you really don't understand the content issue, and additionally are unable even when prompted to differentiate between a personal attack and carefully expressed criticism. Sometimes it's a shame WP:COMPETENCE doesn't have a noticboard... Rd232 talk 06:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, to explain slightly: you are applying your (conventional) understanding of these issues and ignoring Atzmon's own understanding, thereby making his statements appear more extreme than they are. Quoting from the dictionary definition of anti-semitism exemplifies this, and leads you to the ludicrous remark "like saying one doesn't regard anti-Homosexual activity as a form of Homophobia or sexuality hatred." The part you omitted from Atzmon's sentence was "Jews are neither Semites nor do they form a racial continuum whatsoever." He is stating that racism against Jews is not possible because Jews are not a race. Now you might very well think that's wrong/silly/offensive, but by omitting this part of his view, you distort it. Personally, I think it's fairly obvious that (a) race is basically a socio-cultural construct anyway, not a genetic one (b) even if Jews aren't a race, if racists think so, they can act in a racist way towards them. But what I think is neither here nor there; what matters is what Atzmon thinks, and leaving out key bits of that is not acceptable. Rd232 talk 06:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- "He is stating that racism against Jews is not possible because Jews are not a race." I felt that was more than clear in the part of the sentence I included, but do agree with you that it was not acceptable or justifiable in any way for me to only include half of the sentence. I also agree that the article should be kept to statements from notable sources (not Atzmon's personal site.)
- To answer Jonathan Wallace, I think when you put everything togther - cherry picking of quotes, the repeatedly announced motive "he's an antisemite and we have to prove it," quotes taken out of context to make something controversial sound extremely bigoted or just loony, WP:Undue negative quotes, all build up to an obviously strong POV that is against WP:NPOV in BLP. Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough originally. Such biased editing led to months of absurd arguments as people would pick ones against him and others would try for a more NPOV intepretation (which often was alleged to be "pro-Atzmon.") So pretty soon every set of quotes and summaries ends up coming here or WP:NPOVN or WP:ORN for outside opinions, which disrupts work and wastes time. The same is true in other articles. I'm sure editors here could name quite a few bios where this sort of thing happens. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- - Gilad Atzmon is a living person that has a right to an NPOV wikipedia article and he is just not getting it and is never likely to - our policies and guidelines are not strong enough to protect his NPOV representation and I support his option to WP:OPTOUT of the project, with the personal request the their article is a negative portrayal of them that is detrimental to the portrayal of their public persona. Off2riorob (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- WP:optout is a failed proposal according to the article, and how is the article non NPOV? How can his own statements be biased against him? In any case, the article is only using sources from reliable papers, I only added quotes from his site when I saw others were doing it again. I have no issue with sticking to notable sites, as long as the rule is applied to all of his statements and not just to his anti-semitic ones. His statement that ""'Anti-Semite' is an empty signifier, no one actually can be an Anti-Semite and this includes me of course. In short, you are either a racist which I am not or have an ideological disagreement with Zionism, which I have." is linked directly to his website, if all sources must be from other pages, than this should be replaced with a newspaper or reputable site as well. Drsmoo (talk) 05:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Wow, lots of heat. OK. 1. Under WP:SPS, his self published material is reliable for his own opinion. I have no problem sourcing the statement above about the "empty signifier" to his own web site. 2. Our policies demand balance and neutrality, but not that we protect people against their own words--we need to be careful not to cross that line. 3. Speaking as an uninvolved editor, it would be great if we took this down a notch. The accusations of incompetence in particular are inappropriate for the noticeboard. Thanks, Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- The editor in question effectively declared his own incompetence, and having seen his activities on this article for two years, with the same BLP-problematic behaviour consistently recurring, it's hard to disagree. His most recent comment suggests he's perhaps finally got it, but I'm not betting money on it. Your own remark about "protect people against their own words" suggests you don't get the significance of the long-term history of selective quotation of Atzmon, which if you're really new to the article is fair enough. This article is one of the worst BLP problems I'm aware of and has been for a long time, because a handful of editors cannot simply present Atzmon's views as they are (idiosyncratic, let's say, but with some foundation in reasoned argument), and instead seek to present them as irrational and racist and on occasion even as Holocaust-denying (a particularly egregious past episode). Rd232 talk 13:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- The only selective quotation in the article is from the users who attempt to white wash all of Atzmon's antisemitic statements from it. All one has to do is read Atzmon's writings. http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/ On his website he has over 120 essays listed under the category "Jewish Power." They are antisemitic to the core, and there is no meaningful debate to be had about it. He has been censured and banned by many prominent anti-zionist individuals and organizations for his anti-semitism. He declares himself a "proud self hating jew" and says the "official Holocaust narrative is there to conceal rather than to reveal any truth" (and just in case I am accused of taking that out of context, here is the full paragraph: Saying that, I must admit that I have many doubts concerning the Zionist Holocaust narrative. Being familiar with many of the discrepancies within the forcefully imposed narrative, being fully familiar with the devastating tale of the extensive collaboration between the Nazis and the Zionists before and throughout the Second World War, I know pretty well that the official Holocaust narrative is there to conceal rather than to reveal any truth. But it isn’t only a historical matter. It is evident that the Holocaust raises an ethical question. Considering the scale of the post Holocaust Jewish trauma we must question how is it that people who suffered so much (Jews) can inflict so much pain on other people (Palestinians). http://gilad.co.uk/html%20files/1001lies.html) along with saying it's rational to burn down synagogues and that the accusation that the jewish people are trying to take over the world should be taken seriously etc. Atzmon's views would be right at home on Stormfront(ugh, actually they are, if you can stomach reading this http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t712335/). At the moment the article contains only quotes from reliable sources (interviews and articles). And it accurately represents the character of Atzmon's writing. The only issue in the article at the moment are users who believe that they need to protect Atzmon from himself by white washing his antisemitic statements from the page. Drsmoo (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- All you've demonstrated is that you still don't understand what selective quotation actually means. Your "Holocaust narrative" quote doesn't mean what you imply it means. This isn't as obvious even from the fuller quote as it should be, but in the broader context of Atzmon's views he is talking about the use of the Holocaust as a quasi-religious myth instead of being accepted as merely a historical event. I know from experience that it's pointless debating with you; I'm not even sure you want to understand his views. I withdrew from the article (which I originally got involved with via BLPN) because of people like you being unwilling or unable to understand the nuances of Atzmon's (radical/extreme/whatever-you-want-to-call-them, whatever, they still need presenting neutrally) views. Rd232 talk 04:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hear hear. It's by enforcing rules on the BLPs of people unpopular with some segment of the population that we make sure those of everyone are not abused. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Atzmon's antisemitism isn't ambiguous in any way shape or form. Saying the holocaust narrative is there to conceal the truth is not a complicated statement unless you choose to make it one. It is amazing the mental gymnastics some people will go through to convince themselves that he isn't really saying what he (proudly) says over and over and over. When he says he's a proud self hating Jew, he means it. When he questions that the death marches were for the purpose of killing jews, or that Auschwitz was a death camp he means that too.(http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/truth-history-and-integrity-by-gilad-atzmon.html) In any case, it is irrelevant to the composition of the article, which should be edited according to Wikipedia policy, and not as a white wash, nor as an attack piece. Drsmoo (talk) 05:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- (ec)Well, you're further proving me right (and BTW WP:BLP also applies to this board). The "truth" at issue is Zionism's involvement with the Nazis and present-day use of the Holocaust as a political tool; indeed there is nothing complicated about that, but you present that as if he is denying the Holocaust. No quote in the link you give backs up your claim "he says he doesn't believe that it was possible for there to be death marches, or for Auschwitz to have been a death camp". He raises questions (drawing on an Israeli historian claiming voluntary involvement in marches) and asks for it to be treated as a historical event, not as a sacred narrative. Rd232 talk 05:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, you've edited your comment to slightly tone down your remark, so my quote of you doesn't match up any more. Your revised version doesn't match Atzmon's writing either: he doesn't question the purpose of the marches, so much as point to the claim that some joined the marches voluntarily and say that this is a bit odd and worth looking into. You're always reading between Atzmon's lines to find a Holocaust-denying racist, instead of listening to what he actually says. I wish I could walk from this knowing that people who actually care what he says (I don't!) will present his views accurately and neutrally. Rd232 talk 05:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- The Holocaust is a historical event and is treated as such, there is likely no historical event that has been and continues to be researched as rigorously. The only people who deny that it is treated as a historical event are those who don't like the conclusions. The questions Atzmon is raising (as to weather or not the Nazis wanted the Jews dead) have been answered long ago. Drsmoo (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- The mind boggles. "as to weather or not the Nazis wanted the Jews dead"? You're really completely happy to libel this guy, aren't you? Considering that in the link you gave he talked about his own relative being killed: "It took me years to grasp that my great-grandmother wasn’t made into a ‘soap’ or a ‘lampshade’. She probably perished out of exhaustion, typhus or maybe even by mass shooting. This was indeed bad and tragic enough, however not that different from the fate of many millions of Ukrainians who learned what communism meant for real. ... The fate of my great-grandmother was not any different from hundreds of thousands of German civilians who died in an orchestrated indiscriminate bombing, because they were Germans. Similarly, people in Hiroshima died just because they were Japanese. 1 million Vietnamese died just because they were Vietnamese and 1.3 million Iraqis died because they were Iraqis. In short the tragic circumstances of my great grandmother wasn’t that special after all." Rd232 talk 05:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- "If, for instance, the Nazis wanted the Jews out of their Reich (Judenrein - free of Jews), or even dead, as the Zionist narrative insists, how come they marched hundreds of thousands of them back into the Reich at the end of the war?" The Nazis wanting the Jews dead is not "the zionist narrative" it is a historical fact accepted by the whole world. Drsmoo (talk) 06:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- The mind boggles. "as to weather or not the Nazis wanted the Jews dead"? You're really completely happy to libel this guy, aren't you? Considering that in the link you gave he talked about his own relative being killed: "It took me years to grasp that my great-grandmother wasn’t made into a ‘soap’ or a ‘lampshade’. She probably perished out of exhaustion, typhus or maybe even by mass shooting. This was indeed bad and tragic enough, however not that different from the fate of many millions of Ukrainians who learned what communism meant for real. ... The fate of my great-grandmother was not any different from hundreds of thousands of German civilians who died in an orchestrated indiscriminate bombing, because they were Germans. Similarly, people in Hiroshima died just because they were Japanese. 1 million Vietnamese died just because they were Vietnamese and 1.3 million Iraqis died because they were Iraqis. In short the tragic circumstances of my great grandmother wasn’t that special after all." Rd232 talk 05:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- The Holocaust is a historical event and is treated as such, there is likely no historical event that has been and continues to be researched as rigorously. The only people who deny that it is treated as a historical event are those who don't like the conclusions. The questions Atzmon is raising (as to weather or not the Nazis wanted the Jews dead) have been answered long ago. Drsmoo (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, you've edited your comment to slightly tone down your remark, so my quote of you doesn't match up any more. Your revised version doesn't match Atzmon's writing either: he doesn't question the purpose of the marches, so much as point to the claim that some joined the marches voluntarily and say that this is a bit odd and worth looking into. You're always reading between Atzmon's lines to find a Holocaust-denying racist, instead of listening to what he actually says. I wish I could walk from this knowing that people who actually care what he says (I don't!) will present his views accurately and neutrally. Rd232 talk 05:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- (ec)Well, you're further proving me right (and BTW WP:BLP also applies to this board). The "truth" at issue is Zionism's involvement with the Nazis and present-day use of the Holocaust as a political tool; indeed there is nothing complicated about that, but you present that as if he is denying the Holocaust. No quote in the link you give backs up your claim "he says he doesn't believe that it was possible for there to be death marches, or for Auschwitz to have been a death camp". He raises questions (drawing on an Israeli historian claiming voluntary involvement in marches) and asks for it to be treated as a historical event, not as a sacred narrative. Rd232 talk 05:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Atzmon's antisemitism isn't ambiguous in any way shape or form. Saying the holocaust narrative is there to conceal the truth is not a complicated statement unless you choose to make it one. It is amazing the mental gymnastics some people will go through to convince themselves that he isn't really saying what he (proudly) says over and over and over. When he says he's a proud self hating Jew, he means it. When he questions that the death marches were for the purpose of killing jews, or that Auschwitz was a death camp he means that too.(http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/truth-history-and-integrity-by-gilad-atzmon.html) In any case, it is irrelevant to the composition of the article, which should be edited according to Wikipedia policy, and not as a white wash, nor as an attack piece. Drsmoo (talk) 05:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hear hear. It's by enforcing rules on the BLPs of people unpopular with some segment of the population that we make sure those of everyone are not abused. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- All you've demonstrated is that you still don't understand what selective quotation actually means. Your "Holocaust narrative" quote doesn't mean what you imply it means. This isn't as obvious even from the fuller quote as it should be, but in the broader context of Atzmon's views he is talking about the use of the Holocaust as a quasi-religious myth instead of being accepted as merely a historical event. I know from experience that it's pointless debating with you; I'm not even sure you want to understand his views. I withdrew from the article (which I originally got involved with via BLPN) because of people like you being unwilling or unable to understand the nuances of Atzmon's (radical/extreme/whatever-you-want-to-call-them, whatever, they still need presenting neutrally) views. Rd232 talk 04:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- The only selective quotation in the article is from the users who attempt to white wash all of Atzmon's antisemitic statements from it. All one has to do is read Atzmon's writings. http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/ On his website he has over 120 essays listed under the category "Jewish Power." They are antisemitic to the core, and there is no meaningful debate to be had about it. He has been censured and banned by many prominent anti-zionist individuals and organizations for his anti-semitism. He declares himself a "proud self hating jew" and says the "official Holocaust narrative is there to conceal rather than to reveal any truth" (and just in case I am accused of taking that out of context, here is the full paragraph: Saying that, I must admit that I have many doubts concerning the Zionist Holocaust narrative. Being familiar with many of the discrepancies within the forcefully imposed narrative, being fully familiar with the devastating tale of the extensive collaboration between the Nazis and the Zionists before and throughout the Second World War, I know pretty well that the official Holocaust narrative is there to conceal rather than to reveal any truth. But it isn’t only a historical matter. It is evident that the Holocaust raises an ethical question. Considering the scale of the post Holocaust Jewish trauma we must question how is it that people who suffered so much (Jews) can inflict so much pain on other people (Palestinians). http://gilad.co.uk/html%20files/1001lies.html) along with saying it's rational to burn down synagogues and that the accusation that the jewish people are trying to take over the world should be taken seriously etc. Atzmon's views would be right at home on Stormfront(ugh, actually they are, if you can stomach reading this http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t712335/). At the moment the article contains only quotes from reliable sources (interviews and articles). And it accurately represents the character of Atzmon's writing. The only issue in the article at the moment are users who believe that they need to protect Atzmon from himself by white washing his antisemitic statements from the page. Drsmoo (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- It seems from my experience of BLP and articles such as this that our policy and the levels of NPOV and basic maturity on this wikipedia that we are unable to protect such living people as Gilad from attack by people , well , partisan haters is probable a decent reflection. Uninvolved neutral editors that have any responsibility to the neutrality and educational ambitions of the project should either work on such articles as this to keep the haters attempts out of the article or take such articles to AFD and delete them from the project - with a rationale along the lines of - WP:Do no harm - the living subject is repeatedly and over time attacked through the article and the talkpage - policy and guidelines have been unable to prevent such partisan attacks and as such this wikipedia has lost any assumed right to host a biography of this living person. Off2riorob (talk) 12:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- In general I've walked away from the Atzmon article because of Carolmooredc's "POV" pushing and forum shopping made it not worth the battle to ensure it accurately reflected Atzmon's position, but I do have to say something here about how off-track some of these comments are. Some of the editors here seem to have no real idea what Holocaust denial actually is, how it manifests itself today. That leaves them helpless to understand just why the Atzmon article contains such accusation, and fully deserves to. Instead they try to bully people like Drsmoo into silence.
- Holocaust deniers have moved past saying "none of it happened" because they know that nobody buys it. They tried it. It failed. Now they just try to diminish or lie about every aspect of it instead, "Yeah, some Nazi soldiers did some bad things to some Jews every now and then, I guess, but there was no real plan to do so, no gas chambers, Hitler didn't tell them to, and the Jews have vastly inflated the number of dead." And that is the kind of Holocaust denial Atzmon promotes. The more you know about Holocaust denial, the more you see why Atzmon lost such a wide fraction of his following when he embraced it in 2005. Follow the link to the Aspen public access TV appearance and you'll see it play out: other panelists in a discussion getting turned off by his Holocaust denial, live on TV. What's more, Holocaust deniers are themselves coming to recognize Atzmon as one of their own; Robert Faurisson, David Irving, and David Duke all have plenty of Atzmon material on their web sites, because they see him as a fellow Holocaust denier.
- It's sad but true: the one thing that people on all sides of the issue - zionist or anti-zionist - agree on is that the more you listen to Atzmon, the more you recognize that he's an antisemite, and his base is now down to just the true believers (and the stormtroopers I mentioned above).
- So the idea that all this stuff about Atzmon and Holocaust denial is just being made up - well, sorry, that doesn't pass the reality test. Atzmon gets picketed more by antizionists than zionists, because they know the damage he does to their movement. And the fact that Wikipedia hasn't been able to whitewash him as spotlessly as some of his followers desire is a victory for Wikipedia, even though some editors above have strangely decided that it is a defeat. Goodwinsands (talk) 13:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Your minimal time at the project and your single issue account speaks for itself - We as a project need to recognize such accounts as your and topic ban them from their POV topic as fast as possible, neutrality is not an option with such single purpose accounts. Off2riorob (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Justin Meacham
Article Justin Meacham includes detailed information about the subject's alleged mental illness and suicide attempt, all of it unsourced. --JN466 16:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've deleted it; extra eyes welcome. --JN466 16:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Unsourced BLP, some nasty BLP issues, not much of anything in the way of reliable secondary sources that I can find at first glance, perhaps this should be heading to deletion? --j⚛e deckertalk to me 17:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- There is a little more if you look under his stage name, "Justin Sane". Having played in three notable bands, he is entitled to a BLP per WP:MUSICBIO. So we could have a go at writing something sourced. But it should be short and to the point. --JN466 18:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- All the references I saw were to Justin Sane, the punk rocker, who appears to be a different person, but if you saw more, I'll take your word for it. (If I'm confused on the question of them being the same person, then we should merge the articles.) --j⚛e deckertalk to me 18:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- There is a little more if you look under his stage name, "Justin Sane". Having played in three notable bands, he is entitled to a BLP per WP:MUSICBIO. So we could have a go at writing something sourced. But it should be short and to the point. --JN466 18:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Unsourced BLP, some nasty BLP issues, not much of anything in the way of reliable secondary sources that I can find at first glance, perhaps this should be heading to deletion? --j⚛e deckertalk to me 17:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Justin_Meacham --JN466 20:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Martin Amis
Martin Amis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
someone's inserted children's literature in the bio:
a British novelist, the author of some of Britain's lowest brow children's literature, including —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.46.169.63 (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- I have reverted the edit. In the future you can always step in to edit the article yourself! --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
misspelling of my name in the article
Enis Esmer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello. I am Ennis Esmer. My name is misspelled in my article as Enis Esmer. How do I go about changing that? It didn't give me that option in the editing section.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.119.120.121 (talk • contribs)
- - quick looking around, the name is spelt both ways at different locations so we are going to need something WP:RS to sort it out - Off2riorob (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Kranti Kanade
Kranti Kanade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article appears to be written by the filmmaker himself and is clearly a PR exercise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.72.154.79 (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- It needs some work but he is probably notable, if the sources check out. You can edit it yourself if you wish or propose it for deletion and see who objects.Jonathanwallace (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Daniel Damiano
Daniel Damiano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
is a professional Playwright, Actor & Poet, based in New York City. Born Damiano F. Camporeale in Point Pleasant, NJ on June 30th, 1970, he studied acting briefly at the American Academy of Dramatic Arts in the late 80's. As a playwright, his plays have been the recipient of the Christopher Brian Wolk Award, an Off-Off Broadway Review Critics Choice Award for Excellence, Grand Prize from the Attic Theatre Ensemble in Los Angeles and, most recently, the Silver Stage Award, presented by the Old Opera House Theatre Company in West Virginia. He has also been a 2-time Finalist for the Playwrights First Award, sponsored by the National Arts Club in NYC and a Finalist for the Y.E.S. Festival of New Plays Award, sponsored by the University of Northern Kentucky.
Some of his plays of note; Dreams of Friendly Aliens (2007), produced by the Abingdon Theatre Company in NYC. Winner Christopher Brian Wolk Award (2004, Playwrights First Award Finalist, Backstage Critics Pick)
The Narrow World, produced by Fresh Baked Theatre Company in Los Angeles, 2010. Y.E.S. Festival of New Plays Award Finalist, 2008.
The Enlightenment of Mrs. Cartwell, 2009 Estrogenius Producers Choice in NYC at Manhattan Theatre Source, published in the 2009 Estrogenius Anthology. Winner of the Silver Stage Award, presented by the Old Opera House Theatre Company in 2009.
The Offspring of Lorraine, produced by Mutt Repp in NYC, Off-Off Broadway Review Critics Choice Award, 1998/99.
Other Plays include; The Golden Year (2010) The Dishonorable Discharge of Private Pitts (2009) Day of the Dog (2008/Playwrights First Award Finalist, 2009) Graphic Nature (2006) The Old Wife's Tale (2000) Fate Would Have It (1999) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.27.134.253 (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think you may want Wikipedia:Requested articles. Be sure to provide some third party reliable sources to show that the subject meets the notability requirements for a stand alone article. Active Banana (bananaphone 21:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- - This is the wrong location to suggest article creation - WP:Article creation - is a good place for that - I also left you a template of helpful links on your talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
shunsuke nakamura
Shunsuke Nakamura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
it seems as though someone has written this biography up with very poor english skills. it is not of encyclopedia standards but rather fan made jibberish. with absolutely NO CITATIONS or SOURCES. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.12.144 (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- This would appear to be incorrect - I'm looking at a relatively well-written article with a good depth of sourcing and external links. Could you provide a specific example of what you believe to be the problem? --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- A useful resource some editors may not know about is the articles for translation page where you can request attention from bilingual editors.Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- English usage in the article looks fine, he spent much of his career in Europe including Scotland so it should have had plenty of attention from English-speaking editors. There are some subjective unattributed statements such as "Nakamura became an instant influence at the club, scoring a fantastic goal in his debut" and "The new coach immediately brought the talented player back to the national team" which either need attribution or toning down, and a few gaps in the sourcing but nothing major. January (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- A useful resource some editors may not know about is the articles for translation page where you can request attention from bilingual editors.Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Jacgue Fresco
Jacque Fresco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and - User:Thetaxmancometh
A disputed addition by this user has a few objections on the talkpage, they assert the way the user is presenting the addition is undue and presents the subject incorrectly, please take a moment to look there, you can see the objections from here down - I attempted to ask the user to move to discussion after they reverted the content back and left a request to move to discussion on their talkpage. I was unsuccessful - the user replaced the content with the edit summary - it isn't improperly sourced and it will be put back each time it is removed - here is the content and the citation he is adding - Off2riorob (talk) 01:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- - Fresco was interviewed in New Zealand in 2010 on the television program, Close Up. In that interview, Fresco & Roxanne Meadows both state that Fresco "joined the Klan in order to change them". Meadows states, "He joined the Ku Klux Klan and changed them within a month and a half. Then joined the White Citizens Council and changed them." In the same interview, Fresco states, "First, that leader states, what do you think of the Ku Klux Klan. I said, it's a great idea, but it doesn't go far enough".
comments
Also - looking at his edit history and contributions there appears a similarity between him and this blocked indefinitely vandal only account...
* - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Icanseethefnords
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Thetaxmancometh
I struck this comment as I made a SPI and the outcome was unrelated. Off2riorob (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- The source is a video submission site a la Youtube. I didn't watch the 25 minute video but a purported transcript there contains the statements. However, by "doesn't go far enough" he apparently does not mean "should be more violent" as the transcript continues with a rambling story about how he brought compassion to the Klan. Assuming this is Fresco--and it looks like him--he question, already discussed at WP:RSN I think, is whether under WP:PRIMARY or possibly WP:SPS, an interview is a reliable source for the assertion "he says he joined the Klan with the intention of changing it", or does that constitute self serving statements which would require a third party source. I think its a close one. If someone says "I joined the Klan" in a verifiable interview, we should be able to use that in the form "says he joined the Klan". But if he did join, his intentions for doing so are unverifiable and an interview might be self serving. If he genuinely joined the Klan to change it (a strange assertion) then just saying "joined the Klan" without more, might harm him. On the whole, its probably easiest to exclude the information, as a non-notable, non-verifiable assertion, if it can't be related to third party sources--as we certainly would if anyone else had said it. Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- - http://dotsub.com/ is not a WP:RS for anything. I totally agree , what we are looking for as editors here is a report of this , even better is multiple reports in clear WP:RS locations to assert some real notability and then we can report on those reports. I also agree, the content is WP:SPS and a bit self serving and without secondary reports or any verification. Off2riorob (talk) 05:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
HIV trial in Libya
HIV trial in Libya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I think this page is dangerous from a BLP perspective: It gives way too much weight to the WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories espoused by Libya, thus making the nurses - who are, of course, BLPs - look far worse than the evidence merits. (crossposted to WP:FTN, as both types of expertise are likely needed here) Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- On the whole, this verbose, rambling page (which could use some pruning) tells the whole story fairly (Libyan allegations, Western commentary, defenses of innocence, allegations the defendants were tortured). If someone is tried on "fringey" charges there is no way to tell the otherwise notable story without thoroughly describing the fringe elements, and I don't think the article does more than that. Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- I do think that it inadvertently presents the fringiness as truth in some points, and does a bad job of separating the fringe claims from the more reliably-sourced facts. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- An edit cutting away a lot of the duplication and cruft will probably address both our concerns. Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- I do think that it inadvertently presents the fringiness as truth in some points, and does a bad job of separating the fringe claims from the more reliably-sourced facts. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Donald Trump
Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
BLP dispute re Trump's purported religion.
- - Inability to engage with User:Bbrezic in good faith debate
The following links show the
- refusal by editor Bbrezic to engage in discussion on his talk page
- refusal by editor Bbrezic to engage on Trump talk page
The sections titled "Reformed Church in America?" and "Need Citation that Donald Trump is Catholic" contain extensive discussions regarding the issue of religion, Trump's parents and grandparents and siblings' known religious affiliations, his church attendance at Marble Collegiate, his divorces, etc., which taken in sum make it nearly impossible, unless he has converted, of which no evidence exists, that Trump is, in fact, Catholic.
An example of comprehensive research which User:Bbrezic simply ignores is as follows: "According to a number of biographies, Donald Trump's parents were both longtime members of Marble Collegiate Church. Trump married Ivana Winklmayr at Marble Collegiate (New York magazine 10/15/1990). Dr. Arthur Caliandro, minister of Marble Collegiate, performed his wedding to Marla Maples in 1993 (New York Times 12/21/1993). Maples said she met him at Marble Collegiate. His most recent wedding was at an Episcopal church. Trump's father's funeral was at Marble Collegiate (NY Daily News 6/16/1999) as was his mother's (NY Daily News 6/26/1999). He clearly was raised Protestant. What is the source for identifying him as Catholic? Thanks. User:Bebill, 23:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)"
Summation
Cindy Adams is not a reliable source and her article simply says four words: "The Trumps are Catholic," offering no proof whatever. Likewise, although of higher calibre, The Daily Telegraph article in question provides no evidence whatever for its five word, one line comment that Trump is Roman Catholic, and is, in my opinion, mistaken. Likewise, the site known as www.catholicvote.org asserts that Trump is Catholic, but like the other examples there is no direct quote whatever from Trump to back this up, even though the issue deals with Trump's possible candidacy in 2012 for POTUS and the extremely important issue of abortion.
I have made Google searches for any solid or first-hand evidence of anyone in the Trump family's denominational preference and aside from the above, seriously flawed in my opinion, examples, I have come up empty handed. No church membership, no mass attendance, no denominational schooling, no indication of religiosity at all.
I am willing to admit if I am wrong re Trump or if I have erred in my way of handling this, but given the importance of Wikipedia in disseminating information, which is copied or relayed via myriad mirror sites worldwide, or cited, I think the matter is important enough to be reviewed here. I will notify his/her talkpage of my raising this BLP matter here. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Views
- From Politicsdaily, Catholicvote.org "identified Trump as a Catholic, but he is apparently a member of the Dutch Reformed Church." Politics Daily appears to me to be a reliable source. The article should not say "Trump is a Catholic", given reports to the contrary and the lack of statements by Trump identifying his own affiliation. Nor can we delete reliably sourced references to him being a Catholic; your opinion the sources are "seriously flawed" is your own synthesis based on the evidence. My proposed neutral/compromise solution: a statement such as "Donald Trump, who has been reported in some sources to be Catholic (references here), is according to Politicsdaily, 'apparently a member of the Dutch Reformed Church'." Jonathanwallace (talk) 07:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me, Jonathan. I agree that the "article should not say 'Trump is a Catholic'" but that is what the editor with whom I am having this dispute has done. I updated the article in line with your recommendations. Perhaps you could watchlist the Trump page so as to monitor any possible edit warring. Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- What??? Either he is a Catholic or he isn't a Catholic. BLPs shouldn't be used to gather up every unsubstantiated quote just because it is a quote. John lilburne (talk) 11:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- In all honesty I must admit I also agree with this. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- What??? Either he is a Catholic or he isn't a Catholic. BLPs shouldn't be used to gather up every unsubstantiated quote just because it is a quote. John lilburne (talk) 11:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm surprised at the assertion that it would be either black or white. For a sense of how much ambiguity there is in relation to whether someone is Jewish, see Who is a Jew; I suspect one can find similar ambiguity about being Catholic. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- "Either he is a Catholic or he isn't a Catholic". Its rarely that simple, and since he apparently hasn't self identified in public, and we can't read his mind (any assertion to the contrary would violate WP:FRINGE and WP:OR simultaneously), reporting what contradictory reliable sources have said is the right way to go. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- If your sources are contradictory, then they are not reliable in this matter. I thought BLP says you should only ascribe religious affiliation if he self identifies. I was Christened CofE, my mother is Roman Catholic. I went to a CofE run school in London. During much of my 11th year I went along to the Synagogue with my friend on Saturday mornings, we went fishing afterwards. I attended Baptist services and discussion groups at the Manse during my early teenage years, and I used to get the top marks in school examines on Religion. From the age of 10 I've always considered myself to be an Atheist. John lilburne (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- "Either he is a Catholic or he isn't a Catholic". Its rarely that simple, and since he apparently hasn't self identified in public, and we can't read his mind (any assertion to the contrary would violate WP:FRINGE and WP:OR simultaneously), reporting what contradictory reliable sources have said is the right way to go. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm surprised at the assertion that it would be either black or white. For a sense of how much ambiguity there is in relation to whether someone is Jewish, see Who is a Jew; I suspect one can find similar ambiguity about being Catholic. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- We just reflect reliable sources, its not our place as editors to draw conclusions. If the reliable sources are ambivalent than we reflect that in the article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- But Keithbob -- we as editors need to be responsible before propagating unfounded or questionable assertions as fact since way too many people get their information from Wikipedia.
Though not directly related to the Trump matter, I would point out the increasing use of blogs, MySpace and YouTube as cited references/sources in BLP-related articles.Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)- I am only editing the Donald Trump page in accordance with Wikipedia rules, and Wikipedia rules state that Daily Telegraph is a reliable source. Yet you, have updated the article once again today with out any consensus, only with recommendation from John lilburne. Your only proof that Trump isn't Catholic is you own personal belief that you suspect the UK Telegraph is mistaken. What is that? So now, your own personal beliefs are placed in front of reliable sources, prescribed by Wikipedia standards. Since when does a person has to attend a certain Church to be characterized as a member of that Church? We have the example of Patricia Heaton, who was raised as a devout Catholic and yet she attends a Presbyterian Church with her family. Despite that, Heaton claims she is still a Catholic.--Bbrezic (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- But Keithbob -- we as editors need to be responsible before propagating unfounded or questionable assertions as fact since way too many people get their information from Wikipedia.
- We just reflect reliable sources, its not our place as editors to draw conclusions. If the reliable sources are ambivalent than we reflect that in the article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- You are not an automatum! You are meant to be applying common sense and assessing the worth of each source you use. A guide to that is whether the source is generally reliable, but it does not follow that it is always reliable in every instant. Two reliable source that differ on a point of fact cannot both be reliable on the fact in question. Either one or the other has to give. That is not the same as having two differing sources on a matter of opinion then you can quote both. But in this instance by giving equal weight to both 'facts' all that is being imparted is that he probably doesn't have a shrine dedicated to Quetzalcoatl. John lilburne (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Bbrezic -- I accept that defining people by religion, which is not something I did to initiate all this, rather Eversman did, can be ambiguous. However, Patricia Heaton's religious beliefs and background are known and understood. Has anyone ever heard Donald Trump say a word about any Catholic or even religious beliefs? Any quote, anywhere, ever....? Trump reportedly declared himself pro life in what is a transparent attempt to position himself, as I pointed out somewhere, as a possible POTUS candidate in 2012. Again - nowhere anywhere is there any reference to any religious beliefs he has ever held in his entire life until very recently when this notion that he is Catholic surfaced because he claims he is "pro life". Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- You are not an automatum! You are meant to be applying common sense and assessing the worth of each source you use. A guide to that is whether the source is generally reliable, but it does not follow that it is always reliable in every instant. Two reliable source that differ on a point of fact cannot both be reliable on the fact in question. Either one or the other has to give. That is not the same as having two differing sources on a matter of opinion then you can quote both. But in this instance by giving equal weight to both 'facts' all that is being imparted is that he probably doesn't have a shrine dedicated to Quetzalcoatl. John lilburne (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- John lilburne says: a) "If your sources are contradictory, then they are not reliable in this matter" and b) "BLP says you should only ascribe religious affiliation if he self identifies". I am not aware of any WP policy that supports either of these two statements. If I am incorrect, could someone please provide a link to the appropriate section of WP:BLP? Secondly, I don't believe that the sources are contradictory anyway, since one's religious affiliation may change and The Daily Telegraph says in Oct 2010 that Trump is Catholic and the Daily Politics says in Feb 2011 that Trump is "apparently" something else. I am OK with both sources/religions (and it appears that uninvolved editor Jonathanwallace is also) being reported in the article but if someone put a gun to my head adn I had to pick (and I don't think I/we do) I would choose The Daily Telegraph as the most reliable source because it is more well known and it doesn't waffle like the Daily Politics which uses the word "apparently". However, that said, I am OK having both sources/religions in the article as long as the sources are attributed and the wording from Daily Politics is in quotes, as it is right now.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Why don't you try WP:BLPCAT and if you aren't supposed to categorize and list people without them self identifying why would you think that sticking the nonsense in somewhere else would be OK? In any case the Daily Politics site references the Catholic Voice site which claims he is ex-Catholic. So rather then putting in maybe he is maybe he isn't crap why not wait until he self identifies. John lilburne (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing out the policy you had in mind when you made your statement about Trump needing to self identifying his religion. I don't agree with your application of WP:BLPCAT policy to the entire article since it is specific to Categories which label a person. I also don't think that text in an article based on reliable sources should be called "sticking the nonsense in somewhere else". That said, I appreciate your opinion and respect your position. Let's see what other uninvolved editors have to say. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- This is absolute correct -- BLPCAT applies to categories (and now infoboxes) but not to the text of an article, where it is possible to address matters of nuance and interpretation as necessary. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Dear Rms125, Please do not put words in my mouth. I said: "we just reflect reliable sources". I did not say that I supported "unfounded or questionable assertions as fact" or that personal blogs, MySpace and YouTube were reliable sources for BLP articles.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keithbob -- I sincerely apologize. That wasn't my intention. I was trying, and clearly I failed, to just kind of tie together the different forms of unreliable media whose assertions are often mistaken for fact. Please accept my apologies. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Dear Rms125, Please do not put words in my mouth. I said: "we just reflect reliable sources". I did not say that I supported "unfounded or questionable assertions as fact" or that personal blogs, MySpace and YouTube were reliable sources for BLP articles.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Why don't you try WP:BLPCAT and if you aren't supposed to categorize and list people without them self identifying why would you think that sticking the nonsense in somewhere else would be OK? In any case the Daily Politics site references the Catholic Voice site which claims he is ex-Catholic. So rather then putting in maybe he is maybe he isn't crap why not wait until he self identifies. John lilburne (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Abdullah of Saudi Arabia
Abdullah of Saudi Arabia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Death was reported in one source [24] but the news has not appeared on any other news site (as far as I can see), and the report has been discredited by AFP [25]. Also, another story on the same first source makes it highly suspect [26]
The death date was added in the lede, the infobox, and a section "Death" stated about this report. Those have all been removed, and the article fullysemi-protected for a few days (thanks Brian). (c/e, Chzz ► 11:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC))
Diff shows info removed: [27]
Note, it was protected for similar reasons just a few days ago.
No action required right now due to prot, and I think we've removed it all. But, please keep an eye on it. Cheers. Chzz ► 10:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Scott_Walker_(politician)
Scott Walker (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A user of the name Thorlother is repeatedly adding extremely opinionated information to the article. The 2011 section has been added and removed multiple times. Can someone take some sort of administrative action?
Addition of 2011 section
Anonymous (though likely the same guy) addition of another section
Posting 2011 section again after removal
More opinions
Also note, with successive edits, the user has taken Walker's alleged GPA down from a 2.59 to a 2.39 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.30.10.216 (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- This is not the place obtain Administrator attention as most of the editors here are not Administrators. You could post here [28] if you feel an Administrator is needed. However, I think, given the situation, Admin attention is premature and this noticeboard is the proper place for now. Firstly, conflicting styles, personalities and perspectives are an everyday part of WP. That is why we have talk pages, so that editors can discuss and come to agreement or compromise. Therefore I suggest you create a thread on the talk page and post a note on the other editors User Talk page and invite him to join the discussion. You can then explain to him that WP likes its text to be referenced to reliable sources and that that is especially true on BLP's (see WP:BLP}. If the discussion stalls then you can ask editors from this noticeboard to come and join the discussion and achieve a consensus. If the other editor won't recognize and adopt the consensus than you would have grounds to post here [29] and ask an Admin to issue a warning. Does that make sense?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- I understand your opinion, Keithbob, but disagree with it and have indefinitely blocked the account in question for political POV-pushing and libellous editorialising. CIreland (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- As you wish. You likely made a deeper investigation of the issue than I and are better informed. In the meantime I have reviewed the entire article and made copy edits and organizational changes to improve the neutrality and tone of the article. I have also posted on the talk page saying I am open to discussing and improving the article with other editors. Thanks for your help. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- I understand your opinion, Keithbob, but disagree with it and have indefinitely blocked the account in question for political POV-pushing and libellous editorialising. CIreland (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Antonio Arnaiz-Villena
Antonio Arnaiz-Villena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Could you please protect Antonio Arnaiz-Villena page from Akerbeltz,Trigaranus,Kwamikagami Dumu Eduba and a recent new-comer ,GoingToPluto ,editings?Could you protect this page from new-comers? Reasons:
- 1-This is a living person biography ,that they want to defame ,some of them for the last years.
- 2-They are converting a biography (should be facts)in a long Discussion page for different topics.
- 3-Someone is repeatedly deleting the link to the Palestinian paper ,a major object of discussion in this WP place (they prefer a “Summary”).[ http://kinoko.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~duraid/stolen_science/The_Origin_of_Palestinians_and_Their_Genetic_Relatedness_With_Other_Mediterranean_Populations.pdf]
- 4-The cannot say(In a title) that Scientific Community (meaning ALL scientists)is against Arnaiz-Villena:he is publishing actively up until now in international peer-reviewed magazines.The text is already repetitive enough.[ http://chopo.pntic.mec.es/~biolmol/personal/peraav.htm]
- 5-“Ethnic Macedonians” is a racist term and shoul be forbidden in WP:it has nothing to do with this biography.
- Honestly, I can't follow much of what you're saying, but the article, which is about a controversial figure, is messy. In particular, the fringe subsection is almost unreadable it's so poorly written. I've added a template to that section that it needs to be cleaned up. It's somewhat ironic that a section about linguistics is almost impossible to read.
- Not that I know much about it, but why is the phrase "ethnic Macedonians" a "racist term"? There's a Wikipedia article on the group (and the term in the Arnaiz-Villena article is wikified).
- The article is already protected as it uses the Review system for auto-confirmed users. I'm not sure that you'll get much more protection than that without a more understandable and solid basis for requesting it. For example, pointing to specific edits that have been made and critiquing them would help.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Symbio04 is a single-interest account with an apparent COI. Accounts from what appear to be Arnaiz-Villena himself or his students chronically challenge the article (one of the reasons it's such a mess), and make all sorts of claims, but have consistently failed to back them up with the legal records etc that they claim to have. (For example, a court has dismissed all charges or found him innocent, but they are unable to provide the case number, or the case number they provide does not check out.) Several have been permanently blocked as sock puppets. AFAIK, the accusations that remain are all adequately sourced, and if the AV accounts ever provide additional evidence it will be incorporated, but it's difficult to take them seriously. The sound like a crackpot sputtering about how there's a conspiracy against him. — kwami (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Heurelho Gomes
Heurelho Gomes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Under Club career section there is some offensive text. I have tried to edit this, but when opening the section to edit, the offensive text does not appear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Britatkinson (talk • contribs) 19:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think I have fixed this, but I have no idea what was going on. The offensive text was reverted by Cluebot almost immediately, but was still visible in subsequent revisions. (It was visible in the source HTML of the rendered page, but not in the wikitext of the page itself.)
- Anyway I have reverted back to the version before the vandal's original revision - which should be identical to what was there after Cluebot made its change, but isn't - and it seems to have fixed the problem. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- And now neither my change nor the original problem are apparent. OK, I'm confused lol. But problem seems to be solved, thanks for letting us know. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Dennis Genpo Merzel
Dennis Genpo Merzel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Please see what's happening at Dennis Genpo Merzel. Apparently, there has been an edit war brewing for some time now, that I happened to have fallen right into. The article history (besides a bunch of puffery and some unverified statements about marriages and stuff) contains a pretty egregious BLP violation. But see for yourself, please. I have already emailed Oversight, but the more eyes, the better. Perhaps I'm completely wrong. Thanks to all, Drmies (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- There's not much left in the article. Is there still a BLP violation, in your view? BTW, what is the source for the birth date?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I was worried that it might turn into a prolonged back and forth; it didn't. I saw you had reinstated some information that another editor (out of spite, I think) had removed, and while not all of that was properly sourced, they hardly constituted BLP violations. So I have no issue with the article as it is (I hope the BLP sources tag is still there). I looked around for sources and added two--I did not find anything with a birth date. But as you can see from the history, I have not edited the article before and am not familiar with the material. Thanks for your help and your interest, Drmies (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Axl Rose
Axl Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The second sentence of Axl's Bio states: "He is the only remaining original member of that band." This is false, all of the members of Guns N' Roses are alive today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.122.202.130 (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Heh. That would mean he is the only original one who is still IN the band. Echoedmyron (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Serzh Sargsyan
Serzh Sargsyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
someone has inserted the libellous title "էշ ղարաբաղցի" between President Serzh Sargsyan's first and last name, so that his name appears as "Serzh էշ ղարաբաղցի Sargsyan" on the article. "էշ ղարաբաղցի" means "the Karabakh donkey" or "the donkey of Karabakh". This same title is also used for Sargsyan's predecessor, former President Robert Kocharyan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.12.186 (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- I reverted the changes as unexplained. I have no idea what the words mean.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Kai Bird
Kai Bird (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I notice that someone has added a highly critical even libelous quotation from Benny Morris to the entry "Kai BIrd." I think this quote is unfair and should be taken down. At the very least it should be balanced with quotes from many of the highly favorable reviews my memoir has received. And you might add the fact that the book has recently been named a finalist for the National Book Critics Circle Award.
Kai Bird
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.52.244.98 (talk) 05:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- I would agree about balance, this seemed a very odd addition. I've just removed it, although it could perhaps go back in (but without a cite to blogspot, which is not a reliable source) if balanced with other views. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- It was reliably sourced to The New Republic. Benny Morris is a notable Israeli historian, and the review goes into very substantial detail as to the problems he perceives with Bird's book. I re-added a briefer version of the edit, balanced by a good review from Christopher Hitchens. WP:PRESERVE says: "Try to fix problems...preserve appropriate content". Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, let's try to fix the problem. I see there still being a problem of balance. That's what needs to be fixed - aside from the obvious problems of WP:RECENTISM, such as the question of why his other three books don't receive mention of this type. Were they not reviewed anywhere? Or just not perceived as useful in the endless Middle East POV-fest ? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- I have no dog in this hunt--truly uninvolved editor unfamiliar with either Bird or Morris, who got involved because of the posting here. I have no problem with adding reviews of other books, or if you want to propose tweaks to the language I added, lets discuss. Oh, and I don't see how recentism applies--the Morris review is the latest in a series of reviews of the book going back about a year. Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not suggesting you're part of the POV-fest, of course.
- As regards recentism, my point was that if we are being genuinely encyclopedic, then books written in 1992 or 1998 are no less significant in the author's biography than one written in 2010. Possibly the earlier books didn't receive as much secondary coverage, but if that's just because more people want to write opinion pieces about the Middle East, or because there was less internet coverage of such things in the 90's, then it's a distorted picture. Quite aside from which, the 2010 book is seemingly as much a memoir as a historical or biographical work, so is less significant than the earlier works in any case.
- Coming back to the discussion of the book itself, the Morris quote is extremely strong - almost accusing the author of falsification or similar - whereas the Hitchens quote is extremely weak and really indicates little more than that the book is fun to read (which does nothing to challenge Morris' comment). If we can't find a reliably sourced quote that presents the opposing view to Morris, how would you feel about having a second "positive" quote to balance things out? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Two positive quotes is fine with me. In the short while I spent looking at this, I found mainly mixed reviews (NY Times, Washpost) so Hitchens was the best I found. I agree adding reviews of earlier books as well is a good idea. Jonathanwallace (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- I wonder if perhaps a different quote might be taken from Morris' review, one which is less inflammatory and more informative to the reader. That Morris is critical is surely noteworthy, and I doubt if Mr. Bird would object to including that criticism. But cherry picking the most outrageous statement (and, read literally, surely false) strikes me as premature at best. If it later emerges that the criticism is reasonable and the consensus of other historians, then of course it must be added. But right now it strikes me as insufficiently grounded to be the best possible quote we could use. What we are telling the reader right now is practically of no value at all: that it is a memoir and history, and that another historian has said something outrageous about it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- [Addendum] Ugh, even worse, I see that our quote is an outrageous misquote of the review. "Israeli historian Benny Morris writes that 'practically nothing that Bird tells his readers about the Arab-Zionist conflict conforms with the facts of history'." The actual text reads: "From this point on, to the best of my knowledge, practically nothing that Bird tells his readers about the Arab-Zionist conflict conforms with the facts of history." The "From this point on" qualifier is quite important in the overall context.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- As you suggested, I substituted a different quote from the Morris review. Just to clarify things which may not need clarification: I am not the editor who originally added the Morris material, but an uninvolved one who saw the original posting here and tried to help. I did miss the "From this point on" distinction, though. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Lee Kuan Yew
Lee Kuan Yew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kindly clarify which information is correct : Did he or did he not work for the Japanese ?
1) From Wikipedia written in Chinese Language, it did not state that Lee Kuan Yew was able to find work transcribing Allied wire reports for the Japanese.
2) However, information taken from Wikipedia in English Language, it stated clearly that he was able to find a transcribing work and also as a English-language editor from the Japanese.
From Wikipedia in English Language : Early Life ................Having taken Chinese and Japanese lessons since 1942, he was able to find work transcribing Allied wire reports for the Japanese, as well as being the English-language editor on the Japanese Hodobu (報道部 — an information or propaganda department) from 1943 to 1944.[5][8]
We hope that the respective editing department verify the source in English language before making necessary editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.1.84 (talk) 07:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- The information in the article is party confirmed by the Time magazine source (which says only he worked for the Japanese but not in what capacity) and fully confirmed in this book which appears to be a reliable source.Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
mike summerbee
Mike Summerbee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
deragotary remarks posted under the heading sex life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnwill17 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the report, I have removed the material, which any Wikipedia user can do. CIreland (talk) 11:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Nicki Minaj
Nicki Minaj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This BLP is quite 'high-maintenence'.
I'm suggesting we start a FAQ page, which may help.
Please, if possible, help with it. Thanks, Chzz ► 15:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Krystal Ball
Hi -
I am working with Krystal Ball and it appears that another masked IP user is editing the page with untrue information and biased tone. In the Political Campaigns section, there is untrue information on where her political donations came from and the nature of her husband's business.
In the Controversial Photos section, the inaccuracies stem from bias in the tone of the writing and by omissions of certain aspects of the episode.
There is also quite a bit of new information on what Krystal Ball is doing now, however, because this page has been targeted before and because I am connected to the person in question, I didn't want to just re-write the page.
I removed one paragraph in the business history section that implied she made money illegally and used that to pay for her campaign. you can see the diff here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Krystal_Ball&diff=413728865&oldid=413186874
Any help on how to move forward would be helpful, thanks
Hoftie (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)hoftie
- It looks like Bbb23 and Midlakewinter are doing a good job cleaning up the article, and the IP address that inserted the (very) poorly sourced and biased material received a mild warning a few days ago. You are right to be cautious about making major enhancements to the page since you have a conflict of interest, however you may wish to make suggestions for further changes on the talk page for the article, especially any independent reliable sources that would be useful. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Michael Garner
Michael Garner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
You have got the wrong Paul Hamilton in this artical about the actor Michael Garner - he is married to the Northern Irish actress Paula Hamilton and not the ex-model Paula Hamilton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.134.75 (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Francis Fox Piven
Francis Fox Piven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- persistent Francis Fox Piven blanking and legal threat
Please see Francis Fox Piven (history and comments) as well as User talk:Rostz regarding a legal threat. Please advise, thanks. Rostz (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- After blocking the wrong person, I have blocked Fannielou (talk · contribs) indefinitely for the legal threat. –MuZemike 22:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- - User:Fannielou has now retracted the perceived legal threat and is unblocked. The article is now under discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Frances_Fox_Piven as it seems the subject has requested deletion due to claims of inaccuracies and repeated vandalism additions - it is presently snowing keep at the AFD. Off2riorob (talk) 12:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
:As a side note Cloward Piven Strategy appears to have been speedily deleted as a result of this same discussion. I have mixed feelings about that--sympathize very much with Dr. Piven but feel the term was notable and handled fairly in the article. It is there at Cloward-Piven Strategy, my mistake. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- - note as the subject has requested deletion there is a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frances Fox Piven - Off2riorob (talk) 12:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
John Lurie
John Lurie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A registered user is repeatedly adding statements that are not, or can't be, properly sourced (notably regarding the artist's health and other personal matters). The editor reverted other edits several times already, many times a day, and keep on adding an external link (spam) next to the name of an individual involved in a dispute with John Lurie that recently became public. The fact that the editor is using the name "LurieLurie" seem to indicate, in my opinion, that this situation might be related to this personal feud. I don't know if this Noticeboard is the best place to report such abuse, but in any case I think someone better informed on WP policy on BLP should look into it. Chips Ayoye (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- - I have requested pending protection for this BLP , which will be the best way to protect it imo from these accounts. Off2riorob (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- - User:Dabomb87(Configured WP:pending changes settings for John Lurie: Violations of the WP:biographies of living persons policy
- note - Would a couple of editors add this to their watchlists and give the BLP a look over for any content still remaining that might need removing and the external links could need a look at, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- That unsourced stuff about John Perry stalking him is apparently based on a New Yorker article, but non-neutrally phrased and intimating some details (traveling, no evidence) not supported by the article. About to sign off but will take a look in the a.m. if no-one else has done. Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- On further thought, I would support simply taking out the material, though widely reported as it seems to be mere gossip. Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Some additional opnions are requested as regards this article and this stalking claim, this addition is pending possible inclusion -thoughts - I am a bit unsure what to do wit it, the cite seems a bit sort of not reliable-ish but the addition seems poorly explained. thoughts ...
- the addition - In 2002, John Lurie became ill with Advanced Lyme Disease which made him unable to perform music. During the last two years Lurie has lived under considerable duress because of a stalker situation addressed in this article: http://www.jambands.com/features/2011/02/01/john-lurie-sustains/
It leaves me asking stalker? whats that all about - is this something we should be reporting here, are there reports of this in mainstream publications? Off2riorob (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- There's the August 2010 New Yorker article by Tad Friend, "Sleeping With Weapons", which John Lurie ended up not liking, there's mention of the topic at NPR, there being a link to this blog post by Marc Campbell which attracted comments by John Lurie, John Perry, and Thomas Perry, a brother. There's also the Jambands interview between Lurie and Larson Sutton, posted February 1, 2011. Apparently, Lurie has had Lyme Disease for more than eight years and has been stalked by John Perry for just over two years. I think the fact of the New Yorker article should be introduced to the biography without taking any of Friend's assertions as complete fact; that is, use WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV on him. Lurie's audio interview from 2006 is now pretty outdated, and can be replaced with the 2011 Sutton interview. Certainly, Lurie has not tried to hide his Lyme disease or his opposition to Perry-as-stalker. Binksternet (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- If you think it is something that should be added then please do so in a simple decent way rather than have newbie one edit accounts adding some poor addition. Off2riorob (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- You got it. I'll take a stab at it. Binksternet (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Cool, that would be appreciated, no hurry - no worry, Off2riorob (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- You got it. I'll take a stab at it. Binksternet (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- If you think it is something that should be added then please do so in a simple decent way rather than have newbie one edit accounts adding some poor addition. Off2riorob (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Sam Zamarripa
Sam Zamarripa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dking1952 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
My bio has been taken over by one Donald A. King, known in Georgia as DA KING. Mr. King is a paid representative of multiple anti immigrant organizations that has a long and established history of writing and posting content designed ridicule and disparage leading hispanic officials and organizations. His writing appear regularly on site that are associated with well establish hate organization. In addition Mr. King is a convicted felon. His comments on my personal bio pages are both inaccurate and sourced (reference) from his own web site.
Suggestions?
Sam Zamarripa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samzam2 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- - I left the user that has been adding article expansion as seen here - a note to come discuss here - on first glance that addition if full of inline externals and a fair few of them don't look reliable, , User Samzam2 has removed it and as he is claiming to be the subject of the BLP I left him a note and informed him of WP:COI. On second glance the addition violated multiple policies and I warned the user not to replace it. Off2riorob (talk) 01:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Leonel Fernández
Leonel Fernández (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The section Criticisms and corruption allegations] reads like an essay and appears to reach far beyond what the sources say, particularly using weasel words like "widespread" and "increased". Neither claim appears in the sources. I notice too that there is an unsourced claim in the lede "There has been a great deal of criticism about government corruption during his tenures."
This section was inserted by an anon here.
I think this should all be removed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- It just appears to be partisan attack content - perhaps with stronger citations a sentence might be worthy of reporting - there was an investigation but no indictment - most of its cited to - via - the free libary see here - as its written I support its removal also.note - I trimmed it quite a bit. Off2riorob (talk) 01:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 01:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Bob Dylan
Bob Dylan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There are a number of very inappropriate and disgusting comments that have been added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazza1956 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- As it is as featured article there are usually plenty of editors keeping an eye on such things, but I watchlisted it. If the vandalism gets very bad you might consider requesting page protection --Errant (chat!) 09:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Kai Bird 2
- Kai Bird 1 is a recent thread on this noticeboard and found here
Kai Bird (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dear Wikipedia,
Recently I complained that an addition had been made to my biographical entry, adding the line: "Israeli historian Benny Morris writes that "practically nothing that Bird tells his readers about the Arab-Zionist conflict conforms with the facts of history".
I still find this comment about my 2010 memoir, Crossing Mandelbaum Gate, objectionable. Someone has balanced it with a one line quote from Christopher Hitchens's review of the book. But to say that "practically nothing" in my 425 page book (with over 500 footnotes) "conforms with the facts of history" is an astonishing thing for one historian to say about another's work. It is a libel. (I don't as a matter of principle sue other authors for libel. )
I know that these bio entries often include critical reviews, and that is fine. But Morris's hostile and quite mendacious review was just published Feb 3 in the New Republic on line. I have responded with a 2,000 word letter to the editor which has yet to be published. If Wikipedia wishes to make a note of this controversy I think it is only fair to wait until my response has been published or posted. Otherwise, there is no context for Morris's attack. So I would appreciate it if the Wiki editors could take down Morris's attack on my book at least until the New Republic has published my defense.
This is the contentious Middle East. Morris is a partisan. And my memoir is actually a very balanced and anguished attempt to see both sides.
Thank you,
Kai Bird —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.52.244.98 (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could add your comments to the discussion further up this page where we are already trying to deal with this issue? Perhaps you could add your comments to the talk page for the article? Perhaps you could not add the same text three times over to this noticeboard? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Demi, please remember that this noticeboard is often a gateway for the living subjects of our articles when they have issues and worries about them, these people are often not experienced at all in editing the wikipedia or the ways of the wiki, they should be given assistance and treated with the utmost respect, even if they post in multiple sections. Off2riorob (talk) 12:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- - A new, less attacking quote has now been added to replace the previous one. Off2riorob (talk) 11:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Dear Wiki Editors,
Regarding the recent editing on my entry: I see someone has substituted another quote from Benny Morris, this time quoting him saying that my book is a "charge-sheet against Zionism." I guess this is preferable to what was there before, but hardly.
I read the discussion between all of you, and I appreciate the seriousness with which you address these issues. But I think the problem is not really solved. One of the editors quite correctly focused on the problem: the fact that there are quotes from reviews of only one of my five books. Why zero in on my Middle East memoir? Why not similar quotes from reviews of other books?
Well, the reason this started was that some Israeli blogger decided to add a hostile quote from Benny Morris. Ok, but it sticks out like a red flag.
I would try to do this myself, but I don't know how and it looks complicated. But if you cared to flesh this entry out a little and give it more balance, I have an official web site: www.kaibird.com which has reviews of all my books--even the critical ones! It also has an author's photo that is mine and freely available.
I do hope we can do more than leave this glaringly hostile quote from Benny Morris. My memoir was very well received. There are plenty of quotes from other sources that would make the entry more balanced. And more material about other books--which were not about the contentious Middle East.
If any of you wish to contact me directly, I am at (redacted)
Cheers,
Kai Bird Kaibird4263 (talk) 12:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Mr. Bird--as what we call an "uninvolved" editor who responded to the original posting here, I think there is consensus about adding reviews of some of your other books as well,
and I will do so later today. You are handling your concerns correctly by posting them (but might consider doing so in the future at the article talk page). Editing your article yourself is problematic under Wikipedia policies, see WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIO, but making suggestions on discussion pages is welcomed. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)- I took Benny out, he clearly is an opinionated opponant of the subject, we are all to often keen to add such attacking soapboxing to our articles that demean the subjects work when partisan attacking soapboxing is all the value it has. Off2riorob (talk) 12:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree. If you read the Morris review in detail, he goes into many paragraphs of extremely specific discussion of statements in Mr. Bird's book with which he disagrees. It is relevant here that Benny Morris is a clearly notable Israeli historian--and not regarded so far as I can tell as a simple apologist for the nation; he seems to have taken his share of flack over the years for dissenting viewpoints of his own. This is much more than "attacking soapboxing" as you term it. I agree there were weight issues, which I was trying to resolve, but your unilateral decision to delete over-rules the solution suggested by Jimbo Wales above, which I had implemented. It also created a weight issue of its own, by leaving Hitchen's positive review (which I'd also added) without any counterpoint. I struck out my offer above to add more reviews to the article, as I do not see the point of adding more reviews unless Morris is also mentioned. While I sympathize with Mr. Bird's distress and concerns about the review, I think our encyclopedic mission demands some mention of the criticism. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- IMO its just a partisan attack from someone that is opposed to the subject - the quotes are of no educational value at all and I removed it via WP:BOLD you know if you think it has a value you can add the content. Off2riorob (talk) 12:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- No desire to get involved in a bold-revert-delete war and in fact am removing it from my watchlist at this point. But I hope other editors will weigh in here, as I think this is an example of our takung WP:BLP standards over the line to act as the protectors of subjects against well sourced and notable criticism. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- IMO its just a partisan attack from someone that is opposed to the subject - the quotes are of no educational value at all and I removed it via WP:BOLD you know if you think it has a value you can add the content. Off2riorob (talk) 12:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree. If you read the Morris review in detail, he goes into many paragraphs of extremely specific discussion of statements in Mr. Bird's book with which he disagrees. It is relevant here that Benny Morris is a clearly notable Israeli historian--and not regarded so far as I can tell as a simple apologist for the nation; he seems to have taken his share of flack over the years for dissenting viewpoints of his own. This is much more than "attacking soapboxing" as you term it. I agree there were weight issues, which I was trying to resolve, but your unilateral decision to delete over-rules the solution suggested by Jimbo Wales above, which I had implemented. It also created a weight issue of its own, by leaving Hitchen's positive review (which I'd also added) without any counterpoint. I struck out my offer above to add more reviews to the article, as I do not see the point of adding more reviews unless Morris is also mentioned. While I sympathize with Mr. Bird's distress and concerns about the review, I think our encyclopedic mission demands some mention of the criticism. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- I took Benny out, he clearly is an opinionated opponant of the subject, we are all to often keen to add such attacking soapboxing to our articles that demean the subjects work when partisan attacking soapboxing is all the value it has. Off2riorob (talk) 12:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- I added Kai Bird- Official website - as mentioned there are some book reviews available there, also as the subject says, if the reviews are fleshed out then the weight aspect of a negative review in regards to what appears to have been a pretty well received book will be much less of an issue. Off2riorob (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- As the article stands, we are protecting Mr. Bird against (and denying our readers any knowledge of) a lengthy, detailed, negative review full of historical detail, by a well established, respected if sometimes controversial Israeli historian, in the venerable New Republic magazine. Calling it "attacking soapboxing" translates to "I don't like it". The solution to weight issues is, as WP:PRESERVE says, "Try to fix problems...preserve appropriate content". (Slight irony follows:) For an example of how we interweave quite strong criticism while preserving neutrality, you might take a look at our article on Mr. Bird's critic, Benny Morris: "Critics on the Israeli right have alleged that Morris's first book betrayed Arab sympathies, and have criticized his work as biased for that reason."Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- There is also the if its undue fix it by removing it position. Also , it seems from such a lengthy opinionated review to choose a single comment from it and use that in the body of the article is likely going to be a problem in itself, I can find an appreciative comment also in that lengthy text - I would suggest adding the review as an external link and allowing readers the chance to assess the review themselves would be a better position for wikipedia to take. Off2riorob (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- If the edit had gone into more detail about the Morris review, then it would have deserved to be removed for WP:UNDUE--which it did not in its short form. As a compromise, I would entertain a sentence of description instead of quoting. Something like "Historian Benny Morris questioned the factual accuracy and neutrality of some of Bird's statements". I also have an issue with deleting anything per WP:UNDUE rather than fixing it. The effect too often--I have been through this recently in another context--is that one editor spends mere seconds pressing the "Undo" button, with cryptic edit summaries, while another spends hours trying to implement the cryptic comments, only to be reverted again. Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- As per my previous comment here, I have Added the Hitchens and the Morris book reviews to the external links section. I am also open to your suggestion that a general overview comment of the review rather than a single quoted comment might be a worthwhile addition of the two reviews back into the body of the article, and if presented as similar to your comment presented I would have no objection to that. Off2riorob (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- If the edit had gone into more detail about the Morris review, then it would have deserved to be removed for WP:UNDUE--which it did not in its short form. As a compromise, I would entertain a sentence of description instead of quoting. Something like "Historian Benny Morris questioned the factual accuracy and neutrality of some of Bird's statements". I also have an issue with deleting anything per WP:UNDUE rather than fixing it. The effect too often--I have been through this recently in another context--is that one editor spends mere seconds pressing the "Undo" button, with cryptic edit summaries, while another spends hours trying to implement the cryptic comments, only to be reverted again. Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- There is also the if its undue fix it by removing it position. Also , it seems from such a lengthy opinionated review to choose a single comment from it and use that in the body of the article is likely going to be a problem in itself, I can find an appreciative comment also in that lengthy text - I would suggest adding the review as an external link and allowing readers the chance to assess the review themselves would be a better position for wikipedia to take. Off2riorob (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Serene Branson
Serene Branson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
No great emergency here, but maybe a few people could help by watching the Serene Branson article for the next few days. She's a local reporter who had a neurological issue of some sort while covering the Grammy Awards resulting in her speaking gibberish on air, something that has become a minor news story and viral video. She's probably notable in her own right but the article was created in the aftermath and has some BLP1E and sourcing problems, plus undue attention. I think the editors involved are well meaning, just a little over excited to add this stuff. I've trimmed some of the detail and added a couple fact tags. Thanks! - Wikidemon (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Do you think she is notable because she is a two-time Emmy nominee? Honestly that's rather thin. WP:MUSIC grants notability for being nominated for a major award, so I guess that might work. Honestly this article is the #4 hit on Google and someone thought it would be funny to write out what she phonetically said. I favor article lockdown. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Its been nominated for deletion. Jonathanwallace (talk) 06:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Terry Ilott
Terry Ilott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There are two Terry Ilotts. The one described in this article, which I found through a link on a Mike Olfield blog,is a film historian, and not the artist who painted the cover of the album 'Crises'. I know this because I am that particular Terry Ilott. It is certainly a strange coincidence that two individuals with such a distinctive name combination should both be involved in artistic fields, and ,as on this occasion, has led to misunderstanding and confusion. Information about me can be found on my website at www.terryilott.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terence john ilott (talk • contribs) 22:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, there is nothing in the article that doesn't relate to the 'other' Terry Illot, so I'm not quite sure what you are asking us to do? If there were verifiable sources (i.e. published ones - we can't really use personal websites etc) to merit an article on you, we could of course create one, and add a disambiguation page - I'll take a look, but our requirements for notability are rather high, so I'd not count on this. Otherwise, I'd suggest that all you can do is point out the error to whoever writes the blog.
- Actually, the article on the 'other' Terry Ilott is rather lacking in independent sources too - we should probably look into this too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- I see we'd actually made the link to the 'wrong' Ilott ourselves, in the Crises article. I've removed the link, and added a comment in the source and a note on the talkpage to prevent this being reinserted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Kendell Geers
Kendell Geers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) An article created three years ago by an SPA, who thereupon disappeared. I know little about Geers other than what I see in this article, with its "notoriety" and soporific art-crit pretentiousness, but just enough to be sure that yes, he does merit an article. Given 30 hours in the day or nine days in the week, I'd attempt to source what's coherent and remove the waffle and the unsourceable. But unfortunately I'm given neither. If several others were to tackle this, I'd join in the effort. -- Hoary (talk) 04:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Much of the article is unsourced and several of the sources don't really connect up. In a quick scan of the links to the TWA exhibit, I didn't see his name mentioned. Also, the last TWA source isn't what the ref text indicates it to be. The unsourced "changed his birthdate" assertion doesn't make any sense. There are also self published problems with a lot of the biographical material. My first instinct was this should be PROD'd-- there is a shortage of ghits in what we would usually consider reliable sources. However, he seems to have enough hits in Google books to pass notability. Once we prune this, however, its going to be a very short stub.Jonathanwallace (talk) 06:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Freshacconci has done a wonderful job of crap removal. I've made a few changes myself. If the article were prodded, I would (with no great enthusiasism) remove the notice. Googling shows dodgy sources -- and perhaps good ones too, but I didn't check -- saying that he changed his birthdate to accord with the death of Duchamp. If we're to believe his en:WP article, Duchamp departed this world in October 1968, but, well, if you and I don't understand the logic, perhaps we should put this down to our (or anyway my) lack of an MFA. (This is a man who writes stuff like: Defined according to the laws of chance and dictated to by the laws of nature, the forces of gravity are moulded by the vision of my desires as the work of art finds a unique form conjured out of a states [sic] of endless proposals etc etc. Far out!) If you could just sort out the TWA stuff, that would be most appreciated. -- Hoary (talk) 07:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Will do later today. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Freshacconci has done a wonderful job of crap removal. I've made a few changes myself. If the article were prodded, I would (with no great enthusiasism) remove the notice. Googling shows dodgy sources -- and perhaps good ones too, but I didn't check -- saying that he changed his birthdate to accord with the death of Duchamp. If we're to believe his en:WP article, Duchamp departed this world in October 1968, but, well, if you and I don't understand the logic, perhaps we should put this down to our (or anyway my) lack of an MFA. (This is a man who writes stuff like: Defined according to the laws of chance and dictated to by the laws of nature, the forces of gravity are moulded by the vision of my desires as the work of art finds a unique form conjured out of a states [sic] of endless proposals etc etc. Far out!) If you could just sort out the TWA stuff, that would be most appreciated. -- Hoary (talk) 07:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)