Phil Bridger (talk | contribs) |
109.76.242.24 (talk) |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 591: | Line 591: | ||
:Content is supported by reliable sources. The person in question is blatantly transgender. There is nothing sinister about it and so far this fact is not challenged by sources. At the very least the person's birth name needs a mention and the appropriate category should be listed. [[User:Wikifan12345|<span style="color:#6E6D6D">Wikifan</span>]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Wikifan12345|Be nice]]</small></sup> 11:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC) |
:Content is supported by reliable sources. The person in question is blatantly transgender. There is nothing sinister about it and so far this fact is not challenged by sources. At the very least the person's birth name needs a mention and the appropriate category should be listed. [[User:Wikifan12345|<span style="color:#6E6D6D">Wikifan</span>]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Wikifan12345|Be nice]]</small></sup> 11:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC) |
||
::What reliable sources support this content? [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 11:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC) |
::What reliable sources support this content? [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 11:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC) |
||
The countless documentaries that Nusbacher appears in as male are reliable sources. I think we should compromise and make reference to Lynette's former name at least, someone has recently removed her former name from the article entirely. (Green Halcyon here, and probably shouldnt be, account is blocked for 24 hours)<span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/109.76.242.24|109.76.242.24]] ([[User talk:109.76.242.24|talk]]) 11:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== Biljana Srbljanović == |
== Biljana Srbljanović == |
Revision as of 11:36, 11 March 2012
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:
| ||
Remy Ong
Remy Ong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The subject of the article hit a dog on the road and ran away from the scene. Apparently, this caused an "uproar" in the Southeast Asian nation of Singapore. Are we now in the business of documenting each and every minor incident that happens in an individual's life? The section has also been suggestively labelled "Hit-and-run case", as if he hit a human being and ran away from the scene. Should WP:NPF apply here? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- It was certainly blown out of all proportion, and earlier versions made multiple allegations that were not supported by the sources - I rev deleted a lot of edits. Don't know if it should be omitted altogether, but there was a lot of WP:UNDUE about it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- I support the removal by Zeb. I think proportion concerns speak to WP:UNDUE, at least for me. That aside, it's worth addressing here that the incident was covered by multiple sources, which is what this indicates. Note, however, these sources contain inconsistencies among them (for example, search for "pregnant"). Also bearing on the issue may be the Singaporean context of rather stiff penalties for things that pass as minor misdeeds in many other countries. On balance, inclusion of the incident especially as a punishable offense would be WP:UNDUE unless a court conviction is actually secured and its coverage indicates significance. WP:BLPCRIME is applicable here; though no versions that I could see referred to the possible penalties, they did refer to the police investigation, and that's enough for me. I'll concede this individual is quite well known, but I think the conviction requirement there squares well with WP:UNDUE. Later developments will indicate whether this is a minor event or a career ender, but kind of thing doesn't normally belong in an encyclopedic BLP, and there's no practical reason to include the material in the meantime. JFHJr (㊟) 01:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
After hearing the debate here and on the talk page, I still support the inclusion of the incident BUT only if there is any penalty handed out. For now it's only the news articles and mention of the police investigating, but should there be any punitive punishment handed down later on, it's appropriate to have the section reinstated. FYI Nick, the local law that applies to Singaporean Remy Ong also states that a "hit and run" can and will apply to certain animals like ass, dogs and horse.Lets have more debate by editors familiar with Asian cultures and laws. Nick seems kinda biased on one side, we need someone on the other end :) 182.55.242.227 (talk) 07:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has only one objective, that is to be an encyclopedia that its users can trust. And I am Asian. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Dana Loesch
Dana Loesch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is a biography of a person who is, shall we say, known for making controversial comments. Naturally there have been disputes over what should make it into the article. In particular, there's been a recent dispute over a comment she made regarding a Virginia bill that would have mandated trans-vaginal ultrasounds before abortions. The comment is sourced, but the only sources available seem to be partisan blogs and websites (either pro- or anti-Loesch), e.g. [1]. Is this sufficient for inclusion in a BLP? I'm inclined to think so, but other editors disagree. In any case, more neutral eyes on this article would generally be a good idea, because it's one of those that inevitably attracts people trying to push a political agenda from both sides. Robofish (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- If there truly are no sources except partisan political websites, then I would conclude that the incident is not really about Dana Loesch, but rather about the politics involved. In this case, the event is not relevant the biography of an individual, and the inclusion of the event becomes simply a coatrack for pushing politics of one stripe or another. Gnome de plume (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Pardon my neophyte status here, but would the actual statement Loesch made be considered a viable source? The statement was reported on by a number of websites - admittedly partisan sites - but then so was her statement regarding Marines urinating on the corpses of dead Afghan fighters, which has also been included in the article. There is actual audio of her statement on youtube. Does that count as a source? Osiriscorleone (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- So the only coverage available is in partisan blogs (which I'm not sure would pass as reliable sources categorically). That might indicate the event or commentary is not very noteworthy, but of low actual and enduring biographical significance. Here, I think inclusion would likely overstate the importance of those comments. That goes equally for the Afghanistan comments apparently not in dispute. If reliable sources indicate significance, the events in question would be more of an encyclopedic BLP and less of a chronicle of comments that got a blip in the blogosphere and brief network hay. Meanwhile, if something is demonstrated to be significant, you can cite the original quote to her blog. Some things are fine from blogs and other unreliable/POV sources, but not most; see WP:BLPSPS. JFHJr (㊟) 01:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you! I'll drop the issue. Osiriscorleone (talk) 01:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- So the only coverage available is in partisan blogs (which I'm not sure would pass as reliable sources categorically). That might indicate the event or commentary is not very noteworthy, but of low actual and enduring biographical significance. Here, I think inclusion would likely overstate the importance of those comments. That goes equally for the Afghanistan comments apparently not in dispute. If reliable sources indicate significance, the events in question would be more of an encyclopedic BLP and less of a chronicle of comments that got a blip in the blogosphere and brief network hay. Meanwhile, if something is demonstrated to be significant, you can cite the original quote to her blog. Some things are fine from blogs and other unreliable/POV sources, but not most; see WP:BLPSPS. JFHJr (㊟) 01:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Pardon my neophyte status here, but would the actual statement Loesch made be considered a viable source? The statement was reported on by a number of websites - admittedly partisan sites - but then so was her statement regarding Marines urinating on the corpses of dead Afghan fighters, which has also been included in the article. There is actual audio of her statement on youtube. Does that count as a source? Osiriscorleone (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
There's some text that has been replaced regarding the subject's commentary on actual news. I was the editor that removed it per my comments above. I'm not inclined to edit war about it, but could someone else please weigh in? JFHJr (㊟) 22:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've since deleted that text. I think that the version by AzureCitizen meets NPOV and BLP but still fails UNDUE. (I'm embarrassed that I failed to spot the UNDUE problem until JFHJr pointed it out.) Cheers, CWC 17:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
This BLP is seeing the same content restored, plus some more of the same. To me, it still looks like WP:COAT, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. It could use some input from others. JFHJr (㊟) 20:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, and also think it's way too POV, so I've deleted it again. Cheers, CWC 10:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Robin Ficker
Robin Ficker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There is an ongoing dispute over the description of Robin Ficker as a sports "heckler," with "fan" and "spectator" being substituted. I favor the former term as clearly and accurately reflecting the many cited sources. Objection has been raised that "heckler" is an outdated term as he no longer engages in the activity, but I don't think that is relevant to notability given the many sources from the time in question. This has been discussed most recently on the Talk page and previously through comments in the Revision history. -- Pemilligan (talk) 06:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Is there something more I was supposed to do to get some help here? -- Pemilligan (talk) 05:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Flagged up, other editors give it a look in,
- Trainhead (talk · contribs) is an SPA who has, to boot, declared a COI as being asked to edit on behalf of Mr. Ficker[2] (to apparently 'clean up' the article by removing unsavoury/unwelcome information).
- Also, Robin Ficker (in one of the refs) wrote an op-ed for the The NY Times titled The Heckler's Code and *is* notable for being a heckler, amongst other things. Haven't had time to thoroughly check the article, just addressing the OP's query, a lot of the refs look dubious too.
- Would appreciate some more eyes on the article and the user:Trainhead. Am going to post on all talk pages concerned about this issue. Thanks in advance! CaptainScreebo Parley! 22:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Bad Girls Club
Bad Girls Club is about a reality tv program. It lists the cast members and labels them in various ways, including 'porn actress' and 'stripper'. Some of the sources are fine, some look very dubious, eg Poptower.com. TMZ is considered reliable but only on a case by case basis[3]. The program itself is used as a reference as well, which I find dubious for something like this. We've had at least one OTRS ticket from someone who was listed here as a porn star with a dubious reference - the complaint was that the listing was stopping her from getting work. Obviously we don't take the word of someone for such a complaint, but these women deserve to have reliable sources just as much as anyone else. Dougweller (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- I just looked at the Cast member section (the article is not an easy read for me). I removed one label as supported only by a blog and poptower.com (and I removed the citations). The others in that section are less clear to me, particularly a source like news.avn.com.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- It seems unlikely that the show is in itself a reliable source for statements about the cast members. Does its production team have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Cusop, women shouldn't be labelled as porn actresses without reliable sourcing. That's a serious BLP violation. FurrySings (talk) 14:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Jose Antonio Vargas
Jose Antonio Vargas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Last summer there was a big brouhaha about whether Vargas should be described as an "undocumented immigrant" or an "illegal immigrant". Vargas uses the undocumented label, but others believe the illegal label is, I don't know, better? more accurate? something else? There was a discussion on the article Talk page and a discussion here, and the label "undocumented immigrant" was kept. Anyway, the article remained fairly stable for quite some time, although occasionally, editors who had not participated in the discussion (usually IPs) would come along and try to change it. I'd revert it, and there weren't any major disruptions.
Now, we have another editor who has altered the article in a curious way. He hasn't changed the term "undocumented immigrant" in the body of the article, although in one instance he wikilinked this entire phrase: undocumented people brought to America as innocent children. What he's done is highlight the issue by changing the infobox so that Vargas is now "known for" being a winner of the Pulitzer prize and being an "illegal immigrant" (there was no "known for" previously in the infobox). He also stuck in parameters about Vargas's citizenship (Filipino) (not actually sourced except he was born there) and residence (US), both of which I wish didn't exist, but I digress.
I removed "illegal immigrant" from the infobox. I also made other less important changes per the documentation in {{infobox person}} and per WP:OVERLINK. The other editor reverted and opened a discussion on the Talk page. I'm hoping other editors will contribute here rather than there (last time discussions occurred in both places) and I'll point them here.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I may have misunderstood the note on Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas - I thought the discussion was to take place there with folks being pointed from here to there. In any case, I've commented there essentially as follows: I think we settled the matter the last time we discussed this, by quoting him in the text - he refers to himself as an undocumented immigrant, we have it in quotes and with citation, and nothing new has been raised to change that. Short of the US government, he is the only source of information about his immigration status, and we quote him as such. (I don't doubt the veracity of his revelation - I am just saying that we're not going to find independent sourcing for that fact.) As for the infobox, it's important to remember that we're never required to include every field, and surely the infobox should not be used to promote an argument or a point of view as it appears was being done here. I see no reason for the "known for" field in this instance, in fact, as at best it is a judgment call. I moved the Pulitzer to "awards" where it belongs, and we already have his occupation/profession. To say he is known for his immigration status is an opinion, not a fact. The article was written in April 2009, long before his immigration status was known - he is amply notable having nothing to do with his citizenship. Tvoz/talk 06:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Left this off in my previous comment - I also agree that the "residence" and "citizenship" fields are problematic here and seem to have been added to make a point. I reverted to the previous setup, ommitting them - these fields are not required to be in the infobox. We say where he was born, and we should let the article explain the rest, which is better than a boiled-down one-word descriptor. Tvoz/talk 06:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
In a recent reversion another editor removed well sourced verified content on grounds that added content violates UNDUE even though it meets VER via use of multiple reliable sources. This maybe related to the discussion above, where other editors have not sought to compromise per WP:CON. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- RightCow is attempting, any way he can, to insert WP:UNDUE material, even though three editors disagree with his position. He has the mistaken notion that there is no consensus on these issues. I reverted his latest material, and when he restored it, I reverted it again. Some of the material he added, in addition to being undue, is just wrong and not even compliant with the sources he cites. There are mistakes in it, and there are misleading statements. I've lost patience with him, although I know that's not helpful, but it's hard when an editor just keeps pushing and pushing, no matter how many times he's told he's wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- The newly added content is taken from reliable news sources, and indications that the material is incorrect is itself an incorrect statement. If needed quotes from the RSs can be added to the references to verify the content meets VER.
- Please assume good faith and remain civil and not direct comment about other editors as above.
- I have attempted to compromise, I have kept with VER, and am continuing to follow BRD. The original discussion was regarding how immigration status should be stated.
- The reverted content is a new discussion. It is related to the previous discussion, but does not change how immigration status is stated, therefore is a separate discussion IMHO.
- Why should verified content not be kept if it is supported by multiple reliable sourced content?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- See the statement of at WP:VER regarding WP:NEU:
All articles must adhere to the Neutral point of view policy (NPOV), fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. Where there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation. Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view; indeed many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to present what the reliable sources say.
- Presently the article only has one viewpoint, thus not keeping with NEU.
- Excluding verifiable content, even content supported by an existing reliable source already used in the article is not productive to the article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
This is a biography, not an article about immigration law - it is not a question of differing viewpoints. There is no consensus for the changes this editor keeps adding, in fact there is not a single editor in agreement with him. Yet he keeps doing it, with the effect that the three editors who oppose the changes are getting tired of going over the same ground.Enough is enough - this has moved into the area of tendentious editing. Tvoz/talk 04:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Changes are well sourced to reliable sources, and other editors are removing content not keeping with WP:VER. Amount of content is balanced, and does not attempt to create UNDUE WEIGHT.
- NEU prescribes that all reliable sourced material should be balanced within the article, other editors have removed well sourced content from reliable sources claiming to cite BLPN allowing no content that is disagreed with or that does not agree with a position held by the subject, this creates an unbalanced POV. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Imagine of no content was allowed to be added to articles regarding former POTUS Bush, or POTUS Obama that didn't fall in line with the subject's policy positions.
- Additionally the most recent deletion of well sourced material was arbitrated to the source and was removed. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Other editors are violating BLP by completely white washing the article in opposition of the following statement:
Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone.
- All material that is not in line with the subject's POV has been removed and claims of UNDUE have been levied against myself. Per NEU, a balanced article is what is needed; how said material is presented can be discussed, and through discussion CONSENSUS can be reached, but if CONSENSUS by a majority of editors is to not allow any content that disagrees with the subject's POV at all is in violation of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS as it is not keeping with main Wikipedia Policy. Please see Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas#Removal of critical well referenced text. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Prem Rawat
Prem Rawat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Prem Rawat has a brother Satpal who is mentioned four times in Prem Rawat's article, the last being in 1974 when he was also known as Bal Bhagwan Ji. At some point Satpal started using the title Satpal Maharaj, the first reference I can find for the title Satpal Maharaj is from an India news report in 1997. Question - should he be referred to as Satpal Maharaj in the article when he wasn't using that title at the time? I believe that he should be referred to by his name "Satpal" and once as "Satpal (also known as Bal Bhagwan Ji)", the title he was using at the time of the mention. Thanks.Momento (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- I would say, keep it simple as possible, list the names and the explanation in the first instance and then call him what we call him in his article - the name he is known as now - Satpal Maharaj. only complicate the naming if really needed to explain the content. It's a bit of hair splitting really. Youreallycan 20:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- "Satp Maharaj" is a title and it complicates the article in that Prem Rawat succeeded his father as "Guru Maharaj Ji" in 1966 and it wasn't until much later Satpal took the title "Maharaj" giving us three "Maharaj" in the same article.Momento (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- The main reason for leaving "Satpal Maharaj" out is that is suggests that anyone who changes their name after they have ceased to be involved in a BLP subject's life should have their new name added. Ie Apple (formerly known as Banana, also as Cherry) so introducing a name that has never been associated with the subject of the BLP.Momento (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Kim Dalton
Kim Dalton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article is autobiographical. As someone who holds a reasonably high profile position in the Australian media I feel it is reasonable to post a short biography on Wikipedia. The short synopsis of my career I feel is not particularly self promoting and it does not comment on or advocate in regard to areas of my work and actions I have taken which may be contested. Unfortunately an anonymous person posting under the name duckquackquackquack keeps inserting material relating to a particular debate around the issue of outsourcing ABC production. I have no problem if this person wishes to set up their own page to advocate their position. However, I think it is unreasonable that they advocate their position anonymously and effectively mount a criticism of me. I would appreciate it if you were able to take some action on this matter.
The text in question is below.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Kim Dalton.
'Privatising the Australian Broadcasting Corporation
On 10 August 2011, in a letter by the CPSU (Community and Public Sector Union) on behalf of ABC Staff [1], the Section Secretary Graeme Thomson responded to ABC Managing Director Mark Scott's 'all staff email'[2], which defended Kim Dalton's axing of TV programs: The New Inventors, Collectors and Art Nation. Mr Thomson confirms that ABC staff has called for an audit of what has become known as the 'Dalton Model', a style of management that diverts public funding to the private sector, resulting in the termination of in-house productions, mass redundancies and skill shortages.
Independent Senator Nick Xenophon passed a motion in the upper house on 17 August 2011 with the support of Labor and The Greens for an inquiry into 'Recent ABC (TV) programming decisions' [3]. The report which came out in October 2011 [4] is critical of Kim Dalton's management, quoting him in Perth, where he announced to ABC production staff 'that only program ideas pitched from outside the ABC would be considered for production' 3.37.
With regard to the 'Dalton Model', the Australian Senate recommended this:
'The committee recommends that the ABC ensure that it maintains an effective capacity to internally produce quality programming across the regions in addition to news, sport and current affairs. The committee notes that the increasing use of external producers has the capacity to diminish the ABC’s independence and skill base. 3.50'
On 24 February 2012, the ABC appointed Katrina Sedgwick to a newly formed position of ABC TV Head of Arts [5]. In this role; created to 'provide stronger focus on the ABC's arts programming' [6], she answers directly to ABC Head of Television, Kim Dalton. Ironically, it was Dalton who 6 months earlier axed the internally produced program Art Nation [7]. Dalton revealed to the media that 'As a result of changes to our arts production and line up last year (2011) we have increased the resources committed to primetime arts programming to be commissioned from the independent production sector.'[8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim7159 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- The added section is very messy, and I've removed it. It's possible that some of the material could be added back into the article in a more balanced way, particularly as it relates to Dalton himself, as opposed to ABC or other executives at ABC. I've commented on the article Talk page about the problems with the section (primary sources, undue, coatracky, POV, poorly drafted). I had trouble following it. At the same time, the intro to the article, which is all that's left, was poorly drafted as well, and I've removed unsourced material and cleaned it up a bit (there isn't much).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- I've reworked the material to be more coherent and less undue. It didn't need its own section (let alone the title, which is clearly POV. I have one issue with the material as it stands - in case anyone wants to look into it. The senate inquiry began in August 2011. In one newspapaper article it said that a report from the senate committee was expected in October (no year). In another article from the same paper, a day earlier, it said October 2012. I put that in, but, frankly, despite the proverbial slowness of government bureaucracy, it's hard to imagine the report would take well over a year. At the same time, assuming it was really supposed to be October 2011, I couldn't find any information about the report. In other words, what happened after August 2011?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Is Kim Dalton insisting on controlling his own biography? 'The short synopsis of my career'? The revision by Bbb23, although simplifying the article has resulted in the loss of content. If it is to be revised, I suggest leaving the course of events involving the Australian Senate. It is also important that the article contain information relevant to an obvious effort by Dalton to funnel public money into the private sector. The senate has made comment on this and Dalton himself recently mentioned it in the media. The additions I have made over time are well referenced and I would be the first to amend any inaccuracies. With regard to the confusion over the Senate Report, the dates are correct and available on http://www.aph.gov.au. --Duckquackquack (talk) 05:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- There were many problems with the article. As for the material you added, if you'll look at what's currently there, you'll see that much of what you put in has been retained. It's just been told more coherently and more neutrally. The rest of the material that was taken out (not yours) was just unsourced (your material at least was sourced - it was almost impossible to follow, though). If you think additional material needs to be added to the article, tell us what you want to add, but don't just restore what was in the article before - that makes zero sense. As for the dates, I'd like some clarification on that because, as I said above, I'm not comfortable with them. However, just pointing us to the Australian Parliament homepage doesn't shed any light on anything. Is there some subpage in particular that is helpful?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
A real need here is for solid background to balance high-profile the subject currently has. this is a good source, and I'm sure that those who actually know what his job involves can find more. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Point taken that it was hard to follow but I now have a major issue with the article, the Senate report into ABC TV programming decisions, which specifically mentions Dalton came out in October 2011, here is the official link http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=ec_ctte/abc/report/index.htm. I would like to quote Recommendation 1. 3.50 'The committee recommends that the ABC ensure that it maintains an effective capacity to internally produce quality programming across the regions in addition to news, sport and current affairs. The committee notes that the increasing use of external producers has the capacity to diminish the ABC’s independence and skill base.' This is at odds with the way Dalton is currently running ABC TV and should be juxtaposed with the recent article (http://www.mediaspy.org/report/2012/02/24/abc-tv-appoints-head-of-arts/) about the new head of arts and dalton's comment that he has 'increased the resources committed to primetime arts programming to be commissioned from the independent production sector. Given that Dalton is a public figure and answers to the government I believe that 'increasing programming from the private sector' and the Senate's recommendation that 'increasing use of external producers has the capacity to diminish the ABC’s independence and skill base' is relevant and should be added to this biography. Please respond before I make the changes. --Duckquackquack (talk) 02:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- You have had zero support from others on such issues here - I think that should be noted by you at this point. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not looking for support, I'm pointing out to the group that this article is obsolete. The Senate report that it mentions has been available since the 13th of October 2011. Check the link. http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=ec_ctte/abc/report/index.htm --Duckquackquack (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Duckquackquack went ahead and made the edit, which I've reverted. Duckquackquack is juxtaposing these two quotes in a manner that I would consider WP:SYNTH and an inappropriate use of a primary source. January (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
You have reverted the new information, fine. But you have left the article incorrect. THE SENATE REPORT HAS BEEN RELEASED (not due in October 2012). If you do not want to correct this I will. --Duckquackquack (talk) 00:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- I've added the reference to the Parliament website that indicates the report was issued on 13 October 2011. I understand the problem January had, but at this point I am just citing the Parliament site for the fact the report issued and the date on which it issued. Anything more than that (describing the report based on the report's contents, or even quoting the report) would be a problem with WP:PRIMARY.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Viktor Yanukovych
Viktor Yanukovych (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Your attention is urgently needed on this article. An edit-war has erupted over including the details of the personal life and business activities not of Victor but Oleksandr, his son, in a transparent attempt to embarrass Victor Yanukovych by implication and weasel means. There has also been a message left on my talk with charged analogies. Help is needed. The edit in question is: diff. Further, a more general look is needed into the other sections of this article. There is a blunders section which reads like a polemic suitably titled: Yanukovych's famous public speaking errors (blunders). This needs to be removed also. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- I am sorry if my atempt at satire at your talkpage was misunderstood; but nobody did violate any 3RR so I do not see an edit-war. The article is in bad shape though... The Yanukovych's famous public speaking errors (blunders)-chapter is not up to wiki-standards and I kept reading in Ukrainian respectable sources that friends the Ukrainian Presidents son get high post in Ukraine (no I can not proof that is just a coincidence; but it certainly is weird); I thought it should be mentioned in the article about his father... This all can be discussed at the article talkpage. I.m.o. no need for any Administrators to step in.
— Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 00:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)- PS Yanukovych has made some blunders that are noticeble; Yanukovych's famous public speaking errors (blunders)-chapter should not be removed it should be rewritten in a neutral tone. For now the section looks POV; but it does not have too......... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 00:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yulia, don't worry! This isn't WP:3RRN or WP:ANI. Nobody called for administrator action. This noticeboard is to bring problematic content about living persons to the attention of volunteers. I'm sure a few of us here will have a look. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 00:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Thank you Yulia for your comments. I agree. I am sorry I didn't get the satire in your message but the edit revert on the article made me feel like it was serious business. :) Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I agree with Dr.K that the material about Yanukovych's son does not belong in the article. The blunders section is more complicated. As written, it is clearly WP:UNDUE. I would recommend integrating anything truly noteworthy into the rest of the article rather than any of it being in a standalone section.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- PS Yanukovych has made some blunders that are noticeble; Yanukovych's famous public speaking errors (blunders)-chapter should not be removed it should be rewritten in a neutral tone. For now the section looks POV; but it does not have too......... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 00:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks all! Just to be clear I will not oppose Bbb23 as I see now what is standard in Wikipedia but I have made a start with an article about this son, Oleksandr Yanukovych, (will take a new look at it after the week-end) and I did write in there "Various Ukrainian press have sugested people close to Oleksandr have landed some of Ukraine’s most important position". — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 01:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Grant Cardone
Grant Cardone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Editor “Henry Sewell” and others have been making changes to the Grant Cardone page since at least June 2011. Combined with attempts to restore prior versions of the article, this engagement may qualify as an “edit war,” which indicates the matter should be raised to the Noticeboard for discussion and resolution.
The “Henry Sewell” version of the page removes relevant or noteworthy information from earlier versions of the page (e.g., acknowledging the birth of Mr. Cardone’s second daughter, Scarlett; descriptions of Mr. Cardone’s businesses under the “Entrepreneur” section; citation to his fourth book, The 10X Rule).
Per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, “Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.” Mr. Cardone is a motivational speaker and author, and his religious beliefs are not relevant to his public life or notability as a motivational speaker and author.
Wikipedia’s editorial standards for Biographies of living persons (BLPs) expressly state that editors must “Be very firm about the use of high quality sources.” See Wikipedia:Biolgraphies of living persons. The claim that Mr. Cardone is a “high-level Scientologist” is not supported in the text of the article found in footnote 2 of “Henry Sewell’s” edit of the Cardone article. Footnote 3 of the current Cardone article, a citation to truthaboutscientology.com, does not appear to satisfy Wikipedia’s standards for reliable sources. When a reliable source is required, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. See Wikipedia:Verifiability.
Likewise, the Village Voice article cited as Footnote 4 of the current Cardone article does not state that Mr. Cardone conducts “Fair Game” activities in the body of the article.
Even if Mr. Cardone’s religious beliefs were relevant to his public life or notability, the overall treatment of Mr. Cardone’s adherence to Scientology is not given neutral treatment, from the description in the opening paragraph to the “Attack on Milton Katselas” section. This runs contrary to Wikipedia’s presumption in favor of privacy in BLPs, the importance of a neutral point of view (one of Wikipedia’s core principles), and is inconsistent with the balanced and proportionate treatment found in discussion of Scientology on pages of other public figures who are adherents to the Church of Scientology (see, for example, the relatively modest discussion of Scientology on pages for John Travolta, Jenna Elfman, Anne Archer, and others).
"Henry Sewell’s" comments on the Grant Cardone Talk page suggest a personal agenda to antagonize Mr. Cardone, rather than bona fide efforts to edit the article in a neutral manner in keeping with Wikipedia’s BLP standards. On October 1, 2011, “Henry Sewell” posted the following message to the Talk:Grant Cardone page: “Having some fun and games with someone attempting to remove the mention of Cardone's involvement with Scientology's Fair Game practises in relation to the mass email sent to Scientologists linked to its Los Angeles Celebrity Centre. If it persists, I shall add additional data concerning the email, and a letter Cardone sent directly to Katselas.”
The “Attack on Milton Katselas” section is problematic in a few ways: When the subject of a BLP is a public figure, allegations must be supported by multiple sources (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons: “If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.”). Here, the Milton Katselas section is supported by citation to just a single source, the Village Voice article.
Second, BLPs must be balanced: “Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints…[c]are must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content.” The section heading, “Attack on Milton Katselas” is not neutral. The section itself comprises an entire printed page of a three-page article (excluding references), and is therefore “disproportionate” relative to the overall article. Again, compare both the quality and quantity of content to that found in BLPs of other notable Scientologists.
The inclusion of Mr. Cardone’s involvement in “Freedom Motorsports Group, Inc.” appears to be made for no other purpose than to further establish a connection between Mr. Cardone and the Church of Scientology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.167.107.157 (talk) 00:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with you that the article as it stood was bad, and I suspect that including the whole text of that email would also be a copyright violation. I have reverted to the shorter version of the article. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
More eyes on this article would be appreciated. Despite being an apparent copyright violation and representing significant BLP concerns, my initial edit was reverted. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I have reverted the removal of the information concerning Cardone's attack on Milton Katselas. I'm not sure how else his activities in this regard could be described, especially in light of Wikipedia's own article on the subject of Fair Game. Also, the claim in regard copyrght can be ignored in that there has been no complaint made in this regard and, even then, what has been quoted amounts to "Fair Use". If there is a consensus that the email material be removed, there is no consequential need to remove the section dealing with this aspect Cardone's biography. Henry Sewell (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- It's inappropriate to have two thirds of someone's biography dominated by negative content sourced from a single village voice blog post. It raises massive WP:UNDUE issues and is drastically inappropriate in a BLP. Re: copyright, we don't wait for someone to make a claim - and the email in this context is unlikely to be fair use, and definitively fails WP:NFCC. Do not restore material that is under discussion for BLP and copyright reasons; this is explicitly forbidden in WP:BLP. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- The Scientology assertion in the lead wasn't even supported by the source (no mention of being "high-level", just I like Scientology). The reference in the body to short-lived company was obviously coatrack. I removed both. There's no indication that his liking Scientology has anything to do with his career. The rest of the article spends far too much time on trivia and lacks sources, but I haven't touched that yet. Do we really need to know that he moved from City A to City B to City C to City D? That he worked at McDonald's when he was growing up? Come on. Even the stuff about Joan Rivers and his "success story" is pretty silly. I know Hollywood can be silly generally, but even so.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Sheldon Souray & Angelica Bridges Divorce
There seems to be a some disagreement about Sheldon Souray and Angelica Bridges being divorced. When either page is modified to say they are divorced, the changes are reverted. I've found multiple sources saying the 2 are divorced. I can add them all to the statement saying they are divorced, but it will likely be reverted again. I'm not sure why this a divorce that happened in 2007 is being removed. AuroraHcky (talk) 02:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- It looks to me like garden variety removal of content by an IP with some agenda. I've restored the divorce assertion to both articles and left a warning on the IP's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- If that low grade citation report of a TMZ retracted article is all there is to support the detail it should stay out waiting for stronger sourcing. - as such I have removed both of User:Bbb23's additions. Youreallycan 02:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- It was one source. I'll update it with one of the sources I've found that mentions their divorce. AuroraHcky (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- The Scott Burnside article already used as a source in the Souray entry How hockey brought sobriety, unity to Souray family mentions sharing custody with his ex-wife Angelica Bridges. I also found a transcript of an interview Souray did in 2011 mentioning his public divorce New Star Sheldon Souray has 'something to prove again' when he takes to the ice this year I believe the first article mets the Wikipedia criteria for credible sources. The second might not though. AuroraHcky (talk) 03:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- I read the Yahoo! sports news article before determining that it was reliable, not for the events after the divorce, but just for the opening paragraph, that there was indeed a divorce. The fact that the parties have legally squabbled afterwards, not uncommon, even after parties are divorced, doesn't mean anything unless the divorce decree is actually voided, and there was no evidence of that. I'm actually less happy with the two subsequently discovered sources. The ESPN article just has the phrase "ex-wife", and to me that isn't sufficient for us to say that a divorce occurred (or when). Sometimes the term is used loosely just to mean that a couple is no longer together. The SportsDay interview is no better. First, it's only him referring to the divorce, and as YRC points out, it doesn't say that it's over ("I was going through some stuff with a public divorce with kids"). If YRC feels the first source isn't good enough, that's okay as I see no urgency to including this material, but I don't think the other two sources should be used. I've done my own search with Google News and found nothing helpful. Most articles refer back to the original TMZ, at least partly retracted, report. It seems clear to me that Bridges filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles in 2009, but what's not clear to me is whether the 2007 divorce was ever finalized. It's a little weird, though, for our articles to act like they are both still together and "reconciled".
- I should also point out that in the current state of the articles, there are NO citations for the marriage at all in the Bridges article, and the only citation in the Souray article is to the ESPN piece that refers to Bridges as Souray's "ex-wife". More irony.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- I found an additional article, though I'm not sure if it would be a credible source, that states them divorcing in 2007 EXCLUSIVE: FANTASY STAR FIGHTS TO KEEP KIDS AND RETURN TO LUXOR SHOW It was written in 2009 at the time of the custody battle. I just think it's very odd that they're listed as married on Wikipedia (though unsourced) and thought it should be corrected. AuroraHcky (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- I should also point out that in the current state of the articles, there are NO citations for the marriage at all in the Bridges article, and the only citation in the Souray article is to the ESPN piece that refers to Bridges as Souray's "ex-wife". More irony.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Arthur
To whom it may concern.
Although I attended the same drama school as Alex Sweet the information and any references to me he has supplied are incorrect, please remove from the page.
Kind regards Arthur Byrne — Preceding unsigned comment added by 9teeskid (talk • contribs) 00:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- I've removed the section on you as unsupported (and trivial). The article is messy.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Nazir Ahmad (murderer)
Someone has moved this page from Nazir Ahmad (Burewala resident) to Nazir Ahmad (murderer). As noted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazir Ahmad (Burewala resident), this is problematic from a BLP standpoint (reliable sources haven't reported that he was convicted of murder). The move should be reverted, and the page move protected. Andjam (talk) 12:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- This really isn't a forum for requesting administrative intervention. That said, the user who moved the page was an admin, User:Necrothesp. The question is whether, per WP:MOVE, Necrothesp should have listed the article at WP:RM because it was "controversial" or because it "would benefit from wider community input". I note you have not challenged the move on the article Talk page. I think that might be the best place to start. It's possible that Necrothesp will revert the move based on a challenge and await a consensus for the new name.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see that this article passes WP:BLP1E. I'm thinking deletion is an appropriate couse of action. Kevin (talk) 02:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Nominated for deletion Kevin (talk) 03:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Given that of the three sources cited, the only link that still works states that Ahmad 'allegedly' carried out these acts, the name change seems grossly inappropriate - but the article needs speedy deletion anyway, per WP:BLP1E etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- While I am neutral as to the man's notability, I think it is frankly laughable to object to my name change given that a quick search on Google will reveal several articles from respectable news sources showing that this man not only freely admitted to being a murderer but apparently thought his killings were entirely justified (e.g. this one from Associated Press, which does not use the word "allegedly" once). In my opinion, refusing to acknowledge this fact and going so far as to blank the AfD page to (misguidedly and rather patronisingly, considering he seems to be proud of what he did) protect the feelings of an admitted murderer simply make Wikipedia into a laughing stock. The outrage expressed by a couple of editors in the AfD to calling an obvious and self-confessed (and acknowledged as such by media organisations) murderer a murderer would have made me laugh out loud were it not so tragically politically correct. I did not move the article to prove some point or because I had any particular interest in it (it was merely an article I happened to come across), but because the previous name, Nazir Ahmad (Burewala resident), was pretty meaningless and next to useless as a disambiguator. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- several articles from respectable news sources, I can't find a single one, and your RS is a blog hosting an article purported to be from the Associated Press. There is nothing politically correct about the page blanking or the comments at the AfD, just respecting WP BLP. Anyway, all that is beside the point, it was deleted as a poorly sourced BLP violation. CaptainScreebo Parley! 00:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- While I am neutral as to the man's notability, I think it is frankly laughable to object to my name change given that a quick search on Google will reveal several articles from respectable news sources showing that this man not only freely admitted to being a murderer but apparently thought his killings were entirely justified (e.g. this one from Associated Press, which does not use the word "allegedly" once). In my opinion, refusing to acknowledge this fact and going so far as to blank the AfD page to (misguidedly and rather patronisingly, considering he seems to be proud of what he did) protect the feelings of an admitted murderer simply make Wikipedia into a laughing stock. The outrage expressed by a couple of editors in the AfD to calling an obvious and self-confessed (and acknowledged as such by media organisations) murderer a murderer would have made me laugh out loud were it not so tragically politically correct. I did not move the article to prove some point or because I had any particular interest in it (it was merely an article I happened to come across), but because the previous name, Nazir Ahmad (Burewala resident), was pretty meaningless and next to useless as a disambiguator. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Given that of the three sources cited, the only link that still works states that Ahmad 'allegedly' carried out these acts, the name change seems grossly inappropriate - but the article needs speedy deletion anyway, per WP:BLP1E etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Nominated for deletion Kevin (talk) 03:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Rinat Akhmetov
Rinat Akhmetov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Looks to be a headache in the making; just about every paragraph has some accusation of criminal activity - and it is littered with dubious sourcing and what looks like OR (or some sort of soap boxing). I'm not going to have time to work on this but it needs an urgent clean up! --Errant (chat!) 17:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- This article is the subject of non-stop POV pushing by one or both of the two editors who are most active on it. I'm not clear on which of them is more deserving of a topic-ban: a cursory look suggests that one wants to fill up the article with accusations of criminality, while the other wants to whitewash it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- It definitely deserves a closer look than I have given it so far. Jesanj (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm just repeating what's in the sources - which as far as I can tell, are reliable. If things seem POVy or anything of the like, I'm more than happy to talk things out and get some consensus going on tone. The disputes have so far been more about the other user removing sources without much explanation than on wording or presentation. --Львівське (говорити) 05:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- The article appears to admit that many apparently reliable sources have published allegations of criminality against Renat Akhmetov, and since published retractions as the accusations were found to be false. Has the editor who added the accusations from apparently reliable sources verified that no retractions were since published?
- I'm just repeating what's in the sources - which as far as I can tell, are reliable. If things seem POVy or anything of the like, I'm more than happy to talk things out and get some consensus going on tone. The disputes have so far been more about the other user removing sources without much explanation than on wording or presentation. --Львівське (говорити) 05:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- It definitely deserves a closer look than I have given it so far. Jesanj (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Richard F. Cebull
Richard F. Cebull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article has received a fair amount of attention since the e-mail he forwarded was (apparently) forwarded to the media. There is currently a battle going on about whether we should include an interpretation of what the e-mail means by a journalist. One editor insists on putting it in (the usual "it's a fact and it's reliably sourced" argument), and two editors (me included) believe it doesn't belong. The inclusion editor refuses to address some of the issues raised on the article Talk page.
At one point, the e-mail was quoted in the article. It was removed by yet another editor who felt it was WP:UNDUE, although that's not precisely what she said in her edit summary. That editor hasn't contributed to the current discussion.
The Talk page discussion isn't long, so you can fairly easily follow the issues. In a nutshell, my view is we shouldn't be including interpretations of the e-mail, even if reliably sourced. The interpretation currently included is just one interpretation. There are others. So, do we have to cite to all of them? If we do, I think that's clearly too much WP:WEIGHT. If we don't, we are cherrypicking. As for putting back in the text of the e-mail, I have mixed feelings about that. On the one hand, I like it because then, as lawyers say, the document speaks for itself. On the other hand, I can see Jokestress's point, that it's more information than is needed. I suppose I favor just restoring the article back to before the interpretation and without quoting the e-mail. It's a reasonable digest of what happened. It's unlikely there will be any further news on this issue until the Ninth Circuit issues a ruling on the judicial misconduct issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Charlene M. Proctor: request for help completing WP:BEFORE.
Charlene M. Proctor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlene M. Proctor ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
From what I have looked into, this article's
- content reads (from a quick skim) like advertising or a resume,
- history shows that most of the editors (outside bots) of this article are dedicated editors (is there a WP term for this?) who didn't work on any other article, and
- This is known as Single Purpose Account (or SPA) CaptainScreebo Parley! 21:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- notability might be lacking, which I bring up partially because of its status as an orphan and partially from a very quick online search about her Goddess Network project.
I can't take this any further down the WP:BEFORE due to limitations from a chronic illness (I'm behind on my own user talk page, but I keep finding edits while idly browsing!) so would someone see if attention to the Proctor article is warranted? I couldn't do anything thorough because my eye muscles...ah, that's a long story AND I've already explained I'm limited.
Uh, to re-focus on the point while trying be fair all around, I only did a little bit of skimming in these areas, however I did find potential problems things quickly, and I likely won't be able to find my way back here in a timely fashion. So, please take this completely over for me & from me if you think it is needful.
Thanks in advance, --Geekdiva (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- Have cleaned up it up some more, WP:BEFORE, and now nommed for deletion, see link above. CaptainScreebo Parley! 20:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Iain Duncan Smith
Iain Duncan Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Can I ask for more eyes on this article? A single purpose IP is continuing to add sections like these which are stuffed full of synthesis, original research and attacks on the article's subject. Myself and another editor have already removed them, but they keep adding them back. Valenciano (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- I've semi-protected the article and the talk page for a week in an attempt to discourage them—those rants are clearly not compatible with BLP policy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Robin van Persie
Robin van Persie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- - Robin van Persie's supposed "Nazi Salute"
An editor has been removing a referenced but controversial action by a famous footballer. This is one such edit. The section is worded:
- After the match, Van Persie was accused of making a Nazi salute when celebrating his second goal, however, he strongly denied the allegation calling it "insulting".
With the Daily Mail as the reference. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2055547/Robin-van-Persie-denies-Nazi-salute-Chelsea.html "I'm no Nazi! Van Persie slams internet rumours over 'salute' celebration against Chelsea". For some reason this has become controversial today, four months after it was added. Discussion at Talk:Robin van Persie#Nazi salute. Need some additional comments here or there. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- The Daily Mail (a questionable source anyway - see numerous WP:RSN discussions) describes "wild claims on the internet" that van Persie made a Nazi salute. It doesn't say he did. Wikipedia content is supposed to be based on what reputable sources say, not on vacuous internet rumour. The editor was entirely correct to remove this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- And BTW, I suggest that regarding this edit summary [4] you read WP:VANDAL. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Andy, these Daily Mail rumors shouldn't be in the article. FurrySings (talk) 15:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Lots of IP edits to that article - mainly all reverted - I would suggest three months semi protection for that bio. - Youreallycan 15:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Andrew MacLeod
Andrew MacLeod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There is insufficient referencing and the article reads as if self-written, biased, and advertising for speakerships. --Ddragovic (talk) 14:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Has been worked on (depuffed and tidied up) by several editors so far, but still needs more work, I had a quick run around on Google and don't really feel that the person meets WP:GNG, although they certainly do have 'bragging rights' (hey! a photo with Bill Clinton!). What comes up is the usual LinkedIn, Facebook, promotional stuff, oh and of course the wiki article right up there in the hits. Care to take a look? CaptainScreebo Parley! 23:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- I feel the same way. On one hand, he has received ostensibly notable (but poorly sourced) awards and recognition that are facially additive to meeting WP:ANYBIO. Otherwise, the subject falls far short of WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. The excessive amount of commerce-related content and junk citations in previous versions, dominance of WP:SPA contributions, and prolific image content all indicate a problem. If this is taken to AfD, I hope a notice will be left here. JFHJr (㊟) 05:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Totally agree, see Ddragovic's tp comment @ Talk:Andrew_MacLeod#Considerable_Misleading_and_Inaccurate_Information, a lot of the claims appear to be unsubstantiated/inappropriate/puffed up (delete as appropriate) ;-) CaptainScreebo Parley! 16:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- I feel the same way. On one hand, he has received ostensibly notable (but poorly sourced) awards and recognition that are facially additive to meeting WP:ANYBIO. Otherwise, the subject falls far short of WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. The excessive amount of commerce-related content and junk citations in previous versions, dominance of WP:SPA contributions, and prolific image content all indicate a problem. If this is taken to AfD, I hope a notice will be left here. JFHJr (㊟) 05:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
stalker of sally boazman freed
Sally Boazman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am the person accused of this `stalking` incident. My name is Hilary Reeves(nee French).
I have recently deleted this article about me, as i thought after 9 years it was inappropriate to my circumstances at the present, as i am in a legal tangle regarding this issue, which has excluded my main reason for being arrested. My concern over subliminal messaging at the place of her work. I have also noted, that as the Leveson Enquiry is including many famous people for the alleged hacking of their phones, and i have reason to believe this is being done to my e-mails, i have been omitted from that.
The article also suggests the name of Jamie Pyatt, who was included in this process, and was arrested over illegally purchasing information from the police. This article has also not been removed from other sources i have enquired about, although i have instinctively suggested i am not the cause of this harrassment, and i have further written proof to verify this.
This could then become a two way attack on each parties concerned as ha(d) is a sic note. I have legal implications applying to this post, and wish it to be removed immediately.
This is an attack that is permanently ongoing, with no appeal being made on my behalf, due to abuse of process. Something very fishy going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.206.117 (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- I have added the article link above, if you cannot make head nor tail of this message, and I would suggest that this edit[5] is the one referred to above. CaptainScreebo Parley! 23:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
@80.4.206.117, I am having trouble following you, but the information you removed from the article (which has since been restored) satisfies Wikipedia's standards of relevance and reliability. If you feel strongly about the issue, you might want to e-mail the Wikimedia foundation at info-en-q@wikimedia.org. See WP:FEFS.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- I am also not finding it easy to work out what the request is. However, I would suggest that it may be that the poster is a non-notable figure who has committed a relatively minor (£50 fine) criminal offence and whose identity is not of encyclopaedic interest, per WP:BLPNAME. The article could easily be edited to exclude the name. --FormerIP (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- I's say that even if the OP isn't the 'stalker' this section doesn't belong in the article - an incident which results in a £50 fine and a restraining order seems of little significance, and citing sources to this incident inevitably raises WP:BLPNAME and similar issues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Sons of Guns
Sons of Guns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm in the awkward position of being the lone WP:BLP reverter at Sons of Guns and don't want an edit war sanction to come down on me. I believe I come under the WP:BLP exception, but I don't want to press that. The article is about a TV show that centers around Red Jacket Firearms (RJF) and its BLP principal Will Hayden. The issue is including the description of a lawsuit, Radford v RJF and Hayden. There's no doubt the lawsuit exists; it is available on the federal court information system (PACER). I believe WP:WELLKNOWN is not met. WP:BLPPRIMARY WP:BLPREMOVE
The description of the lawsuit in the article[6] is based on the complaint and does not have an opposing view. The proponents claim that it is well sourced, but the offered references are an internet copy of the complaint and Justia's docket report that merely reflects the existence of the lawsuit. There are no reliable independent reports about the lawsuit and that suggest that it is notable.Glrx (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with your reasoning and your reversion. I will watch the article so you won't be alone. --Bbb23 (talk) 02:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. User:Mlpearc has come in, too. Glrx (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Brenda Vaccaro
Brenda Vaccaro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I wonder if the references are reliable to verify data. --George Ho (talk) 13:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Cardinal O'Brien's recent statement on gay marriage is being used in the article and on the talk page to label him in ways not in the sources. Anyone think I should rev/del? Dougweller (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yep - the use of talk pages and BLPs for social agendas where the "problem" is that a church leader supports the teachings of his church should be pretty much a "D'oh" type of claim. IMHO, "O'Brien supports the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church regarding homosexuality" would be quite sufficient if, indeed, any mention is necessary. Collect (talk) 14:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Scott Spear Arrest BLP check
Just checking. Is the following addition to Julius West Middle School OK? I moved the reference from the bottom of the page to a more appropriate place. diff Wanted to make sure that the reporting of the arrest is appropriate. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Not in my opinion. There is no conviction, I don't see that the accusation warrants an entry, especially one so long. Removed for now. Kevin (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Dara Wier
First few paragraphs of this article are a direct copy paste from amazon's website for the author: http://www.amazon.com/Dara-Wier/e/B001K7QXP8
- It's also possible that the Amazon material is a mirror of the Wikipedia article, see also http://www.amazon.com/wiki/Dara_Wier/ref=ntt_at_bio_wiki .--ukexpat (talk) 14:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Marion Meade
The Diff: [[7]] Removed on the grounds of poor sources and opinion based nature of potentially libelous claims. ((Salon.com Laura Miller)(Partially sourced by user review opinion from amazon)(Editorial review from amazon) Furthermore, The New York Times sourced edit was purely based on the author's opinion, and attacked personal attributes of the subject in question, rather than reviewing the actual writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsax42 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)-- ~~hsax42~~
- Since we are dealing with a review, we can expect it to express the reviewer's opinion of the writer's voice, etc. in this case more than one reviewer had pointed out that the author had made factual errors in her biographies, a legitimate criticism that potential readers might appreciate. I agree that additional, including positive, criticism is called for, but blanking the entire section is unwarranted. AshcroftIleum (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Amazon.com user opinion reviews are an insufficient source and the opinions expressed there are irrelevant. The New York Times is a reliable source, however the content of the review falls under the defamation policy of wikipedia. Please refer to the wikipedia help page for Biographies of Living Persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsax42 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- "the content of the review falls under the defamation policy of wikipedia" - have you actually read that policy? just because something reflects badly upon a person (particularly professional reviews of their work) is not reason to remove it. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Nomoskedasticity removed the non-professional Amazon "review" and I have changed the heading from "Criticism" > "Critique". If there are other professional reviews that give other views of the work, please feel free to add them. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- On second pass, all of the "critiques" so far appear to be focused on a specific work, so I have incorporated them all into the main body of the article where that work is covered. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Nomoskedasticity removed the non-professional Amazon "review" and I have changed the heading from "Criticism" > "Critique". If there are other professional reviews that give other views of the work, please feel free to add them. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- "the content of the review falls under the defamation policy of wikipedia" - have you actually read that policy? just because something reflects badly upon a person (particularly professional reviews of their work) is not reason to remove it. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Erick Lindgren
Numerous edits made to an article all based on self-published/anon comments made on a forum thread. While other sources have repeated the extremly contentious information, their source for the information is that forum thread - which continually used as a "reference" in this article. 2005 (talk) 07:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- I fail to see how journalists[8][9] quoting the public online speech of well known individuals somehow invalidates their reliability. -- Kendrick7talk 07:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- And, by the way, you edit way too many poker related articles to convincingly play the fool here, 2005. I can't imagine that you don't know who Haralabos Voulgaris is or that Two Plus Two's poker forums aren't just something randomly found on the internet. Maybe you hadn't noticed that Lindgren's good friend, Kid Poker, has also weighed in on this matter?[10] Sure, you might be able to bring a few WP:BLP/N janitors to your side for a little while, but you are kind of WP:GAME'ing the system here, imo. I don't mind assuming good faith that you are merely just not on top of this breaking situation. -- Kendrick7talk 08:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Not only are you NOT assuming good faith, you seem to be making a personal attack: not at all appropriate for this forum, or anywhere on WP, imho. I have less than zero interest in poker, but civility is another issue.
- Ragityman,69.171.187.87 (talk) 08:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- I wasn't the one who chose to elevate this matter so as to make it an administrative concern. But since User:2005 decided to do so, I feel it is only right for any random admins passing by to have certain relevant facts at their disposal, as they are unlikely to be experts in the field (poker) that 2005 and I both frequently edit in (per WP:SPADE). -- Kendrick7talk 08:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Would you please just stop this and read the BLP guideline. It doesn't matter what an "expert" says. BLPs do not allow contentious expert opinion in BLPs. BLPs never allow forum threads to be used as sources, or allow for trying to backdoor the rules here by also linking to another site that merely says "somebody on this forum accused a person of something." If a reliable source states via their own research that something is true, then we can post that. But the contentious accusations of one or two individuals in forum threads or blog posts is completely not acceptable here. And I posted this here because you were ignoring both another editor and myself despite having been pointing the wiki rule that unambiguously says the content you added is never acceptable in a BLP. 2005 (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- For the record, there was no "another editor"; you've been the only person reverting me.[11] There was another editor who removed poorly sourced material from an anon mixed in with vandalism and got the page semi-protected. Only after he came on Two Plus Two's forums to brag about silver-locking the page[12], did I come along to do a partial restore and add a proper ref. ;) -- Kendrick7talk 01:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Would you please just stop this and read the BLP guideline. It doesn't matter what an "expert" says. BLPs do not allow contentious expert opinion in BLPs. BLPs never allow forum threads to be used as sources, or allow for trying to backdoor the rules here by also linking to another site that merely says "somebody on this forum accused a person of something." If a reliable source states via their own research that something is true, then we can post that. But the contentious accusations of one or two individuals in forum threads or blog posts is completely not acceptable here. And I posted this here because you were ignoring both another editor and myself despite having been pointing the wiki rule that unambiguously says the content you added is never acceptable in a BLP. 2005 (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- I wasn't the one who chose to elevate this matter so as to make it an administrative concern. But since User:2005 decided to do so, I feel it is only right for any random admins passing by to have certain relevant facts at their disposal, as they are unlikely to be experts in the field (poker) that 2005 and I both frequently edit in (per WP:SPADE). -- Kendrick7talk 08:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Since when are we hypercritical of what reliable secondary sources use as their primary sources? You can't just assume out of hand that Poker News did no due diligence here. And the idea that a professional gambler who lost a $3 million dollar a year endorsement deal now can't pay off his bets isn't exactly a "contentious" one. It's akin to "coal miner gets trapped in a coal mine" -- gamblers go broke all the time, it doesn't require some huge suspension of disbelief. More reliable sources on this are just going to keep popping up,[13] so you are racing the tide here. -- Kendrick7talk 21:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- I would leave it out for now. --Mollskman (talk) 02:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Solid advice from a 7 week long editor. ;) Do I have to wait for only the English tide? I've only got sources about the matter in Italian, French, and German. It's not like this is some huge international incident or anything! -- Kendrick7talk 03:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Your secondaty sources just repeat what the forum thread said. They clearly state that. And your inclusion of the thread itself is completely out of line. And please delete the links you posted above. Read the top of this page: Do not copy and paste any defamatory or libelous information to this noticeboard. Just because lots of people repeat gossip doesn't make it anything but gossip. No matter how many places repeat the gossip from that forum thread, in no matter how many languages, the information violates the explicit language of the BLP guideline. (Also, what you consider a reliable source is not what the Wikipedia does.) This is not "some huge international incident or anything" so drop it please. 2005 (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Solid advice from a 7 week long editor. ;) Do I have to wait for only the English tide? I've only got sources about the matter in Italian, French, and German. It's not like this is some huge international incident or anything! -- Kendrick7talk 03:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Kendrick, I am a random admin who also happens to be active in the WP:POKER project. So, I know a little about the sources/issues you are addressing. 2005 and I, typically disagree on a lot of issues. But right now, the inclusion of this information in the article IS a violation of BLP. The news sources are not stating the Edog actually owes the money, they are covering the flap and the constroversy sparked by a few people. Thus, even though they are covering the 2+2 forum hubbub, it fails to meet our criteria for BLP. 2005 has the right of it... in order to include this info, we would need a reliable source that says that Edog does in fact owe this money and doesn't repay his debts in a timely manner. Not a news report that is reporting on some forum posters allegations. Controversial material has a high threshold. (Note: 2005 can, per BLP, keep reverting your edits indefinitely. Continual inclusion of the material, however, will result in your being blocked for violating wp:3rr.)---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 21:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- So, in your opinion, there's no such thing as a reliable source that says Lindgren, or anyone else for that matter, owes people money and can't pay, because it's always just hearsay? I think that's a tad extreme. Or else are you insisting there's some fundamental difference between a reporter investigating someones debt problems and getting a dozen interviews saying someone isn't pay their debts, and a reporter reporting on a dozen people who have come together in a public place to complain that someone isn't paying their debts? I'm having a hard time understanding the distinction. Nevertheless, I presume you have no problem with the inclusion of Lindgren owing $3,6 million to the IRS, as it is a matter of public record. -- Kendrick7talk 07:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- No, that's not what we are saying. If a reliable source comes out and puts their name to the issue, then we can follow their lead. But the source has to do more due dilligence than a simple forum discussion/interviews with limited segments of said discussion. Right now, they are covering the issue as a flare up on 2+2, where Edog's reputation is being challenged. That is hearsay. When sources start coming back having vetted the issue, then it starts to gain credence. Remember, controversial information has to have a high level of confidence in the source. If an IRS debt is public and well documented, then sure it can be included... but it has to be a reliable source.
- As for your question on my talk page about people considering entering into a verbal contract with Edog... that's not our own role. We are NOT equifax/intellicheck/etc. People should not come to us looking for advice on whether or not somebody is a credit risk.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 08:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Sumunumus
- Sumunumus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Wk36963 (talk · contribs)
- Sumunumus (talk · contribs)
Please take a look. This article seems to be BLP, quite possibly an autobiography, of James Maurice Hurt, Jr. I recommended a move to some form of his name as title. I wrote a longer explanation of my concerns on the talkpage, but ran into "edit conflict" when waxing expansive here. The article is quite informative, if somewhat unencyclopedic, tending to laundry-list style and pamphleteering, liner-note style, but when I tried some minor copyedits a month ago, they were immediately reverted. This seems to be a case of a single author jealously guarding "their" article from anyone else's input.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.178.10 (talk) 08:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- This article needs serious attention. First of all, its creator, Wk36963, had redirected both their user page and their user talk page to the article and its talk page [14], [15]. I've corrected that, but now find that there is a duplicate of the article at User:Sumunumus. Wk36963 stopped editing on January 3, 2012. Sumunumus registered their account the same day and with their first edit copied the article to their user page. I've tagged it for multiple issues. Its style is completely unencyclopedic. It is full of personal details which are unpublished anywhere. It has no real sources, just external links to videos and trivial mentions, although there is much better material out there to source at least some of this. Note that the YouTube uploader of the linked videos is "sumunumus". Other than that, there is no indication whatsoever as to why this article should be titled "Sumunumus". I'm going to move it to the name he is professionally known by, "James Hurt". Voceditenore (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- I think I know what happened. From this edit summary: "moved User:Wk36963 to Sumunumus: Starting a new user page", it's possible that this was inadvertantly moved into article space, i.e. Sumunumus, rather than to User:Sumunumus. - Voceditenore (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Bruce Bartlett
There is a dispute as to whether Bruce Bartlett's view on the Reagan's role in US debt increase is properly interpreted in section Changes in debt by presidential terms of the article History of the United States public debt:
Bruce Bartlett, former domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush, attributes the increase in the national debt since the 1980s to the policy of "starve the beast" and an aversion for tax increases.
Sources:
- We Need A Party Of Fiscal Responsibility
- Starve the Beast: Just Bull, not Good Economics
- Tax Cuts And 'Starving The Beast'
- Economic - Another Old School Republican (Bruce Bartlett) Says Heavy Tax Cuts are Large Contributor to Deficit
My objection to including disputed sentence is that it misrepresents Bruce Bartlett's views. Sentence implies that Bartlett thinks that all three Republican presidents since the 1980s followed the policy of "starve the beast" and were agains any tax increases. But that is misrepresenting Bartlett's view. For example he says: "Liberals believe that enactment of the 1981 tax cut marked the end of Republican opposition to deficits. But in fact Reagan was much more orthodox than either they or most conservatives think. Beginning in 1982, he supported higher taxes almost every year of his presidency." [16] and in this article he also praises George H.W. Bush: "Budget experts now agree [that George H.W. Bush's budget deal] deserves much of the credit for the subsequent improvement in the deficit, which shrank from 4.7 percent of GDP in 1992 to virtual balance in 1997 and gave us budget surpluses from 1998 to 2001. Economist Robert Reischauer, director of the Congressional Budget Office when the 1990 budget deal was enacted, told me it was “the foundation upon which the surpluses of the 1998 to 2001 period were built.” [...]the elder Bush will remain the last Republican who took fiscal responsibility seriously." -- Vision Thing -- 09:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- From the first paragraph of the third listed article by Bartlett:Tax Cuts And 'Starving The Beast'
I believe that to a large extent our current budgetary problems stem from the widespread adoption of an idea by Republicans in the 1970s called 'starve the beast'. It says that the best, perhaps only, way of reducing government spending is by reducing taxes. While a plausible strategy at the time it was formulated, STB became a substitute for serious budget control efforts, reduced the political cost of deficits, encouraged fiscally irresponsible tax cutting and ultimately made both spending and deficits larger.
- Not sure this is inaccurately summarized by "[Bartlett] attributes the increase in the national debt since the 1980s to the policy of 'starve the beast' and an aversion for tax increases." --LK (talk) 09:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
michael mansell
The reference to me being mostly descended from Europeans is racist and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.139.172 (talk) 11:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Dae Gak
There have been numerous recent incidents on this page in which contentious unsourced material has been posted, removed, and the then reposted. In all of the recent cases the person posting the material, which clearly violates BLP policies (as well as wikipedia philosophy generally concerning point of view and sourcing) has used an unregistered IP account. I think the best course of action would be to block this IP user and possibly semi-protect the page (since there have been previous incidents on this page involving other unregistered IP accounts). --Durruti36 (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Mario Lemieux
Article says he owns an AHL franchise as opposed to the Pittsburgh Penguins of the NHL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.222.112.250 (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Deletion review for Gabriel Cousens. Input requested.
There's an interesting discussion going on at Deletion Review over whether an article about a prominent raw foods advocate and spiritual teacher should be created or continue being deleted. Of note, there is a controversial section in the article which has raised questions about BLP issues. The subject also requested deletion of the prior article in an Afd. I would appreciate any thoughtful comments or criticism, especially in the area of your speciality, which is the care taken (or not taken) to approach the BLP issues in the article. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 17:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Orrin H. Pilkey
Orrin H. Pilkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2 biographies for Orrin H. Pilkey are on Wikipedia. The one with the platypus as a photo, and information related to the platypus, is incorrect and should be removed from Wikipedia. The one with Professor Pilkey's photo seems to be OK. How do we get rid of the incorrect one with all of the platypus references and photo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaches2go (talk • contribs) 18:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- We shouldn't have two biographies if they are the same person: this is one Orrin H. Pilkey, where is the other? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think there are two. There's a redirect at Orrin Pilkey -- and this does go to Orrin H. Pilkey. Additionally, the photograph was changed today, from the platypus to a picture of him. I think Beaches2go visited the page at two different times, once via the redirect, and got confused. The other issue here is that someone is trying to blank the page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- It was just a vandal attack done by an IP yesterday and today (including changing the photo for a platypus), which someone else was struggling to remove and getting wrong (hence the blanking). I've reverted to the pre-vandalism version -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think there are two. There's a redirect at Orrin Pilkey -- and this does go to Orrin H. Pilkey. Additionally, the photograph was changed today, from the platypus to a picture of him. I think Beaches2go visited the page at two different times, once via the redirect, and got confused. The other issue here is that someone is trying to blank the page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Vladimir_Putin
Vladimir Putin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article is patently biased. Criticism of Putin is mentioned with a dismissive tone when it is mentioned at all. Attempts by several editors to fix this problem - including marking it as POV - have been undone by a single editor, who seems intractable. As this article is featured on the front page right now, this seems like an important matter to resolve. Since discussions on the talk page have gone nowhere, I thought I should report it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robnormal (talk • contribs) 21:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Ah you mean it does not reflect anti-Russian propaganda, but instead sticks to the facts?--Toddy1 (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- I also agree that there are outstanding issues with this article. Compare it to Angela Merkel, for example, in both the tone and range of subjects discussed. a13ean (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Or compare it to George W. Bush - would say that the two presidents have received comparable amounts of heavy, public criticism which doesn't show when looking at their biographies.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- George W. Bush#Public image and perception and the articles under the domestic section actually have lots of criticism in them. The tone of the articles is also entirely different. a13ean (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- My point exactly. The two presidents have received similar amounts of criticism - Bushes article mentions this prominently, Putin's doesn't.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Ah sorry - I misunderstood your comment as saying there was not criticism in either article. a13ean (talk) 05:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- The current version of the Putin article should be preserved, enshrined and held securely in some secret bunker, just in case Wikipedia blows up, as a historical artifact, which will allow the historians of the future, to comprehend, appreciate and understand the importance of this phenomenon here.VolunteerMarek 22:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well the article is semi-protected. Maybe we should step it up to full? Also its the first time I've seen a "in popular culture" section that is actually interesting. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think protection can accomplish anything here. Maybe had it been done five years ago. Anyway, currently, this is one of the funniest articles on Wikipedia, and mostly due to the "good faith" of pro-Putin editors. How do you solve that?VolunteerMarek 00:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- That[s why it should be protected of course so it doesn't change. I was trying to take a clue from your bankvault joke.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Gotcha - in these instances where reality impersonates satire and vice versa, it's easy to get lost sometimes. Anyway, someone should redirect the Putin article to it's appropriate title: Chuck norris jokes. Or vice versa (it's easy to get lost).VolunteerMarek 03:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm definitely not going to edit the article though. In case he doesn't like what I write he'd come in his Su-27and shoot me with a tranquilizer dart like an Amur tiger.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Gotcha - in these instances where reality impersonates satire and vice versa, it's easy to get lost sometimes. Anyway, someone should redirect the Putin article to it's appropriate title: Chuck norris jokes. Or vice versa (it's easy to get lost).VolunteerMarek 03:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- That[s why it should be protected of course so it doesn't change. I was trying to take a clue from your bankvault joke.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think protection can accomplish anything here. Maybe had it been done five years ago. Anyway, currently, this is one of the funniest articles on Wikipedia, and mostly due to the "good faith" of pro-Putin editors. How do you solve that?VolunteerMarek 00:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well the article is semi-protected. Maybe we should step it up to full? Also its the first time I've seen a "in popular culture" section that is actually interesting. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- George W. Bush#Public image and perception and the articles under the domestic section actually have lots of criticism in them. The tone of the articles is also entirely different. a13ean (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
There is no David Lee Abbott listed as a California State Wrestling Champion or medalist with that name. The only medalist with the last name of Abbot was in 1985 (Mark Abbott 1985 105 lbs., 5th place). Tank Abbott was not a CA State High School wrestling Champion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.160.218.72 (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know what's true or what's not, but it wasn't sourced (fairly common in these kinds of articles, particularly inline citaitons), so I removed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Currently linked from the main page In the News section. I think that the article is accurate in its essentials, but it could use a NPOV scrub, as it currently reads more like a tabloid piece than an encyclopedia article. On my way to work; I'll address it myself in a few hours if no one has been able to look at it. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Pattie Boyd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Two thirds of this BLP is dedicated to her marriages to George Harrison and Eric Clapton and contains copy like this:
- "Boyd, who was nearly twenty years old in 1964, met Harrison during the filming of A Hard Day's Night, in which she was cast as a schoolgirl fan. Boyd was "semi-engaged" to boyfriend Eric Swayne, whom she had dated for about a year, and out of loyalty declined Harrison's first invitation for a date, but said that Harrison was the most beautiful man she had ever seen. One of the first things Harrison said to her was "Will you marry me?" Boyd laughed, so Harrison said, "Well, if you won't marry me, will you have dinner with me tonight?" Several days later, when Boyd was recalled for another day's work on the film, Harrison asked her out again and she accepted, having ended the relationship with Swayne. Their first date was spent at the Garrick Club (a private gentlemen's club) in Covent Garden, in the company of Brian Epstein, who managed Harrison."
Isn't this way too much detail and undue weight? Can you look at the article and comment on how much of the existing text should be removed. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Seems ludicrously out of place to me. Do we have to know all the sordid details? It should just say she met Harrison at point-in-time under such-and-such circumstance and they were married at such-and-such point in time. Bus stop (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Most of the sources in this article does not provide the info it claims they do AND Gjøran Sæther is not at all known by his own name. The article should really be moved to his artist name (where he release everything) which is Proteque. Every reference to him on the web and in record stores is to Proteque not Gjøran Sæther. It is also lacking a lot of things but that should be added on the Proteque page not a Gjøran Sæther page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.90.178.98 (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Steve Robinson (wrestler)
Steve Robinson is not retired, he retired the JCW championship belt. He is healed and wrestling. He appeared in a match against Kongo Kong february 24th wrestling for IWA midwest. HE IS NOT RETIRED! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.44.193 (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Arnold Resnicoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Hi all,
Arnold Resnicoff is semi-autobiographical and imo overlong and unduly hagiographic. If this is not an unduly harsh judgment would an experienced editor be willing to give it the wikification it needs please? Springnuts (talk) 10:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Adding links, excruciatingly, long overdetailed bio, as per usual photo overkill (yup Ronnie Reagan this time), links to help establish depth of notability. CaptainScreebo Parley! 11:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- DePUFFED a bit (BLPs used as diaries of every speech made by a person seem to beg for a blue pencil). Cut down to seven pics or so -- I am unconvinced as to the Rabbi's major significance, and the claims of "first Jewish chaplain (in some place or ship or the like)" are overwrought I fear. Collect (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, only had 5 minutes to root around for "notability" earlier, didn't see much that established it, anybody want to WP:BEFORE this? Will come back to it this weekend. CaptainScreebo Parley! 15:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Kris LaBelle
- Kris LaBelle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
This is a blatantly self-serving, almost entirely unsourced "promotion page" created by the subject, as he himself has taken to boasting all over social media. There is no support at all for his long list of claims of television network associations, most of which are untrue and even most of the references he does provide are to small newspaper websites where their info was gathered by interviewing him. As an active member of the comedy community in Calgary, I can attest to the fact that most of the claims on this page are blatantly false, and Mr. LaBelle doesn't fall anywhere NEAR in the notability range to be considered eligible for a wikipedia page. Furthermore, the page contains several inflamatory, unvarifiable and often blatantly silly comments (such as describing his comedy style as "a mix between Def Jam and Chuck E. Cheese") which are not only not informational, but entirely opinion-based and, in that case, completely impossible.
I considered editing the page myself, but given Mr. LaBelle's well known persistance, it would no doubt all be edited right back and, as stated before, there's next to no evidence that he is relevent enough to warrant the page to begin with, so it would be far more prudent to just have it removed all together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.48.25.58 (talk) 14:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- The author of this page, Elsabekm (talk · contribs), has an interesting edit history. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- The article has been heavily edited down but the real question is "Does this person pass Wikipedia:GNG or not?" The OP says no, I have added link above if any of you have time to check this out (possible AfD candidate). Cheers! CaptainScreebo Parley! 12:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Boomer Castleman
Boomer Castleman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Boomer's Wiki article states that he was a TX singer-songwriter. He in fact, still is - he's playing just before my band from 5-8 tonight in Austin. Please don't say was say is, as in , he IS still around. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.253.79.10 (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Done Thanks. Biographies of Living Persons should have 'is...', 'is a former...', or 'is a retired', depending on circumstance. Dru of Id (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Arnold Schwarzenegger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An editor disputes my addition of mention in the lead section of Scharzenegger's son with his housekeeper, which he and the housekeeper kept secret from the boy and Scharzenegger's wife Maria Shriver for 14 years. However, Schwarzenegger's other four children with Shriver are mentioned in the lead section. 1) Very notable given Schwarzenegger's position as former Governor of California and celebrity. 2) At the very least, WP shouldn't continue the practice of "non-acknowledgement" of children born out of wedlock (in this case, mention was made only in a subsection titled "Marital separation". Please see Talk:Arnold_Schwarzenegger#"Secret son" mentioning in lead section. Thank you, Facts707 (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- Without looking at the article - we don't usually mention children in the lede - the subject is not notable because he has a child with a maid - for musical distraction - see Neil Young A man needs a maid live 1971 (YouTube) - It's not illegal to have children with people and this issue seems well covered and correctly situated in the Marital separation section. Youreallycan
- I did not assert that it was "illegal to have children with people", nor is it particularly notable to have a child out of wedlock for most people. However, it IS unusual and notable for a very high ranking politician to do this and further to HIDE the fact for 14 years. Also, you say that we don't usually mention children in the lede but don't comment on whether the different treatment of the five children is warranted. I would also suggest you take at least a cursory look at the lead section of the article in question before posting on a noticeboard intended to solve controversies. Otherwise, thanks for the input! Facts707 (talk) 02:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- UPDATE: I changed the article to remove mention of any of Schwarzenegger's children in the lead section (resolves "equality of parent's marital status" issue). For the benefit of Schwarzenegger's minor children, I'm dropping this request to add certain information in the lead section. Facts707 (talk) 06:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Harrison Ford
There is an issue over on the Harrison Ford article. An editor is insisting that Harrison Ford is Jewish and is repeatedly adding the article to the category "Jewish Actors". Harrison Ford has some Jewish ancestry on his mother's side, though his father was Irish Catholic. Harrison Ford himself has never publicly stated he follows any religion or confirmed he follows a Jewish lifestyle or Jewish customs in any way. In a TV interview (Inside The Actors Studio 2.40 mins in), he did make a humorous comment relating to his ancestry when asked if his mixed family background ever influenced him as a person and as an artist. He said that "as a man I always felt Irish, as an actor I always felt Jewish". He was laughing as he said it and the audience applauded him for making such a funny and clever answer, though it is no indication to mean that he actually is Jewish. It is certainly correct to include Harrison Ford in the "Americans of Jewish Descent" category because that is factually accurate and can be proven, but to actually state he is Jewish when he has never confirmed it himself is clearly a violation of WP:BLP because it is making assertions about his personal beliefs and lifestyle that he himself has never actually publicly confirmed. Kookoo Star (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- Is there an independent reliable source that states he is Jewish? If not, we can stop right there. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- To my knowledge, no there isn't. There are plenty that mention his Jewish ancestry, but I can't find any quality sources in which he clearly states he is Jewish himself, nor can I find anything in the various biographies I've read about him. This category was added to the article based solely on the funny comment Ford made in the interview mentioned above. To me that does not count as a reliable source because the comment was clearly made in jest. It's like when James Cameron famously said he "felt like king of the world" at the Oscars. It doesn't mean he literally is. Kookoo Star (talk) 10:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- In that case, no. If there is no source saying that he is Jewish, then neither do we say explicitly in the article or implicitly by categorisation or listing, that he is Jewish. Cusop Dingle (talk) 11:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- To my knowledge, no there isn't. There are plenty that mention his Jewish ancestry, but I can't find any quality sources in which he clearly states he is Jewish himself, nor can I find anything in the various biographies I've read about him. This category was added to the article based solely on the funny comment Ford made in the interview mentioned above. To me that does not count as a reliable source because the comment was clearly made in jest. It's like when James Cameron famously said he "felt like king of the world" at the Oscars. It doesn't mean he literally is. Kookoo Star (talk) 10:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Naseer Shamma
Naseer Shamma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Very long detailed article with only one source. I've found some copyvio and suspect there's more. Dougweller (talk) 10:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Andrew Gowers
Andrew Gowers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am the subject of the article Andrew Gowers, which contains a material inaccuracy. I attempted to correct this by removing the inaccurate statement, but a user has reinstated it. Please could you help me correct this problem. The article as currently published states that I resigned as Editor of the Financial Times after losing a libel case with Collins Stewart. This is not true in two respects, as any examination of the public record will confirm. I left the FT by mutual agreement with the owner Pearson plc in November 2005. The libel suit mentioned in the article was settled in January 2006.. It is therefore not true to say as the article does that I resigned after losing the lawsuit. I resigned before the lawsuit was settled, and the lawsuit was not lost as it did not go to court. Indeed, my resignation had nothing to do with the lawsuit.. Please delete the reference to the lawsuit from this article as it is simply misleading. Thank you. Andrew Gowers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewgowers (talk • contribs) 18:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- Seems to be a reasonable and correct request according to the citation. Your removal has not been reverted. Many thanks for your report. - Youreallycan 18:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Lynette Nusbacher
Lynette Nusbacher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An editor has repeatedly been adding personal medical information to this article sourced only the The Sun, a well-known sensationalist tabloid newspaper. My explanations (in edit summaries and here) have fallen on deaf ears so it would be good if someone else could get involved. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Looks like my response to your message has fallen on deaf ears. Your removal of content is pretty much vandalism. The information is correct, get over it... Aunty-S (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I think you just dont like the idea that Dr. Nusbacher is biologically a man. Here are a few examples of Transgender politicians and comedians where reference is made to their sex change in the article - Enza Anderson, Jamie Lee Hamilton, Vladimir Luxuria, Bethany Black, Ian Harvie. Aunty-S (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, hang on -- if this person did undergo sex reassignment surgery then "biologically a man" is incorrect. In general I don't think we ought to worry about situations where someone has done this openly and has freely spoken about it e.g. to reporters. But that's clearly not the case here: the article in the Sun makes it clear that she considers it a private matter, and I think we should keep it that way particularly given that it has been covered only in the Sun (I've checked). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- Seems a bit personally intrusive to me. I support removal under BLP privacy - We can and should have more encyclopedic standards than tabloid newspapers such as the Sun. - Youreallycan 21:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to check back here. There should at least be 1 reference made, I personally found it confusing when looking up "Dr. Nusbacher" after watching a documentary she was in, and only finding an article on Lyndette, not Aryeh Nusbacher. And also in this documentary, Nusbacher was quite clearly a man. Took me a while to realise it was the same person. Btw, Sex Reassignment Surgery is cosmetic only, Nusbacher is still biologically male. Aunty-S (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- No worries, thanks - Is it notable, or part of the reason he is notable? - if not its just personally intrusive - has he commented about any of this? Youreallycan 21:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- I think the article as it stands is a little problematic - there is nothing to indicate that Nusbacher was born anatomically male, and became notable before the sex-change. While we clearly shouldn't give undue emphasis to this, it seems a salient point, and probably merits some mention, given that readers looking for Aryeh Nusbacher, and unaware of her present circumstances, are likely to be rather confused. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- We have the redirect, so they will find their way to the article if searching for Aryeh Nusbacher and it says in the lede , formally known as .. so we have the detail - apart from pointing out the change in the name from a male name to a female name its all there. Youreallycan 21:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- (after edit conflict) The former name redirects to the current name, and mention is made in the article of the change of name. Surely that's enough to avoid confusion? The reason for the change of name is irrelevant to the notability of the subject, and we have no reliable sources for that reason. And why this obsession with anatomy? Why should a military historian's genitals be any more relevant to an encyclopedia article than her pineal gland? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what percentage of our readers will be aware that Aryeh is a male name, and may well have seen the subject 'as a male' on television etc. Sadly, like it or not, society in general 'does' have an obsession with genitals, or at least with classifying individuals as male or female. As I said, this is a difficult issue, and I'm not sure what the answer is - but we do need to cater for the legitimate concerns of our readers, and an article that confuses them is hardly helpful. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- Since when do you care about the "confusion" of readers over the privacy of BLP subjects? The one reference we have on this issue makes it perfectly clear that this person prefers to treat the issue as private. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what percentage of our readers will be aware that Aryeh is a male name, and may well have seen the subject 'as a male' on television etc. Sadly, like it or not, society in general 'does' have an obsession with genitals, or at least with classifying individuals as male or female. As I said, this is a difficult issue, and I'm not sure what the answer is - but we do need to cater for the legitimate concerns of our readers, and an article that confuses them is hardly helpful. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- I think the article as it stands is a little problematic - there is nothing to indicate that Nusbacher was born anatomically male, and became notable before the sex-change. While we clearly shouldn't give undue emphasis to this, it seems a salient point, and probably merits some mention, given that readers looking for Aryeh Nusbacher, and unaware of her present circumstances, are likely to be rather confused. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- Content is supported by reliable sources. The person in question is blatantly transgender. There is nothing sinister about it and so far this fact is not challenged by sources. At the very least the person's birth name needs a mention and the appropriate category should be listed. WikifanBe nice 11:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- What reliable sources support this content? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
The countless documentaries that Nusbacher appears in as male are reliable sources. I think we should compromise and make reference to Lynette's former name at least, someone has recently removed her former name from the article entirely. (Green Halcyon here, and probably shouldnt be, account is blocked for 24 hours)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.242.24 (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Biljana Srbljanović
Biljana Srbljanović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Several serbian tabloids (Kurir, Alo! and telegraf.rs) reported that she was caught while buying cocaine. No serious (not tabloid) newspaper or television confirmed those reports. Srbljanović later denied all this, claiming that she is victim of two tabloids. It is worth noting that Biljana Srbljanović is active in political life, and that elections will soon be held in Serbia, so this could be part of the election campaign of her opponents (Serbian right wing nationalists).
The IP editors for days are entering these tabloid allegations as proven fact. The current controversies section is about 50% of the article, maybe more. Every tabloid article is now in the controversies section, and some of the text in that section is unsourced. Please, will someone experienced look in this article. Thanks.--В и к и T 18:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- I tweaked it a bit - its difficult investigating using google translate of Serbian articles - I am still not totally happy with the coke allegation section ... he she been charged? Youreallycan 20:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- That tabloids claim that she was arrested and that she has been charged, but she denies being arrested at all. The first tabloid who published the information is Alo! (I think this article is first), and the others only quoted Alo!. Alo! claims that they have "unnamed source" in the police and that their journalist read the police report (provided by that "unnamed source"). On the other hand, she denied that she was arrested by using humorous and sarcastic language and claims that it is part of election campaign. It is impossible to confirm whether the allegations are true, no police spokesperson neither confirmed nor denied what was written in those articles.--В и к и T 21:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- I edited it a little more and attributed the claim to the tabloid - leaving a simple statement attributed to the source - I will watch the article - I have no objection to its total removal until a conviction is reported ??? - Youreallycan 22:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Patrick McGorry
Re Patrick McGorry I have just discovered that this page now contains inaccuracies about me personally in two respects. Firstly I have not advocated for the use of antipsychotics in pre-psychotic psychosis. In fact I have carried out research that has shown that these medications are NOT required in this stage of illness and have led the authorship of clinical practice guidelines whcih have stated for many years that such medications should not be used in this stage. The question of how to treat such patients remains in clinical equipoise and hence research is ethically still valid to clarify the sequence of treatments in the early stages of psychosis. Obviously risk/benefit considerations which critics are concerned about must be the central guide to the use of any interventions. The second issue relates to the case of Geoff Stuart which focused on his role in research which was led by colleagues at the University of Melbourne and in which I was involved as one only of the investigators. It is hardly a controversy from my point of view since the allegations that Dr Stuart made in respect of myself were not upheld and as the entry correctly reports I was fully vindicated and in fact cleared of any misconduct. I therefore regard it as inappropriate to say the least that this entry has been included and wonder who is responsible for its addition and what relationships and conflicts of interest they may have. These two errors go the issue of reputation and I would like them corrected immediately. Patrick McGorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmcgorry (talk • contribs) 11:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- ^ http://www.cpsu.org.au/multiattachments/24800.html
- ^ http://www.cpsu.org.au/multiattachments/24796.html
- ^ http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/senate-inquiry-to-press-abc-over-job-and-program-cuts/story-fn59niix-1226117018472
- ^ http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/ec_ctte/abc/report/report.pdf
- ^ http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/abc-tv-names-new-head-of-arts/story-e6frg996-1226280574593
- ^ http://if.com.au/2012/02/27/article/Katrina-Sedgwick-appointed-ABC-TVs-head-of-arts/FCLTIUNZYO.html
- ^ http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/08/03/outsourcing-the-arts-at-aunty-the-problem-with-commissioning/
- ^ http://www.mediaspy.org/report/2012/02/24/abc-tv-appoints-head-of-arts/