Human.v2.0 (talk | contribs) |
No edit summary |
||
Line 120: | Line 120: | ||
:::::I'm also getting a little insulted that the subject of the article as well as that bit from the Palgrave book is under some kind of delusion that because there were previously no Wikipedia ready sources (partially because of the editing of their own website/blog/university profile page) that this somehow means that '''no one''' out in the world is qualified to publish the information. Do you know why Wikipedia editors are required to use acceptable sources? Because unlike the writers of the Palgrave book, we're not all qualified historians, researchers, scientists, etc etc. They're allowed to go out and do their own original research, we're not; that's how "sources" that we can use are produced. It is getting extremely insulting, some of the tip-toeing being done on talk pages like editors have to pretend certain things are true/untrue here. Occam's Razor, as you put it, states that we all know perfectly well what is '''true''' and that all which is left is to source things to BLP standards. Not whatever claims/views you would personally like to hold true to. Sorry if that all comes off a little harsher than would be desired, NetNus, but you've been coming pretty close to boldface lies (through statement or omission) on the topic. [[User:Human.v2.0|Human.v2.0]] ([[User talk:Human.v2.0|talk]]) 16:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC) |
:::::I'm also getting a little insulted that the subject of the article as well as that bit from the Palgrave book is under some kind of delusion that because there were previously no Wikipedia ready sources (partially because of the editing of their own website/blog/university profile page) that this somehow means that '''no one''' out in the world is qualified to publish the information. Do you know why Wikipedia editors are required to use acceptable sources? Because unlike the writers of the Palgrave book, we're not all qualified historians, researchers, scientists, etc etc. They're allowed to go out and do their own original research, we're not; that's how "sources" that we can use are produced. It is getting extremely insulting, some of the tip-toeing being done on talk pages like editors have to pretend certain things are true/untrue here. Occam's Razor, as you put it, states that we all know perfectly well what is '''true''' and that all which is left is to source things to BLP standards. Not whatever claims/views you would personally like to hold true to. Sorry if that all comes off a little harsher than would be desired, NetNus, but you've been coming pretty close to boldface lies (through statement or omission) on the topic. [[User:Human.v2.0|Human.v2.0]] ([[User talk:Human.v2.0|talk]]) 16:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC) |
||
::::::I do think that's a bit harsh. My participation post 2007 has largely involved insisting on sourcing rather than contributing autobiography. Where I have added to the article it has been to put something verifiable and, generally, sourced (as my Wiki skills have improved) such as the Pink List material. Where I have remained silent it has been to avoid autobiography. If I were, for instance, to put the reference to Erwin Rommel (on the current version of the page) into context by insisting that the Ritter von Leeb and Heinz Guderian were both more important in my analysis of the German influence on Israeli mechanised doctrine than Rommel it would be accurate, verifiable from my MA thesis, and probably not welcome. As it stands, there is a statement which future compilers of biographical dictionaries may use to exaggerate Rommel's importance in my theories of jazz warfare. It is, perhaps, a Wikiparadox. I am, to some extent, damned if I participate and damned if I don't. [[User:NetNus|NetNus]] ([[User talk:NetNus|talk]]) 17:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::It does not matter to us exactly what sources were evaluated by the scholarly editors of Palgrave. Wikipedia may have been one of them, six issues of ''Jewish Chronicle'' were definitely checked, they might have seen the ''Sun'' article, they might have looked at Nusbacher's archived blog, they might have seen Nusbacher's 1998 registration with Adoption.com naming his wife, they might have looked at the Pope article Nusbacher wrote for the Society of Creative Anachronism, they might have seen Nusbacher's film review of ''A Stranger Among Us'', they might have seen the paper written by Nusbacher's wife in 1997 where she thanks him for his love and support, they might have looked at various military history discussion groups. Whatever they looked at, they arrived at a firm conclusion. We put our complete trust in such an august body. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 16:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC) |
:::It does not matter to us exactly what sources were evaluated by the scholarly editors of Palgrave. Wikipedia may have been one of them, six issues of ''Jewish Chronicle'' were definitely checked, they might have seen the ''Sun'' article, they might have looked at Nusbacher's archived blog, they might have seen Nusbacher's 1998 registration with Adoption.com naming his wife, they might have looked at the Pope article Nusbacher wrote for the Society of Creative Anachronism, they might have seen Nusbacher's film review of ''A Stranger Among Us'', they might have seen the paper written by Nusbacher's wife in 1997 where she thanks him for his love and support, they might have looked at various military history discussion groups. Whatever they looked at, they arrived at a firm conclusion. We put our complete trust in such an august body. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 16:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:35, 7 January 2013
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:
| ||
Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting
Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
At the article Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting should the name of the father of the alleged perpetrator be mentioned? There is discussion of this on that article's Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- The thread's name is Nancy Lanza's maiden name. Like much of the rest of the content of the thread, Bus stop's concern is way off topic. If he is truly concerned about the matter of naming the father of the alleged perpetrator, he should start a thread on THAT topic on the article's Talk page, and stop wasting everyone's time here. This thread should be closed immediately. HiLo48 (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- This was discussed several times through several threads, as well as a Redirect for discussion that concluded that a redirect was even against BLP policy. Sorry , but Hilo48 is correct. This does appear to be a waste of time by refusing to accept community consensus on the matter.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- Apart from the present thread, Nancy Lanza's maiden name, the inclusion or exclusion of the father's name was discussed in this archived thread. And the inclusion or exclusion of the mother's maiden name was discussed briefly in this archived thread. (The discussion there seemed to concern whether or not the maiden name belonged in the lead.) I'm not sure that consensus was entirely clear, so perhaps these questions are worth revisiting. Also, perhaps I am missing other places that these questions were discussed, so I hope someone else can link to other such discussions. The discussion on the present Talk page is the first time I am weighing in at any discussions on the father's name and maiden name issue. It was only in the midst of discussing the maiden name issue on the present (non-archived) Talk page, that I became aware that the father's name was also omitted from this article. Bus stop (talk) 02:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- That's not a reason to mix up discussions on two independent issues. If you want to discuss the father's name, start a new section. Myself? I don't think it's all that important, so I won't be starting one. And from now on I'll be tempted to delete irrelevant stuff from the Maiden name thread. HiLo48 (talk) 02:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see why the reader should have to look elsewhere for the name of the father. Consensus is not entirely clear that the father's name should be omitted; arguments for the inclusion of the father's name are found here. Policy, namely WP:BLPNAME, is open to interpretation on the question of the inclusion/exclusion of the father's name. In the most general sense Wikipedia's default position should be in favor of the inclusion of information. This is an encyclopedia. We are supposed to be compiling reliably sourced information. I am fully aware that just because something is reliably sourced does not mean that it warrants inclusion, but I think the expectation should be that an argument can be presented supporting exclusion. It is not inconceivable that a reader could want to know the name of the father. Is there a reason the reader should not find the name of the father in our article? Bus stop (talk) 06:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- You need to demonstrate why it is important and how it fits within BLP policy, not ask others why it is not.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Bus stop - Your case seems to be that if the thing you want included is reliably sourced, then you can stick it in unless someone else demonstrates why it's undue. I disagree with that philosophy. If you want it there, YOU must demonstrate why it should be there. "It is not inconceivable that a reader could want to know the name of the father" is not a strong reason. There may be a good argument to be made, but you haven't made it in a coherent fashion. What I really don't understand is your scattergun approach, sticking bits and pieces of your case all over the place in threads on other topics. Why don't you just create a new section on the article's Talk page, solely and explicitly about including the father's name. Then it can be discussed properly. And it will stop wasting peoples' time here. But before you do, make sure you have a solid, coherent argument to present. Much better than that one above. HiLo48 (talk) 07:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with the two comments above mine. WP:BLP policy raises the stakes for including material beyond the justification that you have provided. I recommend that you look at similar articles, especially ones that are highly rated, and look at how they address issues like this one. And, yes, you should create a dedicated thread on the Talk page for further discussion. Andrew (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see why the reader should have to look elsewhere for the name of the father. Consensus is not entirely clear that the father's name should be omitted; arguments for the inclusion of the father's name are found here. Policy, namely WP:BLPNAME, is open to interpretation on the question of the inclusion/exclusion of the father's name. In the most general sense Wikipedia's default position should be in favor of the inclusion of information. This is an encyclopedia. We are supposed to be compiling reliably sourced information. I am fully aware that just because something is reliably sourced does not mean that it warrants inclusion, but I think the expectation should be that an argument can be presented supporting exclusion. It is not inconceivable that a reader could want to know the name of the father. Is there a reason the reader should not find the name of the father in our article? Bus stop (talk) 06:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- That's not a reason to mix up discussions on two independent issues. If you want to discuss the father's name, start a new section. Myself? I don't think it's all that important, so I won't be starting one. And from now on I'll be tempted to delete irrelevant stuff from the Maiden name thread. HiLo48 (talk) 02:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- Apart from the present thread, Nancy Lanza's maiden name, the inclusion or exclusion of the father's name was discussed in this archived thread. And the inclusion or exclusion of the mother's maiden name was discussed briefly in this archived thread. (The discussion there seemed to concern whether or not the maiden name belonged in the lead.) I'm not sure that consensus was entirely clear, so perhaps these questions are worth revisiting. Also, perhaps I am missing other places that these questions were discussed, so I hope someone else can link to other such discussions. The discussion on the present Talk page is the first time I am weighing in at any discussions on the father's name and maiden name issue. It was only in the midst of discussing the maiden name issue on the present (non-archived) Talk page, that I became aware that the father's name was also omitted from this article. Bus stop (talk) 02:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- This was discussed several times through several threads, as well as a Redirect for discussion that concluded that a redirect was even against BLP policy. Sorry , but Hilo48 is correct. This does appear to be a waste of time by refusing to accept community consensus on the matter.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- The thread's name is Nancy Lanza's maiden name. Like much of the rest of the content of the thread, Bus stop's concern is way off topic. If he is truly concerned about the matter of naming the father of the alleged perpetrator, he should start a thread on THAT topic on the article's Talk page, and stop wasting everyone's time here. This thread should be closed immediately. HiLo48 (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- I started a section a few days ago on the "Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting" article Talk page called "Father's name". Anyone wishing to provide input on the question of the inclusion/exclusion of the father's name in that article might want to weigh in there. Bus stop (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
2012 Delhi gang rape case
2012 Delhi gang rape case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Although the article is legitimate and important, it could raise some BLP issues e.g. in relation to naming of suspects, particularly since it is likely to attract a lot of attention in the next few days. PatGallacher (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- Pending changes protection has been activated and there are many people watching it, including me. Is there anything in particular that concerns you? Andrew (talk) 04:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
See: Talk:2012_Delhi_gang_rape_case#Teek_hain for a discussion about inclusion of a political gaffe by the PM after his speech. Some wish to include it in the article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Roslyn Kind
- Roslyn Kind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Just resolve this section if it has been beaten to death before.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- And the problem is? That Roslyn Kind doesn't have her own article? Seems like a challenge... but not really a BLP problem as such. There are lots of people who don't have their own article yet. --GRuban (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Lynette Nusbacher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This BLP covers a person who may have changed gender status and name. Two users seem intent on outing them by posting items on the article and talk page. Could someone take a look and see if we need to refactor some of this? I'm concerned we're using unreliable sources to out a living person. Insomesia (talk) 13:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Is there evidence that Nusbacher prefers this aspect of her history not to be discussed publicly? In the abstract, a sex change is nothing shameful. We ought to treat it as private if it hasn't been widely covered in secondary sources, and especially if the subject wants it to be treated as private. Where do things stand in those terms? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- No reliable sources seem to mention it and the subject seems to want it to be private. Insomesia (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- I can only find links between the two on internet forums and The Sun newspaper - nothing reliable. GiantSnowman 14:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- This issue has already been dealt with: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive147#Lynette Nusbacher The private medical and personal aspects shouldn't be included for obvious reasons, but the subject's highly notable and widely covered previous identity is appropriate for inclusion. There is no rational, policy-based reason to exclude the former name when the person appeared on television and authored notable books under that name. ► Belchfire-TALK 14:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- I can only find links between the two on internet forums and The Sun newspaper - nothing reliable. GiantSnowman 14:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- No reliable sources seem to mention it and the subject seems to want it to be private. Insomesia (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- If you google [aryeh nusbacher lynette] you will find countless references. The wikipedia article states that until 2006 her books were published under her former name. And her own website is tagged with "Aryeh Nusbacher". So this does not seem to be a secret. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- There is robust sourcing for the former name. To the degree that disagreement is simply obstructionist and further discussion is absurd. ► Belchfire-TALK 14:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Please share the most reliable "robust" sources for this so others may support your view. Insomesia (talk) 14:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Please provide sourcing for your claim that "the subject seems to want it to be private". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem necessary to provide sources here when Insomesia is the only editor who is having trouble finding them. There are sources in the article now; there is the source he tendentiously reverted yesterday with a phony edit summary, and there is even a RS mentioned on the Talk page that covers the actual gender change. This is beginning to smell like WP:IDHT. ► Belchfire-TALK 14:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- (after edit conflict) Nusbacher has verified with OTRS that she is User:NetNus. The evidence that she wants this to be private can be found at Special:Contributions/NetNus. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- (ec)The redirect y'all are griping about was actually the article's original title. So if he doesn't want it redirected, he has to figure out a way to make wikipedia pretend that they are separate persons, one of whom disappeared without explanation in 2006, and the other suddenly appeared in 2007. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Firstly, Nusbacher is "she", and secondly nobody has griped about any redirect. If you can't be bothered to look into this properly then your comments here simply amount to trolling. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- The OP griped about the redirect here,[1] so spare me your lectures about "looking into this properly". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- I wouldn't exactly call that a "gripe", and your use of "he" is either gratuitously offensive or grossly ignorant. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- "He" refers to the one who filed the ANI complaint, so again you need to back off your lectures and start examining your own conclusions. For one, explain how wikipedia can pretend these are two different persons without rendering one or both of them as "not notable"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- That's a plausible dodge only if there's good reason to think that Insomnia is male. Got anything? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- I could say "It", if you prefer. Meanwhile, you need to figure out a way to draw a line between Aryeh's disappearance in 2006 and Lynette's emergence in 2007, and whether either one qualifies as being "notable". Got anything? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- That's a plausible dodge only if there's good reason to think that Insomnia is male. Got anything? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- "He" refers to the one who filed the ANI complaint, so again you need to back off your lectures and start examining your own conclusions. For one, explain how wikipedia can pretend these are two different persons without rendering one or both of them as "not notable"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- I wouldn't exactly call that a "gripe", and your use of "he" is either gratuitously offensive or grossly ignorant. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- The OP griped about the redirect here,[1] so spare me your lectures about "looking into this properly". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Firstly, Nusbacher is "she", and secondly nobody has griped about any redirect. If you can't be bothered to look into this properly then your comments here simply amount to trolling. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- (ec)The redirect y'all are griping about was actually the article's original title. So if he doesn't want it redirected, he has to figure out a way to make wikipedia pretend that they are separate persons, one of whom disappeared without explanation in 2006, and the other suddenly appeared in 2007. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Please provide sourcing for your claim that "the subject seems to want it to be private". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Please share the most reliable "robust" sources for this so others may support your view. Insomesia (talk) 14:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- There is robust sourcing for the former name. To the degree that disagreement is simply obstructionist and further discussion is absurd. ► Belchfire-TALK 14:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'll make this as simple as possible. There are articles by/about 'Aryeh Nusbacher'. There are articles by/about 'Lynette Nusbacher'. There are no articles (that I can see) confirming they are the same person. Please read WP:BURDEN and then provide some WP:RS so we can WP:V this. If reliable sources cannot be found then any and all references to 'Aryeh' will be removed from the article on Lynette. GiantSnowman 14:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- There is sourcing to connect the two identities. First compare this [2] with this [3]. And here is a mainstream news media source covering the "transition": [4] ► Belchfire-TALK 15:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Agree strongly with GS on this, given the post from Phil Bridger about OTRS identification etc. It stays out unless there is a consensus to put it in, something obviously lacking now. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Then you need two separate articles, with a dividing line between 2006 and 2007. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- I see that Amazon lists a number of books under Aryeh,[5] including some that are claimed in the Lynette article to be written by Lynette. If wikipedia is going to pretend these are two separate persons, then we can't claim authorship by Lynett when the published author was Aryeh. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Purely as a FYI Phil: Wikipedia:ANI#BLP redirect for delete and salt. KTC (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- A further FYI is that the redirect was created over 2 years ago,[6] with a rather matter-of-fact explanation for it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- It baffles me that somebody would want to delete & salt the redirect from Aryeh Nusbacher, whilst there's been no attempt to remove the content about Aryeh Nusbacher's work from the target article. Lacking a connection between the two, there is very little content about Lynette Nusbacher, who would appear to fail the GNG. Meanwhile, there's lots of stuff about Aryeh Nusbacher - the name is repeatedly removed from our article but it's the name used by sources - so why on earth would we salt the notable one? Can somebody explain? bobrayner (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, I can explain: it's obstructionism. See WP:TENDENTIOUS, and perhaps WP:IPW. ► Belchfire-TALK 15:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- I was just reading your IPW essay. No "perhaps" about it. This is definitely a conflict of interest situation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Insisting on strong sourcing for a BLP is simply following policy, please AGF. Insomesia (talk) 00:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- (ec)It baffled me too, until a user in this section confirmed that this Lynette is trying to mold the article based on a personal agenda rather than on observable facts. I thought that kind of thing was against the rules. So I'm still a bit baffled. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, I can explain: it's obstructionism. See WP:TENDENTIOUS, and perhaps WP:IPW. ► Belchfire-TALK 15:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- It baffles me that somebody would want to delete & salt the redirect from Aryeh Nusbacher, whilst there's been no attempt to remove the content about Aryeh Nusbacher's work from the target article. Lacking a connection between the two, there is very little content about Lynette Nusbacher, who would appear to fail the GNG. Meanwhile, there's lots of stuff about Aryeh Nusbacher - the name is repeatedly removed from our article but it's the name used by sources - so why on earth would we salt the notable one? Can somebody explain? bobrayner (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Note: I've just nominated for deletion on notability grounds. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Restoration of sex-change/name w/o consensus
The fact of sex-change and previous name has been restored. It's fine that there's a better source for it, but the existence of a source is not sufficient. WP:BLP makes it clear that edits of this sort require consensus, which is manifestly lacking. Key passage: write "conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy" -- something that obviously comes into play per Phil Bridger's posts above about OTRS identification and Nusbacher's own expressed preferences. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Boldness is my method. Once people see a very good source such as Palgrave then consensus comes quickly. I think the new source is the final nail in this discussion; that it is indeed sufficient.
- Regarding privacy of the individual; we are not talking about a reclusive scholar about whom any revelation is hurtful. Rather, we are talking about a person who sought the public light—who appeared repeatedly on television programs and taught the royal princes at Sandhurst, a very prominent school. Binksternet (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- And you think her preference to treat the sex change as private is something we can/should ignore?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- It's certainly something we can ignore if that's what we decide, and having the article repeat her surname over and over rather than use a pronoun is a bit ridiculous. Formerip (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Please feel free to replace the surname with the correct pronoun, "she", where appropriate. I don't think that that's a matter under dispute. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, sure, we can -- but what about should? And what about the bit that says consensus is required for this sort of edit? I'm frankly pretty surprised at how this is going. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not surprised that you are surprised—the Palgrave source came out of the blue. However, the new source was a game-changer; it was the sword that cut the Gordian knot. As such, any restoration of text based on the new source did not require consensus: at WP:BLP, the section called "Restoring deleted content" tells us that "if [disputed text] is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first". Of course you can see we had "significant change" because of the new Palgrave tertiary source, based on work by scholarly editors led by William Rubinstein. The guideline says that the burden of proof is on the person who restores text. I think I supplied ample proof with the Palgrave book. Please forgive me for not pausing to form consensus. Binksternet (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's certainly something we can ignore if that's what we decide, and having the article repeat her surname over and over rather than use a pronoun is a bit ridiculous. Formerip (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Let's leave the royal princes out of this. Nusbacher chose to teach at Sandhurst, but I'm sure she didn't choose her students. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- And you think her preference to treat the sex change as private is something we can/should ignore?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
A little reading is also a dangerous thing.
So the problem is this:
- The subject, editing as NetNus, disputes almost everything published by British tabloid The Sun in 2007.
- The IBL News source, still being waved around five years later, on 2012-12-31 on the article's talk page even, is — as pointed out by NetNus all of the way back in 2007 — a pun-for-pun translation of the article in The Sun.
- A further source, Rubinstein, Jolles & Rubinstein 2011, p. 727 is cited. "Hooray!", shouts everyone. "We can close up Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynette Nusbacher, stop the BLP Noticeboard discussion, and go home. It's all good, now."
- Unfortunately, no-one apparently reads the new source very closely.
Rubinstein, Jolles & Rubinstein 2011, p. 727 cites its sources, at the foot of the article. They are "JC", which denotes The Jewish Chronicle and "online sources". The datelines of the JC articles are given. Because the JC archives are on the WWW, it's simple to go and look them up.
The article in The Sun says that "it is believed" that the relevant event occurred "in the past few weeks", and is datelined 2007-10-04. The only 2007 article cited by Jolles and the Rubensteins is datelined 2007-10-18. That's available directly from the Chronicle here. It doesn't say anything about medical operations. The latest prior article cited by Jolles and the Rubensteins is datelined 2006-11-10 and is available directly from the Chronicle here. There's a different name, but no mention of medical operations there, either. The Sun says that "it is believed" that there was an operation, which is careful wording, especially in light of the subject's statement that Sun journalists never interviewed anyone who was in a position to actually know.
So where did Jolles and the Rubensteins get their information from? It wasn't "JC", given that we can see that the Chronicle didn't publish any such thing. So it must have been "online sources". This brings us back to the complaint from the subject on this very noticeboard in 2007, where NetNus writes that when entering xyr name into Google Web "the Wikipedia article comes up first, however, even before my official web page at work.". So what are these "online sources" that Jolles and the Rubensteins talk of? If they put Nusbacher's name into Google Web, those "online sources" would have been this Wikipedia article.
So what we have here is exactly what the subject didn't want: A public discussion of a sex change operation that has been reliability-laundered by way of a dictionary of Anglo-Jewish biography that consulted Wikipedia and its masses of on-line mirrors, The Sun, and all of the web logs and discussion fora that repeated the same, for its facts in the first place; where the only source that has come anywhere near actually interviewing people and checking facts was only willing to go as far as saying in print that "it is believed" that this happened.
The simple truth, people, is that the only people who know whether there has been an operation or not are quite determinedly not telling the world, on the fairly reasonable grounds that it's none of the world's business. There is nothing known, here.
Uncle G (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think that's over-egging somewhat. It would be one thing to exclude the information on the grounds of BLP and privacy, but let's not do it by feigning stupidity. Everyone who has looked at the sourcing knows very well whether there was an operation or not (that is, by the ultimate acid-test, the sourcing is reliable and doesn't leave realistic room for doubt). It's certainly not true to say that the Sun article is unsure on the matter - that's just based on ignoring the syntax of the source.
- There is a genuine issue about whether the material should, on balance, be excluded. But that's purely about the degree to which we should protect the privacy of the subject. Formerip (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Pure conjecture. Uncle G concludes that "online sources" means Wikipedia without actually knowing, well, anything at all. He makes that leap purely based on Nusbacher's complaint of Wikipedia being the top search result on Google, but there's no reason at all to believe that Jolle & the Rubinsteins relied on Google. The unfounded assumptions are stacked up at least three deep, and counting.
- Meanwhile...
- "WILLIAM D. RUBENSTEIN is Professor of Modern History at the University of Aberystwyth, UK and a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society."
- "MICHAEL JOLLES is a member of the Council of the Jewish Historical Society of England, and a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society. "
- "HILARY L. RUBENSTEIN is a former Research Fellow in History at the University of Melbourne, Australia. She is a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, and a member of the Council of the Navy Records Society. "
- Meanwhile...
- Uncle G has better than credentials: he has sound reasoning from evidence. That was not pure conjecture on Uncle G's behalf. It was analysis, and Occam's Razor dictates that we're seeing a lazy Wikipedia-based entry in a biographical dictionary. Argument from authority (that the editors of the Palgrave Bumper Book of Jews have titles and therefore haven't lifted their entry from WP) does not do much to argue against Uncle G's analysis. NetNus (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- His "sound reasoning" is anything but; he put blinders on the academics. He applied an artificial constraint of his own device which involves the academics failing to see such online sources as The Sun tabloid revelation from 2007, the 2005 Telegraph birth announcement, Melanie J. Bright's 1997 master's thesis thanking Aryeh Nusbacher, Nusbacher's adoption registry entry, various archived Nusbacher blog pages, the difference between the Sandhurst Nusbacher bio February 2007 for Aryeh Nusbacher and the Sandhurst Nusbacher bio April 2008 for Lynette Nusbacher, someone's blog entry about the comfort provided by a gender change discussion with Lynette Nusbacher, and the Internet Movie Database biography. All of these online sources were published a year or more before the Palgrave book, so they were available to the scholars. Calling the book a "Bumper Book" is needlessly petty; it is a compendium of quick references for people, institutions and events important to British Jewry, nothing more and nothing less. The authors assert in the Introduction that "The aim of this work is to provide a comprehensive reference tool... as well as biographical information about a large number of Jewish achievers and notable figures." The three main scholars are listed along with John Cooper, Stephen W. Massil, Jonathan A. Romain, Edgar A. Samuel, and the Jewish Historical Society of England. This is not some fanciful childrens' book. It is a scholarly reference work. Binksternet (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- Uncle G has better than credentials: he has sound reasoning from evidence. That was not pure conjecture on Uncle G's behalf. It was analysis, and Occam's Razor dictates that we're seeing a lazy Wikipedia-based entry in a biographical dictionary. Argument from authority (that the editors of the Palgrave Bumper Book of Jews have titles and therefore haven't lifted their entry from WP) does not do much to argue against Uncle G's analysis. NetNus (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm also getting a little insulted that the subject of the article as well as that bit from the Palgrave book is under some kind of delusion that because there were previously no Wikipedia ready sources (partially because of the editing of their own website/blog/university profile page) that this somehow means that no one out in the world is qualified to publish the information. Do you know why Wikipedia editors are required to use acceptable sources? Because unlike the writers of the Palgrave book, we're not all qualified historians, researchers, scientists, etc etc. They're allowed to go out and do their own original research, we're not; that's how "sources" that we can use are produced. It is getting extremely insulting, some of the tip-toeing being done on talk pages like editors have to pretend certain things are true/untrue here. Occam's Razor, as you put it, states that we all know perfectly well what is true and that all which is left is to source things to BLP standards. Not whatever claims/views you would personally like to hold true to. Sorry if that all comes off a little harsher than would be desired, NetNus, but you've been coming pretty close to boldface lies (through statement or omission) on the topic. Human.v2.0 (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- I do think that's a bit harsh. My participation post 2007 has largely involved insisting on sourcing rather than contributing autobiography. Where I have added to the article it has been to put something verifiable and, generally, sourced (as my Wiki skills have improved) such as the Pink List material. Where I have remained silent it has been to avoid autobiography. If I were, for instance, to put the reference to Erwin Rommel (on the current version of the page) into context by insisting that the Ritter von Leeb and Heinz Guderian were both more important in my analysis of the German influence on Israeli mechanised doctrine than Rommel it would be accurate, verifiable from my MA thesis, and probably not welcome. As it stands, there is a statement which future compilers of biographical dictionaries may use to exaggerate Rommel's importance in my theories of jazz warfare. It is, perhaps, a Wikiparadox. I am, to some extent, damned if I participate and damned if I don't. NetNus (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- It does not matter to us exactly what sources were evaluated by the scholarly editors of Palgrave. Wikipedia may have been one of them, six issues of Jewish Chronicle were definitely checked, they might have seen the Sun article, they might have looked at Nusbacher's archived blog, they might have seen Nusbacher's 1998 registration with Adoption.com naming his wife, they might have looked at the Pope article Nusbacher wrote for the Society of Creative Anachronism, they might have seen Nusbacher's film review of A Stranger Among Us, they might have seen the paper written by Nusbacher's wife in 1997 where she thanks him for his love and support, they might have looked at various military history discussion groups. Whatever they looked at, they arrived at a firm conclusion. We put our complete trust in such an august body. Binksternet (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- ...and proceed to ignore the privacy issue completely -- or, if that doesn't sound right, decide to ignore the subject's clear wishes. Why, exactly? I don't think anyone favoring inclusion has yet given a reason. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- In fairness, it can also be said that no-one has made a very strong case for excluding it for privacy reasons, and that's really where the burden lies. Formerip (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- The subject's expressed wishes do not amount to a strong case?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, not in themselves. Looking at it as objectively as I can, I think you should not be surprised at not having won many people over just by exclaiming "isn't it obvious". I doubt it will be obvious to everyone. Formerip (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think I've said "It's obvious". I've said, the fact that the subject wishes to treat this information as private is a good reason to treat it as private. *Not* providing a reason to override her wishes is surely the weak case here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, not in themselves. Looking at it as objectively as I can, I think you should not be surprised at not having won many people over just by exclaiming "isn't it obvious". I doubt it will be obvious to everyone. Formerip (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- The subject's expressed wishes do not amount to a strong case?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- In fairness, it can also be said that no-one has made a very strong case for excluding it for privacy reasons, and that's really where the burden lies. Formerip (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- ...and proceed to ignore the privacy issue completely -- or, if that doesn't sound right, decide to ignore the subject's clear wishes. Why, exactly? I don't think anyone favoring inclusion has yet given a reason. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- It does not matter to us exactly what sources were evaluated by the scholarly editors of Palgrave. Wikipedia may have been one of them, six issues of Jewish Chronicle were definitely checked, they might have seen the Sun article, they might have looked at Nusbacher's archived blog, they might have seen Nusbacher's 1998 registration with Adoption.com naming his wife, they might have looked at the Pope article Nusbacher wrote for the Society of Creative Anachronism, they might have seen Nusbacher's film review of A Stranger Among Us, they might have seen the paper written by Nusbacher's wife in 1997 where she thanks him for his love and support, they might have looked at various military history discussion groups. Whatever they looked at, they arrived at a firm conclusion. We put our complete trust in such an august body. Binksternet (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
FormerIP, why are you (by all appearances) so reluctant to give a reason for overriding the subject's wishes? I've asked for a reason several times now, without success. Once again: can you please say why we should do so? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- You're assuming I have made up my mind about it, which I haven't. What I am trying to do is get you (or someone) to articulate their thinking about why it should be removed. I don't think "because it's what the subject wants" is enough on it's own. I do think there are other considerations. For instance, I think WP has a social responsibility to reflect the world reasonably accurately, and there's a tension between that and too readily pretending not to notice things about the world, even though there can sometimes be legitimate reasons for doing so. I would also wonder, in this case, whether there is any secret to be kept. I would guess this is something that the rats under the sink at Sandhurst know about. The subject may wish it were otherwise, but can we really help in any event? Formerip (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- The subject was a publicity-seeking television show expert, a talking head for military history topics. The subject was also a prominent writer of books, articles and essays. The subject allowed interviews by news reporters, specifically for the Jewish Chronicle. This person blogs for Huffington Post. This person is not the shy and retiring type who hides from publicity and shuns the spotlight. This person is not the type who we try to protect from overexposure, following the guideline at WP:HARM. No, we cannot hide our collective heads in the sand and let a biography subject chop off more than half of their illustrious career, and a majority of their biography. Binksternet (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Given Uncle G's work I think its painfully obvious that the august body of researchers used faulty sourcing including the then Wikipedia article. Per WP:RS we need to throw out these sources and likely post to the talk page why each is in turn quoting each other and they are all faulty. Per BLP we need strong sourcing to make exceptional claims. We don't have that sourcing and possibly the article could be deleted again. Insomesia (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- The beliefs as to what "online sources" means is pure speculation. There's no other way to put it. If looking at two variations of the subject's own site constitutes original research, then applying any further definition to "online sources" certainly is.
- The individual's wishes on the matter are also not an overriding factor. While I can see how these changes could be troubling to the individual/user, I can't claim that I do or should care. None of the subjects of wikipedia have a blanket right to dictate the content of their respective articles; this is down to sources. This is even more down to sources when there is clearly something being omitted from the article. Human.v2.0 (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Uncle G's "research" is flawed in that he assumes right from the start that the three Palgrave academics used poor judgement in assessing the online sources in front of them, which Uncle G says must have included only Wikipedia, a ridiculous and artificial limitation. Insomesia's faith in Uncle G's argument is not compelling.
- We place our highest trust in scholarly works, of which the Palgrave biographical dictionary is a fine example, written by three academics including William Rubinstein. There is no reason to "throw out" this very strong source. It is the linchpin for everything else that makes sense in the article. Binksternet (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
RfC
I have started an RfC on this issue -- please see the article talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Jerry Rawlings
Jerry Rawlings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Someone should carefully follow the contributions of Mark Mysoe to the biography of Jerry Rawlings and other articles. He uses Wikipedia to promote ethnic conflict between his Akan tribe and the other tribes of Ghana. This goes to the point that former Ghanaian president Jerry Rawlings is repeatedly called a Togolese, his (now governing) party NDC a "Togolese" party, etcetera. In other articles than biographies he replaces the name "Ghana" by "Akanland" and calls most other inhabitants of Ghana "illegal immigrants". DrMennoWolters (talk) 20:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Happy New Year BLPers, after Dr Menno pulled the alarm bell, I cleaned up the infoboxes and removed the libellous, defamatory cats and then rushed over to ANI to find that JohnCD had indeff blocked this user who was wreaking havoc on anything Ghana related (see bottom of next section).
- I have just attempted to clean the lede and personal life sections of MM's systemic bias, remove all the untruths and slanted terminology, whilst properly reffing the info. Off to deal with real life concerns, would anyone care to continue reviewing this article and pruning it back to a more reasonable, balanced bio? Cheers. CaptainScreebo Parley! 15:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Nana Akufo-Addo
- Nana Akufo-Addo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This biography is about a leading politician of Ghana. A contribution by Mark Mysoe makes him the leader of a fictitious country "Akanland". This is part of a strategy of Mark Mysoe to contribute nonsense about this fantasy-born country to many articles. As this may cause ethnic conflict in Ghana, Wikipedia should prevent him from doing so. DrMennoWolters (talk) 07:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
There does seem to be some issues there - poor sourcing - cites used that do not mention Arkland at all, worthy of investigating imo - Is Arkanland an historic area or a modern reality or what? Youreallycan 13:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Akanland is a name for the southern region of Ghana. The Akan tribe makes up a majority of the population of that area. There seems to be a movement of unknown size within that area for either autonomy or independence. I'm looked through a large subset of User:MarkMysoe's recent contributions; he seems to be on a mission to bring about Akanland's autonomy or independence through the massive editing of Wikipedia articles. A couple of example edits :
- [7] -- breaking at least one URL, and making the University of Education, Winneba into a vanguard of Akanland advancement.
- [8] (two edits) -- removing any reference to Ghana from the article about the city of Bibiani (including the removal of references).
- -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 15:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- I have notified the User:MarkMysoe about this thread on his userpage - Youreallycan 15:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you -- I had assumed that DrMennoWolters had, but as the old saying about "assume" goes... -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. It soon becasme clear this this users contributions are the only thing at issue in regards to the multiple reports about Arkn - has is the creator (in sept 2012) and only contributor to the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Akan - Youreallycan 16:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you -- I had assumed that DrMennoWolters had, but as the old saying about "assume" goes... -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- I have notified the User:MarkMysoe about this thread on his userpage - Youreallycan 15:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)This is a serious problem. It would appear that this report is the tip of the iceberg, and that there is an underlying campaign by Mark to re-write history by slowly converting mentions of Ghana into Akanland.
- This is not the first time I've had trouble with this user. I must admit that I rolled my eyes when I read above about the use of poor sources which do not actually mention the subject - this is a hallmark of Mark's editing. The only other place I've interacted with him was at Kevin-Prince Boateng, which Mark has consistently tried to turn into a fanboy magazine article. There, he has often used simple bio pages which mention Boateng's name as carte blanche to write his own personal pundit-esque commentary about Boateng's playing style. A good example would be the commentary on his playing style in the "International career" section of the article in this edit. When I investigated, most of the claims made in that section turned out not to be in the sources he used. The same is true of this edit, where he adds superficially sourced trivia about Boateng's goal celebrations, which turn out not to be mentioned in the source. Or then there's this edit, which introduces a section on nicknames which is sourced, but when investigated the source doesn't contain any of the claimed nicknames. The list goes on and I could provide more examples.
- This is serious abuse of process. It's difficult to peer into Mark's troubled past because he selectively archives his talk page, blanking criticism entirely in the name of cleaning up the page, whilst keeping a nominal "archive" page to make his talk page history appear continuous. This week, for example, he's removed several requests to stop this Akan nonsense from other editors within hours of them being placed (contrast this with the solitary barn star he's ever received, which has been kept on his talk page like a medal since June). Mark's had trouble with others over these sorts of issues before and, to be completely honest, I really don't think he's doing the project any good. Most of his editing contains serious problems requiring cleanup, if not complete removal. This particular report simply highlights the latest crusade of Mark's, on which he's happy to mislead others and rankly flaunt the rules in order to add his own original research to articles. The worst part is that all of this has been pointed out to him several times before, by a multitude of other editors at various venues, and yet he refuses to get the point. His editing attitude is particularly damaging because he's prolific and does an awful lot of editing in areas which are often poorly watched, and can end up causing a lot of issues before anyone even notices (this is particularly evident in this most recent example). I think the time has come to cut our losses, play damage control and indefinitely block Mark to stop this kind of disruption. If no one can bring themselves to do this, then I think an RfC/U is unavoidable. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 16:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
This substitution of Akanland for Ghana has been going on for some time - I raised it on MM's talk page in September 2012, and I thought I had taken it to ANI but can't find it in the ANI archives. There is also discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Africa#User:_MarkMysoe. PamD 16:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- I've just found the record of my previous attempt to raise this editor's disruptive editing at ANI (1 October 2012): Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive770#POV_editing_re_Akanland_.2F_Ghana_by_User:MarkMysoe. Just in case it's useful in any further discussion. I don't know why my previous archive search didn't find it. PamD 22:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think this needs to go to ANI so cleanup efforts can proceed.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- I wholeheartedly agree. I am out of the house at the moment editing on my phone and so I can't really formulate a proper report at ANI, but I will do it when I'm back. Alternatively, someone else can do it and I'll add my thoughts when I can. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 18:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- About to be done, wholeheartedly scandalized by the f*%ked-up mess this user is making, what's more it's not just trivial fanboy stuff but stuff to set off ethnic rioting - at Jerry Rawlings I have just removed the cats: Togolese mercenaries, Scottish mercenaries, Genocide perpetrators, 20th and 21st century criminals and Military dictatorships. Also fixed some stuff in the info box claiming his religion was Voodoo amongst other things.
- The text is really fucked up though, he has systematically added Togolese, mercenary and Akan (instead of Ghana) wherever x/he can. Post the link to ANI as soon as I'm through, please check the user's contribs to help with the clean-up and weigh-in over at ANI if you have any experience of this "freedom fighter". CaptainScreebo Parley! 19:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Maunus beat me to it while I was partially reverting the Jerry Rawlings bio. For the diuscussion at ANI, click here! CaptainScreebo Parley! 19:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Akanland is a historic country of the Akan people, the Akan people ethnic nationalis agreed to a state treaty with the British, for the Akan people historic country Akanland (see here) to be part of colony and it was named Gold Coast. In 1957, a state union was agreed by the Akan people and Akanland government agreed with and lead by Akan politician Kwame Nkrumah to join their historic country Akanland (now divided as Ashanti, Brong-Ahafo, Central Region, Eastern Region and Western Region) as a state union with the Mossi people historic country known as the Kingdom of Mossi then named to Northern Territories (now named and divided to Northern Region, Upper West Region and Upper East Region) within Ghana (see here) and the Ewe people historic country Togoland then named British Togoland and French Togoland (now known as Togo and Volta Region) within Ghana (see here, here, here and here). These three countries governments (Akanland, Kingdom of Mossi, and Togoland) agreed to a state union in 1957 to create Ghana, and they decided to it after the ancient empire called Ghana Empire. The "Ghana" state union is a example of the state union of Serbia and Montenegro, Montenegro decided to break their state union with Serbia in 2006 with a independence referendum and the country Serbia and Montenegro is now the countries Serbia and Montenegro.
- A further look into the history of the lands and territories that created Ghana by a state union in 1957, before deleting Akan people and their land (Akanland) historic information and really informative information + a hard work of a small Wikiproject Akan, that a person has tried their best to do over four months. What good is Wikipedia if someone has taken a lot of their time and hardwork on a ethnic group and their historic Akan land and historic country (Akanland), Akan culture and Akan WikiProject, that nobody had even bothered to try and do. I have lost my passion for Wikipedia about now. I may just retire myself from Wikipedia since, a large, hardworked and wrightful information about the Akan people lands and Akan territory (Akanland), their Akan economy from their lands and territory (Akanland), their Akan culture and Akan society, Akan biodiversity has all been removed, and even their Akan WikiProject. What good is Wikipedia if somebody wants to find information about the Akan people and their land and historic country (Akanland), where the Akan people lived and currently live (Akanland), the history of the Akan lands (Akanland), their unique and independent Akan educational structure, the Akan people governance and Akan political structure, the Akan people and Akan lands (Akanland) sports history (Akan football history), the Akan people health status and independent Akan people health care, and the Akan people society and culture and social life, has all been removed. A large scope of Akan people history, Akan geography and Akan biodiversity of their land (Akanland), Akan demographics, Akan people health status, Akan peole life expectancy and Akan people health care structure, the Akan people independent educational structure, the Akan people and their land (Akanland) independent economical history, the Akan people land (Akanland) and their historic country (Akanland) infrastructure and transportation systems, the Akan peoples gold, Akan cocoa, Akan natural minerals, and Akan fossil fuels all from their Akan land (Akanland) and historic country (Akanland), the Akan people governance and Akan people political structure of the Akan people and their Akan land (Akanland) and historic country (Akanland), and the Akan people identity and historical anthem music, to just be removed and suppressed from being freely viewed on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is meant to be for freedom of information and where everybody can go to for as much helpful information of topics and subjects. It now looks like in the year 2013 (21st century) this is no longer the case.
- In the Nana Akufo-Addo subject, Nana Akufo-Addo is an Akan and a ethnic national of Akanland and is from Eastern Akanland, for example it is exampled by Olusegun Obasanjo who is a Yoruba and ethnic national of Yorubaland where it can be mentioned that Olusegun Obasanjo is from Yorubaland in the article header. MarkMysoe (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- I have indef-blocked MarkMysoe on the evidence presented here and at WP:ANI#User:MarkMysoe making the Akanland region of Ghana independent overnight. Wikipedia is not the place to re-draw the map of Africa. JohnCD (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
References to post CSS acreer incorrect, mostly untrue and lack balance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.99.141 (talk) 08:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Mohammed Nizamul Huq
I was asked on my talk page to look at the article, and the article looked like a hit piece to me. So I stubbed it[9] I would appreciate input if this was the correct course of action? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- I feel that in the light of [10] which was one of the main sources for the article, Nasim's notability arises from being a Bangladesh Supreme Court Justice who was involved with a major political and judicial scandal. Hence I feel the contents of the article was quite legitimate. I don't think it went out of its way to criticise the subject. It just relayed information that was found in reputable journals like the Washington Post, the Economist, and the Huffington Post. If anyone would like to add other noteworthy information about the judge that has been published in reputable journals, I think they should add to what was already there, and the stub should be reverted to the previous article prior this. Aminul802 (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Ghulam Azam
This is another article which is a bit of a mess, This section[11] was sourced tp this primary source[12] which is hosted on a ICS forums.I removed it per WP:PRIMARY & BLP. Again is this the correct course of action? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
lara baldesarra
Lara Baldesarra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) she is Scottish Canadian, not Italian Canadian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.177.43.76 (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- In this interview cited in the article she says "I`m Italian...". Sean.hoyland - talk 15:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Is the Scottish or Canadian parts sourced? Perhaps put she says she is of Italian ancestory? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Kamal Warsi
- Kamal Warsi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Needs attention. Yworo (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Brahmarshi Subhash Patri
Brahmarshi Subhash Patri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
He is being critisized for his behavior. But the criticism is only from one news channel and that too exactly on 1st jan 2013 the day after the spiritual event(a 10 day event) where the tv 9 news channel recorded details. The man has been working on spiritual movement for more than 15 years . The news doesn't has any proof but gossip, please check the link provided for reference. Unless the stuff is proved and documented in more than one source this needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palurugururaja (talk • contribs) 19:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- I see you have blanked the section - this seems entirely appropriate, given the complete lack of neutrality in the material, lack of proper sourcing etc. I'll keep an eye on the article, and if this material is restored, remove it again as a violation of WP:BLP policy. It may be helpful for other contributors to watchlist it too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm new to wiki. apologies for any mistakes of mine. Please see "http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/State-Human-Rights-Commission-urged-to-take-action-against-godman/articleshow/17864868.cms", "http://www.teluguone.com/news/content/%E0%B0%AA%E0%B0%BF%E0%B0%B0%E0%B0%AE%E0%B0%BF%E0%B0%A1%E0%B1%8D-%E0%B0%AC%E0%B0%BE%E0%B0%AC%E0%B0%BE-%E0%B0%B0%E0%B0%BE%E0%B0%B8%E0%B0%B2%E0%B1%80%E0%B0%B2%E0%B0%B2%E0%B1%81--43-20176.html" imho, This isn't gossip. -Ecenafri
- THe Times of India article seems merely to say that 'a lawyer' has made a complaint to the police. It gives little indication of the substance of the complaint, beyond what looks like gossip regarding Subhash Patri's behaviour with female devotees. Per Wikipedia policy, we'd need better sourcing and evidence of lasting significance before including anything relating to this in the article. Having said that though, the article is in serious need of attention, lacking any third-party sourcing whatsoever for its multiple assertions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- http://www.business-standard.com/generalnews/news/probe-ordered-against-spiritual-society/103461/. I guess, since the incident is new, it will be a while, before things are proven, espl since investigation is quite slow in India.
on a side note, i feel the article itself is poorly written, for being a biography of wiki standards. for instance, "Patriji became enlightened in 1979 ... after some serious experiments with meditation. Since then, Patriji began striving hard to awaken and enlighten each and every individual. " http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVZIGAJMtx4 check the above video. looks like pyramid is being used as a scientologist's E-meter to me. i feel the man's a fraud (but my opinion shouldn't reflect on wiki- i don't think wiki is for opinions..). Cheers, Ecenafri
Jodi Arias trial
Jodi Arias trial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article does not seem to meet any of the speedy criteria, but I am very uncomfortable with it. DGG ( talk ) 03:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Me too. I think you'd have some chance at deletion at AfD via WP:BLPCRIME, but I wouldn't want to put any real money on an outcome. Additionally, it's more typical to frame those articles as "murder of X" rather than "trial of Y" unless Y is really famous. I'm sure you're about eight steps ahead of me on all this, DGG, anything you're thinking might be the next right step (above and beyond extra eyes on it?) --j⚛e deckertalk 03:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't title the article "Murder of Travis Alexander" because it's Jodi Arias who is getting most of the attention. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 09:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Halo, The article should probably be rewritten not to focus on her inconsistent statements, or say they are inconsistent, but just report them. The analogy with the Casey Alexander case seems far-fetched. The quote I see in print is "“This [again] is something that grabs the attention and certainly grabs the imagination of the viewing public" -- which is a pretty weak basis for the analogy. As usual, the article will be easier to handle once the trial concludes. (I agree, btw, that our practice of wording it murder of... is altogether the wrong emphasis unless that is how the even is commonly known). DGG ( talk ) 14:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- DGG, the article is a stub at this point. So it is summarizing the details. Arias having changed her story three times is a substantial part of the details. It's one of the things sources list early on. Maybe the phrasing shouldn't say "Arias changed her alibi three times," since this is obvious from the rest of the information, and especially since "alibi," if defining it only as "[one] was in some other place at the time the alleged offense was committed" (which is the only way it's legally defined), doesn't fit for her third story, but I don't think that it's a WP:BLP issue to mention that she changed her story three times. Even Death of Caylee Anthony mentions that "Casey told various stories." Regarding the Casey Anthony comparison, the videos in the sources in the article say more. Sources, print and video sources, are calling the Arias case "the second Casey Anthony case" or "the Casey Anthony case of 2013" because of what they see as the similarities between Casey Anthony and Jodi Arias and because of the media attention the Arias case is receiving. See this[13] for an example. I wouldn't say that this case is yet as famous as the Casey Anthony case, though. It's obviously not. Maybe you would be willing to help me build this article? Halo Jerk1 (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Halo, The article should probably be rewritten not to focus on her inconsistent statements, or say they are inconsistent, but just report them. The analogy with the Casey Alexander case seems far-fetched. The quote I see in print is "“This [again] is something that grabs the attention and certainly grabs the imagination of the viewing public" -- which is a pretty weak basis for the analogy. As usual, the article will be easier to handle once the trial concludes. (I agree, btw, that our practice of wording it murder of... is altogether the wrong emphasis unless that is how the even is commonly known). DGG ( talk ) 14:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't title the article "Murder of Travis Alexander" because it's Jodi Arias who is getting most of the attention. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 09:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jodi Arias trial ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Youreallycan 14:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Zhou Jun
Zhou Jun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article has been hijacked. It now contains information regarding two different people - an Olympian and an unknown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109j (talk • contribs) 06:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhou Jun ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Youreallycan 09:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Help, need backup, although the page has been PP'ed, some like-minded souls are trying to turn Depardieu into a "French-born Russian" and change the IPA of his name to Russian pronunciation and so on. Ridiculous but repetitive, needs more eyes (nobody doing this has access to a decent source to corroborate this, mind). Appreciated. CaptainScreebo Parley! 18:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks to those who already got over there (Ukexpat, FormerIP, maunus), getting a lot of traffic and I don't think all the hoo-ha will die down too soon so probably worth watchlisting fellow BLPers. CaptainScreebo Parley! 19:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- I've stepped the protection up to full so that discussion and sourcing can take its due course over the next couple of days.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- That was a good move (I proposed a change I was working on to better reflect the sources on the TP), okay so maybe this weekend he'll be riding in a troika (probably safer than his moped), drinking vodka by the gallon and generally freezing his nuts off somewhere in Russia, but this was getting a bit too much, so-and-so said so it must be true, fine, fine, but we're in BLP territory here and you know, as I do, that this shit gets a lot more media attention than before, btw good catch on the Akanian revolutionary, that got sorted, it was well overdue apparently. CaptainScreebo Parley! 20:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- I've stepped the protection up to full so that discussion and sourcing can take its due course over the next couple of days.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
So, instead of actually reading the sources, you come here to ask for people just to "fight off the like-minded souls"...
Here, read this:
"In a letter to Russia’s Channel One television station, Mr. Depardieu confirmed that he applied for Russian citizenship and said he was “happy” the request was granted. (Source: The New York Times - http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/04/world/europe/putin-makes-gerard-depardieu-a-citizen-of-russia.html?hp&_r=1&)"
You should work to make the article better and as close to the truth as possible, not just to enforce your opinion over the others.
-R.Arden (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- You are so full of it, great, a source dated the 4th of January 2013, hey that's tomorrow where I live, but your shitty sources were from the 20/12/2012 and *did not* corroborate the points you were making. You are a huckster a sham and a fraud, and as to your BE BOLD bullshit that you posted elsewhere, well let's just say that edit warring,10-12 reverts in 4 hours reverting vandalism that isn't[14] and generally not assuming good faith are all very Wikipedia:Bold. CaptainScreebo Parley! 21:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Apparently, you don't fully grasp the concept of Time Zones. Perhaps READING the wikipedia article about it would help you.
- And by calling me "full of shit", a huckster a sham and a fraud, you´ve just got yourself extra text to your note on ANI.
- Also, aren't you the one huckstering in this noticeboard? ;) -R.Arden (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- You are so intent on insisting that I read the sources correctly that you incorrectly read you're so full of it as you're so full of shit, although you did correctly read huckster, sham and fraud, unfortunately you didn't grasp the meaning of the first word, "huckster", as a person who takes things of little value and dilutes them down so as to make them appear more voluminous (what could I be referring to?) Your sarcasm about time zones and dictionaries is not lost on me as "Everyone's got to learn sometimes", so I thank you deeply for your profound knowledge and your philanthropy. CaptainScreebo Parley! 21:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, it is basic high school grammar. Particle "it" here reffers to Shit/Shitty. Also, a huckster goes door to door trying to sell something. You coming here to ask for help is equivalent in the sense that you are tryin to sell something too (your side of the story). About the time zones, i was not being sarcastic. Perhaps you really should start reading things and not just writing. -R.Arden (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- You are so intent on insisting that I read the sources correctly that you incorrectly read you're so full of it as you're so full of shit, although you did correctly read huckster, sham and fraud, unfortunately you didn't grasp the meaning of the first word, "huckster", as a person who takes things of little value and dilutes them down so as to make them appear more voluminous (what could I be referring to?) Your sarcasm about time zones and dictionaries is not lost on me as "Everyone's got to learn sometimes", so I thank you deeply for your profound knowledge and your philanthropy. CaptainScreebo Parley! 21:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- I would suggest that you both drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass at least for enough time to cool out. Bus stop (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- "your [R.Arden] shitty sources were from the 20/12/2012 and *did not* corroborate the points you were making": I'm afraid this is true. Please make further inquiry about R.Arden's doubtful methodology. Having read the full story from all the talk pages mentioned, I think this is purely bad faith. If not worse, because all his pleas do not show any self-understanding of his errors. 146.185.28.178 (talk) 08:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Hebephilia
We could use some eyes at hebephilia. There is a blogger who is starting an otherwise unfounded rumor about what some psychiatrists have allegedly said about some psychologists. Specifically, the page says "The AMA board of trustees apparently had to step in due to a small group of psychologists digging their heals in and not accepting the opinions of the wider community of mental health professionals"[15] There is no evidence of the AMA expressing any such opinion, which is sourced solely to a blogger with a long-term POV on the issue [16]. I am of the opinion that bloggers putting words into the mouths of the AMA are inappropriate to include in WP due to WP:BLP, WP:GOSSIP, and WP:BLPGOSSIP. Other input could be used. Thanks.— James Cantor (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Actually -- it's sourced just as MrADHD says it is. Yes, it's a blog, but it's a blog within Psychology Today, and it's written by a professional. I also don't belive it violated BLP as it doesn't mention any names, just describes the event.
KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ... 18:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- How do you reconcile that view with BLPGROUP (and SPS)?
- "A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources." WP:BLPGROUP
- "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." WP:SPS
- The group being talked about (the psychologists on the committee) consists of about three people. And a self-published blog is rarely (if ever) what a policy means by "high-quality sources."
- — James Cantor (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- How do you reconcile that view with BLPGROUP (and SPS)?
how do I reconcile?? Pretty easily...BLP is Biographes of Living People. Once again, no one's name was ever mentioned, so no BLP, second, this blog is on Psychology Today which is a magazine, the blog is part of that magazine and not self published. Psychology Today is a reliable source as well. Again, just my .02 cents.
KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ... 19:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Death of Jill Meagher
Death of Jill Meagher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I have requested the title of this article to changed as the accused has not been convicted of the death of the subject of the article. Just wondering if there was a specific policy or precedent that covers article naming of crimes. Hack (talk) 03:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- I have requested speedy deletion of the redirect created by your move Murder_of_Jill_Meagher - there has as yet been undecided if there has been any murder - so the redirect is still a BLP violation - Youreallycan 10:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- I have declined the delete as I see reliable sources using the term Murder_of_Jill_Meagher, such as ABC news[17] and Herald Sun.[18] G6 is for non-controversial deletions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Mart Laar
Mart Laar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
[19] - disputed addition. Several users, including me, consider it as giving undue weight to relatively trivial event.--Staberinde (talk) 11:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- This is why it stay there - many people think it is relevant. On talkpage it has long thread, I am not going to duplicate it there. It is question of discussions but somehow it always matters, so this is notable. I personally think this is coordinated effort to remove unconvenient stuff and keep only ad-like page which is not NPOV at all. More input on same topic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Mart_Laar Tõnu Samuel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment, when the main advocate of this contentious text, Tonusamuel (talk · contribs), claims there is some kind of "coordinated effort to remove unconvenient stuff and keep only ad-like page", it is a sure sign that a particular POV is being pushed at the expense of WP:BLP policy. 87.208.192.123 (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think I need to explain why I suspect this. This person Mart Laar is famous for few items:
- 1. Deleting inconvenient stuff from internet
- 2. Blaming someone else for this
- 3. Been already caught lying of not doing things he did
- 4. His wikipedia page lists his good things but anything which he may not like, is not just edited but just thrown out in minutes. Anything. Check history how ruble sales got in, how ACTA and Facebook topic, how shooting scandal made way. Read talk pages too. Clearly big effort to remove this data. I just balance this power. From talk page you see lot of people this information is relevant and should stay. They are provide good reasoning. Because there are two sides having different opinion this information should stay in to make sure reader can read it and decide, if this is ethical crime or not. Everyone seems to understand it different.
- 5. Estonian politicians are multiple times caught removing inconvenient data from their wikipedia page. Some of cases are better documented than others. This looks so much like these before it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gerog112 is most famous and clear case but there are multiple more. Tõnu Samuel (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Your belief in conspiracy theories involving Estonian politicians attempting to remove "inconvenient data" is blinding you to the fact that the text you are attempting to add is not only boringly irrelevant but doesn't meet the standard set in WP:BLP. 87.208.192.123 (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- I get paid for making analysis, audit and pentests, my customers include Fortune500 companies and they think my work is good enough for them. I use my real name and my track is verifiable. But you are anonymous making personal attacks "blind" etc. Time to pull back. I given enough sources, more people explained why. All this stuff started because you acted exactly - anonymous with no name and history just vandalized inconvenient things in one person page. You do not work for anything else, just vandalizing one page. Of course I get questions about motivation of this person. Try to help improving pages, different pages instead of vandalizing one. BLP has really nothing to do here as described many times before. Tõnu Samuel (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well clearly if you are a paid Internet professional, then there is a clear conflict of interest when you attempt to insert ACTA issues into Mart Laar's biography. You should exclude yourself from editing that article per WP:COI. 87.208.192.123 (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- I do not have any conflict of interest. Being professional in IT has nothing to do with topic. But I pointed out that there are anonymous users whose intentions are not clear and clearly angled in favor of removing NPOV and turning article into political ad. Please start talking about facts, start from answering question already asked by Jeraphine Gryphon Tõnu Samuel (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but that is completely ridiculous. By your standard, 50% of Wikipedia editors should not be editing the ACTA article or hundreds of other articles. No, there's no "clear" COI here as you suggest, and I think you know that too, you're only trying to pressure Samuel to not edit the article because you disagree with him. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- No it is not completely ridiculous. As you yourself pointed out here, Tõnu Samuel himself was involved in a belligerent conversation on Mart Laar's blog and Facebook page and now he wants to add content about Laar's FB page to his article. COI? Most definitely yes. 87.208.192.123 (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it's evident to everyone that he's politically biased/opinionated when it comes to Laar, but so are you. But you were trying to make a point here that he has a COI when it comes to ACTA (or Internet-related stuff in general, that's what you were implying). Don't try to conflate these things, don't try to say that he has a little COI here and a little COI there and therefore he should not be allowed to edit at all. It doesn't work that way. What was ridiculous is saying that he has a COI in regards to ACTA just because he's some IT guy. Come on. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- No it is not completely ridiculous. As you yourself pointed out here, Tõnu Samuel himself was involved in a belligerent conversation on Mart Laar's blog and Facebook page and now he wants to add content about Laar's FB page to his article. COI? Most definitely yes. 87.208.192.123 (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well clearly if you are a paid Internet professional, then there is a clear conflict of interest when you attempt to insert ACTA issues into Mart Laar's biography. You should exclude yourself from editing that article per WP:COI. 87.208.192.123 (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- I get paid for making analysis, audit and pentests, my customers include Fortune500 companies and they think my work is good enough for them. I use my real name and my track is verifiable. But you are anonymous making personal attacks "blind" etc. Time to pull back. I given enough sources, more people explained why. All this stuff started because you acted exactly - anonymous with no name and history just vandalized inconvenient things in one person page. You do not work for anything else, just vandalizing one page. Of course I get questions about motivation of this person. Try to help improving pages, different pages instead of vandalizing one. BLP has really nothing to do here as described many times before. Tõnu Samuel (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Your belief in conspiracy theories involving Estonian politicians attempting to remove "inconvenient data" is blinding you to the fact that the text you are attempting to add is not only boringly irrelevant but doesn't meet the standard set in WP:BLP. 87.208.192.123 (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I would really like to know which part of WP:BLP applies here. As I explained on the talk page, I think it's actually beneficial for the subject to have that content there, because it explains the incident well. The only relevant part of WP:BLP I can find right now is this: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- It has been explained to you at length on the article talk page. Judging by this bio of Tõnu Samuel, there may well be an WP:ADVOCACY issue here in his attempt to insert a reference to the ACTA issue (which is related to Internet piracy). 87.208.192.123 (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- No, it hasn't been "explained at length". Just because the discussion is lengthy in size doesn't mean you've conclusively proven anything. I've explained my point of view "at length" as well. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- I lost track. What is good/bad about piracy? If you bet I have something to do it, no. I do not understand how your text correlated to topic, please explain. Tõnu Samuel (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Jeraphine Gryphon already revealed your belligerent interaction on Mart Laar's blog and FB page, so your ability to provide a disinterested contribution to Mart Laar's biographical article is legitimately called into question as COI, what don't you understand about that? 87.208.192.123 (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
There is nothing here that violates BLP — Or WP:UNDUE for that matter. The information is written from a neutral point of view, and it's perfectly well sourced. The IP user's argument essentially can be reduced to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I'll remind everyone of WP:3RR at this point, and recommend this be taken to dispute resolution if the offended party feels his/her arguments are not being given appropriate attention. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- WP:BLP states: "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association", the text relies upon tabloid sources that attempt associate removal of FB content with Laar's honesty (and that is the intent when one reads the various talk pages) when in fact it came out later that he wasn't personally responsible for the moderation of FB content and was unaware the content was removed. Given that, this is event borders on trivia. The argument presented for keeping it relies upon eventualism, I.e. just expand the article to address this. Both trivia and eventualism is discouraged by BLP policy. 87.208.192.123 (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Õhtuleht and Delfi_(web_portal) are questionable, but Postimees, ERR, and Eesti Ekspress are not "tabloids", plus there was attention from Toronto Star and The Daily Dot. This is the best-sourced incident in the whole article. I don't see the relevance of "guilt by association". We explain in the article what his excuse was and what he really thought/claimed to think about it all, what we have written is well-balanced and doesn't aim to imply anything about his honesty. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- I understand your concern: the whole thing was a non-event, nothing revealing actually happened, he didn't support censorship, etc, and the only thing that happened was that he chose his words/excuse poorly and people made funny memes about it. But, given the coverage in good sources, this event is notable, and also relevant to Mart Laar as a public figure. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- WP:BLP states: "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association", the text relies upon tabloid sources that attempt associate removal of FB content with Laar's honesty (and that is the intent when one reads the various talk pages) when in fact it came out later that he wasn't personally responsible for the moderation of FB content and was unaware the content was removed. Given that, this is event borders on trivia. The argument presented for keeping it relies upon eventualism, I.e. just expand the article to address this. Both trivia and eventualism is discouraged by BLP policy. 87.208.192.123 (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I also disagree with the removal. This is a crusade by a single anonymous editor, forcing their own POV and trying to exploit the fact that most neutral judges can't read Estonian sources or estimate their relevance easily. That article can certainly be improved, yet not by deleting facts according to someone's whim but by expanding it (e.g., Laar's work as a historian is barely mentioned, without even a short summary his views, there is no explanation for his titles as Year's Press Friend and Enemy, etc). Currently, these two incidents (Facebook and shotgun) are summarized quite shortly and in a neutral manner, so WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE really have nothing to do here. My arguments for their relevance can be seen on the article's talk page. --Oop (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Seems User:Oop was canvassed to make a comment here by Tonusamuel[20]. He also canvassed one other known to be sympathic to his view while neglecting to ask the several other editors who oppose his edits to comment. That's a violation of WP:CANVASS. 87.208.192.123 (talk) 07:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Actually I was seeking ban on you because you attacked me personally multiple times. This "one other known editor" gave you last warning. You bash me be related to piracy, having conflict of interest, being blind, being paranoid etc. I look for ways to stop this. Tõnu Samuel (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- You can't have someone blocked because you don't like what they're doing, and some minor/perceived personal offenses. But if you really think that you have a solid case to make against him, take it to WP:ANI. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Actually I was seeking ban on you because you attacked me personally multiple times. This "one other known editor" gave you last warning. You bash me be related to piracy, having conflict of interest, being blind, being paranoid etc. I look for ways to stop this. Tõnu Samuel (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
There are 2 things here. First: should event be covered. Second: how detailed coverage it deserves. Currently whole ACTA incident description is longer then Laar's work as historian. It also includes whole article's only quote from Laar himself. It may deserve few sentences, but definitely not current very detailed coverage.--Staberinde (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- I agree and this consensus already that other sections should be made longer. He surely have done more that published bunch of books and shot photos from gun. But this is not much BLP topic but just need for more input, not deleting existing stuff. Multiple people seem to work on improving this now and everyone wins. No big problem anymore I think.Tõnu Samuel (talk) 10:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- No, WP:BLP explicitly discourages your approach:
- "The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism – that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times."
- I and other editors also object to inclusion of the shotgun incident due to WP:UNDUE because only one single writer out of dozens of commentators deemed the event notable enough to mention it ten years after the event. 87.208.192.123 (talk) 13:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMart_Laar&diff=531448506&oldid=531447096 Tõnu Samuel (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- No, WP:BLP explicitly discourages your approach:
- The description of the ACTA incident was shorter before, but due to being short it was unbalanced. And I don't think it's too long anyway. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- You are kidding me, the "Media relations" section is now dominated by a lengthy description of ACTA incident, so for all his long career this incident is now presented as the dominant event in his media relations. What aspect of WP:BLP's directive '"The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism – that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times." do you not understand? 87.208.192.123 (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- How is that paragraph not fair, though? Are you saying it makes him look bad? And you're saying now that that particular section should be longer (to justify inclusion of that paragraph). I don't care about the length of that section, the length of the rest of the article is sufficient to justify that paragraph. I "understand" very well what's going on here, don't talk down to me. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well evidently either you do not understand or WP:YOUDIDNTHEARTHAT. So much text has been given to this that it dominates the "Media relations" section that now it appears to be the most important event in his entire career. So while you think the paragraph is balanced the section no longer is. You can not say the solution is to simple expand the section later, WP:BLP does not permit this, the article and its sections must be balanced at all times. 87.208.192.123 (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- And your proposed fix is what? Removing this is also violation of BLP. Emtpy page is best balanced page and your attempts to delete data are not leading anywhere but empty page. Can you please work on ADDing missing, positive events from this page please? Lot of things he maybe did as PM. At moment main problem is long list of books making article look like he is just productive writer. He had been PM twice, so there must be something. Tõnu Samuel (talk) 08:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well evidently either you do not understand or WP:YOUDIDNTHEARTHAT. So much text has been given to this that it dominates the "Media relations" section that now it appears to be the most important event in his entire career. So while you think the paragraph is balanced the section no longer is. You can not say the solution is to simple expand the section later, WP:BLP does not permit this, the article and its sections must be balanced at all times. 87.208.192.123 (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- How is that paragraph not fair, though? Are you saying it makes him look bad? And you're saying now that that particular section should be longer (to justify inclusion of that paragraph). I don't care about the length of that section, the length of the rest of the article is sufficient to justify that paragraph. I "understand" very well what's going on here, don't talk down to me. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- You are kidding me, the "Media relations" section is now dominated by a lengthy description of ACTA incident, so for all his long career this incident is now presented as the dominant event in his media relations. What aspect of WP:BLP's directive '"The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism – that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times." do you not understand? 87.208.192.123 (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me that Tonusamuel and I have reached to solution that is acceptable for both [21], [22]. I don't have further objections about Facebook incident and personally consider issue resolved.--Staberinde (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- You're seriously trying to tell me that this is an improvement? I give up. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Please describe, what is wrong with it? Maybe we missed something important. We still can improve it. Tõnu Samuel (talk) 16:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Issue at Congregation Gemiluth Chassodim
Congregation Gemiluth Chassodim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This got swept up in the Cohen Cruse ruse and thus was noticed when the article was edited make it very clear that the synagogue has fired its rabbi. There's ample documentation that this happened and that termination was under a cloud, but I'm a bit uncomfortable with the way the synagogue (for the article seems to be being edited at their behest) is pushing this. It could use review for undue emphasis on this event. Mangoe (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- (Uninvolved editor opinion). The current version of the page reads as follows: "Thirty-four presidents and 24 rabbis have served the temple. In 2011, Jonathan Cohen was appointed twenty-fourth rabbi of the congregation but served only one year. His contract was not renewed after the congregation discovered that he was never ordained as a rabbi." There has been some back-and-forth on this subject, but I believe that the article as it currently exists passes BLP and UNDUE. Andrew327 00:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Shenandoah (band)
A member of the group Shenandoah (band) has tried to update the page to indicate that a Chris Roach is in the group. He's also tried to contact me via twitter and e-mail, but I haven't heard back. While their Facebook page corroborates this, I can't find any other sources anywhere that corroborate it — the band's website is just a "coming soon" page that links to their Facebook and a tour schedule. And the band is so low on the radar now that finding any info on them at all is really a Herculean task. What would be the appropriate action to verify the current membership? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Weak support of inclusion. I could see an argument being made either way but I would personally be OK with Mr. Roach being included. Per WP:ABOUTSELF, you are allowed to use social media and other self published sources for certain non-controversial content. Andrew327 00:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Caste, yet again
Can I draw the attention of contributors to a discussion I have initiated at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Is labelling individuals by caste a violation of privacy, per WP:BLP, and if so should we make this explicit?? I would welcome the input of all interested contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Liza Minelli
Talks about being in a polygamous relationship and looking to start a reality TV show about it. This is not true and unsupported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.182.76 (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, that was some mischievous vandalism, which I've now removed. Thanks for alerting us. HiLo48 (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Potentially libellous statement
An IP added this statement to Talk:Kaley Cuoco. I removed it per WP:BLPREMOVE but two editors have restored it now.[23][24] I've warned both of them but...... --AussieLegend (✉) 17:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- The information that User:AussieLegend remove on the ground that it may be "potentially libelous" is only "potentially libelous" because it is not referenced. There is no referencing requirement in a talk page, and therefore, his/her removal of the comment is out of line with the policy of WP:TPO. User:AussieLegend keeps referring to WP:BLPREMOVE which does not seem to apply to talk pages. However whatever (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- The allegation posted on the talk page violates WP:BLP policy - read it: "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages". This is core Wikipedia policy, and all contributors should be aware of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons applies also to article talk and even user talk pages. Therefore the removal of this bit was entirely justified. Please do not restore it unless you find a reliable reference. De728631 (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
My apologies. I did not see the "including talk pages" in the WP:BLP page. While I would have felt comfortable removing defamatory information from a talk page (and I do not think that this is defamatory) I did not think that rigorous referencing is required in talk pages. Makes discussions a little tough.
What can I say, Wikipedia is definitely getting very bureaucratic. See [25]. However whatever (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that prohibiting the posting of potentially-libellous statements on a publicly accessible web page is 'bureaucratic'. Anyway, it is policy... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- I looked at other contributions that the IP made, and indeed some are defamatory and should have been removed. This one, is not really defamatory. However whatever (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- The purpose of the talk page is to improve the article. In this specific case, the IP gave an opinion about how he/she thinks an actress got her role. I wouldn't think that the IP would need to give references as to why his argument is valid, but "it is policy" to remove this opinion (and the overburdening policy is a bureaucracy). However whatever (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- The claim is most definitely defamation. It wasn't just an opinion, it was a direct allegation. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- @However, this is not an example of an "overburdening policy" or a project that is unduly bureaucratic. This is an example of a scurrilous allegation by another editor with nothing to back it up. It clearly violates well-founded policy, and if you don't understand that, you shouldn't be editing BLP articles or their talk pages. There may be examples of bureaucracy at Wikipedia, but this ain't one of 'em. Choose your battles more carefully.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- The purpose of the talk page is to improve the article. In this specific case, the IP gave an opinion about how he/she thinks an actress got her role. I wouldn't think that the IP would need to give references as to why his argument is valid, but "it is policy" to remove this opinion (and the overburdening policy is a bureaucracy). However whatever (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- I looked at other contributions that the IP made, and indeed some are defamatory and should have been removed. This one, is not really defamatory. However whatever (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I fully agree that there is nothing to back it up, but the burden to back up claims should not be placed in talk pages. Perhaps that comment could inspire someone to bring up a more concrete argument. I see nothing defamatory in that comment. However whatever (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Then you're not seeing hard enough. The term "casting couch" indicates a porn genre and suggests that the subject was gullible to the point of being willing to have sex in return for getting a movie role; it thus also suggests that she didn't get the role on her own (acting/talent) merits. This is not the sort of thing to say without a source for it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- I guess I'm naive. I did not know the porn connection. However whatever (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- I dunno. I disagree with Nomosk on the point about the "porn genre" (see Casting couch). Not to belabor this, but even without the porn issue, why would saying that someone got a part only because they agreed to have sex with the hirer not be defamatory (I agree with everything else Nomosk said)? Doesn't even fall into a gray area, at least not for me.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- why would saying that someone got a part only because they agreed to have sex with the hirer not be defamatory? It is defamatory. I did not fully understand the term. I thought it had a different meaning. However whatever (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- I dunno. I disagree with Nomosk on the point about the "porn genre" (see Casting couch). Not to belabor this, but even without the porn issue, why would saying that someone got a part only because they agreed to have sex with the hirer not be defamatory (I agree with everything else Nomosk said)? Doesn't even fall into a gray area, at least not for me.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- I guess I'm naive. I did not know the porn connection. However whatever (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Joe Schlesinger
Joe Schlesinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article is being edited by a new editor supposedly on behalf of the subject. I've reverted the edits twice. I've left a welcome/conflict message on the editor's talk page. That doesn't appear to be working. More eyes would help.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm guessing Mr. Schlesinger and his proxy weren't happy about two unsourced paraphrases of his speeches, one of which sounded very pranky to me. Took them out. The Interior (Talk) 19:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Diane Zamora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I have cut this BLP of a convicted murderer to a very short stub, because it was a complete mess of unsourced NPOV statements. What little was sourced needed to be completely rewritten for it to be neutral. It included prisoner numbers and incarceration locations added by an admin from primary sources. If anyone has an interest in rewriting it, they are welcome to do so, but deletion under WP:BLP1E seems a much better way to go. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- It seems that everything can be referenced to her dateline interview. However whatever (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- That's a breathtaking assertion - everything? And to an interview of the subject? The article was fairly extensive, and as DC states, almost completely unsourced, and much of reads like a dime-store novel.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think it's a matter of using an axe where a delicate knife would be more appropriate. The entire story is also in the Court TV archive which is also linked through the article. However whatever (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- First, you essentially restored the entire garbagy article, adding the interview in as a ref. I reverted you. Then, you restored just the section about the interview. So, now we have a perfunctory lead with the only body being the interview. The article is no longer garbagy; it's completely unbalanced. I'll let other editors weigh in here and on the article rather than battling with you.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Call it Work in progress. The majority of the article needs to be restored. I'm just going to do this one section at a time. However whatever (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- First, you essentially restored the entire garbagy article, adding the interview in as a ref. I reverted you. Then, you restored just the section about the interview. So, now we have a perfunctory lead with the only body being the interview. The article is no longer garbagy; it's completely unbalanced. I'll let other editors weigh in here and on the article rather than battling with you.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think it's a matter of using an axe where a delicate knife would be more appropriate. The entire story is also in the Court TV archive which is also linked through the article. However whatever (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- That's a breathtaking assertion - everything? And to an interview of the subject? The article was fairly extensive, and as DC states, almost completely unsourced, and much of reads like a dime-store novel.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
After giving this a little thought, I cannot see this as anything other than a clear case of BLP1E, so I have nominated it for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane Zamora (2nd nomination). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Alan E. Kazdin
Alan E. Kazdin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Phony and potentially libelous attribution to subject's field of study at Yale in first sentence. I don't understand how to fix this so am submitting it for a more experienced contributor to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.143.202 (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- It was just vandalism. Reverted. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Anna Anka
User Sweden2013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been removing information from Anna Anka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (BLP), claiming that she is the subject of the article, and that the information in the "Newsmill article" section is incorrect and/or misleading. Whether she is or not Anna Anka, it would be good for an editor who speaks Swedish to double-check the sources (and there are a few) backing up that particular section and its claims. I left a message in the user's talk page, inviting her to discuss her (?) concerns in the article's talk page. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Samer Tariq Issawi
Samer Tariq Issawi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Claims of an arrest, hunger strike, sourced to activist (?) rather than reliable third-party sources or unsourced. I need to run for a while, other eyes and article paring knives (as appropriate) appreciated. --j⚛e deckertalk 15:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
2012 Delhi gang rape case - page moved/renamed to include victim name
Hi folks, some thoughtful eyes are needed rapidly on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Delhi_gang_rape_case&redirect=no ... the name of the victim has previously been withheld, with conflicting reports on whether the family wants it released or not. The page has just been moved (renamed) to include in the title the alleged name of the (recently deceased) victim; it's worth checking whether this is either accurate and/or advisable. (The BBC seem to be holding back on releasing it, at least). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- Reported in today's BBC News article "The victim's father has denied weekend reports in a British newspaper that he wanted his daughter's name published. He told BBC Hindi last week that he would have no problem with her name being used on a new law against rape." (my emphasis) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- Page moved back (to old title) by User:Salvio giuliano. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- And moved back again by User:Abhinavname, who I think is now move-warring as they moved it earlier today as well. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)