|
Welcome to the biographies of living persons noticeboard | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||
Additional notes:
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:
|
Contents
- 1 Terry Brennan
- 2 Grant Nelson
- 3 Michael Cox (Catholic bishop)
- 4 Stephen Sizer
- 5 Walid Phares
- 6 Joshua Copp
- 7 Sudhir Chaudhary (Zee News)
- 8 Heidi Cruz
- 9 Amanda K. Hale
- 10 Jun Albert Morden
- 11 Paula Broadwell
- 12 Jorge Horacio Brito
- 13 Johan Cruyff
- 14 Adam Johnson (footballer)
- 15 Jo Harman
- 16 Carman Lapointe
- 17 Mishal Husain
Terry Brennan
Terry Brennan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Paul Horning was not the only Heisman trophy winner to come from a losing team. The first winner, Jay Berwagner. University of Chicago, was from a losing team. See Wikipedia article on him.
Grant Nelson
Grant Nelson ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I've been advised to ask the next question here. In my opinion, the next lines are pretty much POV if you ask me...
In 1993, Wishdokta teamed up with DJ Vibes and together they delivered some of happy hardcore's biggest anthems on Vibes' Asylum Music Inc. and other labels including Happy Trax.
In 1997, Nelson started using the alter-ego "Bump & Flex" and began to produce UK 2-step. He delivered some of the scene's biggest records including "Funk on Ah Roll" by James Brown.
Nelson has always remained a house head since his early Nice 'n' Ripe days and continues to do so to the present with his Swing City Records label that consistently delivers top drawer house music.
I don't dare to change anything myself 'cause I don't know the guy, and my English ain't as good as I want it to be.... Anyone? OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 13:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- The first problem I see is that the entire article is referenced to a single Billboard Op/Ed column, in which Nelson is only briefly mentioned in a single paragraph. None of the information from the source seems to appear in the article, although it's written with the same Op/Ed tone.
- The entire article is definitely very amateurish is it's writing style. The biggest problem is that it's written in second-person narrative. In other words, it's written like the narrator is talking directly to the reader, like I'm talking to you right now. The next problem is the use of so many superlatives, such as "biggest," "top-drawer" (which is unclear to many people), "extremely popular," etc... Superlatives should be avoided, but when applicable, then they should be referenced or attributed to someone qualified to make that opinion. There are many weasel words as well, such as "highly regarded" (by whom?), "most sought after" (by whom?), etc... It uses contractions and slang, and I could go on. In short, it is not at all encyclopedic in tone or style.
- I know nothing about the subject nor the music industry, but based on the article itself, I have to question the notability of the subject and the reliability of the information. It reads like a self-promotion piece. Zaereth (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- If it comes down to notability of the subject, I've got to say that under the name Wishdokta he is very familiar to me. I like happy hardcore and he is definitely one of the bigger names in the business. Me saying: I don't know the guy only means that I have no background-information about him, but I do know his music. But it's a good thing to see that the discussion got started. That's all I wanted. OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 12:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- In Wikipedia, notability is based on coverage in reliable sources. Having only one source in the article raises a red flag immediately. My first thought was that the article might be copied direct from the source, but it turns out that none of the information in the article came from that source. That leads to the question, "Where did it come from?" That's why I say it reads a lot like a self-promotion article, possibly written by the subject himself or his friends. This also put doubt in my mind that any of the information may be accurate or reliable. The reference seems to have been attached just for looks.
-
- I can't say whether this person is notable or not by Wikipedia standards. I just did a quick google search, and could locate no newspaper, magazine, or reliable web articles, except for another Billboard opinion piece that briefly mentions his name in passing. Therefore, notability is not looking very good. However, there may be much more that I just did not dig deep enough to find, or is not accessible on google. I'm not proficient in the music industry, so it becomes up to those who want this article to provide sources that demonstrate his notability. Zaereth (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- In the Netherlands there was a CD-series called Happy Hardcore, in Germany this series was called Happy Rave. These CD's were a collection of the best known happy hardcore tracks available at that time. These CD's were released through Arcade Records and Wishdokta appeared on a few of them. In this scene he was a pretty well-known name and that's just about all I can say about the artist. Maybe it helps. OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 12:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I'm not saying that the article should be deleted, just better referenced. I never googled his alias, but it sounds like you have access to information that I don't. What would help is if you could locate some sources to confirm some of what you're telling me.
-
-
-
-
-
- I'll give an analogy from my field of expertise. It's a common, widely publicized misconception that the iron core of a Japanese katana helps make the sword softer, thus preventing it from breaking. From my own experience, I know this doesn't increase the toughness of the blade anymore than the soft pearlite jacket already does. What it really does is provide a change in material density, which diffuses vibration and dampens recoil. Same principle as a dead-blow hammer. However, my expertise on the subject is of no help if I can't find a reliable source to back that up, because how are you suppose to verify the accuracy of it? Could I expect every suspicious reader to simply go buy a $10,000 sword so they can compare how it cuts versus a cheap sword? This is why I haven't added that info to the Japanese swordsmithing article.
-
-
-
-
-
- Any article needs sources to show its accuracy and notability. In a BLP this is even more necessary, because we're not talking about inanimate objects but real people, many of which do not like inaccurate info published about them, even if it is all flattering. So what is really needed is someone who has a little knowledge about this field to dig up some real sources that give some info about not only what this person has done, but also who he is. If you could help with that, perhaps I could help with the writing, but I know too little about the guy to give any assistance without sources. Zaereth (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Well, if you want to check if his tracks have been released on the CD's I mentioned earlier, try: Discogs.com, due to my restrictions, that's all I can come up with. OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 12:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Not exactly what I mean. I have no doubt that he's released CDs. So have a couple of friends of mine, but they are still not notable. (I guarantee nobody outside Alaska has ever heard of them.) I'm not sure what you mean by restrictions either. Sources do not always have to be online, but books and magazines can be used also. Where did you learn about him?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- If I were to try to clean up this article, I would have to start by cutting out all the superlatives, because there is no source that supports any of them. If I do that, then the article will not make any sense, because it's entirely built around those superlatives. What I would need are some reviews, so I could say "so-and-so says his work is the most sought after, while this other guy says his works are highly regarded, etc..." Something about his life, where he was born, grew up, and lives now would be a nice addition. What's his education, marital status, etc... These are the things a BLP is made of. I replied because I'm a writer and can try to help improve the writing and style of the article, to comply with Wikipedia standards. But lacking any sources for this info, there is little I could do at this point to fix the writing except to gut the article, which I am not wanting to do. I just don't have any real information to work with. Zaereth (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- @Zaereth: With restrictions I mean, bounded by a very,VERY limited whitelist and the info above is just about all I know of him... OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 19:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- OK, I was unaware of whitelists. I usually don't do research for others when it's outside of my own fields of expertise, but I like music and decided to dig a little deeper for you.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Under the name "Wishdokta," his notability is pretty well established. I found a couple of books on google, such as The Music Sound, Energy flash: A Journey through Rave Music and Dance Culture, The Guinness Encyclopedia of Popular Music, and others. Google books seems down right now, so I may have to check into them later.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- There is a mention of him in a Rolling Stone article. However, at least part of our own article seems to be a direct copy of this article from The Sun magazine, which gives an interview with Nelson. This includes the paragraphs you were asking about, which looks like it may be a copyright violation. If anyone knows copyright policy, please take a look, or maybe I might have to ask Moonriddengirl to look at it. Zaereth (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
Looks like a foundational copyvio, Zaereth. Cleared that out. Good find. :/ I also cleaned out some of the worst of the unsourced promotional text. Yikes. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Or, just summon her name and she appears! Thanks Moonriddengirl. Does that extend the stuff that was copy/pasted here and to the article's talk page? Zaereth (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think there's a pretty strong case for fair use here, but no real reason to keep it at either place, Zaereth . :) I'll cull it from the talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- All of this above is the PERFECT example of what I try to achieve here. Because of my limitations, the only thing I can do, is ask the "right" questions. Hoping it will be picked up by the community so they do what I can't. Thanks to all of you, I deeply appreciate the help I got on this subject. OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 16:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- OK, thanks Moonriddengirl. I was just curious for my own benefit. I went ahead and cleaned up the grammatical problems. Zaereth (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- All of this above is the PERFECT example of what I try to achieve here. Because of my limitations, the only thing I can do, is ask the "right" questions. Hoping it will be picked up by the community so they do what I can't. Thanks to all of you, I deeply appreciate the help I got on this subject. OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 16:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think there's a pretty strong case for fair use here, but no real reason to keep it at either place, Zaereth . :) I'll cull it from the talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Michael Cox (Catholic bishop)
Michael Cox (Catholic bishop) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A recent addition to Michael Cox (Catholic bishop) by BoBoMisiu is, I believe, a breach of WP:BLPCRIME. Per the sources, in two unrelated trials of youths for "trespass" and "a string of offences", a district court judge alleged that weddings performed by Cox were illegal (the weddings were not at issue at all in the actual trials). The Garda Síochána (Irish police force) are investigating. No evidence has been presented to suggest that Cox has been convicted, tried, or even charged. The added wording is, however, unequivocal. My removal of the BLP addition has been reverted once. Other eyes very welcome. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- The judge did not allege but pointed out to the court in the second case, which involved acts committed by Cox, that: "This man is not a bishop and he is not entitled to marry anybody." It seems to me that the judge made a statement of facts about Cox determined by the judge in the process of two cases. It is not a statement of a crime by Cox. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- 1. Look at the first sentence of your addition. It is an assertion that is not backed by anything. Cox has not been convicted, tried, or even charged.
- 2. The judge is a judge of the district court (a minor court), who was speaking in the trials of two youths for trespass and "a string of offences." Cox was not on trial, his standing as a bishop was not on trial, the standing of ceremonies conducted by Cox was not on trial, he was not in court, or represented, and the judge, who is not a canon lawyer, was expressing an opinion, nothing more. He has no jurisdiction over Roman Catholic Church canon law, the canon law of churches not in communion with Rome, the validity or otherwise of holy orders, or, in fact, in civil law concerning marriage. (Other remarks made by the judge, as reported in the sources, would also suggest a lack of familiarity on his part with other aspects of civil (as opposed to criminal) law). BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- The very term "illegal marriage" based on the source is problematic, because a marriage can be illegal in two different ways - it can be a criminal situation, in some jurisdictions to present yourself as married has been cause for imprisonment; or it can simply be that the marriage is not legally recognized, and you can go about considering yourself and calling yourselves husband and wife (or husband and husband, etc.) so long as you do not use that status in legal situations, such as in applying for spousal benefits. Calling it "illegal" makes it sound as though something criminal occurred, rather than something that is simply not recognized by the state, and the sourcing is not there to support that. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Child marriage is against the law. Moreover, according to the judge, Cox "is not entitled to marry anybody." –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Editors are not qualified to opine on civil law here - in many places, "legally deficient ceremonies" are validated if there is no intent to defraud. The "not qualified" opinion (not a legal court decision) is not one of any weight in any BLP here. [1] has no specific rules about a person performing a religious wedding ceremony. Collect (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Collect: citizensinformation.ie explains that the parties must "Have the capacity to marry each other" i.e. "Be over 18 years of age or have a Court Exemption Order if this is not the case." Both cases involving Cox involved minors before a judge in Children's Court. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- In which case the issue has nothing to do with being properly ordained at all. The issue is whether the boy presented himself as legally in possession of a marriage license obtained through the local registrar. The nature of the person performing the ceremony is not an issue reasonably before the court. Collect (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think Cox's capacity to legally marry is what the judge is speaking of.
- In the 2013 case "'bride' in the case confirmed in sworn evidence that Bishop Cox had charged €100 for the marriage" and the groom was a "17-year-old 'naïve' [...] juvenile -- the legal age for marriage in Ireland is 18." Durcan said: "The boy [...] has been encouraged and facilitated at what he believes is a marriage by a man who calls himself a bishop." When Durcan pointed out that "anyone who masquerades as a clergy man and who takes money from young people and imbues in them a mistaken belief that he has married them, [...]" the context is Cox.
- In the 2014 case the author writes "A judge has accused a man who describes himself as a bishop of making a fool of a 17-year-old by pretending that he had married him and taking money from him under false pretences." Durcan said: "This is the second example I have come across in this district of young people being duped into marriage by someone who has no function in that regards. It is very, very serious." Durcan told the grooms mother that "I hate to see your son is being made a fool of by this man who pretends to be a bishop, who pretends he has the right to marry and takes money under false pretences from your son." –BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- In which case the issue has nothing to do with being properly ordained at all. The issue is whether the boy presented himself as legally in possession of a marriage license obtained through the local registrar. The nature of the person performing the ceremony is not an issue reasonably before the court. Collect (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Collect: citizensinformation.ie explains that the parties must "Have the capacity to marry each other" i.e. "Be over 18 years of age or have a Court Exemption Order if this is not the case." Both cases involving Cox involved minors before a judge in Children's Court. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Editors are not qualified to opine on civil law here - in many places, "legally deficient ceremonies" are validated if there is no intent to defraud. The "not qualified" opinion (not a legal court decision) is not one of any weight in any BLP here. [1] has no specific rules about a person performing a religious wedding ceremony. Collect (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Child marriage is against the law. Moreover, according to the judge, Cox "is not entitled to marry anybody." –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- In the 2013 case, a youth was on trial for "a string of offences." In the 2014 case, a youth was on trial for trespass. In neither case was Cox was on trial. His standing as a bishop was not on trial. The standing of ceremonies conducted by Cox was not on trial. He was not in court, nor was he represented. The judge, who is not a canon lawyer, could therefore do nothing more than express an opinion on anything to do with Cox. He has no jurisdiction whatsoever on anything else. There is (presumably) an ongoing Garda investigation. It will (presumably) result in a referral to the Director of Public Prosecutions (or not), who may or may not decide to prosecute. Any resulting trial, if there is one, will be reported on, and if it is, we can then report on what Cox did or did not do. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Bastun: The statements are qualified privilege of a judge to a court. That Cox was not on trial is a red herring. That the minor was on trial for trespassing is poisoning the well. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- In the 2013 case, a youth was on trial for "a string of offences." In the 2014 case, a youth was on trial for trespass. In neither case was Cox was on trial. His standing as a bishop was not on trial. The standing of ceremonies conducted by Cox was not on trial. He was not in court, nor was he represented. The judge, who is not a canon lawyer, could therefore do nothing more than express an opinion on anything to do with Cox. He has no jurisdiction whatsoever on anything else. There is (presumably) an ongoing Garda investigation. It will (presumably) result in a referral to the Director of Public Prosecutions (or not), who may or may not decide to prosecute. Any resulting trial, if there is one, will be reported on, and if it is, we can then report on what Cox did or did not do. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- @BoBoMisiu:, no, a judge speaks in his/her court with absolute, not qualified, privilege (though things may be different in the U.S.). That point, however, is a red herring. It merely means that he can't be sued for what he says. It does not mean that what he says is correct. The point that you seem to be missing is that the judge was doing nothing more than expressing an opinion and carries no more weight than if , during the trial of youth for trespass, he'd remarked that climate change isn't caused by man. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- As per BLPCRIME we almost never include material that suggests someone commits criminal acts unless they are convicted (or at least, brought to a heavily publicised trial). Since none of that has happened, suggesting a Bishop is doing something illegal is a violation of the BLP. There is a giant problem that a priest could take actions that are civilly not recognised in law, but that are for religious purposes valid. So while it is within the Judge's remit to say 'That is not legal', it does not necessarily make the Bishops actions illegal. That sort of nuance is not covered in the BLP and by its nature, it needs to have hard and fast rules to avoid loopholes. So unless the Bishop is charged/convicted of something, the material needs to be removed or heavily edited to conform to policy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Only in death: thank you for explaining that nuance. How can this information be cited? An editor wrote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Cox (clergyman) (involving a sockpuppet: User:Pastor Theo) that the article was "unsourced since 2006" and I see that less than positive content about the subject has been removed for years. Like previous edits, the sources that I added recently show that there is doubt, and outright contradiction by the judge, about his claim of being a bishop. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- We need to move him back to Michael Cox (bishop) since regardless of how one evaluates claims to legitimacy he's plainly not within the Catholic Church hierarchy and is pretty much a textbook example of an episcopus vagans. As far as these incidents are concerned, I don't know Irish law and how they determine who is "really" a clergyman who can perform weddings, but this isn't the first incident where he has "married" people who weren't old enough, even ignoring whether he is authorized to marry people in general. I doubt that we should reproduce this one judge's assessment that Cox is scamming these people, but the fact that he is doing these invalid marriages isn't challenged by anyone, and one story I found seemed to indicate that he found nothing wrong in doing this. Mangoe (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- I suspect without a reliable source that goes into detail on it, there is not a huge amount that can be clarified. As Mangoe says he is pretty much a textbook example of the wandering bishop, however that does not necessarily make him 'not a bishop' or even unable to carry out religious ceremonies. Although it wouldnt surprise me to find Ireland has strict criteria on who can and cannot carry out a religious ceremony given its staunch catholicism. Without a reliable source to back it up, it risks straying into Original Research territory to attempt to explain it. Agree it should be moved back to (Bishop) rather than (Catholic Bishop) though. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Only in death: thank you for explaining that nuance. How can this information be cited? An editor wrote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Cox (clergyman) (involving a sockpuppet: User:Pastor Theo) that the article was "unsourced since 2006" and I see that less than positive content about the subject has been removed for years. Like previous edits, the sources that I added recently show that there is doubt, and outright contradiction by the judge, about his claim of being a bishop. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- @Only in death:, @Mangoe:, bear in mind, please, that there are many Catholic churches. Roman Catholic != all Catholic churches. Michael Cox (independent Catholic bishop) has also been proposed by @Anglicanus:, which I'd support. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's sufficient to tag him as "bishop" since there is no other bishop of the same name; that has been the general and neutral convention. Mangoe (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Bastun: Where do find that "He was not in court, nor was he represented"? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Where do you find that he was? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Bastun: Where do find that "He was not in court, nor was he represented"? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's sufficient to tag him as "bishop" since there is no other bishop of the same name; that has been the general and neutral convention. Mangoe (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Only in death:, @Mangoe:, bear in mind, please, that there are many Catholic churches. Roman Catholic != all Catholic churches. Michael Cox (independent Catholic bishop) has also been proposed by @Anglicanus:, which I'd support. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
@Bastun: do you have a WP:BLPCOI?
This is the first time I am participating on this noticeboard and have read WP:LIVE again today – especially WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, WP:BLP1E, WP:BLPCRIME, WP:PERPETRATOR. I asked above, " How can this information be cited?" Is the content that I added in these edits being challenged or are the sources being challenged? In other words, can the sources in that diff be added with a reformulation of the content? I am thinking about adding the phrase "; this is disputed.[2][3][4][5]" to the end of:
Cox says he holds apostolic succession as a bishop from the Palmarian Catholic Church through the episcopal lineage of Pierre Martin Ngô Đình Thục, the former Roman Catholic Archbishop of Huế in Vietnam.
Likewise, can I mine the previously removed sources to support my proposed phrase? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 12:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- 1) If Cox had been in court or had been represented then his side of the story would have been reported upon. What you seem unable to grasp is that in the course of trials of youths for minor enough offences, it came to light that they claimed to have been married; questioning about this followed; the judge gave an opinion that Cox was not a (Roman Catholic) bishop (which nobody is disputing). Nonetheless, none of those issues were actually before the court, and the judge was merely offering an opinion on the validity of marriages conducted by Cox, asking the Gardaí to investigate. They are doing so. The judge was not infallibly speaking ex cathedra. Your black-and-white phrasing, now removed from the article, is unsupported.
- 2) No, I have no conflict of interest. Why do you ask? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Bastun: no, I think it is WP:OR to write "the judge gave an opinion that Cox was not a (Roman Catholic) bishop (which nobody is disputing)."
- The judge's quotes do not mention Roman Catholic bishop just the term bishop. The judge simply said Cox "is not a bishop" without mrnioning his denomination.
- I asked about conflict of interest because you wrote "He was not in court, nor was he represented" and I did not read that. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- /shrug. I don't know how many more ways I can explain that the judge had no jurisdiction in the matter of Cox's consecration or subsequent actions, and his opinion is therefore as unencyclopedic as yours or mine on this matter. Report on it if a crime is ever found to have been committed, as has been confirmed by others here. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Bastun: it is a red herring to say that "judge had no jurisdiction in the matter of Cox's consecration or subsequent actions". The judge of course has legal jurisdiction in both cases in his court – it was not a matter of who were the defendants but about the facts presented in both cases about the childrens' and he simply said Cox "is not a bishop and he is not entitled to marry anybody."
- The sources that you removed discussed two points:
- doubt about Cox being a bishop
- involvement in child marriages which the judge said Cox "pretends he has the right to marry." I think it is reasonable to expect a judge to have access to information that "whoever is solemnising your marriage must be on the Register of Solemnisers" and whether cox was listed. It does not require more than the judge's inquiry to a list which "is available for inspection at your local registration office."
- I asked above "about adding the phrase '; this is disputed.[6][7][8][9]'".
- Bastun are you challenging the reliability of those sources to support adding the phrase "this is disputed"?
- I hope someone could provide guidance here about reintroducing the sources. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- /shrug. I don't know how many more ways I can explain that the judge had no jurisdiction in the matter of Cox's consecration or subsequent actions, and his opinion is therefore as unencyclopedic as yours or mine on this matter. Report on it if a crime is ever found to have been committed, as has been confirmed by others here. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- No, it absolutely isn't. You were using the judge's expressed opinion on a matter not before the court for judgement as the source for your statement that Cox broke the law. Yes, of course, the judge has legal jurisdiction on both cases in his court. Once again, those cases were the trial of a youth on a charge of trespass; and the trial of a youth for "a string of [unspecified] offences." That is all that the judge could rule on - those specific charges. Anything else was mere opinion. In the course of both trials, the youths said that they were married and that the marriages had been conducted by Cox; the judge expressed his opinion that Cox wasn't a bishop and that the youths weren't legally married, and asked the Gardaí to investigate. If you believe the judge actually investigated the legality of any marriage ceremonies conducted, including checking the Registry of Solemnisers, please produce evidence of it. Irish judges aren't investigating magistrates, though, as in France; and if the judge had investigated, why would he also refer the matter to the Gardaí to investigate?! The bottom line is the judge thinks Cox isn't a bishop, but his thoughts on that are as irrelevant and unencyclopedic as his thoughts then on whether red herring is as tasty as a battered cod. I've explained this several times now, I'm not going to do so again. Please move away from the dead horse. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Bastun: what about an article from 2008, when Cox married a 16-year-old girl to a 21-year-old man, which states that Cox "is happy to accommodate Travellers as young as 16 getting married as long as their parents consent and are at the ceremony. Although popular, the weddings have no legal standing and court exemption orders are required by the State." Having "no legal standing" or "no function" is different than being a crime.
- The judge in 2013 and 2014 said: Cox "encouraged and facilitated at what he [the juvenile] believes is a marriage", "imbues [...] a mistaken belief that he has married them", "marriage by someone who has no function in that regards", "pretends he has the right to marry".
- In 2014 the author used the phrase "pretending that he had married him". In 2008 the author used the phrase "weddings have no legal standing".
- No, it absolutely isn't. You were using the judge's expressed opinion on a matter not before the court for judgement as the source for your statement that Cox broke the law. Yes, of course, the judge has legal jurisdiction on both cases in his court. Once again, those cases were the trial of a youth on a charge of trespass; and the trial of a youth for "a string of [unspecified] offences." That is all that the judge could rule on - those specific charges. Anything else was mere opinion. In the course of both trials, the youths said that they were married and that the marriages had been conducted by Cox; the judge expressed his opinion that Cox wasn't a bishop and that the youths weren't legally married, and asked the Gardaí to investigate. If you believe the judge actually investigated the legality of any marriage ceremonies conducted, including checking the Registry of Solemnisers, please produce evidence of it. Irish judges aren't investigating magistrates, though, as in France; and if the judge had investigated, why would he also refer the matter to the Gardaí to investigate?! The bottom line is the judge thinks Cox isn't a bishop, but his thoughts on that are as irrelevant and unencyclopedic as his thoughts then on whether red herring is as tasty as a battered cod. I've explained this several times now, I'm not going to do so again. Please move away from the dead horse. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- According to the LA Times wrote in 2000 that "Cox, is part of a small renegade sect in Ireland whose own title is not considered valid by the church, according to [Catholic Press Office spokesman Des Cryan from Dublin, Ireland]". Would that be appropriate to add along with the the reference to The Tablet that I previously cited?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- How do you suggest adding content from the AP story via Seattle Times which wrote that "callers in Ireland, Britain, Canada and the United States have been able to say prayers along with Cox's recorded voice, and then confess into the tape," i.e. the penitent pays for Cox's version of confession. Cox said in 1997 that he "might have a better idea when the money starts coming in" to quantify how many people used his pay-per-call sacrament. While Cryan said: "Any serious Catholic would understand that you can't do confessions by phone." Also, according to the article: "For years, Cox has preached [...] his skills as [a] water diviner." (this is not a Catholic practise – "All forms of divination are to be rejected" according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 2116, and "divination and magic" are "superstition" according to n. 2138.) "Cox recognizes no superiors and has no priests to command" seems to support an existing reference from a 2006 The Telegraph "Personal View" that Cox is an episcopus vagans. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC); modified 15:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC) and 18:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
(Note) Above comment heavily edited at 18:38, nearly 40 minutes after reply below had been posted. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- What about it? The Herald is a tabloid that may not meet WP:RS, as evidenced by the confused and contradictory "the weddings have no legal standing and court exemption orders are required by the State." If they have no legal standing then they're purely religious ceremonies - so why would the State require an "exemption order"? The state issues exemption orders for civil marriages where one or both parties are under 18. Likewise, the (Roman) Catholic Press Office is hardly an unbiased source when talking about Sinéad O'Connor's ordination. The horse is now attracting flies... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Nah, I'm sorry - if you're going to majorly re-factor your comments after I've already replied, then we're done here. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- This comment is inserted out of chronological order – Bastun, this page did not show a WP:EDIT CONFLICT page like on most other pages when I clicked "Save page". I had the edit open and only saw that you replied after I saved and looked at my RSS feed on my laptop later. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- @Bastun: do you want see if the Herald is a WP:RS for this on the WP:RSN noticeboard? It looks to like it would pass as acceptable.
- Bastun: no, the sentence is not "confused and contradictory" it is two clauses connected by the conjunction and.
- The State has a duty to protect its citizens; legal marriages and "solemnisers" are registered. It is not up to me to guess what is not in the several sources but to describe that Cox "weddings have no legal standing" which is in several sources over a period of several years.
- The Catholic Church has a duty to protect its members by pointing out what it decides are invalid sacraments. Its members have the right to receive valid sacraments – the Catholic Church was asked and it replied. Bastun, almost every source points out that there is at the very least doubt about the validity of sacraments involving Cox so removing them all will leave an unsourced article. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Nah, I'm sorry - if you're going to majorly re-factor your comments after I've already replied, then we're done here. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
Move requested
I've formally requested a move back to Michael Cox (bishop); see here. Mangoe (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
on second thought, AFD
Based on further discussion I've nominated the article for deletion. Mangoe (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Stephen Sizer
Stephen Sizer ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lead contained bald allegation of antisemitism with two citations, one behind a paywall and another to a source of questionable reliability. Body of the article does not warrant such a bald assertion.Keith-264 (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- The sentence in question had four citations, including three to mainstream UK newspapers, the Times, Independent and Telegraph. "Behind a paywall" has nothing to do with anything. This is a pretty weak complaint, given the obvious quality of the sourcing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- The lead contained a serious allegation that can have dire consequences to the individual. There is a discussion in the body of the article but that was not reflected in the lead. The sources are weak, coming from newspapers, those three in particular, unlike the court ruling against David Irving. The body of the article has pros and cons so the lead also failed to reflect NPOV in only having one side of the debate. Please also remember WP:Civil.Keith-264 (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Assertions of "anti-Semitism" regarding living persons requite strong RS sourcing.
- The Times source says: A vicar is being investigated by the Church of England after posting a link on Facebook suggesting that Israel was behind the 9/11 attacks. This source is clearly insufficient as a source for the claims made.
- Fathom Journal states as its basic position: Two states for two peoples remains the only way to balance Jewish and Palestinian demands for sovereign independence and national self-determination, but there has been a waning of support for this project, among intellectuals especially. Fathom will be a partisan and artisan of the two-state solution, helping to put some intellectual substance back into the project of mutual recognition and peaceful coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians. which appears not to be a statement that it presents material in a fully neutral and unbiased manner. The cite used for the claims says: We have a left-wing Church of England vicar, Stephen Sizer, who links to an article saying the Jews did 9/11, and then says, anyway, prove that they didn’t. Which is insufficient for a contentious claim about a living person.
- The Telegraph states: A vicar who promoted conspiracy theories that Israel was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks on the internet has been banned from speaking, writing, tweeting or blogging on the Middle East by the Church of England. Again insufficient to aver that Sizer is known for "anti-Semitism" and "anti-Zionism" at all.
- Now The Independent states: Reverend Stephen Sizer said he did not condone the (9/11 conspiracy) article's accusations. Which actually contradicts the claim it is supposed to support. The "obvious quality" of the sourcing shows that it was being abused in a BLP, and those who do not accept that a source which specifically contradicts the assertion it is used to support is being abused should reread policy.
- The sources given, at best, would support:
- Sizer issued a social media link to an article which suggested Israel was behind the 9/11 attacks, but later said specifically that he did not condone such accusations.
- Period. Collect (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Is this for real? Are you really going to be that selective in your reading of those articles? The Times says: "The Rev Stephen Sizer, the vicar of Virginia Water, Surrey, was accused by Jewish leaders of supporting an 'antisemitic hate-fest' in October when he spoke at a conference in Iran where claims were made of “Zionist” involvement in the terror attacks." The Telegraph says: "The Board [of Deputies] said the posting, just after Holocaust Memorial Day, promoted material which was 'unquestionably anti-Semitic'". This is just for starters. I have to wonder why you are unable to see support for an assertion re anti-Semitism in these sources. Perhaps you can alleviate some obvious concerns in that respect. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- If you wish Wikipedia in Wikipedia's voice to call every single person in this world an "anti-Semite" you damn well should start looking for sources to support such claims as statements of fact and I find your aspersions cast on me to be about as reprehensible as anything imaginable on Wikipedia. "Anti-Semite" is a "contentious claim" as far as most humans are concerned, and since one source makes clear that Sizer did not condone the article's accusations it appears clear who is having difficulty in following the strictures of WP:BLP. Are you really intent on saying a person who does not condone an article's accusations is supporting the article, and if anyone calls the article "anti-Semitic" that the person who does not agree with it is mysteriously contaminated and becomes an "anti-Semite" in Wikipedia's voice? Really? Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- As usual, you are refusing to engage with evidence that is inconvenient for you. That's unfortunate -- mainly for you. As for NatGertler: the "some group" in this instance is the British Board of Deputies, and it's surprising to see the matter dismissed so lightly. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- An article saying that some group accused him of anti-semitism is not saying that he is an anti-semite, merely that he has faced accusations. Richard Jewell faced accusations, that does not make him a bomber. And even if it were phrased as him being known for being accused, we would need a source saying that that is what he is primarily known for, rather than just something that got a little more attention on someone who has otherwise gotten attention. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- The edit involved did not simply say people accused him of being anti-Semitic -- it was to say in Wikipedia's voice
- Sizer is known primarily for his Anti-semitic anti-Zionism and for promoting the conspiracy theory that Israel was behind 9/11.
- Note this makes the claim as a simple statement of fact and is not using the word "accusation" but calling him outright "anti-Semitic." Which I find to be an abhorrent misuse of sources, and an egregious, and deliberately egregious, violation of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, and to be, frankly, an indication that some editors do not seem to give a tinker's dam about non-negotiable policy as long as they can attack living persons. NatGertler is spot on here. And the snark that somehow I am the one who does not follow policy when the slew of other editors here appears to hold my same view is verging on Monty Python time utterly. Tea time. Collect (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- The edit involved did not simply say people accused him of being anti-Semitic -- it was to say in Wikipedia's voice
- If you wish Wikipedia in Wikipedia's voice to call every single person in this world an "anti-Semite" you damn well should start looking for sources to support such claims as statements of fact and I find your aspersions cast on me to be about as reprehensible as anything imaginable on Wikipedia. "Anti-Semite" is a "contentious claim" as far as most humans are concerned, and since one source makes clear that Sizer did not condone the article's accusations it appears clear who is having difficulty in following the strictures of WP:BLP. Are you really intent on saying a person who does not condone an article's accusations is supporting the article, and if anyone calls the article "anti-Semitic" that the person who does not agree with it is mysteriously contaminated and becomes an "anti-Semite" in Wikipedia's voice? Really? Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Is this for real? Are you really going to be that selective in your reading of those articles? The Times says: "The Rev Stephen Sizer, the vicar of Virginia Water, Surrey, was accused by Jewish leaders of supporting an 'antisemitic hate-fest' in October when he spoke at a conference in Iran where claims were made of “Zionist” involvement in the terror attacks." The Telegraph says: "The Board [of Deputies] said the posting, just after Holocaust Memorial Day, promoted material which was 'unquestionably anti-Semitic'". This is just for starters. I have to wonder why you are unable to see support for an assertion re anti-Semitism in these sources. Perhaps you can alleviate some obvious concerns in that respect. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Assertions of "anti-Semitism" regarding living persons requite strong RS sourcing.
- The lead contained a serious allegation that can have dire consequences to the individual. There is a discussion in the body of the article but that was not reflected in the lead. The sources are weak, coming from newspapers, those three in particular, unlike the court ruling against David Irving. The body of the article has pros and cons so the lead also failed to reflect NPOV in only having one side of the debate. Please also remember WP:Civil.Keith-264 (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I'll meet you in the Penrith Tea Rooms for cake and fine wines but watch out for Cardinal Bigglesworth. Is there an authority we can refer to for a ruling? User:Clivel 0 is threatening to make unilateral edits to the article today, although in fairness he also appears willing to discuss wording first.Keith-264 (talk) 07:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Courtesy would dictate that User:Keith-264 would have the common decency to advise me that he discussing both myself and the content of the Sizer page both here and simultaneously on Talk:Stephen Sizer.
Contrary to WP:BLP that only material that is "unsourced or poorly sourced" may be removed, he removed material from the Sizer page on the specious grounds that "newspaper articles and other ephemera" are not reliable. By removing this sourced material it would seem that user User:Keith-264 is more interested in promoting a political agenda to whitewash Sizer rather than in publishing the facts.
Stephen Sizer is notable for being censured by the Church for promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories, something which undoubtedly is antisemitic, and also for his anti-Zionist writings which many notable commentators contend cross the boundary between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. So for the lead (as it currently is) to describe him solely as "author, theologian and evangelist" is completely misleading, because he likely would not even warrant a place in Wikipedia if it was not for the controversy that surrounds him.Clivel 0 (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Courtesy would dictate that User:Keith-264 would have the common decency to advise me that he discussing both myself and the content of the Sizer page both here and simultaneously on Talk:Stephen Sizer.
-
-
-
-
-
- With respect I refer you to my edit on the Sizer talk page Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard for information. Keith-264 (talk) 4:12 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0) and suggest that you are at fault for making baseless claims. During the discussion I made a list of my objections, I tend not to do this merely for a first edit, hardly anyone objects to my Wiki editing so there's no need. So far I have resisted your provocative insults and threats but my patience is wearing thin and I will take my time replying to you, assuming you make a comment worthy of the effort.
- Below added from Sizer talk
- I draw your attention to Collect's comment that "Per policy requires an actual affirmative consensus for inclusion in any article subject to WP:BLP." and I suggest that you think again, re-read my reasons for removing a potentially-libellous allegation, especially since the sources purporting to support it have been debunked by Collect, who took the trouble to read them. Either you echo the main body of the article or you are threatening to return potentially-libellous material without referring to the denials and rebuttals in the main body, which is soapboxing. Yet again you assume bad faith but I will read your edits carefully, if they reflect the article by being a summary description of the controversy, rather than potentially-libellous smears I will be satisfied. Please note that I will not do your job for you by adding balance to unbalanced edits, you are responsible for your edits, not me. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Contrary to your assertion, there is no evidence that User:Collect has debunked anything. The sources you removed - articles from both The Independent and the Telegraph, as well as countless other news articles are explicit in their agreement that Sizer promoted antisemitic conspiracy theories. This is a matter of record, nothing to debunk. And in-itself, promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories is antisemetic. I will re-add the facts as they are documented in the source material. YOU arbitrarily removed these facts, if you consider the facts unbalanced, then it is not MY job to provide what you consider balance, that is YOUR job - you do it, but DO not delete the factual sourced material just because you do not like it.Clivel 0 (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- WP:NPOV, WP:OR, Association fallacy, ad hominem Keith-264 (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- "especially since the sources purporting to support it have been debunked by Collect" WP:VNT, Association fallacy. Clivel 0 (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- WP:NPOV, WP:OR, Association fallacy, ad hominem Keith-264 (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- WP:NPOV, WP:OR, Association fallacy, ad hominem, WP:VNT Law of holes. Keith-264 (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Sizer is known primarily for his Anti-semitic anti-Zionism (sic) this is the passage I edited, which as you can see is not consistent with the article which describes inter alia, allegations, refutations and the potential conflicts of interest of some of the sources. How antizionism can be equated with antisemitism is another question altogether. Looking back through the edit history it appears that the wikilink has had several incarnations, antisemitism, antizionism and now antisemitic antizionism, it would seem a bit Monty Python if someone's reputation, livelihood and Wikipedia's good repute weren't in danger. Keith-264 (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- If you want to collect accusations and treat them as definitive, you're sliding into guilt by association, unless you give equal weight to denials and counter-accusations. Your insinuation about Collect's motives is reprehensible and fails to assume good faith, I suggest you apologise. Keith-264 (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- I have reverted an attempt to add material to the lead which as before failed to reflect the content of the article and failed to abide by BLP criteria. I suggest that the attempt to reach consensus continues here, where it belongs.Keith-264 (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Contrary to your assertion, there is no evidence that User:Collect has debunked anything. The sources you removed - articles from both The Independent and the Telegraph, as well as countless other news articles are explicit in their agreement that Sizer promoted antisemitic conspiracy theories. This is a matter of record, nothing to debunk. And in-itself, promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories is antisemetic. I will re-add the facts as they are documented in the source material. YOU arbitrarily removed these facts, if you consider the facts unbalanced, then it is not MY job to provide what you consider balance, that is YOUR job - you do it, but DO not delete the factual sourced material just because you do not like it.Clivel 0 (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Despite User:Keith-264 having removed the facts from the lead in this article three days ago, he has to date made no attempt to provide an alternate lead, essentially leaving the lead bereft of content. I have fleshed out the lead, complete with references, which User:Keith-264 summarily removed, again without making any attempt to provide alternate factual content. His behaviour would indicate that he is more interested in obscuring the facts than providing a useful reference. Clivel 0 (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- I fear that Clivel has tried to edit the lead to return the unwarranted claims about Sizer using a different method, POV pushing. I suggest that we try to agree the wording for the lead here, to avoid unwelcome attention from the admins for incipient edit warring. I see no reason why mention of a controversy should be excluded from the lead but as the detail in the article makes clear, there have been allegations, denials, counter allegations and assertions about the integrity of some of the sources adduced. A brief description of this is all that's necessary.Keith-264 (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- The lead I added contains NO unwarranted claims against Sizer. All facts I included cite reliable sources. If user Keith-264 is in disagreement with the lead, then he may add to or modify it, bur his arbitrary deletion of anything he disagrees with, even though it is factual, is non-productive. In three days user Keith-264 has made no attempt to provide an alternative lead. His edits are solely destructive.Clivel 0 (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- No, you are using one side of a controversy to excuse POV pushing. A brief description of the controversy in the lead is all that's necessary. Keith-264 (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Totally agree with Collect's analysis and what Keith says above. Should Clivel persist in this blatant and offensive POV pushing, I would support him being banned from editing this, and all related, articles. --Hillbillyholiday talk 21:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
@Clivel, pls stop putting threats on my talk page, you have a flagrant conflict of interest. I will request action from the admins unless you desist. Keith-264 (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I will not be bullied by Keith-264, Collect and Hillbillyholiday. It is clear that despite hundreds of lines of discussion, that Keith-264 is not even interested in reaching consensus. In three days, he has made absolutely no attempt at providing alternative text for the lead paragraph. His only activity is deleting the efforts of others. I have referred the matter for arbitration. Clivel 0 (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for returning to the BLPn, no thanks for the content of your last edit. I have sketched a consensus solution and you have ignored it. Keith-264 (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- I've added something that doesn't put the main assertion in Wikipedia's voice. Something along these lines is necessary in the lead; it needs to summarise what follows in the article. The path forward at this point is to edit what's there, not simply to delete it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I thought that your latest edit was a genuine attempt at summary so qualitatively different to previous edits and thus there is no need to revert it under BLP rules. I amended it to remove superlatives but "which some" should be edited to describe who "some" are.
- In 2015 Sizer was censured by the Church and banned from using social media for six months after he linked to a WikiSpooks article which implicated Israel in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which some consider to be an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.[2] Sizer also opposes Christian Zionism, which been the focus of his published works.[3][4] Keith-264 (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Walid Phares
Walid Phares ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Last phrase in this biography is clearly an opinion and is not based in any external source: "Exum and the fall 2011 attackers against Phares were part of a coordinated smear campaign against Phares because of his appointment as advisor to Romney and the fear that his expertise will help the US defeat the Jihadists and the Islamists as argued by a Middle East scholar Dr Robert Rabil in "Walid Phares Under Attack" in the American Thinker". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.76.164.171 (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Joshua Copp
Joshua Copp ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Joshua Copp is an unsourced biography that began with a large attack section from single-edit Londontalk (talk · contribs); when that material was deleted, it was restored by the similarly-named Londonbusinesstalk (talk · contribs). I would've just speedied it, except the attack material had been deleted before I first got to the page. It should fall to a WP:BLPROD in a few days, but it could perhaps use some eyes until then. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Rampant unsourced pure speculation and a batch of rumour added for sauce. Collect (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Sudhir Chaudhary (Zee News)
Sudhir Chaudhary (journalist) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sudhir Chaudhary's BLP contains a Controversies section that consumes over half the page. While the controversies are significant and reliably sourced, we may be giving them WP:UNDUE weight. User Aisonajulk and I have discussed the issue on Chaudhry's talk page but would appreciate any feedback from others on whether the section should be condensed. Meatsgains (talk) 01:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Heidi Cruz
Heidi Cruz ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The information about Heidi's religion is wrong and there is an offensive photo which is being used without permission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleMarkR (talk • contribs) 01:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- What about the image do you find offensive and it is used without permission from who? Meatsgains (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- I agree the image is not flattering but I wouldn't deem it offensive. Meatsgains (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- New user who is still not getting how things work here. Unfortunately, because they have insisted on continuing to edit war, I was forced to report them to AN/3. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- @LittleMarkR: First of all, "I don't like it" is absolutely not a valid reason to remove the image from the article, especially when no one else agrees with you about it. Second, the information about Heidi's religion is not "wrong." A source has clearly been provided stating that while she was raised a Seventh-day Adventist, she is now part of her husband's denomination, Southern Baptist. You really need to stop edit warring. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 02:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Amanda K. Hale
Amanda K. Hale ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi There,
Thanks for MenoBot's message at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amanda_K._Hale
I think MenoBot refers to "Poetry Chapbooks," so I fixed it.
Could you please take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_K._Hale. Could you please tell me if the problem has been solved
Thanks so much for your time!
1001Bookworm (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Jun Albert Morden
Jun Albert Morden is a Filipino Communication Student. Studying at College of Divine Wisdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morden402 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC) --Morden402 (talk) 02:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a social media site, nor a resume hosting site. I have removed the Facebook link. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Paula Broadwell
Ugh. While the entire article is clearly being polished by a pro-Broadwell faction, most of it is probably within tolerable limits. However, the "Petraeus Affair" section has been reduced to mere pro-Broadwell propaganda, using a "Broadwell is being unfairly persecuted" slant to make Broadwell look better. Biased, opinion-based statements like "This was the first time the Department of Justice pursued such an invasive investigation into the work of a DoD-credentialed journalist." don't belong in a wikipedia bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.179.40 (talk) 21:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Jorge Horacio Brito
We need some assistance here. The article has a large number of potential BLP violations, but since the sourcing is in Spanish I find it very difficult to judge what to cut and what to keep. From what I can surmise there is a well-publicized scandal, which suggests that some accusations which would otherwise be cut might still have a place, considering this is a very hot topic. Thanks for your help. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Johan Cruyff
Can an admin please lock the Johan Cruyff article? The player has just passed away and traffic/editing is heavy. Thanks.Carlos Rojas77 (talk) 13:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, traffic is heavy but there's a lot of experienced editors keeping on top of things, including a couple of admins. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Adam Johnson (footballer)
Adam Johnson (footballer) was sentenced to six years in prison today after his conviction of sexual activity with a 15-year-old girl. Eyes on that article would be good. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Jo Harman
Edit warring apparently involving COI account. Could require page protection and/or blocks. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Carman Lapointe
The article on Carman Lapointe indicates that Carman Lapointe "was forced to leave her post" as Under-Secretary-General for Internal Oversight at the United Nations. However, that statement is incorrect. Carman Lapointe retired from the United Nations on September 13th, upon the normal expiry of her mandate, exactly five years after her appointment date of 14 September 2010. The appointment was, and still is, a five-year, non-renewable term. She was not forced to leave. The report of the Panel appointed by the Secretary-General to investigate sexual abuses by French forces not under the control of the United Nations, in the Central African Republic, had not yet been issued at the time of her retirement. It was issued on 17 December 2015.
Furthermore, the United Nations Dispute Tribunal, in its order GVA-2015-139, deemed that the decision by the Under-Secretary-General for Internal Oversight (Carman Lapointe) was a legal decision, made within her authority and with reasonable justification. The link to that decision follows:
In addition, as the article references primarily information contained in the Panel Report, the report itself warrants inclusion as a complete reference on the matter. The link to the report follows:
http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/centafricrepub/Independent-Review-Report.pdf
It should also be noted that the full response of the Under-Secretary-General for Internal Oversight to the adverse findings of the Panel, is included in Appendix C to the Panel's report as Annex 8 to that Appendix. It is unfortunate that the table of contents of the report does not list the responses which were required by the Panel's terms of reference. Nevertheless, the responses form part of the report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.176.30.218 (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Mishal Husain
Mishal Husain ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This needs eyes. I've just reverted 2 different IPs with edits like this and this. Voceditenore (talk) 11:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)