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:
| ||
Article on Michael Steele
This article contains unconfirmed information as to the subject's father's death due to alcoholism, (quoting the NYTimes is not a legal defense against libel). It contains an entire section headed "Criticisms" with no balanced section of Achievements. Almost every comment is made by persons of the opposing political party of this subject or magazines and newspapers known to be politically slanted. It is so obvious it is embarassing to read, even by an Independant. This article should be heavily revised or deleted altogether. Mugginsx (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC) 11:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view, not "balance." Second, if you feel the article is unbalanced, you can discuss it on the article's talk page. Keep in mind that people of all political persuasions edit these pages, so the articles (while leaning towards criticism) tend to be politically neutral. Finally, the part about his father's death is already gone. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- The material is out because I took it out. Removed other ridculous materials as well without contention. Article now looks more historically balanced and less political bias on either side of the issue. The rest belongs in a political blog. Apparently everyone else agrees. Mugginsx (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC) 12:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Seyran Ohanyan Again
The Seyran Ohanyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article is repeatedly making an extreme and unsubstantiated claim that Seyran Ohanyan is an "alleged war criminal". I had removed this claim [1], and after it had been inserted again [2] I started a discussion on this page [3]. The claim was then removed as a BLP violation, but it has again been reinserted. I would remove it again, but there are, unfortunately, persons who would seize on this as a chance to block me for breaking revert restrictions. Would an administrator please remove the claim and protect the article until the matter is settled. Meowy 17:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have removed it as it is controversial disputed content about a living person and the discussion is clearly not over, please attempt to find a consensus regarding this content. Off2riorob (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- I left a comment but it might attract a wider audience if you lay out your desired addition and ask for a RFC, personally, I find the accusations weakly cited to opinionated sources and as they could do a great deal of harm to a living person I would leave them out. Off2riorob (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- That's a regular practice here. See the article about Thomas de Waal, for instance. This British journalist wrote an internationally acclaimed book on the history of Karabakh war, but there's a whole section in that BLP article, dedicated to criticism from Armenian partisan sources. If it is Ok to use partisan sources in other BLP articles, why is it a problem in an article about Ohanyan? The parliament of Azerbaijan is a notable organization, and I think its opinion needs to be reflected in some form. Grandmaster 09:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- I am not a big fan of other stuff exists but I had a look, at that article the criticism is directed at the book which is of course not a living person, naming someone in a biography here at wikipedia to be a war criminal, when you have only a partisan source is a totally different situation and could have real life issues. Why don't you present your desired addition here with the supporting citations and see if there is any support to add it? Off2riorob (talk) 14:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- I proposed it at the talk. I can copy it here. This is what I propose to include:
- I left a comment but it might attract a wider audience if you lay out your desired addition and ask for a RFC, personally, I find the accusations weakly cited to opinionated sources and as they could do a great deal of harm to a living person I would leave them out. Off2riorob (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Military personnel of the 366th Motorized Rifle Regiment, stationed in Stepanakert, was directly involved in the attack on Azerbaijani town of Khojali on 25-26 February 1992, in the course of which hundreds of Azerbaijani civilians were killed by Armenian forces.[1][2] The National Assembly of Azerbaijan (Milli Məclis) of the Republic of Azerbaijan stated in its declaration that Ohanyan was one of the officers of 366th regiment who led the attack on Khojaly.[3]
- ^ Bloodshed in the Caucasus: escalation of the armed conflict in Nagorno Karabakh. Human Rights Watch, 1992. ISBN 1564320812, 9781564320810, p. 21
- ^ Thomas De Waal, Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through Peace and War, NYU Press, 2004, ISBN 0-8147-1945-7, p. 173
- ^ Declaration of Milli Mejlis of Azerbaijan with regard to the 15th anniversary of the Khojaly genocide
- I'm not proposing to call him a war criminal. Only that the parliament of Azerbaijan claims that he was one of the people who led the attack on the town of Khojaly. As for de Waal, the criticism in that article is not just about the book. It even includes a claim that can be interpreted as a death threat from the leaders of separatists in NK (it seems to him that he and his like will not be responsible for anything. But he is mistaken…). Grandmaster 09:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- My personal position is that as a wikipedian editor with the editorial responsibilities to the wiki that brings...I can't believe you think this is a good thing to add to the biography of a living person, I realise it is important to you personally but please, it is a weakly cited controversial damaging comment that I would not even consider supporting with these citations, feel free to take other opinions but this is mine. Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- And Grandmaster has wikilinked "attack on Azerbaijani town of Khojali" to Khojaly Massacre - so it is wrong for him to claim the text he wants is not calling Ohanyan a war criminal - it is, and is doing it in a weasel-worded way. Meowy 22:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
The information on this page is incorrect. I have tried correcting it, but somebody called RaseaC and Delicious keeps adding it back. I really do not want to take you to court, because wikipedia is the greatest invention ever. Please either remove this page or let me correct the info.
The section on my community involvement is not correct. I was part of a collective that organized those events all I did was help with the media for the event. The reason why it causes me a lot of trouble is because the other people who did most of the organizing are upset. Also I no longer have a radio show, that was 3 years ago.
I think the best thing to do is remove the page. I am not a famous person and should not have a wiki page giving me credit for things that I can't take credit for.
If you have any questions please give me a call [phone number redacted] —Preceding unsigned comment added by ConradSchmidt (talk • contribs) 18:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Please see, , wikipedia, no legal threats WP:NLT this policy is taken extremely seriously. Off2riorob (talk) 20
- 03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- If you identify yourself to WP:OTRS you can make a request there for the removal of your biography. Off2riorob (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- If you visit the page Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem you will find an explanation of the process, with a direct link for contacting people able to assist with biographical issues like this one. I think this would be a good route for you to take, and may well get you more satisfaction that attempts to edit the article. Off2riorob (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- (e/c)I have been trying to communicate with whoever has been removing material from Conrad Schmidt without success because they do not stick with any one account (see similarly named posting above). Are you that person? The trouble is that it is fairly easy to find and use sources which credit Mr Schmidt even if this is not accurate. That is how Wikipedia works, like it or not.
- I am actually sympathetic to your situation. In my opinion, which is not widely shared on Wikipedia, I believe anyone who is not otherwise well-known should be allowed to "opt out" of having an article. I would be happy to nominate your article for deletion, but I would want to know that you actually are Conrad Schmidt, and not someone who is attempting to remove information. Some advice - first, read WP:NLT. You are risking being blocked for making the mention of suing Wikipedia. Second, if you are Conrad Schmidt, go to WP:OTRS where you will get help dealing with the errors in the article, and perhaps they will get the article deleted for you. Best of luck. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Conrad, can you post something on your blog saying that contrary to media reports, the events in question were organized by a collective? Please add a note to the Conrad Schmidt talk page when you've done it. Then we can add your point of view to the article, e.g. "According to source X, Schmidt did Y, although Schmidt said later that Y was the work of such-and-such a group." Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Was thoroughly vindicated of all rape charges. [4] The police are quoted in a RS that the accuser has made false allegations against another person. (assuming that the AP is RS) I cited the account, and was reverted twice [5] (second revert) and the editor noted on his page [6]
How do you know she wasn't set up by a paid agent of the accused? You assume far too much. Her lawyer denies the version of events you have uncritically accepted and her civil case against the accused continues. You also say that he was "vindicated by police of the rape allegation". Whaaat? Where do you get that from? You need to re-read [1] and [2], especially:
Investigations may be closed without charges if prosecutors determine there is no federal jurisdiction, no federal laws were broken, or that it would be impossible to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. "Neither the investigation, nor its termination, should be perceived as a comment on guilt or innocence," the statement said.
Editing 101, really. ► RATEL ◄ 23:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Where a person has been actually vindicated by the police, noted by the Associated Press etc., is it improper to note the person was vindicated after months of the WP BLP containing the allegations? The editor involved previously sopught to have the rape prominently handled, alomg with allegations of "secret children" and the like, so I am unsure how to interpret his first revert comment of No appropriate. This is not germane to the article, would not be submissable in a court dealing with this case, and it is not our place to smear or exonerate individuals) Collect (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- In my opinion, any disputed BLP inclusion that hinges on something not in an RS should be immediately deleted. That goes double if the hinge is someone's interpretation of the law, which is pure POV and should be disregarded. It is also my opinion that any notable scandal where a person has been found not guilty should be mentioned in the barest possible terms, if at all, with the vindication prominent in the article.Jarhed (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Which was my position for a long time -- that the entire allegation did not belong. The other editor, however, worked mightily to keep the rape allegations in the article. Now that the Feds dismissed it, he wishes to not note the facts about the accuser found in the AP article <g>. The entire article was a repository for smears on Copperfield, and it is time to clean it out. Collect (talk) 01:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Flowanda opened a discussion about my additions noting that Copperfield's accuser is under investigation by Seattle police for making false charges of rape against another guy and for prostitution. I believe that this, widely reported in reliable sources, belongs on the page in the relevant section. I think we need third party assistance here, and welcome Flowanda's invitation to discuss thisKarelin7 (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC). Karelin7 (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Allegations of infidelity
There has been discussion at the article for Erik Prince about an allegation made. The material in question is "Prince was unfaithful to his first wife, Joan Nicole Prince, cheating on her with their nanny, Joanna Houck. When Joan Prince died of cancer in 2003, Houck attended the funeral while pregnant with Prince's child. Prince and Houck were married a year later.". Now that is some pretty contentious stuff! The sole source for this allegation is a book called "Master of War: Blackwater USA's Erik Prince and the Business of War" by Suzanne Simons. The book provides no evidence. No media sources have even made this allegation, let alone stated it as fact like this author does. Given Prince's reputation, I find it very difficult to believe that the mainstream media never repeated this allegation if it was even reasonably defensible. Even though the book could possibly be considered a reliable source, and we can't speculate on the authors intentions or motives, I (and other editors) have removed it because the allegation is pretty serious and isn't coroborrated by any other sources. Even the allegation isn't being made in other sources. Could I get some opinions on this? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Note, I have removed the material in good faith until this can be resolved and posted a link to this discussion on the talk page. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm reminded of the song A man needs a maid by Neil Young. Off2riorob (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Seriously though, it adds nothing of encyclopedic value, in fact it is pure titillation and not widely reported at the time or after, so I would support keeping it out. Off2riorob (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- As for the notability of his infidelity, Erik Prince is well known for his religiosity, so something that is hypocritical is interesting for the readers and I disagree with the statements of Off2riorob. As for RS problem, there are many BLPs in WP where subjects' infidelity is mentioned based on an interview in their biography. If we choose to opt them all out, then we will probably never be able to include something like that in an article. Sometimes, mainstream media take on it and it is hyped(like in the case of VS Naipaul), sometimes NOT, based on their on systematic biases sometimes. I suggest, we keep it. Zencv Whisper 14:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Again, otherstuffexists is not a reason to add similar stuff to all articles. It may be well known to you that he is especially notable for his religiousness but it is not given much emphasis in his biography, we do try to be a bit careful as regards controversial claims about living people, are there any other citations that support this claim? Off2riorob (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Correct, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a reason to keep it in. Prince is best known for running Blackwater. His religious stances came to light after that. But his religious beliefs are irrelevant to this discussion. The fact remains that this is a very contentious entry that is based on one source saying that someone told them happened. They don't even term it an allegation, they present it as fact. Yet the mainstram media, the same media that has constantly taken any shot they could at Prince, hasn't even repeated it as an allegation, let alone stated it as fact. That is a big part of the problem. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Off2riorob, I did not mean to come up with OtherStuffExists, Niteshift36 brought this up in the talkpage here, citing another incident as an example - so I just wanted to mention that if one were to look at other sruff or crap, one would find more than enough reason to include them rather than exlude them. Off2riorob, erring on the side of caution is fine, but that can be achieved by better formulation of the allegation rather than complete removal. Just wanted also to mention the illegitimacy of his "single source" argument as it is not a requirement to have multiple RS Zencv Whisper 23:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- My example isn't othercrapexists, it is the opposite. It is a very parallel debate that happened on this noticeboard where a subject was being labelled based on the say so of a single source and that source was more reliable and had more evidence than the one you are relying on. If anything, mine is othercrapdoesnotexist. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Off2riorob, I did not mean to come up with OtherStuffExists, Niteshift36 brought this up in the talkpage here, citing another incident as an example - so I just wanted to mention that if one were to look at other sruff or crap, one would find more than enough reason to include them rather than exlude them. Off2riorob, erring on the side of caution is fine, but that can be achieved by better formulation of the allegation rather than complete removal. Just wanted also to mention the illegitimacy of his "single source" argument as it is not a requirement to have multiple RS Zencv Whisper 23:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, thanks, we also can apply common sense here, especially in the protection of living people, as I said originally, it is titillating tabloid style speculation that appears to not have been reported at the time in wikipedia reliable sources and that adds nothing of encyclopedic value to the reader at all, so lets keep it out. Of course if you can find a degree of consensus support to add the disputed content that would be fine. Off2riorob (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Instead of spending time trying to prove the "illegitimacy of his "single source" argument as it is not a requirement to have multiple RS", you might want to read BLP. First, the author of the book has a POV to push. It's evident from her title. From BLP: "Look out for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources" (Notice that says sources plural.) It also states: "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases and attributions to anonymous sources." In this case, the encyclopedic value is in dispute and the only person making this claim in print doesn't share the source. BLP goes on to say: "It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy." A claim made by one person, with no evidence, regardless of whether or not she wrote it in a book, barely rises above being a rumor and again, the encyclopedic relevence is in question. I'd also note that on the question of marriage, divorce etc, BLP says: "In a biography of a living person, an event such as marriage, divorce, legal separation, or when the intention to marry, divorce, legally separate is verifiable by its wide publication in several reliable sources, the name of the subject's intended spouse, spouse, or ex-spouse is not private, unless there has been a court seal on the disclosure of the name." Now I ask you, why does WP want "several" sources to print that someone is getting engaged, but you think it is "illegitimate" to ask for more than one source for something like this? Again, your source states it as fact, yet offers no evidence of it. That is a problem. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- NiteShift, To include something in WP(even in a BLP), what kind of "proof" that normally is needed other than being cited in a published book? Of course, you seem to have problem with the source(ie, book), but that is your problem and I can imagine why you oppose the whole thing then. I am not keen to put/keep anything malicious in a BLP, but I disagree that it is not worth mentioning this at all and this goes with my general belief that allegations in a book is best put it in a way that makes it clear that way. In this case, if we don't state it as an obvious fact, then should anyone has a problem to mention it that way? Zencv Whisper 16:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Clearly I am not the only one who disagrees. I'm also not the only one who has removed it from the article. I haven't, however, heard anyone else make a case for inclusion except you. And your sole argument has been "it's in a book". You have not even attempted to address the question of why something so lurid and damning about someone so despised by the media hasn't been reported anywhere else. I've at least had the courtesy to address different points, rather than just repeat "it's in a book" over and over, to find a very parallel case (and how you can't see the parallel escapes me) and to keep this about the topic, not about you. Where is the corroboration? I'd love to hear you opine why multiple sources are needed for a pending engagement, but not for something like this? Go to a science article and try to edit in some extreme theory that has appeared in only one book and see what happens. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- We will not know how many agree or disagree, though there was another anon user who brought this up and who opposed adding it, if he has to be counted. I dont understand why this issue which Mr.Prince had never bothered to deny should be so contentious to others. It is beyond us to speculate why tabloids didnt pick this up. Maybe there is an obvious reason why Fox News did not report it, in any case I dont think that we have to propogate the same bias to this article. What keeps me from proposing a compromise statement is the fact that I had not been able to read the book so far(I don't know whether you read it either), but after that I would be able to propose something(if I think it can be put in a neutral way based on what is written there). If you are bringing parallels, then I have to say other stuff or crap exist need not be brought up here. As for the source, it looks like this book is far more unbiased than many conservative propaganda materials that are profusely used as sources in WP. Zencv Whisper 21:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Why wouldn't the IP editor count? Because he doesn't agree with you? You also forget Off2riorob, another experienced editor doesn't think it belongs without corroboration either. Perhaps Prince doesn't respond because responding lends creedence to the allegation? Fox News? Who said anything about Fox News? Bringing them up (when nobody else has) and not even mentioning any other outlets is very revealing Zencv. Then you go on to accuse them of a bias and claim we are propogating the bias. How deftly disingenuious. You pick out Fox, claim a bias and ay we are doing the same. Why hasn't CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC or anyone else reported it? None of those networks have hesitated to report anything negative about him or Blackwater, if it was reasonably supportable. Neither have the NY Times, LA Times or any number of other papers. Yet none of them have reported it. They have full staffs of investigative reporters who can't find enough evidence of this to report it. But you want to take the unsubstantiated word of a barely known author, whose only other book was a childrens book about dolls, and claim it is fact. Put aside your dislike of Prince (which is evident) and see if that even sounds the least bit logical. She works for CNN. If this was supportable, why wouldn't CNN use it themselves? Their own employee gets an alleged bombshell like this and they ignore it? Or is CNN part of the "neo-con conspiracy" too? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- As I wrote, I am not keen to guess why media ala CNN did not pick this up and I think thinking in that direction doesn't make me a better editor or improve the quality of article in general. A disproportionate amount of scandals related to liberals, lefts, immigrants, Muslims etc. are sourced to Fox, The Sun, Bild etc. Now may be you are getting why you don't hear much about Prince's affair in these kind of media. Also Prince is no celebrity ala Tiger Woods, so media apathy is partly due to that. I don't expect Western popular media to focus excessively on the sexual exploits of a (alleged)neo Crusader. If it had been Ahmedinajad or his Chauffeur who did this, you may have found abundant reports in all the media you have mentioned. You put as if there were many editors who are serious about removing it, hence I mentioned that you just have the support of an Anon(in the talk page). In general, it is irrelevant whether I am a fan of Prince or not, but the question is whether there is a strong case to remove a sourced content which in my opinion is no. I don't think that having a few secondary sources that mentions that improves anything. Off2riorob: If we have a book which says "Obama is a follower of Hitler", we don't have to write that as a fact in his bio, but it would be worth mentioning that a bio by XYZ states/alleges that "Obama followed Hitler". I hope you get it now Zencv Whisper 00:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- You don't want to speculate on why CNN didn't air the claim, but you're more than willing to speculate why Fox didn't, then go on to blame them for half the scandals? How can that NOT look biased? The fact that you can't see your blatant prejudice is saddening. You want to ignore that fact that no reputable news outlet, with all their staff, would put this accusation out there and instead believe that a woman who his writing her first non-childrens book scooped everyone else on the planet. Then, her own employer doesn't even have enough faith in it to even report that she made the claim. No thinking person would believe that CNN, MSNBC or all the others wouldn't have jumped all over that story if they thought is was even reasonably defensible. Notice how the material you put in about Prince was stated as a fact. Period. No "so and so said" crap, just plain fact. But when you make your simplistic Obama/Hitler example, you weasel with "so and so alleges". I can't even assume good faith with you. Your bias is so evident that it's hard to accept that this has nothing to do with your dislike of Prince with a straight face. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- NiteShift, you don't have to throw stones while lieing within glasshouses(ie, accusing me of bias). Not surprisingly, there is a "consensus"(although Wiki is supposedly NOT a democracy) and could be a good encouragement for selective BLP censuring in the future Zencv Whisper 20:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- NiteShift, To include something in WP(even in a BLP), what kind of "proof" that normally is needed other than being cited in a published book? Of course, you seem to have problem with the source(ie, book), but that is your problem and I can imagine why you oppose the whole thing then. I am not keen to put/keep anything malicious in a BLP, but I disagree that it is not worth mentioning this at all and this goes with my general belief that allegations in a book is best put it in a way that makes it clear that way. In this case, if we don't state it as an obvious fact, then should anyone has a problem to mention it that way? Zencv Whisper 16:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have a problem that you want to add, that this persons maid was pregnant with his baby when his wife died, according to the writer of this book. . I have a problem with it whatever way you write it, as I said if you can find several reliable citations to support the content or you can find a degree of consensus support to add it I would be fine with that. Off2riorob (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't really think there is anything I need to say here, WP:BLP is quite clear, but, I shall do so anyway to be absolutely transparent;
Regarding Negatively sourced material, BLP has several, clear requirements:
- No self-published sources unless they are published by the article subject, and even then:
- it is not unduly self-serving;
- it does not involve claims about third parties or unrelated events;
- there is no reasonable doubt that the subject actually authored it;
- the article is not based primarily on such sources.
- The material cannot be poorly-soured: Poorly-sourced material is that attributed to a single source, but has not ever been listed in any other reliable sources. Meaning you cannot use a single source for attribution, it just be several, reliable sources.
- They must be reliable sources. A single book by an author whose only other book is a children's book is not a reliable source.
I believe that is all. Now, as said, I want to be absolutely clear, so, let us examine this thread for a minute:
- Those in support of addition of material
- Those in support of removal of material
- Niteshift36 (talk · contribs)
- Off2riorob (talk · contribs)
- Daedalus969 (talk · contribs)
Consensus is pretty clear, and I am sure, nothing more needs to be said.— Dædαlus Contribs 00:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Bernie Miklasz
Bernie Miklasz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User:Sdiver68 keeps on adding negative content in a "controversy section" from self-published sources, clearly not wp:rs. Trying to avoid 3rr. The only one that isn't a message board is "Bleacher Report" which is user-generated content. See [7] Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 06:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've reverted the controversy section on the grounds of being...well, not actually controversial. I've also started a discussion on the talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 06:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree about it not being controversial or notable....which is why it hasn't been covered in a wp:rs! Thanks for your help. I tried to reason with the user on my talk page and got nowhere. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 06:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- This discussion has continued after the editor returned from his block, He seems dead-set on calling this sportswriter out on his opinions as a "controversy" section. I'm trying to explain that controversies need to be established as controversial in reliable sources. Perhaps another opinion there on the page would help, more eyes would be appreciated. Dayewalker (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree about it not being controversial or notable....which is why it hasn't been covered in a wp:rs! Thanks for your help. I tried to reason with the user on my talk page and got nowhere. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 06:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Ron Nehring
- Ron Nehring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Saw this over at WP:RFPP - could use some attention and additional eyes and some cleanup. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 07:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
User talk:Jimbo Wales libelous characterization of Roman Polanski
User:Dream Focus has been advised of libelous comments, but is repeating the reinsertion, including ALL CAP version for emphasis.
Will add all diffs shortly, but posting this now [Diffs now listed]. Proofreader77 (interact) 11:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- You advised someone not to do something you didn't like. And of course, like most people, I just try to ignore your nonsense. Stop vandalizing a talk page! The rules here are for articles, not for talk pages, which operate under totally different rules. Dream Focus 11:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- please get acquainted with WP:BLP#Non-article space. Sssoul (talk) 11:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Note: User talk:Jimbo Wales is a highly public forum. These are libelous posting in the most visible forum in Wikipedia. Proofreader77 (interact) 11:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- please get acquainted with WP:BLP#Non-article space. Sssoul (talk) 11:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Discussion
We have been through this many times on Roman Polanski. The guilty plea is for "unlawful sexual intercourse" which is not rape (according to L.A. court officials). The shouting (all caps now) of "CHILD RAPIST" is libelous, and I have advised [Dream Focus], then refactored the comments out when the response was to add the all-cap version. Proofreader77 (interact) 11:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Notification of this topic Proofreader77 (interact) 11:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does not censor. We mention what was said in the major media sources, many of which called this rape, and child rape. Dream Focus 11:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Warning for disruptive editing Proofreader77 (interact) 12:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I propose indefinitely blocking Dream Focus, who is blatantly using Wikipedia for purposes unrelated to building an encyclopedia and is by his actions bringing Wikipedia into disrepute. --TS 12:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Someone else brought up the topic there, attacking someone, I then responded. And how does this bring Wikipedia into disrepute? Ignoring all the news media that calls him a child rapist, because you don't want to offend his fans, would damage Wikipedia reputation for accuracy. Dream Focus 12:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a scandal rag. --TS 12:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Concur with proposal of block if editor does not immediately agree to cease. Proofreader77 (interact) 12:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I have raised this issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --TS 12:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Note: Editor has been notified of ANI. Proofreader77 (interact) 12:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Dream Focus, you're soapboxing through WP:BLP violations. You may not agree that your posts have gone astray of BLP, but consensus will most likely be that they have done. Either way, your soapboxing on the most widely watched user talk page on this website is blatant and isn't allowed. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Please respond at the ANI [11] How is it soapboxing? Is me calling the director a child rapist, and linking to a CNN article where the District Attorney calls him that, and other news source calling him that, a violation of any rule? Dream Focus 12:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- You asked here, I'm giving a short answer here. Public statements by magistrates are often wholly adversarial and meant to be so, you're soapboxing in support of an adversarial position, not an accomplished legal outcome. In doing so, you're also astray of WP:BLP. There's more to it than this, but that's the pith. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Statements about Polanski, anywhere within wikipedia, should stick to what he was actually convicted of, which is basically statutory rape, not "child rape". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think you are making a distinction without a difference. Under the definition of statutory rape. "Different jurisdictions use many different statutory terms for the crime, such as "sexual assault," "rape of a child," "corruption of a minor," "carnal knowledge of a minor," "unlawful carnal knowledge", or simply "carnal knowledge." Thus: "rape of child"...the guilty party would then be a Rapist of child, which in common parlance would be a child rapist. The charged law in California is known as unlawful intercourse with a minor. A minor is a child. The crime must have a child as the victum, which is why you said it was statutory rape. There is no difference between the terms statutory rapist and child rapist, as the condition making them true, is always the age of the victim, which is always a child. The term libel is proper when the statement is a not the truth. While this may be distasteful, it remains what it is. --Tombaker321 (talk) 13:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Please use the exact wording of the reliable source. Anything creative risks a block, if done repetitively against warnings. You've been warned. Jehochman Brrr 13:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for giving me a meaningless warning for discussing a topic in an absolute generic sense (see above). This is simply talking about the definition of a crime. There is no difference in the definition of child rapist and statutory rapist. If you need help, look at the Wikipedia for some standard definitions of words like statutory rape before you go off half-cocked]]. --Tombaker321 (talk) 08:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Put another way, a linguistic leap like that is original research, setting a spin which isn't allowed in any article, much less a BLP. As Jehocman says, any wording of this kind must be straightforwardly cited back to a reliable source and moreover, there may be a need to quote and attribute such wording in the article text itself, minding Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise (see also the link there about coatracking). Gwen Gale (talk) 14:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Gwen Gale I realize you have a vested interest in defending your support of Proofreader77's warnings to Dream Focus, but it does not change the English language and its terms. You are just wrong that its OR or some sort of leap. A person who pleads guilty to having unlawful sex with a minor, has committed the act of statutory rape. Its just the definitions. If something is measured as 60 inches, it can alternatively be said to be 5 feet. This topic is about what a different editor said in a talk page, and all the pomp of dreary notions of a slippery sloop, are overdone. Remember this topic is about a talk page, in which you protected Proofreader77 as he edit warred and OWN another users talk page. Sources able to be used are the actual legal documents, the transcripts, the judgments, and the penal code. I started my comments to this thread by saying we have a distinction without a difference and my remarks are confined to this topic thread only. --Tombaker321 (talk) 09:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Please use the exact wording of the reliable source. Anything creative risks a block, if done repetitively against warnings. You've been warned. Jehochman Brrr 13:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think you are making a distinction without a difference. Under the definition of statutory rape. "Different jurisdictions use many different statutory terms for the crime, such as "sexual assault," "rape of a child," "corruption of a minor," "carnal knowledge of a minor," "unlawful carnal knowledge", or simply "carnal knowledge." Thus: "rape of child"...the guilty party would then be a Rapist of child, which in common parlance would be a child rapist. The charged law in California is known as unlawful intercourse with a minor. A minor is a child. The crime must have a child as the victum, which is why you said it was statutory rape. There is no difference between the terms statutory rapist and child rapist, as the condition making them true, is always the age of the victim, which is always a child. The term libel is proper when the statement is a not the truth. While this may be distasteful, it remains what it is. --Tombaker321 (talk) 13:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Statements about Polanski, anywhere within wikipedia, should stick to what he was actually convicted of, which is basically statutory rape, not "child rape". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- You asked here, I'm giving a short answer here. Public statements by magistrates are often wholly adversarial and meant to be so, you're soapboxing in support of an adversarial position, not an accomplished legal outcome. In doing so, you're also astray of WP:BLP. There's more to it than this, but that's the pith. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I think we need to use carefully sourced language in the article. There's probably a need to back away from soapboxing in some parts. I also think that in this situation with this well known, oft debated event, yelling LIBEL everytime someone phrases it differently then his exact plea is also unproductive.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree --Tombaker321 (talk) 09:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
David Copperfield (again)
The discussion and wording of a section concerning sexual assault allegations could use some eyes, please. I took a shot at shortening the section while adding current details, but it needs work, and the discussion needs some better guidance. The proposed edits and discussion are at Talk:David Copperfield (illusionist)#Investigation ends. Thanks. Flowanda | Talk 23:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Sergiu Băhăian
Sergiu Băhăian, allegations are serious, sources are in Romanian, and sorry but I'm off to bed. ϢereSpielChequers 23:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- A quick G News Archive search gives this apparently reliable newspaper The Google translation of the title says: "Sergiu Bahaian will stand over 5 years behind bars"--and the G translate of the article itself seems consistent with the Wikipedia article. I don't think we need to be concerned. DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Orca Conservancy
I've been concerned about changes made to Springer (orca) and Luna (Orca) for several weeks. Content was recently added and re-added by editors who appear to have a close relationship with a person I'll call M.H.: Babywildfilms (talk · contribs) and Mrjoshuawells (talk · contribs). Much of this is sourced from a document called "The Springer File" which is here: http://www.orcaconservancy.org/ . The Springer File is a mixture of copied newspaper articles and original pieces written by M.H. The parts written by M.H. include extremely POV commentary about named living individuals. See, for example, the section titled "OC TIMELINE: ”THE EVIL DR. NIGHTINGALE”. I would be happy to remove *everything* sourced to the Springer File and all links to it. I've been posting messages for weeks to get more eyes on this article, with little response, but I only just realized the severity of the BLP problem. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Update: I've removed all URLs that lead to the website. The website itself contains clear BLP violations. A question for the community is whether this website may be used as a source at all, or whether all material that relies on it must also be removed immediately and without discussion. There are IMHO good reasons to remove it, in addition to BLP. The question is, how urgently does this have to be done? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Roman Polanski Sexual Abuse Case
- Roman Polanski sexual abuse case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is this Wiki worthy? Seems like the old Court TV-like BLOG material to me, and potentially libelous in the discussion and reprint of certain (Secret) Grand Jury Testimony which seems to have never been legally released. Mugginsx (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Do you mean some specific content or the whole article? Off2riorob (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- I must say the entire article. If someone (perhaps they did) wanted to do a biographical article on the subject, his biography, his achievements, with perhaps a small mention of his sexual abuse case, that would be one thing; but to devote an entire article on this case seems to me to belong in a newspaper, blog or tabloid. If we are going to set a trend of devoting an entire article on the scandals of public people, I predict that it will not be long before Wiki turns into something other than it's original premise. It is also my opinion that it is dangerous in the legal respect, in that some of this casually posted material can be potentially libelous in that the references are from newspapers and print that are generally protected from libel. That is my view as a Wiki editor and a former paralegal in Criminal Law. Mugginsx (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- We have articles on notable court cases and public scandals (aka Lewinsky scandal). Polanski's case gained much more notoriety when he fled the country so, unfortunately, it's notable enough for an article here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- I must say the entire article. If someone (perhaps they did) wanted to do a biographical article on the subject, his biography, his achievements, with perhaps a small mention of his sexual abuse case, that would be one thing; but to devote an entire article on this case seems to me to belong in a newspaper, blog or tabloid. If we are going to set a trend of devoting an entire article on the scandals of public people, I predict that it will not be long before Wiki turns into something other than it's original premise. It is also my opinion that it is dangerous in the legal respect, in that some of this casually posted material can be potentially libelous in that the references are from newspapers and print that are generally protected from libel. That is my view as a Wiki editor and a former paralegal in Criminal Law. Mugginsx (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- This article is or at least appears to me to be very opinionated and is imo in need of a total rewrite, all it needs is a decent editor who is neutral on the details that is prepared to take it on and have a go at at a rewrite. Off2riorob (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
TerryE has placed a BLP tag on Harvey Whittemore, an article I created about one week ago. TerryE states that I have engaged in "deliberate deception" in the following sentence: "Whittemore's lobbying accomplishments include obtaining tax breaks for Steven Wynn, owner of the Bellagio in Las Vegas". Two sources are cited: a New York Times article explaining a tax break bill before the Nevada legislature and Whittemore's role in the lobbying, and a Las Vegas Review Journal article about the passage of the bill. It would appear to me that this sentence is not even a potential BLP violation, but I would appreciate other opinions. Thank you. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- See Lobbyist/Attorney. I asked for the removal of this sentence because the nowhere in the (Internet accessible) RS did it state that Whittemore accomplished any tax breaks. This is pure WP:SYNTH or WP:OR of KCACOs part. I asked him to provide the exact quote or remove the comment. In response he added a second reference, implying that this now addressed the text. So I paid my $2.95 to get a copy of the RS and checked. Guess what? still WP:SYNTH or WP:OR but now with obsufscation. See the discussion. I would be happy for some more experience editor could give me the appropriately politically correct Wikipedian expression for this action and apologise if "deliberate deception" is overstepping the mark. -- TerryE (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Harvey Whittemore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A Nevada based business man
- This is a recently created article (Jan 10, 2010) with three main contributing editors:
- Keepcalmandcarryon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - The original creator
- TerryE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - The author of this notice
- Ward20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Though there are other editor involved, these three are also the main contributors to the
- Talk:Harvey Whittemore ( | article | history | links | watch | logs)
- The main reason for this notice is because of failure to progress some disputes discussed on the talk pages. Examples include:
- Lobbyist/Attorney. See also the discussion Another WS:BLP WS:NPOV issue -- Lobbyist/Attorney. The main issue at point here is not that HW is a lawyer that specialised in lobbying but on the inaccuracies (the wording in the article is an inaccurate quote from the RS) and bias of the reporting (these inaccuracies enhance the critical nature of the content; any balancing positive content is omitted).
- Coyote Springs section. See also the discussion Talk:Harvey Whittemore#WP:BLP and WP:Coatrack. Coyote Springs is a new development in Nevada by Coyote Springs Land which is a subsidiary of Wingfield Nevada Group of which Harvey Whittemore is the chairman and founder. This section occupies some 65% of the HW content most of this material relates to controversies to do with the development. There is little coverage of the positive issues and not of this material is covered in the Coyote Springs article itself. Whilst I agree that HW is a major player within Coyote Springs Land, the correct place for balanced reporting is in the main article, with a balanced précis here. This content is biased WP:COATRACK material.
- I am sorry if I've made any procedural errors in this notice as this is the first time in two years of editing where I haven't been able to resolve issues through amicable discussion on the talk pages. There is a fundamental divide in attitudes and approach to this article by Keepcalmandcarryon vs. TerryE and Ward20. I didn't think that HW was really notable enough to merit an article but it's really hard going when you need to try and source every RS to validate that the included text is actually a verifiable, accurate and neutral summary of the wording in the article. I would like to solicit independent feedback before proceeding further -- TerryE (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- It does look like a bit of 2 plus 2 equals 4 and also like this one event is being given undue weight and has been cherry picked as a single achievement from what is probably a long list, I would remove it or rewrite it to more accurately reflect the citation and add some more achievements so that this chosen one is not given undue weight in the way of.. he had many achievements including this one! Off2riorob (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Whittemore does indeed have a long list of accomplishments, most of them relating to casino legislation and his various Nevada business ventures. The section in question here includes several accomplishments as examples, but begins by noting the subject's reputation as a successful and accomplished lobbyist. The arts tax break was chosen as one of these examples because it was featured in the national media, not just local papers. In any case, this issue is clearly, at most, an issue of weight and wording, not a matter of BLP violation (unsourced, poorly sourced, or defamatory statements). Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Please provide (here) quotations from the sources backing up the claims made for them. Jayjg (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- From The New York Times, 12 April 1999: "Mr. Wynn is hedging his bets. He is lobbying the Nevada Legislature to pass a bill granting tax exemptions on the collection that would amount to a one-time sales-tax break of $18 million on the purchase of the art and $2.7 million each year in property taxes" and: " Harvey Whittemore, a lobbyist for Mirage Resorts, said Mr. Wynn was not trying to wriggle out of paying taxes on the Bellagio collection. The collection, which includes works owned personally by Mr. Wynn (which he leases to the hotel) and others owned by his corporation, is classified as inventory because the works in it are for sale. As such, Mr. Whittemore said, it would already be exempt from sales tax. The interest in passing the law is altruism, Mr. Whittemore said, so that those who buy art will want to show it for the property tax breaks they will get. 'You're trying to encourage the public display of art.'"
- See also: Las Vegas Review Journal, 02 April 1999, "Wynn offers Bellagio art show discount for Nevadans", in which "Lobbyist Harvey Whittemore told the Senate Taxation Committee..."; LVRJ, 08 April 1999, "Wynn's tax break compromise gains OK from committee", stating, "During testimony last week, Wynn lobbyist Harvey Whittemore said Wynn has sold..."; LVRJ, 14 May 1999, "Wynns art tax break endorsed by Assembly committee", containing: "After the hearing, Mirage Resorts lobbyist Harvey Whittemore said..."; LVRJ, 04 March 2000, "Art tax exception will proceed", reporting, "Harvey Whittemore, a Reno lawyer who represents Wynn before the Legislature, said the art collection was part of the deal..."; LVRJ, 30 August 2000, "Rules finalized for art tax break": "Wynn attorney Harvey Whittemore said..." These sources may give a general indication of the level of RS support for Whittemore's involvement. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see that these comments support the content.."Whittemore's lobbying accomplishments include obtaining tax breaks for Steven Wynn, in fact the citation says that Wittmore said that Wynn was not trying to wriggle out of taxes and Whittmore was not specifically lobbying for a tax break, even if a tax break was the outcome. It is 2 plus 2 equals 4, a bit like saying.. Harry was a lawyer and that made him overweight.. when it wasn't the work as a lawyer that made him fat but the fact that he was paid a lot and he spent all his money on food that made him fat. Off2riorob (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- How would you suggest we summarise this content, which clearly states that Harvey Whittemore was the representative of Steven Wynn/Mirage in lobbying something related to taxes (whether it's a "tax exception", a "tax break", or a "tax break compromise" as stated by reliable sources)? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Personally, as it is disputed and the current comment is not supported by the citations I would just suggest just taking it out. There are plenty of other links in the article connecting him to the casinos, if that is the value to the reader and objective of the content. Off2riorob (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- My apologies for keeping this going, but I'm not at all excited about removal of reliably-sourced information from Wikipedia articles, especially when the information involves one of the most prominent episodes related to the subject, and would prefer an alternative formulation of what these sources contain. I have asked at the article, and I now ask here, which of the following statements, supported by multiple RS, are in dispute:
- Whittemore was the Wynn/Mirage lobbyist (NYT, four Las Vegas articles)
- Whittemore testified before the Nevada legislature in this matter (four Las Vegas articles)
- the goal and/or outcome of the Wynn/Whittemore proposals was a tax cut (NYT and Las Vegas articles).
- If, as I maintain, they are not in dispute, how can we best summarise them accurately? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- My apologies for keeping this going, but I'm not at all excited about removal of reliably-sourced information from Wikipedia articles, especially when the information involves one of the most prominent episodes related to the subject, and would prefer an alternative formulation of what these sources contain. I have asked at the article, and I now ask here, which of the following statements, supported by multiple RS, are in dispute:
- This was the source I perhaps should have included when I opted for the more prominent New York Times: Las Vegas Review-Journal, 02 May 1999, Ed Vogel: Harvey Whittemore "lobbied the Senate Taxation Committee to kill Sen. Joe Neal's bill to impose a 2 percentage point increase in the gaming tax. Then he persuaded the Senate to vote 14-7 for a bill that gives Mirage Resorts Chairman Steve Wynn tax breaks on his $300 million art collection." Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- There it is in big letters, the lobbying for whatever is what he did, one of the outcomes was..bla bla..we shouldn't remove the middle bit, if fact we don't even need the end bit, the article is about Whittmore, not how some casino boss benefited from his actions, just take it out, it is unsupported by the citations. take it out and you will see that it is not even important, the article is as good and as informative without it. Off2riorob (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- This was the source I perhaps should have included when I opted for the more prominent New York Times: Las Vegas Review-Journal, 02 May 1999, Ed Vogel: Harvey Whittemore "lobbied the Senate Taxation Committee to kill Sen. Joe Neal's bill to impose a 2 percentage point increase in the gaming tax. Then he persuaded the Senate to vote 14-7 for a bill that gives Mirage Resorts Chairman Steve Wynn tax breaks on his $300 million art collection." Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks guys, an interesting discussion. As far as an RS has said X and we repeat it or précis it in such a way as not to alter its meaning then Wikipedia is safe. My understanding is that the presumption is that if the subject had a problem with the content then he or she would seek remedy from the RS; all Wikipedia is doing to attribute X to the RS. However, synthesis oversteps this mark. So quoting a verifiable RS is fine by me if the editor finds an appropriate source. When an editor are introduces potentially contentious wording from a printed source (and provide the URI when online copies are available, then it would greatly help others if the originating editor quoted the exact extract in the discussion. I am not a professional researcher and I have to pay to verify such sources.
- I also think that balance or neutrality is orthogonal to verifiability. When picking a couple of sentences from a few thousand line article, we should be asking the question "have we maintained the overall balance?" and not seeking the two most juicy quotes which underline a specific POV. I also think that we've lost site of this in the HW article, and not yet covered it in this discussion. -- TerryE (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that the phrase "Whittemore's lobbying accomplishments include obtaining tax breaks for Steven Wynn, owner of the Bellagio in Las Vegas" was an inappropriate summary of the sources. --JN466 14:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- I would like some feedback on my original post or suggestions on how to proceed. Here is the timeline to date:
- 17:57, 17 January 2010 -- TerryE announces his intent to raise BLPN on talk page [12]
- 18:15, 17 January 2010 -- Keepcalmandcarryon raises a BLPN issue [13] "Harvey Whittemore"
- 18:50, 17 January 2010 -- In parallel TerryE raises a BLPN issue [14] "Harvey Whittemore".
- On review TerryE realises that there are now two issues as Keepcalmandcarryon has acted on his "intent" post and raised his/her own issue whilst he was drafting his. So for simplicity the he merges the two into a single issue [15]
- The following discussion now focuses on Keepcalmandcarryon's initial point, culminating with Keepcalmandcarryon posting on an extra reference which addresses his/her original point at 22:02, 17 January 2010 [16]
- 01:11, 18 January 2010 -- TerryE's content is not discussed, so TerryE then posts a comment that this discussion has not closed his original issue. [17]
- 23:57, 22 January 2010 -- Keepcalmandcarryon posts on HW talk intent to remove BLPN dispute tag. [18]
- 16:06, 23 January 2010 -- TerryE points out that the dispute is not closed [19].
- 16:29, 23 January 2010 -- Keepcalmandcarryon repeats that dispute is closed[20] and removes the tag [21].
- I, TerryE, have now undone this removal. What I am asking is how do we proceed in these circumstances? I believe that Keepcalmandcarryon feels that he/she is entitled to close the issue as the "originator". However, it was my original flag and intent to raise an incident that triggered this in the first place. The whole article is very WP:NPOV and some 75% of the content really belongs in other articles, Coyote Springs and Whittemore Peterson Institute. -- TerryE (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Article Marcus (comedian). After a long series of unexplained reverts an IP Address user has claimed to be Marcus the subject of the article. If we assume good faith, despite the offensive tone, broken edits, and forced deletions, this user still needs to go through official channels. The article needs to be clearly marked so that editors like myself do not get hassled for making Good Faith efforts to preserve material or waste time trying to find citations. -- Horkana (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Marcus (comedian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -
- 67.169.242.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - claims to be subject of article.
Try and be gentle with him, he could well be the subject of the article, and will have a lot of knowledge about himself, point him in the right directions, if he likes to identify himself thats up to him, it is not illegal to have issues with your own biography, suggest he stops editing it but ask him what his issues are and have a look at them to see if the article can be improved. Off2riorob (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
He made many edits and unexplained reverts before making any attempt to explain himself and he was very impolite when eventually did so. He has made a twitter post which is credible confirmation it was him. Massively impolite but at least credible, this is the most effort he has made to repond so far instead of just pushing through edits. http://twitter.com/ComedianMarcus/statuses/7879267179 He goes by his first name for his performance and he seems to have problems with his full name being included in the article, although it was referenced. Another editor had tried to add it with a weak source (a radio show) and I restored it with a better source, a local newspaper that even included photos of him. Most of the rest of the article is not properly referenced, quotes are excessively long, some of it is dubious self promotion, a lot of that would have to go too if I had been strictly enforcing WP:BLP. Maybe I should have done it sooner but I did post suggestions and links to guidelines the IP address talk page, and he had been previously warned for unconstructive edits. He doesn't get that he should read the guidelines, and ask for help. -- Horkana (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I see he has contributed on other IPs. Hes got seven edits on this IP four of then removing this content he clearly didn't like..For much of his stand up career his surname was unknown as his stage name is simply Marcus. In an interview on Radio From Hell on Thursday July 16th, 2009, Marcus stated that his last name is Hardy. cited to this [karaokes-still-king-big-mamas/ knoxville dot com ..karaokes-still-king-big-mamas] link, The content seems to be gone now? If I was you I would go through the BLP and remove anything uncited and anything weakly cited to possibly not wikipedia reliable sources as well. I have trimmed it back. Off2riorob (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- I feel further edits by me at this point could be seen as me antagonising him. He doesn't get that my edits were in good faith and how his behavior looks to another editor.
- On the talk page I urged the other active editor to enforce WP:BLP consistently if he was going to enforce it at all. At this stage I would appreciate a neutral third party or experienced admin to help him sort out the article, deleting the poorly cited materials, and promotional material that might not be notable and so on.
- I hope he will not be given what seems a lot like a veto on the article describing. I can understand someone wanting not to have wikipedia article to protect their privacy but giving him license to micromanage the article, to selectively delete cited material, and not meet the same standards of verifiability as everyone else seems deeply unfair. I hope someone in charge can explain to Marcus how he is not supposed to edit the article about himself (in most cases) and how to complain through the appropriate channels. -- Horkana (talk) 01:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- No worries, the content is trimmed and that should be that. I'll keep my eye on it. Off2riorob (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- A more recent edits summary (seemingly) in response to your edits:
You're a fucking asshole. Thanks for erasing everything, you fucking prick. I hope I find out who you are, you piece of shit. Enjoy sitting in your mother's basement being a fucking loser. Fuck off.)
- He seems pretty indignant, an admin really needs to talk to this guy and explain how wikipedia is supposed to work. It would be bad PR move for an admin to not at least try to explain to him where he went wrong, even if he is not motivated to read the WP:BLPHELP guidelines himself. -- Horkana (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- A more recent edits summary (seemingly) in response to your edits:
- Yes, I saw that and have no problem with it under the circumstances, it doesn't really need to be posted here though. Off2riorob (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
At the Horst Ehmke article, about a retired German politician, an issue arose the other day about how to present and hedge the statement that the subject was briefly registered as a member of the Nazi party during his youth, but today denies he ever did so knowingly. An open-proxy IP user who is obviously some banned user with a grudge against me has now hijacked that issue and keeps reverting my BLP enforcement edits with edit-summary attacks against me (like, me being a nazi myself, and so on). Because of the unsavoury nature of these attacks, and because this is likely related to one of several very persistent harassment situations with various banned fans of mine, I would ask some other admin to take over watching this article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- The article looked okay to me. The incident in mentioned in a neutral way. Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
The subject is the only living former President of India.
- This is a contentious image in the article which I believe should not be onpage for the following reasons
- It is "contentious" because it was taken inside a "prohibited place" (as defined in Official Secrets Act (India)) the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre and its creation / publication prima-facie constitutes an offence of espionage punishable under section 3 of the Official Secrets Act 1923.
- It was taken in a private place (evidently without the subject's knowledge), and there is no "model release" from the subject as required by WP:IUP (privacy rights).
- The original image [22] has been cropped to generate a possibly "negative" depiction of the subject in a slouched posture with his eyes closed (as though he is asleep).
- Although the image uploader "Jijith" claims he created the work by himself, this is doubtful because he is present in the image (photograph obviously created by someone else) and is captioned "My photo with APJ". Hence the copyright of this image is dubious - and is probably a scanned version of a print possessed by the uploader.
- There is no dearth of positive images in the public domain, and already in the article, concerning this notable subject.
There has been some mild reverting over this image, so I am reporting it to this NoticeBoard (and not to an image deletion noticeboard) because it involves contentious material for this BLP. Annette46 (talk) 07:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see anything that would be a BLP violation in this notice. At best, this should be a discussion about the photo's copyright status on the appropriate page. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Discussion has moved to the article talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Repeated creation of "Criticisms" (sic) section that focus on name-calling. Might be the same person each time, because it's always "Criticisms" and it always points to the same sources. ----IsaacAA (talk) 13:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Though I admire Billy West, one person's opinion does not a Criticism section make. Besides, any BLP-compliant criticism should be integrated into the main text of the article, not broken into a separate section. I've removed the section from the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I've asked here briefly before, with underwhelming response, so let's try a more general and more elaborated question. Maria Lourdes Afiuni and Eligio Cedeno are both apparent WP:BLP1Es; Afiuni being the judge in a recent Venezuelan court case involving Cedeno, Cedeno being known for little else but the case, and Afiuni for nothing else. Maria Lourdes Afiuni was split from Eligio Cedeno, since the creator of Maria Lourdes Afiuni wanted a section on Afiuni in the Cedeno article and others disagreed.
So, what do people think: are one or both WP:BLP1E; and should they be
- proposed for deletion?
- Merged?
- Merged into an article that is on the Cedeno case, rather than a bio about Cedeno, about whom little else is known?
I'm not entirely convinced that an article on the Cedeno case alone is justified (WP:NOTNEWS), but if the content is to have a home, that would be the best place. It's worth mentioning that the creator of both articles has sought repeatedly to add references to the case into a variety of Venezuela-related articles, including Venezuela, Politics of Venezuela, Government of Venezuela, and Human rights in Venezuela, and discussion on that has generally been unproductive. There is also a related AFD on Political prisoners in Venezuela, half of which is again taken up by Cedeno/Afiuni.
If I made that sound complicated, it isn't: what to do with these two related BLP1Es? Suggestions please. Rd232 talk 20:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
There's a dispute on the talk page over the inclusion of some content about Gaiman's family connections with Scientology that was recently printed in the New Yorker. Input from more people would be welcome.Prezbo (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- There is no dispute. Gaiman expressly denies being a Scientologist and obsessed fans want to add that to his bio in express disregard to DO NO HARM. If that is allowed I will get him to deny being a Zoroastrian, a Catholic and Spock and have those included too. This is hatchet work on someone's reputation.HomolkaTheAllKnowing (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- I just noticed this discussion. I believe HomolkaTheAllKnowing is a sockpuppet of a previously banned editor - see WP:AN/I#Banned user returns? for discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Please see the discussion on the talk page. Nobody is trying to harm Gaiman's reputation; we're merely suggesting that his parents' religion is a noteworthy aspect of Gaiman's background, and should be included now that a reliable source (The New Yorker) has confirmed it. (To be clear: Gaiman's parents are/were Scientologists; Gaiman says that he is not. An anonymous editor has made this addition, which has been twice reverted. Discussion is ongoing; if Homolka is indeed a banned user, then only one editor has objected on the talk page to the material being added. --Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I see now what this request on my talk page was about (I didn't get round to replying to it). This really does not show Wikipedia in a good light. "The pivotal fact of Gaiman’s childhood is one that appears nowhere in his fiction and is periodically removed from his Wikipedia page by the site’s editors." [23] I think I might raise this at AN/I to get some wider input. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- See WP:AN/I#The New Yorker takes a swipe at Wikipedia. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't see any problems with the article. The religious upbringing of a person is certainly worth noting, if reliabley sourced of course. Not a BLP issue but the article did seem a bit long, going into a lot of fandom type information which would not be of interest to anyone but a hardcore Neil Gaiman fan. When will they learn that less is more and that the best use of a WP article is to get non-fans interested, not for fans to share their obsession with each other? Kitfoxxe (talk) 09:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- See WP:AN/I#The New Yorker takes a swipe at Wikipedia. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion User_talk:Gerda_Arendt#Elisabeth_von_Magnus where an editor has been advised against including details of the age and parentage of this Austrian mezzo-soprano. The German Wikipedia has apparenttly previously agreed to respect these wishes. On Googling for her name, the first hit I find is http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Bio/Magnus-Elisabeth-von.htm, which indicates that Magnus has contributed to the article. The conductor Nikolaus Harnoncourt is mentioned more often than any other performer as one with whom she has worked. Surely it is relevant that this Nikolaus Harnoncourt just happens to be her father (as stated in our article on him and in some sites on European aristocracy linked in the above thread)? In my view in would be unencyclopedic to conceal the fact that she has worked so often with her father.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- de.wp (partly for legal reasons) respects subjects' wishes a lot more than en.wp does. Presented with appropriate reliable sourcing, weight, etc, there's no obvious reason to exclude. Rd232 talk 17:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Both the German WP article and the English one have Personennamendatei (Authority Contriol PND) at the bottom, which verifies that he's her father [24]. It's from the German National Library. See also Austrian television ORF [25], the German newspaper Die Welt [26] and the New York Times[27]. And presumably she's mentioned in this book. This is hardly "private" information, and her father is not a private person either, he's a very famous conductor. He's even got a photograph of her as a child on his official website [28]. I don't see how simply mentioning that she is his daughter is a violation of BLP and it is pertinent information for a complete biography. Voceditenore (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- The birth date is a different matter. That is arguably private information, especially if it has not been published in multiple reliable sources. Neither geneall.net nor thepeerage.com are reliable sources. Voceditenore (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks both, I've now installed information into the article. As far as dob is concerned,French Wikipedia cites what looks to be a reliable source.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Aafia Siddiqui
Some input at Aafia Siddiqui would be welcome.
- The article had developed into this formless 55kb monstrosity, much of it amounting to an attempt to prosecute her via WP:SYNTHESIS (and in a really, really badly structured over-detailed duplicative way).
- on the basis that this was an uneditable mess, much of which was really not usable in the current form, I cut it back radically with a very brief summary, as a basis for developing the article in rather better form, and a note on talk linking to the old version and suggesting the old version be used as an info source for rebuilding the article.
- This was swiftly reverted as "large scale removal of well sourced information and references".
Discussion at Talk:Aafia_Siddiqui#Issues with article. Rd232 talk 18:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- There is now a consensus discussion as regards the two differing versions on the talkpage and editors are requested to comment there, the case has today opened at court so it is attracting an increased viewing figure. Off2riorob (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- There is not and has never been a consensus to cut out 2/3 of all references and information what reminds me on censorship. I dispute that this was all original research by synthesis and your assertions about that. And i dispute that it was a 55kb monstrosity that can not be edited in the normal way. These information are established and all based on reliable sources. There are better ways to fix other issues. Sure the article can be improved. Let's do it step by step. Could you please tell me which part is not based on WP:RS reliable sources? And where do you see the violation of synthesis? There is no reason to cut out all these sections with tons of references. These and other questions can and should be addressed on the articles talk page. IQinn (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Sandie Waters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article creator selected a user name of british artist Michael Craig-Martin, and made some claims on the artists' article about an alleged affair with an american artist/painter (Sandie Waters), citing a book by Richard Cork as a source. A google-book search within the same book reveals that the claimed material is not in the book. The article of Sandie Waters looks like a real BLP, but in effect is a hoax. Search engines do not know any painter/artist by the name of Sandie Waters, and thus I have CSD#G3 tagged the article. Amsaim (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Greg Caton
Greg Caton has a number of challengable statements and someone saying it has legal probs. eyes would be appreciated. ϢereSpielChequers 22:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- It sure did, editor User:Threeafterthree had a good look at it and its a fair bit better now, feel free to add it to your watchlists and keep it in a similar state. Off2riorob (talk) 00:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Appreciate the improvements to the Greg Caton article. Jettparmer (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Kim Hollingsworth
What I am amazed at is that I, the subject, made an attempt to do a wikipedia entry and it was rejected. But now I see a few weeks later there is a factually incorrect page under my real name. I want the whole thing removed in 48 hours. Otherwise the lawyers will be put onto it. You have just entered details about someone who was in witness protection, and if I end up dead, well, they know who is to blame, your stupid site listing personal information without even checking with the living person. GET IT ALL OFF!!!! Kim Hollingsworth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.228.177.119 (talk) 06:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC) IF YOU WANT AN ENTRY IN THIS WELL I WILL GIVE YOU ONE, BUT THIS INFORMATION IS PUTTING MY LIFE IN DANGER. ALL OF IT- OFF! Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.228.177.119 (talk) 06:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- The article Kim Hollingsworth seems to be well sourced. If that's you sorry it doesn't look like much can be done about it. If not then understand that there are many people who share the same name. Both of these are fairly common. Kitfoxxe (talk) 09:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- "if I end up dead, well, they know who is to blame". Well, that sounds more like Pauline Hanson ("if you are seeing me now, it means I have been murdered"). Melodrama aside, please advise (with references) what information is incorrect and it can be corrected. Also, please see Wikipedia:No legal threats. WWGB (talk) 11:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Considering the individual in question lives publicly, including posting her name and phone number for an animal-rights rally, I don't believe the OP. Oh, by the way, it's very easy to see that the IP geolocates to an ISP in Sydney, Australia, so it wouldn't be too smart for a person in protection to be posting here without a login! — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, if you have problems regarding content in a biography that you claim to be yours you need to contact the OTRS team, if you visit this page Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem you will find an explanation of the process, with a direct link for contacting people able to assist with biographical issues like this one. I know they are open to consider requests from living people to remove content that may be damaging or demeaning to that person. Since you have expressed a very high level of concern, I think this would be a good route for you to take, and may well get you more satisfaction than attempts to edit the article or discussion here, regards, feel free to comment further here or on my talkpage if you have any other questions regarding this that I can perhaps help you with. Off2riorob (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Sarath N. Silva
Sarath N. Silva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I stumbled upon this one due to copyright concerns, and was struck by what essentially looks like a very one-sided and poorly sourced negative BLP. Expert eyes would be required. MLauba (talk) 12:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm on it. It certainly needs more sourcing and I'm just chopping out anything remotely "positive, negative or controversial" per norm in a broad manner, and {{fact}} elsewhere such as in the lead. This should end up a fine article with some care, and even many of the statements included in the original form would have been okay with some copyedits, grammar fixes, and POV check. Working on that as well, and the result will be a tolerable Sri Lankan political stub... if we have a category like that. Hot damn, we do, for judges even. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 00:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Roberto Flores Bermúdez
I have twice tried to correct the biography of Ambassador Roberto Flores Bermúdez. The corrections have been reverted on both occasions to the Mandara.
There are inaccuracies in the Jan 18, 2010 posting by Jared Preston.
Ambassador Flores Bermúdez has not been at any moment Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Micheletti Administration.
The text posted today Jan 20, 2010 accurately reflects his biographical profile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Concernedhonduran (talk • contribs) 16:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Have you tried to discuss this with the other editor? That's the first step to resolve a content issue such as this. – ukexpat (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Susan Roesgen
- Susan Roesgen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Saw this at WP:RFPP. Other admins feel free to intervene as appropriate. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 01:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Proposal at village pump
Okay, how about this - Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Possible_way_forward_on_BLP_semiprotection_-_proposal as something which is using tools we have and might be moderate and workable enough to be acceptable overall. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Madness at several little watched BLPs
Someone is trying to connect the BLP articles Eric Daniels with the unrelated BLP articles Paul Daniels and Debbie McGee as well as the article 52 Pickup. The user has inserted claims that Eric Daniels, a Lloyds TSB executive in the US and son of German/Chinese immigrants, is the brother of Paul Daniels, a British magician who was born in the UK, to parents with English names, and that Eric Daniels also "studied magic from an early age" and invented the practical joke 52 Pickup.
The user has so far been operating with the following SPAs:
The IPs resolve to Lloyds TSB in London and to a British broadband provider.
Could an admin please verify that I am not seeing things and block the hoaxter and do whatever else needs doing. Thanks. Hans Adler 14:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Hans, I blocked the account indefinitely and the IPs for 24 hours. The Lloyds IP has, oddly, been involved in a lot of disruptive editing. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 15:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- (ec) As I recall the game from about 1952, and it was old then, the claims seem to verge on vandalism. Someone act on those folks, please! Thanks, SV! (added)Collect (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
There is a mention that he was arrested in 1995 for leaving the scene of the accident. Did he plea bargain? Or was the charge dropped? Or he was fined? Or found not guilty? If not guilty, then BLP requires we mention this because to omit this would be a smear. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- [29] is RS for the arrest. [30] for the charges being dropped, other than the ones of driving with expired license and expired registration. The rationale appears to be that while he left the parking space where the accident happened, he was still in the same parking garage. Collect (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Frank Turek
Frank Turek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) No references, lot's of claims and praisal 109.240.196.178 (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
This US politician article seems on someone's muck list. It was reasonably ok a month ago but has degraded again with a hitlist controversy section. I've tagged it for NPOV and would appreciate anyone willing to have a go. Even fresh eyes to see if there are some easy fixes would be lovely. -- Banjeboi 20:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- This BLP has been under attack by opposition forces for a while now, why not just revert it back to when it was half decent and lets get it locked up. Off2riorob (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not opposed to that, this version seems acceptable to me. Anyone else? -- Banjeboi 21:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Looks good to me, flagged revisions is not in action yet but when an article is under attack as that one has been, if it is semi protected at least we it will be easy to keep decent. Off2riorob (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Not marking as resolved, and not watching BLPN or Grayson's page, but I've semi-protected for 2 weeks, which should help matters. tedder (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you! -- Banjeboi 21:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Not marking as resolved, and not watching BLPN or Grayson's page, but I've semi-protected for 2 weeks, which should help matters. tedder (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
alan callan - editorial request
- Alan Callan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
i have been reviewing the biography of alan callan, and others, for a few years. i have noticed there are regular libellous and other unsupported attacks made. the subsequent editorial entries that i know of can be verified and the page seems to be in transition so that in depth sources and links are being produced - this may eventually prove especially helpful to people suffering from multiple myeloma. it appears therefore the recent request to delete the page may also be entirely malicious.
a recent discussion with the lawyer representing alan callan resulted in the lawyer suggesting a request be placed to lock the page in order to prevent malice. it seems so curious that after many years, as the links and information improve that a deletion request should suddenly appear. a muzick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amuzick (talk • contribs) 23:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- The deletion prod was not malicious, it is part of an attempt to clean up wikipedia from unreferenced articles like this one. Is his cancer really so notable that it needs over half of the 19kB of prose? Martin451 (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
This man gained a bit more notoriety by claiming right-wing talk show hosts were guilty in the September 11th attacks. It will surely get more attention. As is, the page is an unsourced nightmare. I don't want to touch it right now without some form of consensus. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- There is some quite controversial content there, some of it uncited for long time, and the 3 citations that are there don't look very good, one is the brad blog another is Green 960 pages, blog neither of which is imo a wikipedia reliable source and the last one is the subjects own Mike Malloy Show site? so it's not a good independent source either, imo the uncited stuff that is in any way controversial needs removing straight away, I would remove the blog citations and stub the article back to a couple of lines and add the Mike Malloy show site as an external link and either work to improve it with new citations or add a uncited blp template and then as is going on around prod it . Off2riorob (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- I trimmed it back leaving only a few simple details, and tagged it as uncited, if someone is interested in the topic, it is in need of a copy edit and a couple of references. Off2riorob (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- 2/0 (cont.) 20:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Álvaro Uribe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - over a long time this article has been repeatedly and deliberately vandalized by adding unsourced libelous claims, mainly by IPs, such as here by IP 186.80.103.26 and here by IP 70.50.197.35. I therefore ask for semi-protection of the article. // Túrelio (talk) 08:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- I gave it a month - this is far from the worst BLP-violation magnet, but there appear to be relatively few people watching the article relative to the prominence of the subject. If vandalism resumes after protection expires, please use Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, and just mention BLP as required. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I just protected that article for editwarring over a new addition; most recent reversion. It is stated that the quality of the sourcing falls below that required by WP:BLP, but I would like to request review as I am not sure that any violation is egregious enough to invoke the BLP-hammer. If any uninvolved party concludes that this is warranted, please revert through the protection. The current discussion is at Talk:Lawrence Solomon#Environmentalist (2). - 2/0 (cont.) 19:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- I cannot see any real BLP reasons for concern. Specifically anyway all of the arguably weakly sourced material is positive about the living person so we are in peacock and undue territory nowhere near a defamation. --BozMo talk 10:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Possltd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The user keeps re-adding unreferenced information to the article about Gerald Blanchard, a notable criminal. In fact, the user claims[31] to be the subject of the article himself and keeps adding details of the crimes (e.g. the bit about parachuting) not mentioned in the references cited in the article. I am not sure what to make of all of this, but I think a look by another editor or two would be helpful, as maybe I am overreacting here. // Nsk92 (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Quite an interesting story, he is not adding anything derogatory just uncited, could be the subject, I have left him a friendly note to try to get him to see that adding uncited content because he knows its true is not the way it works, hopefully he won't need to be blocked. Off2riorob (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- W. V. Grant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'm requesting help in resolving a long dispute. I figure that if we can get an expert in that will mediate it it should help some. I'm about ready to just send it to Afd and see what happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arenlor (talk • contribs) 09:06, 23 January 2010
- An article such as this one will never be neutral. On one hand it is currently unbalanced in the amount of coverage it gives his crimes and detractors. OTOH the whitewash version created by the WP:SPAs is simply unencyclopedic. Martin451 (talk) 10:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Anon editors reinserting promotional material, starting with "Since the passing of Warhol, Kelley's sublime creations have vaulted him to the forefront of the global art scene".[32] Ty 12:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- I added a "notable" tag. He seems to be far less known than Mr. Warhol. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've removed the notable tag: Kelley is notable. That he's less well-known than Warhol is not a notability issue (fame and notability are quite different). The article is sourced and his notability is asserted and sourced. The article could use more references and should be expanded, but I don't think notability is the issue here. What Ty is mentioning above is POV pushing: Kelley is "big" as far as these things go, but "the forefront of the global art scene" is questionable. I'm sure most visual arts editors on Wikipedia could name a few more at the the "forefront" whatever the hell that is. (Where is this forefront and how do I get there?) As far as "sublime creations", well I think we know where that can go. Kelley's work is a lot of things, but sublime it is not. We just need to be vigilant here with those kinds of edits. freshacconci talktalk 13:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Michal Bucko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - In my opinion, after reading the article, the notability of this person should be questioned. Additionally, the sources point to the company similar to others in Poland (with no notable achievements), a Polish language newspaper, the person's profile on milw0rm, a Polish version of the page of a product being created by the person in question, an article in a Polish security-related magazine, and a link to a Polish high-school web site. Additionally, the vulnerabilities are interesting, but are they notable enough for Wikipedia? Even if the person is considered as notable by other Wiki reviewers, it should be changed, hence the lack of proper sources. // 87.105.185.61 (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Take it to AFD. It is certainly worth discussing deletion.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- The article author keeps deleting the changes made to the article (my notability tag and someone's else WP:PROD) - please check the history: [33]. Could someone take a look at this, I'm afraid I do not have sufficient Wiki-management knowledge to handle this case. 87.105.185.61 (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Having read the sources, and done a google news and scholar search, I can't see any third party sources that establish his notability, so have sent it to AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michal Bucko Martin451 (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Please, refer to links from Notable Security Input section (and to vendors' web sites). When it comes to Google Scholar search, one might find: "Central human-enhancement facility for human quality management" thesis, "Against Code Injection with System Call Randomization" (quotation) and possibly "Short review of modern vulnerability research" whitepaper. When it comes to Google News, one can find information from heise.de. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.163.128 (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Having read the sources, and done a google news and scholar search, I can't see any third party sources that establish his notability, so have sent it to AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michal Bucko Martin451 (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- The article author keeps deleting the changes made to the article (my notability tag and someone's else WP:PROD) - please check the history: [33]. Could someone take a look at this, I'm afraid I do not have sufficient Wiki-management knowledge to handle this case. 87.105.185.61 (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello, user 87.105.185.61, I left now only very credible 3rd party sources (Microsoft, VMware, IT Underground, IEEE (in discussion), and Mr Bucko's company as well as his notable projects). Thank You for help. In my humble opinion the article contains much credible information, since it's important due to the fact that it's a bio of a living person. Hope it is enough well written to be valuable to Wikipedia. There are also other credible sources such as Gazeta Prawna (link provided) or Polish TV appearances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamilborkowski3 (talk • contribs) 10:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Dear 87.105.185.61, for Eleyt's notable achievements, please refer to the following: http://eleytt.com/research.html, then to Microsoft's or VMware's web site. When it comes to sources, I think I have added many sources and may provide even more. Please, refer to IEEE's "Against Code Injection with System Call Randomization, Zhaohui Liang; Bin Liang; Luping Li; Wei Chen; Qingqing Kang; Yingqin Gu". Thank You again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamilborkowski3 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the link. However I am afraid that the page is malfunctioning, and the advisory links do not work (they all point to the research.html file). Additionally, most of these vulnerabilities are DoS class. Additionally, after entering the "Gadu-Gadu emots.txt Remote Code Execution Vulnerability" into google, I've got this link [34], which credits a person called "j00ru", which after entering in google, gave me this advisory [35] - as I understand, this is the same vulnerability, and it does not state anything related to the eleytt company. In this case, I cannot agree that Eleytt is a notable company, hence lack of innovative or notable work. 87.105.185.61 (talk) 11:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Please, refer to facts and links in Notable Security Input, or refer directly to companies involved to ask. I do not comment on business-related elements nor defend the article. I tried my best to make it valuable and provide many credible 3rd party sources. Let anyone judge by his understanding of the facts. Thank You for insightful tips, which in some way helped me to improve the article. Btw. I am not in IT security field, more in business.
- I've expressed my opinion enough, and I will leave the decision to the Wikipedia contributors that are willing to vote in the articles AfD. Please note that I appreciate your contribution to the Wikipedia, however I cannot agree about the person in question being notable. 87.105.185.61 (talk) 11:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Yours sincerely, Dr. Kamil Borkowski —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamilborkowski3 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
William Daroff
The article and the image within are a hint that William Daroff and the uploader of the image User:Repjew might be the same person. Can somebody with more clue on this kind of topic have a look.--Stone (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Any wiki bio that doesn't have any criticism at all is unusual indeed, I have tagged it with COI and NPOV template and left him a message asking about it, the article is well cited and not over bad, just a bit one sided, I really dislike lists like this though...He has also been widely quoted in leading news outlets, including The New York Times[14], The Washington Post[15], USA Today[16], The Los Angeles Times[17], Newsweek[18], The International Herald-Tribune, Slate[19], The Jerusalem Post[20], Ha’aretz[21], The Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA)[22], The Forward[23], and newspapers around the world. He has also made frequent radio and television appearances[24] Off2riorob (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the questions. I do not know Daroff. It is my intent to write entries on Jewish political leaders, and this was my first attempt. I wanted to say that he's often quoted in the news media to show that he's newsworthy. I figured that the laundry list of articles would serve as a sufficient way of showing that. Since I think his being quoted in the media is relevant, how should I cite that? Also, I included his twitter feed since that's how I learned he existed and because the newservice JTA called him among the most influential Jewish twitterers in the world. So, his twitter url seems relevant. Should I make it an external link at the bottom? Also, do I really need to find something bad about the subject to make this a complete entry? Thanks for your help - as a newbie, I appreciate it. Repjew (talk • contribs) 05:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
External Links
Would it be appropriate to include links to the webpages of a notable living person's business interests in the external links section of an article? I ask in relation to Kwong Wing Lam. Simonm223 (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Have a good read here Wikipedia:External links Off2riorob (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- I had a look and an external link was flagged as an attack site, I removed all the externals and prodded the article. Off2riorob (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Julianne Moore, atheism and sourcing
There has been an issue arise about WP:BLP and a contention based on a response Moore gave on Inside the Actors Studio. Earlier in the week an editor came through and added "atheist" to a number of articles based on sourcing to the user-driven website celebatheist.com. That website claimed Moore said she was atheist in her response to the questionnaire given on the Actors Studio. The exchange went: If there is a God, when you arrive at the Pearly Gates, what is the first thing you'll say to him? Moore's response was "Wow, I was wrong, you really do exist." That was put forth as an admission of being an atheist, although the discussion did not include that specific answer. It was removed based on WP:RS. The issue now is that another editor has returned the same contention and cited the same questionnaire response as a basis to say she is an atheist and gave a cite to the San Francisco Examiner. Two of us contend that in either case, extrapolating that conclusion based on that response is synthesis. The editor who added said that the synthesis is on the part of the reporter who wrote the article. We still contend that to include such a claim in the Wikipedia article, in order to satisfy WP:BLP, a more definitive source is required, not the Actors Studio response, such as a interview in which she says "Yeah, I'm an atheist." More eyes and opinions on this are needed. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- The "San Francisco Examiner" should pass RS anyway. It is nothing more than a collection of local writers who enjoy writing and they get paid on a "per-view" basis. They aren't employees and Examiner.com does no fact checking. I currently write for them and have never had anything fact checked. They review articles posted, but don't really verify anything unless it becomes an issue. They were booted from Google news search results for a while and just recently got put back on the search results after agreeing to watch what they call news a little more closely. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Answering that to the question is not a good reference to tag them as an Atheist for the rest of their life. At the Category Atheist it reads as a condition of inclusion..
- This category contains Atheists,
- who have expressed being an atheist,
- and of whom it is known how they define their atheism.
- She has done neither of these things clearly has not expressed her Atheism in any clear way. So she does not belong in the cat, you could if you had a reliable citation and thought it a valuable addition, add the reply she made to the question in the body of the article, personally I wouldn't bother adding the reply or the question as it is simply pretty vague. Off2riorob (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you, Niteshift36. I did not know that the Examiner had fallen so low in the way you describe. My promotion of that source is at an end—the writer's conclusion about Moore never got the approval of the usual newspaper editorial staff. Binksternet (talk) 04:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think the problem is not only the sourcing. Wikipedia was making a completely unambiguous statement - "Moore is an atheist", and I think the danger lies our assertion of this as a fact. Regardless of how well Moore's Inside the Actor's Studio comment is sourced, and I don't doubt that she has been quoted correctly, any interpretation of that statement is an interpretation. Even if a reliable source can be found to have synthesised Moore's reply to a one word label, we still have to be careful about how we include the information in this article, if we choose to include it all. Unless Moore makes a clear statement one way or another, the best we can hope for is "According to such-and-such reliable source, Moore is an atheist", even if the "such-and-such reliable source" turns out to be the Pope. Nobody but Moore is in the position to make it an absolute statement. Rossrs (talk) 07:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- I totally support that position Rossrs, she was asked a silly question and gave a silly answer, it in no way asserts that she is affiliated and sees herself as an atheist. The comment is not worth adding at all, no matter where it is cited to. Off2riorob (talk) 08:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with everything here and I just wanted to add that a few months ago I initiated a discussion on the RS noticeboard about examiner.com. The outcome of the discussion was that the source has about the same reliability as a blog with the same rules for citation.--Jarhed (talk) 06:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Ben Bernanke's Picture Title
I have never done edits before on Wikipedia, but could someone please remove the racist remark over Ben S. Bernanke's picture titled "smirk jew". I don't agree with his current policy approach but there is no need to reference his religion or make remarks about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.88.92.113 (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Jules de Martino of the Tin Tins
thanks Off2riorob (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
He was not born in 1977. He was born in 1968/69 as I went to school with him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.15.242 (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Mark Weisbrot
Some recent editing at Mark Weisbrot (a left US economist) sought to characterise him as "a vocal supporter of Hugo Chavez in the United States", as the second part of the first sentence, no less.[36] That morphed into this version, where a similar meaning is given in the final sentence of the lead ("an adviser to Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and supporter of his policies"). Apart from the question of due weight, there may be issues of synthesis (possibly) from sources not necessarily reliable, and of over-generalising (being an economist, he's mostly written about Venezuela's economic policies). The "Latin America" section seems now also to have developed into an attempt to associate Weisbrot as closely and as negatively as possible with Chavez - which is particularly obvious and questionable in relation to the "South of the Border" film, on which he was an "adviser" to an unspecified degree. The final part of that section, associating Weisbrot with the Venezuela Information Office via a National Review article referring to the organisation he works for, seems again somewhat synthesis. Some additional eyes please. Rd232 talk 12:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Rd232, I took a look at it. Far from being synthesis, it looks like an accurate summation of information and statements made in reliably sourced articles. It's not just NR here; one of the cites in the introduction is the NYT. SandyGeorgia (the editor introducing this stuff) seems to have a good grip on neutrality and the situation. RayTalk 17:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Much appreciated :) As a side issue, it would be helpful if others would keep an eye on the edit warring of JRSP and Rd232 across Venezuela/Chavez/BLP articles. In this article, they reverted together to exclude this info. Rather than discuss and improve articles, even when text is clearly sourcable, they just remove whatever is inconvenient. In another article, they revert to include a source that did not say what they said it said (the US State Dept never said Chavez was "illegally" detained, but they revert to include that info.)[37] Getting more eyes on these issues across all Chavez/Venezuela articles now would help. It would be helpful if they would learn to collaborate and discuss rather than edit via revert. For example, if Rd232 thinks the current section is an "attempt to associate Weisbrot as closely and as negatively as possible with Chavez", he is welcome to actually work on the article to expand it via editing, not reverting sourcable additions. I already spent ten hours cleaning up the mess that was previously there :) P.S. I didn't "introduce this stuff" :) The text was originally added by another editor, cited to the New York Times,[38] summarily reverted (as is custom across Chavez/Venezuelan articles, even though it's easily sourced),[39] [40] [41] so I began to look at the article and the issues, which led to cleaning up a very poorly written article. Further, Weisbrot's involvement with Chavez is not confined to "economic policy" as Rd232 alleges: for example, the advisor role on Stone's film, and this example (there are many others). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's pointless to pick out all the inaccuracies in that comment (an obvious one: I said "mostly written about Venezuela's economic policies" just up the page - how does that translate to "confined to"?), though the misrepresentation of the State Dept sourcing issue alluded to verges on libel. Anyhoo, for some reason there is an upswing in interest in Venezuela articles, and I certainly agree with Sandy more people being involved would be excellent. Rd232 talk 22:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Libel? Excuse me? Is that a legal threat? You added back text that incorrectly represented a citation. Where is the libel in that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- This is getting to be a habit, Sandy. What I said was "misrepresentation verging on libel" (and of course it's not a threat). You knew or should have known (and certainly should have checked at this point) that I did not do that deliberately. You removed a word saying it was unsupported by the existing citation, which I didn't originally add. In response I readded the word with an additional source. Prior to that there was a to-and-fro between two different versions, but nobody'd said the word wasn't supported by the existing source. What does any of this have to do with current issues at Mark Weisbrot? Not a damn thing, it's pointless historiography. Rd232 talk 09:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I do have a habit of verifying sources and supplying diffs which plainly back what I state. Your version above is incorrect: you reverted to text which is not verified by the source given;[42] at that point, I hadn't edited at all. You did it not once, but three times.[43] [44] I didn't edit to remove the word until much later.[45] Your edit history shows you do edit by reverting on Chavez/Venezuela articles quite a bit; when you revert to text that is not backed by the sources supplied, that's the same as adding incorrect info yourself, whether deliberate or not (noting that I never said it was "deliberate", just something that you've done). Editing via revert is bitey, discourages others from participating, and lowers collaboration among editors and the possibility that articles will be accurate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- The diffs supplied verify what I said. On that one word the text was not supported by the ref; a ref I didn't add and which had been there a long time and which no-one had at the point said didn't support the word. Within minutes of someone (you) pointing that out, I supplied another ref. And again, the prior re-adding of the word was as part of editing back and forth over a number of changes, a fact you conveniently gloss over, enabling you to imply I should have checked the source given for a single contested word (there were lots of changes, and sourcing wasn't the reason given for removal). Why you're trying to paint me as a liar and bad faith manipulator, I do not know; but that you do it repeatedly on a topic irrelevant to the subject in hand is really quite aggravating. Rd232 talk 22:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- This is getting to be a habit, Sandy. What I said was "misrepresentation verging on libel" (and of course it's not a threat). You knew or should have known (and certainly should have checked at this point) that I did not do that deliberately. You removed a word saying it was unsupported by the existing citation, which I didn't originally add. In response I readded the word with an additional source. Prior to that there was a to-and-fro between two different versions, but nobody'd said the word wasn't supported by the existing source. What does any of this have to do with current issues at Mark Weisbrot? Not a damn thing, it's pointless historiography. Rd232 talk 09:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Libel? Excuse me? Is that a legal threat? You added back text that incorrectly represented a citation. Where is the libel in that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's pointless to pick out all the inaccuracies in that comment (an obvious one: I said "mostly written about Venezuela's economic policies" just up the page - how does that translate to "confined to"?), though the misrepresentation of the State Dept sourcing issue alluded to verges on libel. Anyhoo, for some reason there is an upswing in interest in Venezuela articles, and I certainly agree with Sandy more people being involved would be excellent. Rd232 talk 22:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Much appreciated :) As a side issue, it would be helpful if others would keep an eye on the edit warring of JRSP and Rd232 across Venezuela/Chavez/BLP articles. In this article, they reverted together to exclude this info. Rather than discuss and improve articles, even when text is clearly sourcable, they just remove whatever is inconvenient. In another article, they revert to include a source that did not say what they said it said (the US State Dept never said Chavez was "illegally" detained, but they revert to include that info.)[37] Getting more eyes on these issues across all Chavez/Venezuela articles now would help. It would be helpful if they would learn to collaborate and discuss rather than edit via revert. For example, if Rd232 thinks the current section is an "attempt to associate Weisbrot as closely and as negatively as possible with Chavez", he is welcome to actually work on the article to expand it via editing, not reverting sourcable additions. I already spent ten hours cleaning up the mess that was previously there :) P.S. I didn't "introduce this stuff" :) The text was originally added by another editor, cited to the New York Times,[38] summarily reverted (as is custom across Chavez/Venezuelan articles, even though it's easily sourced),[39] [40] [41] so I began to look at the article and the issues, which led to cleaning up a very poorly written article. Further, Weisbrot's involvement with Chavez is not confined to "economic policy" as Rd232 alleges: for example, the advisor role on Stone's film, and this example (there are many others). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Now, back on topic. You requested other input here, and although no one yet who has visited the article or this page has agreed with you, you nonetheless removed fully cited text and continue to claim that it is original research and synthesis. Could you please explain why we don't want Wiki readers to know what reliable sources have to say about Mark Weisbrot, Center for Economic and Policy Research and Venezuela Information Office? Wiki is not censored; please see WP:CONSENSUS, and restore the cited text. And yes, "verging on libel" is clearly a threat, as it could have the effect of silencing someone with whom you disagree. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- On the topic (remember that? good) you're quite plainly wrong: user:John Z agreed with me below, and made an edit backing up his comment. Rd232 talk 22:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- No, JohnZ did not agree with you, and removed the one clause that he had a problem with (which, by the way, came from the South of the Border article, as a claim that US critics had a problem with the film). Please do read his response, and refrain from edit warring against consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- As I've commented at WP:ANI#Legal threat, saying that an article is libelous is not a legal threat, just a statement of fact that may be wrong or true. Indeed, one of the principal purposes of WP:BLP is to prevent libel on behalf of Wikipedia. Sandstein 21:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sandstein, could you please take the time to read the statement again? He did not say the article was libelous; he said my characterization of the edits was verging on libel. That is plain. He is saying I misrepresented his edits with regard to the State Dept sourcing issue, which I plainly did not, as shown by the diffs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hm, yes, that is indeed more problematic; not a legal threat stricto sensu but such comments should be avoided if only for reasons of collegial courtesy. Sandstein 22:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- The diffs show what happened. It's your interpretation thereof which is mispresentation. Rd232 talk 22:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- On the topic (remember that? good) you're quite plainly wrong: user:John Z agreed with me below, and made an edit backing up his comment. Rd232 talk 22:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- The Venezuela emphasis does seem a little WP:UNDUE. The statement that "South of the Border,a 2009 film about Chavez which was not well received by US critics", citing mainly negative reviews is a clear case of OR, so I removed it. A statement of expert consensus, particularly in a BLP, must be sourced and preferably quoted, and the relation of the film's reviews to Weisbrot is too tenuous.John Z (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- If you can find a positive review, by all means, add it. I couldn't find one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- The Venezuela emphasis does seem a little WP:UNDUE. The statement that "South of the Border,a 2009 film about Chavez which was not well received by US critics", citing mainly negative reviews is a clear case of OR, so I removed it. A statement of expert consensus, particularly in a BLP, must be sourced and preferably quoted, and the relation of the film's reviews to Weisbrot is too tenuous.John Z (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Synthesis
Comments please re a WP:Synthesis concern explained at Talk:Mark_Weisbrot#Synthesis. thanks. Rd232 talk 22:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Rd232 is still edit warring to remove the content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm drawing on the BLP exemption for 3RR. For those who can't be bothered to look it up, "Libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)." I assert that the material is WP:Synth, and I await some additional editors helping to resolve that issue. (Existing editors actually addressing the issue would be nice too.) Rd232 talk 00:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- It seem you're the only one who sees synthesis here, and you're still reverting. Can you please explain which part is poorly sourced? Wiki isn't censored, we report what reliable sources say. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Could people take a look at this article please? IP editors are repeatedly editing the article to claim that the subject has died, without any corroborating sources. This happened in December, and again today. Murray Walker is very famous in the UK - particular in Formula 1 circles - and if he had actually died, sources would be easy to find. Google News finds nothing.
WP:3RR suggests I bring this up here rather than rely on the BLP exception to the rule (which I believe applies) - so that's what I'm doing. Pfainuk talk 20:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
There may be nothing factually wrong with this article, however I do feel that some of the information provided may be blown up or far fetched. I can definitely tell that whoever wrote this article has ill feelings towards Mr. Jacobovici. I feel that this article is more of a slander page. I feel that Mr. Jacobovici is wonderful at what he does. I am not a professional in any way, but I do have a good bit of knowledge concerning the Bible and history, he does a great job at accurately portraying these events. I do hope that someone can take a look at this. It would be such a shame that just a handful of people's views can taint other's who read this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.137.168 (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- It is a bit negative, criticism of criticism viewed critically, any takers? Off2riorob (talk) 05:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Peter Foster
I'd appreciate some input over on Peter Foster.
Brief background: Peter Foster is an Australian who's been jailed in three continents for fraud, false advertising, and other such offences. Media outlets commonly describe him as a 'con man'. According to this Courier-Mail article (as reproduced on PF's website - I have not sighted the original) his mother called him "Ratu Galoot" (King Fool). An ABC piece described him thus:
"Interviewing white collar criminals like Foster is probably the toughest part of this job. They’re harder to talk to than politicians because lying isn’t just a habit for them, it’s a business practice. If they can they’ll try to play you like they play everybody, with a carefully marked deck. The trick is, to recognise the cards. Tonight’s main guest Peter Foster is ultimately in the business of selling himself. He bought [sic]the full deck of cards marked ‘trust me’ to our studio."
The original version of Foster's WP article was created in 2005 by Ratugaloot (user has a total of three edits, all to that article). While it acknowledges his criminal record, it comes across as a puff piece: 'Said to be fiercely intelligent, charming, witty and entertaining, he has also been labelled as “the greatest conman of all time,” in Nigel Blundell’s 2004 book, “The Sting: True Stories of the World's Greatest Conmen”.'
The article was subsequently edited by User:Kingcoconut, an apparent single-purpose account created one day after Foster was released from prison.[46] It has also been edited extensively by anons (see the PF talk page for detail). Both Kingcoconut's edits and the anons' have concentrated on playing up Foster's "celebrity". There have been repeated attempts to emphasise the "international playboy" angle on the strength of a few articles that have used this as a throwaway line - even though those articles give vastly more coverage to his criminal activities.
As discussed on Talk:Peter Foster, many of these edits are unbalanced and poorly cited, and some are hard to see as anything other than bad faith. Examples include 'citations' to sources that do not support the content attributed to them, and to sources that are difficult to check. After hunting down several sources and finding that they had been dishonestly used, I am unwilling to trust any source offered in that article until I've checked it to confirm that the citation is accurate.
When other editors have attempted to rebalance the article, Kingcoconut and anons have complained vociferously about bias etc. (Foster took a similar course of action after an ABC interview turned out less favourably than he had hoped.)
On the one hand, I appreciate that WP:BLP requires us to be careful in how we write about living people, for good reason.
On the other, based on editing style, agenda, etc, I am convinced that Ratugaloot, Kingcoconut, and the anonymous IPs are one and the same person, and would lay good money that that person is none other than Peter Foster. Whether or not I'm correct in that belief, it's clear that they are trying to promote Foster. I don't believe BLP requires us to accept that. However, I get nervous deleting favourable material from a BLP on the grounds of WP:WEIGHT - what's the best way to deal with this issue? --GenericBob (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Don't accept no fluff...he is not a major criminal though and he is a living person, the article is a bit poor and a bit excessively negative towards him imo, yes I know, all the tabloid style reports are negative so what can we do..what I find is that if you write a decent encyclopedic style article the article will be respected and will stabilize, people will come there and read it and think, yea, that was imformative. Off2riorob (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Several single-purpose accounts are persistently adding large amounts of negative material which is sourced solely to weblog entries and op-ed pieces. The SPAs engage in edit-warring when the material is removed.
— goethean ॐ 04:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
He's blocked for 24 and a sock farm is under investigation, obama health care issues, awful, I have watchlisted it. Off2riorob (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Discounting the fact of the socking, one of the queries is of the sourcing. Does an op-ed from New York Times, etc suffice to add the bit that's trying to be added to the article. NJA (t/c) 08:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The background information on this page comes word for word from the president's biography at www.georgiasouthern.edu/president . Every external link goes straight to a marketing page for Georgia Southern Very biased information. 141.165.171.60 (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for pointing this out. I have removed the copyvio material and deleted two external links. If the university would like to release the copyright text for use, there are instructions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you have ongoing concerns about bias you could start a discussion on the article's talk page. - Pointillist (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm having problems with an IP editor who keeps inserting the claim that this (living) politician was born "Arad Bercovici". First of all, Berceanu states on his website that he is an Orthodox Christian and that both his parents were. Second, calling someone a Jew (and "Arad Bercovici" is undoubtedly a Jewish name) is unfortunately a form of slander in certain spheres of Romanian political discourse. Third, the "references" the IP has added are: a forum posting, the press organ of a xenophobic, anti-Semitic political party; and a blog posting. No reliable sources exist to corroborate this claim; it is counteracted by the subject himself; and it is (at least meant to be) defamatory. Could someone please intervene, perhaps to semi-protect the page? - Biruitorul Talk 17:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I get complaints about this section all the time, the IP has claimed he is the subject or someone close to the subject but there is no comfirmation, this is the section they want removed, I also think it should be removed, the content is not very encyclopedic, it is more tabloid and titilating, it is a minor incident and it was not widely reported and for us to give it global coverage in a small biography of a person who is not even excessively notable is a bit demeaning.. does anyone support removing it? citation one is virgin media [52] Two, is a book, rock movers and shakers and three is an interview with his sister commenting in the guardian.
'In 1990, Pearson was arrested for public indecency following an incident at a public toilet in New Malden in south west London.[1] He later pleaded guilty to the charges and was fined £100 and agreed to be bound over for a period of one year.[2] In an interview in 2008, Pearson's sister Denise (lead singer with Five Star) commented "...Stedman was arrested in a toilet, long before George Michael was - I remember him coming into my room and crying, "I didn't do what they said I did." [3] Off2riorob (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- IMHO, such trivia is what is meant by "contentious" <g>. If it is not a felony, we whould not be pushing it in any biography. Collect (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Could someone please take a look at the Gail Riplinger article? There is a large unsourced "controversy" section which is larger than the rest of the article information combined, both of the references in the article are from the individual's own writings, and the external links section is a link farm divided into "support" and "criticism". Also, most of the edits are being done by an SPA...Should the article just be stubbed to what can be reliably sourced? --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 20:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Seems reasonable. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I blew away the linkfarm. It's still in the history if somebody wants to use any of the previously linked material for sourcing. RayTalk 23:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)