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:
| ||
Heinz Nawratil (again)
I am re-posting this request for comment relating to Heinz Nawratil in the Expulsion of Germans - last time it was here [1] but it didn't manage to attract much attention. Now the page has been protected pending the resolution of the BLP issue.
There are two questions here. 1) Can Nawratil be described as "extreme right wing author" (or "nationalist") and 2) can it be mentioned that he has written articles for the Holocaust denial/revisionist Journal of Historical Review, published by the Institute for Historical Review (which has been described as a "an antisemitic "pseudo-scholarly body" with links to neo-Nazi organizations").
Sources
Ingo Haar and Martin Broszat
The "extreme right wing" is sourced to an article by Ingo Haar, a respected German historian. Haar in turn is relying on Martin Broszat, one of the most well known and prominent German historians of the post war period. The article is in Polish (though the author is German) and I have provided the relevant translation at the talk page. The source itself is here: [2] (pdf). The claim has been made that this is only an "indirect connection" and not enough for a BLP statement.
Writing for Holocaust denial journal
One of Nawratil's articles for the Journal of Historical Review is here [3]. In the article Nawratil refers to the Holocaust as "the Bundesrepublik's regnant taboo, the extermination myth" (this should probably be enough to call Nawratil a Holocaust denier)
So far the only outside comment has stated that this is enough to source the claim and not violate BLP.
I would very much appreciate it if further outside editors could take a look at the provided links and sources and comment on the articles' talk page or here.radek (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see a BLP problem. Sourcing being in other languages is not a problem under WP:V. The sourcing is clear and sufficient. The matter is also relevant to the subject at hand. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Nawratil is misquoted above, the "quotes" from the Journal of Hist. Rev. are taken from the (italicized) introduction clearly not written by Nawratil, as the intro is referring to him as a third person. Further, I don't either see a problem with the language of the source, my problem is that if Nawratil is a neo_nazi, then many sources should say so, not just one. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Still, he is writing for the major Holocaust denial journal/institute and praising a Holocaust denier. And we're not writing that he is a neo-nazi, rather that he is associated with the extreme right, which he obviously is, as the sources show.radek (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Additionally, I'd like to note that we are not putting in the article that Nawratil is a 'neo-nazi' - since the sources don't say that. What is proposed that in the article he is referred to as 'associated with the extreme right' and a 'nationalist' - which the sources DO say, and that he writes for a Holocaust-denying journal - which he clearly does.radek (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, the German "nationalist extreme far-right" is exactly what is colloquially referred to as (neo-)Nazis. I agree that in the far-right there are people believing in all kinds of fringe stuff, not only the verbatim Nazi ideologies. Yet, at least in German media, "far-right"/"extreme-right" etc and "neo-Nazi" are redundant terms. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes but we are not proposing to put anything about the colloquial use of the word "neo-Nazi" in the article - we are proposing to put in the article that he is a associated with the extreme right, a nationalist, and a revisionist who writes for Holocaust denial journals which is what the sources say - readers can draw their own conclusion as to whether this makes him a neo-Nazi or not.radek (talk) 11:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
h-net.org/reviews
Here is another source which clearly takes a similar view of his writings [4]: By far the most cited secondary source for the DVD-ROM's "background" passages is Heinz Nawratil's Schwarzbuch der Vertreibung 1945 bis 1948, first published in 1982 and re-issued almost annually ever since. It is an unabashedly partisan catalog of German victimization. An excerpt titled "Prelude to Expulsion," for example, placed in the midst of video clips about the fall of Breslau, provides an account of German-Polish relations from 1918 through 1939 that consists exclusively of Polish mistreatment of Germans. The bibliography provided by the DVD-ROM is taken directly from the (then) most recent addition of Nawratil's Schwarzbuch. It includes quite a few publications by the National Socialist regime but none published in eastern Europe, either before or after 1989. Read as a text document, in other words, Die Grosse Flucht is jarringly dated and one-sided, a kind of time capsule of the rhetoric of the Bund der Vertriebenen circa 1955radek (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- The source is a review of a Guido Knopp documentary that used one of Nawratil's books as a source. The reviewer says that this book is an "unabashedly partisan catalog of German victimization", not that Nawratil is far-right. That Knopp used Nawratil as a source indicates that Knopp consideres him reliable. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes it is a review of Knopp's. But it says that Nawratil's book includes quite a few publications by the National Socialist regime'.11:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
gew-huf-kassel.de and Grabert website
My German's next to non existent but thanks to the wonders of technology and babel fish a few relevant German language sources can be added here. For example this [5]. As far as I can make out on page 35 it states that Heinz Nawratil published together with Jorg Haider (who, according to Wiki's own article was known "for comments that were widely condemned as praising Nazi policies or as xenophobic or anti-Semitic") and Gerhard Frey ("politician and chairman of the far-right party Deutsche Volksunion, which he founded in 1971") through a publishing house of Grabert (here's google translation of German wiki on what is "one of the largest and most well-known extreme right-wing publishing houses in the Federal Republic of Germany" [6] and which as it happens, also launched the career of David Hoggan who's the guy who brought Holocaust denial to America) and which is described as a "central organ for revisionists" (i.e. Holocaust deniers) and something of a platform for writers of the "spectrum from radical right to neo-fascist". That last part I could use some help with if we have anyone who's fluent in German, but it's pretty clear what the gist is.
- Not a RS: The source is an anti-fashist subgroup of a student organization. --> SPS not to be used as RS regarding 3rd persons. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, the website of Grabert publishing house (the major publisher of Holocaust denial in US and similar materials in Germany, see above) confirms the fact that Nawratil, Jorg Heider and Gerhard Frey all published from it in the same volume, together with the ALFRED Schickel we keep running into here (the guy who called the Holocaust "the extermination myth"): The Genocide of the Germans with foreward by Jorg Haider, chapters by Nawratil, Alfred Schickel, Gerhard Frey and Rolf-Josef Eibicht (according to German wiki an author from the extreme right wing spectrum. I'm sure other names on that list have some nice pedigrees as well.radek (talk) 11:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
imi-online.de
Since I'm doing this through online translators it's slow going but there's also this [7] (crappy google translation here [8] - but you can copy paste relevant passages into babel fish) - on page 18 it says (translated through Babelfish) apparently that Nawratil used to belong to the Wiking-Jugend ("a German Neo-Nazi organization modelled after the Hitlerjugend") and is listed among "the names of constituted right-wing extremists".
If anyone fluent in German wishes to provide more exact translation, I'd very much welcome it, but I think it's pretty obvious that if anything, the description that is being considered in the article text UNDERSTATES the degree of this guy's involvement with the extreme right.radek (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- the IMI source (an NGO) counts Nawratil as a "known right-wing extremist", and says he was an official in the Wiking-Jugend. Rd232 talk 16:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Right. Does the other one say that he wrote articles with Jorg Haider for a Holocaust denying publisher?radek (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- The other source [9] says Nawratil published with Haider and Frey in the "50 years of expulsions" book published by the Grabert Verlag. It adds that Grabert Verlag published "Deutschland in Geschichte und Gegenwart", which the source describes as the "central organ" (sometimes trans "mouthpiece") of revisionism in Germany. The document gives as a source for these claims the Handbuch deutscher Rechtsextremismus, p412. Note that the book "50 years of expulsions" [10] is a collection of work by different authors, so Nawaratil didn't collaborate with Haider and Frey, only publish in the same collection. Rd232 talk 11:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Right. Does the other one say that he wrote articles with Jorg Haider for a Holocaust denying publisher?radek (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Not a RS: The source is an organization dedicated to unveal the "creeping militarization of Germany" (self-identification at http://www.imi-online.de/). --> SPS not to be used as RS regarding 3rd persons. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Again, the fact that this is an NGO does not disqualify it from being a RS. Please note that the source does not engage in any hyperbolic claims, merely notes that Nawratil used to be in Wiking-Jugend.radek (talk) 11:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
apabiz.de and Nawratil's publisher
- Oh, and here's another one. Apparently Nawratil works for Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle Ingolstadt as can be seen on this website: [11]. The ZFI is, according to Wiki, "a historical revisionist association", which of course means Holocaust denial and it "is regarded as one of the intellectual centers of far right historical revisionism in Germany. On conferences and meetings, Nazism is presented systematically as innocent, and the German guilt for the Second World War is denied". And out of the three functionaries of the association the other one is no other than the Dr. Alfred Schickel that we've met above, the same guy who talks about the "extermination myth" and whom Nawratil praises in the pages of the IHR journal. Again, someone fluent in German may wish to provide of the organization's mission statement as found under "Aktivitäten" on their website.radek (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- In a nutshell the website says that the ZFI is a right wing think tank dedicated to the trivialization of Nazi war crimes. They also research war crimes against the Germans in the expulsions. I am busy now, let me check this out on the German internet later today--Woogie10w (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- This link is informative, the ZFI is apparently mainstream in Bavaria, kein wunder!! A SPD delegate in Bavaria, a stronghold of the CSU, is questioning why the ZFI is not being sanctioned by the government. He questions why government officials sent greetings to the ZFI [13]--Woogie10w (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Not a RS: The source is a self-identifying anti-fashist information center. --> SPS not to be used as RS regarding 3rd persons. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm starting to get a feeling that any source I provided will be called not RS. Again, there's no extreme claims made here, just that Nawratil works for ZFI.radek (talk) 11:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
And again, it turns out that Nawratil's own book was published by ZFI ("one of the intellectual centers of far right historical revisionism in Germany"): [14], so he's clearly associated with them.radek (talk) 11:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Redrawing nations
This source clearly states Nawratil has produced "nationalist writings": Redrawing nations: ethnic cleansing in East-Central Europe, 1944-1948, by Phillip and Siljak.radek (talk) 11:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Expelling the Germans
This source clearly states that Nawratil is a "revisionist", which of course means here what it usually does: Expelling the Germans: British opinion and post-1945 population transfer in context, by Matthew James Frank.radek (talk) 11:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Extreme right wing fraternity
According to its own web page Nawratil is listed as an associate of the student organization which German wikipedia describes [15] as "often associated with the extreme right spectrum": [16].radek (talk) 11:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- He's listed as a speaker, not an "associate". That's an informal form of association, I guess, but not a formal one. Rd232 talk 11:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment
(There are so many minor headings here that I can't leave a comment without adding a new one.) "Extreme right wing" may well be an accurate description, but I don't think there is anything close to a consensus in German society to call him that. Otherwise it would be reflected somehow in a German Google News search or the German Wikipedia. (He complained about his biography there, but his complaints were very minor compared to calling him an extremist.)
I believe there is a general consensus in German society to be antifascist in principle although not necessarily in practice, and not to talk too much about it. And there is a similar general consensus to be anti-Vertreibung (i.e. expulsion [of Germans from formerly German areas after WW2]) in principle although not necessarily in practice, and not to talk too much about it. The media observe this quite carefully, especially the part about not talking too much – presumably because they would lose a part of their audience otherwise. As a result there is a large political spectrum of opinions which somehow form part of this "consensus", in spite of any contradictions. People at either end only begin to be seen as extremists if they start doing something or at least come with specific demands.
Nawratil may well be operating right at the border between respectability and just representing this "consensus", and being a right-wing extremist. If this is the case, then talking about it involves breaking the taboo, i.e. organisations that talk about it are automatically considered left-wing extremists. In this case the sources seem to be things like an AStA (official students representation of a university, traditionally ranging from mildly socialist to sending money to revolutionary groups, now sometimes being taken over by right-wing extremists; this is all related to extremely low voter turnout) and a peace group.
All of this doesn't answer the question what to do here, but perhaps it gives some perspective. Scholarly sources or sources from outside Germany might help to get a more neutral view. Hans Adler 12:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! For the purposes of this discussion it's of course not necessary that a consensus in German society exist that he is an extremist - just that there are reliable sources that call him that. I want to note that we do have German reliable sources - Martin Broszat - that refer to him specifically in that way, as well as non German ones, we also have evidence based on his own writing for JHR and ZFI and we have the sources cited to the student organizations and NGOs which document further links (some of which have been independently confirmed here). I think for calling him an extremist we have more than enough.radek (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ok. It looks to me like there's clearly enough sourcing to label him a right-wing extremist. I don't know if there is enough sourcing at this point to label him a holocaust denier. It may make more sense for now to just quote him directly. JoshuaZ (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment: This discussion should be moved to the article talk page, or at least to an archive of it. There's too much info here, I think, to let vanish into the BLPN archives. Rd232 talk 12:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Is it ok if I just copy and paste all but this comment and your suggestion?radek (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Not really a BLP issue
This is not a BLP issue. What we have is a controversial topic, Expulsion of Germans after World War II, where one would have to expect that at least some literature is written from a partisan poin-of-view. We have one author (Heinz Nawratil) who has written about the topic; if this author has a partisan view, this is directly relevant for the article. Disputes over this should be directed to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, however, I think, the case is clear. If h-net describes a work of Heinz Nawratil as "an unabashedly partisan catalog of German victimization" H-Net Review, and other source say something similar, then the article has to make clear that Nawratil has a partisan view, everything else would violate wp:NPOV.
Just as illustration: A BLP issue would be a case of an article on a person notable for something a-political, say an actor or athlete. If this person had been, in his youth, a member of a far-right group (Viking Youth or whatever), then we would have to discuss whether this belongs into that person's article. But here we have a case of someone who has written a non-fiction work. If every time we have to discuss the reliability of a source and the due weight that it deserves someone would make a BLP issue out of that, this noticeboard would be stuffed. Not that is isn't anyway, but we would have even more cases here. Zara1709 (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
This whole discussion looks like a BLP violation and an attack on a living person. It is not acceptable to label Nawratil as "right-wing extremist" because he writes about crimes of the Red Army. I would suspect the motif for such labelling would be communist symphaties on the part of the person who is labelling. Nawratil writes about crimes against German, which have been substantial, much like Daniel Goldhagen writes about crimes against Jews, each from their perspective (i.e. the perspective of the offended party, Nawratil himself being a victim of ethnic cleansing). If Nawratil, an established legal author and scholar in Germany, is an extremist, then Goldhagen is too. There's nothing wrong with having a partisan view, it's actually quite common about people who write about crimes against other peoples. Applying a special rule for people who write about crimes against Germans is racist and POV. UweBayern (talk) 13:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Michael_O'Malley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A prominent person my my industry came to me about the lack of wiki page on myself, and offered to put it together. I agreed, edited it, and posted it. If this is not acceptable can you please let me know the right way to go about it. //
"Michael O'Malley"
Jan Slota
Hello All. I removed a few images that linked Slota to a Neo-Nazi organization. Although he does tend to put his foot in his mouth and is not the best loved of Slovak politicians, he should not be linked to Nazism unless there is direct proof of his involvement with such a group. thanks User:Petethebeat
Magic Johnson (living person article)
I thought someone should know and edit the Magic Johnson article because it calls him a 'nigger' ("Magic Johnson is a retired American nigger" goes the starting line). Also it was on the homepage and hotlisted for today, 14 August Eastern Standard Time) as a feature article.
Thanks
See this. I have asked the subject in the past to submit all problems to OTRS, rather than publish private information on the talk page. This, in my view, is kind of difficult for editors, because we have to make the edits favoring the subject of the article with little or no reliable sources available. I have made some changes, but was wondering if someone else could make some changes. By the way, this is a difficult BLP article. In the past, we had to change her picture because the subject of the article did not like the picture at the time portraying her (off topic: Personally, I did not find anything wrong with the picture). The article is currently semi-protected, but has had protection problems in the past. miranda 05:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'll take a look at this now. –Whitehorse1 09:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- I made some changes when this was posted, and managed to take another look today. (Incidentally, the current picture works better in my view.) I've cleaned up the article to bring it within BLP policy. While I don't doubt that there is room for further improvement, I believe this incident is resolved. –Whitehorse1 22:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Why the lucky stiff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The alleged real name of the subject of this article was recently revealed on an anonymous website, evidently forcing the individual to vanish from the Internet. The article is protected until tomorrow, but editors have been mentioning the name and linking to the site on the talkpage. I've removed the name per BLP, to complaints of censorship. I'm asking here for eyes and to find out what the community norms are for what may and may not be discussed under these circumstances. Thanks in advance for any input. Skomorokh 15:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- You're pretty clearly right in this case; while his name might not be "negative or controversial information", all information about a living person needs to be reliably sourced. Once it can be reliably sourced, if that happens, then it would make sense to include the name in the article. Nathan T 15:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- The name should definitely be removed from the talk page too. Personally, I feel it may be better to discuss it a bit more before removing it to avoid too much drama but if you want to remove it now, I know and I suspect others will support youNil Einne (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's has been further discussed, and most people point out that the supposed real name should not be displayed. That said, Rubyinside mentions the supposed real name (see my comment below). --139.165.38.30 (talk) 13:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- The name should definitely be removed from the talk page too. Personally, I feel it may be better to discuss it a bit more before removing it to avoid too much drama but if you want to remove it now, I know and I suspect others will support youNil Einne (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to know if these sources could be considered RS. I'm almost sure the first one is, but I have more doubts regarding the second, which BTW mentions the supposed name and potential relation between it's publication and _why's disappearance, precising that they don't really buy the scenario. You can easilly make the connection by yourself by doing some OR, though, and there's an addendum to the last article pointing to an album on CDBaby where JG sings and play the guitar. So the article isn't very consistent.
- http://www.h-online.com/open/why-the-lucky-stiff-Vanishes--/news/114042
- http://www.rubyinside.com/why-the-lucky-stiff-is-missing-2278.html
- http://www.rubyinside.com/why-the-lucky-stiff-links-2333.html
--139.165.38.30 (talk) 13:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
The Pocket Man
The Pocket Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – The police claim they have the The Pocket Man, and two of Norway's biggest newspapers (Verdens gang and Bergens Tidende) have published the name of the Suspect. Today it was written into the article (diff 309605828), reverted (diff) on grounds Premature identification, and again reinserted (diff). See also this diff. What is the policy on this kind of matter? For the moment the administrators handling the no-wiki article has removed any link to the name. Nsaa (talk) 16:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- There are three articles in VG (Usually described as one of the three largest newspapers in Norway) and one in Bergens Tidende (Usually described as a "regionavis", that is a medium sized newspaper for a local area). Note that the name is not used in the main editorial archive for newspapers in Norway (Atekst). Jeblad (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- The user User:Ola-Tore has been blocked on the no-wiki, see no:Brukerdiskusjon:Ola-Tore. Nsaa (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Bergens Tidende is the fourth largest newspaper of Norway and not a local newspaper (it's more of a regional newspaper for Western Norway with a national impact, much like Aftenposten is the leading newspaper in Eastern Norway). Verdens Gang is the largest newspaper of Norway, not merely "one of the" largest. Ola-Tore (talk) 17:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- You did more than 'merely suggest', you named. The possibly only reason you did not edit the norwegian article, is that is has been locked for editing by others than administrators. Why is this of utmost importance to you, to out someone before the case has been tried? It feels as if you are trying to judge the alledged perpetrator through an encyclopaedia. Are you? Noorse (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- If he was named in some of the quotes, so what? I cited articles in Verdens Gang and Bergens Tidende and suggested the information from those articles should be included. Why is it of utmost importance to you to hide his identity when his identity is already made public and known to everyone in Norway, when it has already been on the front page of Norway's largest newspaper? Why did not Josef Fritzl or other similar people get the same treatment? Please read this article[17] where Bernt Olufsen, Editor-in-Chief of Verdens Gang, explains why the public should know his identity. Ola-Tore (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- You did more than 'merely suggest', you named. The possibly only reason you did not edit the norwegian article, is that is has been locked for editing by others than administrators. Why is this of utmost importance to you, to out someone before the case has been tried? It feels as if you are trying to judge the alledged perpetrator through an encyclopaedia. Are you? Noorse (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Admittedly, I'm having to rely on Google Translate to try to understand the situation on no.wikipedia.org and how it might relate to the article here, The Pocket Man. It appears as though Norwegian tradition (or law?) does not allow the name of (certain?) accused criminals to be published until they are convicted? As has been pointed out on the talk page for the article, that is not the case under the laws where en.wikipedia.org servers are housed, and it is not against our policy so long as those sources cited are reliable, and if we are naming a living person, high quality. It does appear as though multiple Norwegian media outlets have now published the individual's name, so as long as that's sourced appropriately, I'm not sure that there's any further issue at this point. user:J aka justen (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- "Where en.wikipedia.org servers are housed" is intersting in Norway, but not more than that, each service avialable must make sure on an individual basis that the information is in fact valid and legal if the information has effect in Norway. At no.wp we try to make sure we don't push the envelope when it comes to identification of individuals, as there is a few options in local law to in fact publish legally. A few people tend to believe that we should publish anything that someone at any point in time has heard from someone aomewhere, including but not limited to someone that may have heard it from an alien or a dog during a drug trip. In this case a lot of newspapers has chosen not to publish the name because it is highly questionable that it can be defended both in court and in the press own no:Pressens Faglige Utvalg. It is in this context interesting that the english version chose to publish the name, but as this effectively bars any from Norway to influence the position it is not any longer any of the involved and concerned persons from Norways responisbillity to handle the case. Jeblad (talk) 05:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Jeblad, this is not your no-wp playground, can you please stay on topic? The problem here is not aliens, drunks or drug addiction, but that an individual human-being has been named by two or three newspapers, before proven guilty or not. AndersL (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Besides, although I rather would like that the name of the suspected person is not revealed before after an eventual trial, neither here on en-wp or on the no and nn wikies, I cannot see why Jeblad thinks the norwegian wikies would be responsible if the en does reveal the name...? If the French or Chinese for some odd reason starts an article on the pocketman, would no be responsible for the text there aswell? AndersL (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- "Where en.wikipedia.org servers are housed" is intersting in Norway, but not more than that, each service avialable must make sure on an individual basis that the information is in fact valid and legal if the information has effect in Norway. At no.wp we try to make sure we don't push the envelope when it comes to identification of individuals, as there is a few options in local law to in fact publish legally. A few people tend to believe that we should publish anything that someone at any point in time has heard from someone aomewhere, including but not limited to someone that may have heard it from an alien or a dog during a drug trip. In this case a lot of newspapers has chosen not to publish the name because it is highly questionable that it can be defended both in court and in the press own no:Pressens Faglige Utvalg. It is in this context interesting that the english version chose to publish the name, but as this effectively bars any from Norway to influence the position it is not any longer any of the involved and concerned persons from Norways responisbillity to handle the case. Jeblad (talk) 05:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, he's been named (and prominently so) by most of the Norwegian press (three out of four of the largest newspapers, among others, see the article's talk page). The issue here really isn't whether he has been convicted - Josef Fritzl was named in dozens of Wikipedia languages almost immediately after his arrest. The issue is whether the information can be proved and whether the scale of the crimes justifies naming the suspect (Bernt Olufsen argues it does because of the scale and seriousness of the crimes). I think the fact that this case has articles in three Wikipedia languages demonstrates that this is an important case. Ola-Tore (talk) 15:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Is it a crime being suspected for a crime now? As the COPS (TV series) enphrase says: innocent until proven guilty. I see no notability or worthness of information in going public with names yet, no matter what stupid moves the media does. AndersL (talk) 16:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Who says he's guilty? He has been named as the suspect in a major case of child sexual abuse, he has even admitted to parts of his indictment. He is described as the indicted, not as convicted. Wikipedia did not suppress the identity of Josef Fritzl before his eventual conviction either. There are numerous other examples. When he's been on the front cover of the largest newspaper of the country and his name is widely used by the press, it makes no sense to suppress his name. Ola-Tore (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- No one, and that is exactly my point. If he has admitted parts of suspected crimes crime is still not the same as that he has committed the crimes. Remember that psychiatric person from Sweden who admitted and withdrew more confessions than what it has been reasoned that he actually did commit (for instance the two boys who were later found alive)? Being a suspect is just that, being suspected. It would be something else if he already was sentenced, wich he is yet not. There was a case in Norway some years ago about a suspected nurse wich TV2 named, and the rest of the media slowly followed. I think I remember that when they found her not guilty in court, TV2 got a huge fine for naming her publically. Because of all the ethical questions, and since several people has been judged not guilty lately, I see no reasons for going public with a name we do not know for sure yet is guilty. AndersL (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Who says he's guilty? He has been named as the suspect in a major case of child sexual abuse, he has even admitted to parts of his indictment. He is described as the indicted, not as convicted. Wikipedia did not suppress the identity of Josef Fritzl before his eventual conviction either. There are numerous other examples. When he's been on the front cover of the largest newspaper of the country and his name is widely used by the press, it makes no sense to suppress his name. Ola-Tore (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Is it a crime being suspected for a crime now? As the COPS (TV series) enphrase says: innocent until proven guilty. I see no notability or worthness of information in going public with names yet, no matter what stupid moves the media does. AndersL (talk) 16:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, he's been named (and prominently so) by most of the Norwegian press (three out of four of the largest newspapers, among others, see the article's talk page). The issue here really isn't whether he has been convicted - Josef Fritzl was named in dozens of Wikipedia languages almost immediately after his arrest. The issue is whether the information can be proved and whether the scale of the crimes justifies naming the suspect (Bernt Olufsen argues it does because of the scale and seriousness of the crimes). I think the fact that this case has articles in three Wikipedia languages demonstrates that this is an important case. Ola-Tore (talk) 15:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
1) Wikipedia servers are based in the US, we follow the law in the US - that's the legal bit.
2) The man's name was printed in reliable sources - that's the WP:RS bit.
What more is there to be discussed on en.wikipedia? --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's not like it's against Norwegian law to name him, then most of the Norwegian press would be criminals. Ola-Tore (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
There is simply no issue for en.wikipedia - the sources are consider reliable and the naming of the suspect is legal here and there. What no.wikipedia decided to do is up to them and has absolutely no weight here. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- It is true that the legality of the publication is not an issue, nor the reliability of the sources. But we still have to consider the ethical implications, and whether the outing is in accordance with our BLP policy, and lastly, whether it's actually relevant and necessary to have the name in the article. Seeing as how even the outing itself has received significant coverage, I'm inclined to say yes. decltype (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I am new to Wikipedia editing so please excuse any lack of form, but this is a serious matter needing attention.
This record was edited on 28 July after much research including verifying certain facts with the subject, and all edits were flippantly undone by an individual who clearly has an interest in defaming the subject living person. As this living person owns an Australian Football team with a very colourful history and no shortage of fans across the entire spectrum of obsessiveness, there is a heightened risk that this living person will be the subject of dogged detractors so committed to damaging the substantial and valuable reputation of this living person that it is possible that this entry may have to be protected.
It is clear that Everton Dasent and his other aliases and accomplices, will continue to use this Wikipedia page to attempt to defame this living person causing great potential damage. In addition, this living person also has a claim against certain newspaper publications that have also been involved, at the hands of overzealous fans, in defamatory stories which have been published, so certain references are not reliable either.
Please advise the most suitable course of action to protect the objectivity of the facts relating to this living person. Thank you.
Slanter Remover Slanter Remover (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Michael Beasley
Could a few people please add Michael Beasley to their watchlists? He has reportedly checked into rehab after some odd additions to his Twitter page [18], and the article is starting to attract vandals. Thanks! Zagalejo^^^ 19:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Louise Glover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Article has recently had a number of new and IP users removing significant portions of the article claiming that it is upsetting the subject. I have tried going over much of the material and removing the less credible information. However the removals continue. Myself and others have noted that if there is a problem to follow the steps in WP:Autobiography#Problems in an article about you. However they seem to want nothing less than the removal of the entire article. I have protected the page for the next 4 hours. I would like some other eyes to take a look at it. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 20:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- I made some minor changes- I explained it all on the Talk page and edit summaries there. Generally, looks pretty good though.MStoke (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Mike S. Miller (again)
Repeated efforts by a dynamic IP (which is suspected to be the subject) to remove negative information from the article. I have reverted obvious vandalism here but I'm actually hesitant about the reverting the IP again, because I don't think any of the three sources that are used to back up Miller's firing from D.C. are particularly reliable. It's pretty well known that the incident occurred - Miller has mentioned it online although giving it a different spin - but I'm unconvinced that gossip columns are good enough to source it, even if they do claim to quote the subject. Black Kite 00:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think those sources are remotely reliable enough to source Miller's firing and the circumstances surrounding it. Kevin (talk) 01:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Raymond Keene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) there are concerns over recent criticisms added to the article. Also see discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess#Raymond Keene article. Bubba73 (talk), 01:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
New user locomot creating category: anti-Israel and dumping in living persons
This new user (started 24 August) is making a tremendous amount of posts, but I noticed her/him due to categorizing John Mearsheimer as anti-Israel. Went to that page and discovered only five articles in the category, one of which was Jimmy Carter. Given the subjective nature of this category, I suspect this must be a violation of BLP. Can someone look into this? Thanks in advance. Academic38 (talk) 08:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Category:Anti-Israel is now unpopulated apart from Anti-Israel lobby in the United States. Possibly could be nominated for deletion - I'm not sure what else would be acceptable in the category. Rd232 talk 19:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Is nominating a category for deletion any different than nominating an article for deletion? Academic38 (talk) 05:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
This page has been repeatedly vandalised. Thanks to the subject being in a controversy at the moment this is unlikely to stop.
- Will Buckley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - a BBC/Observer sports journalist
- Bubbles911 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - a SPA
- Semiprotected for a bit. Sourcing is more than welcome on that stub. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Michael Jackson articles - heads up
It would be greatly appreciated that a couple of extra (preferably admin but not necessarily "exclusively") eyes especially on Michael Jackson and Death of Michael Jackson as news just came out that the Los Angeles coroner ruled his death as a homicide. There will obviously be some BLP issues regarding Jackson's doctor. MuZemike 01:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- I would suggest temporary protection on the pages so there are no drive-bys from the anon users. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Pages aren't protected pre-empitvley. DJ 01:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- We also have to be a little careful here, because according to this [19] the findings are not publicly announced yet. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- We have done it before. But beside that point, I just want to make sure that no Michael Jackson fan organizes any campaign against the said doctor on-wiki. MuZemike 07:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- If they do, then the article can quickly be anesthetized. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 10:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Pages aren't protected pre-empitvley. DJ 01:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Also note that, given past attempts to turn the redirects into articles, Conrad Murray and Conrad Robert Murray will require watching, too. See Talk:Conrad Murray#Redirect for more discussion. Uncle G (talk) 11:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- The Propofol article, which now also includes information about the circumstances of Jackson's death, will evidently need monitoring for the same reasons. Isn't there a good reason to avoid adding material that creates potential BLP issues to an article about a pharmaceutical? Steveozone (talk) 02:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Who is the living person that BLP would refer to?Bevinbell (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- The physician. Risker (talk) 04:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- WP:BLP also applies to the recently deceased, so it would still apply to violations related to Michael Jackson. Dayewalker (talk) 04:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Really? I don't see a mention of that and seems counter-intuitive. I fully appreciate WP:BLP applying to the physician, any reference would need to be backed by credible citations with named sources and without conjecture or sensationalism. Bevinbell (talk) 05:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yep. The "Dealing With The Deceased" section [20] states "Although this policy specifically applies to the living, material about deceased individuals must still comply with all other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Prompt removal of questionable material is proper." Dayewalker (talk) 05:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- That language does not seem to be supportive - "material about deceased individuals must still comply with all other Wikipedia policies and guidelines" emphasis on "other". Is there a discussion of this that you can point me to? Maybe the language should be edited to reflect more clearly the applicability to dead folks of the actual BLP? Why use the phrase "Biographies of Living Persons" instead of "Biographies of Persons"? It would seem that there is a clear distinction between the two (for legal and other reasons). Maybe I should move this discussion to the talk page of WP:BLP, but it seems really unclear to its applicability Bevinbell (talk) 05:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Wait, there is an active discussion on this topic on the talk page and archive Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_22#Deceased_persons and it does not appear to be consensus that it does apply to the recently deceased.Bevinbell (talk) 05:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- That language does not seem to be supportive - "material about deceased individuals must still comply with all other Wikipedia policies and guidelines" emphasis on "other". Is there a discussion of this that you can point me to? Maybe the language should be edited to reflect more clearly the applicability to dead folks of the actual BLP? Why use the phrase "Biographies of Living Persons" instead of "Biographies of Persons"? It would seem that there is a clear distinction between the two (for legal and other reasons). Maybe I should move this discussion to the talk page of WP:BLP, but it seems really unclear to its applicability Bevinbell (talk) 05:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yep. The "Dealing With The Deceased" section [20] states "Although this policy specifically applies to the living, material about deceased individuals must still comply with all other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Prompt removal of questionable material is proper." Dayewalker (talk) 05:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Really? I don't see a mention of that and seems counter-intuitive. I fully appreciate WP:BLP applying to the physician, any reference would need to be backed by credible citations with named sources and without conjecture or sensationalism. Bevinbell (talk) 05:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- WP:BLP also applies to the recently deceased, so it would still apply to violations related to Michael Jackson. Dayewalker (talk) 04:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- The physician. Risker (talk) 04:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Who is the living person that BLP would refer to?Bevinbell (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- The Propofol article, which now also includes information about the circumstances of Jackson's death, will evidently need monitoring for the same reasons. Isn't there a good reason to avoid adding material that creates potential BLP issues to an article about a pharmaceutical? Steveozone (talk) 02:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I read about this case a few days ago but unfortunately didn't think to watch the article. For those that don't know, Caster Semenya is a South African athelete who has been required to undergo gender verification because of concerns she may have gained an unfair advantage. As you may guess, the article has had numerous issues including some editors trying to change the practice of referring to her by the female pronoun. While there's already been an RFC and most editors have came out against this, the eyes and voices of BLP friendly editors would be helpful to avoid further problems Nil Einne (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Roberto Alomar
- article: Roberto Alomar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- user: Coolbeans5150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ongoing problem on the article about Roberto Alomar, user Coolbeans5150 (talk · contribs) has already been blocked once for 24 hours due to BLP violation on the article. within 48 hours after the block expired, the user returned and re-started his edit warring about the content.
At no point has the user replied to warnings on his talk page, nor has he posted to discussions on the article talk page (where the issue had been previously discussed, and no WP:RS could be found for the claim). The only comment he has made has been on another user's talk page where he complained about censorship. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Disparaging comments regarding living person Alice Dreger at The Man Who Would Be Queen
There is currently discussion on the talk page of the above article regarding material recently added to the article about the above person. Does such material potentially violate BLP rules? John Carter (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
There'd been an edit war going on all day (perhaps longer) on this article regarding the inclusion of some information. I'm afraid I don't have the time at the moment to do the reading to give an informed opinion on the actual content of the article and does the inclusion meet blp, but there's a clear need for someone to step in here.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Part of the problem is the coatracking. There's actually more about the trial itself in that biography than there is at Chris Hani#Assassination, and most of it has nothing to do with Kemp. Uncle G (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
"Ashkenazi Jews"
It appears that people have been putting into the infobox on the Ashkenazi Jew article the pictures and names of anyone who they personally feel is an "Ashkenazi Jew". Yesterday and today I have removed all the living people from those lists, per WP:BLP, as none of the claims were cited, and, indeed, none of the articles on the individuals themselves had any cited claim that they were Ashkenazi Jews. Since then, I have reverted several times, as an IP editor and an established editor have insisted that the claims are non-controversial, and need no citations. The argument put forward is essentially that any Jew whose ancestors came from various Eastern European countries (e.g. Hungary, Poland) was inevitably an Ashkenazi Jew. I was at the point of protecting the article, but I thought I'd bring the issue here for other views. Jayjg (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Herve Jaubert
- This is to log complain for defamation against user Pemperous who inserted a libellous text in the article on august 24 2009. The article has been corrected. User:74.233.139.156 14:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC) (signing unsigned)
- The affected article is Hervé Jaubert (with acute accent). There is relevant old matter in page Herve Jaubert (without acute accent). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
WMUK's just had an email from Sally Boazman saying "Basically, I do traffic news for BBC Radio Two across the afternoons, and have never authorised, or sought, an entry on Wikipedia, although there is one. However, it's full of inaccuracies and ideally I would like it completely removed. I'm hardly famous enough to warrant it!" The article only has one reference (and possibly not a reliable one). Could someone look into this, please? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- I speedied it as a patent CSD#A7, the article basically took three paragraphs to say "she reads the traffic news on Radio 2, and before that she had a few other jobs in radio". Black Kite 20:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Most of the information appears to come from both her Radio 2 profile and a biography on Aircheck UK so it's not like much of it isn't in the public domain already. It's interesting that this should happen a few weeks after this, apparently from another Radio Two employee. Perhaps more of them need reviewing. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Since it's possible that someone might search for her, I recreated Sally Boazman as a protected redirect to BBC Radio 2. Black Kite 20:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I notice there was also a redirect to the article from Sally Bowsman. I've redirected this to BBC Radio 2. This may also need to be edit protected. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ditto Sally Traffic. wrt Fenella Fudge, I think the ariticle history should be deleted, leaving just the redirect. Martin451 (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds like a sensible idea. Have requested deletion. When it's done I'll recreate the page as a redirect to BBC Radio 2. TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
This was actually after I did a spot on Chris Evans' Radio 2 show about flagged revisions on BLPs. Sally came up after my spot and asked what to do about her article, because she's really not famous and it was terrible and she didn't like it. I said "email info at wikimedia-with-an-M dot org and a volunteer will hop onto it" and to tell anyone else at the BBC with a crappy article about them, 'cos it does get the right attention at the right time :-) - David Gerard (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Curtis Salgado
Article has undocumented/unverifiable claim; "In the early 90's, he also briefly studied with Jehovah's Witnesses." Article fails to mention that Salgado was lead vocalist with Room Full Of Blues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonmaui (talk • contribs) 22:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
This may have been moved to Nora Wall by the time anyone reads this note. I'd like someone to have a look at this article who's more familiar with the specifics of BLP policy than I -- I think there's the potential for libel action here because there are some strong statements that don't seem to be specifically sourced. There are some general references to a specific Irish criminal trial but I strongly suspect this is not sufficient. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Roxanne Shanté's wikipedia biography (erroneously) states that she is 1) a Ph.D. from Cornell 2) a licensed psychologist practicing in Queens, NY 3) that her Ph.D. was "paid for through an unusual clause in her recording contract by her record label." Attempts to put in wording clarifying that records at Cornell show that she is not an alumna [21], records in New York State show that she is not a licensed psychologist [22], and traditional Ph.D. programs, especially for underprivileged and alternative applicants are fully self funding, thus not requiring any battle with a nefarious record label (even if she were in fact a student at Cornell, which pretty much definitively can be proven to be incorrect) are removed by her or her publicity company as quickly as they are put in. This file needs to be addressed by a Wikipedia reviewer so that Wikipedia is not compromised by this young lady's publicity company's apparent efforts to change the historical record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4nac (talk • contribs) 01:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- The information that you dispute is sourced to a newspaper article which qualifies as a reliable secondary source under Wikipedia policy. Your attempts to disprove the statements made in the article by using primary sources is what we call here "original research", and that research and conclusions drawn from it cannot appear in the article because it is prohibited by Wikipedia policy. There are any number of reasons her name may not appear on the Cornell University website, and we cannot use that omission to "disprove" the work of a professional journalist. Gamaliel (talk) 02:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Another editor has found her listed under famous alumni on Cornell's website: [23]. Gamaliel (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
This edit by an IP user 68.39.227.143 posts the home address of one of the talk-show personalities on this radio station (I have no way of knowing if its accurate or not). I reverted the edit, but feel it probably should be removed from the history as well, to protect the privacy of Mr. Bartholomew. -Sme3 (talk) 02:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- WP:Oversight is the place to go when that type of info is posted. I've fired off an email to the powers that be. Singularity42 (talk) 03:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
This was redirected to Satanism with the edit summary stating that it's a "BLP violation". Is it really? It's just a listing of people along with all the rest at Lists of people by belief. Granted it's largely unreferenced but so are many others at Lists of people by belief. The question is, why doesn't anyone redirect List of Pagans as a BLP vio? or List of Methodists for that matter.. Is it pushing a POV to say that a list of satanists is contentious but a list of Christians isn't? I'm not advocating satanism at all here, just something to discuss. -- Ϫ 04:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- if they publicly espoused it, and it is of more than incidental significance, and they clearly called it that or the equivalent, and there are RS to prove it, it is not a BLP violation. Some, for example, are or were leaders in the Church of Satan. In any case, some of the people on that list are not LP. The move should be reverted, non-notable people removed, and sources checked for the others. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- In theory, I agree with DGG, but this article is just a massive BLP violation, which if cleaned up would end up nearly a stub, with just Anton LeVey and his relatives/associates and a few arbirtrarily selected musicians. It includes professional wrestlers who are inappropriately treated as though their stage personas are real; George W. Bush (but not, curiously, Dick Cheney); Sammy Davis Jr (not a BLP issue, just loopy); a long "mislabelled" section which is mostly a coatrack for claims that individuals should be seen as Satanists, and various other inappropriate comments. It shouldn't even be kept as a redirect, but BLP-deleted to make the old versions inaccessible. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- if they publicly espoused it, and it is of more than incidental significance, and they clearly called it that or the equivalent, and there are RS to prove it, it is not a BLP violation. Some, for example, are or were leaders in the Church of Satan. In any case, some of the people on that list are not LP. The move should be reverted, non-notable people removed, and sources checked for the others. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- But how can it be a BLP vio if it's not even a bio? It's just a list of people. And what about my argument about mislabeled people in other similar lists at Lists of people by belief? Richard Dawkins, for example, certainly wouldn't appreciate being named in a list of Christians, yet no one would ever think to redirect the entire (unreferenced) List of evangelical Christians to Evangelical Christianity. -- Ϫ 04:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Populating any of these lists with unreferenced data is a clear violation of BLP policy. The policy is that we aggressively delete unverifiable biographical information - positive, negative, or neutral - from any article on WP, not just "biographical" articles. The question, in my mind, is what to do about these lists. I don't care if it's a list of tea drinkers, not one single living person should be included in the list without at least one reference to a reliable source. I agree that the redirect should be reverted and the list trimmed to only those entries which can be verified in reliable sources. If that leaves no one else but Anton LeVey then so be it. As for other such lists, as User:OlEnglish has pointed out above, these should be treated similarly. Again, even if it's a list of tea drinkers, if I don't see a reference to a reliable source, I will delete the entry, right down to the last entry in the list. The only reason I see to redirect would be if there is not one single verifiable entry in the list. Here we have at least a few. Let's revert and fix it, and let's fix the others as well. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 13:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- But how can it be a BLP vio if it's not even a bio? It's just a list of people. And what about my argument about mislabeled people in other similar lists at Lists of people by belief? Richard Dawkins, for example, certainly wouldn't appreciate being named in a list of Christians, yet no one would ever think to redirect the entire (unreferenced) List of evangelical Christians to Evangelical Christianity. -- Ϫ 04:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Mark Kirk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - There is a section in the article on Mark Kirk, a Republican congressman from Illinois who has announced his intention to run for the Senate, detailing several somewhat controversial donations. See this edit and the back and forth in the article history. Most of the donations are sourced directly to FEC reports. There is no question that these reports verify that these donations occurred, but is it enough to include in the article without a secondary source making any comment at all about the donation? One of the donations, from Tony Rezko, does have a secondary source (the Chicago Sun-Times) so I do not think there would be any reason to exclude it from the article, but should the rest of the donations have a secondary source commenting on them or should they be removed? nableezy - 05:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 05:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- I would think that, absent comment from secondary sources, a list of selected controversial donors would have to be removed. Picking and choosing from the donor list and only reporting those an editor considers controversial is editorializing. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Peter Hart
Could somebody please pitch in at Peter Hart? There are definite WP:Coatrack issues. Let's just note that the Controversy section is about 3 times the length of the rest (excluding refs and bibliography). Thanks. Rd232 talk 09:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- While we're at it, this BLP has rather similar issues: Emma Brockes. Anyone to pitch in? Rd232 talk 00:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'll try and work on Hart. There are some serious coatracking issues, not to mention a blatant copyright violation. Rockpocket 18:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Britney Spears
Someone has been adding false information to the Britney Spears article including stating that she was a porn star for 3 years and putting the words "fuck me" and "drop your pants" in her name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobsmycat (talk • contribs) 2009-08-28 00:04:26 (UTC)
- So revert the vandalism, just like Prodego just did. You have the tool for doing so. Uncle G (talk) 03:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Claim of libel at Alexander Mashkevitch
See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sbakuria. Uncle G (talk) 04:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
See also this edit, where Sleuther2 (talk · contribs) expresses similar concerns at Patokh Chodiev. Uncle G (talk) 04:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
WMUK received an email this morning from David Pleat, as follows:
- I am writing to make you aware that information given on myself David Pleat is incorrect and libellous.
- I would like to provide you with the revised and correct information and facts.
- Once these corrections have been made I do not wish for anyone to be able to change these details.
I've emailed him back (cc'ing info-en_at_wikimedia.org) pointing out that WMUK is not responsible for this content, but that "we'd be happy to forward on your views about any particular points to the community that work on that Wikipedia project, so that they can be dealt with in a suitably rigorous fashion and anything inaccurate can be appropriately corrected". I'll post any information I hear back here.
In the meantime, please could someone take a look at this article, and improve it as appropriate? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- I dealt with Mr Pleat's email to Wikimedia when it reached OTRS. I think the main problem, which is a claim that he's Jewish (could be taken as libellous), has been taken care of. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think he might have been slightly more worried by this, which was definitely libellous! Black Kite 15:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm fairly confident that the ethnicity/religion claim is not the problem here, and the major problem is the content that has been brought up on the talk page again and again and removed from the article again and again. It is, as I and others have noted on the talk page, unacceptable and unencyclopaedic personal analysis of the subject's professional abilities, comprising in no small part an entirely unsourced list of errors that this person is supposed to have made in xyr professional career as a sports commentator. Full marks to the editors who have been removing it on sight.
I looked at the remainder of the article, and it seems that the continued reversion of the major vandalism has blinded editors to some of the (comparatively) minor vandalism and badly sourced or wholly unsourced attack content, of which there is quite a lot. For example, there is an assertion that this person had been convicted for kerb-crawling. The only good source that I can find states that this person was cautioned for kerb-crawling, and immediately goes on to state that the subject contests reports about this for being "misinformed". And then there's an awful lot of content that seems to blame this person for the ill-fortune of every football club he has every come into contact with. And all of this without any sources at all, despite protests about writing without sources on the talk page.
I am going to consider this, but I am strongly tempted having read through the article and back through its edit history to delete this article in its entirety and start it again from a stub using proper sources. The edit history, current content, and general standard of writing are atrocious, and M. Pleat has my sympathies. Uncle G (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- I would completely support deleting it and starting it from scratch. I must admit I just scanned it for obvious BLP issues, but the general tone of it is terrible. There's no doubt that Pleat had his critics during his career but that's just ridiculous. Black Kite 15:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- I've deleted the prior article and edit history and started again as a stub, including no content for which there is no source cited. (I was even strict about adding the player categories until I had a source confirming the information.) I've got as far as 1987 in this person's career. All help from experienced BLP editors welcome. Uncle G (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- New email. He's angry about his religion being included (which to be honest is not something we can help with, [24] is a good source for his Judaism). He does, however, state that "I have been subjected to tabloid allegations about my private life,which were untrue and libellous." - we need to be careful about this, I feel. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Then he, and you, are both out of date, since the re-created article included nothing about religion. (The subject wasn't in any of the sources that I used. To be frank, it didn't even occur to me to even consider the matter. I spent most of the effort attempting to find a decent source that documents this person's career as a sports commentator in any detail, without success.) Uncle G (talk) 02:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- New email. He's angry about his religion being included (which to be honest is not something we can help with, [24] is a good source for his Judaism). He does, however, state that "I have been subjected to tabloid allegations about my private life,which were untrue and libellous." - we need to be careful about this, I feel. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- I thought that on a BLP if a person has not declared his leaning towards his religion then even if we have a cite that he is a cristian then unless he himself has identified with it in public then we leave it out. Off2riorob (talk) 21:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- The article is a bit of an attack piece, yes the rubbish allegations are there, awful read. Off2riorob (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Also the picture of what is supposedly him is worthless, it could be anyone.Off2riorob (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thats what it is, he was allegedly cautioned 3times for curb crawling and wright called him a pervert. He was never charged and I would say it's not worth inclusion. Or if you want to keep it, it needs to be explained. Off2riorob (talk) 21:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Eyes would be welcome on this page. A new IP has been making subtle weasel edits, but their edit summaries and latest effort raise some red flags. I know fixing BLP issues circumvents edit warring, but I'd feel more comfortable if others in the community could help out too. Thanks, Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Marc Nelson
Marc Nelson is receiving continuous vandalism edits from an anon IP. I would a appreciate an admin looking into it. MStoke (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- The vandalism, yet again, comes from Marine Corps Base Quantico, which I have blocked for a longer time this time. Black Kite 14:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Is this compliant with biographies of living persons?
I recently updated the article Ilisha Jarret, what do you think ? It`s kind of strange information, but news source says is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whyisthisnotme (talk • contribs) 14:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Not really relevant in a biography though, hence I have removed it. Kevin (talk) 01:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thejet2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who identifies himself as being the subject of the article Tyler Ebell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and would also be 99.229.166.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeated removed the section on the 2009 season, first without explanation, but finally saying it's inaccurate but, in my opinion, it is completely sourced and pretty brief. I've now tried a re-write to see if that if more satisfactory and NPOV but some more editor's eyes would appreciated.
- More interesting is the user's concern with the article Richard Seigler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which has a Controversy section that outlines an incident where the subject was briefly charged with a crime, apparently on the testimony of a jilted girlfriend, and then had charges eventually dismissed. It might normally be of such little consequence that it could be removed from the article except that the incident appears to have had an impact on his career; he was released from an NFL team's practice squad on the day he was arrested. Again, I have tried to re-write by adding the context of the jilted girlfriend being the source of the charges but some more editor's input here would be good. Thanks, DoubleBlue (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Article is unverifiable, and contains information that is not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.189.227 (talk) 13:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Aleksandar Kolarov again
The article Aleksandar Kolarov contained some vague and barely sourced accusations of criminal and illegal activities. I raised this on this Noticeboard back in May and Skomorokh (talk · contribs) removed the disputed content. 65.95.238.5 (talk · contribs) put the BLP violations back in, verbatim, without addressing any of the concerns. I removed this a few weeks ago, but it has been restored again. The edit accuses several people within the Serbian Football Association, Zvezdan Terzić in particular, of breaking their own rules to favour one club over the other. The sourcing is scant at best. There are some vague and passing references to one report. The report covers only one or two of the assertions. Please keep an eye on this. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I would like to know what made the writer of this article call Mr.Manoj Das AN STUPID INDIAN AWARD WINNING AUTHOR ?? MY OBJECTION IS SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO CALLING SUCH AN EMMINET PERSON STUPID IN THE OPENING LINE OF THIS ARTICLE. THE LINK TO THIS ARTICLE IS AS FOLLOWS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manoj_Das. PLEASE RESOLVE THSI MATTER URGENTLY OR MAKE NECESSARY CORRECTION TO THIS ARTICLE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skpadhi (talk • contribs) 15:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Nina Totenberg (2nd request)
This is my second request for assistance regarding this article. My first request was ignored. The article now has two different IP editors who are dedicated to filling the article with negative, cherrypicked quotes to make the subject of the article look bad, but have no interest in editing any other part of the article of a journalist with a 30+ year career. So the article is rapidly becoming a list of out of context Totenberg quotes and complaints from the National Review and the Wall Street Journal, with relatively little in the article to indicate that this is one of the most respected journalists in the US. I have no interest in this article being a hagiography, of course, and naturally criticism is appropriate, but I feel the IP editors have no interest in "appropriate", nor any interest in the relevant policies, NPOV, UNDUE, etc. Third party assistance is badly needed here. Gamaliel (talk) 16:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- The quotes are not out of context and all include verifiable references. Speaking of trying to make subjects of BLPs look bad, your edit history is filled with examples of you trying to make conservatives look bad, along with justifications in talk pages for other peoples' poorly sourced materials--see the Mark Levin discussion. While you seek to make conservatives look bad, you work very hard at keeping negative material from articles on liberals like Totenberg. On your user page you actually identify yourself as a partisan--a Democrat. There is plenty of material In the Totenberg article about respect for Totenberg--you have added numerous awards to the article in addition to the ones that were already there (see also the number of positive references in the article). You have also worked to blunt criticisms of Totenberg. Most of my additions to the article have been summarily removed by you and then edit warred when I try to restore the addition. You usually avoid trying to come to an agreement in Talk pages about how additions should be added--you just delete the additions. On the other hand, I usually let your additions stay.--67.232.93.56 (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- I took a look, moved some things around a little, but I don't really see a big issue in the article's current form, at least from a BLP perspective. I have commented on the talk page there. - Crockspot (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- Attacking my work on other articles is not a response to the issues raised here. The fact remains that you and the other IP editor have worked exclusively to introduce negative elements regarding the subject of the article, mostly in the form of out of context quotes. This is not balanced or BLP appropriate editing. Gamaliel (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I should add that a long time editor (since 2005) has been driven off in frustration thanks to the IP editors. Even if you don't take my word for what is happening on the article, obviously something is going on there that requires intervention. Gamaliel (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Chima Simone
Post by blocked sock |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
[Chima Simone] is an article being redirected to the article [List of Big Brother 11 Houseguests (U.S.)] Chima Simone is currently appearing on the Hollyscoop Show as well as making other appearances not related to Big Brother. Her complete bio [Chima Simone] is not reflected in the [List of Big Brother 11 Houseguests (U.S.)] and should not be redirected accordingly. Chima Simone would be better served by having the [Chima Simone] article deleted altogether rather than redirected repeatedly causing editing warring with that particular user. Note: [Jessie Godderz] is also being redirected. Both former house guests are the most notable for accomplishments outside of the Big Brother game. Unable to edit myself (revert) due to [List of Big Brother 11] article being semi-protected until September 26th, 2009. Redirects have to be removed by administrators, indefinitley or I request [Chima Simone] deletion for improper biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by INTEL-12 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
No diversions necessary, this account is non-related. Please address issue at hand (see above). Remove redirections for [Chima Simone] & [Jessie Godderz] or delete bios [Chima Simone] & [Jessie Godderz], very simple. Current editor should not be able to claim these bios as their own by redirecting to character sketches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by INTEL-12 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
|
- Jonathan Cook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A couple of editors have been adding to the Jonathan Cook article things about Cook's articles appearing in some less than reputable places. See here and here and here. Cook wrote an article that as far as I can tell first appeared on the al-Ahram website on 8/2/2007 and here on 8/9/2007. David Duke publishes the article on on 8/21/2007. That Duke apparently liked what Cook wrote is being used to associate Cook with what would further Duke's antisemtic and white pride agenda. Not a single secondary source commenting on this supposed controversy is presented to justify such an association yet it is continually being readded to the article of a living person. nableezy - 06:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- WP:BLP cannot be used a loophole to censor the fact that his articles have appeared in certain publications. Saying that his articles have appeared somewhere does not mean that it was the author's intention for the article to appear there. But at the end of the day, where a person's article appears is part of the person's notability. We can't just write that his articles appeared in mainstream sources and hide anything that's non-mainstream.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- You are manufacturing a controversy without a single secondary source mentioning it. And what is the relevance of David Duke commiting copyright infringement, as well as the 100+ other places you can find this article to a biography of Jonathan Cook? This is an attempt to link a living person with somebody widely considered to be a racist without a single source backing up such an association. nableezy - 06:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Chill with all the drama. There's no "manufacturing of any controversy." Articles about authors include information about where they are published. If they were published in notable publications, whether mainstream or non-mainstream, this information should be included in the article. We can't use WP:BLP as a method of creating a false impression that an author is only being published in mainstream sources.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- I am "chilled". You cannot link a living person with somebody widely considered to be a racist without a single source backing up such an association. That David Duke reprinted an article by Cook is wholly irrelevant to a biography of Cook. Multiple reliable secondary sources making note of such a relationship are required for its inclusion. nableezy - 06:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Where an author is published is certainly an important aspect of an author's bio. Reliability is not an issue here. David Duke's website can be relied on for the fact that this guy's articles appear on David Duke's website.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- You are using the word "published" like it implies some link between Cook and Duke. There is a claim of copyright on the al-Ahram source, which predates the Duke reprint by several weeks. You are using Duke's infringing of that copyright by reprinting the article. You are doing so to make a link between somebody widely considered a racist and a journalist where there is no evidence that either Cook or al-Ahram consented to Duke reprinting the article. You are doing so without a single reliable secondary source saying one word on this. So you are violating both WP:BLP and WP:LINKVIO (linking to copyright violations is also prohibited). nableezy - 07:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Where a an author is published is an important part of an authors bio. Full Stop. The copyvio issue is a bunch of issue-clouding. But now that we're on the subject, I dunno where you're getting your info that David Duke made some copyright violations. If there's any BLP violation, its right here on this talkpage. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- If you dont know it is because you are not looking. The article appeared well before Duke reprinting it with a copyright claim 8/2/2007 © Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved. But that is indeed a side issue to the violation of WP:BLP you are intent on including. nableezy - 07:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Written in small script as not to cloud the issue: Please provide a source that David Duke violated any copyrights. Your investigations are not sufficient. The irony of violating WP:BLP in this very thread is delicious.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- If you dont know it is because you are not looking. The article appeared well before Duke reprinting it with a copyright claim 8/2/2007 © Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved. But that is indeed a side issue to the violation of WP:BLP you are intent on including. nableezy - 07:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Where a an author is published is an important part of an authors bio. Full Stop. The copyvio issue is a bunch of issue-clouding. But now that we're on the subject, I dunno where you're getting your info that David Duke made some copyright violations. If there's any BLP violation, its right here on this talkpage. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- You are using the word "published" like it implies some link between Cook and Duke. There is a claim of copyright on the al-Ahram source, which predates the Duke reprint by several weeks. You are using Duke's infringing of that copyright by reprinting the article. You are doing so to make a link between somebody widely considered a racist and a journalist where there is no evidence that either Cook or al-Ahram consented to Duke reprinting the article. You are doing so without a single reliable secondary source saying one word on this. So you are violating both WP:BLP and WP:LINKVIO (linking to copyright violations is also prohibited). nableezy - 07:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Where an author is published is certainly an important aspect of an author's bio. Reliability is not an issue here. David Duke's website can be relied on for the fact that this guy's articles appear on David Duke's website.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- I am "chilled". You cannot link a living person with somebody widely considered to be a racist without a single source backing up such an association. That David Duke reprinted an article by Cook is wholly irrelevant to a biography of Cook. Multiple reliable secondary sources making note of such a relationship are required for its inclusion. nableezy - 06:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Chill with all the drama. There's no "manufacturing of any controversy." Articles about authors include information about where they are published. If they were published in notable publications, whether mainstream or non-mainstream, this information should be included in the article. We can't use WP:BLP as a method of creating a false impression that an author is only being published in mainstream sources.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- You are manufacturing a controversy without a single secondary source mentioning it. And what is the relevance of David Duke commiting copyright infringement, as well as the 100+ other places you can find this article to a biography of Jonathan Cook? This is an attempt to link a living person with somebody widely considered to be a racist without a single source backing up such an association. nableezy - 06:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Regarding this edit, I think we have to assume that Cook has no control over which websites pick up his articles. Unless there's some indication that they're there with his blessing, I don't see how we can write about it. It's better to use mainstream secondary sources for anything contentious in BLPs; primary sources tend to lead to OR. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- An integral aspect of an author's bio is where he or she was published. The types of news organizations that publish what the author writes tell readers a lot regarding the subjects the author writes about. It doesn't make a difference if the author gave an affirmative consent each time it was published. We give the readers the information in a neutral manner and they can come to whatever conclusion they wish. But we certaintly cannot mislead readers, under the guise of BLP, that an author has only been published in mainstream sources when he clearly hasn't.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't make a difference if the author gave an affirmative consent each time it was published. complete crap - as far as I can see Dukes has posted the first bit of it and a link to the original article - this is not published by and that claim should not be made in the article.--Cameron Scott (talk) 08:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
An almost unsourced article to begin with, most of the recent edits consisting of additions to the list of people she's been romantically linked to. Some of which fairly well reek of attempts at being funny. Far as I can tell the article, and especially the recent edit history, is an absolute minefield I'm simply not knowledgeable enough to even begin to sort out. -Graptor 208.102.243.30 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- I've removed the "love life" section and a few other dubious additions. It looks like parts of the article are based on the biography formerly at http://www.lizfuller.com/bio/index.asp (currently a dead link, but an archived version is available at http://web.archive.org/web/20071218051536/http://www.lizfuller.com/bio/index.asp). The article still needs more sources; I haven't been able to find much that is reliable. snigbrook (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Feminazi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Article quickly turning into a dumping ground for every MMFA piece about Rush Limbaugh using the word. While I hate the word myself (and any example of Godwin's Law for that matter), I don't think itemizing every single time he used the word as particularly due weight. Here was the version before I hacked some of the blogs and MMFA off: [25]. I have since edited, nay hacked it down so that it wasn't so one-sided, but I still believe there should be eyes on it. Soxwon (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- — Preceding text originally posted on WT:BLP/N by Soxwon (talk⋅contribs) (migrated by Whitehorse1 12:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
"Stephen Hawking" article
The biography section for Stephen Hawking is most definitely libellous, but when I attempted to edit it (only to remove the libellous material) it showed up differently. I'm not sure what's going on, but what shows up on my screen is quoted below:
[vandalism redacted!]
Smacks of Wikipage vandalism, no? This is the link I used to get to the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking
- The page was vandalized, but has been restored. You probably still have the vandalized version in your local cache. Clear the cache, or do an explicit reload, or go to the latest static version on the article history to see the real current version. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- WP:REFRESH tells you how - in short: go to page, hold Ctrl, press F5, release Ctrl. --h2g2bob (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Mr. Schulz, thanks for the heads-up. I had never visited the listing before from the computer I used (at work, and without my user name so I couldn't sign in), so I don't know how it was in the cache on the computer, but I appreciate the information. Also, kudos on the vandalism redaction. I felt terrible posting it, but also wanted it to be clear just how awful the vandalism was. Regards, Rorieface. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rorieface (talk • contribs) 02:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- WP:REFRESH tells you how - in short: go to page, hold Ctrl, press F5, release Ctrl. --h2g2bob (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Dore Gold
Mr. Gold is a living person. An editor is repeatedly calling him a 'propagandist'. I've warned him that this is a BLP violation (in fact, very likely a libelous statement) but he persists. Some administrative action is required here. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 04:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)