Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive109

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bob Dylan

Resolved
 – the usual type vandalism that WP:PENDING PROTECTION would have kept out of the article from public view and from duplication all over the WWW through mirror site duplication of wikipedia content

Bob Dylan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are a number of very inappropriate and disgusting comments that have been added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazza1956 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

As it is as featured article there are usually plenty of editors keeping an eye on such things, but I watchlisted it. If the vandalism gets very bad you might consider requesting page protection --Errant (chat!) 09:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I believe it was because of the Grammy Awards. --Bsadowski1 09:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Kai Bird 2

  • Kai Bird 1 is a recent thread on this noticeboard and found here

Kai Bird (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dear Wikipedia,

Recently I complained that an addition had been made to my biographical entry, adding the line: "Israeli historian Benny Morris writes that "practically nothing that Bird tells his readers about the Arab-Zionist conflict conforms with the facts of history".

I still find this comment about my 2010 memoir, Crossing Mandelbaum Gate, objectionable. Someone has balanced it with a one line quote from Christopher Hitchens's review of the book. But to say that "practically nothing" in my 425 page book (with over 500 footnotes) "conforms with the facts of history" is an astonishing thing for one historian to say about another's work. It is a libel. (I don't as a matter of principle sue other authors for libel. )

I know that these bio entries often include critical reviews, and that is fine. But Morris's hostile and quite mendacious review was just published Feb 3 in the New Republic on line. I have responded with a 2,000 word letter to the editor which has yet to be published. If Wikipedia wishes to make a note of this controversy I think it is only fair to wait until my response has been published or posted. Otherwise, there is no context for Morris's attack. So I would appreciate it if the Wiki editors could take down Morris's attack on my book at least until the New Republic has published my defense.

This is the contentious Middle East. Morris is a partisan. And my memoir is actually a very balanced and anguished attempt to see both sides.

Thank you,

Kai Bird —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.52.244.98 (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could add your comments to the discussion further up this page where we are already trying to deal with this issue? Perhaps you could add your comments to the talk page for the article? Perhaps you could not add the same text three times over to this noticeboard? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Demi, please remember that this noticeboard is often a gateway for the living subjects of our articles when they have issues and worries about them, these people are often not experienced at all in editing the wikipedia or the ways of the wiki, they should be given assistance and treated with the utmost respect, even if they post in multiple sections. Off2riorob (talk) 12:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • - A new, less attacking quote has now been added to replace the previous one. Off2riorob (talk) 11:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Wiki Editors,

Regarding the recent editing on my entry: I see someone has substituted another quote from Benny Morris, this time quoting him saying that my book is a "charge-sheet against Zionism." I guess this is preferable to what was there before, but hardly.

I read the discussion between all of you, and I appreciate the seriousness with which you address these issues. But I think the problem is not really solved. One of the editors quite correctly focused on the problem: the fact that there are quotes from reviews of only one of my five books. Why zero in on my Middle East memoir? Why not similar quotes from reviews of other books?

Well, the reason this started was that some Israeli blogger decided to add a hostile quote from Benny Morris. Ok, but it sticks out like a red flag.

I would try to do this myself, but I don't know how and it looks complicated. But if you cared to flesh this entry out a little and give it more balance, I have an official web site: www.kaibird.com which has reviews of all my books--even the critical ones! It also has an author's photo that is mine and freely available.

I do hope we can do more than leave this glaringly hostile quote from Benny Morris. My memoir was very well received. There are plenty of quotes from other sources that would make the entry more balanced. And more material about other books--which were not about the contentious Middle East.

If any of you wish to contact me directly, I am at (redacted)

Cheers,

Kai Bird Kaibird4263 (talk) 12:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Bird--as what we call an "uninvolved" editor who responded to the original posting here, I think there is consensus about adding reviews of some of your other books as well, and I will do so later today. You are handling your concerns correctly by posting them (but might consider doing so in the future at the article talk page). Editing your article yourself is problematic under Wikipedia policies, see WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIO, but making suggestions on discussion pages is welcomed. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I took Benny out, he clearly is an opinionated opponant of the subject, we are all to often keen to add such attacking soapboxing to our articles that demean the subjects work when partisan attacking soapboxing is all the value it has. Off2riorob (talk) 12:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. If you read the Morris review in detail, he goes into many paragraphs of extremely specific discussion of statements in Mr. Bird's book with which he disagrees. It is relevant here that Benny Morris is a clearly notable Israeli historian--and not regarded so far as I can tell as a simple apologist for the nation; he seems to have taken his share of flack over the years for dissenting viewpoints of his own. This is much more than "attacking soapboxing" as you term it. I agree there were weight issues, which I was trying to resolve, but your unilateral decision to delete over-rules the solution suggested by Jimbo Wales above, which I had implemented. It also created a weight issue of its own, by leaving Hitchen's positive review (which I'd also added) without any counterpoint. I struck out my offer above to add more reviews to the article, as I do not see the point of adding more reviews unless Morris is also mentioned. While I sympathize with Mr. Bird's distress and concerns about the review, I think our encyclopedic mission demands some mention of the criticism. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
IMO its just a partisan attack from someone that is opposed to the subject - the quotes are of no educational value at all and I removed it via WP:BOLD you know if you think it has a value you can add the content. Off2riorob (talk) 12:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
No desire to get involved in a bold-revert-delete war and in fact am removing it from my watchlist at this point. But I hope other editors will weigh in here, as I think this is an example of our takung WP:BLP standards over the line to act as the protectors of subjects against well sourced and notable criticism. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I added Kai Bird- Official website - as mentioned there are some book reviews available there, also as the subject says, if the reviews are fleshed out then the weight aspect of a negative review in regards to what appears to have been a pretty well received book will be much less of an issue. Off2riorob (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
As the article stands, we are protecting Mr. Bird against (and denying our readers any knowledge of) a lengthy, detailed, negative review full of historical detail, by a well established, respected if sometimes controversial Israeli historian, in the venerable New Republic magazine. Calling it "attacking soapboxing" translates to "I don't like it". The solution to weight issues is, as WP:PRESERVE says, "Try to fix problems...preserve appropriate content". (Slight irony follows:) For an example of how we interweave quite strong criticism while preserving neutrality, you might take a look at our article on Mr. Bird's critic, Benny Morris: "Critics on the Israeli right have alleged that Morris's first book betrayed Arab sympathies, and have criticized his work as biased for that reason."Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
There is also the if its undue fix it by removing it position. Also , it seems from such a lengthy opinionated review to choose a single comment from it and use that in the body of the article is likely going to be a problem in itself, I can find an appreciative comment also in that lengthy text - I would suggest adding the review as an external link and allowing readers the chance to assess the review themselves would be a better position for wikipedia to take. Off2riorob (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
If the edit had gone into more detail about the Morris review, then it would have deserved to be removed for WP:UNDUE--which it did not in its short form. As a compromise, I would entertain a sentence of description instead of quoting. Something like "Historian Benny Morris questioned the factual accuracy and neutrality of some of Bird's statements". I also have an issue with deleting anything per WP:UNDUE rather than fixing it. The effect too often--I have been through this recently in another context--is that one editor spends mere seconds pressing the "Undo" button, with cryptic edit summaries, while another spends hours trying to implement the cryptic comments, only to be reverted again. Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
As per my previous comment here, I have plus Added the Hitchens and the Morris book reviews to the external links section. I am also open to your suggestion that a general overview comment of the review rather than a single quoted comment might be a worthwhile addition of the two reviews back into the body of the article, and if presented as similar to your comment presented I would have no objection to that. Off2riorob (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Terry Ilott

Terry Ilott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are two Terry Ilotts. The one described in this article, which I found through a link on a Mike Olfield blog,is a film historian, and not the artist who painted the cover of the album 'Crises'. I know this because I am that particular Terry Ilott. It is certainly a strange coincidence that two individuals with such a distinctive name combination should both be involved in artistic fields, and ,as on this occasion, has led to misunderstanding and confusion. Information about me can be found on my website at www.terryilott.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terence john ilott (talk • contribs) 22:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there is nothing in the article that doesn't relate to the 'other' Terry Illot, so I'm not quite sure what you are asking us to do? If there were verifiable sources (i.e. published ones - we can't really use personal websites etc) to merit an article on you, we could of course create one, and add a disambiguation page - I'll take a look, but our requirements for notability are rather high, so I'd not count on this. Otherwise, I'd suggest that all you can do is point out the error to whoever writes the blog.
Actually, the article on the 'other' Terry Ilott is rather lacking in independent sources too - we should probably look into this too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I see we'd actually made the link to the 'wrong' Ilott ourselves, in the Crises article. I've removed the link, and added a comment in the source and a note on the talkpage to prevent this being reinserted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon

Gilad Atzmon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Once again editors are take some new rant by Atzmon, cherry picking quotes to make it sound far more irrational than it is, even admitting their bias against him, and reverting it back after two editors reverted it saying it is WP:OR/cherry picking. (See reverts for policy violations at this diff and this diff and latest revert back to that text diff here.)

This diff is another recent revert of a cherry picked original source Atzmon quote by an editor with a long history of denouncing Atzmon and putting in cherry picked quotes. The editor who reverted it also has denounced Atzmon. I don't want to edit war and revert these again, if some non-involved editor wants to come in and do so. These guys just do not understand WP:NPOV editing of WP:BLP! CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Reverted. I agree it was a case of cherry-picking primary source quotes. Primary-source quotes should be used when secondary sources quote these same passages. Not when a Wikipedian really likes or dislikes a quote. --JN466 17:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with the claim that primary-source quotes can only be used for BLP's when validated by secondary sources. WP:SELFPUB allows quoting of Atzmon's writings to illustrate his opinions of Israeli policy. Also, "cherry-picking" is not an official Wikipedia term of art, though it gets used a lot. The only reference I found for it is to the WP:Coatrack article, which, though useful, is not an official Wikipedia policy. Also, the motives of other editors are less important than whether the edits themselves meet our standards. I think what you are really saying is that the use of too many of these quotes may violate WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV considerations, and I cautiously agree--but I think you are approaching this by the wrong road, focusing on editor motives, primary source or "cherrypicking" considerations. Jonathanwallace (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, also the quotes were used in their proper sections in the article, and reinforced Atzmon's statements on the subjects which were in the article. Similarly, the claim of "out of context" is completely nebulous. It's simply a smokescreen some editors use to try and hide an author's own words from the public. Why? I have no idea. But it shouldn't concern wikipedia editors. The links to the full articles were provided with the quotes, and anyone can look at them and see that they are in no way shape or form "out of context" Drsmoo (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The cherrypicking involved here is wearingly familiar from my time on this article two years ago. User:Drsmoo includes Atzmon states that he does "not regard anti-Jewish activity as a form of anti-Semitism or racial hatred", whilst leaving out the second part of the same sentence which provides essential context for understanding Atzmon's view: "I do not regard anti-Jewish activity as a form of anti-Semitism or racial hatred, for Jews are neither Semites nor do they form a racial continuum whatsoever."[1] Rd232 talk 02:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how the added line changes the meaning of the statement at all. I would happily reinsert the quote with the full statement. Drsmoo (talk) 04:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
"I don't see how the added line changes the meaning of the statement at all." - in that case you should recuse yourself from editing this article on grounds of failing WP:COMPETENCE. Rd232 talk 05:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Please remove your meaningless personal attack. Drsmoo (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
You're either lying about failing to see how the omitted statement changes the meaning, or genuinely failing to see it, in which case linguistic competence is certainly an issue. WP:AGF requires me to believe your own claim that you are unable to understand the issue. There is no personal attack here; merely AGF+logical conclusion, backed up by the fact that this is far from the first time you have had such apparent inabilities to understand the effects of your selective quotation. Rd232 talk 05:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
It is a personal attack, and if personal attacks persist against me I will take the issue up on a noticeboard, in any case, let's break down the entire statement.
"Unlike Uri Avneri and Norman Finkelstein who appear in the film and argue that anti Semitism is exaggerated, I actually believe that resentment towards Jewish politics is rising rapidly and constantly. However, I do differentiate between the Judeo centric notion of anti Semitism and political resentment towards Jewish ideology. I do not regard anti Jewish activity as a form of anti-Semitism or racial hatred for Jews are neither Semites nor do they form a racial continuum whatsoever.
The rise of hatred towards any form of Jewish politics and Jewish lobbies is a reaction towards a tribal, chauvinist and supremacist ideology. If political Jews whether Zionist or ‘Jewish anti Zionists’ are concerned with themselves losing popularity, all they need to do, is to learn to look in the mirror. Self-reflection is liberation as long as one is courageous enough to face the truth" - Gilad Atzmon
In the section which I quote, he states that he does not regard anti-Jewish activity to be a form of anti-semitism or racial hatred of Jews. What is implied is that the term anti-semitism is different in meaning from "anti-Jewish" or "racial-hatred for jews." Anti-semitism is defined by merriem-webster as "hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group" Saying he doesn't regard anti-Jewish activity as a form of anti-semitism or racial hatred towards Jews is like saying one doesn't regard anti-Homosexual activity as a form of Homophobia or sexuality hatred. He is obviously applying a unique definition to the term. The second part of the sentence does nothing but elaborate on the first (and demonstrate Atzmon's lack of knowledge on the subject of Jewish genealogy). It provides no additional information to anyone familiar with the definition of anti-semitism.
In the opening and closing lines, before the selected quote he conflates anti-semitism with being a resentment towards "Jewish politics" (including anti-zionist Jews, as he includes "jewish anti-zionists" as also being victims of hatred) and not an attack on individuals (this is consistent in his writing.) His underlying statement in the two paragraphs is that anti-semitism is not on the decline, but rising, as a political resentment towards "Jewish ideology" which he finds to be chauvinist (he has conflated "jewish ideology" and "jewish politics" (on both sides of the spectrum) consistently in his writing. Citing Jewish Ideology/Zionist ideology as being derived from violent statements in Deuteronomy recently. (http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/jewish-ideology-and-world-peace-by-gilad-atzmon.html) Drsmoo (talk) 06:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, so you've confirmed that you really don't understand the content issue, and additionally are unable even when prompted to differentiate between a personal attack and carefully expressed criticism. Sometimes it's a shame WP:COMPETENCE doesn't have a noticboard... Rd232 talk 06:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, to explain slightly: you are applying your (conventional) understanding of these issues and ignoring Atzmon's own understanding, thereby making his statements appear more extreme than they are. Quoting from the dictionary definition of anti-semitism exemplifies this, and leads you to the ludicrous remark "like saying one doesn't regard anti-Homosexual activity as a form of Homophobia or sexuality hatred." The part you omitted from Atzmon's sentence was "Jews are neither Semites nor do they form a racial continuum whatsoever." He is stating that racism against Jews is not possible because Jews are not a race. Now you might very well think that's wrong/silly/offensive, but by omitting this part of his view, you distort it. Personally, I think it's fairly obvious that (a) race is basically a socio-cultural construct anyway, not a genetic one (b) even if Jews aren't a race, if racists think so, they can act in a racist way towards them. But what I think is neither here nor there; what matters is what Atzmon thinks, and leaving out key bits of that is not acceptable. Rd232 talk 06:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
"He is stating that racism against Jews is not possible because Jews are not a race." I felt that was more than clear in the part of the sentence I included, but do agree with you that it was not acceptable or justifiable in any way for me to only include half of the sentence. I also agree that the article should be kept to statements from notable sources (not Atzmon's personal site.)
If you have a rebuttal that's related to the post and not an attack on me as a poster, please share it. Drsmoo (talk) 06:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Repeated false claims of personal attacks are themselves a form of personal attack. Rd232 talk 06:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
To answer Jonathan Wallace, I think when you put everything togther - cherry picking of quotes, the repeatedly announced motive "he's an antisemite and we have to prove it," quotes taken out of context to make something controversial sound extremely bigoted or just loony, WP:Undue negative quotes, all build up to an obviously strong POV that is against WP:NPOV in BLP. Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough originally. Such biased editing led to months of absurd arguments as people would pick ones against him and others would try for a more NPOV intepretation (which often was alleged to be "pro-Atzmon.") So pretty soon every set of quotes and summaries ends up coming here or WP:NPOVN or WP:ORN for outside opinions, which disrupts work and wastes time. The same is true in other articles. I'm sure editors here could name quite a few bios where this sort of thing happens. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • - Gilad Atzmon is a living person that has a right to an NPOV wikipedia article and he is just not getting it and is never likely to - our policies and guidelines are not strong enough to protect his NPOV representation and I support his option to WP:OPTOUT of the project, with the personal request the their article is a negative portrayal of them that is detrimental to the portrayal of their public persona. Off2riorob (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
    • He might get an NPOV article if those intent on using it as a soapbox against him are removed from the topic. Since it falls under I/P arbitration, this might not require a new Arbcom case. Rd232 talk 05:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
WP:optout is a failed proposal according to the article, and how is the article non NPOV? How can his own statements be biased against him? In any case, the article is only using sources from reliable papers, I only added quotes from his site when I saw others were doing it again. I have no issue with sticking to notable sites, as long as the rule is applied to all of his statements and not just to his anti-semitic ones. His statement that ""'Anti-Semite' is an empty signifier, no one actually can be an Anti-Semite and this includes me of course. In short, you are either a racist which I am not or have an ideological disagreement with Zionism, which I have." is linked directly to his website, if all sources must be from other pages, than this should be replaced with a newspaper or reputable site as well. Drsmoo (talk) 05:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, lots of heat. OK. 1. Under WP:SPS, his self published material is reliable for his own opinion. I have no problem sourcing the statement above about the "empty signifier" to his own web site. 2. Our policies demand balance and neutrality, but not that we protect people against their own words--we need to be careful not to cross that line. 3. Speaking as an uninvolved editor, it would be great if we took this down a notch. The accusations of incompetence in particular are inappropriate for the noticeboard. Thanks, Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The editor in question effectively declared his own incompetence, and having seen his activities on this article for two years, with the same BLP-problematic behaviour consistently recurring, it's hard to disagree. His most recent comment suggests he's perhaps finally got it, but I'm not betting money on it. Your own remark about "protect people against their own words" suggests you don't get the significance of the long-term history of selective quotation of Atzmon, which if you're really new to the article is fair enough. This article is one of the worst BLP problems I'm aware of and has been for a long time, because a handful of editors cannot simply present Atzmon's views as they are (idiosyncratic, let's say, but with some foundation in reasoned argument), and instead seek to present them as irrational and racist and on occasion even as Holocaust-denying (a particularly egregious past episode). Rd232 talk 13:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
The only selective quotation in the article is from the users who attempt to white wash all of Atzmon's antisemitic statements from it. All one has to do is read Atzmon's writings. http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/ On his website he has over 120 essays listed under the category "Jewish Power." They are antisemitic to the core, and there is no meaningful debate to be had about it. He has been censured and banned by many prominent anti-zionist individuals and organizations for his anti-semitism. He declares himself a "proud self hating jew" and says the "official Holocaust narrative is there to conceal rather than to reveal any truth" (and just in case I am accused of taking that out of context, here is the full paragraph: Saying that, I must admit that I have many doubts concerning the Zionist Holocaust narrative. Being familiar with many of the discrepancies within the forcefully imposed narrative, being fully familiar with the devastating tale of the extensive collaboration between the Nazis and the Zionists before and throughout the Second World War, I know pretty well that the official Holocaust narrative is there to conceal rather than to reveal any truth. But it isn’t only a historical matter. It is evident that the Holocaust raises an ethical question. Considering the scale of the post Holocaust Jewish trauma we must question how is it that people who suffered so much (Jews) can inflict so much pain on other people (Palestinians). http://gilad.co.uk/html%20files/1001lies.html) along with saying it's rational to burn down synagogues and that the accusation that the jewish people are trying to take over the world should be taken seriously etc. Atzmon's views would be right at home on Stormfront(ugh, actually they are, if you can stomach reading this http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t712335/). At the moment the article contains only quotes from reliable sources (interviews and articles). And it accurately represents the character of Atzmon's writing. The only issue in the article at the moment are users who believe that they need to protect Atzmon from himself by white washing his antisemitic statements from the page. Drsmoo (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
All you've demonstrated is that you still don't understand what selective quotation actually means. Your "Holocaust narrative" quote doesn't mean what you imply it means. This isn't as obvious even from the fuller quote as it should be, but in the broader context of Atzmon's views he is talking about the use of the Holocaust as a quasi-religious myth instead of being accepted as merely a historical event. I know from experience that it's pointless debating with you; I'm not even sure you want to understand his views. I withdrew from the article (which I originally got involved with via BLPN) because of people like you being unwilling or unable to understand the nuances of Atzmon's (radical/extreme/whatever-you-want-to-call-them, whatever, they still need presenting neutrally) views. Rd232 talk 04:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Hear hear. It's by enforcing rules on the BLPs of people unpopular with some segment of the population that we make sure those of everyone are not abused. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Atzmon's antisemitism isn't ambiguous in any way shape or form. Saying the holocaust narrative is there to conceal the truth is not a complicated statement unless you choose to make it one. It is amazing the mental gymnastics some people will go through to convince themselves that he isn't really saying what he (proudly) says over and over and over. When he says he's a proud self hating Jew, he means it. When he questions that the death marches were for the purpose of killing jews, or that Auschwitz was a death camp he means that too.(http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/truth-history-and-integrity-by-gilad-atzmon.html) In any case, it is irrelevant to the composition of the article, which should be edited according to Wikipedia policy, and not as a white wash, nor as an attack piece. Drsmoo (talk) 05:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
(ec)Well, you're further proving me right (and BTW WP:BLP also applies to this board). The "truth" at issue is Zionism's involvement with the Nazis and present-day use of the Holocaust as a political tool; indeed there is nothing complicated about that, but you present that as if he is denying the Holocaust. No quote in the link you give backs up your claim "he says he doesn't believe that it was possible for there to be death marches, or for Auschwitz to have been a death camp". He raises questions (drawing on an Israeli historian claiming voluntary involvement in marches) and asks for it to be treated as a historical event, not as a sacred narrative. Rd232 talk 05:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, you've edited your comment to slightly tone down your remark, so my quote of you doesn't match up any more. Your revised version doesn't match Atzmon's writing either: he doesn't question the purpose of the marches, so much as point to the claim that some joined the marches voluntarily and say that this is a bit odd and worth looking into. You're always reading between Atzmon's lines to find a Holocaust-denying racist, instead of listening to what he actually says. I wish I could walk from this knowing that people who actually care what he says (I don't!) will present his views accurately and neutrally. Rd232 talk 05:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
The Holocaust is a historical event and is treated as such, there is likely no historical event that has been and continues to be researched as rigorously. The only people who deny that it is treated as a historical event are those who don't like the conclusions. The questions Atzmon is raising (as to weather or not the Nazis wanted the Jews dead) have been answered long ago. Drsmoo (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
The mind boggles. "as to weather or not the Nazis wanted the Jews dead"? You're really completely happy to libel this guy, aren't you? Considering that in the link you gave he talked about his own relative being killed: "It took me years to grasp that my great-grandmother wasn’t made into a ‘soap’ or a ‘lampshade’. She probably perished out of exhaustion, typhus or maybe even by mass shooting. This was indeed bad and tragic enough, however not that different from the fate of many millions of Ukrainians who learned what communism meant for real. ... The fate of my great-grandmother was not any different from hundreds of thousands of German civilians who died in an orchestrated indiscriminate bombing, because they were Germans. Similarly, people in Hiroshima died just because they were Japanese. 1 million Vietnamese died just because they were Vietnamese and 1.3 million Iraqis died because they were Iraqis. In short the tragic circumstances of my great grandmother wasn’t that special after all." Rd232 talk 05:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
"If, for instance, the Nazis wanted the Jews out of their Reich (Judenrein - free of Jews), or even dead, as the Zionist narrative insists, how come they marched hundreds of thousands of them back into the Reich at the end of the war?" The Nazis wanting the Jews dead is not "the zionist narrative" it is a historical fact accepted by the whole world. Drsmoo (talk) 06:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

- It seems from my experience of BLP and articles such as this that our policy and the levels of NPOV and basic maturity on this wikipedia that we are unable to protect such living people as Gilad from attack by people , well , partisan haters is probable a decent reflection. Uninvolved neutral editors that have any responsibility to the neutrality and educational ambitions of the project should either work on such articles as this to keep the haters attempts out of the article or take such articles to AFD and delete them from the project - with a rationale along the lines of - WP:Do no harm - the living subject is repeatedly and over time attacked through the article and the talkpage - policy and guidelines have been unable to prevent such partisan attacks and as such this wikipedia has lost any assumed right to host a biography of this living person. Off2riorob (talk) 12:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

In general I've walked away from the Atzmon article because of Carolmooredc's "POV" pushing and forum shopping made it not worth the battle to ensure it accurately reflected Atzmon's position, but I do have to say something here about how off-track some of these comments are. Some of the editors here seem to have no real idea what Holocaust denial actually is, how it manifests itself today. That leaves them helpless to understand just why the Atzmon article contains such accusation, and fully deserves to. Instead they try to bully people like Drsmoo into silence.
Holocaust deniers have moved past saying "none of it happened" because they know that nobody buys it. They tried it. It failed. Now they just try to diminish or lie about every aspect of it instead, "Yeah, some Nazi soldiers did some bad things to some Jews every now and then, I guess, but there was no real plan to do so, no gas chambers, Hitler didn't tell them to, and the Jews have vastly inflated the number of dead." And that is the kind of Holocaust denial Atzmon promotes. The more you know about Holocaust denial, the more you see why Atzmon lost such a wide fraction of his following when he embraced it in 2005. Follow the link to the Aspen public access TV appearance and you'll see it play out: other panelists in a discussion getting turned off by his Holocaust denial, live on TV. What's more, Holocaust deniers are themselves coming to recognize Atzmon as one of their own; Robert Faurisson, David Irving, and David Duke all have plenty of Atzmon material on their web sites, because they see him as a fellow Holocaust denier.
It's sad but true: the one thing that people on all sides of the issue - zionist or anti-zionist - agree on is that the more you listen to Atzmon, the more you recognize that he's an antisemite, and his base is now down to just the true believers (and the stormtroopers I mentioned above).
So the idea that all this stuff about Atzmon and Holocaust denial is just being made up - well, sorry, that doesn't pass the reality test. Atzmon gets picketed more by antizionists than zionists, because they know the damage he does to their movement. And the fact that Wikipedia hasn't been able to whitewash him as spotlessly as some of his followers desire is a victory for Wikipedia, even though some editors above have strangely decided that it is a defeat. Goodwinsands (talk) 13:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Your minimal time at the project and your single issue account history speaks for itself - We as a project need to recognize such accounts as yours and topic ban them from their POV topic as fast as possible, neutrality is not an option with such single purpose accounts. Off2riorob (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
It always amazes me how these new users on the Israel-Palestine issue always have such great knowledge of wikipedia policies, ones it took me years of editing to acquire. And how quick they are to slam other editors for following policies; but then they have the "excuse" of claiming they are new editors and don't know any better! CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah yes, attack me, attack me, attack me. This is Wikipedia living down to its reputation. Thank you for the reminder of why I left the article, and why I'm leaving this discussion as well. Goodwinsands (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
It is no surprise that the likes of David Irving et al will use a quote by someone if it can be made to validate their own view. After all much of what they do is to take things out of context so that back becomes white and white becomes black. So being quoted by Irving is not the same as having the same views as Irving. John lilburne (talk) 14:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Antonio Arnaiz-Villena

Antonio Arnaiz-Villena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could you please protect Antonio Arnaiz-Villena page from Akerbeltz,Trigaranus,Kwamikagami Dumu Eduba and a recent new-comer ,GoingToPluto ,editings?Could you protect this page from new-comers? Reasons:

Honestly, I can't follow much of what you're saying, but the article, which is about a controversial figure, is messy. In particular, the fringe subsection is almost unreadable it's so poorly written. I've added a template to that section that it needs to be cleaned up. It's somewhat ironic that a section about linguistics is almost impossible to read.
Not that I know much about it, but why is the phrase "ethnic Macedonians" a "racist term"? There's a Wikipedia article on the group (and the term in the Arnaiz-Villena article is wikified).
The article is already protected as it uses the Review system for auto-confirmed users. I'm not sure that you'll get much more protection than that without a more understandable and solid basis for requesting it. For example, pointing to specific edits that have been made and critiquing them would help.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Symbio04 is a single-interest account with an apparent COI. Accounts from what appear to be Arnaiz-Villena himself or his students chronically challenge the article (one of the reasons it's such a mess), and make all sorts of claims, but have consistently failed to back them up with the legal records etc that they claim to have. (For example, a court has dismissed all charges or found him innocent, but they are unable to provide the case number, or the case number they provide does not check out.) Several have been permanently blocked as sock puppets. AFAIK, the accusations that remain are all adequately sourced, and if the AV accounts ever provide additional evidence it will be incorporated, but it's difficult to take them seriously. The sound like a crackpot sputtering about how there's a conspiracy against him. — kwami (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Kwami,you wrote the linguistics section.You could do an effort and the recommended “cleaning”.

You have forgotten ,friend, the link to the Palestinian paper.Readers cannot understand the problem without reading the paper:please,do not remove this reference . “Scientific community “means all scientists .Only,a few of them with a conflict of interest did not like 2 papers out of about 350 published by Antonio Arnaiz-Villena.”Scientific community” has been changed by “Criticisms”;this section repeats text.Symbio04 (talk) 01:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Francis Fox Piven

Francis Fox Piven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  • persistent Francis Fox Piven blanking and legal threat

Please see Francis Fox Piven (history and comments) as well as User talk:Rostz regarding a legal threat. Please advise, thanks. Rostz (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

After blocking the wrong person, I have blocked Fannielou (talk · contribs) indefinitely for the legal threat. –MuZemike 22:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • - User:Fannielou has now retracted the perceived legal threat and is unblocked. The article is now under discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Frances_Fox_Piven as it seems the subject has requested deletion due to claims of inaccuracies and repeated vandalism additions - it is presently snowing keep at the AFD. Off2riorob (talk) 12:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

:As a side note Cloward Piven Strategy appears to have been speedily deleted as a result of this same discussion. I have mixed feelings about that--sympathize very much with Dr. Piven but feel the term was notable and handled fairly in the article. It is there at Cloward-Piven Strategy, my mistake. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Poorly sourced negative BLP at Arno Funke

Poorly sourced negative BLP article, with completely unsourced negative material on crimes, etc. Now at AFD, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arno Funke. -- Cirt (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Cee Lo

His bio has been vandalized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.250.188 (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I assume you mean Cee Lo Green: this has been rectified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Its also been semi protected for a week. Off2riorob (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Alice Dellal and Alexander Dellal

Alice Dellal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Alexander Dellal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm doubtful as the notability of these two siblings justifying each having an article. --ACRSM 18:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Based on what I see at both articles, great candidates for deletion on notability grounds. Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Rubygate

Rubygate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article needs a new neutral name its about Silvio Berlusconi troubles with an underage prostitute . Its Gone up on the main page with the suffix -Gate The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this post is appropriate. The page in question is not a biography of a living person. NickCT (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
From WP:BLP: This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages. So yes this is an appropriate venue The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree rubygate doesn't seem wiki correct as per the usual WP:MOS naming conventions. Off2riorob (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Berlusconi 2011 legal investigation - Off2riorob (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Can you cite the exact naming conventions you're referring to Off2? Regardless, I think Rubygate is reasonably supported by WP:COMMONNAME which trumps WP:NPOV. There is an active discussion on the article's talkpage. I'd suggest we keep the conversation there so that we don't end up having two forums for the same topic. NickCT (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Justin Bieber

Justin Bieber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm concerned that the edit summary of this diff by EmmyWinner (talk · contribs) on Justin Bieber runs afoul of BLP policy as it's essentially a personal attack, presumably on the subject, and may require some sort of intervention. I wasn't sure if this was a clear-cut report to oversight case so I'm reporting it here. OSborn arfcontribs. 21:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I have just revision-deleted the edit summary , & another admin has already left an appropriate note for the editor. DGG ( talk ) 23:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Gennaro Gattuso

Resolved

Gennaro Gattuso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

the article is being defaced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkshoe (talk • contribs) 23:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Now semi-protected. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Samar Chatterjee

Samar Chatterjee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This BLP is full of unsourced paranoid accusations, accompanied by the usual dose of bad grammar. A sample:


I'm currently busy, but someone else may want to clean this up. The alleged harasser and brutalizer is a living person (Edwin Meese).Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I deleted this para but the problems are much deeper. This guy just isn't notable; its a common name (there is a Bollywood actor/director of the same name), but I can't find any third party coverage of him, just a few references to his articles. The article survived nomination for deletion once before, with a "no consensus" result. Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Nominated for deletion. Jonathanwallace (talk) 06:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Overlake Christian church

Overlake Christian Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a church, actually it has little Independent noteability but I think it is notable as it say it is a big church in a county. There was some issue regarding sexual allegations in 1998 - there were no charges at all and the content is cited to an archived single local source, although a user on the talkpage suggests there are more, and I see a highbeam has been added in an attempt to suggest the content is well sourced and should stay, - if there are I am pretty sure they will also be local and historic, nothing to assert the continuation of reporting this incident. As per BLP wikipedia should not become the primary host of such controversial content about living people. As there were no charges at all, and basically the church article should actually be about the church and not a record for eternity of such minor incidents about a living person that was never charged, as in WP:Do no harm etc. - content is below - Is this the kind of content about non notable, non public, living people that wikipedia is supposed to become the primary host of? Off2riorob (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Sex Scandal

Bob Moorehead resigned from Overlake Church denying that he sexually molested male parishioners. He was never charged but the allegation brought by several men. He'd concluded the allegations represented a ``stumbling block" to Overlake's ministry.

At the beginning of the allegations the Elders supported Bob but later they changed their opinion.


  • note - content brought from the article for discussion by - Off2riorob (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

comments on OCC article

One of my issues with it is also undue weight - in its own section and with the usual dramatic titillating header. So I have trimmed it and moved it to the end of the comments about moorhead, adding an unobtrusive simple comment...

  • - He resigned in 1998 after unproven allegations of sexual impropriaty.[1]

Off2riorob (talk) 14:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a good compromise. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I also don't want it to have its own section. But what's been presented above is very far from the complete picture, either. I won't repeat my side of the talk–page discussion here, but editors will need to review that (currently) brief thread (permalink) in order to understand the question that has been presented here. As I just commented on the talk page, btw, I'll have to be offline for something like the next 12 – 18 hours. But I'll check back here to see whether the OP has accepted my request to continue the discussion on the talk page, rather than here. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I like the sentence that Jonathan has suggested but I think a phrase could be added about the elders of the church accepting testimony that gave strength to the allegations. That said I shares other editors concerns about avoiding undue weight given the context of the long history of the church. Also we should make sure that any content is referenced to the church in the sources, as this article is about the church and not about the preacher who resigned under scrutiny.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

(Just back for a moment, here.) Those are good points, Keithbob, thanks. However, I feel obliged to point out that the presentation Off2riorob has made of this is somewhat less than wholly candid. People here are getting a false impression about the extent of the coverage of this, and its impact on the church. As I've repeatedly told Rob on the talk page (permalink), there are more than 75 discrete, wp:rs articles available about this. It made the front page of the largest Seattle newspapers multiple times, presumably because it was, at the time, the largest church in Washington State. Since I have no wish at all to drag this church's name through the mud (more about my motivation in this matter on the talk page) I have refrained from disclosing all but two of those. Unfortunately, I can't substantively answer comments here without doing so, and I've requested that Rob mark this resolved and keep it on the talk page for that reason. I'll close by commenting that I haven't been editing this article myself. Rob has just reached 3RR with two different IPs who wanted this info in after he and another editor expunged it from the article entirely. That kind of thing has been going on over this article for years, and my talk-page participation has only been about trying to resolve that. Oh, btw, the suggested sentence above wasn't Johathan's; it was Off2riorobs. He just forgot to sign, and I've since corrected that. In haste,  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Even if you have 75 discreet citations (which you haven't presented ) imo it won't make any difference they will all be historic and they won't have any charges in them. The issue deserves a simple comment and that enough. Off2riorob (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Quick addition: Any admin is welcome to contact me via e-mail for more sources on this. I have about a dozen of the 75 or so available ones ready to hand, and can easily copy-and-paste them into an e-mail reply. I say "admin" (sorry for that) because I'd prefer not to have those sources splashed across the article by any of the many editors who have added negative content in the past.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
No one is discreetly contacting you, make your case here in the open. Off2riorob (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually, non-admins with long-established accounts who have never edited the article in question would likewise be welcome to this info. I'd just prefer not to provide ammunition for anyone who might want to damage the church's reputation by creating a huge section on the scandal. Let 'em do their own research.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Look, you clearly are overly involved in this church issue - I mean what uninvolved person has 75 citations about something? Look its also a twelve year old minor scandal, please get over it - there were no legal charges or civil suits at all. Please don't top post like that, it messes up the timeline discussion . Off2riorob (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
What uninvolved person has 75 citations? How about one who does his homework before stepping in to try to resolve a years-long, very contentious conflict that he has taken no part in? ( Oh, wait. I did edit the article once, last October. Gosh, maybe I should take a break! ;-) And I don't have 75 citations. I verified that there are 75+ discrete news articles about this present in the ProQuest database, which gives full text in many cases, and lengthy abstracts in the rest. I took the trouble because I expected, correctly it seems, that you would oppose any reinstatement of this information at all, and I wanted to be certain about how much coverage it had received before I even raised the matter on the talk page. I only pulled cites for a dozen or so of the 75+, also because I knew people would demand proof of the extent to which this story created a furor in the Seattle area where the church is located. You really would do better to close this thread, Off2riorob. You haven't done your homework, and your presentation here has left out a great deal of information that editors need to properly render an opinon on the matter. Btw, the very minor top-post, which you've since reverted, was in accordance with wp:indent, as I indicated in my edit summary. If you're that concerned, you should know that your replacing the "unsigned" templates I added with four tildes screws up the continuty, by providing an incorrect timestamp. But this isn't the place to continue the dialog we were having on the talk page. I'll not be responding to you further here, although I'll be happy to address any questions or comments that uninvolved editors have, since you refuse to withdraw this.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Please take this down a notch. Opening a discussion here to get the opinions of other editors is a very normal and considerate thing to do, not a betrayal. Also, as I said above, Rob's solution of mentioning the resignation and scandal with a link to one source is a very good and normal compromise here which preserves the information, and allows readers to follow the link to get more information, while respecting our weight standards. I suggest you also read the essay on coatracks, which explains why adding long sections on topic B to an article on Topic A is disfavored.Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
You're entitled to your opinion, Jonathan, but you're mistaken in the assumptions it's based on. The church's pastor of 30 years built the largest church in Washington State, and was certainly a very public figure there before his arrest touched off the firestorm of publicity that raged in the Washington State press, frequently as front page news, for an extended period. Christianity Today reported on the story. I'm familiar with wp:coatrack; you might like to look at WP:BLP#Public_figures if you haven't recently. Moreover, I was never interested in using the article as a coatrack; I proposed a three sentence disclosure only; one that didn't even mention the exact nature of the allegations against the pastor, saying merely "serious misconduct", and that would have required readers to click on refs to discover that. ( Rob's response was to insult me and refuse my request to discuss rather than continue editing unilaterally. ) That was moderate enough, I think, for an episode that took the church's attendance from around 6,500 just before the pastor resigned to around 1,400 at one point subsequently, throwing it into a financial crisis, and that had more press coverage than probably 70% of the individual articles on Wikipedia have. Finally, all I ever asked Rob to do was to use the talk page to develop consensus wording, and not keep expunging all mention of the issue, and then (finally, under pressure) write it his way unilaterally.  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
firestorm ,- raged, see WP:WEASEL - are your involved position, the issue is clearly in the article, I don't see anything else worthy of discussion. . Off2riorob (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

note - this was added by IP:69.22.179.87 with the edit summary - "How many more references do we need?" ... again into its own section and totally undue imo - an additional mention of moorheads life again that is not relevant at all to the church - he was arrested in a tolet in some town and not charged with any offence - imo totally irrelevant to the article about the church, moorhead again there were no charges, as I understand it, this was the incident that was published that started male members of the church coming forward to accuse him, but anyways, the article isn't about moorheads life outside of the church and this issue is outside of that remit completely. The content is posted below, I must say, its uncanny how these IP accounts jump up and add content like this, and personally I think there is some meat puppetry in action here.but thats another issue aside from this. I removed the separate section and added a small addition to the previous content.I will post the new citations here for others to investigate. After this addition I removed the seperate section as undue and added a small comment to address this desired addition and this content is now in the article -

Off2riorob (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Rob has now twice suggested I've been acting as someone's meat puppet around this article. Once, above, and once on his talk page, despite my previously having explicitly stated that I don't know anyone who's been involved in this conflict, and that my only interest in the article ( which I edited once only, last October ) has been to try to help develop a resolution that both sides could accept, and that would end the long term battle over it. I suggest he either open the investigation he has threatened immediately, or keep his slurs to himself.  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Get over yourself and be honest - if your not involved then move along - there are plenty of experienced uninvolved editors that can deal with this. Off2riorob (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
You've now suggested a third time that I've been dishonest in some way, or have misrepresented my motive for trying to resolve this longstanding and disruptive conflict. Please retract.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Sexual Misconduct Allegations

The controversy involved accusations that Pastor Moorehead had inappropriately touched or fondled young men, usually before adult baptisms and weddings. Such allegations surfaced briefly on and off for several years.He denied the chargers due to these allegations he resigned from the church. Bob Moorehead and another were n arrested by an undercover police officer for lewd conduct in a public restroom in Daytona Beach, Fla., on July 23, 1996.

  • - posted for investigation by Off2riorob (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment on the above: The Highbeam ref above is one of two I provided on the article's talk page, previously, and that an IP then introduced into the article itself after I'd posted it to talk. The rest were ones that IPs introduced into the article directly. About Highbeam: It's not a reliable source in itself, but the ref above is actually to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, an AP affiliate that is a reliable source. The Highbeam link is merely a convenience for content that appears not to be available without fee online.
Further, the objection that most of the available sources are "historic", "archived", and "local", e.g. the Seattle Times, don't make a lick of sense to me. Of course they're local. The church is local to the greater Seattle area; they would be. And historic? Archived? When did we stop using reliable source articles because they were published when the event they document occurred? If we did that, all our articles would have to be deleted. This is an encyclopedia, after all, not "This Week's Top News". Finally, real-time coverage of this matter spanned not months, but years, and it's still mentioned in the news when the church is written about.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

More OCC comments

Personally if you add all seventy five of your citations your desired addition is still undue - the mention of the incident in Daytona should not be mentioned at all imo - it has nothing to do with the church and again he was not charged...others might disagree, uninvolved comments are appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You properly reverted the edit, which was improper for several reasons; besides being UNDUE, it did not mention the charges were dropped, and was sourced in part to Wikipedia itself, and to World Magazine which may not be a reliable source. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The content as is now seems to cover all the points raised and seems fully policy compliant. Off2riorob (talk) 12:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The actual proposal

I have no idea who Rob might be addressing with his "your desired addition", above. The following is the only addition I've ever proposed. Not made, note; proposed. I've never made any. I've only asked Rob to work with me to develop a wording that might have a chance of working for both sides in this very-long-term conflict, something he's refused to do, apart from one initial attempt before he chose to bring this here. He evidently prefers to edit this article unilaterally. This was, in its entirety, what I'd proposed as a solution that might prove acceptable to all parties in this long, long conflict:

After leading the church for almost 30 years, and building it from a congregation of about 75 members to a weekly attendance of over 6,000 in early 1998, pastor Bob Moorehead resigned in June of that year, amid allegations of serious misconduct. The church's board of elders hired a private investigator to explore the allegations, and 17 men gave evidence before them, all claiming to have been victimized by the pastor. In a decision that was widely criticized by other area ministers, the elders dismissed their claims and exonerated Moorehead. A year later, however, after Moorehead's departure, the board reversed its earlier decision, saying new evidence had arisen that convinced them of the former pastor's guilt, and issued an apology to the congregation ( although not to the alleged victims ) for their previous handling of the matter.(permalink to context)

This was Rob's response at his talk page after I alerted him to this proposal and again asked him to discuss the wording at the article's talk page instead of proceeding unilaterally: "I had a look but I can't see the content it is small and unclear, your worthless warnings and your completely unbelievable and quite frankly laughable claims to be uninvolved are beginning to bore me. If the situation continues I will consider making a meatpuppetry report against you." Not really the response I'd hoped for from so experienced editor. I do have wp:rs for every single word in the above, btw.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

BLP issue resolved

The question as to whether info about the affect of the Moorehead debacle on the church he built belongs in the article about it appears to have been resolved. The answer is that it does, a decision Off2riorob has evidently acceded to by editing the article to include more of that content while this was ongoing. I still think it's unfortunate that he insisted on doing that unilaterally and was unwilling to develop a cooperative solution that would be likely to prevent future edit wars but, like him, I see no reason to continue this thread further, and likewise recommend it be closed.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Noting, moreover, I'd recommend against that, Rob. It won't get you the result you're looking for, and doing so will leave me no alternative but to produce (here) some of the over 75 reliable source ref/cites available about this topic that I've mentioned above. I'd prefer not to do that, because they'll likely be used to expand the coverage of the issue in the article beyond what I think right. appears to be a significantly non-collegial post. Along with many TLDR posts on the talk page. Articles with BLP connections must be written concervatively per WP:BLP and threats to make the most non-conservative additions imaginable do not help any article on WP whatsoever. Collect (talk) 11:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

John Lurie

John Lurie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A registered user is repeatedly adding statements that are not, or can't be, properly sourced (notably regarding the artist's health and other personal matters). The editor reverted other edits several times already, many times a day, and keep on adding an external link (spam) next to the name of an individual involved in a dispute with John Lurie that recently became public. The fact that the editor is using the name "LurieLurie" seem to indicate, in my opinion, that this situation might be related to this personal feud. I don't know if this Noticeboard is the best place to report such abuse, but in any case I think someone better informed on WP policy on BLP should look into it. Chips Ayoye (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

  • - I have requested pending protection for this BLP , which will be the best way to protect it imo from these accounts. Off2riorob (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
  • note - Would a couple of editors add this to their watchlists and give the BLP a look over for any content still remaining that might need removing and the external links could need a look at, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
That unsourced stuff about John Perry stalking him is apparently based on a New Yorker article, but non-neutrally phrased and intimating some details (traveling, no evidence) not supported by the article. About to sign off but will take a look in the a.m. if no-one else has done. Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
On further thought, I would support simply taking out the material, though widely reported as it seems to be mere gossip. Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Some additional opnions are requested as regards this article and this stalking claim, this addition is pending possible inclusion -thoughts - I am a bit unsure what to do wit it, the cite seems a bit sort of not reliable-ish but the addition seems poorly explained. thoughts ...

It leaves me asking stalker? whats that all about - is this something we should be reporting here, are there reports of this in mainstream publications? Off2riorob (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

There's the August 2010 New Yorker article by Tad Friend, "Sleeping With Weapons", which John Lurie ended up not liking, there's mention of the topic at NPR, there being a link to this blog post by Marc Campbell which attracted comments by John Lurie, John Perry, and Thomas Perry, a brother. There's also the Jambands interview between Lurie and Larson Sutton, posted February 1, 2011. Apparently, Lurie has had Lyme Disease for more than eight years and has been stalked by John Perry for just over two years. I think the fact of the New Yorker article should be introduced to the biography without taking any of Friend's assertions as complete fact; that is, use WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV on him. Lurie's audio interview from 2006 is now pretty outdated, and can be replaced with the 2011 Sutton interview. Certainly, Lurie has not tried to hide his Lyme disease or his opposition to Perry-as-stalker. Binksternet (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
If you think it is something that should be added then please do so in a simple decent way rather than have newbie one edit accounts adding some poor addition. Off2riorob (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
You got it. I'll take a stab at it. Binksternet (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Cool, that would be appreciated, no hurry - no worry, Off2riorob (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I put something about Lyme disease and stalking into the article, without giving the soapbox to anybody who does not like Lurie. Lurie gets the last word in, from a recent interview. Binksternet (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Well written and presented, I saw you ifin and butin about inclusion of the stalker story but at least now it is offered to the reader NPOV to further investigate if they desire, thanks for the other beneficial tidies as well. Off2riorob (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I have spent the last two days looking over the WP guidelines, and understand the points and concerns presented by Off2riorob with regard my and lurielurie's edits. I'm not sure, however, that "giving John Lurie the last word" as was stated in an entry above, is in the proper spirit of NPV.

The alleged stalker situation obviously merits inclusion, but should be referred to as such(alleged), as Perry has been neither charged, nor convicted, nor has Lurie produced any substantive evidence to support his claims, and should not be subject to Lurie's libelous accusations, especially on Wiki

The characterization of the Jambands.com and Furious.com articles -for reference- as being less bloggy than The New Yorker, The NY press, The Huffington Post, El Pais and Folha, seems, to me, questionable.

The language and standard Binksternet is willing to apply to Tad Friend (quite fairly, imo) of the New Yorker:"I think the fact of the New Yorker article should be introduced to the biography without taking any of Friend's assertions as complete fact; that is, use WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV on him.", and not Sutton, raises the question of his neutrality, as does Binksternet's partial use of: "The doctors he has consulted do not all agree on a diagnosis, but Lurie says he believes a group of eight who say it is late persistent Lyme disease, a chronic malady.", the full quote being:"Yeah, I don't have a problem talking about it. It is just that the answer is very long and I am frustrated beyond what one could imagine with trying to get a diagnosis and the medical world in general. What I do is say that I have Advanced Lyme Disease because it is simpler than explaining. There are, at least, eight doctors who confirm that diagnosis. They are positive beyond a shadow of a doubt. The problem is that there are another eight who say that it absolutely is not advanced Lyme, that it is a rare form of epilepsy, a rare form of M.S., Basilar migraines, Mercury poisoning, an autoimmune disorder stemming from chronic Hep B (even though my counts are perfectly normal).", from http://www.furious.com/perfect/johnlurie2.html.

There has been a good deal of controversy surrounding Lurie's career, as was illustrated in the removed Lurie quotes- many of which appear at: http://www.joe-mammy.com/pages/features/john-lurie-3/lurie.htm - about Jim Jarmusch, Martin Scorsesse, and The TV show "Oz". Bloggy as the source may be, the fact that the quotes are presented in audio form should negate any question of their validity. They, imo, add to a fuller impression of the man to which someone searching Wiki should have access.

Perhaps a "controversy" section might be appropriately added.

If the fact that I am a newbie, have previously over-edited, and am in the minority with my admittedly dissenting (however supportable) positions, should subject my edits, for a time, to third-party review, fine.

But unless the standard of what information should appear in a BLP, is that it pleases or displeases its subject, I hope some other editors will examine this situation.

Truthjustice411 (talk) 05:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me address your points one by one:
  • I wrote here "Lurie gets the last word in" which is a common practice at biographies of living persons, especially ones that have not been convicted or notably accused in mainstream media. Giving someone else the last word at the Lurie biography is not in the spirit of WP:BLP. This would be different if Lurie was getting hammered from all sides with negative press in mainstream media, which he is not.
  • The stalking situation is sourced to Tad Friend per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. In my version of the story there is no statement there is truly a stalking situation, no statement about it being on file with the police. There is only stalking per Friend, Lurie moving around to various residences, a disagreement between Lurie and Perry, and Lurie's last word that "the situation continues". None of this is saying that Perry is absolutely a stalker.
  • There are no libelous claims made by anybody in my version.
  • Sutton is not quoted in my version. Only Lurie's portion of the interview is quoted. Sutton is not given any unearned credibility relative to Friend.
  • This is a summary biography, not an exhaustive explanation of Lurie's every experience. I settled upon Lyme disease as the diagnosis Lurie believes because it is true: he tells many of his interviewers only that he has Lyme disease, not that 8 other doctors disagree. The median of the various diagnoses is Lyme, and Lurie expresses this diagnosis often. The article does not need a list of other diagnoses which are not ones that Lurie has any faith in. The quote you chose is too long, too detailed for a summary article.
  • The removed Lurie quotes are not appropriate in tone for an encyclopedia. We work primarily to create a neutral tone rather than to make the reader angry. Lurie's negative opinions about Jarmusch and others are not significant to his life's work at this point.
  • After looking into the various sources available about Lurie, I doubt there is enough material to merit a controversy section. Binksternet (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
One more thing you did in your edit to the article was that you added a blog, staires! by Stuyvesant Parker, to the article, intimating that this blog also attracted comments from Lurie, Perry and their friends, in the same manner as the Dangerous Minds blog. It did not; Parker's blog has no comments at all. The only reason that Dangerous Minds is interesting to us is because it attracted the subject of the biography to make comments. Parker is not notable and his blog assessment cannot be given any weight. Binksternet (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Eido Tai Shimano

Eido Tai Shimano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I need a help to clarify to editor Tao2911 that adding an info without proper source is against Wiki rules.I reverted it two times because what he adds is just quote from some letter which he does not provide source to. From what he wrote in discussions it came from blogs. I requested help on that page but Tao2911 himself answered using again offensive language. He also has been deleting a passage from Robert Baker Aitken page, which has been there for months and is based on reliable source. Obviously he likes to argue with people who correct him. Please, help. I am not intending to argue with him. There is a very extended history of problems MANY editors have with him... Thank you!Spt51 (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Spt51, if you want to discuss this issue here, please notify the user involved so they can join in, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I do not know how to notify him. How can I do it? But I also responded to him on Shimano page and you can see his revert again and read his response there.Spt51 (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I left the message for him on Shimano page. I hope he will see this.Spt51 (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
"The Update letter" from February 5 he is trying to include as source was not published on ZSS website deliberately, as someone informed me. Apparently this was a private e-mail sent to members of community. Of course someone published it in blogs, as I imagine since I do not read them, and Tao2911 got the passage from there. So the question is: without the letter being published in what Wiki considers reliable source can it be used as a reference? There is no link provided to entire letter from where he took passage. But more important issue for me is again the tone Tao2911 communicates with me and others. Why Wiki does not have rules about civility, and why someone who for so long time appears to be very attacking is still allowed to edit here? It certainly discourages me and other decent editors to do any work in Wiki.Spt51 (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello Offtoriorob. Tao2911 made a comment on the page, please look, but is not coming here. He has seen my invitation there... Again more accusations against me, nothing new. I have clarified two of his added citations to last sentence, but they really do not belong there. They do not support the sentence, in my view. The passage from e-mail letter, of course states the fact but can it be included as reference if it came from e-mail and is not published on reliable site or source? Please let me know. Being a bit out of touch I am doing research how matters got resolved in that place. Thanks.Spt51 (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


I have another question concerning the Robert Baker Aitken page. As you can see Tao2911 has been erasing important passage based on reliable source and accusing me of changing the source. I changed the reference including the original text from book, so you can compare. Please, tell me how I can stop this man from attacking me. His lies and accusations do not have base in truth, but of course he knows that I can see everything what he does improperly and will not accept his transgressing Wiki standards. His is involved in every page where there are "scandals", recently Dennis Genpo Merzel, where he tried again to add news from blogs.Spt51 (talk) 01:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Les Balsiger

Les Balsiger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a problem from 2009, where I protected for a short period what now seems to me to be quite possibly the wrong version, to avoid an edit war over a BLP article, and there has been recent back and forth editing; we need a permanent consensus solution. Basically , the situation is that there is a notable very controversial anti-catholic activist, Les Balsiger (activist), about which we in accord with usual practice have an article. There is also a totally non-controversial school administrator from the same geographic region bearing the same name, about whom an article was written that we quite reasonably unanimously agreed to delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Les Balsiger. The administrator expressed a wish, which Brad Patrick, our former attorney, though reasonable, that we have some way of avoiding confusing the two--see Talk:Les Balsiger (activist), and Brad supported a dab page , at Les Balsiger (disambiguation), now moved to Les Balsiger, and a corresponding hatnote, clarifying this. However, this has also been seen as inappropriate coverage for a perfectly respectable but non-notable individual with a very unfortunate similarity in name. As far as I can tell, Brad did not do this as an Office action on legal grounds, which we would be required to accept, but as ordinary editing--though, needless to say, his view of BLP policy in matters of Do no harm deserves great respect. This is an instance where two necessary principles contradict each other, and I am unable myself to find a solution I could defend against opposition. So I ask assistance, and once we have decided, perhaps appropriate blanking and protection. DGG ( talk ) 19:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Practical solution to a small problem. I would let it ride. If hundreds of other people come out of the woodwork asking for dab pages, we could reconsider. (I am not the basketball player.) Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Lily Shang

Lily Shang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lily Shang is personally editing her own Wikipedia page as you can see from the history - its accuracy has therefore been compromised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.59.108 (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

quite apart from the COI, I have nominated it for AfD, on the basis that a seat in a youth orchestra is not notability--Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lily Shang DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Jake Garn

Your first paragraph under "Experience" states that he retired as a Brigadier General in 1979. However, a NASA Johnson Space Center press release issued in 1985, about one month after his space flight in STS-51, clearly states that he retired from the Utah Air National Guard as a Colonel in 1979. We believe your statement is incorrect and misleading. Further proof of that mistake is a video titled "Space Senator: One Way Jake" which includes file footage of him going through zero gravity flight tests in January 1985, several months before his space flight. He is wearing an orange flight suit and at about the 14 minute 7 second point in the video, one can clearly see that he is wearing the rank of a Colonel, NOT a Brigadier General. This video is appx. 6 years after the time when you state he retired as a Brig. General. At some point after his flight in 1985 he may have been promoted to BG because of his space flight, but most likely that would have been a political decision and not one based on his service with the Utah Air Guard, from which he retired in 1979! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bondrlm (talk • contribs) 06:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I've found the relevant NASA press release, so I'll go fix the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I found a news article that says he was promoted to Brigadier General after the space flight, so I added that and fixed his rank in the space flight infobox to Colonel (retired). ~~ GB fan ~~ 18:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Blair Fowler

Resolved
 – User:Courcelles - (Protected Blair Fowler: WP:Semi-protection: WP:vandalism, Little-known BLP taking libel. (expires 22:14, 16 August 2011)

Blair Fowler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have just removed (for the third time) a totally unsourced "controversy" section from the Blair Fowler article. I am doing this per the Wikipedia policy at WP:BLPREMOVE. At the moment I appear to be the only person doing this: I would appreciate other (possibly more experienced in this area) editors watching the page and helping to manage the situation. -- roleplayer 11:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I welcomed and warned all as required and watchlisted the bio. Off2riorob (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Natan Slifkin

Natan Slifkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Disruptive new editor insists on adding blog material as external links in violation of WP:BLP, in addition to WP:3RR. Editor has been warned but insists on edit warring rather than discussing on article talk page. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 13:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sardar Shaukat Ali Kashmiri

I think a few more people should check this BLP, particularly in terms of neutrality and balance. See also [2] [3].  Chzz  ►  15:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps not as bad as first appears, clearly the subject has a large involvement in the topic, a lot of content cited to the subjects personal bio link Ali Kashmiri - chairman UKPNP and some issues in the EL section - a couple of duplicates and at least one already used as a cite - perhaps trim the content of the dubious excess fat and trim the POV to an NPOV position and unleash it on the WWW. The BLP will perhaps need some protection - I would recommend pending protection as it is a very divided issue. Off2riorob (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
For the record, the cites to the personal bio came about because several of us at AfC were really pushing the author to cite everything possible in the article, and the author became upset. I suggested that information like birth-date, schools attended, etc... needs to be sourced to something, preferably a third-party source. Realistically, it's not as though we don't have many BLPs that cite official biographies for this kind of information, and I don't think it's a very big deal absent some reason to believe that the official bio isn't fully accurate in this regard or that the website doesn't truly represent this individual. I have no such reason right now. Zachlipton (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Robert McFarlane

Robert McFarlane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A user stating they are the subject of the article, has posted to Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Robert McFarlane with some concerns about the article, particularly in terms of balance. People may wish to comment over there, just to keep things all in one place. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Nir Rosen

Nir Rosen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While he may be a "scumbag", I feel it is inappropriate for him to be referred to as an "American scumbag" in his bio. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.162.43 (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed by User:Hornlitz. Remember you can edit most articles (including this one) to remove material of that nature yourself.
Rosen seems somewhat unpopular at the moment, this article is worth keeping an eye on. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I have requested page protection, Ip editors are, being difficult with NPOV issues. Tentontunic (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Page protection has not arrived, a little help here would be appreciated. Tentontunic (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Slim Virgin has now semi protected it. DGG ( talk ) 02:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

In semi protecting Nir's page things have been made worse and his page has become libelous - only including controversy against him while removing his formal and repeated apologies. People who have never read his work, calling him a scumbag for having made a few tasteless jokes in a career of 8 years are now editing whatever they like to portray Nir negatively - this is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. His page should be edited fairly to depict his entire body of work and career and these comments should be put in perspective, especially with respect to his extensive and repeated apology.

Shawn Khorrami

Shawn Khorrami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article does not cite any liable references to the claims it makes and is written like an advertisement or as self promotion. Wikipedia is supposed to be used as encyclopedic and not as a source of promotion according to your guidelines. It should be marked for deletion or revised. Creative034 (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not a fantastic BLP and I agree it needs revision, especially with regard to additional third-party sources, but it really doesn't seem that unencyclopedic to me (or maybe I've just been looking at too much blatant spam lately). If you don't have some sort of connection to this individual or his firm, perhaps WP:SOFIXIT applies here. I certainly don't see cause for deletion. Zachlipton (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Serene Branson

Serene Branson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No great emergency here, but maybe a few people could help by watching the Serene Branson article for the next few days. She's a local reporter who had a neurological issue of some sort while covering the Grammy Awards resulting in her speaking gibberish on air, something that has become a minor news story and viral video. She's probably notable in her own right but the article was created in the aftermath and has some BLP1E and sourcing problems, plus undue attention. I think the editors involved are well meaning, just a little over excited to add this stuff. I've trimmed some of the detail and added a couple fact tags. Thanks! - Wikidemon (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you think she is notable because she is a two-time Emmy nominee? Honestly that's rather thin. WP:MUSIC grants notability for being nominated for a major award, so I guess that might work. Honestly this article is the #4 hit on Google and someone thought it would be funny to write out what she phonetically said. I favor article lockdown. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Its been nominated for deletion. Jonathanwallace (talk) 06:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
It's also been mid-term semiprotected. On reflection I don't think she's notable, but the AfD can take care of that in due course. Thanks all for taking a look. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm in an adding/undo loop with Ttonyb1, one of the strong advocates of deleting this article. In his version, the article ends with Branson's statement that nothing medically important happened. In my version, it includes that statement, but also includes a neurologist's statement to the New York Times Well health column that this was a serious neurological event such as a stroke. The column contains other supporting evidence, discusses the medical problem at length and its potential importance in raising stroke awareness, and, indeed, anyone (excepting the peanut gallery in blogs) viewing the tape has to see that something serious was going on. Can someone resolve this editing loop? I feel that both opinions need to be included for accuracy. I am willing to add a caution or somesuch to the statement I inserted if that would be useful. Karen Anne (talk) 07:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: I see that someone else has added in the stroke/teaching, etc. information and given several other references to it. I assume Ttonyb1 will swoop in again and remove that. Karen Anne (talk) 07:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring aside, that's an interesting BLP question. What do we do when a recognized medical expert speculates about things in the role of a commentator, when they have no personal knowledge, fact checking (as to the underlying medical condition), and so on? I'm inclined to think that's unreliable commentary, and not an encyclopedic subject. If a secondary source says that the incident gave rise to speculation or called attention to the issue of strokes, and we can source that as a biographically important/relevant fact, that may be a stronger case to include. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I think there is no problem with "Dr. X upon viewing the video commented that, in his opinion...." if reliably sourced and Dr. X's credentials indicate expertise in the area.Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
There are a couple issues at least. First, I think speculation creates a BLP problem, whoever is doing it. For comparison, take a legal situation, where legal experts speculate night and day about whether someone did something, whether they're guilty, how long they might go to jail. If the person has been convicted or exonerated, the speculation is moot. If not, the encyclopedia isn't a platform for trying people of crimes. If the speculation itself is notable, then it can be covered in some way (but would still have to be relevant and of due weight, and may also present some BLP problems). If it's just a Wikipedia editor reading that a famous expert said something, without a secondary source there's no reason to say it's noteworthy or relevant. Second, it's not their medical opinion, at which they're an expert, but speculation (where there is no such thing as an expert). - Wikidemon (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Kendell Geers

Kendell Geers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) An article created three years ago by an SPA, who thereupon disappeared. I know little about Geers other than what I see in this article, with its "notoriety" and soporific art-crit pretentiousness, but just enough to be sure that yes, he does merit an article. Given 30 hours in the day or nine days in the week, I'd attempt to source what's coherent and remove the waffle and the unsourceable. But unfortunately I'm given neither. If several others were to tackle this, I'd join in the effort. -- Hoary (talk) 04:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Much of the article is unsourced and several of the sources don't really connect up. In a quick scan of the links to the TWA exhibit, I didn't see his name mentioned. Also, the last TWA source isn't what the ref text indicates it to be. The unsourced "changed his birthdate" assertion doesn't make any sense. There are also self published problems with a lot of the biographical material. My first instinct was this should be PROD'd-- there is a shortage of ghits in what we would usually consider reliable sources. However, he seems to have enough hits in Google books to pass notability. Once we prune this, however, its going to be a very short stub.Jonathanwallace (talk) 06:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Freshacconci has done a wonderful job of crap removal. I've made a few changes myself. If the article were prodded, I would (with no great enthusiasism) remove the notice. Googling shows dodgy sources -- and perhaps good ones too, but I didn't check -- saying that he changed his birthdate to accord with the death of Duchamp. If we're to believe his en:WP article, Duchamp departed this world in October 1968, but, well, if you and I don't understand the logic, perhaps we should put this down to our (or anyway my) lack of an MFA. (This is a man who writes stuff like: Defined according to the laws of chance and dictated to by the laws of nature, the forces of gravity are moulded by the vision of my desires as the work of art finds a unique form conjured out of a states [sic] of endless proposals etc etc. Far out!) If you could just sort out the TWA stuff, that would be most appreciated. -- Hoary (talk) 07:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Will do later today. Done. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Geers' article is still rather a mess, but I think that the problems I raised at the start of this thread have all now been satisfactorily addressed. -- Hoary (talk) 03:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Jeremy Hammond

Jeremy Hammond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A series of IP editors have focused on adding negative information to this article. However, it appears that there's very little information on him from reliable sources that isn't negative. What should be done? Jayjg (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality and weight considerations don't require us to present favorable viewpoints on people notable mainly for getting arrested and criminal convictions. In a lot of these cases, there won't be a reliable source available or the information won't be material (Ted Bundy innocent? Nice to his mom?) Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Andi Sexgang

Andi Sexgang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I tried to correct a serious error on this page - Andi Sexgang's actual given name, which is Andreas McElligott, not Andrew Hayward. My edit was undone, I'm not sure why. Anyone who typed "Andreas McElligott" into google could have easily found that the correction was accurate.

Here is a link to a short bio of Andi, on his own myspace page, which include his actual name.

I hope this can clear things up.

http://www.myspace.com/andisexgang/blog/451262213 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.155.242 (talk) 05:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

'Andrew Hayward' is supported in the article by a citation of a reliable source. No reliable source has been provided for 'Andreas McElligott', and a dubious account in a blog (which actually states his given name as 'Andrea McElligott') isn't going to cut it.--Michig (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
See also diskery, record company blurb for 2007 album, discogs, which all support 'Andrew Hayward'.--Michig (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

OK - I'll see your two links and raise you at least a dozen or so.

Compare a google search for Andreas McElligott, which shows a full page of Andi Sex Gang references: http://www.google.com/search?q=andreas%20mcelligot&sourceid=mozilla2&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#hl=en&safe=off&&sa=X&ei=AvlbTduRKNKdgQe-28yfDQ&ved=0CBEQBSgA&q=andreas+mcelligott&spell=1&fp=c3d35e3f32a10bf4

to a Google Search for Andrew Hayward, which you can look five pages in on - it doesn't include a single Sex Gang reference, not even the wikipedia page: http://www.google.com/search?q=andreas%20mcelligot&sourceid=mozilla2&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#hl=en&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=andrew+hayward&cp=10&qe=YW5kcmV3IGhheXc&qesig=t6o0xBNhEPnnvdo4nDQn8Q&pkc=AFgZ2tlSCjMBVwzx7pOR1vACzs0twn4ZaP4p8uzulkX9XLFncGPxVmWOoHuw4q3eWq7lEWLAMDGddxUUWz09Kdg4xbDLXuKVRQ&pf=p&sclient=psy&safe=off&aq=0&aqi=&aql=&oq=andrew+hayw&pbx=1&fp=c3d35e3f32a10bf4

I hope this settles it for you. By the way - the myspace page I linked to was his own myspace page, so I don't see what's dodgy about that. It certainly is backed up by more than the two links you have provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.155.242 (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources - reliable sources count for something, number of Google results doesn't. Given that Andrew Hayward is a fairly common name, it's hardly surprising that results for Andi Sex Gang are not prominent in a Google search. On the other hand, if someone uses a name that nobody else has ever used before, all the results are likely to be related to them. Given that on the early Sex Gang Children releases he was credited as Andrew Hayward, and that his record company has stated that this is his birthname, this doesn't seem to be going anywhere.--Michig (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

OK - I think you've actually persuaded me. I wasn't expecting that. He must have changed it at some point later. I think that most reasonable people could have come to the same conclusion I did, though ----- so maybe the page should include 'Andreas McElligott' somewhere, as that seems to be the 'real-life' name he is using these days, and if it's not included there somewhere I would bet that other users in the future would probably try to 'correct' the omission. Any thoughts on how this could be done? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.155.242 (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

We could include it as an alias, ideally with an independent source to verify that he uses the name.--Michig (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I have now added McElligott as an alias. Adding a source sounded like a good idea, but unfortunately all of the links I could find list that as his birth name, which I think you have shown is questionable, to say the least. So I hope we can just let it stand as an alias without a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.155.242 (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Did you read any of this thread? It's an alias for crying out loud. Type it into Google and you will see plenty of clear, objective and reliable evidence that he is using it, as an alias. The problem with linking to those citations is that they erroneously list it as his birth name, which contradicts the info shown on the page. That's why I put it up without a link. But there is absolutely no question that it is his alias. And if is left off the page, I guarantee you that someone will try to add it at some point in the future, as it is widely known as his name now. It won't be me though - I've had about enough of wikipedia. It's ridiculous that it takes this much effort to add a simple thing like a name that somebody uses. I'd hate to actually put some effort into something and try to post it here.

Lara Logan

Lara Logan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some guidance needed on this. Article [4] and Talk [5] Mindbunny (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like weakly claimed anti semitic accusations in the press cited to the friend of a source , they will likely be retracted in a few days. WP:NOTNEWS - is the guideline that helps us to keep such possible temporary press falsehoods out of our articles. Off2riorob (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I have some strong doubts about the relevance of the entire final paragraph. DGG ( talk ) 03:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I've left a question to Mindbunny (talk · contribs) at his talk page. See User talk:Mindbunny#Alternate accounts.  Cs32en Talk to me  05:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

A morass of material which needs far stronger sourcing than has been given. Collect (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

nir rosen

Nir Rosen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nir Rosen's article has been semi-locked and is now being used as a punching bag to depict him unfavorably. He has had an 8 year career risking his life in war zones defending victims of war and human rights abuses. He has recently been crucified for tasteless comments he has made. In the aftermath, his article has repeatedly only depicted his words in the incident - half a dozen tweets and DELETED his apology and profound regret which he has spent every hour since expressing.

The article should express a complete view of Nir including his faults, not edit out his response and actions and only include half of the facts.

Either the entire controversy section should be removed, or the section should be rolled back to include his apology on twitter (which he repeated in dozens of interviews both televised and in print). If his the quotes of his apology are not to be included, merely paraphrased, then the quotes of his tweets should be removed or paraphrased as well.

Nir's page should reflect his entire body of work and personality honestly, not be a tool for people to express frustration on Lara Logan's attack.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.185.18.207 (talk • contribs)

And it should also not skip over the fact that he, as a "journalist" helped members of the Taliban through security checkpoints using his US credentials. The article totally omits that information. --198.185.18.207 (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Ramesh Srinivasan

Ramesh Srinivasan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are two flags/notices attached to this article that were put on a previous version of the article (one about the questionable notability of the subject, the other about it being unreferenced). I've tried to address both issues, but I'm not sure about the protocol about removing these flags, since they were put on an older version -- can I just delete them? Kairyth (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

There are still no secondary sources independent of the subject of the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Michael Brauer possible COI

Michael Brauer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nothing major, but if somebody from WikiProject Albums or WikiProject Music can keep an eye on Michael Brauer, a recording and mix engineer for the Rolling Stones and others, I would appreciate it. A new editor named Mhb850 makes me think that he is Brauer himself or that he has a conflict of interest. The biography could use some style tweaks per Album project guidelines. Binksternet (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Raymond Gravel

Raymond Gravel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Raymond Gravel's article was vandalized in such a way as to indicate intolerance towards his sexuality and/or religious convictions, and as such may be vulnerable to repeat vandalism. Here is a diff of showing the removed vandalism. The user that vandalized the article may also have deliberately introduced bias into the article in previous edits.

The vandalism has been reverted and someone posted a warning on the user's talk page. It seems as if a number of people have eyes on the article and will help prevent more damage, but if need be you could ask for protection of the article. The user can also be blocked by an admin for vandalism or if he breaks the three revert rule. Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

misspelling of my name in the article

Resolved
 – Article moved to correct name. Binksternet (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Enis Esmer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello. I am Ennis Esmer. My name is misspelled in my article as Enis Esmer. How do I go about changing that? It didn't give me that option in the editing section.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.119.120.121 (talk • contribs)

  • - quick looking around, the name is spelt both ways at different locations so we are going to need something WP:RS to sort it out - Off2riorob (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Where there is a mispelling, it is always good form to use a redirect for the 2nd name, as people searching for the person are then aided.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Sam Zamarripa

Sam Zamarripa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dking1952 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

My bio has been taken over by one Donald A. King, known in Georgia as DA KING. Mr. King is a paid representative of multiple anti immigrant organizations that has a long and established history of writing and posting content designed ridicule and disparage leading hispanic officials and organizations. His writing appear regularly on site that are associated with well establish hate organization. In addition Mr. King is a convicted felon. His comments on my personal bio pages are both inaccurate and sourced (reference) from his own web site.

Suggestions?

Sam Zamarripa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samzam2 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

  • - I left the user that has been adding article expansion as seen here - a note to come discuss here - on first glance that addition if full of inline externals and a fair few of them don't look reliable, , User Samzam2 has removed it and as he is claiming to be the subject of the BLP I left him a note and informed him of WP:COI. On second glance the addition violated multiple policies and I warned the user not to replace it. Off2riorob (talk) 01:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Good work.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

New Village Leadership Academy

New Village Leadership Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

New Village Leadership Academy is a school partially funded by Will Smith. Although the school denies that it is associated with the Church of Scientology, it apparently uses methodology developed by L Ron Hubbard. The article contains a statement made by an anti-Scientology protester:

"Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith, an admitted Scientologist, have opened this private school as a front for teaching the L. Ron Hubbard principles of 'Study Technology, his creation, and the school employs Scientologists. Our goal is to ultimately have the tax exemption status of the Scientology cult end, and the criminal deeds of Church leader David Miscaviage [sic] be exposed and prosecuted."

According to our articles on Smith and Jada Pinkett-Smith, neither of them is a Scientologist. If David Miscavige has been charged with any crimes, I have no doubt that it would appear prominently in his bio here. Leaving aside the NPOV issues in this article, quoting an individual with such a clear agenda is a poor idea to begin with but quoting them without correcting their false statements is completely unacceptable. The quotation was introduced to the article by admin User:Cirt. Although editors have twice attempted to remove this section from the article, it has been replaced, once by Cirt and once by another editor. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a problem, but my question is, what does "Educational methodologies used by the school include "Study Technology" developed by Church of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard" mean? Does this mean that the school is based on a Scientology method - or does it mean that it happens to use something, among all the things schools use, which was originally developed by Hubbard/Scientology? The article is about "the School and Scientology" it is difficult to decide what weight is correct without establishing how important this is.--Scott Mac 23:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
This content seems to be a bit attacking and if its still there I am going to boldly remove it as per coatracking and weight. I trimmed a bit of weight out as per the report here that a quote from an opponent of the group is being asserted to support a claim that is unsupported in the articles of the living peoples biographies here. Also - after reading the article it seems to be unduly focused on Scientology. Off2riorob (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I was notified of this thread at BLPN, by Off2riorob (talk · contribs). I defer to the judgment used by Off2riorob in his recent edit to the page, which seems appropriate. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Cirt, do you think that adding that quotation (and restoring it after another editor removed it) was in keeping with our policy relating to living people? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
See above, where I said that I defer to the judgment used already by Off2riorob (talk · contribs), and agree with the recent edits and changes made by Off2riorob to the article. Going forward, I will continue to defer to the judgment of others about this article page. -- Cirt (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I understand, but that is not an answer to my question. You made the edit a long while ago and before you became an admin. I don't mean to badger you, but I'm curious if on reflection you feel that the edit was in keeping with our policies. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I think it is more important, now, to move forward, and focus on improving the quality of articles on this project in the future, rather than dwelling on the past. -- Cirt (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Cirt, I ask in the interests of moving forward. Given that I have pointed out probably dozens of BLP violations that you have introduced in articles related to Scientology and/or Scientologists, I think it is important to know that you are not going to do so in the future. While you have removed many of BLP violations yourself once were brought up in public fora like this, I cannot recall a single instance where you acknowledged that your edits were in violation of policy. So I'll ask again - do you think your edits were in keeping with WP:BLP? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
As related to this, I agree with this comment by ResidentAnthropologist (talk · contribs), in this thread. FWIW, I will be avoiding any significant contributing to this particular article in the future. I had already removed it from off of my watchlist some time ago. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
As far as I understand, Study Tech is one of the methods the school uses, alongside Montessori, Bruner and Gardner methods. But because Scientology is so controversial, this aspect of the school has attracted particular media attention.
As explained in Scientology's own publications, key principles of Study Tech are: (1) When learning about a physical object, like a tractor, a student should ideally have an example of it (or a reasonable approximation) there, so they can relate to it and the topic will engage their attention; if this is lacking, and discussion is purely abstract, learning success is poor. (2) A student shouldn't move on to the next stage until they have understood the previous one; if they do, they will feel disorientated. (3) It asserts that many problems in understanding (i.e. "losing the plot") are due to a misunderstood word somewhere along the line that the student moved past without understanding it correctly; the student needs to go back to the point where things stopped to make sense, identify the misunderstood word, look it up in a dictionary ("word-clearing"), and then read again from that point onward.
Critics say that the use of Study Tech makes students regard Hubbard as an authority, making them vulnerable to joining Scientology later on. See e.g. [6] (LA Times article on a critic's site). --JN466 10:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Which means the whole add-on stuff about ST which is already multiply wikilinked in the article, should be substantially condensed. Would adding a "see also" link be overkill? Collect (talk) 12:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
No more or less overkill than adding Montessori method to the "see also" section. That section is currently populated with Church of Scientology-affiliated schools, which would lead the reader to believe that this school is a Church of Scientology-affiliated school, despite what the school itself says. Coupled with the now-removed quote from a very partisan source (which directly stated that Smith and/or Pinkett-Smith was a Scientologist) and the "Scientology portal" badge and the link to a Wikinews story entitled "Scientology ties at New Village Leadership Academy stir controversy for Will Smith and Jada Pinkett-Smith", I think this article is being used to suggest that Will Smith is a Scientologist. The content actually involving the school is so eclipsed by this that it contains out-of-date references to it being "set to open September 3, 2008". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • - I think this thread is resolved. The original content issue has been removed and a couple of other edits and there are no objections, the addition was historic and policy and guidelines have been strengthened a lot since then. If there are any other issues they would be better discussed at the Wikipedia talk:Neutrality in Scientology - Off2riorob (talk)
    • Rob, I'm still hopeful that Cirt will answer my question about introducing BLP violations into Scientology-related articles. Those who are puzzled by my question may wish to read through this ANi thread or this request for arbitration enforcement. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
      • eyeroll Either collect them some where off wiki and make a case an Arbcom or cut the drudging of it all up every time Cirt does something. YOu really crossing the line here into WP:HOUNDING territory. This is BLP board where problems are brought up achieve consensus and are fixed. Not where we put people on trial for violating such things. You made it clear here you have no interest in improving the topic area. Scott, Rob, Jayen, Griswaldo, get it and are working to solve problems. YOu are only agitating the situation by dragging Cirt through the mud. Cirt has proven to be more than capable of learning and improving from criticism. You very clearly are unable to as I have talked with you twice already on backing off from Cirt. Cut it the next time you turn content dispute into a kangaroo court of Cirt bashing I will take you to WP:AE and seek remedy under the the creation of hostile "Editing environment (editors cautioned)" clause. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
        • I have asked Cirt a very straightforward question about whether or not they feel their edits in this particular case were in keeping with our BLP policies. I did so not because I am "harassing" Cirt, but because this is just the latest in a long string of BLP violations I have uncovered in looking at Cirt's edits of Scientology-related articles. I think it is a reasonable to seek some assurance here that this is not going to continue. Cirt has chosen to be evasive rather than answer. If you feel there is cause to start an AE request, please go ahead, but there is no need to turn a simple request into some kind of drama. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Cirt's past ani and AE threads have no bearing on a content board. If you can back it up take it where they deal with conduct issues. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
          • This issue is resolved, any other issues can be solved by editing. User:Cirt has answered well enough imo also. Are you going to edit within policy? is a have you stopped beating your wife type question. Off2riorob (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
            • Off2riorob, when one is asked a question such as "Have you stopped beating your wife?", answering either yes or no implies that you are or have beaten your wife. There is no "good" answer. Asking if Cirt intends to edit within policy is not at all like that, since there is an obvious "good" answer. Regardless, that isn't the question I was asking. I am asking if Cirt believes that their past edits (in this particular case) were within policy. I ask that in order to gauge Cirt's understanding of the BLP policy and to seek some assurance that they will in future be editing within policy. I believe this is quite common in cases where editors have made repeated copyright violations. Cirt has made repeated BLP violations (which I have previously linked). This is the BLP noticeboard. I do not think it should be a necessary question, but it is not an unreasonably difficult one to answer, is it? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Al Qaida guest houses, Faisalabad

Al Qaida guest houses, Faisalabad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article has a lot contentious material about living persons that is completely unsourced or poorly sourced. I tried to remove the material but people keep reverting this unsourced or poorly sourced material back into the article. IQinn (talk) 06:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the talk page and agree with you that WP:BLP would apply to any poorly sourced contentious assertions about living people on the page. Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank's for your input, we surely take BLP issues very serious at wikipedia and anybody is welcome to put it back together with the necessary sources. Regards IQinn (talk) 09:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Peter Mailer

Peter Mailer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article is misleading and highly inaccurate and may constitute libel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.62.231 (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you could be more specific.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, just on a cursory glance: BLP issues aside, it is generally good editing practice to expand upon the lead in the body of the article. However, in mailer's article, the lead also mentions his political affiliations and campaigns, yet the article body focuses entirely on his "crimes" including one he (if I am reading the source right) was never put on trial for, much less found guilty. In the first section no less. Looks to be a little wp:undue, or, if nothing else, the critical parts should be balanced with information about his activities in politics and governance. I really don't know much about this person, but I'll watch list it and go through the refs tonight if nothing is done before. David Able 17:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Clarification: I am not attempting to respond of behalf of User:Bbb23 the IP address that started this section. I too am curious to his/her specific complaints. David Able 17:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I started to look for some sources to balance this article, and realized I simply do not have a good enough grasp of political conventions "across the pond" to be of any real use. This article definitely does need attention, though. David Able 18:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the first section about his arrest without any subsequent charges, let alone a trial and conviction, should either be eliminated or, at least, put somewhere else and condensed. As for his politics vs. his conviction, my guess is he's probably notable more for being a convicted politician than for being a politician. But I'd have to do research to confirm my guess.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Then the lead should probably be adjusted accordingly. I think a quick improvement might be flip flopping the first two section in the order they appear in the article, and reducing the lead to indicate what the article is actually about. The sources seem to back up the "fraudster" claim (if I'm understanding correctly the UK use of "fraudster, which is apparently a little more widely used and understood than in the the U.S.) I'll take a look. David Able 01:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I've reordered and revised the article per my own comments above.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I've also done some substantial edits and reduced the "Conviction" section to the basic elements. I also took care to remove the specific family relationship involved, as well as the name of the former employee, as I don't think that info was crucial to the understanding of an article that is about Mailer. David Able 02:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
To repeat what I wrote on the discussion page:
It's a comparatively small party, so someone who has been a candidate in local, national and European elections is a leading member. He also held official postitons in the party at regional level (and possible nationally), but have no reference for this. In all similar articles, the electoral information comes at the end of the article; it is, after all, not the raison d'etre for the subject's article but supplemenatry detail, presented in a standard format.
All judges (and magistrates) are required to give their reasons when pronouncing sentence. In this case, the judge's remarks add important detail to the bare bones of the story and make it clear that this was not a minor one-off event but a deliberate and prolonged fraud against a statutory body (the Land registry) for personal gain and against his former employee. The judge also indicated that there had been an ongoing deliberate perversion of justice (itself, a criminal offence!).
As to the public order events, it was clearly stated in the article that the CPS did not charge him - this may have become less clear in recent editing. Mailer himself published these facts and details can be found on a variety of fascist and extreme right wing websites, who no doubt got the information from Mailer himself. His page within the BNP's website has been removed (surprise) but a diligent search will no doubt reveal that the BNP itself publicised what it saw as the victimisation of one of its activists. In any case, the details included are reliably sourced.
Incidentally, I thought it was common practice and good manners to inform the creator and major contributors to an article that such a discussion was going on. Apparently not.Emeraude (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the IP that started this thread doesn't have a grasp on proper Wiki-etiquette. Also, I'm not sure notifying the major contributors is required unless it's an AFD (which looks to be about to happen) or if you are named specifically in a discussion. Still, I agree it is good practice to do so, and I should have done so. My apologies. David Able 18:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
There is no requirement to notify here, although if a users edits are claimed to be BLP violations we try to notify, as in this case that doesn't seem apparent, and no editor was named, its more a case of weight and notability creating a basic blp related discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thom Mount

Thom Mount (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I was the controller and Chief Financial Officer of MCA Theatrical Division from 1979-1983. In this capacity, I was the CFO of Universal Pictures as well as Universal Theatricals and several other subsidiaries, of which Universal Theatricals had but one production: "The Best Little Whore House in Texas" (BLWHIT). At the time, the head of Universal's production was Ned Tannen who had nothing to do with BLWHIT. Thom Mount reported to Ned.

BLWHIT was run by Stevie Phillips, who didn't even know Thom Mount or even Ned Tannen. Stevie (a woman) only dealt with me, Sid Sheinberg (president of MCA at the time) and Lew Wasserman, the later being the Chairman of MCA.

Point is, as far as I know, Thom Mount had nothing to do with BLWHIT!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.203.42 (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that he did, exactly. It says he "created and headed MCA/Universal's theatrical division which helped produce such Broadway shows as The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas (1979) and Nuts (1980)." Here is a 2000 profile of Mount in the Durham, N.C. Independent Weekly that pretty much says the same thing: ". . . Mount, who during his presidency of Universal even helped create a division that developed Broadway productions, which led to, among other things, The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas and Nuts."[7] Now, that article appears to be based largely on Mount's own recounting of his career, but in the absence of a reliable source taking an opposite position, I don't see any discrepancy in the verifiable material. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Basically the article is rubbish, weakly cited and weakly claimed bla di bla - I stubbed it back. Off2riorob (talk) 02:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I am not clear on the rationale for wholesale deletion of inoffensive content not violating WP:BLP merely because unsourced, instead of adding "Citation needed" tags. See WP:BEFORE. Subject has significant Google books coverage. Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
As you have expressed a desire to improve the content I have moved it to the talkpage for you. Talk:Thom Mount#content for improvement and replacement - Off2riorob (talk) 15:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Respectfully, the onus is on you to make a good faith effort to fix this kind of content before deleting it. If you want someone else to do it, add one of the numerous available tags such as [citation needed], rather than removing inoffensive but unsourced content. WP:PRESERVE is official policy which says: "As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a 'finished' article, they should be retained and the writing cleaned up on the spot, or tagged if necessary." Jonathanwallace (talk) 03:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
tag - moved to the talkpage , its crap - replace it at your responsibility. Off2riorob (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This is the stub you left: "Thom Mount is the former President of Universal Pictures and one of America's well-known independent producers"--now the article in its entirety. Here are some of the assertions you deleted as "crap": "Born in Durham, North Carolina....graduating from Durham High School....Mount went to CalArts to earn a Master’s Degree in Fine Arts...In 1973, Mount was hired at Universal Pictures as an assistant to then Vice-President Ned Tanen." You deleted standard biographical material inoffensive to the subject, because it was unsourced I assume (or would you have deleted all this even if sourced?) Yes, the article was written in an overly chatty style ("sleepy southern town") but it should have been saved. Again, WP:PRESERVE is official policy: "As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a 'finished' article, they should be retained and the writing cleaned up on the spot, or tagged if necessary." I can understand stubbing an article that violated WP:BLP but this material didn't.Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Likely too far - but WP:BLP supports removing any unsourced material - even if favorable to the person. "Preserve" specifically states deference to BLP. Collect (talk) 13:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
WP:BLP says only to remove unsourced offensive content. It states, "Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified" if not contentious. We remove unsourceable material after a good faith effort. Also see WP:ANYBIO which states, "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources...Look for sources yourself". Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually WP:BLP says at WP:BLPREMOVE "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced" - not only "unsourced offensive content". It's open to debate as to what extent "contentious" means the same as "offensive" here. Someone (the OP) is challenging the content of the article, without saying which parts exactly, and anything challenged can reasonably be seen as "contentious", so the reaction has been to remove everything that is unsourced. This has been a standard approach for quite some time, and is also supported by at least one Jimbo quote where he says that poorly sourced BLP material should be removed right away, not have citation needed tags slapped on it.
Having said all that, I can see Jonathan's point that such sudden stubbifying of an article, when much of it is innocent-seeming material, is rather drastic. But, there are time limitations on how much each of us can do to fix problems like this. Presumably Rob (or whoever stubbified the article) didn't have time to go looking for sources for each of the many unsourced or poorly sourced statements, on this occasion. But he invited whoever did have the time and inclination, to do so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • - note - anyone that wants to own that content in that state can also boldly replace it. We have a duty of care to our living subjects (and to the not living ones also) not to host awful uncited low quality articles about their lives, the content had been like that for over two years without any effort to improve it and mirrored all over the world wide web. If you want to improve it then go for it, if not then as I said, its time for less is more. Off2riorob (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Anu Haasan

Anu Haasan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor claiming to be the husband of the subject is adding some info that apparently contradicts media reports on their marriage; I've removed the entire section as it was currently sourced (by the editor in question) to an internet forum post allegedly by the subject. I'd like some fresh eyes on the article (especially since I've lost my computer to a yoghurt spillage incident and am struggling with this old one that seems more like George Washington's axe). cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 08:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It is around the web blogsphere,google results but I didn't see anything reliable, please don't clink on any of the search results as I got a trojan virus attack from one of them. We need a WP:RS or it shouldn't be included, I added the article to my watchlist. Off2riorob (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
There was an earlier discussion on User talk:AtticusX/Archive 1#Anu Haasan which didn't get anywhere -- reason I brought it here -- and the edits continued, but around the time of this post we had another discussion on my talk page and it appears that the content won't be added back. Part of the problem apparently was that the media was late in picking up this tidbit by a few months. The other issue is I'm not entirely comfortable with the "personal knowledge" edits, which may or may not continue, but the editor seems to understand the verifiability standards now. —SpacemanSpiff 17:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Dennis Genpo Merzel

Dennis Genpo Merzel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please, take a look at this page. There is an editing war going on there. Knowing one of the editor heavily involved there and his actions on other pages, this is rather clash of ego's. Again the case of Misconduct, but perhaps not many reliable sources accepted in Wiki to include. These people are absolutely not sensitive what is appropriate or not, what is acceptable or not.Spt51 (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Peter Mailer discussion request

Peter Mailer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

See previous thread. As a result, some changes were made, then undone, then restored, etc. I posted some concerns on the talk page because there was a lot of editing, but no discussion happening. I'd appreciate opinions there. David Able 16:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The article has been nominated for deletion.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Miranda Cosgrove

Miranda Cosgrove (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, we represent Miranda Cosgrove at ID-PR and someone inaccurately added a date of death to her Wikipedia page (on the right hand side, under the photo) this morning - she is indeed, not dead (we just got off the phone with her family) if someone could please remove that, it is very unsettling! Thanks for your prompt attention before this becomes a larger issue. We love Wikipedia and appreciate the work all volunteers put into the site!

Sincerely, Natalie Lent, ID-PR (http://www.id-pr.com) [email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.179.229.130 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the report, uncited death claim has been removed. If the vandalism is repeated we will raise the level of article protection. Off2riorob (talk) 23:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Bobby Gonzalez

Bobby Gonzalez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The biography of Bobby Gonzalez is objectionable on a number of levels. He and his family are seeking to know who submitted this, and why edits are not being allowed on something that is so brazenly discriminatory. The information in this biography is unauthorized and controversial. it is malicious. It is clear discrimination and bias. Not one of the 1,000 or more division one coaches have such a biography written with such a derogatory slant. Bobby Gonzalez has been singled out by a malicious writer. I can tell you that all the references to and from the New York Times are not usable and are the subject of an impending defamation lawsuit. I can tell you that the legal incident mentioned was dismissed and is in the process of being expunged. You have no right whatsoever to allow that to be in there. This biography is written as tabloid trash and it needs to be deleted. I can submit a proper one. If you choose not to allow this and want to continue to run this, then I need to know that quickly. We have had dozens and dozens of complaints regarding this and warnings to have it changed. My edits were changed twice which is odd to say the least. Kindly inform us as to what you can do about this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindag3333 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 18 February 2011

  • I've looked at the Bobby Gonzalez article, and, at first blush, the material all seems to be backed up by, or readily verifiable in, citations in reliable sources. As the head coach of a Division I basketball program, he is a notable figure, and Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy means that the facts should be described, fairly and neutrally, as they are related in the reliable sources. The legal incident was also reported fully in the press, and while some consideration might be given to cutting or removing that material on the basis of WP:WEIGHT (and I have already moved it out of the lede section, where it probably did not belong), that should be a matter to be considered by neutral editors. Other opinions are certainly welcome on this, of course.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Being a division one coach, he is almost undoubtedly notable by Wikipedia standards and will have an article about him here on this site. In this case, I think you should be very specific as to exactly what information is offensive. I think that if you foster a discussion here and on the article talk page, you'll find people willing to help, and, hopefully, a satisfactory resolution. Just changing things in the article yourself is not going to accomplish much unless you have a pretty good understanding of the policies, which, in my experience, `can be frustrating to say the least. This is especially the case if, as you say, you are being reverted by an editor with an ax to grind. I will take a look and see what I see. David Able 00:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard of the fellow in my life, but I've just trimmed his bio slightly. It's yet another case of ... actually I'm not even going to say that here. We write conservatively about living people. There is WP:NORUSH. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Wait, the sources cited to support this largely negative bio include an opinion piece (is it?) that talks about how the bio subject's sister allegedly puts pressure on journalists?? Uh... wait... what?? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

... "an assistant at the University of Arizona who has known Gonzalez since his days as a high school assistant 20 years ago. “He uses that as a mechanism to act the way he does. It’s his gift and curse. When I’d recruit against him " ... is this reliable source very reliably sourced? They are certainly not at all independent. What is going on here? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

  • As usual, a BLP issue arises and there has been no discussion on the talk page what-so-ever. I opened a discussion on the talk page at Talk: Bobby Gonzalez#BLP Issues. Perhaps the focus can move there to resolve any issues. David Able 00:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Apparently the individual raising the issue at this noticeboard, had already received a warning for COI, and was advised to come here. Don't blame the victims. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
No blame intended. Since notability is obviously not an issue, and this person will have an article in one form or another, I simply wanted to make sure a discussion took place on his talk page, instead of being lost in the BLPN archives. Anyway, this looks to be resolved for now. I wonder if the person who started this section could weigh in if he/she agrees. David Able 16:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Mufti Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari

Mufti Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kawthari recently made an appearance at the University of York as part of Islam Awareness Week. Some people at the university were offended by Kawthari's views and lodged a formal complaint with the university, and there was a mild hubbub about it in the local press. I had never heard of Kawthari, so I visited his wiki page and found it to be more of an advertisement for his publications than a proper encyclopedia article. Assuming good faith, however, I edited only those bits which seemed wantonly POV. Darul iftaa not only reverted my edits, but erased my comments from the discussion board, as well as removing another user's (accurate, well-documented) additions regarding the York controversy.

Darul Iftaa is the name of the Institute of Islamic Jurisprudence, which is repeatedly linked to as a reference in the article. This is a clear conflict of interest, as an organization associated with Kawthari is taking it upon itself to maintain his wiki. I get the feeling that anything remotely unpleasant regarding Kawthari will continue to be censored by his supporters.

I'm a longtime Wikipedia user, but I'm not a very active editor, and I'm not exactly sure how this is dealt with. I figured the best thing to do would be to draw people's attention to it here. My apologies if I've broken protocol in some way.TremorMilo (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Scott Greenstein

Scott Greenstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Slanderous and negative rumor-based edits have been inserted in paragraphs 2 and 3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwedMusicFanz (talk • contribs) 20:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Contents removed, if it is replaced please report back and we can look at semi protection, the content was in the article for two weeks, low number of watchers. I added it to my watchlist. Off2riorob (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Tazeen Ahmad

Tazeen Ahmad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contributors 94.193.126.45 and 'Plebwarrior' (probably the same person) are repeatedly posting libellous material. There seems to be a religious hate element involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.211.216 (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the unsourced attack material and some coatracky stuff as well. Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
And was reverted by Plebwarrior in minutes. I posted a notice on his user page advising on BLP and RS standards and also including a 3RR warning.Jonathanwallace (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
That seems to have done the trick, great. I'll keep watching it. Rosenkreutzer (talk) 12:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Yusuf al-Qaradawi

Yusuf al-Qaradawi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a dispute at Yusuf al-Qaradawi, regarding this material. A user is inserting material that says Qaradawi has called for a Holocaust of the Jewish people at the hands of Muslims. While Qaradawi is an extremely conservative figure, this claim comes across as a red flag.

The user quotes on MEMRI as a source. Qaradawi has previously disputed MEMRI's translation of his statements (see Yusuf_al-Qaradawi#Fatwa_controversy_with_MEMRI). MEMRI's translation accuracy, especially with respect to statements regarding Jews, has been challenged by mainstream sources (see Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute#Translation_inaccuracy).

Since, Qaradawi is alive, and since the claim here is quite bold (that Qaradawi has called for a Holocaust), I think there should be some mainstream news source that must have picked up on this. But I haven't found any, not even Israeli ones: Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post and Ynetnews are mainstream Israeli sources, but don't mention this incident.VR talk 03:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

There has been substantial concern about MEMRI on the reliable sources noticeboard, though I'm not sure it reached consensus. You are probably right it should be avoided for violent or controversial assertions--but its not hard to find such quotes from the subject in better sources, such as the Times of London: "According to BBC Monitoring, Dr al-Qaradawi said last year: 'Oh God, destroy the usurper Jews, the vile crusaders and infidels.'" Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
There's no need to insert everything he has ever said along these lines -- but omitting it entirely would not be NPOV. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Jonathanwallace: indeed Qaradawi has prayed for the destruction of Jews (and others whom he doesn't like), as well as made antisemitic remarks. This, however, is different from calling upon Muslims to perpetrate a Holocaust. (Consider the difference between Christian fundamentalists asserting that God destroyed Sodom vs. Uganda executing homosexuals) VR talk 23:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I guess a full-colour real-time video of Qaradawi's statement is insufficient? MEMRI provides the original videos from which it obtains its translations. How is that not a reliable source? (you have to register for free to see the video on MEMRI's website, but if you don't want to, you can view a copy of it on youtube at Sheik Yousuf Al-Qaradhawi: "Allah Imposed Hitler upon the Jews to Punish Them!". With regard to the criticisms of MEMRI in Wikipedia, they consist of a grand total of 3-4 mistranslations (out of thousands) and the opinions and insults of several anti-Israel figures. This is certainly not enough to conclude that every translation done by MEMRI is inaccurate.
Finally, MEMRI's translation has bee cited by many websites, not only in this article by the Jerusalem Post but also a number of other websites. (e.g. [8], [9] [10] [11]. However, not a single website claims that his words are mistranslated. Until a single piece of real evidence can be provided that MEMRI is a "dubious" source that has mistranslated the video, this material should remain on Wikipedia, as it has for several months already.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC))
The above link that you provided is precisely what I asked you for. I asked you to find a link that quotes MEMRI's translation of Qaradawi calling for a Holocaust. Can you provide one that says that?
As for media sources using MEMRI's translation: there are media sources that have disputed MEMRI's translation. You may call them "anti-Israel", but they are mainstream (CNN, The Guardian). Can you find a "high-quality" source as WP:REDFLAG asks?VR talk 17:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I have seen the video on YouTube, the Clips are clearly spliced, and taken from different shows. We aren't given any kind of time stamp. Even if the translations are accurate we have no idea what he said during the rest of the sessions. This can hardly be taken as evidence especially in such a grave matter.

In addition I also have statements from him where Qaradawi explicitly repudiates prejudice against Jews. Qaradawi writes,

"A question which troubles some people and which is sometimes discussed openly is the following: How can we show kindness and affection and good treatment to non-Muslims since Allah Ta'ala Himself prohibits Muslims to take non believers as friends, allies, and supporters in such verses as the following:

O you who believe, do not take the Jews and Christians as friends; they are the friends(only) of each other. And whoever among you turns to them(for friendship) is certainly one of them; indeed, Allah does not guide the people who do wrong. Yet thou seest those in whose hearts is a disease racing toward them...(5:54-55(51-52))

The answer to this is that these verses are not unconditional to be applied to every Jew,Christian or non-Muslim. Interpreting them in this manner contradicts the injunctions of the Qur'an which enjoin affect and kindness to the good and peace-loving peoples of every religion,as well as verses which permit marriage to the women of the People of the Book..."(Qaradawi 339-40.).

It is clear that he does not have hate for Jews or any other religious group simply based on their beliefs. I think VR was simply referring to sources independently documenting this claim, not simply just parroting MEMRI. The fact is MEMRI has been disputed, and especially in this case can not be considered a reliable source.

References: Al-Qaradawi, Yusuf. "Meaning of Friendship with Non-Muslims." Trans. Kemal El-Helbawy and M.Moinuddin Siddiqui. The Lawful And Prohibited In Islam. Trans. Syed Shukry. Plainsfield: American Trust Publications, 1999. 339-40.

(Yster76 (Talk) 12:32, 20 February 2011(UTC))

Have you considered the possibility that Qaradawi may express different and contradictory views depending on which audience he is speaking to? (He wouldn't be the first person to do this). Political and religious figures often tailor their statements based on which audience they are talking to. Simply citing another quote doesn't mean that all of his recorded statements to the contrary should be ignored or dismissed.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC))

With regard to your claim that the video is spliced, please note that the video contains clips from several programs (it even states this at the beginning). However, Qaradawi's first speech, where he praised Hitler, is not spliced at all (note that there is no interruption on the messages moving across the bottom of the screen). This is more than enough to be considered a reliable source.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC))

Hyperionsteel, Youtube videos are generally not reliable, and especially not "high-quality" sources that WP:REDFLAG asks for.VR talk 17:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I was only citing youtube for convenience. The video is available on MEMRI's website but you have to register for free in order to view it. However, since some people might not want to register, I offered an alternative. Also - the youtube video isn't cited in the article as reference. Please read other users comments more carefully.
Also with regard to the 3 or 4 translations that have been questioned, the blog and editorial comments (which mostly consist of insults) from a Guardian columnist (Brian Whittaker) is hardly convincing evidence that all MEMRI translations are inaccurate.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC))

I'm not judging the translations of these particular clips since I'm not qualified to do so. My point is that the sessions that these clips were taken from were probably well over half an hour long as they appeared on television, so it is not unreasonable to say that there is content that MEMRI does not want us to see.

We should consider this when we make accusations against individuals, especially for glorifying genocide.

With regard to the source I cited, it is a book originally published in the year 1960 in Arabic

(Yster76 (talk) 21:20 (UTC))

Wilbert Rideau

Wilbert Rideau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I hope you will be patient with me as I am 63 years old, unfamiliar with the editing or resoluton process here. An editor, Whisper To Me, has made scores of changes to the Wilbert Rideau page, vitually all of them to cast Billy Sinclair into a role in Rideau's overall life that is disproportionate. Sinclair was one of several co-editors Rideau had at The Angolite (for 6 of the 25 years Rideau edited the magazine). During the time Sinclair was co-editor, the magazine won two journalism awards that were jointly awarded (the Kennedy and the Hillman). The amount of space and attention Whisper To Me wants to give to Sinclair's co-editorship is simply disproportionate. The magazine and other co-editors and associate editors -- some as long-serving -- both before and after Sinclair's tenure, also won equally prestigious awards. The fact that Sinclair's wife testified against Rideau's at his 2005 trial is a detail that has no more importance in this BLP than the fact that several wardens and judges testified for him. Nor is Sinclair's role in the Angola pardons scandal, which I have not bothered to correct for accuracy, relevant to this BLP. Wilbert Rideau's writing career spans more than 35 years. In Whisper To Me's edits, his "post-Sinclair" achievements read like a footnote. Again, it is a matter of proportionality. That Sinclair filed a lawsuit against Rideau, corrections officials and a university professor in 1989 that was dismissed is, again, not relevant in the overall tapestry of this BLP. And the fact that Sinclair wrote something about Rideau in his autobiography would seem more relevant to Sinclair's wikipedia site. Sinclair is included in Rideau's memoir only to the extent the story demands it. Rideau is not Sinclair's enemy. He has had no contact with Sinclair for a quarter century. Sinclair is a part of his past, duly recognized on Eye Smith's edits, as a co-editor. Apologies from Eye Smith for any irregularities in formatting on account of my ignorance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eye Smith (talk • contribs) 23:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the merits of your statements, but in editing the article, you severely messed it up. I've restored it to be properly formatted, but I've lost a few of your changes. Be careful when you edit the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Still looking at just the recent history of the article, you've removed an entire section added by Whisper To Me. I suggest you take this to the article Talk page. It certainly sounds like some of what you're saying constitutes original research, which is not permitted as a basis for article edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Eye Smith has persistently edited the article destroying the formatting of the article. I've reverted three times (and now stopped). I've posted warnings to his Talk page. He apparently doesn't get it. Off2riorob now made the last reversion, but Eye Smith reverted yet again.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I reverted again and asked the editor to move to discussion and I requested some protection for the page at WP:RPP - Off2riorob (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
He's still reverting. I've reported it to 3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I would like for Eye to begin editing at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Wilbert_Rideau - In the meantime I explained on Eye's talk page why I believe in my position. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Now I would appreciate having other editors review my and Eye's proposed versions of the articles, and of the references that discuss Rideau in relation to Sinclair. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I can understand the claims that the article is about Rideau and not sinclair, the later version add sinclair to the lede, gives him his own section and alters the content about Sinclair quite dramatically - Sinclair went from being mentioned twice in the article to being mentioned thirty times. Billy_Sinclair has his own article which I see you have written completely, so you must be interested in the topic and have knowledge about it. Off2riorob (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I am interested in the topic. While the article is about Rideau, the main group of journalism awards that Rideau is known for were joint awards with Sinclair. The sources that I found throughout the 1970s and 1980s discussed the partnership between the men. The sources state that the two men and the newspaper under the leadership of the two men won all of those awards (George Polk Award, RFK Award, ABA Silver Gavel). Then I found various sources talking about the dissolution of the partnership (the NYT called it a very "bitter falling out") and the various legal and personality conflicts between the two (Sinclair's lawsuit against Rideau, Sinclair saying that Rideau was advocating against Sinclair's release, Sinclair criticizing Rideau in his book, Sinclair's wife testifying against Rideau at Rideau's 2005 trial). While the article is about Rideau, I argue that his partnership with Sinclair and the falling out and subsequent conflicts are important elements regarding Rideau's life and career. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, its a matter of weight and I don't know anything about the two men to assess that, but this is the complaint that the increased coverage of Sinclair in Rideau's bio is undue, I am a fan of there is no smoke without fire and that a stable article is a good one because it compromises with all interested parties. Apart from that I am out of my comfort zone regarding these two people. Off2riorob (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I am aware of the substance of Eye Smith's complaint since he made it clear in the edit summary at 22:45, 19 February 2011 and the edit summary at 22:45, 19 February 2011. I am now awaiting further input so we can decide what weight Billy Sinclair's relationship should have in the article.
WhisperToMe (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I must add: "Sinclair is included in Rideau's memoir only to the extent the story demands it." - Articles are based upon the total sum of secondary sources, not solely on a single memoir. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I've read a previous version of the article that includes all the stuff about Sinclair. I think it's far too much. Even if the awards were given jointly and/or to the newspaper, it's still too much. This isn't an article about Sinclair or about the publication. It's an article about. Here's how I would word it (using the "Sinclair" version as a base) (I've also reordered it and removed content):

In the early 1970s, Rideau wrote a column, "The Jungle", for a chain of black weeklies in Louisiana. He freelanced articles to mainstream media, including The Shreveport Journal and Penthouse Magazine. A headline referred to him as the "The Wordman of Angola," saying "Wilbert Rideau is Angola Penitentiary's Birdman of Alcatraz. He is a prisoner who has transformed the dark, drab, terror-filled life of prison into a greenhouse for the flowering of his talent." Rideau had not gone beyond the ninth grade in his formal educations before his arrest and incarceration.
In 1975, a federal court ordered the Angola prison to be reformed, and the outgoing warden appointed Rideau editor of The Angolite. The incoming warden ratified the choice and, with a handshake, gave Rideau freedom from censorship and thus created the nation’s only uncensored prison publication. Rideau became well known during the 25 years he was an editor of The Angolite. He was the first African American prison newspaper editor in the United States.
In 1979, Rideau and co-editor Sinclair won the George Polk Award for the articles "The Other Side of Murder" and "Prison: a Sexual Jungle." Rideau also received the award for "Prison: a Sexual Jungle". In addition, the magazine won the Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Award and the American Bar Association's Silver Gavel Award. The Angolite was the first prison publication ever to be nominated for a National Magazine Award, for which it was nominated seven times. Rideau traveled the state as a lecturer accompanied only by an unarmed guard and was permitted to fly to Washington D.C. twice to address the nation’s newspaper editors on the subject of prison journalism.
Rideau and co-editor Wikberg were named "Person of the Week" for their journalism on Peter Jennings's World News Tonight in August 1992.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Alright - One thing is that "In 1979, Rideau and co-editor Sinclair won the George Polk Award for the articles "The Other Side of Murder" and "Prison: a Sexual Jungle." Rideau also received the award for "Prison: a Sexual Jungle"." - Sexual Jungle has been mentiond twice. What is "the award"? If you said "Rideau received the award for "Prison: a Sexual Jungle" in absentia" then it makes sense.
I what you are getting at, though, in relation to the journalism section. Now, how would you handle the content/sections discussing the falling out between Rideau and Sinclair?
WhisperToMe (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
With respect to the awards, I frankly didn't notice they were the same title. The cite for the "in absentia" award is to Life magazine, and I can't read it. Perhaps you could explain the point to me so I can better understand whether it even needs to be said. As for the falling out, I removed it. I don't see how it matters to the Rideau article. The section already has sufficient content. It doesn't need to digress into peripheral areas of relationships betwween Rideau, Sinclair, other editors, etc. If the article were about The Angolite, it would be different.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
As for the in absentia thing, what it means is that Rideau was not at the ceremony while the award was given out. It was content that Eye Smith had added to the article.
If the content about the falling out belongs at The Angolite (after all the lawsuit did concern work at the Angolite), that would work
WhisperToMe (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Was the absentia award separate from the other award for the same article? In other words, was one given to both him and Sinclair and then a separate one just to him? As for the falling out, yes, by all means, put it in article about the magazine (I didn't even know there was one - you've done a lot of work in this area).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
No, it wasn't separate. It's the same award. It's just that Rideau couldn't show up for it. I do not know whether Sinclair was able to show up for it either. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Then, I'd leave out the in absentia sentence altogether, just the first sentence mentioning the award for the two articles. It's not important that he and/or Sinclair didn't show up to accept the award.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Alrighty :) - BTW I added the sentences about the Sinclair vs. Rideau lawsuit to the The Angolite article. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, so How is this version? WhisperToMe (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Eye Smith is now disputing other aspects of the article now.
"Restore Summary to what Rideau is now known for, his memoir, and correcting misleading impression that he was simply released rather than release by jury verdict."
"Rideau won his own Polk Award. And his own ABA award, for the articles, as cited."
"The focus of this article is Rideau, his life and work."
The second and third edits completely cut out any mention of Sinclair, and they alter what Bbb23 had proposed
WhisperToMe (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
He said "Rideau won his own Polk Award." - But the text of the "Press: Jail Journal." says "Last week Rideau, 38, and Sinclair, 35, both convicted murderers serving life terms, won a prestigious George Polk Award for special-interest reporting. One article cited was Rideau's chilling account of homosexual rape and subjugation behind bars. Another story submitted to the Polk judges was an investigative report by Sinclair raising the possibility of misfeasance in the murder of a prisoner five years ago. As a result of Sinclair's story, the inmate convicted of the crime may win a new trial." - It sounds like both of them won one award. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
http://www.liunet.edu/Brooklyn/About/News/Press-Releases/2011/February/BK-PR-Feb7-2011.aspx says that the Polk award was a shared award. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Eye Smith here. Forgive me if I do not have time as a self-employed individual to try to learn the ins and outs of wikipedia editing and argumentation. I am plain spoken. In the edits I made, I offered documentation that Rideau won the Polk award for his article "Prison: The Sexual Jungle." Sinclair also won an award, in a shared category, for an article he wrote, but that belongs on his own wikipedia page, not Rideau's. (By the way, argument over this will soon be moot as Rideau has been invited to receive, in person, this April, the award the Polk Committe gave him for his 1979 article and to recognize his 35-year body of work in journalism. But we can fix that later.) I also offered a documented source for the fact that Rideau was the first prisoner to win the American Bar Association's Silver Gavel Award. It is an unfortunate reality that journalists sometimes make errors in their reporting; but those errors should not be the basis for rewriting history. As to the "falling out" between the men, even Whisper to Me sees that this is basically Sinclair positioning himself in an adversarial role to Rideau, and not vice versa. And, if necessary, I will document the real source of Sinclair's apparent discontent, which is a statement by the Secretary of Corrections that he put in jeopardy the lives and safety of other members of The Angolite staff by his behavior. But, again, in the overall tapestry of Rideau's life and work, this is insignificant and unnecessary. Wilbert Rideau may at one time have been best known for his 25-year editorship of The Angolite, but he has since become better known for his memoir, In the Place of Justice, and his award-winning work in radio and television. The work on The Angolite that Whisper to Me wants to put front and center is more than 30 years old; other people have moved on with their careers, to bigger and better things. The collaboration with Sinclair is just not that central to Rideau's life or work, in my view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eye Smith (talk • contribs) 02:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

"In the edits I made, I offered documentation that Rideau won the Polk award for his article "Prison: The Sexual Jungle." Sinclair also won an award, in a shared category, for an article he wrote, but that belongs on his own wikipedia page, not Rideau's." - So is there one award, or two? The impression I got from the sources above (you cited the same TIME document, but I looked at the specific wording of it) is that there are two articles involved (with each person responsible per article) - but there is one actual Polk award total, with both sharing that award. One of those sources was from Long Island University, the university which gives out the award. It says "including the Polk, which he shared with his associate editor, fellow prisoner Billy Sinclair." - It says he shared one award with Sinclair.
About Rideau being the *first* to win, I notice you cited " "Angola Inmate Cited by ABA," Morning Advocate, Baton Rouge, LA,July 17, 1979, 7-A" " - Unfortunately I cannot find that article. But what I'll do is I'll make a resource request for it, and hope somebody finds a copy of the article.
The main criterion for inclusion, and criterion for documenting material, is what is included in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. WP:Verifiability states that truth is not the main criterion for inclusion. It is verifiability. "What can be verified?" is the question to be asked. If you say one source is wrong, you need another source, or two or three, to correct whatever deficiencies are in other sources. And you need to quote from those sources so we know the wording.
"Wilbert Rideau may at one time have been best known for his 25-year editorship of The Angolite, but he has since become better known for his memoir, In the Place of Justice, and his award-winning work in radio and television." - So you are saying that he is now better known for his memoir and his work in radio and television (what awards did they win?) than for his original work. So the questions would be: How do sources around 2010 present Rideau? What do they mention him as being notable for?
WhisperToMe (talk) 04:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
To state what Rideau is best known for, you need to examine contemporary reliable sources. So, without further ado:
Lee, Dave. "Wilbert Rideau: 'The most rehabilitated man in America'." BBC. 17 February 2011.
It talks about what is written in his memoir, but it doesn't say anything to the effect that he became famous because of the award. The only time it mentions the actual memoir is "Mr Rideau has written about his experience in his book, In the Place of Justice"
Shackle, Samira. "The NS Interview: Wilbert Rideau, former death row inmate." The New Statesman. 10 February 2011.
Only one line about the memoir, and it is at the very end of the article: "2010 Publishes memoir, In the Place of Justice."
In order to say first "He is well known for writing a memoir" he or she has to become famous because of the memoir. Instead, Rideau wrote about experiences that he was already known for. Rideau is not primarily known for writing a memoir. He is primarily known for his incarceration in Angola and his activities during his incarceration.
WhisperToMe (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
At User_talk:Eye_Smith#Edit_warring_at_Wilbert_Rideau Eye Smith posted more material about his revisions
WhisperToMe (talk) 04:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

John W. Bryant

John W. Bryant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a section in the article that I've been attempting to delete because it contains libelous, inflammatory, licentious material about a living person that is based on an unreliable primary source and has not been corroborated in any secondary source. The section in question is entitled "Sexual Rites." I am a child of Bryant's and the false information in the article is damaging to the entire family. According to Wikipedia, extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. The entirety of this source and the complete basis for this section of the article is a quote by an angry former wife of Bryant's, who had a vendetta. No other people were asked to corroborate this claim by the author of the book, nor were any other sources cited. This is clearly an abuse of a primary source. Furthermore, it breaks my heart that people would restore this harmful information without considering its verifiability or the damage that its content causes. It is included strictly because of its sensational nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.219.233 (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

You only needed to post this once, don't spam. The content has sources, go to the talk page and present evidence that the source is not good according to Wikipedia's sourcing policies. Also, please read our policies about editting with a conflict of interest, which you admit to having. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the user has a conflict of interest, but his claim is that the quoted material is libelous, which must be taken seriously. The article carefully quotes the wife and attributes the quote to a secondary source (a book about Mormonism), but, nonetheless, this is a BLP, and accusations of this kind that are uncorroborated except by the primary source (the wife) are problematic. See WP:PSTS ("Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people").--Bbb23 (talk) 02:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
The source in the article is a secondary source ( Richard S. Van Wagoner (1989, 2d ed.). Mormon Polygamy: A History (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books) pp. 214–216 ), which is quoting a primary source. It's not a primary source proper. Her claim that it's a primary source is untrue. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I already said that. In this particular instance, I think it's a distinction without a difference. Unless the book comments on the allegations, it's simply a quote from a primary source. So, because the book is a secondary source, we can assume the quote is accurate, but the accuracy of the quote is not the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
An editor in good standing, Good Olfactory, believes the quote is being used fairly, and has the book. Perhaps we could ask him to elaborate? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I would say that there is no need to rush to replace that content, a claim of incest is extraordinary indeed and as such requires extraordinary reliable reports which I am not seeing there at all. Off2riorob (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Ian, Good Olfactory, like any editor, is welcome to contribute to this discussion, although I'm not sure what you mean by "fairly".--Bbb23 (talk) 02:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
As an attempted compromise, Good Olfactory eliminated the entire disputed section and replaced it with the statement "Bryant had six wives," with a citation to the Van Wagoner book. However, the book does not make mention anywhere that Bryant had six wives and with the exclusion of any other citations or sources, it appears that this entire article has been created as a vehicle for one singular source. The faulty citation also leads me to believe that Good Olfactory doesn't actually have the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.219.233 (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
At this point, with Good Olfactory trying to reach a consensus on what should be included in the article, you would do better to keep your comments on the article's Talk page. Also, there's nothing wrong with asking GO if he has the book. However, it's not constructive to draw nefarious inferences ("this entire article has been created as a vehicle for one singular source") - just stick to substance.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. However, GO didn't try to reach a consensus. He proposed the change and then immediately made it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.219.233 (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Leroy Cronin

Leroy Cronin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The subject is not a public figure and the article is supported by two self-written documents and a single BBC news article, whilst the external links are to the subject's various social networking profiles. A blatant case of self promotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.29.180 (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking at WP:PROF, Cronin seems to meet one or more of the notability criteria - and he only needs to satisfy one.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ [12]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive109&oldid=1136106526"