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:
| ||
Details of Lester Coleman's imprisonment
Hi! At Talk:Lester_Coleman#Inmate_Locator we are discussing whether to use Lester Coleman's Federal Bureau of Prisons inmate locator profile, which lists his name, age (not his date of birth), race, federal prison number, and official release date: BOP link - This is a primary source
He is the only Lester Coleman listed, and the database covers all federal inmates since 1982. The entry certainly refers to the Lester Coleman we are discussing.
- This page states: "Please note: It is possible that a record may exist for an individual who was in BOP custody but never served a sentence of incarceration (e.g., a person was detained pre-trial but criminal charges were dismissed, held as a material witness, held for civil contempt)." - So every type of person who entered the federal civilian prison system is covered.
We know he was imprisoned in the federal system based off of a New York Times article ( New York Times article), and the article gave out what his sentence is - it does not say what his prison ID is, and I haven't found his prison ID or any other release date in any secondary source
I argued for including this information since it supplements details about his incarceration already known from the New York Times article, based off of Wikipedia:BLP#Misuse_of_primary_sources - The other poster argued that I need a secondary source anyway.
Any comments? WhisperToMe (talk) 07:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- The NY Times article says he was released in 1997. The Rumor Mill and other unreliable sources say he was imprisoned in 1999 and sentenced to 8 months for writing bad checks. If WhisperToMe wants to use this information in the article, he needs to find reliable sources that show that the rumors are true and that the 2000 conviction was notable enough to be included in this biography of a living person. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes we need some more details, adding this - Lester Coleman served time in the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) system. Coleman, BOP#47321-019, was released on December 7, 2000.[5] - makes no sense, why was he held? was he charged? was he guilty of anything? without any details the additions asks more questions than it answers. I know Lester claims he was held without charge around this time and alleged miss treatment, and was released without charge after months. But those details would all need reliably citing. Off2riorob (talk) 08:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- The questions on why was he charged, why was he held, etc. are answered in the NYT article.
- As a matter of fact, before the sentence about him being held by the BOP, there is...
- "On September 11, 1997, Coleman stated to a New York Federal court that "...he lied when he claimed that a secret drug sting enabled terrorists to evade airport security in the bombing..." In a plea agreement, Coleman was sentenced to time served, which was five months, and six months' home confinement under electronic monitoring."
- The sentence about his BOP confinement came after that. Even if he served home confinement only and never set foot in an actual BOP prison facility, he was still under BOP supervision.
- I don't see the NY Times saying he was released in 1997. What the NYT specifically says is:
- "Mr. Coleman faced up to five years' imprisonment and a $250,000 fine on each of the five counts to which he pleaded guilty yesterday. In a plea agreement, however, the Government agreed to a sentence of time served, which was five months, and six months' home confinement under electronic monitoring, according to court documents." - So he pled guilty on September 11, 1997, and was given the sentence above.
- I did not consider any articles for Rumor Mill in anything that I proposed or did.
- Also to my knowledge each person has the same BOP number for life; I don't think the number changes if someone receives a new conviction.
- However the conviction date may not be relevant, if it has to do with a new conviction not covered in reliable sources.
- WhisperToMe (talk) 09:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hey, just found a source that is about more Lester Coleman charges!
- "COLEMAN SOUGHT IN PROBATION VIOLATION, TALK-SHOW HOST NOT ALLOWED TO LEAVE KY." Lexington Herald-Leader. August 24, 2002. C1 City&Region.
- I may have to do a resource request to get the full article
- WhisperToMe (talk) 09:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, there are also other stories on the Lexington Herald on the 2000 "check fraud" conviction. It is however totally unrelated to the 1997 conviction on perjury in the Pan Am 103 civil trial. (Coleman and his supporters naturally claim that all of this is part of a Government conspiracy to silence him.) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 09:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- The BOP record does not list all of his convictions - it just lists his ID# and his last release date. I think he has the same ID number for all of the instances of supervision under the Bureau of Prisons. AFAIK the BOP number is relevant to both his 1997 perjury conviction and his 2000 check fraud conviction. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, there are also other stories on the Lexington Herald on the 2000 "check fraud" conviction. It is however totally unrelated to the 1997 conviction on perjury in the Pan Am 103 civil trial. (Coleman and his supporters naturally claim that all of this is part of a Government conspiracy to silence him.) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 09:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Also:
- "CONSPIRACY THEORIES: Outlandish claims can hit close to home." Atlanta Journal-Constitution. April 30, 2000. C5.
- Some text inside: "... of the theory's primary author a man by the name of Lester Knox Coleman ... Coleman has since been convicted of federal charges of perjury and state ... "
- May need a resource request on that too.
- WhisperToMe (talk) 09:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- It looks like you've worked through the original issue, but just to come full circle, I think that the BOP register is a reliable source for the information it contains, but in an of itself, we can't be sure that the this information 1. applies to this person and 2.relates to a particular charge. I think the gaps need to be filled w/ other reliable sourcing, and it seems that you're on track to do so. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think we can be sure that it applies to this person as it's the only Lester Knox Coleman listed, but 2. is a valid point. I'm waiting for a resource request to be completed so I can get additional info. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
IMDB as a source for BLPs?
I have started a discussion at the RS/N which includes a question about whether or not IMDB, and similar movie sites are reliable sources for BLP information. The specific issue is not a controversial one, but it was my impression that IMDB was never acceptable for BLP information, and my concern is in terms of the precedent and not the uncontroversial information specifically. Comments would be appreciated. See - Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Max.27s_of_Manila_-_a_number_of_source_issues_including_IMDB_as_a_source_for_BLP. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- This would perhaps be better on the RS noticeboard, but you are correct, IMDB is not a reliable source. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- See also, WP:RS/IMDB. -- Cirt (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Thinking about the discussion above, I'm wondering how lists such as these fit in with our BLP policy. I've also found another relevant guideline, Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality - ok, it's for categories, but I'd say it should apply also to lists. It says Categories should not be based on religion unless the belief has a specific relation to the topic. The requirements of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Categories are strictly enforced. For a dead person, there must be averified general consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate. Dougweller (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- There are other similar lists. See Category:Lists of religious converts and of course Category:Lists of people by belief. I'm not sure I understand the utility of these lists. They also suffer from a very basic flaw in that the criteria by which someone's religiosity has been considered (by selves and others) have changed historically. These lists also probably attract all kinds of POV pushing antics I'm sure.Griswaldo (talk) 21:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- Those lists are all awful and complete POV. Off2riorob (talk) 21:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- Here's another list of dubious encyclopedic value - List of Latter Day Saint practitioners of plural marriage. I don't think it has BLP issues but what's the point of these lists?Griswaldo (talk) 12:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
User Dreadarthur
- Dreadarthur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
More issues with Dreadarthur (talk · contribs), I think someone should go through his contribs - his talk page has multiple warnings from different admins for insertion of unsourced and poorly-sourced material to BLP pages. The page, Gene Price, was created by Dreadarthur (talk · contribs), and uses primary sources in order to advance WP:NOR violation. At the page, Playboy Records, after warnings on his talk page about BLPs, he added info sourced to, um, yeah that's right, MySpace, see [1]. -- Cirt (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
This description of my talk page is a gross exaggeration, in my view. We should be encouraging contributions and work to make contributors better. The cautions here are all simultaneous. I didn't see the caution before further edits. The MySpace reference on Playboy Records is in a footnote to an otherwise unsourced article that had been on Wikipedia for some time.
I find this editor's attitude to be both presumptuous and discouraging.
Dreadarthur (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
...as well as seriously misleading. I have gone back to the timing of his cautions. Are Wikipedia editors that intent on driving more people away from contributing?
Dreadarthur (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
If an article is uncited, the adding of a my space external link is not the way to improve it. Tag it as uncited, add a reliable source. WP:RS . Off2riorob (talk) 18:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
In addition, I don't see how Gene Price amounts to original research. He is a notable songwriting associate of Buck Owens, with a profile in AllMusic. I encountered him when I realized that one of his songs had been recorded twice by Aretha Franklin, through someone else initially pointing this out on the page for the Aretha Franklin album Through the Storm. When I realized that Gene Price didn't have a Wikipedia page, though profiled in AllMusic, I tried to work with external sources to compile facts, including obtaining external support through a site that includes copyright records--hence sources for his year of birth and other names under which he has written.
Any comments as to where I am off here are welcomed. The intial editorial jumpup on this was a bit of a setback.
Dreadarthur (talk) 01:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Vera Kobalia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Jimbo Wales made a potentially controversial edit on BLP grounds at this article about a Georgian (the country) politician.[2][3] I believe he over-erred on the side of BLP sensitivity but not egregiously so; other experienced editors may see it differently from either of our points of view. See the discussion at Talk:Vera Kobalia#Controversies section. I am posting this here in the interests of getting a broader consensus among experienced editors -- please review the comments and edits, then weigh in with your thoughtful opinions, pro or con (or otherwise). Thanks! // A. B. (talk • contribs) 12:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- As the creator of the article whose edit Wales removed, I think he was working to a more strict interpretation of BLP than I personally take, but I think one that is well within the bounds of acceptable editing. I disagree with the removal of the material, but no more than I would disagree with anyone else's editing of words I've written (that's what we do here, after all), and certainly not enough to wheel war about it. If that footnote in her biography does prove durable and lasting, I see no reason to reinstate it, particularly after some time has passed, and if secondary coverage emerges that is not merely reactive and treating her as the scandal-du-jour. His deletion was not the call I'd make, but I don't think it was a bad call. Ford MF (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Rescue work needed: Louis Harris
I just noticed that the longish article about opinion pollster Louis Harris (a living person who is just short of 90 years old) was completely unsourced. Additionally, some of the content reads like it was "borrowed" from a source, but I haven't found any clear copyvios yet. I've added a couple of inline sources, but most of the article is still unsourced.
The contributors who created this article haven't been here in a very long time.
This should be an interesting writing/sourcing opportunity for someone with good library access. This person was extensively covered in the contemporary news media in the 1960s through the 1980s, and there is be a lot of book coverage. Book references I've seen include Theodore White's "Making of the President 1960", in the 1992 book "The Superpollsters: How they Measure and Manipulate Public Opinion in America," Bill Leonard's book "In the storm of the eye: a lifetime at CBS". There are a lot of other good hits in Google Books (I searched on "Lou Harris"). --Orlady (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- The copyright violation was this edit by 69.22.227.107 (talk · contribs), which was ganked paragraph for paragraph from the book The Anguish of Change. You just needed to plug a couple of the sentences into Google Books. ☺ Every edit to that since, including your cleanup unfortunately, constitutes a derivative work. This was the last non-infringing version. Uncle G (talk) 02:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I've listed this article because as detailed on the talk page the article does not and has not for at least 21 months conformed to BLP policy. The Subject is a controversial politician currently running for Mayor of Toronto and as can be readily seen by talk page contents some Editors express quite openly negative views of the Subject and these views have been finding their way,perhaps unintentionally, into the article. There is also a well reported and admitted incident of edits to the article originating from an ISP owned by the Toronto Star, a paper which is being sued by the Subject and which other newspapers have recently criticized for printing vicious attacks against the Subject, some of which also are in the article. Most of the negative content is,while well sourced, not "relevant to a disinterested article about the subject" as required by Wikipedia BLP policy. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm frankly surprised it's taken this long to wind up here. Someone preferably not from Toronto needs to step in and clean up. Typically, Toronto-centred articles are edited by editors living in Toronto, which of course makes sense. But Ford may end up being the mayor of Canada's largest city. I'm no longer a Torontonian and I definitely have my own views on Ford but WP:BLP is clear and we need to have some sort of intervention here. The main issue I see it is how much of the "negative" do we include. Ford courts controversy and it follows him around but we still don't want to have the article read as a tabloid. Wikipedia isn't journalism but in this instance, balance is required. freshacconci talktalk 15:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- I live in Gatineau, QC - while that may not completely qualify me as someone disinterested in what's going on in Toronto, I might count as an outsider. I think Grant (I'm going to assume that is the name of Mr. Grantevans2) does have a point, and some of the edits are a little unreasonable. To be clear about what my perspective is here: anything that suggests that Ford is guilty of having broken the law where he has not been convicted of doing so should not be on the page.
- Mr. Ford is also a candidate who says some pretty bizarre things, and who has walked into quite a few controversies in the past few years. That does need to be represented in the article. Many of the things people have been adding about how Ford responds to certain issues (bicyclists, gay rights, the unemployed and homeless, etc.) absolutely need to remain on the page, because this is Ford-being-Ford. This is what the guy is like, 24-7.
- Probably what should be added to the page, though, are indications of why Ford is leading (thus far) in the polls. Obviously people are responding to something. If we're looking for balance, I would suggest adding content to the article that reflects the "positive" for Ford, rather than deleting the "negative" points, when they are well-sourced and substantive.
- Also, as far as the Toronto Star is concerned, I think it's a fine source, and Ford's charge of dirty tricks where the Star is concerned is based on the claim that a Toronto Star IP address was involved in edits to Wikipedia. The Toronto Star company owns numerous IP addresses not specifically connected with the Star itself, and there is no proof that staff at the Star had anything to do with the edits. If Mr. Ford is innocent until proven guilty and deserves to be treated as such, so is the Toronto Star. To my knowledge, its coverage of Ford has been responsible and fair. Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Here is my train of logic on this:
- 1: The WP:BLP policy states "Ask yourself...whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." The words "relevant to a disinterested article about the subject" caught my attention as I do not think that a lot of the negative content is relative at all to a disinterested article about the subject; e.g. him saying oriental people "work like dogs".
- 2: I certainly think there is room for disagreement on the matter, which in my mind equates closely to room for doubt: that's where this part of the policy comes into play,I think."When in doubt about whether material in a BLP is appropriate, the article should be pared back to a policy-compliant version."
- 3: Then, after someone like me pares back the article, this part of the policy seems to apply: "When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies."
I do not think many, if any, of the current Editors of the article have ever read WP:BLP or else they have a different understanding of the words than I do. I recognize the problem with not reaching a consensus but I really have been trying for many months to no avail. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Eddie Long
- Eddie Long (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - is the pastor of a large church in Atlanta, GA. Among other things, he occasionally has made controversial statements about "delivering from the gay lifestyle". Four men recently filed suit against him alleging that he used his position to cause them to engage in sexual relationships with him when they were teens. It's not too out of control yet, but predictably the recent coverage is causing NPOV/undue weight concerns. More eyes appreciated. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
There are no criminal charges, civil claims, from people seeking undisclosed financial damages. Awful, the filing of suits is not even noteworthy in a country where that is totally commonplace. Personally I would keep it out unless there were charges, which there will not be as there are no allegations of anything illegal or any admissions of guilt or payments in regards to the filed civil claims. Off2riorob (talk) 17:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ordinarily I would agree, but, like Ted Haggard a significant portion of his notability comes from the positions he takes w/ respect to LGBT issues, giving these specific allegations greater relevance. I do think there will be on-going issues with this article, so I appreciate your work here. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 19:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- No worries, reminds me of the George Rekers trial by media, when I am online I will keep my eye on it for any serous violations. Off2riorob (talk) 20:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- "Not noteworthy", "commonplace"? How odd. FWIW, I've never had anyone file suit against me, least of all for sexual matters, nor has anyone I am personally acquainted with. Xymmax is exactly right in noting: journalists and others are giving attention to this one in part because of his LGBT positions -- not that it matters, really, the only real concern for us is the extent to which it is being covered, and there can be no doubt it is extensive. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Depending which press you read gives differing weight to such sexual trivia. You are well aware though Nomo, as you were quite active in editing the Rekers is gay trial by media. Off2riorob (talk) 17:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed I was involved at Rekers -- and my editing there included deletion of poorly/un-sourced salacious material. But I'm glad to see that you (apparently) acknowledge that some press accounts give weight to Long's recent activities. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- I remember the editing differently to you then at Rekers, but looking back to get some diffs would remind me of the awful activism and POV editing. You are interested in this sexual trivia, I dislike trial by media and such activism, we are never going to get close to agreement or even acknowledgment of any relevance or worthwhile additions to such attack content, even if the press report it.Off2riorob (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed I was involved at Rekers -- and my editing there included deletion of poorly/un-sourced salacious material. But I'm glad to see that you (apparently) acknowledge that some press accounts give weight to Long's recent activities. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Depending which press you read gives differing weight to such sexual trivia. You are well aware though Nomo, as you were quite active in editing the Rekers is gay trial by media. Off2riorob (talk) 17:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- "Not noteworthy", "commonplace"? How odd. FWIW, I've never had anyone file suit against me, least of all for sexual matters, nor has anyone I am personally acquainted with. Xymmax is exactly right in noting: journalists and others are giving attention to this one in part because of his LGBT positions -- not that it matters, really, the only real concern for us is the extent to which it is being covered, and there can be no doubt it is extensive. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- No worries, reminds me of the George Rekers trial by media, when I am online I will keep my eye on it for any serous violations. Off2riorob (talk) 20:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Yelena Dembo
There is an edit war going on at Yelena Dembo. A couple of days ago I put 3RR warnings on the talk pages of the two editors involved at it at the time, but it is still going on. It involves some controversial material. It would help if someone looked at it. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Allegations that she's been sanctioned for cheating are textbook cases of BLP material. I've blocked one editor who added an imageshack image as "proof", warned another for reverting such material onto the page, fully protected the article for a week, and read everyone the riot act on the talk page. We'll see what happens now. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Good grief. After digging back through the history, I've blocked another account and 2-3 IP addresses. I'd appreciate more eyes on the article--do we need to RevDel the allegations? This should have been brought to admin attention sooner--unproven allegations that a professional chess player engaged in cheating were left in place and edit warred over for far too long. Jclemens (talk) 01:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ick. Fully support the actions here, and I'd revdel the allegations. This classic libel stuff - potentially damaging to a person's reputation in their career field (she's also a teacher, and some to edit specifically challenge her honesty in that capacity). Absolutely nothing I can find in anything remotely reliable that it might be true. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Nevermind, I did it. About 50 revisions. What a mess. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ick. Fully support the actions here, and I'd revdel the allegations. This classic libel stuff - potentially damaging to a person's reputation in their career field (she's also a teacher, and some to edit specifically challenge her honesty in that capacity). Absolutely nothing I can find in anything remotely reliable that it might be true. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Oom Yung Doe and Vivien Francis
The Oom Yung Doe article has been used as an attack page off and on for a while; it's more or less neutral now, but recently a civil suit was filed by a former student against the school, and information about the suit was added to the article. I saw Off2riorob's comment above that civil suits demanding monetary damages are generally "not even noteworthy" in the US. The complaint certainly does read like a generalized shakedown -- as noted in the article, the accusations are fraud, misrepresentation, violation of California labor code, discrimination based on her national origin, sexual harassment, rescission, and infliction of emotional distress.
Am I correct in concluding that this section should be removed from the article pending something substantive developing from these accusations? Subverdor (talk) 03:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- I would say yes, anyone can sue for anything in the states, unless their are findings against him then it ought not be in a BLP per WP:NOTNEWS mark nutley (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hm, does this also apply to news reports alleging criminal acts, when criminal charges related to those accusations never materialized? I'm now looking at the "Chicago Area Controversies" section:
- In 1989, Pam Zekman produced a series for the local Chicago area WBBM-TV station alleging misconduct by the school, much of it shockingly criminal (including violence, threats, and coercion against students of Oom Yung Doe, violence against students and instructors of competing schools, blatant financial fraud, and murder).[1] The Illinois Attorney General filed a criminal case based on some financial aspects of these allegations (omitting the more serious accusations of violence). The case was resolved without trial after five years with a $4000 settlement.
- Does that also fall under WP:NOTNEWS? The Illinois Attorney General's case against the school I think is noteworthy, and it's covered in another section of the article. Subverdor (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Are the following sources appropriate for use to source a quote made by the subject and for the statement he has made anti-Semitic remarks. Wall Street Journal Forbes And this one Boston Review (to support this quote) “The world has enough for everybody, but some minorities, the descendants of the same people that crucified Christ, and of those that expelled Bolívar from here and in their own way crucified him… have taken control of the riches of the world.” There is also another source which i have not yet added as an editor is saying these sources are no good for a BLP Washington Post I think the sources are fine, perhaps they need attribution? mark nutley (talk) 13:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- No, these are all opinion pieces and therefore not a reliable source for facts for a BLP. Furthermore, all these sources actually misstated Chavez' comments. TFD (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Actually only the boston review used a paraphrased quote the others have not mark nutley (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- And of course it was attributed, not made as statement of fact for the anti semite part [4] mark nutley (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- The opinion piece angle is problematic for using these as support that the statements were made, or as to the exact content of the statements. On the other hand, they are perfectly reliable for their own content. If relevant to the bio, not WP:UNDUE, etc., they could support the statement that Chavez's speech was critcized by opinion writers for the WSJ and Forbes (for example), giving a proper rebuttal from Chavez if there is one. This is tricky area though, and it would be easy to go overboard. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, they could be used to support the claim that an op-ed writer said X. But we are writing an article on a BLP president, and surely there are more notable things to cover, from higher quality sources, than the obscure opinions of op-ed journalists? (You know, things like economic policy or human rights reports from the OAS, etc.)-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well as you can see from my edit it was written in a neutral manner "Michael Rowan and Douglas E. Schoen writing in Forbes have criticized Chávez for making anti-Semitic statements.[2] As has Mary Anastasia O'Grady in the Wall Street Journal [3]" personally i see no problems with this at all mark nutley (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- You're giving undue weight to inflammatory op-ed opinions in a BLP article about a President. There are much more notable issues that should be covered in the article. The fact that articles you've cited are deliberately manipulating quotes to mislead their readers is just icing on the cake. The real point is that these opinions aren't notable enough to warrant inclusion. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- The opinion piece angle is problematic for using these as support that the statements were made, or as to the exact content of the statements. On the other hand, they are perfectly reliable for their own content. If relevant to the bio, not WP:UNDUE, etc., they could support the statement that Chavez's speech was critcized by opinion writers for the WSJ and Forbes (for example), giving a proper rebuttal from Chavez if there is one. This is tricky area though, and it would be easy to go overboard. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Common Dreams NewsCenter explains the misrepresentation of Chavez' comments in "Misquoting Chavez to Make Him Anti-Semitic" by Steve Rendall and Jim Naureckas. Chavez was comparing the Roman Empire, Spain and the United States, not talking about Jews. Using mark nutley's logic we could state that some writers have misrepresented Chavez' comments in order to make him appear anti-Semitic, but I would rather use high quality sources for this, viz., peer-reviewed articles and books published by the academic press. TFD (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- That is of course common dreams take on the quote, but his anti Semitic feelings are well published [4][5][6] The last one goes into detail regarding the quote and the author sees it differently to common dreams mark nutley (talk) 16:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Common Dreams NewsCenter explains the misrepresentation of Chavez' comments in "Misquoting Chavez to Make Him Anti-Semitic" by Steve Rendall and Jim Naureckas. Chavez was comparing the Roman Empire, Spain and the United States, not talking about Jews. Using mark nutley's logic we could state that some writers have misrepresented Chavez' comments in order to make him appear anti-Semitic, but I would rather use high quality sources for this, viz., peer-reviewed articles and books published by the academic press. TFD (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
(out) Encyclopedia of the Jewish diaspora: origins, experiences, and culture says "Chavez, made remarks that were considered anti-Semitic by some in the international community". Jewcentricity: Why the Jews are Praised, Blamed, and Used to Explain Just About Everything does not discuss the speech you wish to insert. Threat closer to home: Hugo Chavez and the war against America is not a scholarly work, and is published by Free Press, "a publisher of politically conservative works". Basically all we have is a news source saying the words were distorted and a tertiary source that says some interpreted the remarks to be anti-Semitic.
You should try reading peer-reviewed articles and books published by the academic press and stop data-mining for opinions you wish to insert. Predictably, your data-mining always uncovers op-eds in the neoconservative press.
TFD (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- If he has sources from newspapers that meet Wiki policy regarding relevant information, it should be included in the article. Newspapers are not excluded from Wiki because you have deemed them to be "neo-conservative". And, you certainly can't rely on a biased group like Common Dreams to then dismiss the information.JoelWhy (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- All four sources meet the criteria for wp:rs two of the books are from academic publishers, i must say i find it amusing that up above you say about Rob Ford As long as what is covered has received wide coverage, then it should be in the article. yet for some reson this logic does not apply to chavez? I think the sources are fine and will reinsert the content mark nutley (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Which four sources? The ones I've seen are editorials, and here you are clearly introducing synthesis. Bottom line: this fails WP:UNDUE to mention it, especially taking into account that an WP:NPOV treatment of the issue will require at least a paragraph. Seeing as Bolivarian Missions merits just 1 sentence (at the moment), that's clearly UNDUE. Too many people dislike Chavez to mention every bit of mud thrown at him and give context, response, explanation etc to show how much of it sticks. And by the way Mark, I'll thank you not to carry over your various disruptive behaviour, including BLP violations, from the climate change topic area. Try turning over a new leaf; waiting for sufficient input on BLP issues before declaring "I'm right, I'm putting it back" would be an obvious start. Rd232 talk 22:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Get real, and look again please. Three books presented above, the newspapers used are fine with attribution, which was done [5] This is not synth [6] the guy said it. So that argument is wrong. And if that was the only thing wrong (content i had not written btw) then that is all which should have been removed. Not everything. I fully intend to reinsert the content has his anti-semitic remarks have recieved widespread coverage in the papers and there are even books written about it mark nutley (talk) 06:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Of course it's WP:SYNTHESIS - the only reason to mention Ceresole is because of Ceresole's being accused of anti-semitic remarks, as was clearer in this version. I know you didn't originate the content but you restored it twice and are defending it now. And in response to my suggestion that you wait some external input on the matter, you reassert an intention to reinsert highly debatable, highly negative content into a BLP and not await a clear consensus. Is that what your new leaf looks like? Rd232 talk 10:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- The difference with Rob Ford is that the information that was questioned are matters of fact, e.g., a conviction in a Florida court, while with the Chavez article the question is over an interpretation of remarks he made. I would not suggest that in the Ford article we use facts drawn from opinion pieces or present the opinions of columnists, and I would not recommend it for this article either. TFD (talk) 07:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Get real, and look again please. Three books presented above, the newspapers used are fine with attribution, which was done [5] This is not synth [6] the guy said it. So that argument is wrong. And if that was the only thing wrong (content i had not written btw) then that is all which should have been removed. Not everything. I fully intend to reinsert the content has his anti-semitic remarks have recieved widespread coverage in the papers and there are even books written about it mark nutley (talk) 06:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Which four sources? The ones I've seen are editorials, and here you are clearly introducing synthesis. Bottom line: this fails WP:UNDUE to mention it, especially taking into account that an WP:NPOV treatment of the issue will require at least a paragraph. Seeing as Bolivarian Missions merits just 1 sentence (at the moment), that's clearly UNDUE. Too many people dislike Chavez to mention every bit of mud thrown at him and give context, response, explanation etc to show how much of it sticks. And by the way Mark, I'll thank you not to carry over your various disruptive behaviour, including BLP violations, from the climate change topic area. Try turning over a new leaf; waiting for sufficient input on BLP issues before declaring "I'm right, I'm putting it back" would be an obvious start. Rd232 talk 22:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- All four sources meet the criteria for wp:rs two of the books are from academic publishers, i must say i find it amusing that up above you say about Rob Ford As long as what is covered has received wide coverage, then it should be in the article. yet for some reson this logic does not apply to chavez? I think the sources are fine and will reinsert the content mark nutley (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Sources like that can be used with attribution, and of course there are the three books as well to cover this so there are no shortage of sources for this mark nutley (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sources like that cannot be used for facts in a BLP and only notable opinions should be presented. TFD (talk) 07:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Your actually trying to say that four newspaper articles and three books can`t be used? Under what policy would that be then mark nutley (talk) 08:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:RS#Statements_of_opinion (articles are commentary), WP:BLP, and WP:UNDUE. That you've singularly failed to address the issue of the "newspaper articles" being commentary does you no credit. Rd232 talk 10:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- The fact that they are commentary does not matter so long as it is attributed to the authors. And funnily enough i have actually addressed that several times above. And not all are commentary articles btw i have two which are articles. And of course the three books which you are studiously ignoring. Above you say i ought to wait for some external input, the two uninvolved editors who have commented have said the sources are fine. The only ones objecting are all involved in removing this content from the article. Why would i listen to you, and TFD on the issue when you have both already said it ain`t going in regardless? And do not accuse me of disruptive behaviour again, removal of well sourced content is disruptive, not adding it mark nutley (talk) 10:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- i) I didn't accuse you of anything. Arbcom is passing a motion against you, which I alluded to above. ii) I haven't addressed the books because I haven't seen a clear explanation of what they are, who wrote them, how they are relevant etc. iii) We need broader input. The way this discussion has gone, probably it will require an RFC, because it's already reached WP:TLDR status. PS I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything like "it's not going in regardless", not least since that would be a peculiar anti-consensus view. Rd232 talk 13:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- The fact that they are commentary does not matter so long as it is attributed to the authors. And funnily enough i have actually addressed that several times above. And not all are commentary articles btw i have two which are articles. And of course the three books which you are studiously ignoring. Above you say i ought to wait for some external input, the two uninvolved editors who have commented have said the sources are fine. The only ones objecting are all involved in removing this content from the article. Why would i listen to you, and TFD on the issue when you have both already said it ain`t going in regardless? And do not accuse me of disruptive behaviour again, removal of well sourced content is disruptive, not adding it mark nutley (talk) 10:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:RS#Statements_of_opinion (articles are commentary), WP:BLP, and WP:UNDUE. That you've singularly failed to address the issue of the "newspaper articles" being commentary does you no credit. Rd232 talk 10:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Your actually trying to say that four newspaper articles and three books can`t be used? Under what policy would that be then mark nutley (talk) 08:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikiquote sources it to [7] which appears a valid source indeed. El mundo tiene para todos, pues, pero resulta que unas minorías, los descendientes de los mismos que crucificaron a Cristo, los descendientes de los mismos que echaron a Bolívar de aquí y también lo crucificaron a su manera en Santa Marta, allá en Colombia. is clear. Even for Spanish 101 survivors. And the cite is an official transcription from the Government of Venezuela. Collect (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- My spanish is terrible, almost as bad as my english in fact :) This is what i have put into the article [8] I would appreciate the uninvolved editors here taking a look and rending judgement mark nutley (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- The quote is not in dispute. It's the interpretation thereof, and WP:UNDUE. Rd232 talk 13:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Here is the quote from Common Dreams, "The world has an offer for everybody but it turned out that a few minorities�the descendants of those who crucified Christ, the descendants of those who expelled Bolivar from here and also those who in a certain way crucified him in Santa Marta, there in Colombia--they took possession of the riches of the world, a minority took possession of the planet�s gold, the silver, the minerals, the water, the good lands, the oil, and they have concentrated all the riches in the hands of a few; less than 10 percent of the world population owns more than half of the riches of the world." TFD (talk) 13:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- TFD your edit warring is tedious Remove POV text inappropriate for a BLP How exactly is it POV? It has been widely reported, it has had books written about it, undue does not come into it as it is obviously notable, sheesh talk about whitewashing mark nutley (talk) 14:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
In short - the quote is accurate. The quote is found in reliable sources. The quote can be in the article. Right? Collect (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- The quote can be in the article in my opinion, and should be if opinion about it are to be included. With respect to op-eds, a President of a country is subjected to all kinds of published opinions. The opinions of media people (reporters, newspaper editors, other "commentators", etc.) are pretty much irrelevant here, but the opinions of known experts, such as Abraham Foxman's commentary in The Washington Post would be relevant. Yworo (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Opinions in newspaper columns have no higher weight based on the writer. That Barack Obama was a professor of constitutional law does not mean that we give his comments on the constitutionality of his health care plan then we would that of his opponents unless he published his views in a peer-reviewed academic journal. Newt Gingrich is an expert on the environment and George Ignatieff is an expert on human rights law, yet both are partisans. mark nutley, removing text that violates BLP is not edit-warring. TFD (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Previous discussions such as this one have made distinctions between expert and non-expert opinions in op-eds; it does seem to be a reasonable dividing-line to me. The job of most "commentators" is to play to their audience, which not really compatible with Wikipedia's purposes. But that objection doesn't really apply to all opinions, IMO. Yworo (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- (ec):"Peer reviewed" is nonsense in regard to accurately quoted material from a noted person. The NYT is not "peer reviewed" nor are the vast majority of reliable sources used in this project. That straw argument has nothing to do with the simple fact that unless you dispute the accuracy of the quote, it is usable in an article. I would suggest that 99% of people would recognize that "the people who crucified Christ" applies to Jews in the context provided, and, as such, clearly is anti-Semitic. Notwithstanding that, all that is needed is for the article to use Chavez' own words - and there is no reason not to do so. Collect (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- You're letting your interpretation get away with you: it's one step from "it's obviously the Jews" and another to "it's obviously anti-semitism". This discussion is going absolutely nowhere, I suggest pulling the plug and constructing an WP:RFC. That's a chance to restate the case a lot more clear than emerges from these exchanges. Rd232 talk 18:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Opinions in newspaper columns have no higher weight based on the writer. That Barack Obama was a professor of constitutional law does not mean that we give his comments on the constitutionality of his health care plan then we would that of his opponents unless he published his views in a peer-reviewed academic journal. Newt Gingrich is an expert on the environment and George Ignatieff is an expert on human rights law, yet both are partisans. mark nutley, removing text that violates BLP is not edit-warring. TFD (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- The quote can be in the article in my opinion, and should be if opinion about it are to be included. With respect to op-eds, a President of a country is subjected to all kinds of published opinions. The opinions of media people (reporters, newspaper editors, other "commentators", etc.) are pretty much irrelevant here, but the opinions of known experts, such as Abraham Foxman's commentary in The Washington Post would be relevant. Yworo (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
This is really quite simple, did he say it? Yes. Did some consider it anti-semitic? Yes. is it reliably sourced? Yes. There is absolutely no issue here apart from wp:idontlikeit. mark nutley (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Did you just delete WP:UNDUE? And trying to push one interpretation of a single quote into a BLP, under the guise of "someone's opinion of something the subject said", is classic WP:COATRACKing. Rd232 talk 20:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- As already stated, it is not undue if widely reported, it has been. It is not undue to have content about anti-semitic statements when books are written about it. Undue does not come into play here sorry mark nutley (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- You keep claiming that the case is airtight, spending large amounts of words, cumulatively, to do so. Would it kill you to put the same effort into actually making your case, in detail, bringing together all the evidence you have? Rd232 talk 20:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Your funny, look through this thread. Look at the edit TFD edit warred out. Has chavez`s anti semitic remarks gotten widespread coverage? Yes. Has the quote above gotten widespread coverage? Again, yes. What exactly is your objection? I have yet to see one. Reliably sourced, written in a NPOV, sources attributed were needed. Tell me again, what exactly is wrong with this content? mark nutley (talk) 21:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Has chavez`s anti semitic remarks gotten widespread coverage? Yes. Has the quote above gotten widespread coverage? No, Chavez' anti-Semitic remarks have not been widely covered, because they don't exist. You've stated that he criticized Israel, and claimed that this is anti-Semitic. The quote you are talking about has not been widely covered either. Only a deliberately misleading selection from it has been heavily covered (generally presented in the context of a bunch of vague unbacked accusations of anti-Semitism by newspaper op-ed writers). If you want to put the full quote in Media representation of Hugo Chavez, along with a full, unbiased representations of all notable opinions about it, that's fine. But that will take at least a paragraph, and in an article about a man who has been president for 12 years, there are numerous far more important things to cover (economic policy, human rights, foreign policy, etc.). This does not warrant taking up that much space in the main article.
- What exactly is your objection? I have yet to see one...Tell me again, what exactly is wrong with this content? -- Then maybe you should re-read the posts above, because they've been given to you repeatedly. The primary one is that in an article about a BLP, you are giving undue weight to trivia, which is backed by manipulated quotes and invalid reasoning (e.g. "Criticizing Israel means you hate Jews") from newspaper op-eds, and is controversial in nature. It would be fine to mention in Media representation of Hugo Chavez, as long as you put in the full quote, and back it by higher-quality sources per WP:BLP. It does not belong in the main article, per WP:UNDUE, because there are much more important things to cover. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Your funny, look through this thread. Look at the edit TFD edit warred out. Has chavez`s anti semitic remarks gotten widespread coverage? Yes. Has the quote above gotten widespread coverage? Again, yes. What exactly is your objection? I have yet to see one. Reliably sourced, written in a NPOV, sources attributed were needed. Tell me again, what exactly is wrong with this content? mark nutley (talk) 21:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- You keep claiming that the case is airtight, spending large amounts of words, cumulatively, to do so. Would it kill you to put the same effort into actually making your case, in detail, bringing together all the evidence you have? Rd232 talk 20:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- As already stated, it is not undue if widely reported, it has been. It is not undue to have content about anti-semitic statements when books are written about it. Undue does not come into play here sorry mark nutley (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
No all i see above from involved editors is i dont like it. It is not trivia whe nit get s widespread coverage and books are written about it. Your opinions on manipulated quotes have no place here as that is your own OR. Were are the sources saying the quote was manipulated? Were are the sources saying he has not made anti semitic remarks? None, and i mean None have been presented here, just your opinions on the sources. Thats it, nada, zilch. Either present a source which states unequivocally that this quote is being deliberately misrepresented, or that the anti Semitic statements are not in fact that. The sources are fine per policy, so please give up that strawman argument and find a better one mark nutley (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Christ clearly was killed; there is nothing antisemitic in that statement. It only becomes an antisemitic remark when this is extended to describe "the Jews" as those who killed Christ. Chavez does not make that link, and has clearly and credibly explained that he was not referring to the Jews of the time, or now, but to the Roman imperial authorities. In fact, the only people making the questionable equation of "Christ-killers" with "Jews" are those accusing Chavez of antisemitism. It seems to me that the accusation is very misdirected in this case. RolandR (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is that the reference to the descendents of the "Christ Killers" seems quite inapplicable to descendants of ancient Roman Imperial authorities. Indeed, I know of no organized group of such. Collect (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't understand who your "such" refers to. Do you mean that you know of no organised group of "descendants of ancient Roman Imperial authorities", or that you know of no organised group of "descendants of Christ killers"? I know of no organised group of either, and it is clear that Chavez was speaking metaphorically. RolandR (talk) 07:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Metaphorically? Look - the only modern connotation I found for "those who crucified Christ" is "Jew." If you can provide another cite saying something different, list it so everyone can see it. And the term was used until fairly recent times in the Roman Catholic Church, which is dominant in Venezuela. Those hearing the words would not have interpreted tham as metaphor. Collect (talk) 14:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- See [9] for Church teaching to 1965. "...the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ (cf John 19:6)..." is still current teaching. Collect (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- You are ignoring what I have written. As a Jew, I do not feel or accept any responsibility for the crucifixion of Jesus, and I consider all those who ascribe any such responsibility to me personally or to Jews collectively to be antisemitic. Chavez did not make that equation, and unless you can find a source which establishes that he did, to describe his words as antisemitic is unsourced synthesis.
- And this is not just my own view. According to the leading Jewish publication The Forward, the Confederation of Jewish Associations of Venezuela, the American Jewish Committee and the American Jewish Congress all agreed that the comments were not directed at Jews: "All three groups said he was aiming his barbs at the white oligarchy that has dominated the region since the colonial era, pointing to his reference to Bolivar as the clearest evidence of his intent". Venezuela’s Jews Defend Leftist President in Flap Over Remarks, The Forward 13 February 2006 To argue that he meant anything else flies in the face of all the evidence, and of common sense. RolandR (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- And this is chopped liver? [10]. [11]. [12] uzw.? [13] The Simon Wiesenthal Center called the words anti-Semitic. NYT [14] also buttresses the likelihood of anti-Semitism. Seems that I, who am not Jewish, see things as clearly as the ADL and NYT. Collect (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- What is the significance of your "chopped liver" remark?
- Two of your references above do not mention this remark; two are duplicates, and do not respect the views of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, which is currently trying to build a "Museum of Tolerance" over an ancient Muslim cemetery in Jerusalem.[15] I accept the considered views of the Venezuelan Jewish coimmunity, who have frequently accused US Jewish organisations of acting on behalf of US interests in attacking Chavez. RolandR (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- And this is chopped liver? [10]. [11]. [12] uzw.? [13] The Simon Wiesenthal Center called the words anti-Semitic. NYT [14] also buttresses the likelihood of anti-Semitism. Seems that I, who am not Jewish, see things as clearly as the ADL and NYT. Collect (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't understand who your "such" refers to. Do you mean that you know of no organised group of "descendants of ancient Roman Imperial authorities", or that you know of no organised group of "descendants of Christ killers"? I know of no organised group of either, and it is clear that Chavez was speaking metaphorically. RolandR (talk) 07:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is that the reference to the descendents of the "Christ Killers" seems quite inapplicable to descendants of ancient Roman Imperial authorities. Indeed, I know of no organized group of such. Collect (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Slow but persistent edit war at this article. [16]. An unsourced paragraph on his views has removed, edited, removed, etc. It is, I think, based on material he's published on his website. My guess is that some editors find his writings disturbing and want to express that here somehow. For example, he writes 'Wars and communist governments were the main culprits. In both major causes of suffering, Jewish bankers and ideologues, as well as executioners, played a major role.' [17].
A while ago, thinking it would be best to use reliable sources' take on him rather than the primary sources, I put in a couple, but they were deleted by another editor who saw them as a BLP violation. [18] Questions: was it a BLP vio? (the refs were this Rowman & Littlefield book [19] and this Rice University website [20]). And is the current paragraph on his views (begins with 'Over time, Pogonowski has become critical of Jews who follow the Talmudic teaching that the Ten Commandments are not to be applied to Gentiles...') acceptable, based, as it seems to be, on the primary source of his own writings? Novickas (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Warned one of the users that added the (completely unsourced) material. Semiprotected the page. Moved the unsourced and poorly sourced material to the talk page. Tagged the page with refimproveblp and note about over use of primary sources and secondary sources being preferred. -- Cirt (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
A friend of the subject is adding content from sources such as 'his complete 201 File from the Department of the Army as well as his complete VA file'. PhilKnight (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Removed the BLP violation content, blocked one user, warned another user. -- Cirt (talk) 17:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Lester Coleman
Lester Coleman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Here is the disputed revisions: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lester_Coleman&diff=387364817&oldid=386456789 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lester_Coleman&diff=next&oldid=387364817
The source is the Atlanta Journal-Constitution article:
- Martz, Ron. "CONSPIRACY THEORIES: Outlandish claims can hit close to home." Atlanta Journal-Constitution. April 30, 2000. C5.
All sentences supporting my quotations are stated in the citation.
The other party said:
"Weakly cited conspiracy claims, BLP requires srtonger supports for such claims." (edit summary removing the article) and
"Fact and true say to me that the content is nothing like that, please consider BLP and that such conspiracy additions are extremely contentious and please provide stronger claims for such additions, thanks." (talk page)
The author of the article, an AJC employee named Ron Martz, himself had a dispute with Coleman and became opposed to him in a lawsuit. But the AJC published this, and it was not self-published. I argue that anything that Martz states as fact needs to be presumed as true.
Wikipedia:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material says that "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to comply with Verifiability." - The AJC article is not a self-published source, and the AJC itself is a reliable source.
I am in the process of sending the full copy of the article to the other party. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- - Comment - This report is poorly laid out, would the reporter please clearly lay out his desired content additions and the citations he desires to support them with. Off2riorob (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - I am a Wikipedia editor, not a "reporter."
- Anyway: These are the disputed sentences, and these are the sentences from the AJC article that support my statements.
- Wikipedia sentence: "Conspiracy theories alleging that the federal convictions of Lester Coleman were an effort to silence him and to hide the truth about Pan Am Flight 103 circulated around the internet."
- AJC article Sentence: "Coleman has since been convicted of federal charges of perjury and state charges of forgery. But the conspiracy theory lives on on the Web --- the convictions just another part of the government's effort to keep him quiet and hide the real truth about Pan Am 103."
- Wikipedia sentence: "In the 1980s Lester Coleman frequently traveled through Lebanon and other parts of the Middle East and had a Lebanese wife. He worked as a journalist, primarily in television. He frequently used the pseudonym "Collin Knox.""
- AJC article Sentence: "Coleman, an American, seemed a good candidate. He had a Lebanese wife and had traveled widely in that country and in other parts of the Middle East." and "byline "Collin Knox," a pseudonym frequently used by Coleman."
- Wikipedia sentence: "The head of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) office in Cyprus sued the publisher of Coleman's book. A court in London decided in favor of the DEA office, and the publisher placed a public apology and destroyed the remaining copies of the book."
- AJC article Sentence: "Coleman's primary target in the book, the head of the DEA office in Cyprus, successfully sued the British publisher and Coleman for libel in a London court. The publisher had to offer a public apology and destroy all remaining copies of the book."
- Plus I found a New York Magazine article talking about Coleman's alias
- New York Magazine. August 31, 1992. Page 34.
- WhisperToMe (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Also , you say, the author of the article was in dispute with the subject of the BLP and was against him in a lawsuit, this is clearly an opponent of the subject and as such likely extremely opinionated, are the contentious claims supported in other WP:RS? Off2riorob (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- 1. Firstly, the New York Magazine talks about Coleman's alias, as I state above.
- 2. Many reliable sources have points of view. The question is whether claims are properly vetted and whether factual statements are likely to be true. The AJC vets its articles, and the AJC can be trusted to allow for factual claims.
- 3. I'll see if I can gather more sources that discuss the particular aspects of Coleman. The problem is with "self-published" articles from "opponents of the subject."
- WhisperToMe (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- - Please keep your comment concise so as to focus on the actual issue, this is not a replacement for the talkpage, present your desired additions and the supporting citation and allow users to have a look at t. The thread is already long and fluffy. Off2riorob (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- The actual issue has been clearly addressed. I do treat the Noticeboard as a talk page, and I believe it should be treated as such. I believe that my comments have been adequately presented.
- WhisperToMe (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- This source talks about the lawsuit:
- "James helps arrange return of fugitive from Europe." Associated Press at the Times Daily. Friday October 25, 1996. 9 of 16.
- This says that Michael Hurley, the head of the DEA in Cyprus, sued the publishers in court and got a settlement, and the settlement papers said that the remaining copies of the book would be destroyed. The British publishers then said that the accusations were untrue.
- WhisperToMe (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- So? I don't get it, all the claims are week and involved and as such dubious to assert anything in a BLP. The publshers of coleman book were allegedly sued, perhaps that would sit better in an article about the book than a BLP article. Off2riorob (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- "Allegedly" sued? Either they were sued or they were not. In this case, they were sued. They settled out of court. There is no debate about this.
- Trial of the Octopus (book) does not yet exist. So either we make an article about the book, or the content about the book exists entirely in Coleman's article. Even if there is a separate article, it is still okay to summarize the contents, for completeness.
- Would you mind explaining why you think these claims are "dubious" or why you think the "claims are week"? I do not see any supporting evidence from your posts to explain why you believe this to be the case about reliably published sources.
- To say that the publisher was sued is a factual statement that cannot be disputed. A record of the lawsuit would exist. A record of the settlement would exist.
- Also I don't see how statements like "Coleman has a Lebanese wife" or "Coleman frequently used this alias" would be disputed.
- WhisperToMe (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, settling out of court usually infers no guilt and has privacy issues. As for your alias claim (you allegedly claim frequently used) is all contentious and also weakly claimed in a BLP. Although some users like conspiracy related issues sometimes less is more and we have worked hard to keep such weakly claimed issues out of this BLP and imo that is reflective of wikipedia's guidelines and policies as regards the biographies of of living people. Off2riorob (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- While settling out of claim by law technically infers no guilt, Wikipedia can report on what happens as part of the settlement, and Wikipedia can report on what the settlement means, as interpreted by secondary sources and in some cases primary sources. Usually terms of the settlement are disclosed. In this case the publishers issued a statement saying the book's contents were false and destroyed the remaining copies of the book. Ron Martz, the AJC employee who was named in Coleman's book, considered the outcome to be a defeat for the book's publishers, and it is okay for Wikipedia to say "Ron Martz of the AJC said that XXX "lost"."
- "As for your alias claim (you allegedly claim frequently used) is all contensions and also weakly claimed in a BLP." - If we have two people, one published by the AJC and one published by the NYT, saying that Coleman used that alias, and Coleman did not say himself that he did not use this alias, shouldn't that be strong enough?
- Again, why is it weakly cited? How about this: What are your criteria for a "strong" citation. What are you looking for in a citation? How does this match with the expectations of WP:BLP? Which parts of WP:BLP are you referring to as evidence?
- WhisperToMe (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- This is part of the clear issue as regards BLP, its all weakly claimed from involved people, we are not here to write expose content, for BLP articles especially regarding contentious content we are looking for the strongest quality of citations and also the content should really be widely available we are not here to add disputed difficult to assess involved commentary, this whole issue is clearly central to our BLP policy. Off2riorob (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- "the strongest quality of citations" - What are they? I would like to know your views on that.
- "its all weakly claimed from involved people" - It's possible to have something strongly claimed from an involved person, provided that it is published in a secondary source, and one properly interprets and restates what was said by that involved person in a neutral manner. See the fourth bullet point.
- "we are not here to write expose content" (meaning "exposé") - But it's not original research, and this stuff is not self-published. Everything has been published in reliable sources.
- What Wikipedia:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material defines as "poorly" (or weakly) sourced would be "conjectural interpretation of a source" or content from self-published sources not from the author, or "sources that fail in some other way to comply with Verifiability" - So it would help to explain why it would fail to comply with WP:V
- WhisperToMe (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- As I said, your discussion here is awful broad . There are other discussions pages and policy pages for your other thoughts as regards verifiability and what is contentious discussions. My thoughts are irrelevant, we already have strong BLP policy in regards to this issue. Off2riorob (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- But people do use interpretations when judging what a policy means, so it is helpful to have people explain what they believe a policy states. It can help clear up any misunderstandings. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- As I said, your discussion here is awful broad . There are other discussions pages and policy pages for your other thoughts as regards verifiability and what is contentious discussions. My thoughts are irrelevant, we already have strong BLP policy in regards to this issue. Off2riorob (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- This is part of the clear issue as regards BLP, its all weakly claimed from involved people, we are not here to write expose content, for BLP articles especially regarding contentious content we are looking for the strongest quality of citations and also the content should really be widely available we are not here to add disputed difficult to assess involved commentary, this whole issue is clearly central to our BLP policy. Off2riorob (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, settling out of court usually infers no guilt and has privacy issues. As for your alias claim (you allegedly claim frequently used) is all contentious and also weakly claimed in a BLP. Although some users like conspiracy related issues sometimes less is more and we have worked hard to keep such weakly claimed issues out of this BLP and imo that is reflective of wikipedia's guidelines and policies as regards the biographies of of living people. Off2riorob (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- So? I don't get it, all the claims are week and involved and as such dubious to assert anything in a BLP. The publshers of coleman book were allegedly sued, perhaps that would sit better in an article about the book than a BLP article. Off2riorob (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- First a disclosure: I have a longstanding interest in this article, which has repeatedly been disrupted by socks attempting to insert spurious content. I don't believe that that is happening here, I'm just clarifying that I'm an involved editor. Now to the point: I believe that the Martz article should be usable, but because it is substantially about the role of Martz himself, any statement based on it needs to be explicitly attributed to Martz. In other words, we can't say X is true, but rather according to Martz, X is true. Looie496 (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- On many instances, I agree with using "according to Martz, X is true," especially when Coleman and Martz make statements that directly contradict each other. I.E. "Coleman says X," "Martz says Y," or when Mertz makes an interpretive/opinion (not a factual) statement, I.E. instead of "Coleman is a bad boy who needs a spanking," it should be "Martz says Coleman is a bad boy who needs a spanking" (that wasn't actually said in the source; I'm just using it as an example :) )
- In this particular case, there is no need to say that "Martz says the publisher destroyed copies of the books." The Associated Press states that the settlement papers said that the remaining copies were destroyed.
- However it is correct to say "Martz said that the British publishers "lost" the case" because they did settle.
- We can say "Martz said that in the 1980s Lester Coleman frequently traveled through Lebanon and other parts of the Middle East" - That can be revised if we find other people saying the same things and/or if Coleman says this himself.
- We can say "Martz said that he worked as a journalist, primarily in television, and that he frequently used the pseudonym "Collin Knox."" - Again that can be revised if we find other people saying the same things and/or if Coleman says this himself.
- We do not need to say "Martz said that Coleman had a Lebanese wife.
- WhisperToMe (talk) 23:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Matz is like an enemy of Coleman and his wekly cited claims and comments about coleman are far from NPOV and should not be added at all, please post your your desired addition and the citations that support it here so we can have a good look at it. Off2riorob (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- We are supposed to talk about the good, the bad, and the ugly about any subject, BLP or not. What BLP means is that we have to be more careful about sourcing and balance. We know Martz was against Coleman, so all it means is that we evaluate what he said and appropriately post what Martz. Because it is not self published, we can use what Martz said. The AJC signed off on what Metz said, so just because Martz was an enemy doesn't mean his AJC-vetted statements are unreliable. Sources do not have to be neutral. They have to be reliable. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
This is what you posted...
Conspiracy theories alleging that the federal convictions of Lester Coleman were an effort to silence him and to hide the truth about Pan Am Flight 103 circulated around the internet.<ref name="MartzRon">Martz, Ron. "CONSPIRACY THEORIES: Outlandish claims can hit close to home." Atlanta Journal-Constitution. April 30, 2000. C5. Retrieved on September 26, 2010. "Coleman, an American, seemed a good candidate. He had a Lebanese wife and had traveled widely in that country and in other parts of the Middle East." and "byline "Collin Knox," a pseudonym frequently used by Coleman." and "Coleman has since been convicted of federal charges of perjury and state charges of forgery. But the conspiracy theory lives on on the Web --- the convictions just another part of the government's effort to keep him quiet and hide the real truth about Pan Am 103." and "Coleman's primary target in the book, the head of the DEA office in Cyprus, successfully sued the British publisher and Coleman for libel in a London court. The publisher had to offer a public apology and destroy all remaining copies of the book."
In the 1980s Lester Coleman frequently traveled through Lebanon and other parts of the Middle East and had a Lebanese wife. He worked as a journalist, primarily in television. He frequently used the pseudonym "Collin Knox."<ref name="MartzRon"/>
The head of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) office in Cyprus sued the publisher of Coleman's book. A court in London decided in favor of the DEA office, and the publisher placed a public apology and destroyed the remaining copies of the book.<ref name="MartzRon"/>
- The above was already linked above. It's far easier to link to a diff. We can see the diffs for ourselves. Again, the diffs are here and here WhisperToMe (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
comments
to me it just looks like conspiracy claims, attempt to associate Coleman with a alias and unconfirmed allegations from an opponent of Colemans, and some claims about his book that actually leave more questions than answers. If Coleman frequently traveled in Lebanon in the 1980, what did he do there, what is the relevance of the claimed alias, what evidence cited it there og activities he carried out with this secret identity? if we added every weakly claimed alias for Coleman we would have nothing but conspiracy, which imo is all this content adds to the article. This content does nothing apart from allege and smear a living person with the claims of someone who took legal action against Coleman, what are the details of this legal case, why was it in London, are there and independant reports of this case, perhaps in British papers as it allegedly happened there. Off2riorob (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- 1. Your questions do not weaken the integrity of the Wikipedia statements and do not cast doubt on them:
- 2. "If Coleman frequently traveled in Lebanon in the 1980, what did he do there" - I'm sure someone else explained what he did. How is it negative that Joe frequently traveled in somewhereland in the 1980s? If it just says he traveled in somewhereland, why do we have to explain it? If you want to know more, find more sources and add to it.
- 3. "what evidence cited it there og activities he carried out with this secret identity?" - I don't understand that sentence. Please reword it.
- 4. "what is the relevance of the claimed alias" - He published works in journalistic publication under that alias. He didn't just adopt an alias for fun and use it at Christmas parties. If his alias wasn't relevant, the sources (in this case journalists who have less than favorable opinions of Coleman, and whose statements were published by reliable sources) wouldn't be referring to it.
- 5. "This content does nothing apart from allege and smear a living person with the claims of someone who took legal action against Coleman," That is incorrect. It factually states real facts in a neutral tone. Do not equate properly balanced neutral and negative information with a "smear." You have to follow what the sources say about someone. If sources point to X information, you have to state it so. WP:Undue weight clearly states that we must use sources to apportion what is said about a subject.
- 6. "what are the details of this legal case, why was it in London, are there and independant reports of this case, perhaps in British papers as it allegedly happened there."
- a. Because the case was filed in London against a British publisher. How does this negatively affect the content?
- b. We already have the Associated Press report I posted above that said the case ended in a settlement.
- c. Want more information? Find more information.
- You are using the word "weak" without explaining why it is weak. If I say it is a "strong" citation, and I am doing so with the support of WP:BLP as explained in the policy, that neutralizes your argument. WP:BLP makes it clear that strong citations are secondary sources from reliable publishers. While the Metz article in some ways is a primary source (an involved person wrote it), it is also in some ways a secondary source (Metz is an employee of the newspaper who published his article, and was an employee of that very newspaper!!!) - Not only is the Metz citation strong, I have other news articles that are also strong.
- You have to explain your rationale. You can't just say "BLP is clear." I see a lack of explanation in your posts and that does not help me find a solution, nor does it help the credibility of your opposition.
- I am going to file an RFC if no third opinion comes in.
I am surprised that no other users have commented on this matter.I am confident that a revised version of the paragraph that I posted would pass BLP.I already listed it at Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements - WhisperToMe (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Turns out User:Looie496 already provided a third opinion in favor of using the Metz source, with clarifications. So, two out of three support using Metz, as per WP:BLP. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Alright, would someone mind looking at User:WhisperToMe/Coleman? This page is a workshop for the revised paragraphs that use User:Looie496's suggestions and use multiple sources. I also began to expand on other points made from other sources. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- In the absence of any further commentary, if three days pass from the timestamp I will integrate the content in to the Coleman article. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- There is no time limit and I don't see as you have made a case that this disputed content is of any clear informative value at all. It is still worthless conspiracy content and should not be added to a BLP. Your desire to add your weakly claimed conspiracy content allows others to add their opinions and POV and weak claims also. Off2riorob (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- I established a time limit so nobody can accuse me of trying to buck consensus/sneakily pass moves. It is 100% acceptable to impose time limits, as once no objections are raised in a reasonable amount of time, one can safely assume that no objections exist.
- This is now going to be an RFC. There is a new section: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Lester_Coleman_request_for_comment WhisperToMe (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Basically, its a BLP not a he said she said and they thought POV write up. Keep it simple and keep it clean and clear, less in this case is more, your content belongs on some op ed titillation article not here on wikipedia, the lowering of standards in such a way allows the lowering of standards all across the project and although you are interested in this sort of thing, it should not be allowed on this project. Off2riorob (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Off2riorob, the only part that is (for now) a "he said she said" is where Michael Hurley said Coleman worked one job while an attorney said he worked another. Aside from this, I have found no reliable sources or primary sources from Coleman which contradict anything that other people say. The outcome of the court case, the statements of the alias, the Lebanese wife, etc. have not been challenged by other sources.
- As for the one thing that is a "he said she said." While WP:BLP prohibits "gossip," I don't see anywhere that states that BLP prohibits describing unclear legal conflicts and personality conflicts. Removing the conflict between Hurley and Coleman removes an essential element of Coleman's subject. We have to go in a he said she said routine and neutrally discuss the court case and its outcomes. See Wikipedia:BLP#Public_figures which says "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."
- Why don't we continue this in the RFC? I am reposting the two posts below.
- WhisperToMe (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Basically, its a BLP not a he said she said and they thought POV write up. Keep it simple and keep it clean and clear, less in this case is more, your content belongs on some op ed titillation article not here on wikipedia, the lowering of standards in such a way allows the lowering of standards all across the project and although you are interested in this sort of thing, it should not be allowed on this project. Off2riorob (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- There is no time limit and I don't see as you have made a case that this disputed content is of any clear informative value at all. It is still worthless conspiracy content and should not be added to a BLP. Your desire to add your weakly claimed conspiracy content allows others to add their opinions and POV and weak claims also. Off2riorob (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- In the absence of any further commentary, if three days pass from the timestamp I will integrate the content in to the Coleman article. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
The illness portion of this article contains, not only phrases which do not make sense, but information regarding Mick's illness and health that is a little too telling. There has been no official announcement as to Mick's current condition. Individuals who update his official website, and family members, still consider Mick's illness to be a private matter. Yet this particular part of the article makes a claim as to what stage of illness Mick is in. This is extremely sensitive information and it's placement on here, given the timing and circumstances, is in bad taste. The article has been edited to remove this information and make it more legible, only to have the editing undone. --Wabdtv (talk) 03:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Two things:
- 1) Yes, that section was in terrible shape. I've copyedited it and verified that it says what the reliable sources (including Karn's official site) actually say.
- 2) Sorry, but reporting on an illness that has been covered in major media (e.g., BBC 6), using the information properly attributed to the sources quoted, isn't a BLP concern. While it might be distressing to the patient, the fact is that his friends have blabbed to the media, they printed it, and there's not much anyone can do to un-say what's been said. There's no reason the material couldn't be removed through normal editing as WP:UNDUE weight, but the BLP issue isn't particularly concerning here. Jclemens (talk) 05:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing things up. I wasn't really trying to whine about the information that was on the the article. My previous attempts at trying to clean it up weren't successful, as someone just reverted to the previously saved information. I really didn't know where else to mention this to get some attention to it.
- I live in the USA and unfortunately, Mick's illness is not news here on t.v or in print. Whatever info I have about Mick or his illness, I've had to search for on the internet quite a bit. It never dawned on me that his illness might be major news over in Europe.... I guess that's why I was a little put off by the details on there before. Now I get it. Thanks for understanding.--Wabdtv (talk) 08:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
It looks problematic to me. What do other people think? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Borderline. One of the links re: the conviction is dead, but the NYT one appears fine. The section ends with a documented description of his presidential pardon, so it doesn't seem too UNDUE or slanted towards the negative. I'm sure it could probably be trimmed a bit without losing any meaning. Jclemens (talk) 04:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- The pardon makes that part notable, in a way. I was more concerned with the deaths of his family members. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
James Cantor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fresh eyes would be appreciated, please, at James Cantor. He is a scientist who specializes in transgender issues, and in paedophilia, and editors with opinions about him and his research are editing the article. It would be helpful if uninvolved editors could add it to their watchlists. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I just posted this note as a new incident below, before noticing that this had already been brought here: Last week I created this stub/bio on the editor of an academic journal, but seem unwittingly to have stirred up a hornet's nest. The talk page is overflowing with heated discussions, involving the subject of the bio himself (who edits WP under his own name) and several other editors, some of whom have been involved in edit disputes on other articles with the subject. As far as I can see, some may even have had "real life" interactions with the subject. Tempers are flaring high, with accusations ranging from having "an agenda" to "trolling". The article has not suffered too much (yet, I think: it is difficult to be certain as some of the issues are completely outside of my area), but some extra attention of some uninvolved admins might be good before things really get out of hand. I apologize if this is not the right forum for this kind of thing (but in that case, I'd appreciate advice on how to proceed). --Crusio (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, that helps. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Castleberry's Food Company
Castleberry's Food Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Extreme concerns. Not a living person, but a living company. Is it possible that an equity firm is planting negative information to ensure that the stock decreases?
ScienceApologist (talk) 07:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- No. It's the case that you did no reading and research before BLP panicking. There are sources contradicting your edit on the article's talk page, which were only removed from the article because it was thought to have too many sources (sic!), and even a minimum of research would have turned up these:
- Tim Rausch (2008-11-16). "Augusta icon shuts down after 82 years". The Augusta Chronicle.
- Tim Rausch (2008-09-18). "Food factory in Augusta to shut down". The Florida Times-Union.
- This so-called "negative information planted by an equity firm", on a so-called "living" business that in fact ceased operations two years ago, has, you'll find, even reached a 2010 textbook on environmental health written by Dr. Howard Frumkin, who works for the CDC. Uncle G (talk) 10:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- That things went bad with the company is undeniable. But you can't tell me that the article is well-written from the perspective of what would be acceptably encyclopedic, can you? Perhaps this would have been better placed at WP:NPOVN, but this wasn't an issue of sourcing: it's one of style. The two news stories you cite aren't nearly as polemic as our article. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- BLP does not apply to companies. — e. ripley\talk 03:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, BLP does not apply to companies. Try the RS and/or original research noticeboards. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- BLP does not apply to companies. — e. ripley\talk 03:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- That things went bad with the company is undeniable. But you can't tell me that the article is well-written from the perspective of what would be acceptably encyclopedic, can you? Perhaps this would have been better placed at WP:NPOVN, but this wasn't an issue of sourcing: it's one of style. The two news stories you cite aren't nearly as polemic as our article. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
American University of Beirut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) very long list of alumni with no sources listed. Should we tag as citations needed or delete? I don't have/time interest in sourcing the information myself. Gerardw (talk) 11:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- User:Off2riorob made the deletions; I added the standard message I use when making such removals to alumni lists to the discussion page. As a side note, anyone is of course welcome to copy-paste that message whenever they make similar deletions; I use a similar one for television station alumni (you can see the most current version of that at Talk:WTVJ). No matter what we say, of course, people will continue to re-add those names, but at least having the explanation on talk serves as our justification for the removal of unimportant and unverified BLP info. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Rob Crosby
Several editors have been removing the full name from Rob Crosby, saying that the subject wishes not to have his full name divulged. The full name (Robert Crosby Hoar) is supported by multiple reliable sources, such as Allmusic and Joel Whitburn's Hot Country Songs 1944-2008 book, among others. I went through a similar situation a while back with Mark Wills and the consensus there was that the full name should stay because there are sources to verify it. Same thing here? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- You are correct. Wikipedia is not censored. A public figure's reliably sourced real name does not and cannot trigger BLP cautions barring extraordinary circumstances. Brav's closing comment in the Mark Wills debate is correct, by the way; what a public figure, his fans, his managers, etc. wishes regarding what his Wikipedia article's contents is absolutely irrelevant if the text in question does not trigger BLP in some other way. That sources exist isn't the decider, although it's of course important. YLee (talk) 00:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
This edit [21] was iterated with the edit summary "I was present at the SCOPE meeting when Paladino said it. I heard him say it in person. MK.) " presenting a youtube video as a reliable source. I demurred, but decided to ask here. Is "I heard him say it" proof of a "relaible source" for the claim made? I am concerned about it being youtube, being a blog of sorts, and relying on an anonymous "one person" to boot. Collect (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- No. That would be original research, which is not permissible. YouTube can be a reliable source in certain circumstances, but this isn't one of them. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- In order for something to count as an RS, it must be published.
- Freedom Roc doesn't have an article, and I don't know who made the video. Unless we know where the video segment came from, we can't cite it.
- WhisperToMe (talk) 05:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Marty Peretz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Editor of the New Republic. The bio is horribly POV, made worse by the fact that subject seems intent on giving critics as much adverse material has he can. I will look in on this later, but it will take some time, and I don't have nearly enough time right now. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 11:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. Difficult case because it is tempting to remove everything unpleasant, but that wouldn't be right either. I took out a couple quotes about a fictional character based on Mr. Peretz and some OR blaming him for the magazine's declining readership. Borock (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Borock removed the highly relevant paragraphs that mention Jim Lehrer's use of Peretz as a character in his 1993 novel Blue Hearts. The reliable source for this fact is the Slate Magazine article Shafer, Jack (2010-09-14). "In Praise of Marty Peretz". Slate Magazine. Retrieved 2010-09-22.
{{cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
(help) I have added this relevant fact back in the article and mentioned Slate as the source explicitly in the text, although it was already well-referenced. Please see talk. AdamKesher (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)- I've reverted back. See talk. Exxolon (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. I think it should be clear that a quote about a fictional character based on a real person has no place in the real person's article (especially if that person is living.) Anyway there is plenty of material in the article without it. I have never heard of a pro-Israel person who makes Zionism look so bad. Borock (talk) 04:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree. The quote from Jim Lehrer's novel is about Marty Peretz—that's what "roman à clef" means! Lehrer specifically refers to Peretz's editorial stance at The New Republic and identifying details of his personal background. I can point to other BLP's who have roman à clef descriptive quotes in their biographies, and this is appropriate. Furthermore, I see nothing in WP:BLP that would prohibit the inclusion of roman à clef descriptions of a living person. I won't add the quote back yet until Borock, Exxolon, or other editors show how WP:BLP prohibits the inclusion of properly sourced roman à clef descriptions of living persons. AdamKesher (talk) 10:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- I explained my concerns on the article's talk page. Borock (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- As have I. Short answer, see Michael_Crichton#Michael_Crowley. Exxolon (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- I explained my concerns on the article's talk page. Borock (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've reverted back. See talk. Exxolon (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
religious/nonreligious categorization without a clear personal self identification
There is a RFC discussion related to BLP contentious religious/nonreligious categorization without a clear personal self identification on the Ed Miliband biography, as this is likely related to wider articles, all opines are welcomed. Off2riorob (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- And once again the discussion has ignored our actual BLP policy statement "Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to his notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources." I've pointed that out. Dougweller (talk) 13:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Sarkozy a gipsy? His grandfather a farmer? - suspect vandalism
Hi. I see that an IP added a few comments that I suspect to be vandalism on the Nicholas Sarkozy page. The comments are in the second paragraph of the section */Family background/*. It says that Sarkozy's father was born into a gypsy family and that his grandfather was a farmer. I tracked this back to an edit made at 10:34, 27 September 2010 by IP 79.114.46.36. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- I reverted the edit at Nicolas Sarkozy that added "gipsy" because it is not in the reference. The comment in the article about "farmer" is referring to an event before 1628, so it is not talking about Sarkozy's grandfather, and it seems entirely likely. Johnuniq (talk) 02:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Need Help
I represent E. Max Frye, an American screenwriter, and want to change his Wikipedia page; however, every time I make an edit, the page reverts to the incorrect information that had been uploaded previously. I don't know who wrote it, but the information is incorrect. The correct information is presented here, on the NYU wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Max_Frye
Please help me edit Mr. Frye's page. The information that is currently present on the Wikipedia page is incredibly upsetting to Mr. Frye and to those who know him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kustanovich (talk • contribs) 04:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Odd that you say incorrect. Max (or his people) previously blanked most content, but they only said they blanked it because it was personal information and not because it is incorrect. In the emails I received following those old edits, Frye (or his rep) again were trying to keep personal details out, not so much saying things were incorrect. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
There is a problem with this BLP. On 26 Sep new user Ivorrobinson (talk · contribs) added this paragraph of unfavourable material, cited (by assertion, not by actual link) to 1997 newspapers. Today new user Wordsathome (talk · contribs) and two IPs have been edit-warring to remove it. I blocked (but have now unblocked) Wordsathome and pointed them to BLP/H, and semi-protected the article for 3 days as edit-warring continued by IP. The IP complained on my talk page that "chrissie maher profile is being repeatedly attacked by an ex employee with a greavance." More views welcome on whether/how this material should be covered per WP:UNDUE. There seems to be off-Wiki canvassing going on - another user Martinos155 (talk · contribs) who has only previously edited on Plain English Campaign has appeared blanking information from my talk page. JohnCD (talk) 10:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- I have removed the paragraph in question, because it amounted to original research. Unless a reliable source can be cited for the assertions made, it doesn't belong in a BLP. I also removed some unbalanced language, and reflagged it as an unreferenced BLP. There are some parenthetical references in the text to newspapers, but being a BLP it needs more complete references with article names, authors, dates, etc. I would strongly recommend using the citation templates to make sure as much relevant information as possible is captured. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 11:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- What about the third paragraph, added at the same time by the same SPA? It is sourced, but the 13-year-old newspaper references cannot be easily checked, and, occupying nearly half of the article it seems to me grossly disproportionate per WP:UNDUE. I think it should be either removed altogether as contentious material about a living person that is... poorly sourced or, if the sourcing is thought to be good enough that to make that inappropriate, reduced to a brief reference. JohnCD (talk) 13:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- As long as the citations are sufficient that they could be checked, they aren't necessarily poorly sourced. There is no requirement that sources be easily verified, only that they are verifiable. It is possible to go to a library or to the newspaper's own archives and confirm the 13-year-old articles. I haven't looked at the UNDUE objection. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- What about the third paragraph, added at the same time by the same SPA? It is sourced, but the 13-year-old newspaper references cannot be easily checked, and, occupying nearly half of the article it seems to me grossly disproportionate per WP:UNDUE. I think it should be either removed altogether as contentious material about a living person that is... poorly sourced or, if the sourcing is thought to be good enough that to make that inappropriate, reduced to a brief reference. JohnCD (talk) 13:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I, Ivor Robinson, made the changes that are said not to be adequately sourced. I can assure you the press cuttings exist in hard copy. Also the Industrial Tribunal reference is wholly accurate and the number of the Industrial Tribunal case is correct. Who would make these things up? The case reference is 2403389/97, dated 28 Oct 1997. The tribunal chair was Miss V Woolley. The Daily Mail article was by Stephen Oldfield on 4 Nov 1997. A similar story in the Manchester Evening News by Peter Sharples is dated 3 Nov 1997 or 4 Nov 1997. I'm sorry, but I don't yet understand the Wikipedia conventions about editing pages or signing these posts. I am very concerned that Plain English Campaign refuses to accept any changes to the page on Chrissie Maher or Plain English Campaign itself. These pages are fiercely protected pieces of hagiography and there's no attempt at commentary or criticism. They are simply promotional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivorrobinson (talk • contribs) 20:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ivor, have a look at the WP:Citing sources page; that will help you get started with citations. You will also find WP:BLP helpful as well. That'll get you started on sourcing Wikipedia articles. It sounds like you have sources, but you need to learn how to cite them. I find the citation templates very helpful in this regard, as they help you remember to include all the possible information. Because of the potential impact upon the lives of living people, as well as the legal issues involved, biographies of living persons are held to a very strict standard regarding sources. On most articles, there's some leeway to add facts and then shore them up with citations later; with BLPs, that's forbidden—anything potentially controversial or harmful must be cited to appropriate sources when it's put in. As regards criticism, this is an encyclopedia; it does not generate commentary or criticism (that would be original research or synthesis), but only reports on verifiable claims made by reliable sources from a neutral point of view, without giving undue weight to any particular argument. In this case, that means that unless reliable third parties have made credible criticism of the subject of the biography, there is no criticism that merits inclusion. If there is such criticism that can be cited, it may be included in the article, but only to the extent merited by a neutral review of the facts. That is, if a given criticism is a small part of the subject's life, it should also be a small part of the article, proportional to the importance of the facts cited. The five pillars of Wikipedia will help you better understand the thought and principles behind these rules. As for signing comments, just add a row of four tildes— ~~~~ —at the end of your comment; that will be replaced with your signature. I hope this helps, and welcome to Wikipedia! // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I put this in the article Talk page, but maybe it belongs here:
The last part of this sentence was added recently with no reference: "Sheikh Mohammed has 19 officially acknowledged children: eight sons and eleven daughters of whom Mohammed Sharn Abdur-Rahman he cherishes most."
With no supporting ref, I think it should be removed, esp. since it is hurtful to the other children. I plan to do so unless someone objects with supporting data. Karen Anne (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
RevDel for Lois Pope??
Done by User:Gogo Dodo. Rd232 talk 16:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
So... I don't know if I am asking in the right place, but someone made a grossly insulting edit to Lois Pope which includes a URL to an external link that further criticizes the subject. It was reverted right away, but the post is so libelous and yucky, I think it might need a RevDel. I read the criteria for RevDel, and I think this qualifies, but the page didn't give any instructions for how to request one. I am not an interested party... just a newish vandal-fighter trying to figure out the way this all works. I don't know how to post a diff, but this edit happened today, and should be obvious. Thanks for your help. Tarastar42 (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- This is a fine place to put this as admins do read this board, but you might get some quicker responses if you repost this at WP:ANI. — e. ripley\talk 16:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Excellent! Thanks to Gogo Dodo, Rd232, Active Banana, and e. ripley for your help and advice! Tarastar42 (talk) 16:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
A related party is deleting content relating to a legal case involving the subject. The content has been restored by a few different users (including myself). Opinions welcomed. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- The incident you are now trying to publish never happened how it was reported then and has nothing to do with football which is the only reason this wikipedia exists the player is no David beck ham just leave the family alone thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Welsh family (talk • contribs) 20:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Here's a link to the article that was being referenced in the article and the content that was being warred over. Smartse (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- The incident was reported in at least one newspaper, the Daily Mail. The way Wikipedia works, a report in a reliable source takes precedence over an unsubstantiated claim by an anonymous editor.
- The Daily Mail report is not a brief mention, but an extended account, including detailed reporting of how the incident is alleged to have taken place, what Welsh is supposed to have said about the incident, what Welsh's defence lawyer said in court, etc.
- Both the user name and the above comment suggest that User:Welsh family has a conflict of interest.
- While being a footballer is certainly the reason why Welsh is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article, once he has that degree of notability other aspects of his life may become of public significance and interest. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- The Daily Mail is a widely published talbloid newspaper without a |great reputation for fact checking and accuracy. If it is the only source covering this story, then WP:BLP trumps and it should not be reincluded. Active Banana (bananaphone 22:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- I am only too well aware that the Daily Mail is not the most reliable of newspapers, in fact that is precisely why I took the trouble to mention the amount of detail that it reported. While I do not trust the Daily Mail to get every detail right, I think it is unlikely that a detailed account, including quoting what the defendants' lawyer said in court, is likely to be completely fabricated. The disputed content reports the fact of the conviction, the guilty pleas, the amounts of the fines, all of which is verifiable by court records. As far as I am aware there are no cases of even the Daily Mail claiming that court records say things that they don't. The disputed content also reported the fact that the defendants stated after the court case that they had "carried the can" for others. This is supposed to have been said away from court, presumably to journalists, and so is less verifiable, so there could be a case for just excluding this part of the report. However, in the interest of balanced reporting I would not advocate that. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- The issue is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a tabloid. So information that is reported primarily in tabloids often should not be added to BLP of people that have minor notability. Otherwise it gives undue weight to this incident in their life since there are not ongoing published reports about other aspects of their life at the level of detail that a tabloid uses. The primary point of tabloid articles is sales. So they pick out material based on what will get readers attention not what is important for an reader to know about a situation or person. For these reasons, I agree that we do not need to include this content. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- I am only too well aware that the Daily Mail is not the most reliable of newspapers, in fact that is precisely why I took the trouble to mention the amount of detail that it reported. While I do not trust the Daily Mail to get every detail right, I think it is unlikely that a detailed account, including quoting what the defendants' lawyer said in court, is likely to be completely fabricated. The disputed content reports the fact of the conviction, the guilty pleas, the amounts of the fines, all of which is verifiable by court records. As far as I am aware there are no cases of even the Daily Mail claiming that court records say things that they don't. The disputed content also reported the fact that the defendants stated after the court case that they had "carried the can" for others. This is supposed to have been said away from court, presumably to journalists, and so is less verifiable, so there could be a case for just excluding this part of the report. However, in the interest of balanced reporting I would not advocate that. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- The Daily Mail is a widely published talbloid newspaper without a |great reputation for fact checking and accuracy. If it is the only source covering this story, then WP:BLP trumps and it should not be reincluded. Active Banana (bananaphone 22:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
While the Daily Mail is published in "Tabloid format" that does not make it a "tabloid" as commonly construed in the US (usually weeklies like the Weekly World News and the like. Format is not a WP standard -- as rimes change, a large number of mainstream papers change to the lower cost format. Collect (talk) 12:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Actually for our purposes, I thought we *did* consider the mail a Tabloid (regardless of format)? --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- The Daily Mail is a middle market paper. This gives it greater credibility the say, The Sun, but not as much as for example, The Times. Exxolon (talk) 15:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Actually for our purposes, I thought we *did* consider the mail a Tabloid (regardless of format)? --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Speedy Deletion of Americas Sexiest Girls & correct page of Jennifer abbott that was chnaged and undid previous approved chnages I made undid again by hullaballoo_Wolfowitz
- User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz#{{hang on}} Do not speedy delete Americas Sexiest Girls
- America's Sexiest Girls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
DELETE AMERICAS SEXIEST GIRLS
Please do not delete. This pg is not promo page only listed accurate data published on what dvd is about starring ron jeremy. Its on the bios and is film work starring ron jeremy, jennifer abbott, too short, g money. What part is promotional so I can fix? Thank you
Also I already went through countless undos and received permission for the changes on jennifer abbott page Jennifer Abbott (director) you just made/undid of which were all approved by the blp board. Those need changed back. All I did was add the link for her previous works to the new wiki page that shows it from ron jeremy's page since he starred in it. you deleted even though she did create the dvd and its part of her previous works, same as her books and new film made. Here yr born and other copyright data that proved this was also listed and you deleted, so many websites confuse her info with another jennifer abbott director born in 67 are wrong she is the jennifer abbott born in 55. Please correct these I went through the blp board after ppl just kept coming and undoing correct info added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobelprice (talk • contribs)
- I have to say that your page is miraculous, because it cured a homeless man's blindness, he could see that that page is nothing but an advertisement. Also, you're in the wrong section. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
SPA on Tucker Max
- Tucker Max (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Captain Patriot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This article has had several SPAs attack it over the last several months, as an investigation of its' edit history shows. In the case of this one, his first edit was a rant on the talk page suggesting that "Tucker's PR people" be kept from editing the article, his second was insertion of BLP-violating material in the article lede and his third and fourth edits were reverts. The editing pattern used by this one is quite similar to the ones by User:Bryanholliday and User:Terranmedic, although both of those are stale as far as SPIs go. The accusation of "censoring criticism" is a common refrain from SPAs on that article, though, who feel that the article needs to be as negatively slanted "for accuracy" as possible. Seth Kellerman (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Is that link to User:Captain Patriot correct? There are no contributions for that editor? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ah. It's CaptainPatriot (talk · contribs), and I note that nobody has discussed these concerns on the User's Talk page. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
This person does not seem notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apples6547 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- May be a borderline case, but it looks referenced and nothing jumps out at me as unsourced negative material. If you or someone really thinks he's not notable you're probably going to need to look to articles for deletion--Cube lurker (talk) 18:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Sister Wives and claims about religious affiliation
An entry was recently created for the new TLC reality show "Sister Wives". In this entry a sentence about the three wives in the show was plagiarized verbatim from a newspaper review that appeared in The Vancouver Sun. While I did not notice the plagiarism at first I did notice that a certain phrase, "... while Janelle, though a Mormon ... " , was being used in the sentence in a manner that did not appear to be particularly NPOV, so I removed it. After some discussion on the talk page with someone who questioned my removal I also realized that there was a BLP concern here. The husband on the show claims he is the patriarch of a Mormon fundamentalist family, and according to the editor who disagrees with me, the wife in question stated on the show that she was raised "Mormon" (implying mainstream LDS and not Fundamentalists). However, the Vancouver Sun review states "though a Mormon" as if she were still a Mormon (read LDS). To my eyes, given the lack of substantiation, and the disparity between sources following the Vancouver Sun review's lead is against WP:BLP -- not to mention copying the sentence verbatim is plagiarism, but that's another matter. Am I wrong?Griswaldo (talk) 02:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- The talk page discussion can be found here - Talk:Sister_Wives#Janelle_as_a_Mormon. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- The newspaper article states unequivocally that Janelle is a Mormon ("Two of the wives, Meri and Christine, had been raised in polygamist families, while Janelle, though a Mormon, had not.") Pretty cut & dried. This editor has 'interpreted' that to say something entirely different and has resorted to personal attacks and insults as part of the discussion. I'm not sure what his agenda is, but to my way of thinking it is quite telling for a mainstream Mormon woman to embrace polygamy. Thank You. Duke53 | Talk 02:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- You think that is "quite telling", and you wonder what my "agenda" is? Duke, as Hunter points out below, other sources do not attest to the fact that she is a Mormon, but that she was raised a Mormon. That is also, the very basis of this dispute, and the very reason I think that using the quote in question does not satisfy BLP. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've been very involved in editing the Sister Wives article. I have not, however, gotten involved in this particular dispute, as it's not particularly important to me whether this particular reference gets mentioned in the article or not. However, Griswaldo, even if the wording here in this case could use some work, I think your interpretation of this as a WP:BLP violation is a stretch to say the very least. There are plenty of other sources out there that discuss Janelle's upbringing as a Mormon, and I think your energies would be better exerted in seeking those sources out and coming to some sort of compromise on the wording with Duke, rather than making an issue out of this in the noticeboard.
On that subject, the fact that you brought this issue to a noticeboard at all, especially after barely two days of discussion, seems extremely hasty to me...— Hunter Kahn 03:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- (Note: I struck my own latter comment because I did not realize that before bringing this to BLP/N, Gris in fact asked Duke whether bringing the discussion to this noticeboard was the course of action they should take, and Duke agreed. I thought this was something Gris did on his own before the conversation had properly ended, but I see I misread the timing. Sorry about that!) — Hunter Kahn 19:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Respectfully, Hunter, the situation was not resolving itself on the talk page, and this noticeboard is set up exactly to resolve such issues by offering outside input. There is nothing hasty about utilizing the resources available at Wikipedia to resolve impasses, at least I don't think so. Regarding the source and the statement, you might be right, but that means the original language that Duke is defending should be altered to reflect the correct timeline at the very least. The statement I removed did not say she was "raised Mormon" but that she was still Mormon. If you, as you say say, plenty of other sources state that she was raised Mormon then that piece of information isn't in the murky realm that the info I removed was in. If that is the case you'd be helping us both by providing those sources on the talk page or here so we can sort this out. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- •Unless you can show that she quit the lds church or was ex-communicated (or otherwise forced) from the lds church then she should still be considered a member of the lds church. Quite a simple concept actually: she was raised a Mormon and continues to be a Mormon until she quits or is forced away from being a Mormon. Cheers. Duke53 | Talk 14:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- •"You think that is "quite telling", and you wonder what my "agenda" is?" Yes, just as I'd question it if she was an agnostic who decided to embrace the polygamous lifestyle. You seem to think that since she is Mormon that the matter of her religion is off-limits. I don't believe you'd be deleting the info if she was a member of any other sect. Cheers. Duke53 | Talk 14:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- The newspaper article states unequivocally that Janelle is a Mormon ("Two of the wives, Meri and Christine, had been raised in polygamist families, while Janelle, though a Mormon, had not.") Pretty cut & dried. This editor has 'interpreted' that to say something entirely different and has resorted to personal attacks and insults as part of the discussion. I'm not sure what his agenda is, but to my way of thinking it is quite telling for a mainstream Mormon woman to embrace polygamy. Thank You. Duke53 | Talk 02:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- I would indeed be deleting the same info. I have no particular care for the religions involved here. I do not like anti-(insert social group of choice) POV pushing of any kind, which is what I fear this looks like to me (and why I highlighted your "quite telling" comment). You claim that because one newspaper review of a reality TV show says someone is Mormon (and uses the present tense) that we need to produce official documents from the LDS showing that this isn't true or otherwise leave the information in the article? This is despite the fact that no other sources corroborate the information from this one television review, and in fact other evidence would lead one to believe that the person is no longer Mormon but now a Mormon fundamentalist? Your notion of sourcing for BLPs is completely on its head. We seek high quality corroboration of claims that we add about living people and not the other way around. Do you not get that?Griswaldo (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
The sentence "Two of the wives, Meri and Christine, had been raised in polygamist families, while Janelle, though a Mormon, had not" is doubly ambiguous: firstly because it can plausibly read either as "while Janelle, though [she was] a Mormon" or "while Janelle, though [she is] a Mormon", and secondly because the label "Mormon" can be affixed to members of a number of different sects, not exclusively the LDS church, and media sources often do not take pains to be more specific. Thus, I think this particular sentence from the Vancouver Sun is not sufficiently clear by itself to support a claim that Janelle is (currently) a member of the LDS church, and if the article were to state such a claim based only on that source then I would call it a BLP concern. But the article never made such a specific claim; it just used the phrasing of the source: "Janelle, as a Mormon". This is pretty borderline—so I would judge it not to be a BLP violation under that phrasing, but the ambiguity plus the verbatim lifting from the source means it ought to be rephrased anyway for the sake of avoiding reader confusion. Which has in fact already been done here, so I think this issue has been resolved. alanyst /talk/ 18:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Could any editor help with the article, on pointing out places which perhaps doesn't suit Tone of Wikipedia Biographies of living persons. The article has been cleaned up already.
- Steven T. Murray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Osobooks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I added a fact to this article, cited to the New York Times Magazine [22]. Another user removed the item, with the edit note “removed erroneous speculation from New York Times” [23]. I re-added the item [24], and the same user removed it again [25], this time signing the edit note “STM”, impliedly claiming to be the subject of the article. How should I proceed? Mathew5000 (talk) 05:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- This sounds like an issue for WP:COIN rather than here. Just as a side note, if a source is challenged, then the best thing to do is to find confirmation in another source. Even the New York Times Magazine gets something wrong, and if it is relevent information, it tends to get covered by multiple sources. I have no statement one way or the other if the NYTM sourcs is wrong or not, but one way to say that it isn't is to find confirmation elsewhere. --Jayron32 06:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sure it would be nice if there were a second source for confirmation, but suppose none can be found. Then all we have is on one hand, the reputation of the New York Times, and on the other hand a single editor who claims (without citation) that the source is wrong. Mathew5000 (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- My opinion: If a user was trying to insert unsourced information into a BLP with an edit summary of "it's true", it would likely be removed and, ultimately, a talk page discussion could ensue as to whether the info should be included. The same is true here; an editor should not be able to remove reliably sourced material from an article by simply stating "not true". They need to be directed to the talk page where they can explain what aspects of the information are incorrect and how they know it's incorrect. They should not remove the New York Times sourced information wholesale without discussion to determine the validity of their claims. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sure it would be nice if there were a second source for confirmation, but suppose none can be found. Then all we have is on one hand, the reputation of the New York Times, and on the other hand a single editor who claims (without citation) that the source is wrong. Mathew5000 (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Lester Coleman request for comment
Despite it being posted on the BLP noticeboard, it has not attracted a lot of attention. Anyway there is proposed content at User:WhisperToMe/Coleman, relating to Lester Coleman, and there is a dispute over whether it is compliant with WP:BLP. One poster argues that it is "worthless conspiracy content" and another poster argues that it is not "worthless conspiracy content." The previous discussion is titled Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Lester_Coleman. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Off2riorob said: "Basically, its a BLP not a he said she said and they thought POV write up. Keep it simple and keep it clean and clear, less in this case is more, your content belongs on some op ed titillation article not here on wikipedia, the lowering of standards in such a way allows the lowering of standards all across the project and although you are interested in this sort of thing, it should not be allowed on this project."
- Off2riorob, the only part that is (for now) a "he said she said" is where Michael Hurley said Coleman worked one job while an attorney said he worked another. Aside from this, I have found no reliable sources or primary sources from Coleman which contradict anything that other people say. The outcome of the court case, the statements of the alias, the Lebanese wife, etc. have not been challenged by other sources.
- As for the one thing that is a "he said she said." While WP:BLP prohibits "gossip," I don't see anywhere that states that BLP prohibits describing unclear legal conflicts and personality conflicts. Removing the conflict between Hurley and Coleman removes an essential element of Coleman's subject. We have to go in a he said she said routine and neutrally discuss the court case and its outcomes. See Wikipedia:BLP#Public_figures which says "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."
- WhisperToMe (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- I notified the only other participant in the previous noticeboard thread that there is an RFC now here WhisperToMe (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think the material is usable, although I would beef it up with some of the other sources dug up lately. One thing puzzles me: If "Coleman was never called as a witness in the Pan Am trial, and he never submitted any affidavits, declarations, or dispositions," how could he be charged with perjury? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- That's a good question. I'll have to do some more digging and see how the perjury case came up. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Alright, I found the answer. According to http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/1997/09/12/1997-09-12_con_man_admits_flight_103_pe.html , his sworn statements were repeated on international news programs. It also says "His affidavit was used by Pan Am in its defense against a civil suit brought by the families of the bombing victims. " - So it seems like Pan Am ended up using it after all. The article that said he wasn't called was from 1992. The one from 1997 said he was called. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- That's a good question. I'll have to do some more digging and see how the perjury case came up. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think the material is usable, although I would beef it up with some of the other sources dug up lately. One thing puzzles me: If "Coleman was never called as a witness in the Pan Am trial, and he never submitted any affidavits, declarations, or dispositions," how could he be charged with perjury? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The Beth Krom article has no sources other than to her campaign site. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Tagged with {{primarysources}}, semiprotected during hopeful cleanup. -- Cirt (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Long list of people without one single source. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Now on AFD, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SexBomb Girls. -- Cirt (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Mghori is adding potentially libelous statements in a BLP. His additions are OR and he seems to have an extreme pro-hindu agenda and is claiming conspiracies all over. I have tried to engage him in the talk pages of the articles involved. But he continues to edit war and push his POV. In other articles, he is removing referenced criticism sections claiming that they dont include the subject's response.
I have already exceeded the 3rr reverting him. I am claiming the libel reversion excuse, but can someone take a look and warn him /block him (He has left threatening edit summaries as well)--Sodabottle (talk) 07:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
All my contributions are related court judgement or reference to incidents not with any original research. My point is same standard shall be maintained when some criticism part. When it is refer to mere statements some individual but to have replies from the person concerned when person is living. Sodabottle is either motivated or ignorant but is certainly threatening me with blocks etc. Request Sodabottle shall be suitable warned.Mghori (talk) 08:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Using the court judgement to say Sharma was motivated in helping muslims is Original research - did the court explicitly say sharma was motivated in helping muslims. No!!. The judgement was not about sharma at all. It is interesting how you have two standards for living persons. You remove referenced criticism from Elst's article saying it has to have replies from the subject, But add unreferenced criticism - your own - to Sharma's article. 3RR warning is a standard warning message. and your respond with a "no more editing will be tolerated" threat. If someone does not agree with your edits, you have to talk it out in the discussion page, arrive at a consensus and then only add the material back. That is wikipedia policy. In this case, i am clearly pointing out how you are violating wikipedia policy in the talk page. Instead of listening, you are editwarring using threatening edit summaries--Sodabottle (talk) 08:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- The edit here is OR, badly sources (just someone's post to rediff.com), in the lead although not discussed in the article, and in short, a clear BLP violation. Mghori, don't do this again. I note that most of your edits appear to be denigrating BLPs, in particular calling them Marxist without adding reliable sources. Dougweller (talk) 09:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I want to clear the subject and my intention. Sharma is noted historian in India enjoying all kinds of position in Indian government. He has written many statements and in many books that there is no temple existed in Ayodhya and Ayodhya not considered hindu holy place before 19th century. This statement he made specifically to Lucknow high court. But based on Archealogical findings (See Ayodhy Archealogy page on wiki itself, there i have no edits) court decided there was temple existed and it was demolished to make Mosque. So it is very clear to any body the motivation of Sharma, he is now proved wrong by archealogists as well by court. [redacted by Dougweller (talk) 13:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)]
Now my references are to book by Arun shourie equally famous journalist (original work) and Koenraad Elst a Flemish Historian who actively replies to all his critics (Unlike sharma who shields from Media) about Sharma's statement I repeat statement (incident) not any comments or opinion ! My other 2 references are to one Wiki article (Where I have no edits) and Rediff article. Dougweller ! This is not posting. This is a link to court judgement copy. Dougweller, Sodabottle - Please withdraw your warning. Mghori (talk) 10:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- No court can determine anything about the interpretation of archaeological findings, and there was no link to the court judgement, only something someone wrote that may or may not have been accurate and certainly was not complete. I've removed part of your edit, if you continue to make libelous statements like that you will be blocked. Dougweller (talk) 13:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- That didn't stop Purushottam Nagesh Oak bringing a PIL suit about the Taj Mahal. Welcome to the world of two opposed schools of Indian history, and one of the many fronts on which that battle is fought. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- You can't draw conclusions about motivation and include them in articles here. That is original research. Even with sources, the bar for inclusion of information in a BLP is higher than it is for other articles and I suggest you read WP:BLP carefully before thinking about adding potentially negative information in one. Note also that libeling a person here (that is on WP:ANI, is not a good idea either. You might want to consider redacting some of the terms you've used above. --RegentsPark (talk) 11:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- I would add that the OR is also silly. Even if someone was wrong about certain things, that doesn't in itself tell us they had sinister motivations. Plenty of people make good faith errors all the time including right here on wikipedia. BTW for those confused by some aspects of the above discussion, this discussion was original at WP:ANI but was moved here by another editor. Nil Einne (talk) 12:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that the material was improper, and exactly what our BLP standards were intended to prevent. But I notice that most of the long section of the article consists of unsourced praise, and their wording suggests to me that they were copied from book jackets or publishers blurbs. Even the quotations from sourced reviews are given at undue length--we normally quote much less--generally in editing academic bios I quote a key phrase only. If the material is not online, I'll add a sentence or two--but in the footnote, not the main text. NPOV and RS applies to BLP, for positive as well as negative statements. DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I never said court interpreted but court given a judgement based on Archealogical findings. Dougweller please correct your self. I will try and rephrase the edit next when i get time.Mghori (talk) 03:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- You still haven't got what everyone is saying. It is not only about phrasing. It is also about original research. Find a source that directly criticises Sharma and use it say "source X criticises Sharma such and such" and add it to the criticism section (not the lead). If you add the same material in other words, it is still OR.--Sodabottle (talk) 03:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- I do not know which langauge shall I use but I am at loss of words to communicate that an incident and court judgement cannot be OR. They r to be considered matter of fact. I do not know how to get Admistrator rights but people who have like SOdabottle and Dougweller certainly do not have any knowldge about encyclopedia. They do not deserve them at all. Mghori (talk) 07:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Please stop the personal attacks. This sort of behaviour is not acceptable in wikipedia.--Sodabottle (talk) 07:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- First you add libelous statements in a BLP, then you edit war, issue threats in edit summaries, libel the subject in the ANI thread and you insult other editors. And you are talking about being objective? Jeez!--Sodabottle (talk) 08:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Vandalism, needs to be locked. English Premier League footballer. Needs urgent locking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryankonkolewski (talk • contribs) 14:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Aravind L Iyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There have been repeated attempts to provide personal details such as date and place of birth which are not verifiable in any reliable public resource for this biography of a living person. This has the potential for identity theft. Further other unsupported and irrelevant claims are being made in the article regarding purported user names and on line ids of the individual whose biography is provided in the article.
- It does appear that there is improper behavior from some contributors on this article. An administrator should be along to look at the page history and take any necessary action. However, I notice that you proposed the deletion of the article on the grounds that it was an unreferenced BLP. I have contested this, because the article is referenced. Although the references come from the subject's employer's website, they are not technically "self published" in all cases, because there is editorial oversight of the website independent of Mr. Iyer. As the NIH is a well-respected academic institution, and the facts cited are not controversial (Mr. Iyer's CV can be readily verified by looking up the individual articles), the "unreferenced" claim doesn't fly. It would be preferable to have additional independent references, but the article doesn't require deletion. If you still believe that deletion is necessary, please use the WP:AFD process. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The Griselda Blanco article may have BLP problems.Rich (talk) 12:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, not really. Thanks, Rich Peterson24.7.28.186 (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
There is a low-speed edit war going on as to whether Eren Derdiyok is a Turk or a Kurd. Reliable sourcing would be good, or else we'll have to remove the ethnicity altogether. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ethnicity should not be included in the lead sentence unless it is the reason for the person's notability, and I don't see that here. Discusion of ethnicity would be more appropriate for an early life type section, with proper sources of course. --Threeafterthree (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Nathaniel Stern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This page is about me personally, and so I have not been making edits myself, although I have made pleas to the recent editor, Freshacconci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who seems to have an agenda regarding me and my work. They are propagating a lie about a controversial art work that took place on Wikipedia, and deleting relevant information about the project. There was also a recent attempt to change Freshacconci's edits by an IP, which Freshacconci reverted, and then wrongly accused me of being the IP.
I am asking for objective third parties to please look at the last few edits to the page about Nathaniel Stern, to see where Freshacconci has deleted, changed (including one outright falsehood / misrepresentation from the cited articles) and reverted edits to this page. I also ask to please look at the history of the talk page for Freshacconci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), to see where I have tried to reason with the user - I was ignored, then deleted without a response, and accused of being an IP that I am not.
I get that what Freshacconci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is editing on the page about me is not without baggage for Wikipedia, but that does not excuse this behavior, or lies about the topic to be propagated. I have been very patient about this (it's been over a month since I contacted Freshacconci - note that although the user's talk page says they are on wikibreak, they did not respond to my pleas and well-reasoned arguments for over a month, but reverted changes to my page within an hour of them occurring), and I'm willing to accept whatever conclusion third parties come to regarding this issue. The current edit disregards facts from the cited articles, and uses a false PR quote from that article as fact, without attributing said PR quote to the biased source, without stating the truth, and without giving the other side. The editor claims to be deleting information because it is "undue" - not only do I disagree, but even if you all agree, the edits go much further than this. Wikipedia is not a place to conceal and manipulate information so as to make its readers prejudge.
I am asking for a third party to edit the page / Wikipedia Art section (and perhaps the other deleted section) as they see fit (or for consensus to be reached about how it should be handled - but I believe such consensus should not involve me OR Freshacconci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)).
Thank you. NathanielS (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- As a follow-up, after my last message, Freshacconci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has taken actions to try and remedy the situation, also asking an uninvolved editor to take a look. I deleted a small section above, as I no longer believe Freshacconci should be blocked from editing my page. I think the user is now acting in good faith. Neither of us know if the uninvolved party will respond, so I'd still love it if someone from this forum can take a look. Thank you again. NathanielS (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to take a look. As I pointed out on my talk page, I am a deletionist/minimalist just for disclosure. So, unless "material" is widely covered/reported by reliable sources, I would leave out as non notable. I have no idea what the "dispute" is, but remember, Wikipedia is not really about the "truth" per say, but more about compiling all ready established/reported "facts" without inserting opinion(for bette or worse:) )...anyways...--Threeafterthree (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- As a follow-up, after my last message, Freshacconci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has taken actions to try and remedy the situation, also asking an uninvolved editor to take a look. I deleted a small section above, as I no longer believe Freshacconci should be blocked from editing my page. I think the user is now acting in good faith. Neither of us know if the uninvolved party will respond, so I'd still love it if someone from this forum can take a look. Thank you again. NathanielS (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- I totally agree. My issue is a misprepresentation of what has been reported - including in the articles actually cited. I've reponded on your talk page, here. Thank you so much for looking at this - I really appreciate it. NathanielS (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
This discussion moved here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathaniels (talk • contribs) 19:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
chrissie maher
Paragraph 4 of this Biography is written all wrong ...I dont even think it should be even in a Biography can anyone help? Martinos155 (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- This was already brought up not long ago on this noticeboard; the text currently in place is the result of that previous discussion. As mentioned on the article's talk page, the paragraph in question briefly discusses sourced, notable case where the BLP subject was accused of spreading rumors at the organization she founded; those accusations were upheld by a legal tribunal that found they were grounds for a case of constructive dismissal. The issue was reported in the mainstream press. The current wording is as minimal as possible while being factual and neutral. To not mention this case would result in an imbalanced article. While I acknowledge that it seems a borderline case under WP:UNDUE, I think that the article will be less balanced if it is omitted, and any undue emphasis can be corrected by expanding the article. I've already made a stab at doing so using readily-available Internet sources. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Dominika Stará (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This could be posted also on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard or somewhere else, I'm not sure. A single purpose account, MichalMajkl (talk · contribs) keeps reposting [26], [27], [28], [29] unreferenced and promotional content in this BLP article. After various attempts to resolve the problem [30], [31], [32], [33], [34] I'm forced to ask for help here. I don't want to delete or destroy the article (the person in question seems to be notable per Wikipedia requirements), but this kind of editing/adding content is in my opinion unacceptable. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 20:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Stephen Colbert silliness
Despite what appears to be a contrary consensus on the article's talk page, several editors seem intent on reporting the details of a skit on the Colbert Report as real-world events. Most of the reported details of Colbert's supposed "knighthood" aren't to be found in the cited sources, which are 1) an episode of the Colbert Report, which is a work of fiction/satire; 2) a 2008-copyrighted article, which can't possibly be an RS for events of 2009, especially since it unsurprisingly doesn't mention them; and 3) an official show recap, which shares the fictional/satirical nature of the show itself, and mentions few of the recited elements of the "knighthood" "ceremony." There are BLP issues attendant on reporting that the dowager queen of Jordan would confer a high national military honor on an American comedian, and there appear to be no reliable news sources treating the "knighthood" as a real-world event. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Direct them to Stephen Colbert (character), where the information belongs. There is a clear distinction between the actor and the (exactly same named) character he plays on the Colbert Report. He himself has noted this distinction, such as in an interview he gave on Fresh Air. Which is why we have a seperate article. The article on the character, btw, discusses the fictional knighting, see Stephen_Colbert_(character)#Fictional_biography, which is well cited as well. --Jayron32 04:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
==Victor_C._X._Wang== This might be better posted on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Cxw888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to have written an article about himself. While I originally listed the article as not conforming with notable persons guidelines, an admin seems to believe that it does. While there are references listed at the bottom of the article, non of the information contained in it appears to be cited at all and the references seem to be scholarly works that would not contain information regarding the individual. The same IP addresses appear to be removing the issue and deletion reports. Overall, the article appears to be less of a wikipedia article and more of personally written biography. What can be done?
Penny Pritzker and other Pritzker family articles
- ProfessorSkill22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
A new editor has begun by making potentially controversial but also potentially valid and useful edits to articles about Ms. Pritzker, her family and their business holdings. In some cases, they appear to paint her in a more negative light vis-à-vis other Pritzkers with whom she has been in disputes. ProfessorSkill22's only edits to date have been on this topic but he appears to be a skilled editor familiar with our content requirements. I don't have time to review the references used and then give these articles the attention they need.
Ms. Pritzker is a member of one of America's wealthiest families and a key backer of Barrack Obama's campaigns. As a result, her article in the past has attracted some drive-by whacko edits but these new edits don't fall into that category.
I'd appreciate one or more experienced editors making sure these article changes are appropriate both in terms of referencing as well as overall article neutrality. Thanks, --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- Note that most of these edits are months old but still largely in effect.For example, here are ProfessorSkill22's changes to the Penny Pritzker article and here are the subsequent changes. I think the concern is more one of overall neutrality (especially in the dispute between Pritzkers) in this case. See some older discussions at Talk:Penny Pritzker. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
zekman1
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Rowan, Michael (2.15.09). "Hugo Chavez And Anti-Semitism". Forbes. Forbes. p. 1. Retrieved 27 September 2010.
{{cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help) - ^ O'GRADY, MARY ANASTASIA (OCTOBER 9, 2009). "Revolutionary Anti-Semitism". Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company. p. 1. Retrieved 27 September 2010.
{{cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ Ehrlich, Mark Avrum (15 August 2008). Encyclopedia of the Jewish diaspora: origins, experiences, and culture (1st ed.). ABC-CLIO. p. 749. ISBN 978-1851098736.
- ^ Garfinkle, Adam M. (21 August 2009). "1". Jewcentricity: Why the Jews are Praised, Blamed, and Used to Explain Just About Everything (1st ed.). John Wiley & Sons. p. 2. ISBN 978-0470198568.
{{cite book}}
: Text "Accused jews of plotting his downfall" ignored (help) - ^ Schoen, Douglas E.; Rowan, Michael (6 January 2009). "6". Threat closer to home: Hugo Chavez and the war against America. Free Press (Simon & Schuster). pp. 117 118. ISBN 978-1416594772.