MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) m Archiving 6 thread(s) (older than 7d) to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive66. |
|||
Line 336: | Line 336: | ||
I would appreciate someone looking at a page I'm trying to clean up: [[David Ferguson (impresario)]]. It's been tagged with many templates and I'm not sure if they're all appropriate. I think this article needs experienced Wikipedians to compare the templates to the contents of the biography. Thanks-- --[[User:Debora999|deb]] ([[User talk:Debora999|talk]]) 02:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC) |
I would appreciate someone looking at a page I'm trying to clean up: [[David Ferguson (impresario)]]. It's been tagged with many templates and I'm not sure if they're all appropriate. I think this article needs experienced Wikipedians to compare the templates to the contents of the biography. Thanks-- --[[User:Debora999|deb]] ([[User talk:Debora999|talk]]) 02:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
== Request to review possible violation of BLP policy on article talk page == |
|||
Please check the current thread at [[Wikipedia:Ani#User:Joseph_A._Spadaro]]. There seems to be no consensus whether this constitutes a violation or not, an editor has been blocked, but the relevant comments haven't been removed. ---[[User:Sluzzelin|Sluzzelin]] [[User talk:Sluzzelin|<small>talk</small>]] 06:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:46, 25 June 2009
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:
| ||
- Nerissa Corazon Soon-Ruiz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - persistent addition of what to me looks like tendentious and unsourced material. The two main contributors (one registered redlink and one IP) have already been blocked once. Some more eyes (and comments) would be welcome. // Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Juliet Ortega (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Could I get some eyes on this article? It appears to be a smorgesbord of BLP issues, but I'm unsure of what to cut out and what to leave in as there are no inline citations. I could just add the unreferenced BLP template to the article, however I think the BLP concerns are serious enough to make mention of it on this board. ponyo (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Articles like this cannot exist without full referencing, and simply adding an unreferenced template is not enough. I have removed the unreferenced contentious bits which don't have inline citations. ;-) Martin451 (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Much appreciated Martin! I have no problems with removing unsourced controversial/BLP-violating material, but when the article is so extensively unsourced I find it hard to know where to draw the line between what stays and what goes. Thanks for the help. Cheers, ponyo (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'd question whether this article passes notability under the usual WP standards, especially WP:BLP1E. On the other hand, the documentary about her does appear to have won a slew of awards, has been reviewed in significant places,[1][2][3] and is even mentioned in a Frommer's travel guide as a notable film about the dynamics between Cubans and Cuban-Americans[4]. The material I've seen does seem to be consistent with the previous text of this article, but rather than attempting to BLP-ize this page with footnotes, the available wiki-energy might be better spent creating an article about the film.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Much appreciated Martin! I have no problems with removing unsourced controversial/BLP-violating material, but when the article is so extensively unsourced I find it hard to know where to draw the line between what stays and what goes. Thanks for the help. Cheers, ponyo (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
This article appears to have been written by someone who's no great fan of the subject--it can't remain in its present form. To make it neutral would require a major rewrite, and the removal of most of the cites, which come from blogs and other sources of dubious strength. Before that happens, I'd appreciate some thoughts as to whether the subject meets notability requirements in the first place. If it's a candidate for deletion, there's no sense in doing a rewrite. Thanks, JNW (talk) 01:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Josef Streb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Despite the existence of several (offline) sources from local German newspapers claiming that Josef Streb is alive, User:GiantSnowman continues to add Category:Possibly living people to this individual's article, when Category:Living people is more appropriate for WP:BLP reasons. I do not wish to take any action myself, since it would be inappropriate given my role in the disagreement, but I feel that edit warring is not productive and that WP:BLP must be followed on this page. I admit that I cannot produce the sources, since they are not in my possession nor do they appear to be online, but I am very uncomfortable not having him in "living people". Currently, the individual is in both PLP and LP. I am happy to be proved wrong and admit my mistake if that is the case but, without evidence, he should not be removed from the latter category. // Cheers, CP 02:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- What are the BLP consequences of only treating him as a PLP? My initial reaction is that treatment should be the same. And I'd say by declaring him definitely alive without proper sourcing you're creating a BLP problem. Disembrangler (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Disembrangler - thank you. As I stated in one of my edits, having Streb in the 'posibly living' category seemes like the best option, as the sources Canadian Paul mention are not only a few years old, they are offline and cannot be used as verification. If I have to prove that Streb is dead, then CP should also prove that he is alive. Seeing as neither one of us can do that, then 'possibly living' is the sensible outcome. GiantSnowman 11:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::Just leave the PLP category out rather than have both, not sure what the deal is here. --Tom (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Frederick Stocken
To the editors of Wikipedia,
The article about me in Wikipedia (Frederick Stocken) has recently been re-written and I want to suggest changes, please. A straightforward update of what was in my article until the beginning of May would be perfectly acceptable, and might be an easy solution to my various concerns – in which case, a lot of what I am talking about below would simply be deleted in any case: my much preferred solution.
In general, I am unhappy with the article because it gives undue prominence to the so-called Hecklers protest that I organised way back in 1994. Of course, this protest is a matter of historical fact and I do not repudiate what I did – however, I believe that it is a distortion of the truth, in view of everything else that I have done, including some high-profile commissions, professional performances and broadcasts of my music, to give such emphasis to it.
Now let me run through things more specifically:
Please delete the second introductory sentence beginning: ‘He is also known for…’ In actual fact, the Heckler’s protest was on one night over 15 years ago – articles that suggest ‘several public stances he has taken against the dominance of atonalism’ have certainly been written but only very occasionally, and each separated by a number of years – for further details, see www.frederickstocken.com I do not see why this second sentence should overload this introductory statement.
Education: please delete the whole of the second paragraph starting ‘Stocken claims to have been rejected….’ In fact this was a garbled piece of information from a very unreliably written article about me – this rejection was from another institution, not from the Royal Academy of Music. Please just delete the whole sentence up to ‘We do not use perspective here at the Slade.’
Under work as composer, please delete the word ‘allegedly’ in paragraph 3: the work was also number one at the end of 1993, not 1994. I can see why you might want to put ‘allegedly’ if you can’t find proof on the internet to back it up – but, in fact, there is plenty here that also does not have proof – for instance, you might put that Frederick’s mother ‘allegedly’ died in Auschwitz, or that my Scale Shapes is ‘allegedly’ a popular teaching tool. As it stands, it makes it look as if I am possibly lying, which is not the case!
In the same paragraph – I did not ‘later reveal’ that it was dedicated to my grandmother – it is clear in the sleeve notes to the CD that this is the case.
Please delete the last paragraph in the section of work as a composer. Like many creative artists, I have received both good and bad reviews (and ones in between). Positive reviews can be found on my website. To have me quoted as simply reacting to ‘withering criticism’ is distorting of how my music has been received in the round. I know there are some prominent bad reviews that come up about my music in a google search but, overall, I would say that I have had more positive coverage, word-for- word over the years than negative. I would suggest just keeping things more neutral and sticking to the facts.
Change the title of ‘Academic Work’ to ‘musicology’ – you can summarise my work in this area by looking at the section ‘writing’ on my website.
Change (and preferably severely cut down or delete) the whole long section with the title beginning ‘Stance against Modernism in Music….’. If it has to remain, change the title to ‘Musical Philosophy’. As already mentioned, the article in the Idler, from which wiki heavily quotes from is inaccurate in many details, and I will not now trawl through the inaccuracies re-quoted in this lengthy part of the wikipedia article, because I would hope that this whole section would be significantly re-jigged or deleted.
Whilst I appreciate that you will probably only want to quote from articles that are free online, you will understand, I am sure, how frustrating it is, in the light of all the other articles I have written, that you only quote from such a limited number of sources. However, ‘Music as a Christian Art’ is available online, and this is not quoted from at all. Overall, in this section, unless someone has read more of what I have written, it does not seem fair to attempt a summary, simply by re-quoting at length from isolated sources.
Please amend my worklist to reflect what is on my website.
Discography – please add the recording of Bagatelle as listed as being released in 2009 in my Music page of my website.
References - as discussed earlier, the article ‘I write notes…’, which appears as first in my references, is often inaccurate as well as being very out of date – I would be grateful if you would delete it.
Please also add a reference to my website – www.frederickstocken.com.
I do very much hope that you will be able to deal with this, and that you will find my suggestions legitimate and reasonable. As I say, simply to update the more straightforward account of me that was there before would be an easy solution.
With thanks,
Frederick Stocken —Preceding unsigned comment added by Novisti (talk • contribs) 13:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Richard Lindzen
Sorry to bring this back here, but we have Kim D. Petersen insisting now on including a link to a very biased, negative, defamatory, and factually incorrect op-ed piece that states that the scientist Richard S. Lindzen was an "active...denialist" of a link between smoking and cancer. This is quite simply not true, end of story, i.e. there is no way in heaven that he was ever an activist for this cause(!!). The journalist who wrote the article has not given sources, thus it is likely the said journalist's primary source is the Wikipedia article itself as well as other internet folklore on Richard Lindzen. Further, inclusion of this link is gratuitous, in that the point it is allegedly establishing is already allegedly established more clearly with a more serious reference. The inclusion of the material on smoking in the first place has not, in the opinion of most, been established and many editors are trying to remove it altogether, although Petersen is reverting all of their edits and has been for a number of years. This is a second issue, unresolved from the last time I escalated this issue to here. More in the discussion page, can Kim D. Petersen please be asked to respect BLP policy... Alex Harvey (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Here are my 2 cents. Most of Alex's comment above is purely his opinion (and quite frankly wrong). I suggest that people instead look at the section Richard_Lindzen#Views_on_health_risks_of_smoking where the reference is used as one of 2 references given, and consider them both in context, as sources, and for their individual reliability. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Nb: talk page discussion is here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- I would ask someone to take a look at this article from a BLP point of view. Currently, a whole top level section, roughly equal in length to the "career" section of the article, is devoted to this smoking issue. There are only two sources presented to justify this section, one being an unreliable op-ed that bundles Lindzen with another individual in a parenthetical statement, and the other being based on a single sentence in an interview (which doesn't even mention passive smoking). I'd rather not revert war about this, and talk has been unfruitful thus far, so I'd appreciate some neutral eyes having a look. Oren0 (talk) 05:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Diane Black racist Obama e-mail
I did some work on this subject's article about the racist Obama photo sent from her office. User:Scribner and I are edit-warring over a long, rambling paragraph of analysis that makes over half this article about this one event about one of her staffers sending it out. It's all cited to one source, a CNN transcript. I've removed it twice[5][6] citing the policies, but Scribner is intent on re-inserting it and templating me for edit-warring...sigh. Can somebody else weigh in? -->David Shankbone 19:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with you, looks like a classic case of WP:UNDUE (regular reader of your blog BTW). – ukexpat (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Ukexpat, I'm glad you like it! -->David Shankbone 19:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- I just removed it too. I'm a flaming liberal, and I still think it's ridiculous to have that much text on the subject. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm same and feel the same. -->David Shankbone 20:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- I just removed it too. I'm a flaming liberal, and I still think it's ridiculous to have that much text on the subject. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Ukexpat, I'm glad you like it! -->David Shankbone 19:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- *sigh* S/he WP:COATRACKed it into the TN Governor and TN Republican party articles, too. Removed from both.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- They are on a holy crusade with this. It's a total Joan of Arc thing ("If I shall be blocked, I shall block for doing the right thing for my country") -->David Shankbone 03:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Brian Williams liberal bias
I have an IP edit-warring on this article to include a highly-POV section about Williams alleged liberal bias[7], cited only to one (unreliable) source, no examples, no RS. -->David Shankbone 20:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Anthony Himbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) As this article is an orphan, I tried to fill it with quotations and secondary sources about his movies, the actors starring in it etc, but I couldn't find any except other poorly researched (or already deleted) entries on wikipedia and imdb.com. // Dikanda (talk) 10:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Eyes on Danny Gokey
Am I overreacting, or is it a big problem to have a lot of blog "sourcing" at the Gokey article. I've removed some things, but there is an editor who is upset about it, so I thought I would bring it here to see if I'm wrong about this. There are some cases of blog sourcing that I have left in, as they're relatively non-controversial, but having survived the David Boothroyd storm -- and learned a lot from it -- I wanted to bring this here for some extra eyes to look at it. Thanks, Unitanode 14:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hi there. I guess I'm supposed to be the upset editor. My only involvement has been with respect to a couple of sentences, so I can't really speak for anything else in the article. My two cents on this can be found on the talk page, but in a nutshell, my disagreement with Unitanode stems from the question over whether the restriction on blogs applies to every blog in existence or just "self-published blogs", as the WP:BLP guidelines say. Either way, I gathered some additional sources, per Unitanode's request, so the question may be moot at this point.
- Would someone uninvolved (and well-versed on BLP issues) PLEASE comment here? Unitanode 22:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Although I would contest this argument with respect to the specific edits I've made, it's worth noting that the broader point is correct about the use of blogs to source a lot of the American Idol BLPs, at least for this season. The practice appears to be rampant. — Bdb484 (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- My understanding is that sourcing from blogs for non-controversial material is fine. Sourcing from them for controversial material is not. If there are controversial items in other AI articles that are sourced to blogs, perhaps they should be looked at as well. Unitanode 15:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
"Self-published blogs" assertion
I'm pretty sure that either "self-published" doesn't mean what you think it means, or you may just be ignoring what it means in a Wikipedia context. To quote (bolded text mine):
- "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested...").
While I love MJ's blog as much as the next AI fan, it's not a reliable source. Unitanode 15:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- In the interest of keeping the conversation together, I'm responding back at the Gokey talk page. — Bdb484 (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. I've commented at the article. I think you'll find what you need in reliable sources without leaning on blogs. -- Banjeboi 14:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Walter Cronkite
Walter Cronkite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Back and forth editing over appropriateness of illness and possible imminent death inclusion. I am unfamiliar with the proper protocol here, this may be a candidate for article protection. Sswonk (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- I will make a request at Requests for page protection for this article. Willking1979 (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Before acting, you should check out Wikipedia:ANI#Walter_Cronkite_is_dying.5Bcitation_needed.5D_.28see_citation_below.29.2C_article_needs_lock. I haven't looked at the article so the situation may have changed since it was brought up at ANI, but...---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Went ahead and protected the page. While yesterday it may have been premature, the disruption reached the point where protection was warranted.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Before acting, you should check out Wikipedia:ANI#Walter_Cronkite_is_dying.5Bcitation_needed.5D_.28see_citation_below.29.2C_article_needs_lock. I haven't looked at the article so the situation may have changed since it was brought up at ANI, but...---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
As raised previously[8] and (I thought) resolved: does WP:NPF allow inclusion of details on late life legal trobules of Aron Bielski, who has an article because of his activities as a teenage partisan 65 years ago? Input in talk page welcome. Stetsonharry (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering if other people feel this article is a case of WP:BLP1E. I think it seems to be, but I honestly don't have much experience with this policy, so I thought I would ask for other opinions. Thanks. Rnb (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Pretty much textbook. Redirected to the snake article which already discusses him. Hipocrite (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Leighton Meester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
News of a sex tape has popped up on numerous websites (including reliable sources) and I've spent a large part of my day reverting IP vandalism on the account. A page protection is likely in order, but more eyes are definitely needed as to how the information is included (if at all) in the article. Thanks in advance , ponyo (talk) 19:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- I copy edited a bit. What "reliable" sources are we talking about? Maybe best to take this to the article talk page?--Tom (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
List of Big Brother 2009 housemates (UK) halfwit and dogface
Does anyone actually watch this? Apparently two contestants have legally changed their names to halfwit and dogface. [9] talkShould wikipedia be calling them those names? or does this just appear like tabloid journalism. Martin451 (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- If they really have changed their names by deed poll, then I guess we should use them. We use the strange names people sometimes stand for election under, don't we? --Tango (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Incidentally, does anyone know how long it typically takes for a deed poll to appear in the London Gazette? They aren't their yet, but some others there are dated about 6 weeks before the issue they appeared in. --Tango (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Brian Littrell
This is not true:
Personal life
<BLP violation removed> - Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
An unsourced BLP in user space. The "article" has been deleted three times in article space. The editor has yet to provide any sources as to the existence of this person, let alone their notability. Unsourced BLPs should be deleted wherever they exist, is this not correct? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- the person clearly exists (link to self-publisher page) but given their (non)notability and behaviour it's very likely that the user is that person. Procedure? In view of the previous speedy deletion, straight deletion by an admin is possible I think, as abuse of a WP:userpage; otherwise WP:MFD. But a polite request should probably be made first (though the user is currently blocked for repeatedly re-creating a bad page). Disembrangler (talk) 10:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Kevin Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - this BLP, is a minefield. He's a Californian politician with past sexual assault allegations and is currentle being pinned for misuse of federal funds tied to Obama's firing Walpin, who investiagted this misuse. Johnson was an Obama supporter. I'm hoping someone else is inspired to look at this as my plate's overflowing but too many red flags went up when I gave it a quick read. -- Banjeboi 14:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Could someone help? An editor keeps adding a non-notable tag to her article. To me she looks perfectly notable (plus article is well-sourced) and I have removed the tag twice. Dr. King is somewhat controversial in the small world of European archaeology and some people don't like her. Could someone help with this dispute, or if she is really non-notable nominate the article for deletion? Borock (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- "Some people don't like her"? Are you suggesting I am tagging the article out of personal hatred for the individual? I just don't think that notability has been established, and certainly articles can be tagged as needed sources and arguments demonstrating notability without having to jump to an AFD. DreamGuy (talk) 03:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
This page seems to be designed to poke fun at its subject, and has no good version to revert back to. It contains a mix of true information, enough to identify the person, and a lot fanciful nonsense that I am sure would embarrass him. Abductive (talk) 07:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Deleted and referring adbuctive to WP:CSD for better handling of these articles.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Jamie Leigh Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Severe BLP problems, as it represents rape allegations against uncharged people as true. THF (talk) 19:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Article needs a complete rewrite or stubbing. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Uh, what? It mentions legal action against the alleged perpetrator over the allegations, but I'm not seeing anything would suggest BLP violations here. Rebecca (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
It was reporting an alleged rape as fact using youtube as a source - I removed the section. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Greg W. Moore is the main contributor of the article (and has admitted to being the subject). He objects to the {{Autobiography}} tag because he is not affiliated with the sources. Is he correct, or should the tag stay as long as he is involved in editing his own article?--Sandor Clegane (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, he is incorrect. As long as John Oxendine is writing his own biography, he is by definition writing an autobiography. Please review WP:Autobiography and encourage him to do the same, for it outlines how the subject of the article can contribute constructively to the progress of the article. For future reference, this type of complaint belongs at the Conflict of Interest noticeboard, not BLP. Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 18:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
When does ridiculously irrelevant trivia become disruptive?
There is far too much trivia in the Matt Barkley article, violating WP:WEIGHT. When I try to trim it down, it gets reverted. Am I wrong in thinking that so much of that inconsequential praise of how wonderful he is, even if sources, is excessive? See this edit. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think as long as it is sourced it should remain - to people (and publications) interested in sport they like this sort of thing, just as a an artciel on a book will contain a lot of 'trivia' about what happens in it, reviews etc.Martinlc (talk) 07:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- It has to be integrated. If it can't be intergarated. then it doesnt fit YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". The fact that it is sourced is utterly irrelevant. It's easy enough to find material which comes from reliable sources (often more reliable than we use in articles), but which simply has no place in an encyclopedia (work-safe example). Physchim62 (talk) 07:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- It has to be integrated. If it can't be intergarated. then it doesnt fit YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Irrelevant trivia is alway disruptive to this project's goals and should be removed. We do not include everything that is sourced on every article. I can find sources that Albert Einstein famously stuck out his tongue for a photo, but that doesn't belong on the photo, time dilation, Gene Simmons or physics articles, for example. If you want trivia, go form a site somewhere devoted to trivia, because that's not what this site is for. DreamGuy (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, you keep shopping this around without addressing the fact that this sort of section in integral to any athlete article reaching a GA status like Mark Sanchez. Don't just link this hardly unanimous discussion on the Barkley page to legitimize your actions. --Bobak (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Also, the user who started this section is trying to remove highly relevant information on the player's playing career --the storyline of the threeway competition for USC's quarterback race was on the the national stories of the spring in ESPN, SI, and the major papers. So User:Who then was a gentleman? obviously isn't aware of college football and assumes no good faith on my part (despite the fact that I've put together GA and FA articles in this area and plan to develop all articles to as close to that level as possible). --Bobak (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
It would be beneficial if anyone above actually explained what excised material they think is trivial. The main things that the original poster removed was (1) information about how the subject became the starting quarterback for USC -- his main claim to notability, and (2) his personal religious beliefs. This is a biography of an individual, and most of the information removed does appear relevant to forming an idea about this subject as a whole. For instance, how are his religious considered "trivial"? For many people, religion is a significant part of their lives, and this is included in similar high-rated articles such as Colt McCoy (GA) and Tim Tebow (B-class). I do believe, however, that we can safely drop the bands that Barkley likes. Second, the fact that he had to compete against two other quarterbacks to assume the lead position on the depth chart is unbelievably relevant to an article on an American football quarterback, especially since that is how he has attained his notability. Strikehold (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Mostly agree. Quarterback battle = notable. Bands = non-notable. Yeah. However, I disagree that his religion is automatically notable just because it's an important topic to many people. My opinion is that it would only be notable if it somehow related to the topic that makes this article notable in the first place. For example, if somebody reported that he skipped practices because of his religious beliefs, or something similar. Think of it as analogous to zodiac signs or blood types - some people think they're important, but unless it somehow becomes notable in its own right, it's just trivia. DeFaultRyan 22:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Tend to agree with the above. I deal with a lot of religion articles, and my personal opinion would be that if there is a reliable source which indicates that the subject places a significant degree of importance to his particular religious life, then there would be reason to mention his religion. It could be having been an altar boy, having a minor in religion, having seriously considered becoming a priest while in early schooling, doing a lot of work with his church or a religious charity, or whatever. Otherwise, unless there's a place for it in an infobox or something, there probably isn't any real reason to include it. John Carter (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, but generally speaking, I'd say if it is reliably sourced then it is considered important to the individual. Usually, that information would be obtained from interviewing the subject or his close associates. I was curious, not having read the actual source before, so here's what the one cited says about his religion:
Strikehold (talk) 04:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)"Though he knows some don't want to hear it, Rollinson said the balance Barkley has struck in his life through his Christian faith helped him find the perspective he needed to persevere through difficulties on the field. Barkley plays acoustic guitar in a church youth group and has participated in many service projects in the community. Next month, he'll join a group of about 20 friends and family members who will run every aspect of an orphanage in Cape Flats, South Africa, during Christmas vacation. "He has a deep caring for people and wants to make a difference in his life," Les Barkley said. "He's grateful for all the accolades and is grateful he's been able to play football, but he wants to make more of his life than being a pretty good football player.""
- I agree, but generally speaking, I'd say if it is reliably sourced then it is considered important to the individual. Usually, that information would be obtained from interviewing the subject or his close associates. I was curious, not having read the actual source before, so here's what the one cited says about his religion:
- Tend to agree with the above. I deal with a lot of religion articles, and my personal opinion would be that if there is a reliable source which indicates that the subject places a significant degree of importance to his particular religious life, then there would be reason to mention his religion. It could be having been an altar boy, having a minor in religion, having seriously considered becoming a priest while in early schooling, doing a lot of work with his church or a religious charity, or whatever. Otherwise, unless there's a place for it in an infobox or something, there probably isn't any real reason to include it. John Carter (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
John Oxendine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User:24.98.228.92 continues to revert this BLP to an earlier version fraught with non-neutral language and has stated the user's intention to continue reverting to this version indefinitely. Edits by this user remove a variety of copy-editing issues and cleanup and neutrality tags placed on the article as well. Thanks for any help anyone might provide. // Qqqqqq (talk) 05:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, it is not proper to remove any of the tags until they have been discussed on the talk page. You may wish to encourage the offending party to review WP:NPOV, WP:OWN and WP:Edit war. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
User User:Parrot of Doom has made a number of edits on this page which (as far as I can see) are inferances not specifcaly stated in the sources, as well as askingh that changes are discused on the talk page (without having done so himself) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nick_Griffin&diff=297899100&oldid=297891659. He claims its correctly sourced when its not http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nick_Griffin&diff=297901852&oldid=297900411. He even admits in his first change that there is no sentance directly linking the two http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nick_Griffin&diff=297886349&oldid=297802269. Nor is this the first time this has happend on this page.Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- User User:Parrot of Doom Now admits there is no direct link betwen the two http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Slatersteven&diff=297907078&oldid=297906649 yet here insits thay are http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nick_Griffin&diff=prev&oldid=297902522 and continues to argue for his version herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nick_Griffin&diff=prev&oldid=297906685 and here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nick_Griffin&diff=next&oldid=297907204. Moreover the user had been asked (more the once) to provide the quote to back up his claim, and has refused to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nick_Griffin&diff=297906685&oldid=297905394.Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Now in truth it is the case that the comments by nick griffin appear to been in respsonse to the reporting of of the Rune to the police, but his comments are not linked (and have ne bearing) on the trial.Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
John Baird
Some BLP input needed at John Baird (Canadian politician). There's been a longstanding campaign by some users to out Baird on Wikipedia as gay — he's part of what I call the "glass closet" cadre of politicians who don't pretend not to be, but avoid actually talking about it on the public record at the same time — which took on a new wrinkle last week when a Toronto newspaper ran an article in its print edition which described Baird as a "gay conservative" as a snarky aside in an article about something else entirely, but then dropped the word "gay" when throwing the same article up on its website.
While this obviously fails both WP:BLP and WP:CATGRS, which require that the subject themselves publicly acknowledges their sexual orientation on the record, an anon IP has been determined to add it into the article. Their most recent attempt toned it down to "it has been alleged that Baird is gay", but keeping the exact same source.
Note that due to the BLP-sensitivity of the issue, I initially took the discussion over to WP:CANTALK to keep it away from public consumption — but another user expanded it back to the article's talk page as well. So if you need additional background on the discussion, you may need to read that discussion as well. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Kate Raphael Bender
Kate Raphael Bender (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The subject of this article, who's notability is in question, but I guess that is different issue, recently, like a day or two ago, not sure tried to boycott trader joe or something. Material that is not even written in a NPOV keeps getting reinserted. Can some other eyes please chime in, since we are at inpass? TIA --Tom (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- We seem to be getting closer to resolving our differences, but we still disagree on adding category anti-zionism. Thoughts? --Tom (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Category removed (re-add only if there is consensus - WP:BLP caution) and nominated for deletion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Raphael Bender. Disembrangler (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
There is currently an RfC on the talk page of the above article regarding the inclusion of some information regarding an allegation made about the subject by Paris Match which was apparently later retracted as part of a legal settlement. Any input on whether there would be BLP considerations regarding such material would be welcome. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Just a note: 3 admins have already said "yes" to the inclusion after reviewing it, so this seems like an unnecessary entry on the noticeboard. ► RATEL ◄ 02:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Not all admins are necessarily really good at BLP, however. John Carter (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
More eyes on Murder of Robert Eric Wone
I'm probably a bit too close to this article and the disputes of six months ago to judge whether recently added information about the suspects in the murder case violates BLP or not. Another editor has added way more than I would have chosen to, but it all looks adequately sourced. Overall, I'm uncertain, hence asking for more eyes here. Jclemens (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think there is far more information than necessary in the article about those three men. The information added is demographic (home town, education, history of residence, etc.) - while this isn't defamatory or otherwise controversial information, I think we should err in favor of privacy. This is particularly true when our article already names these men as, ultimately, murder suspects - even though they haven't been charged in that crime, nor convicted or subjected to continuing restrictions for any other charges filed. (Disclosure: I argued awhile back that we shouldn't even name these men in the article, let alone describe them in detail.) Last bit: Jclemens, I don't think this thread has been noted on the article talkpage yet? Nathan T 22:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- The problems on the talk page have escalated a bit, with one editor accusing the three named living persons of direct involvement in killing Wone. I've blocked him for that, but would still prefer more eyes on this issue. Good point, Nathan, I'll note this thread on the talk page. Jclemens (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I removed the sections on the three roomates who have been suspects in the past. Until or unless they are charged and/tried with murder we need to err on the conservative. -- Banjeboi 01:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
John Lakian
Would anyone like to please watchlist and or monitor John Lakian for BLP violations and vandalism? Seems like there were some negative, hurtful comments added to the article which stayed in for quiet a while, and the possibility of future incidents seems likely. More eyes on the situation would help.-Andrew c [talk] 18:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've watchlisted it. If this happens again semi protection may be called for. — Jake Wartenberg 04:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- A newbie with a redlinked name just removed much of the content and references. I don't know myself how accurate much of that material is, but thought it worth mentioning. John Carter (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
A “Controversy” section was added to The Little Boots Page based on sourcing from The Sun and an Indian newspaper that took information from The Sun regarding an alleged incident that took place at The NME awards. In The Sun, Little Boots singer Victoria Hesketh was quoted as saying she was kissed by Florence Welsh of Florence Welsh and the Machine and that while she does not mind that female singers are bisexual she is not bisexual herself. I deleted the controversy section based on possible BLP violations, poor sourcing, and triviality (Hesketh’s sexuality is not a notable part of her public persona) Florence Welsh may or may not find this objectionable. As you will see in the Little Boots talk page I tried to explain that you must be cautious when dealing with BLP, what BLP and other policies may have been violated and why The Sun is an unreliable source. I have been repeatedly called a homophobe both on the Little Boots and my personal talk page for my troubles. I expect at least a warning to be issued if not stiffer sanctions to be leveled against editors questioning my good faith (if not outright harassing me) by calling me a homophobe. If this section does not violate BLP I really do not understand what would violate the policy. I have been outvoted and in one case called a libeler for a material that was a lot less incautious. In a number of articles I have edited a overwhelming consensus has been reached that BLP has been violated just for these sort of things. Edkollin (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Closing administrators should read carefully through the article Talk page. The article is not about Victoria Hesketh's sexuality which she her self has spoken about, is quoted directly in the article and isn't in any doubt. But the media controversy that surrounded her actions with Florence Welch on 09/06/09 which is well documented sourced and was/still is a global story. An indication of this can be obtained by googleing "Little Boots" and "Bisexual". If anything the article is setting the record straight according to Hesketh herself. There is numerous precedent for a 'Media Controversy' or 'Sexuality' section in an article of this type: see Elton John or Amy Winehouse. My contention is that User:Edkollin is attempting to invoke WP:BLP rules as a smoke screen to delete information that he originally believed was too trivial for the article and that others now want on the article against his wishes. This is a simple content dispute which is being resolved by consensus. andi064 T . C 23:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry but there is clearly homophobia at work here if Little Boots had been linked to a male celebrity with photos and numerous news articles no one would think twice about having it on her article. But same sex, whoa rip it down straight away! Actually no one is saying she is LGB just that the media has made a big issue of it. Simples. 82.132.139.11 (talk) 06:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think it's normal practice to cover every single tabloid allegation about a celebrities private life, heterosexual or otherwise. Particularly when we are referring to someone notable/famous for something other then just being a celebrity/famous (i.e. it's not as if we're talking about Paris Hilton here). As it stands at the moment, this is only sourced to a tabloid, "A news portal for Indians in Thailand" and a third site which appears to be primarily notable for its forums Digital Spy. In other words, I'm not convinced this belongs in the article regardless of the sexuality issues involved given the sources at hand. Furthermore, this is under a 'controversy' section, but none of the sources clearly establish existence of a controversy. If there are better, non tabloidish sources, (in other words if this is really 'global news') then please bring them to the table. P.S. The fact that this appears to be the only mention of any aspect of her private life in the article speaks volumes. You say 'if Little Boots been linked to a male celebrity', yet she's 25 and in this modern age, I somewhat doubt this is the only person of either gender she has been linked to. Indeed a quick Google finds [10] where she mentions her boyfriend. In fact, despite your accusations of homophobia and bias, in reality I suspect if it wasn't for the fact the person was female, we wouldn't even be discussing this because no one would have tried to include it in the article and if they did, it would have been quickly removed. P.P.S. To put this a different way, I would have no problem mentioning a long term partner of either gender, who is mentioned in most biographies about her; mentioning everyone she was once caught pashing while drunk, regardless of gender, however is quite a different matter particularly when she had denied any relationship and it's only briefly covered in tabloids. Nil Einne (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry but there is clearly homophobia at work here if Little Boots had been linked to a male celebrity with photos and numerous news articles no one would think twice about having it on her article. But same sex, whoa rip it down straight away! Actually no one is saying she is LGB just that the media has made a big issue of it. Simples. 82.132.139.11 (talk) 06:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) As I noted on Talk:Little Boots, it is highly inappropriate to repeatedly assert that anyone is homophobic, that is a personal attack which must stop. That it is a chorus taken up by other editors does not make it acceptable. The issue has been stated clearly all along - it is with the tabloid coverage of The Sun and the two sources tacked on with it that only are quoting The Sun story. If it is that highly controversial and notable, then by all means, find acceptable reliable sources that have reported it - and do so with content that is presented in a non-biased way, not the tabloidy manner in which it is in the article. That it is being based on a less than reliable tabloid source is part and parcel of the WP:BLP issue. Present it in a non-biased and neutral way that avoids drawing conclusions. If it can't be, then it doesn't belong in the article - it creates controversy where it isn't clear that any exists. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Professor Friedwardt Winterberg
Friedwardt Winterberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There have been various attempts over the years to libel professor Winterberg. The problem became so bad that his article was partially protected. However, I recently noticed two "watch" type pages which imply he has questionable political connections he is trying to cover up, etc. Is this really necessary? The man is 80 years old and doesn't know how to defend himself against such computer based attacks on his character. Various friends and colleagues have attempted to intercede on his behalf, but that doesn't make him a low person. I ask that the following material be removed from Wikipedia as falling outside the guidelines of Wikipedia's policy on living persons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alvestrand/Winterberg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alvestrand/Winterberg_notes
Physiker121 (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- IIRC the article has been protected due to the combination of a succession of IPs and socks of a banned user who have disrupted the article, and the subject or his assistants deleting well-sourced information. Some of the details of this disruption are in the pages that Physiker121 would like deleted. If folks really think the pages are offensive then WP:MFD is the appropriate venue. Will Beback talk
- Heh. I'd forgotten that there were two of these pages. I've merged them.
This series of issues actually dates back to before WP:BLP was formalized. The heart of the issue is whether King is a reliable source for Winterberg's involvement with LaRouche, and whether Winterberg's LaRouche involvement is important enough to include in Winterberg's biography. (The original reason why I got involved with Winterberg's article, his support for Christopher Jon Bjerknes' claims in relation to the Relativity priority dispute, have already been removed from the article; I don't think he's objected to the stuff about the Einstein-Hilbert controversy now.) If we accept that King's book is a reliable source, and that Winterberg's involvement with LaRouche is worthy of mention, I see nothing in WP:BLP that warrants removing the material from the article. I've seen no WP:RS sources claiming the King book is not reliable; I've seen claims made to that effect on Wikipedia, but these aren't WP:RS. FWIW, the book's text is freely available for reading online.
- As to the fact of me keeping notes around - I'm trying to keep the notes' facts to what's easy to gather for anyone with access to the history of the pages involved, not adding personal opinion - but at times, for instance when looking up IP-related information, it's unavoidable to document some degree of speculation. I think this is good practice, and don't want to stop doing it. --Alvestrand (talk) 07:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- BTW - I am very happy to see that Winterberg's defendant has now created an account. I assume this is the University of Reno IP, since the editing styles seem to match. User:Physiker121 is definitely a WP:SPA, but I like having this much better than having to guess whether they're the same person or not. --Alvestrand (talk) 07:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry I didn't respond to this before - I only noticed it now in the archives. I ask again that the pages in question put up by Alvestrand be removed.
- Alvestrand: If you have some sort of proof I am with UNR I suggest you provide it now. If you bothered to check my IP you would see I am more than 2500 miles from there and have nothing to do with that university. Not only have you libeled Winterberg, you have now libeled me which is a clear violation of the rules.
- Will Beback: There is a lot more there than King's book. There are insinuations involving IDs and IP addresses that are based on Alvestrand's personal opinions and original research. Even if you accept King's work, the page is clearly not NPOV and should be taken down for that reason alone. But the book isn't NPOV either as anyone who has read it can see. Those Alvestrand notes/watch pages are nothing more than an attempt to embarrass Winterberg. Why else put them online for the whole world to see? Physiker121 (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Repeating my friendly reminder to both of you: all pages on Wikipedia, including user pages, user talk pages and user subpages, are covered by WP:BLP and subject to deletion/severe pruning if in violation. I am not accusing either of you of anything, just a reminder. – ukexpat (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what this is all about. Has an old discussion been copied out of the archive? Will Beback talk 20:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes it is - from about 1 month ago - and from this noticeboard. I assumed somebody would take care of it because I thought it was such an obvious violation of WP:BLP. But instead of removing the offending material, he put me in the talk page too implying I was Winterberg which is also a violation of WP:BLP. Physiker121 (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Following the posting here in May the user merged the two pages. Someone claiming to be Winterberg has edited Wikipedia and the Winterberg bio repeatedly, as documented on the page you're complaininng about. There's also a banned user who has repeatedly returned, so it's a complex situation that bears watching. I've asked the user to blank it as a courtesy to those mentioned, but I don't think there's anything there that violates BLP. Speculating on whether the subject of an article is editing it is not a BLP violation, to the best of my knowledge. However if thepage isn't actively being used to prepare a case against an active user then there's no need to leave it unblanked. I'm going to blank it on Alvestrand's behalf, which should reduce the appearance of a problem. Will Beback talk 23:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see a problem with it - in particular, I don't see any violation of either WP:BLP or WP:ATTACK - the actions described mainly speak for themselves. I'm hoping that there will never be a need to prepare a case on the issue, but if that ever happens (or if someone tries to make a case against me), notes collected over a period of years is better than having to dig frantically around Wikipedia article histories. I think (and am willing to discuss this further) that the keeping of notes like this not only should be allowed, it should be encouraged.
- That said, blanking is a reasonable way to make sure it doesn't show up in Google searches. I'll recover the text when I need it. --Alvestrand (talk) 01:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Following the posting here in May the user merged the two pages. Someone claiming to be Winterberg has edited Wikipedia and the Winterberg bio repeatedly, as documented on the page you're complaininng about. There's also a banned user who has repeatedly returned, so it's a complex situation that bears watching. I've asked the user to blank it as a courtesy to those mentioned, but I don't think there's anything there that violates BLP. Speculating on whether the subject of an article is editing it is not a BLP violation, to the best of my knowledge. However if thepage isn't actively being used to prepare a case against an active user then there's no need to leave it unblanked. I'm going to blank it on Alvestrand's behalf, which should reduce the appearance of a problem. Will Beback talk 23:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Antonio Villaraigosa needs better sourcing, resolving of POV concerns
Antonio Villaraigosa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has many inadequate sourcing issues and needs POV concerns resolved. Otherwise it should be pared back. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether anything needs to be done with this new article. The Activism section is well-sourced although perhaps not entirely NPOV, however the Early Life section is sourced only to Chabasinski's own words as found on the web site www.mindfreedom.org, which isn't obviously a reliable source. Looie496 (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
David Ferguson (impresario)
I would appreciate someone looking at a page I'm trying to clean up: David Ferguson (impresario). It's been tagged with many templates and I'm not sure if they're all appropriate. I think this article needs experienced Wikipedians to compare the templates to the contents of the biography. Thanks-- --deb (talk) 02:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Request to review possible violation of BLP policy on article talk page
Please check the current thread at Wikipedia:Ani#User:Joseph_A._Spadaro. There seems to be no consensus whether this constitutes a violation or not, an editor has been blocked, but the relevant comments haven't been removed. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)