Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive122

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

George W. Bush

Article has a section on him "possibly" being a secret Roman Catholic. Per prior discussions on this and related pages, I enquire as to whether such speculation on religion is proper in a BLP. Collect (talk) 12:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The sentence about possibly being a secret, or closet, Roman Catholic cites the Washington Post and an article that implies these things - see HERE. The presence of a reliable published source makes it look OK to me, although the Washington Post doesn't appear to use the words "secret" or "closet". Dolphin (t) 13:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Please note that recent BLP discussions have invariably found that claiming a person "might" be something is not done on Wikiopedia any more. Thus we no longer assert that a person is "Jewish" just because some source makes the claim - we rely on what the person says he or she is. In the case at heand, no solid basis for making the claim (other than a meeting with the Pope) is given as a basis for the claim that Bush is a Roman Catholic, and there is plenty of evidence, including his own church membership and overt attendence, which belies the claim. Thus the section is, at best, rank speculation. Collect (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The source cited doesn't say that GWB is a Catholic, secret or otherwise. It describes him as a "Protestant President". It has one named source (Paul Weyrich - hardly a neutral reliable source?) saying that he thinks Dubya "is a secret believer". Otherwise, it is nothing more than a commentary on the closeness of some of GWB's politics to that of the Catholic right wing, and on the fact (truly astonishing? I think not) that there were Catholics holding positions within the Bush government. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

IOW, the statements made in the section in the WP article go beyond what the source reasonably supports as fact. And thus is a tad misused in the BLP. Cheers and thanks. Collect (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

( ← outdenting ) I agree that we have no basis at all to assert that George W. Bush might be a crypto-Catholic or that he intends to follow his brother Jeb's precedent and convert to Catholicism. The sources cited in the disputed section do appear to support an assertion that Bush was very favorable to Roman Catholic values and objectives, for whatever that's worth, and that he formed a closer relationship with the Pope than any preceding President had done:

Mary Ann Glendon, U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican, said that Bush regards the Pope as the greatest spiritual leader in the world; she also stated "There is no doubt that these two men have formed a deep personal friendship." ( Catholic News Service )

Rick Santorum, former U.S. Senator and current Presidential candidate said of Bush, "I don't think there's any question about it, he's certainly much more Catholic than Kennedy." (Daily Telegraph)

"Catholics - and thus Catholic social teaching - have for the past eight years been shaping Bush's speeches, policies and legacy to a degree perhaps unprecedented in U.S. history." (Washington Post)

Former Bush speech writer William McGurn said, "I used to say that there are more Catholics on President Bush's speechwriting team than on any Notre Dame starting lineup in the past half-century". (Washington Post)

Former Bush speech writer Michael Gerson said that the key to understanding Bush's domestic policy is to view it through the lens of Rome. (Washington Post)

Bush prayed with Pope Benedict in the Oval Office and developed an unusually close personal relationship with him. (Washington Post)

Paul Weyrich, founder of the Heritage Foundation and Moral Majority said he thought Bush was a "secret believer" in Catholicism. (Washington Post)

The Catholic News Agency thought the story in The Telegraph credible enough to generate its own follow-on story about it. ( not present in disputed WP article section )

John DiIulio, the first Bush appointee on Faith-Based initiatives did actually call Bush a "closet Catholic", as The Telegraph reports. But the Telegraph's statement appears to be based on page 117 of DiIulio's book Godly Republic, and it's obvious from the context there that DiIulio didn't intend the description to mean that Bush was literally a Roman Catholic.

None of this comes close to meriting its own section in the main George W. Bush article, but a couple of sentences wouldn't be out of place in some Bush-related article or article-section about (e.g.) his personal and political relationship to Christianity, if we have one. A quick search leads me to believe that we probably don't have any such appropriate home for this content, however. – OhioStandard (talk) 21:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The nonsense has been removed (diff), but in case there is any doubt, no article should record such speculation with such weak sources and nonexistent attempt to suggest the material is of any significance other than fun gossip. It was ok for the media to report the speculation at the time, but it is not suitable for a bio unless there is some serious suggestion of the material's veracity (and in that sense, the sources are pathetic). Johnuniq (talk) 11:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Ron Freeman

The biography of Ron Freeman, Olympic athlete, incorrectly confuses him with an individual of the same name who was a teacher at Monte Vista High School and died in 2011. Ron Freeman, the athlete, is still alive, and this erroneous report of his death is causing great concern among his friends and classmates from Elizabeth, NJ. An error as severe as this cannot wait for the vetting cycle to allow me to be able to edit the page myself.

This is the current entry: Ronald ("Ron") J. Freeman II (born June 12, 1947) is a former American athlete, winner of gold medal in 4x400 m relay at the 1968 Summer Olympics.

Born in Elizabeth, New Jersey, Ron Freeman was third in 400 m and ran the second leg in the American 4x400 m relay team, which won the gold medal with a new world record of 2.56.11.

Following his Olympic career, Freeman taught Physical Education and World History at Monta Vista High School. He died of a heart attack in 2011.

The following is from MercuryNews.com:

Ron "Screamin" Freeman

Resident of Los Altos

Passed away suddenly on Jan. 21. He was 52. Ron was a cornerstone in the South Bay water polo community. He spent the last 30 years teaching and coaching at Monta Vista High School in Cupertino. He was instrumental in the USA Water Polo Olympic Development Program, De Anza Water Polo Club, and the De Anza-Cupertino Aquatics program. He was also involved with the Junior Olympics, serving as team lead on the 1997 U.S. World Champion Team.

For more about Ron go to the Face Book page "Ron Freeman was my water polo coach and History teacher".

Ron is survived by his mother and stepfather Miriam and Ken Clark, his brothers Richard, Dean, John, and Wayne Freeman, and his sister Cathleen Bridenstein.

Ron's Memorial will be at Monta Vista High School gym Friday, Feb. 18 at 3 p.m. In lieu of flowers donations can be made to the Ron Freeman Memorial Fund, care of Monta Vista High School, 21840 McClellan Rd., Cupertino, CA 95014. Published in San Jose Mercury News/San Mateo County Times on February 3, 2011

Please immediately correct this error. Thank you

96.41.104.165 (talk) 05:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

_{Moved here, originally posted on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons, in order to bring it to more people's attention to fix if needed. Jnorton7558 (talk) 07:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)}

I have removed the the sentence about Mr. Freeman's death (and the preceding sentence which was added at the same time) as it is unsourced and it doesn't seem clear that the article copied above is about the same person. I will have a look for some sources to clarify this either way.--Kateshortforbob _talk 07:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I recently rewrote Xiaxue; could someone BLP-check it?

The article on the controversial Singaporean celebrity blogger Xiaxue has a history of BLP problems. I recently rewrote the article and aim to make it my 7th GA. However, I am not very familiar with the details of the BLP policy, so I would like my version to be checked for BLP compliance. If there are any violations, please assume good faith, correct them and explain them to me (and should you need any clarification regarding facts or sources, feel free to ask). Thanks! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I made a couple small changes, otherwise it looks okay to me. I didn't check all the sources in detail however. Borock (talk) 13:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

nader dahabi biography

place of birth is Amman - Jordan and not Syria, and was born to Jordanian parents and not Syrian parents — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.249.24.194 (talk) 09:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe we are talking about the above article. I see that reference 2 in the article (here), says "Minister of Transport Nader Dahabi was born in Amman, in 1946." Please edit the article to fix it, or click "discussion" at the top of the article to go to its talk page, and put a new section on that page explaining what needs to be done. Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 11:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Richard Granger

Newly-created article which appears to have a very negative slant. Subject is the former head of NHS Connecting for Health, responsible for introducing an IT system which has come in for criticism. I'm concerned about the general neutrality and tone of the article. January (talk) 10:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow! I did some cleanup, and am watching. Johnuniq (talk) 11:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I did a little more tidying. Article seemed to have been written from a opinionated position. Off2riorob (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

John Anderson, 3rd Viscount Waverley

Has an editor seeking to add material which is unreferenced and unsourced, and quite contentious. Romoval of such at [1] was reverted, second removal was met with [2] and the unhelpful edit summary of Removal of all non-referenced content, as exemplified by Collect. The specific prior claims (?) were defamatory, and the current claim about a minor appears afoul of WP:BLP (not copied here as BLP applies here as well!). More eyes needed - as this edoitor seems a tad determined on the issue of father and son. Collect (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Appears to be a case of school bullying. Editor has now reverted to WP:POINT. John lilburne (talk) 16:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The only edits of Wormeatingforbears (talk · contribs) appear to be to insert this material which is clearly intended to bully a child. The username is also clearly part of the harassment per this edit. Is there any reason why this editor should be allowed to continue? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Further, perhaps we should oversight these edits? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Further investigation reveals editors ReliableAuthority (talk · contribs), Cvanrietschoten (talk · contribs) and HarbieHencock (talk · contribs) with interesting contribution histories. The principal or only edits are to Viscount Waverley and John_Anderson,_3rd_Viscount_Waverley and concern the Viscount's marriage, divorce and the legitimacy of his children. It seems to me that this might be part of a pattern of cyber-bullying. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

In fact I've opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HarbieHencock for these editors. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Dealt with by various people at AN/I, thanks to all concerned. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Johnny Tri Nguyen‎

An IP keeps re-inserting which apartment the article subject lives in. Thoughts? 28bytes (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I have requested temporary semi-protection of this article. See my diff. Dolphin (t) 02:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

My request for temporary semi-protection of the article was declined on the grounds that only one IP address is offending. If this IP offends against this article again the situation should be raised at WP:AIV for action against this IP's vandalism. Dolphin (t) 06:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Dan Savage campaign against Rick Santorum

(move from BLPN talk) --J N 466 16:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm seeking consensus here as to whether we should be linking to the personal website Dan Savage set up about Rick Santorum, the former senator for Pennsylvania. For those of you not familiar with the background, Savage is an American freelance columnist who set up a website intended to spread a vulgar definition of Santorum's surname. He did this in response to comments Santorum made about homosexuality that the gay community and others found offensive.

We have several articles that refer to the controversy, including Campaign for "santorum" neologism. The question is whether we should be linking to Savage's website directly, or whether we should only cite secondary sources that refer to it. WP:BLPSPS is clear on this point, namely that self-published sources must not be cited for material about living persons. But when I remove the site, I'm being reverted, [3] [4] so fresh input would be appreciated. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yet another process fork? Can we please direct conversation to that page so it does not spin out again across the encyclopedia? - Wikidemon (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree w/ wikidemon. Assuming that we are forced to continue discussion here, I'll repeat what Is aid in the other venue: the above is a strained reading of policy which as written applies to articles about persons. Obviously BLP applies (potentially) to any page on wikipedia but broadening that application requires that we interpret the policy accordingly. The subject of the above article (Campaign for "santorum" neologism) includes the website in question and it is perfectly reasonable to link to it in the course of the article. Protonk (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec) This is a noticeboard for highlighting violations of the BLP policy, and we have one on that article that has been restored twice by an admin. Input from editors used to interpreting the policy would therefore be appreciated. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps at some point you will choose to reveal this rogue admin and let us all know what their sysop status has to do with the discussion at hand. Protonk (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Sysop status is relevant, because admins are meant to uphold the BLP policy, not revert someone who is trying to do that. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a fine opinion, and probably relevant were someone using the tools rather than simply editing normally. We still haven't revealed the identity of this mystery sysop. Protonk (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I am involved in the article talk page discussions. Linking to the site is a clear violation of both the letter and spirit of WP:BLPSPS –

Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). ... External links about living persons, whether in BLPs or elsewhere, are held to a higher standard than for other topics. Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs, and when including such links in other articles make sure the material linked to does not violate this policy. ... In general, do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or violate the External links guideline. Where that guideline is inconsistent with this or any other policy, the policies prevail.

as well as the letter and spirit of WP:ELBLP –

"In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that are not fully compliant with this guideline or that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP."

We are talking about a self-published website that equates a living person's name with the mixture of shit and lubricant produced in anal sex. I am having trouble seeing how anyone can argue in good faith that linking to it should be in line with the policy and guideline wording above, regarding self-published derogatory sources. --J N 466 16:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't load the other page at the moment, so posting here: I strongly feel that the site should be included and that to not include it amounts to censorship, but can't see how policy allows it. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 16:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Mentioning it is one thing; linking to it is another. --J N 466 16:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh FFS. So it is ok to say spreadingsantorum.com but not link to it in the article? Protonk (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. What is the problem with that? If secondary sources mention the name, so can we. What's so important about having a clickable link to it? --J N 466 17:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It's important because the campaign is the subject of the article. Refusing to link to the campaign is, frankly, a method of asserting an opinion about it. Second, it is frakking absurd that spreadingsantorum.com is ok but add a few square brackets and it is a completely forbidden string of text under any and all circumstances. How can you not see this? Protonk (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

If you disagree with the policy, take it to the policy talk page—but don't break policy just because you would like to. --J N 466 17:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but we can ignore stupid rules. Furthermore, the decision to strip the link is based on an interpretation of policy, so discussing it here is perfectly reasonable. Protonk (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Repeating the policy doesn't stand in for argumentation. The BLP policy was written primarily for articles about living persons. It has been adapted to articles which deal in some respect to a living person (that is to say, nearly every page on the wiki) but such an adaptation demands that we also think about the text of the policy before applying it. Specifically "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject" is nonsensical where an article like Campaign for Santorum is concerned. If the article is a BLP, who is the subject? Savage? Santorum? Neither? How do we strictly and unambiguously apply policy in this case? We can't. What we need to do is utilize that space between our ears and come to a solution. Protonk (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec)The "OMG TEH CENSORSHIP!!!" bit is getting to be a pretty weak hand. Don't you have another card up your sleeve by now? 16:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

We're not using information from that self-published source, we're linking to it as the primary vector for the attack which the RFC determined the article was about. It's not a random attack page, it's a primary subject of the article. BLPSPS does not apply in this case.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a flawed reading of BLP. The section quoted above does not require blanket removal of links to external websites that are the subject of an article, if they are an unreliable source and contain derogatory information about people. If that were the case we would have to blacklist WorldNetDaily, Mother Jones, The Washington Times, TMZ.com, and the Roger & Me website, not to mention the Wall Street Journal editorial page. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Might I suggest this discussion be moved to the actual noticeboard, instead of the talkpage? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Done --J N 466 16:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Since the article is about Savage's campaign, it makes sense to provide an external link to the campaign, as we do with other articles. I would not however recommend providing an EL to this site on Santorum's BLP article. TFD (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this, it doesn't belong on the Santorum article at all. Protonk (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict

I have been slightly involved in discussion, but withdrew for the most part because of the convoluted contentious nature of what should have been a pretty simple situation:

BLP includes living persons referenced on Wikipedia in anyway. We split hairs if we suggest an article whose title says something else, but includes text on a living person does not fall under BLP and BLPSPS. Further the site is not obscure, and can be mentioned in secondary sources, so those wanting to look at the site won't have difficulty at all in finding it with out Wikipedia compromising its own standards. Once again this is simple. The policy tells us what to do so that we do not do unnecessary harm to living persons. Linking to a personal site perpetrates harm. Citing secondary sources means the source may have already created the harm, and we are merely as editors reporting what has already been written.(olive (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC))

The policy is clear on this point: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject ..." See WP:BLPSPS. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The article on Dan Savage has a link to his website, which includes the santorum campaign. How is this any different? We also provide links to all kinds of websites for articles about subjects, such as the American Nazi Party. TFD (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

And who is the subject of Campaign for "santorum" neologism? Protonk (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

A couple of days ago the article was called "Santorum Google problem", which was a valid title describing its content, and discussions about the title are still ongoing. It's not comparable to an article like Stormfront_(website), which is specifically about that website, and could not be called anything else. --J N 466 17:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The title is a semantic mapping for the article and isn't determinative of the subject or nature. I would also submit that the space for discussion about the subject of the article should hint at the limitations in strictly applying BLPSPS. If we have to jump through hoops in order to justify a claim to policy then that claim is itself diluted. Protonk (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The subject of the campaign is Rick Santorum, but the subject of the article is the campaign itself. (Note two different meanings of the term subject.) TFD (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Trying to keep the link to the primary page of the campaign off-wiki is absurd. It violates the basic idea of the WWW. From a BLP point of view, it most likely also is counterproductive - see Streisand effect. Finally, Santorum is not some innocent private guy - he is a public figure - indeed, he is running for President. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The website is an attack site about one person, Rick Santorum, and the creator acknowledged he was setting it up for that purpose. Linking to it clearly violates the BLP policy. The name of the articles that house the link is irrelevant. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

So under what circumstances would we be allowed to link to spreadingsantorum.com? Protonk (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Our role is not to defend people from cold hard facts of what is out in the real world. Merrill Stubing (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not the name of the article, it's the contents of the article. The RFC determined that the article was about the campaign/googlebomb/whatever. SpreadingSantorum.com was the focus/method/whatever of the campaign. Therefore, it is encyclopedic that we link to it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk)

It doesn't matter what the name or subject of the article is. Citing a self-published website that attacks a living person—anywhere on Wikipedia—is a violation of WP:BLPSPS. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

A, that's not what it says, and B, this isn't citing it. The exact wording of WP:BLPSPS is: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject." The only material which we could source from this site is sourced from reliable third-party sources instead. Therefore, there is not a violation of that policy here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

(observation) Just name the site. Anyone that wants to can simply c&p it into a web browser search engine, and the textual name won't affect that google ranking. John lilburne (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It's absolutely not our job to fix or unfix Google. And how do you know a textual link does not affect Google ratings?

I fail to understand why that isn't good enough. What is the dire need to link in the first place? We appear to have a very plausible reading of our BLP policies that seems to forbid the linking. Isn't the convention to err on the side of caution here? What is lost by not providing a direct link as opposed to the requisite information in text?Griswaldo (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

What is lost is the principle of hypertext, the very basis of the World-Wide Web. It's also hypocritical beyond belief.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see what is hypocritical about it. Can you please explain that? Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

As you point out above, mentioning the URL provides the same level (if not the same convenience) of access as providing the link. So you seem to advocate different treatment for two actions that are, in substance, equivalent. That's hypocritical. It also inconveniences our readers for no real benefit. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Beyond the narrow issue of text vs. URL there is an inherent disingenuousness in claiming to have an article so neutral that we will decide on behalf of the reader that they don't need to navigate to a specific website associated with the subject. Including or removing the URL is an editorial decision and we can't avoid responsibility for that decision by pointing to BLP. BLP should be weighed against the needs of the article and the contour of the subject. Treating BLP as a reason to remove links like this without the potential for wiggle room is an abdication of our responsibility as editors. Protonk (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I also feel that Wikipedia's MO is to severely limit the amount of external hypertext linking that is allowed. See WP:EL. It does not follow that we try to abide by "the principle of hypertext" in some way that says, always link to external sites when possible. Quite the opposite. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

What, exactly, is the point of not including the link if we're including the URL? Is it to make it purposefully inconvenient for our readers, who will wonder why we can't master the idea of hyperlinks? That seems to me to be the AGF explanation, and the other ones I can think of would probably get me sanctioned if I posted them. The idea that we can mention the name of the site, mention its URL, but can't link it because OMG it might violate BLP then is wikilawyering at its most despicable, and contains not one shred of common sense. This seems like a clear place where a combination of WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:IAR need to apply. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Our business is to abide by the guides we have as a community written to provide the clear, cold-cut anchors that in heated, contentious situations like we have now, will override emotion, and my opinion, your opinion, opinions, in favour of citing what has already been written by sources with oversight, that is by 'professionals'. We're not researchers writing papers on censorship, the effects of the internet on reputation, we're not trying to protect Santorum, or gay rights, or whatever other ideals, opinions, sensibilities we hold. We are editors more simply citing what is in the reliable sources, that is, those with oversight. When the oversight isn't present we don't link to the source unless the source is writing about itself/himself/herself.(olive (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC))

Chiming in: Having an article that is largely about a website while not linking to that website (but including the name) is just foolishness. Hobit (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

If the the article is about a website we should call it Spreading Santorum website. Off2riorob (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It's about a campaign to get that website to the top of a Google search for a specific word. I'd say the site is central to the proceedings. But even if the article were named as you suggest, it appears folks would be using the same arguments to keep the link off. They seem to apply either way yes? Hobit (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Not really. The website is the subject of significant sourced commentary relevant to the article's topic. You probably could not completely understand the topic without seeing the website. A picture is worth a thousand words, as they say, and there is a rather rude picture there. However, the significance of the site to the topic - just how relevant and noteworthy it is - is something best left to the article talk page. You could make the case that it's a fairly minor part of the issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

*ROTFL!!! "You probably could not completely understand the topic without seeing the website." BWAHAAHAHAHAHAH! That's the funniest thing I've read in ages! ROTFL! Oh, man, would you mind coming over to help fight the NFCC Wars?. Your input is just priceless! lol! Dreadstar ☥ 20:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but the fact that the website link leads to a brown, gooey splat of what apprently is the visual representation of this article's description of 'santorum' is just hilarous. I'd love to apply that to NFCC. Again. Sorry. Heh..'splat', photo, ...yeah... Dreadstar ☥ 21:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you okay or should we summon a medic? Yes, WP:NFC#8: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. By observation, that gooey splat does inform my understanding of Savage's maturity level or lack thereof, the question is whether that's "significant" or whether what one gets from seeing that qualifies as "understanding" or something else. Anyway, NFCC nods to the contours of U.S. copyright law and is a can of worms. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I could use a good medic! After clicking on that site, I may never be able to eat a brownie or drink a chocolate shake again..! Seriously, tho, sorry about that, it was another poor attempt at humor on my part and yet another total, abject failure...I'll stop trying, thanks for your continued tolerance. Dreadstar ☥ 21:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Responses, I've been gone: BLP applies here to statements about Santorum or Savage... but not to discussion of the campaign itself. We aren't writing a BLP, and BLP applies only peripherally. The policy "when including such links in other articles make sure the material linked to does not violate this policy" is very clear. So maybe we should not link directly. However, the spirit of that policy is that we should not write "spreadingsantorum.com" either. But that is nonsensical in this case, so we should ignore it, perhaps to the extent of direct linking, though that's not strictly necessary in order to write a proper article. (A direct link to the site will not effect Google because of the nofollow property.)

"And who is the subject of Campaign for "santorum" neologism? --Protonk" Why, no one: we're talking about a campaign. If not, then there is a major problem here, and I'll immediately delete 95% of this article.

"When the oversight isn't present we don't link to the source unless the source is writing about itself/himself/herself. --olive" I think we can safely say that in an article about the campaign, spreadingsantorum.com is writing about the campaign, and as part of the campaign is writing about itself. But this is confusing an article about the campaign with an article on Santorum. If we're writing an article on Santorum, then the site is not something we use. If we're writing about the campaign, then BLP is peripheral and anyway, the site is "about itself."

Anyway, what we have here is strained arguments about how we should not link to a site which is central to the subject of the article- the campaign. I believe we at least need to have the site mentioned in plain text, and that it is acceptable to have it as a link; and that there is no real difference between the two except convenience to the reader. Perhaps also, Wikipedia's reputation as a source which does not flinch for no reason from covering any subject impartially. Maybe we should not have this article, but those who feel this way (I will say it again) need to formulate their ideas as policy, or else appeals to inapplicable policy or emotion are not going to fly. I would definitely support such an attempt because even if it failed we would learn a great deal. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it's clear that the policy, literally applied, prohibits linking to the site. I think it's also clear that the policy is not meant to be for that sort of case and should not be interpreted literally. The ban on linking to self-published derogatory material is meant to apply when the link is used as a substitute for including the derogatory material in the article. If the article is about the existence of derogatory material, then this becomes a non-concern; the derogatory material is in the article anyway. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved commentary

It would be nice to get some uninvovled commentary on this. I realize half the Wiki has chimed in at some point or another, but I'm sure there are people who haven't who regularly work in BLP areas who might have something to say. Some fresh voices might be helpful here. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not wholly naive to the issue. It was on ANI while I was following something else. I looked things over cursorily, but have not been following the article. A strict interpretation of third-party sourcing is in order; opinion pieces by the principals, even if published in the New York Times, should not be used if they are not discussed by a third-party source. There is adequate material for an article, but sourcing should be held to an unimpeachable standard: anything that cannot be traced to a third-party reliable source should be purged. There is no problem in linking to relevant primary sources, as references or external links, once their notability to the subject has been established as sufficiently central to the matter. In this case, WP:CIRCULAR frames an important issue. If Wikipedia has been a part of the battleground, and I suspect it qualifies, then it becomes necessary to enforce the highest measures of objectivity possible. Everything must be sourced by a third-party source, and if there is any doubt if it is a reliable source, it is excluded until the matter is resolved ({{citation needed}} should be a no-no). Every editor should be treated as having a conflict of interest; it does not preclude editing, but it raises the bar on what is acceptable.Novangelis (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: Having reviewed the sources, I find that there are several that make for unimpeachable sources that mention the website, if not by name. Since, among others, New York Magazine chose to link to the site, I would suggest that there is adequate basis for the link as informative. In general, Wikipedia is not intended to be prudish, but should have appropriate boundaries. The page has a lot of issues with the use of primary sources without reliable secondary sources, but on this issue, the external link, there is sufficient support from secondary sources to establish that it is central to the issue the article discusses, thus a valid (the word appropriate seems out of place) external link.Novangelis (talk) 02:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Review article links to the WR website. The Encyclopedia Dramatica article links to mirrors of that semi-defunct website. Those websites also engage in crude or scatological attacks on living people. I don't see the difference. I've previously said that we shouldn't link to such sites, but if they're allowed then we should be consistent. Will Beback talk 20:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

We asked Dennis King to stop linking to his site in LaRouche articles for the same reason, so that principle has to apply here too. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Or, more accurately, the same principle is applied to all articles and interpreted as appropriate. We do not (and cannot) apply the policy mindlessly or uniformly. We link to WR or ED or the DeCSS code because it is appropriate to do so in those articles apart from the the letter of ELNEVER or BLPSPS--both of which would preclude linking WR or ED and the former which would preclude linking to DeCSS. Sound arguments have been raised here and on the talk page in support of linking to the site and they have been met with repeated links to the same policy. Protonk (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Likewise DeCSS, which is less BLP and more ELNEVER, yet we link to it because the article would suffer without it. Protonk (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:ATTACKSITES is still a failed proposal

Is this an attempt to resurrect a dead proposal by creeping it up in a few cases (like santorum (neologism)) and then applying it to more general cases later? Sure feels like it. Once we disregard our dislike of Dan Savage's web site it becomes a simple matter of editorial decision making whether we should link to it, and there is no other reason not to. This is the primary website about the primary topic of the article. No brainer, link it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I'm okay with an editorial decision not to link to the site. It's one of those "can I please have the last fifteen seconds of my life back" kind of things, I don't see a whole lot of explanatory encyclopedic edification value to the reader of looking at that. Your mileage may vary so I would respect consensus either way. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Kate Bornstein

On Kate Bornstein's article, there is a pronoun dispute.

Kate Bornstein uses the gender neutral pronouns "ze" and "hir". This was changed twice, but reverted each time. Editors who edit hir's page keep using female pronouns even outside of the article even though ze actively uses the neutral pronouns and discusses this in hir's speaking engagements and books.

While this may seem like a small issue of technicalities, I cannot emphasize enough how offensive it is to not allow some one's preferred pronoun to be used. Especially with in Queer Studies - a field in which Bornstein plays a prominent roll.

For easy reference and both sides arguments, here is the talk page --Sanctusorium (talk) 03:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that the article be recast to avoid personal pronouns. Write about "Bornstein" and "Borstein's writing". Although Bornstein is entitled to use unusual pronouns, it would be a violation of neutrality in my opinion to write Bornstein's biography in Bornstein's own literary style. Cullen328 (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

exactly. we don't substitute lower case letters for upper case at E. E. Cummings just because he did. – ukexpat (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Kreayshawn

The article Kreayshawn had major problems with vandalism, saying that she is "white trash", etc. I've tried to revert all of them, but I might have missed some. It seems like this article has been heavily vandalised recently, so I just wanted to give a heads up, and recommend that maybe someone go through the sources and make sure that everything is correct. I reverted to an older version that looked like it had less vandalism, but I still found a few problems. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 07:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I have requested page protection, which has now been done. However, somebody still might want to go and verify all of the information in the sources, given the level of vandalism. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 08:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Dave Scully

It appears an unknown user has made defamatory/libelous posts about the son of the above. Although this has now been reversed by another user, it still shows up on the history page. Is there any way of permanently deleting the comments?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Scully&action=historysubmit&diff=436183130&oldid=436183028

Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Horacio Gutiérrez

Additional eyes on this one please. A new editor has been turning it into a PR-style promo piece and has been reverted several times, including twice by me today. – ukexpat (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Now semi-protected, thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 20:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

We need some input on a template change which occurred today. Without any prior discussion the "Template:Birth date and age" default was changed from "mf" to "df". this affects 100s of 1000s of articles all over wikipedia. Perhaps none more so than in this project. Let me add that I have no problem with the WP:BOLDness of this change but I do think that a) it should be changed back until b) a larger discussion comes to a consensus on this. The current discussion is here Template talk:Birth date and age#Current format. Thanks ahead of time for any input that members of this project can add. MarnetteD | Talk 21:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:CounterPunch#Moving_on

User:Poyani (contributions, edit count) restored contentious poorly sourced material to the talk page of CounterPunch, after I had redacted "[name removed], the Swedish feminist" to "[a] Swedish feminist".

My talk page discusses this event, and whether reliable sources name the complainant/victim: User_talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz#Rape_Complaintant_and_WP:BLP.

User:Poyani wrote that "I am going to mention this person's name on Julian Assenge's talk page. Feel free to file a report on BLP noticeboards. I want to test this.", so I alert BLPN now. User:Poyani added the name.

Please see the extensive discussion in your archives. 21:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Lifting a hand ... to help good, wise, or great, to bar that foul storm out, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Editor AndyTheGrump noted the BLP problems with publicizing victims' names at the talk page of Julian Assange. This seems to have been accepted. Relieved, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Rick Hill

There is an individual or individuals have been repeatedly posting partisan and opinion based, false, information and removing facts about this person from his term in Congress. I think it is improper to be using Wikipedia as a forum for political rhetoric and hope this can be resolved.

Thank you.

Feona Bessemer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Febessemer (talk • contribs) 22:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a biographical page that is being defamed with political rhetoric. Please remove the page or lock it after a consensus on it's content is reached. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Febessemer (talk • contribs) 22:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Your most recent reversion of sourced, relevant material was unwarranted. I've restored it and reworded the assertions to conform more closely to the source.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

An admin fully protected the article to January 1, 2012. Seems to me like a very long time for full protection, but, then again, I don't know how much leeway an admin has in these circumstances and whether it was justified.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that the editor who started this thread (1) has no other edits outside this page (see WP:SPA) and (2) was just blocked for edit warring on said page. At a glance this appears to be an effort either by Rick Hill, a supporter or his campaign to scrub the article of unsavory content. elektrik SHOOS 01:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Melissa Scott

article is poorly sourced — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.23.179.144 (talk) 22:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

To my eyes when I look, the article looks adequately sourced for beginners, however it will need more sources should it be expanded in the future. I would not consider this article an issue at the moment. JoeGazz ▲ 19:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Michael Lissack

This is Michael Lissack. The article about me keeps getting re-edited to suggest that I pled guilty to charges which I DID NOT. I have put the correct record (with a link to the law itself) back several times and another editor keeps removing the link and changing the language back to words which I find to be inaccurate, libelous and defamatory. HELP! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.203.10.194 (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Rather than starting an edit war, if you are the subject of an article and believe that it defames you, then go to Wikipedia:Libel for advice. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You've come to the right place! Please bear with us, as we're a herd of cats, a bunch of mostly anonymous volunteers with no direct relationship with the Wikimedia Foundation, which hosts the site. Speaking of anonymity, we have no way to verify that you're really M. Lissack (though no reason to doubt it either). Be that as it may, if there's an error to fix it usually gets taken care of one way or another. It's quite possible that one of the more experienced users or administrators here will look into this and deal with it. A few pointers in the meanwhile, or in case it doesn't happen promptly. Please review WP:NLT. I can certainly sympathize if you feel you've been libeled, but the Wikipedia community's self-protective mechanism when people start mentioning legal claims is to shut off discussion. Feel free to post messages and requests to individual users' talk pages (or email them, if they have email enabled on their page) - keeping in mind that legal threats are right out, and harsh talk usually makes things worse. There are a lot of content policies and guidelines about what should and should not be in the encyclopedia, and you've obviously found WP:BLP, the rule about poorly sourced information that may harm living people (a super-set of information that is simply unverifiable or unreliably sourced). You can also escalate the matter via the WP:OTRS system, which as far as I know works confidentially to resolve any problems if the usual rules break down. Hope this helps. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to say that I expected to agree with the complainer here, but I did a little research and discovered his comments are not exactly accurate. What New York law calls a "violation" is not the same as a parking ticket, but includes things that most places, I think, would call low-grade misdemeanours. You can get fifteen days in jail for them, according to another part of the source he cites.[5] That's not exactly what you'd get for overtime parking. I've also never heard of a parking ticket type crime where you got put on any sort of "probation" for a year where you had to stay away from your "victims", as this article reports.[6] Isn't there a lawyer from New York who hangs around Wikipedia who could chime in on this one? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The passage in question currently reads, "Later in 1998, Lissack was arrested in New York on behalf of the Manhattan District Attorney's office. He was charged with using the Internet to harass executives at Smith Barney by posting messages that solicited phone calls to the company's headquarters and, in some instances, to the homes of executives. [13] He later pled guilty to the civil violation [14] of second degree harassment [15] and acknowledged that he sent phony harassing e-mail to Salomon Smith Barney employees.[16][17][18][19]" and a new user account named MichaelLissack has stated, "As requested by several editors I now have created an account so that I can be tracked by my name. Many thanks for the exchanges I believe the article now fairly depicits (sic) events without defaming me." in this diff [7]. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I have done my best to take into account all the comments and still make things accurate. The parking ticket reference is out and there is just a straightforward reference to the civil violation and its case law. Per another comment I added the SEC sanction and provided both the link to the sanction itself and to the book chapter describing what happened. My issue was a simple one -- I never pled guilty to a crime and it is just hurtful and wrong to state that I did. Hopefully the full exchange has gotten all of this to a better place Michaellissack (talk) 23:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I have edited the passage about Lissack's guilty plea. First, I could find no support for him having pled guilty to a "civil violation". If I missed something, please show me. Second, the passage cited to primary sources for statutes for no good reason, as well as a blog for no good reason. I removed those references. I also added a sentence that states that Lissack was neither jailed nor fined based on his guilty plea, which was stated in one of the cited sources. As far as I can tell, the passage now conforms to the reliable sources that I left in.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI: There is a discussion about this same issue going on at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Michael_Lissack_article_legal_claims ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much for the pointer. I posted a comment at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

HELP If you read the statute (which is why I had cited it) the very last line states clearly that second degree harassment is a violation. see http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN0240.26_240.26.html the blog was cited as it explained very clearly that ALL VIOLATIONS are civilk not criminal see http://www.newyorkcriminallawyerblog.com/2009/02/criminal_law_101_defining_felo_1.html I have no problem witn taking responsibility for what I did but why does everyone here seem to insist that it is okay to imply I did much worse? I never pled guilty to any crime. Please put back the references which make that clear. (BTW the current rewrite otherwise reads much better than prior versions) Michaellissack (talk) 02:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I must thank everyone. The article reads much better and I have been treated fairly. AND in less than 24 hours!! Thanks Michaellissack (talk) 07:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Marc J. Lane

Article seems to have been written by subject and reads as an advertisement. Following many of the references ultimately leads back to subject's website. Article seems to violate Biographies of Living Persons standards and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wraythe (talk • contribs) 18:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Taking a look at this, I agree. The sources do ultimately take you back to their personal website and that does violate the 3rd Party Referencing policy. ~~I will nominate this for deletion.~~ Thank you for pointing this out. JoeGazz ▲ 19:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Can I get a second opinion on this one, looking again, the sources do seem to be semi-reliable and unrelated. Not sure on this. JoeGazz ▲ 19:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Glenn Leonard

I had previously posted the accurate information that Glenn Leonard is under a permanent federal injunction which prohibits him from commercial use of the name "Temptations" in any manner. I posted the case number and docket number of that permanent injunction, which is a matter of public record. Accurate reporting of a public record cannot be libelous. That posting was removed and the article now reports that Glenn Leonard currently performs as the "Temptations Revue" -- which appears to be a violation of the express terms of the permanent injunction.

Case Title: Williams v. SBE etc., et al. Court: U.S. District Court, Central District of California Judge: Hon. Gary A. Feess Case Number: 07-CV-07006-GAF Case filed: 2007 Permanent Injunction Entered: 2/5/2010 (Docket #328) Corrected Permanent Injunction Entered: 3/26/10 (Docket #339)

Full Text of Corrected Permanent Injunction:

Upon the settlement agreement and stipulation of Plaintiff OTIS WILLIAMS and Defendant GLENN LEONARD, entry of permanent injunction is GRANTED, as follows:

Defendant GLENN LEONARD, his employees, officers, agents, attorneys, successors and assigns, and all those acting in active concert and/or participation with any of them, who shall receive actual notice of this Order, are hereby PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from engaging in the following activities, or in any of them:

(1) Directly or indirectly infringing upon the goodwill associated with plaintiff’s service mark “The Temptations”;

(2) Directly or indirectly infringing upon the trade name “The Temptations” or using plaintiff’s trade name in any manner, including generally but not limited to advertising, promoting, performing, and/or exhibiting the services of defendant LEONARD or of anyone else that infringes said trade name;

(3) Engaging in any conduct that tends falsely to represent , or is likely to confuse, mislead, or deceive purchasers, defendant LEONARD’s customers, and/or members of the public believe, that the actions of defendant LEONARD, including the advertisement, promotion, performance, and/or exhibition of any performance or performers under the name “The Temptations,” or any similar incarnation of the name, are sponsored, approved, or licensed by plaintiff, or are in some way associated, affiliated, or connected with plaintiff and/or with “The Temptations”;

(4) Affixing, applying, annexing, or using in connection with the advertisement, promotion, performance, and/or exhibition of any performance or performers under the name “The Temptations,” or any similar incarnation of the name, a false description or representation, including words or false symbols tending to describe or represent such goods or services as being those of plaintiff;

(5) Diluting and/or infringing plaintiff’s trade name “The Temptations,” and/or damaging plaintiff’s goodwill, reputation, and business;

(6) Effecting assignments or transfers, granting purported licenses, forming new entities or associations, or utilizing any other means or device for the purpose of circumventing or otherwise avoiding the prohibitions set forth in paragraph (1) through (5), above.

Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ P. 54 (b), the court hereby makes an express determination that there is no just reason for delay, and expressly directs entry of this judgment of permanent injunction, forthwith.

The Court further Orders that the counterclaim of GLENN LEONARD on file herein is dismissed forthwith, with prejudice.

The Court further Orders that the separate related action entitled Live Gold etc., et al., v. UMG etc., et al. on file in this District Court as Case No. 09-cv-00417 is likewise dismissed forthwith, with prejudice.

This Order is without prejudice as to the joint and several obligation of GLENN LEONARD in respect to this Court’s previous finding of contempt and award of sanctions thereon as against the said Defendant GLENN LEONARD, in respect to which this Court retains jurisdiction.

The effective date of this corrected order is February 5, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 26, 2010 /s/ Gary A. Feess,

                        Judge of the United States District Court  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.118.138 (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The legal material is not really of any relevance to Wikipedia. However, the entire section concerning his current activity was completely unreferenced, so I've removed it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Kevin Garn

I'm not sure if this is the correct Noticeboard for this. If it isn't please forgive me and I will move it.

The Kevin Garn article is being used by User:Nottoohappy as a wp:Coatrack to attack the LDS Church. His edits have been reverted numbersous times, and he has been warned against these types of edits, but the user has been repeatedly reinserted his claims into that article such as "No action was taken as the sexual abuse of underage women is a tradition in the LDS Church". In tone and claims made, this also appears to have some kind of a relationship to the previous issues that occured on the West Ridge Academy article.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 19:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I am quite uncertain that the complaint to the LDS church is actually germane to the BLP, as it appears to only be there to reinforce the fact that Garn is a LDS member. Collect (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This article was crosslinked to Jon Grunseth, an unrelated politician who was involved in a nude hot tubbing scandal. I removed both links and have watchlisted both articles. Cullen328 (talk) 05:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

misti traya

No sources listed. reads like it was written by subject or subject's friend. contains trivia and not much noteworthy information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.184.240 (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

You're correct. It is completely unsourced, reads like a fan magazine, and has too much trivia. I've tagged it and corrected and removed some of the more egregious material.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Stacey Q

The Stacey Q article is extremely long, wordy, contains way too many obscure details, POV, and the subject of the article was known primarily in the 1980's for one hit single. I think other editors need to to trim a little fat off of it because it's overwhelmingly exhaustive and impossible to read and digest in it's current form. Thank you. 208.54.86.246 (talk) 04:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Tim Street

Article seems to have been written by subject, and reads as an advertisement. It contains much more information than would seem to be necessary when compared to other articles about similar persons, and does not seem to achieve the general notability guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosaley (talk • contribs) 21:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The writing is way too casual, but it would be helpful if you would (1) explain what detail is unnecessary and (2) why you haven't raised these issues on the Street Talk page rather than here as I see no real BLP issues. It also seems odd that your very first edit as a registered user is to post this message here. Any reason for that? I have done some copy edits, some small removals, etc. The article needs more work to be encyclopedic, but it's fairly well-sourced and I don't see a notability issue, although I haven't gone through and checked all the sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I have done a little work on it, in particular removing all the in-line external links, per WP:EL. – ukexpat (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Subrata roy

Regarding removal content "2G spectrum..." in Article "Subrata Roy"

Since the concerned matter is sub-judice, i.e. pending before court of law, any vexatious or biased comment or accusation causing damage to the image and reputation of an individual in lieu of any court verdict against the said individual, amounts to a criminal offence of Defamation under section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. All persons who draft, publish, or aid and assist in drafting or publishing any such defamatory content are liable to be prosecuted in the court of law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.113.103.104 (talk) 08:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The article in question was recently semi-protected (at my request) following repeated blanking of sourced content by this and other IP addresses. The IP address has been asked to discuss the disputed material on the talk page of the article, and has not done so (even now).

Instead, the IP address has posted a legal notice identical to the above, to the user talk pages of six editors including myself, plus the talk page of an IP address. Although this is slightly vague as legal threats go, the widespread distribution of it seems calculated to have a chilling effect on editing. Please would a passing admin deal with this IP address per WP:NLT. (A similar request has been made at ANI here).

Comments about the appropriateness of the disputed section are also welcome. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a legal thret to me, ask an admin to block. Off2riorob (talk) 10:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Tnxman307 has blocked the IP address for a week. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Great. Off2riorob (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Since i have contributed majorly on this article hence want to bring to the notice of eminent editor a line from policies related to BLP, it quotes - " Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist,..........and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2011

Chen Jue

I found it via wp:LIVINGDEAD on plwiki and I found death date, no ref, external links (even letters are unreadable for me "没有找到相关内容，您也许对下面内容感兴趣"), BLP notice and talkpage and death date. No google data but is is ulikely that she is alive (born in 1903). What should I do? Bulwersator (talk) 11:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed invalid interwiki, but still - what to do? Bulwersator (talk) 11:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Johnny Antonelli

Johnny Antonelli's skills DID NOT suddenly diminsh leading to his retirement. I spoke to him on 6/23/11, and this is what he stated: Mr. Antonelli retired at 32 years old because he grew tired of the traveling. He was offered a contract by the expansion New York Mets but turned it down. He simply did not want to travel anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maphfa (talk • contribs) 11:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The sentence about his retirement and another sentence in the article, both of which were negative, have been removed as unsourced. What Antonelli told you is also supported by a third-party source, so I've added it. The article is still largely unsourced (it's been tagged since July 2010), but I left in non-controversial material for the moment. It would be great if you could find some sources for what's in the article. Otherwise, unfortunately, unsourced parts will probably be removed.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Sean Kugler

Sean Kugler attended DeSales Catholic High School and graduated in 1984. The school is located in Lockport, NY and not in Geneva, NY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.101.222.130 (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Sayuki

DAJF is constantly reediting the profile of Fiona Graham - Sayuki - to write in that she is no longer working, and other things that are unfounded. As a living person, this affects her career and is unwarranted. Other editors have cited from newspaper and valid sources that she is, in fact, working. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.22.90.82 (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your change to the article for at least three reasons. First, you need to learn how to cite and edit. The formatting you introduced in the article was awful. Second, you need to take this content dispute to the article's Talk page. Third, as far as I can tell, the source you want to include about what Graham said in response is in the article without your edits. Now, there are other changes you're making that, frankly, I can't follow because of the way you word, format, and cite them. But the central issue, as you frame it, has been addressed. If it hasn't been addressed to your satisfaction, then take it to the Talk page and discuss it with the other editors rather than edit-war about it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Jose Antonio Vargas

Article subject revealed in an article that he was an "undocumented immigrant", his phrasing. An IP editor has repeatedly tried to recast this term, and have included BLP violations in edit summaries. Subject has not been charged with a crime in this regard, much less convicted. Another editor added a category that is similarly problematic. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a difference in the USA but it seems a bit of a fine point, perhaps unworthy of dispute over. Some papers are simply reporting illegal immigrant - MSBN for example - Pulitzer-winning journalist admits he's illegal immigrant - and civilliberty.com prefer Undocumented - Illegal Immigrants or Undocumented Immigrants? - I myself would suggest that as BLP requests us to write conservatively in regard to living people I would lean towards the less attacking terminology but its an emotive issue as you can see from the edit summaries. Off2riorob (talk) 07:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I also removed a LGBT category since the subject's sexual orientation isn't coverd in the current version. (That went over like a lead balloon) Maybe add it going forward if that is worked into the article in an approriate way. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

LGBT id has been taken care of by adding text and reinstating cats - thanks for bringing it to our attention. Tvoz/talk 23:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

← I agree with Rob here - BLP policy does indeed favor using less attacking, NPOV terminology, and "undocumented" is clearly less POV than "illegal". There are 2 IPs who seem to be single-purpose accounts editing with an agenda - see the edit summaries for these edits: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. Tvoz/talk 23:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

"Undocumented immigrant" is a legal state that doesn't exits in the United States, only in completely open immigration/no extradition countries such as Argentina. The term in the US is "illegal immigrant"...this is used by the US government and it's legal system. As for edit warring, I suggest that you don't start a call for an end to edits after reverting the article to your POV. That's an action in bad faith on Wikipedia. 173.15.206.101 (talk) 00:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

As you can see from the presented externals above there clearly is an option for both expressions. Off2riorob (talk) 00:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There's nothing wrong with the term "undocumented immigrant". It's often used in legal decisions as a descriptor. In any event, what requires that it be a correct legal term (or, as you put it, "legal state")? The term is used because it is supported by the source. Your belief that "illegal immigrant" is less POV is simply your opinion.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if he is charged and convicted with something illegal then we can go with the illegal phraseology, until then the cited and less attacking expression seems to sit better within WP:BLP guidelines. Off2riorob (talk) 00:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's Wikipedias place to redefine terms (now an illegal immigrant is only someone who is "charged and convicted..."?) or to create/support new euphemisms. It smacks of original research. As for the statement that the article supports the use of the term...the article you are using to support that was written by the subject. Slight conflict of interest. The numerous other articles on the subject by independent journalists who refer to him as an "illegal immigrant" were removed as sources from the article during editing because they didn't support "undocumented immigrant". If I opened someone's head with a drill saw and then wrote an article about it describing myself as an "undocumented brain surgeon", would you go with that as the descriptor?173.15.206.101 (talk) 01:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I have started an RfC at Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas#RfC: undocumented immigrant or illegal immigrant. Cunard (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, Bbb23, I see you removed nationality and ethnicity from his info box? This stuff is pretty standard fare. Could that be added back maybe after all the other "issues" settle down. I didn't want to revert you since its not a big deal. Anyways, cheers! --Threeafterthree (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Those two parameters should only be included if they add or clarify something. In Vargas's case, the infobox says he was born in the Philippines, so there's no need to say he's Filipino, either by nationality or by ethnicity.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Those two parameters should only be included if they add or clarify something is that from a MOS or guideline? It seems that those are included on alot of BLPs, not saying its right or wrong, just noting. They do seem to be relevant but maybe what do others think? Anyways, thanks, --Threeafterthree (talk) 05:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

There might be a guideline out there on this issue I haven't seen (there are so many :-) ). But as far as I'm concerned, it's just editorial judgment and common sense. It would be like saying in the body of the article, "Vargas was born in the Phillipines and is Filipino. He's also ethnically Filipino." As for the everyone-else-does-it argument, I never find that compelling - WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Antonio Arnaiz-Villena issue #2

This is a completely different issue from the one regarding this article already raised above, so I am listing it separately to avoid confusing the two. The subject of this page has published idiosyncratic theories about the Basque language. After (not very objectively) stating the theories, several people insist on adding this:

This thesis flatly contradicts basic Egyptological, Sumerian, Semitic, Indo-European, and Mesoamerican scholarship. Phoenician, Akkadian/Babylonian, Ugaritic, and Eblaite, for example, are transparently Semitic languages, and Arnaiz-Villena excludes the rest of the Semitic languages from his family; Egyptian and Berber along with Semitic have been demonstrated to be Afro-Asiatic, and generations of linguists have been unable to find a connection between Berber and Basque or Afro-Asiatic and Basque; and Hittite is widely acclaimed as a key in the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European, which Arnaiz-Villena acknowledges is completely unrelated to Basque.

It is a strong opinion that the subject's theory is bunk, in the voice of the article, with no citation. I tried to calmly explain on the talk page that opinions have to be sourced, and that negative opinions about living people really really have to be sourced. But all I'm getting is argument like that the opinion is "uncontroversial among linguists". Can someone please explain the rules to these people? Zero^talk 10:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should explain better which points you think to be unduly unsourced, because after reading Trigaranus comment it seems that all are obvious things, but maybe I missunderstood.

As I see it, it is af if someone (call him Mr. X) writes that sun orbits around Earth and Mars around the Moon (yes,as absurd as that) and ask to provide references to stating that Mr. X's theories are absurd. A reference for the Earth orbiting the Sun, another for the Sun is a star, etc.... Do you think a reference would be necessary?

You can search the wikipedia, in the articles of any of these languages if there is any controversy on whether Phoenician is a Semitic language, on whether Champollion deciphered Egyptian hyeroglyphs, whether Hittite is an Indo-European language, whether Hammburabi's monolite is a legal corpus....

If hypothetical Mr. X wrote that "Romeo and Julieta" is not a play, but a mistical text in Basque on the cult to the Great Mother, would be necessary a reference? Because this is the level of absurdity we are talking of.Dumu Eduba (talk) 13:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a very big error in your analogy. Almost everyone on Earth knows that Mars doesn't orbit the Moon, but it would be a big surprise if even 1 in 10,000 people know anything at all about the origins of Basque. People who come to this article and see a claim about it are entitled to ask "who says?". If it is all so obvious and well-known, it should be a piece of cake to source it! But that is not the reason I brought it to this page, rather than to WP:NORN. It is not permitted for editors to insert their own unsourced opinions into articles, especially negative opinions about living people. Why is that so hard to understand? Zero^talk 14:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

My point of view, is that everybody can use Wikipedia itself for such obvious questions. You can add internal links on Semitic and Indo-European.

No, that is a misunderstanding of Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not have any evidentiary authority of its own but only reports what "reliable sources" say. Of course we can link one Wikipedia article to another, but we cannot use one Wikipedia article as a source for another, see WP:V#Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it. Zero^talk 03:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess you are right. In any case, I think my idea is not exactly that, but that in these cases is not a use of Wikipedia as "source", but as a reference for further details if needed (always from the viewpoint that in linguistics it is something very obvious) were bibliographyh and details are included. But I suppose it is rather a subjective difference, so, no problem. Dumu Eduba (talk) 09:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW you can see here another one of the puppets Iberomesornix, and see their "constructive" style.

A personal observation.Why users which are Arnaiz-Villena (or, at best, persons very very very close to him) are allowed not only to edit his own biography, but also once and again to make edit warrings and to launch personal attacks, insults and even criminal accusations that even had to be deleted from the page history?. Quousque tandem...? It is illogical to ask to carry out ALL the rules? He is taken advantage of tolerance, and that only causes more problems and wastes of time. Dumu Eduba (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Paleolithic cave wall signs contradict much of the linguists dogma and even dates of Americas peopling.Should you “linguists”(lawyers)try to defamate and destroy Genevieve von Petzinger? [17]Iberomesornix (talk) 13:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, Zero: In that case, in order for that statement (the 'flatly contradicts') to find your approval, we need to add a reference for every language family mentioned therein? I really want you to be aware of the fact that AAV's linguistic theories are not theories but rather absurd fancies perfectly oblivious and actively hostile to evidence and academic refutation. A linguistic theory undoubtedly deserves to be weighed against the available evidence (which often supports it), and an article that does not give it due credit would be incomplete; but these are ramblings covered in superficially respectable coating, by a man who is as proficient in linguistics as the linguists who oppose him are in genetics. It is bogus, irrespective of it coming from a living person, and although it claims to be, it is not linguistics. Therefore I really do suggest what I have suggested on the article's talk page: to link to one academic page presenting what debate on language families there actually is in scholarly debate, and to leave it at that. Trigaranus (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Trigaranus,have you ever read any of the A-V books?They are full of references.Transcription texts are taken from somebody else. You are against A-V without any objective justification,even telling lies about legal affaires.Are not you just a dedicated linguist?.Your opinion togethet with those of Dumu Eduba,Akerbeltz and Kwamikagami should not be allowed into this WP:BLPIberomesornix (talk) 15:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Ibe, I have. And let us make a pact right here and now: I am not gonna meddle in genetics and try to convince you that DNA is actually made of microscopic strands of candyfloss, and you are not gonna try and tell me that the jolly word-matching you or AAV do on the side is linguistics. I am sorry, but it's been read, it's been measured, and it's been found a pile of utter rot and a good old waste of everybody's time. I would not put it that harshly if you weren't so obstinately claiming that it has any linguistic value whatsoever. (And for the love of language and anyone reading your comments, please hit the space bar right after you've pressed the comma or period keys.) This is not about the very slim chance that any reputable linguist might be convinced to throw 150 years of diachronic linguistics on the trash because AAV noticed the magic of homophonic or vaguely assonant syllables across language groups, but about Zero's request that we ought to quote the academic literature to label every single sausage in a factory entirely dedicated to the production and distribution of baloney. Trigaranus (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

We can make pacts .I do not mind your keen persecution.What is SPI?

Trigaranus,you have forgotten the work of John Bengtson,the late Sergei Anatolyevich Starostin and Merritt Ruhlen.All of them relate Basque language with Dene Caucasian languages including Basque[[18]].I will add the proper information these week.However,this is not a matter of a BLP ,thus I will put most of the staff in one or two lines:those supporters and those who are against.In addition,most of what A A-V has proposed had already been proposed before without such a detail,i.e.: [19].This is because I do not believe that you are against A-V because his Basque language work,but because another unknown matter,particularly after your sudden twist to defamate A-V with spurious legal matters. A-V is respected by all geneticians.He has written many papers (more than 320)on it and you focus his BLP on just 2 papers.Scientific reviewers and A-V geneticists fellows have accepted all his work ,except Palestinian paper and Greek paper in WP (both of them were peer reviewed,also).We must emphasize that the main results of both papers have been repeated by other laboratories (as specified on the Greek one in WP,but not with Palestinian one).I will have to summarize this also and put Mike Hammer and other results in Palestinians.(COPY)Symbio04 (talk) 23:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Can we have some attention from uninvolved administrators please? Zero^talk 01:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Trigaranus,A-V methodology is explained here in short[20].Usually,linguists vary methodologies according to each case and they are not critizised(by linguits).I have been asked to request if you could send me one of your references in linguistics for doing a criticism,as an exercise.Symbio04 (talk) 11:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Much easier. Here is the link to the Long Rangers web and the MOther Tongue journal HERE, where linguists as Starostin or Bengtson (who you have mentioned as your collegues) have a prominent role. Would you be so nice as to quote a link on this pages and journals were your alleged linguistic researches are quoted as something serious? Otherwise the conclusion is obvious: even the Long Rangers consider your "researches" useless.

BTW the scientific level of your usko methodology is just the same that to sequence DNA using a ouija, you now A....T.....G...C (and then claiming that there is a conspiracy because the ouija method is cheaper and the industry wanst to keep its money....., and that geneticist are no scintific people, but closed to new methods). Is it now crystal clear which are your merits?

But of course you already know all this, I guess you are filling the wikipedia with complains only to say to your friends and customers "you see, I am a great scientific, like Copernicus, like Darwin, but there is a conspiracy of evil people.. look the wikipedia how am I libeled.... and my complains". You fill the pages with complains as an smokescreen, to make the discussion glibberish and hard to read. So you can say that there are no scientific criticism but personal attacks. Just a mockery. Dumu Eduba (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

John Paulson

About a year ago someone created a redirect for the article Paulson & Co to the BLP John Paulson. [21] This seems inappropriate to me. If others agree and will advise me on how to undue the redirect, I will re-create the Paulson & Co article and remove info about the company that is currently in the BLP. Comments? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Note that Paulson & Co (no period) does not exist as an article, whereas Paulson & Co. (with period) is the redirect. If the latter is the appropriate title for the article about the company, just edit that page to remove the redirect code (the #REDIRECT [[John Paulson#Hedge fund]] stuff) and create the article there. – ukexpat (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ukexpat, I'll do that and give you a shout if I get stuck. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Craig Thomson (footballer)

Mr Thomson is a Scottish footballer who was recently placed on the sex offenders register after some questionable online conversations with underage girls. My question is, is there too much about it in the article? Specifically, should it be mentioned in the lede? Thanks. doomgaze (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it from the lead as I think it is rather undue weight. However, the section discussing it seems to me to be justified, given the wide coverage and the impact on his career and on the club. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion it belongs in the lead. It's one of the most significant events in his career. WP:LEAD says the lead should "summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies". Christopher Connor (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's fair comment - a common rule of thumb on lead sections is that they should contain one sentence for each major section of the article itself. And the sentence in this case was quite conservatively worded. However, I fear that including it in the lead because of it being "one of the most significant events in his career" is actually recentism. The reliable sources that have been cited, point out that he has not been fired from his club precisely because the club may want to recoup their investment by selling him on to whichever other club wouldn't have problems with taking him; and that the real value is decided by what he does "on the grass" (however nauseating that thought may be). I don't know much about football, but maybe this is just a hiatus of a few weeks in his career; equally it could be the end of his career. I don't think the lead should characterise him as (footballer+sex offender), rather than (footballer)+(sex offender section later in bio) until some of the recentism wears off.

Incidentally, BBC News mentioned more problems for him, on their front page, today/yesterday.

Doomgaze may well be able to be the deciding vote on this :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Lisa Raitt

I'm not well-informed about Canadian politics, but my preliminary impression after reading the article is that is seems to place undue weight on several controversies that reflect negatively on Lisa Raitt. Cullen328 (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Andy Cave

The entry on Andy Cave is a piece that - IMHO - is a summing up all the positive and good about this climber (must be said, he's a person of some name). The history shows it's been built up by only very few editors, and especially User:Elaine bull solely focus on this article. It's a [self-]promotional article in essence and as I cant find the correct template [which I'm always having troubles with], I'd like to know whether insertion of the following one; {{vfd-sp}} would be correct, or whether you'd suggest another template. [And does one stuff that on the page or on the talk page?] Qwrk (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Andy Cave is notable. Threeafterthree has done a good job trimming the puffery. The article could be expanded - reliable sources are readily available. I've got it on my watchlist and will try to chip in when I've got time. Cullen328 (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

appasami

Mr. G. Appasami was born in Pondicherry, India in 1980. He received his Master of Science degree in Mathematics, Master of Computer Applications degree and Master of Technology degree in Computer Science and Engineering from Pondicherry University, Pondicherry, India. He received his Master of Philosophy in Computer Science from Alagappa University, Karaikudi, India.Currently he is faculty in Dr. Pauls Engineering College, Villupuram and affiliated to Anna University of Technology Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. He is a life member of Indian Society for Technical Education, Computer Society of India, International Association of Computer Science and Information Technology (Singapore) and International Association of Engineers. He has published more papers in national/international journals and conference proceedings. His Area of interests includes Network Security, image processing and web technology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.102.195.186 (talk) 08:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Good for him. May I ask what is the point of posting that here? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

pasquale conte

much of the information in your article with regard to pasquale conte are unsubstantiated allegations and defamatory. I believe most of the information that is incorrect has been placed by his younger brother who his is bitter towards. pasquale conte jr. you may contact me to clarify anything you wish at [removed email] Other websites with erroneous information are not considered to be valid sources. passing along information you know to be untrue does not validate it in any way . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.75.11.61 (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The sources seem to be New York Times articles. Are they being misused in any way? You have to be very specific. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Be more critical! Is a "free website" at http://members.fortunecity.com/ a reliable source for a BLP saying that a currently living person was part of a "crew" that was "heavily involved in heroin trafficking"? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Update - trimmed slightly. More eyes welcome. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes you're right of course but it sounded like he meant a lot more than that. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair point, but the article is a disaster zone. Basically if someone has been guilty of xyz and has therefore appeared in the New York Times (a lot), then we should not be assuming they are somehow therefore also guilty of abc and def etc, if it can be slipped into the article quietly while the NYT refs are still around.

(Of course, we might also assume that ghi and jkl have also happened, but that's not the point.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I shouldn't respond if I'm this lazy eh? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan Rhys Meyers

I was hoping some other editors could look at the last paragraph of this article regarding recent events. Three sources are cited but when you follow the sources, they use very vague language like "suspected" or it was the opinion of those present.... Plus the sources are not very high quality to begin with. It seems like the report of a rumor. Is it sufficient for BLP? Bluebonnet460 (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted a huge wad of less-than-relevant information from the later parts of the article.. although whether I've dealt with your concerns, is unclear. As well as that, the "Career" section needs some close examination as well. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to the "suspected" suicide attempt stuff at the very end.Bluebonnet460 (talk) 01:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that paragraph, too, is only superficially "well-sourced", and needs more work. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Florian Witulski

Florian Witulski has made no significant or original contribution to his field. He is purely an inexperienced citizen journalist desperate for attention. His biography should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.33.129 (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

You are entitled to your personal opinion. I see an in-depth profile on CNN's website, and other references are available, so perhaps he is notable after all. Cullen328 (talk) 04:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Stonefield (band)

There is a minor dispute at the above article. The article at present gives the hometown of the band, a very small town in Australia. This is independently and reliably sourced and has been publically released on several occasions (see [22] and [23]). In my opinion, the information is reliably sourced, encyclopedic in nature and non-controversial. Rowie235 (talk · contribs) has removed the name of the town on several occasions, citing his/her (good faith) concern that it is an invasion of privacy and may put members of the band at risk, considering their age (the youngest is 12) and the size of the town. See here for more detail on his/her concerns. The advice/mediation of a third party would be useful. Cheers, Mattinbgn (talk) 03:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Their claim of "illegal to post information" seems very unlikely to be accurate. However, their concerns are understandable, given the place is so small - more a village than a town really. Would the article really lose much by just saying they are "...from a small town in rural Victoria"? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It would have been better to have the discussion you're having with Rowie235 on the Talk page of the article rather than on your and Rowie's Talk pages. That said, I don't see any legitimate basis for withholding the hometown of the band if it's published in reliable sources. Rowie appears to have a conflict as a "personal friend of the band members". Also, even Rowie doesn't say the band members don't want the information on Wikipedia. He says only that he talked to them about it. I also don't get his contention that it would be "illegal" to post such information. In any event, I favor inclusion of the information. If one of the band members wants to complain directly about privacy issues (although it's kind of hard to believe they would so so), they can do so themselves rather than through a conduit.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

"It would have been better to have the discussion you're having with Rowie235 on the Talk page of the article" Agree entirely and having the discussion spread over two talk pages and here does not help either. Next time, I will apply a bit of forethought. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 04:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the time taken to discuss this matter. I will contact the band and ask them to resolve it either through their own means or through my account (they don't have a wiki account).--Rowie235 (talk) 05:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The cat is out of the bag, if it was a problem for them then they would not have given the information to news.com.au or would have asked them to redact the information after it was posted, Wikipedia is not censored and as this information is widely published in reliable sources, there seems no reason to excluded it from the article. It does not matter what the band want to appear here, they have no right of veto. Mtking (talk) 06:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an uninvolved party (I put the town in in the first place with a good reliable source and repeatedly put it back when it was being removed without explaination) but I still think it belongs. It has been widely reported, including by major reputable news organisation who don't like getting in trouble by illegally publishing information about minors. Wikipedia articles should be based on what is published in independent reliable sources, not based on the preferred version of parties connected with the subject. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

There are times when we remove published information out of respect for a subject's privacy. See WP:BLPPRIVACY. The problem I have here is that the article subjects are not even the ones directly complaining. We often have to take a person at their word when they say they are the subject of an article, but here we have an editor who is saying he is in touch with the subjects. When he says they don't have a wiki account, my response is so what. They can post here even as an IP if they wish, or they can easily create an account, to the extent it matters. Frankly, I just don't get it, and I don't think Rowie has established sufficient justification for non-inclusion.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Rowie235, please ask the families or representatives of the persons concerned (assuming the persons concerned are minors), to contact the Wikimedia Foundation volunteers through the email link at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#How to complain to the Wikimedia Foundation, if they still have concerns. They should mention that the subject was discussed at the "Biographes of Living Persons Noticeboard", and explain what their concerns are.

Personally, I am still very sympathetic to the stated concerns, given the age of some of the band members, the level of hype, and the size of the community, but that is the best way to take things forward from here I think. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I confess I'm not particularly sympathetic because they are a "commercial" band, not just a group of young people. However, if they directly complain to Wikimedia and ask that the town name be removed, I would be in favor of honoring the request because it's a small request and the town name is really not necessary to the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Include hometown. The information doesn't fall under WP:BLPPRIVACY or any other portion of WP:BLP. And given the abundant sources for the information—the bulk of which are reliable sources that appear to have received the information directly from the band—it seems impossible to conclude that they want the information to be private unless they (and not some random individual who claims to know them) specifically request it to be. ^Bongo_matic 14:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

joseph banzhaf III

The Joe Banzhaf III article, absurdly, ends in 1981. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.202.95 (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming you mean John F. Banzhaf III, which doesn't "end" in 1981, anyway. Maybe you could give us just a bit more information as to what you think the problem is.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The John F. Banzhaf III article neglected his contributions to cooperative game theory and fair-representation jurisprudence in the USA: I added a quick survey by cannibalizing other articles. It also lacked assessments for even the law project. It discusses events well after 1981.

Unfortunately, it has a lot of criticism of Banzhaf with detailed quotations from corporate sponsored "libertarian" critics. However, there are no balancing positive comments. (I was surprised that my friends in public interest law had heard of this game theorist, and then they told me that he was one of the foremost legal architects against second-hand smoking in the USA! This article calls for expansion! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

John Witherspoon (actor)

Very poorly written and no citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.249.31 (talk) 02:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The article has some references, called footnotes in this article. It also has a number of external links, some of which may be suitable as references. You are free to edit the article to improve the writing style. The subject seems notable, and I didn't see BLP violations in a quick review. Cullen328 (talk) 04:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Raymond Hoser

Hello. The above article, while reasonably well referenced, appears to have a less-than-neutral tone to it. The general theme is negative and as such I think it could use some other eyes on it to ensure neutrality. All help appreciated. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Chris Gregg

Firstly would question his notability for Wikipedia inclusion. Secondly article seems to be self-promotional, particularly regarding his current company. Suggest deletion. regards, jwdd27

Regarding notability, looking at the article's sources, he seems to meet WP:BASIC, he was involved in several high profile cases and the Telegraph says "lauded as one of the country's finest detectives". The article doesn't seem promotional to me. It just follows what the sources say e.g. "a major crime adviser to a leading forensic service provider company". Sean.hoyland - talk 18:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Steve Forrest

In his Bio, Steve Forrest was killed by Matt Dillon twice....once as "Mannon" and once again n the Gunsmoke movie, again as Mannon.

But, he was also killed one other time, 3 times in total, in "The Brothers". He Played the part of Cord Wrecken, shot by Matt Dillin in the Long Branch as he threatened Miss Kitty.

Bud Weisbrod — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.156.232.166 (talk) 20:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to add that information, as long as you cite a reference to a reliable source that verifies the claim. Cullen328 (talk) 04:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Michael Cherney and Wikileaks

Another editor wants the following information in this (already controversial) article:

Several leaked US diplomatic cables from the US Embassy in Sofia, Bulgaria, mention Cherney. One describes him as a "notorious Russian crime figure" as well as a "Russian mobster". Continuing, it suggests that Cherney has "maintained influence over a number of companies by transferring ownership to Batkov" including PFC Levski Sofia and the Standardt newspaper. A second cable on the influence of Bulgarian organised crime in the cournty's football teams claims that Todor Batkov,the President of PFC Levski Sofia is "the proxy and front-man for the infamous Russian-Israeli businessman Michael Cherney". A third cable reports that Cherney "was expelled from Bulgaria in 2000 on the grounds of threatening national security".

In my view, the cables are either primary or secondary sources (depending on your point of view) and they lack context, including who exactly is making the accusations and why. I tried to keep the information out of the article, but the editor claims that other articles use these cables. See our Talk discussion here.

If these sources are not reliable for this purpose (my view), then we have clear BLP violations. I'd like other editors to take a look at this.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Gregor_Robertson_(politician)

An IP posted an RfC at Talk:Gregor_Robertson_(politician)#RFC:_negative_slant.3F regarding possible BLP issues in article Gregor_Robertson_(politician). (I'm not the RfC creator: I'm just cross-posting here to get more publicity). --Noleander (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Rajiva Wijesinha

The article on Rajiva Wijesinha has been maliciously edited on 6/24/2011. In the second paragraph first line the word president has been replaced with "dictator". In para 5 line 1 the word "transvestite" has been inserted to describe Rajiva. These are obviously libelous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.152.248 (talk) 03:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the unsourced negative edits. You can remove this type of edit yourself. Cullen328 (talk) 04:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

John F. Banzhaf III

A second opinion is needed of the article, following my copy-editing. (I have asked also for help at WikiProject Law.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Martin Halstead

It has a weird history, which I can't completely follow. Putting aside a mistaken speedy delete, it was nominated for deletion in 2006 and deleted. It was recreated sometime later and then nominated for deletion in 2010 and kept (for some reason, at least the way I do it, the 2010 discussion doesn't show up in the public logs for the page). I was going to nominate it now for deletion until somehow I saw the 2010 keep, and I don't see that enough has changed since then that the result would be different. Of course, other editors might agree with me, but I doubt the odds are in my favor.

I think it's a really silly article about a a lightweight con man who attracted media attention only because of failed attempts to start airlines that, uh, never got off the ground. Along the way, he engaged in chicanery, but even there, he didn't do enough to warrant criminal prosecution. All in all it's a non-story that, for reasons that are unfathomable to me, the British press enjoyed reporting about. He's not really notable for much of anything. Plus, the same editor who created the Halstead article created the Varsity Express article, one of the failed ventures. Long story short (I know, too late), I don't feel like spending time working on an article that I don't think belongs here in the first instance.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to refer to this living person as a "con-man" on any page in Wikipedia unless there's a reliable source to back it up. In any case, if the British press publish articles about him, and that constitutes "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" then he is notable. There's no concept of "really notable". If you think the article doesn't belong on Wikipedia then nominate it for deletion, and make the argument there. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Bill Casselman

I am William Gordon Casselman. ^{[details removed]}

Upon discovering a biographical Wiki item about myself and my works,that contained faulty entries, incomplete publication lists, various mistakes, I corrected them, only to have all the errors re-inserted.

The first report suggested strongly that I was either dead or no longer writing. That is deleterious to my career. That is one of the three requiasites to launch libel.

As the Wiki entry was called a biography of Bill Casselman, I added a publicly attested short biography from my website and from the author copy of all my third-party published books. But some arrogant editor, without so much as emailing me, has removed all the information I added, plus RE-INSERTED his or her mistakes. One of the things I did was merely put in the date of publication of all my books. Those dates were removed.

The utter snotty no-knowingness of the editor who first wrote and then removed all my corrections simply takes my breath away. I would ask you to insert all the edits I painstakingly inserted into a faulty biographical sketch that strongly hinted I was sitting somewhere drooling in a padded Alzheimer's chair, when in fact I am busy correcting my 15th book for American publication.

Therefore what your bizarre Wiki rules suggest is that some editor who has never contacted me knows more about my life than I do!!!

Out-fucking-rageous.

Please put my corrections back into the Wiki piece.

Bill Casselman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.12.163.48 (talk • contribs)

The main issue here is that as the subject of the article, you would have a conflict of interest. The second problem is of course that we have no way of knowing that you are who you say you are. Any can write in here and claim to be William Casselman. How would we know? I didn't go over the exchange (or lack of exchange) you've had with other editors, so I don't know if they handled this well. The best thing for you to do (and I'll assume you are William Casselman here), is to discuss the issue on the article talk page. Let other editors know what changes you would like, what corrections need to be made. It always helps to include details about published items about you so things can be verfified. Basic biographical information can be gleaned from the published author profiles in your books but because of copyright restrictions we can't publish those biographical blurbs in their entirety. I'm assuming the copyright for that would be held by your publisher. It's better to list what corrections need to be made and where that info is published. Then an editor with no connection to you can make those changes. I realize this seems overly bureaucratic and can be frustrating but do understand that when we all edit anonymously, even if we claim to be someone, no one can know for sure. If ever there is an issue that needs to be addressed, the article talk page is the best place to do it. If there is something in the article that is seriously libelous, I can assure you that anyone is free to remove it without prejudice. Just remove it and explain in the edit summary that what was written is libelous and unsourced. Unsourced biographical information on living people is serious and violates WP:BLP. freshacconci talktalk 14:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, legal threats are prohibited on Wikipedia. Your "launch libel" comment above is such a threat.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I would question whether this person is notable. Are there any sources which make him so? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Freedom Flotilla II

A little while ago I scanned through our Freedom Flotilla II article, where I chanced upon the follow -

The flotilla is represented by a coalition of 22 NGOs and coordinated by Amin Abu Rashid, who Dutch media and Israeli Minister Yuli Edelstein accused of being a senior Hamas operative

The following two articles were given as references.

JPost Telegraaf

The issue is, the JPost cites the Telegraaf as the source of its information, while the Telegraaf cites an unnamed "intelligence source". So basically the information is coming from some nameless, faceless spokesperson for the Israeli government.

Thinking this was clearly inappropriate, I deleted it, only to have my revision undone by User:Epeefleche, who insists that since Telegraaf and JPost are WP:RS, the material is actually "well sourced".

I think it should be relatively obvious to anyone who examines the sources that keeping the material as is makes WP a mouthpiece for some unknown "intelligence source", which is pretty clearly not good practice.

On another note, following my edit and Epee's undo, Epeefleche actually started a Amin Abu Rashid page. Epee has a rather long history of tendentious editing on Israel-Palestine articles. Anyone feel that Epee's creative manipulation of sources might rise to the level of arbitration? NickCT (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems extremely premature to claim arbitration issues, more like discussion issues. Lets have a look at the sources and if they are weak then improve and attribution. I think? Hamas is an illegal organization and we should not be asserting someone is a member just by some weak accusation. (disclaimer - I have not looked at the content in question yet) note - I looked at Amin Abu Rashid and removed the opinionated claims of being in a terrorist organization. All of which go straight back to Israeli intelligence. Off2riorob (talk) 14:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

There's relevant discussion on the talk page for this article, as Rob noticed. ( link/snapshot ) – OhioStandard (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I find NickCT's above aspersion and personal attack on me to be uncivil. I would ask that he retract it. I've never been sanctioned for tendentious editing in the I-P area. He has. For him to seek to intimidate other editor's in this fashion, with untrue defamatory aspersions, is uncalled for, and on the wrong line of wp:civil. I would have hoped that after his block for an inappropriate personal attack in this area, he would have desisted from such behavior.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as the substance is involved, Nick mis-represents it. Included in the referencing (he mis-states the number of references as well) is a quote to an Israeli Minister. That is even apparent from the text of what Nick quoted. And yet, Nick mis-represent this, writing that it is attributed only to a "faceless spokesperson for the Israeli government". That's clearly not the case. As far as Hamas being "terrorist", I don't believe that that was an assertion in either article; nor does it appear to be a settled matter -- for example, the United Nations and nations such as Russia, Turkey, and Switzerland do not classify it as a terrorist organization.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

adding child abusers to LGBT people categories

Resolved

– reported account blocked as a block evading account by User:Dougweller and all the accounts edits were reverted

Sword of St. Michael (talk · contribs) has added a number of catholic priests and others who committed child abuse to categories such as Category:LGBT people from Australia and Category:LGBT people from Ireland. While these individuals abused boys, I don't see anything in the articles to indicate that they identified as homosexual. This seems like an attempt to use wikipedia to make a point. The user has been doing something similar by labeling certain sources he doesn't like as Jewish[24]. GabrielF (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, that old chestnut, we clearly don't do that, although I can see where the user is coming from it is undue weight to an uncited opinion of bias, if such a claim of bias is cited and well known/reported in reliable externals (which I don't think this is but if sources are provided I would consider it) there could be a case made for some kind of inclusion at some point in an article but not blindly in a leading way like that. Off2riorob (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

As regards the adding of sexual criminals to a cat, that is also not something we do here as I have seen. A person committing a rape can go into the rapist cat but a person committing a gay rape doesn't belong in the LGBT cats as they would require self identification with that group as per WP:BLPCAT - or whichever that guideline is. Off2riorob (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not only do they have to self-identify as being gay, but their sexual orientation has to be related to their notability. Otherwise, it violates WP:BLPCAT. I think it's virtually impossible to argue that the sexual orientation of an abuser of same-sex children is related to his notability. If that were so, then the sexual orientation of heterosexual child molesters would be related to their notability. The categories should be removed.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I think almost all the acconts edits have already been reverted. Off2riorob (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

note - this User:Sword of St. Michael account also appears to be making the same edits as this currently blocked one month IP address 90.212.77.171 - perhaps a word with the blocking admin. Off2riorob (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Good catch. I sent the blocking admin a note. GabrielF (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, very good catch. Quack quack. Blocked indefinitely. He clearly doesn't like Jews either. Dougweller (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Off2riorob and Dougweller. Looks like there are a few account edits that haven't been reverted. One is to John Chrysostom diff - I don't know enough about the topic to evaluate this edit. The other is to Nathan Bedford Forrest [25]. In this case he replaces "a reign of terrorism" with "an extra-parliamentary campaign" when referring to the Ku Klux Klan. Terrorism is a very loaded word, but I think its more apt to describe the Klan than "extra-parliamentary opposition", which reads like whitewashing history to me. GabrielF (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note GabrielF - as the user clearly has NPOV issues and was evading an editing restriction and should not have been editing at the time and the edits are questionable in regards to their beneficialness I have reverted those articles to the position they were in prior to the users contributions. Off2riorob (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Bernard-Henri Lévy

Recently, the subject Bernard-Henri Lévy has been under attack in the MSM and on blogs because he has stood by his friend, Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Somebody in a major blog is citing this article and suggesting BHL is a fraud.

I find a great part of this article is biased and downright nasty. The subsection, "criticism" quotes two author and puts in quotation marks a quite negative statement. Although the book is not referenced, a quick search of Amazon reveals that the English translation is not available, at least in the USA. I have not checked the UK.

Since I am a newcomer to WIKI editing and not an expert in this field, can an experienced editor review this article? I have neither the chops nor the facility to do this on my own.

I do not know the subject and have no financial or personal interest thereon. PietrH (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

- Bernard-Henri_Lévy#Criticisms - I trimmed the long term uncited and made a couple of small writes for weight, seems a bit less undue now. I also have no financial or personal interest thereon (I just wanted to say that) Off2riorob (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Ismail Darbar

Person is posting material based on articles that cite rumors and anonymous sources. I removed once and has been re-added. I do not want to start an edit war. [26]] also on [27] ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 03:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed sections of the article that seemed to be based on rumors and gossip. It seems that there is press attention in India about attempts to manipulate this article. Any editor knowledgeable about reliable sources in Bollywood should take a look and help out. Cullen328 (talk) 07:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Please read this article in The Times of India to see how this BLP issue on Wikipedia is being discussed by a major newspaper. Cullen328 (talk) 07:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Lewinsky (neologism)

I deleted an article that appears to violate WP:BLP and blocked the editor who created it, an account created today with only this one article as edits. Please weigh in here. Dreadstar ☥ 23:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I've added the article name to the heading. Will Beback talk 23:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Now at AFD - Off2riorob (talk) 03:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Ferial Haffajee

- ferial haffajee biography wiki incl facebook wiki profile

Hello I am trying to make a change to the biography of Ferial Haffajee. I have already amended her wikipedia profile but can't seem to edit her facebook wiki profile. It describes her as 'non-white' which she objects to. I need to change the 'non-white' to Black. How do I do this so that it changes all wiki linked profiles of her, not just the wikipedia one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saritaranchod (talk • contribs) 06:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Many different websites choose to mirror wikipedia's content, meaning that they copy the content onto their own site. They are free to do so, under certain conditions, under the terms of wikipedia's license. However, wikipedia really has no control over what version of a given article a particular mirror uses. I'd expect that facebook and other mirrors periodically update to the latest versions of wikipedia and I think your best bet is to wait for them to do so. I don't think there's anything that can be done to *make* them use a different version. See Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks for more information. GabrielF (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Shahid Malik

Shahid Malik (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch is suffering from a long standing dispute by multiple parties and really needs a look though from neutral parties. Brandon (talk) 09:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Larry Graham

The Larry Graham article states that Graham converting Prince to Jehova's Witness narrowed his world view and ruined his career... the following sentence: "Larry Graham introduced Prince to his brand of religion and Prince has never been the same since. In fact, the music he has released signals the end of a career that had had so much potential. Larry Graham should no longer be a member of the New Power Generation," is clearly opinion and is not backed up by references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.74.26.3 (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Those sentences were added to the article today. You're correct that they shouldn't have been added, per our policy on original research and I've removed them. GabrielF (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

John Varty

Certain editors purge my contributions to John Varty. Their contributions are defamatory Tigeralert (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

After seeing this request, I look at the article and the revision history, and saw many unsourced negative claims, and editing warrig. So I stubbed the article to remove the unsourced or poorly sourced content, and protected the article to stop the edit war. This article need some experienced editors to help find reliable sources and do a rewrite. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 14:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Article is fully protected for a few more days, and after stubbing could use a little development by interested wikipedians - I have watchlisted it. Off2riorob (talk) 03:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy Gallinagh

I find the opening paragraph disgusting. Andy Gallinagh has never been referred to as 'the spastic one' nor shows qualities of being down syndrome.

I find it appalling that down syndromes have now been referred to as 'spastics'- in this article. This statement is dishonest and is a complete violation of Andy Gallinaghs' profile.

It is a disgrace that this has been given such easy access to world wide viewing.

Andy Gallinagh is in the light of fame and I appreciate that all press/opinions/statements, will differ in style and positivity. However, this prejudice statement not only affects peoples feelings but is invasion of Andy Gallinaghs' rights to honest press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.204.143 (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The disgraceful material has been removed by User:MacMed. If the vandalism recurs then it's likely the article will be locked to prevent changes to it by unregistered editors. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

United States and state terrorism

- BLP issue is in regard to this quote - "Noam Chomsky's love affair with Nazis"

Chomsky himself has been criticized for supporting Hezbollah, an organization designated by the United States as a terrorist group. "Citing with approval a journalist's observation that Hezbollah 'is not a terror organization,' Chomsky explained that the terrorist who blew up 243 U.S. Marines in Lebanon and murdered untold citizens of Israel was only engaging in 'legitimate resistance' against an oppressor and 'avoids striking civilians except in retaliation for Israeli attacks on Lebanese civilians.'"[28]

Does this quote violate BLP? It is sourced to an editorial by David Horowitz in FrontPage Magazine ("Noam Chomsky's love affair with Nazis").[29] Horowitz is the one providing the criticism. Is the source reliable, are the opinions expressed notable, is the wording neutral and is it relevant to the article? TFD (talk) 01:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Since Chomsky is alive, this is not appropriate. I made some corrections, but it seems User:Scaleshombre, who has been warned some months ago about his behaviour on the same article (but has removed the warning from his talk page) is still busy editing the article, so I got an edit conflict. The bias is not egregious, but the section you blockquote is clearly not appropriate. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Scaleshombre came back to this article as a result of canvassing by another disruptive edit warrior, User:V7-sport. This type of insertion of random snippets of inaccurate op-eds is unfortunately going to be the norm as long as these sorts of people are allowed to continue to disrupt progress on the article. TFD was doing a rather good job (although I disagree with his removal of the history section) of rewriting the article to summarize the scholarly literature on the subject. Somebody should ensure that we continue making progress writing an encyclopedic article, rather than wasting time arguing about including quotes from trashy op-eds. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)v

Ease up on the personal attacks, big guy. I came back to the article because I didn't think it was evolving into a balanced treatment of the issue. I don't believe the article (at least in its current form) merits inclusion in Wikipedia, but as long as it stands, I'm committed to ensuring that it's as balanced as possible. Scaleshombre (talk) 04:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I made no personal attacks. Regarding "balancing the article", the way to do that is not to include off-topic quotes from incendiary op-eds, which attack BLPs and misrepresent their views. If you feel that something is being left out from the plentiful scholarly literature on the topic of U.S. state terrorism, then please share it. But please don't continue to try to insert articles by David Horowitz about how Noam Chomsky loves Nazis and the Khmer Rouge. This is not productive. We are trying to write an encyclopedia article about a notable theory that is extensively covered in the scholarly literature. We should stick to using quality sources, and try to write what the sources say about the topic, rather than trying to include quotes that bash the people who hold the views being discussed. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Given the plentitude of scholarly sources that cover this subject, I really see no need to use op-eds and unreferenced news articles as sources. (And the fact that it is falsely saying that a Jewish BLP loves Nazis is, of course, further reason not to use it per WP:BLP). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

After reviewing BLP, I realize that the reference may have been unduly inflammatory. Please note I toned it down to better comply with policy. I'd appreciate your feedback. Scaleshombre (talk) 02:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

What about this?

During a televised discussion about terrorism, former U.S. Secretary of Education William Bennett noted that Chomsky is "the man ... who said that the reports of atrocities by the Khmer Rouge were grossly exaggerated. ... Go through the Chomsky work, line by line, argument by argument, and you will see this is a man who has made a career out of hating America and out of trashing the record of this country."[30] (Source: CNN transcript[31])

TFD (talk) 02:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Clearly not appropriate. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

How is this relevant to the subject of U.S. state terrorism, and why does it merit mention alongside the many scholarly sources cited in the article? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Bennett's remarks speak directly to Chomsky's credibility as a commentator on the U.S. and state terrorism. Bennett clearly shows that Chomsky has an agenda and that his views should be taken with a boulder of salt. If Chomsky is the principal architect of the U.S. as terrorist argument, then Bennett's critique is essential to the discussion. Scaleshombre (talk) 04:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

As I said below, I think you need to address Chomsky's specific ideas about the US and state terrorism. This is an article about a particular idea, not about Chomsky. Chomsky's "agenda" is not relevant here. Find someone who says "Chomsky's argument is wrong because of X,Y and Z."GabrielF (talk) 04:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Gabriel, part of the problem is that not enough scholars take Chomsky's thesis seriously enough to devote attention to it. So instead of scholarly responses, what's left are criticisms in the media (opeds, tv) of Chomsky and his stance on terrorism. If the article is going to run on Wikipedia, something needs to be included indicating that Chomsky is not viewed as a credible source on the subject. The other problem is that while Chomsky's allegations of specific wrongdoings committed by the US may be correct, his broader conclusion that the US is guilty of terrorism is not supported by the academic community.Scaleshombre (talk) 04:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, plenty of scholars (such as the ones cited in the article, and on the talk page) take it seriously, and discuss it in their works which have been published by academic presses. If you don't have sources that present alternative views, then you are merely presenting original research. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I just added 2000 bytes of text from a scholar arguing the exact point you just made, that his broader allegations of US support for terrorism are an exaggeration. I agree that many more mainstream scholars don't take Chomsky seriously enough to debate the merits of his arguments, but enough do. GabrielF (talk) 05:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with you that many scholars don't debate the merits of his arguments, but I disagree with you about their motivations. I would say that this is because they are unable to formulate a reasoned response (i.e. they would have to say things like "The U.S. doesn't control death squads like the Reds in Eastern Europe. They only support and advise them, which is really not as big a deal as Chomsky makes it out to be.", and most people are not willing to come out and publicly say something like that), not because they don't take them seriously. But regardless, while I think Fishkin's argument is fallacious and unethical your citation is exactly the type of thing we need in the article: It's from a scholarly source, and directly addresses the topic of the article. There are plenty of scholarly sources such as the one you added, and we should continue to write the article based on these, regardless of how repugnant we personally find the views to be (whether they hold similar views to Chomsky's or think his views are incorrect). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Gabriel, it's a good cite. Kudos. Scaleshombre (talk) 05:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the key point is to explicitly address Chomsky's ideas about the US and state terrorism. What's missing in the Horowitz quote is a sentence from the source that explicitly makes that link. Something on the order of: "Horowitz argues that Chomsky's definition of terrorism is biased [or incorrect, or whatever he says], because he sees Hezbollah as a legitimate resistance group rather than a terrorist organization." (I don't know if Horowitz says this exactly, but my point is that this is how it should be framed.) If its framed as a discussion of Chomsky's ideas on the US and state terrorism than BLP is much less of an issue. Horowitz is not the most sober source but I think he's fine if he's used as a way to explain why people might disagree with Chomsky. A more mainstream counterpoint would be preferable but there's nothing wrong with using an op-ed to establish that the writer disagrees with Chomsky. GabrielF (talk) 04:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The following arguments have been made: terrorism is something committed by non-state actors, the U.S. does not condone human rights abuses in the Third World and the actions taken are justified as being necessary to prevent greater human rights abuses and causing less human suffering than the alternative conventional approaches. TFD (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Amy Locane

I'd be grateful if someone could have a look at Amy Locane and give some clarity on whether the level of detail that an editor is putting in is appropriate within the terms of BLP. I've warned a user for 3RR, and I'll watch the page and protect if necessary. Thanks. Ged UK 13:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Luciana Berger MP

Some third party views on the recent edit war at the article would be welcomed at the article talk page, to establish consensus. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 13:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Josh Groban

24.12.127.43 (talk · contribs) has been persistently adding the unsourced (and as far as I can see unsourceable) name of his alleged girl friend to this article, and alleged past girlfriends to other articles. They have continued this despite multiple reverts by other editors (four times today alone) [32] and multiple warnings on their talk page, including a final warning. Perhaps a short block might concentrate the mind? Voceditenore (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

If they continued to add the information after the final warning, the place to go with this is WP:AIV. GB fan (talk) 15:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. If they try it again, I'll do that. I wasn't sure if that kind of thing counted as vandalism. Voceditenore (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

matt damon

someone wrote some really bad stupid stuff about Matt and it should be removed a.s.a.p., I am not a member so I am just informing Wikipedia about this bad information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.69.133.221 (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I saw that ClueBot reverted some vandalism. IP editor, is the material that concerned you gone now? If not, please identify the "bad information" in a bit more detail. Thanks. Cullen328 (talk) 02:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Antonio Arnaiz Villena

Akerbeltz,Dumu Eduba,Kwamikagami and Trigaranus are spoiling Antonio Arnaiz-Villena biography with their opinions as pointed out bu User:Zero .They were apparent linguists that later become interested only just on the false legal accusations that rised against Arnaiz-Villena after publishing a forbidden(!) genetics paper on Palestinians.This is now in the page.They do not let clarify what WP asks for update or references.Symbio04 (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Symbio4 has no idea what he is doing on Wikipedia. He simply can't edit. I have no idea what his interest is in this article, which has a very checkered history in terms of content and editors, and I don't feel like going backwards to look at all the controversies, including sockpuppet investigations, etc., but Symbio4 appears to be a single purpose account, and although for a while the article was quiet, he's come back with a vengeance and won't listen to reason. At present, regardless of any other editors he accuses of whatever, he is the problem. And I've run out of reversions.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Bbb23,my friend,if you threaten somebody who is trying to arrange a BLP (which is full of subjective opinions and plain lies), it would be preferable you quit WP. Where is it stated that A-V blamed on a Jewish lobby? Corrupted Spanish newspapers,gossips…? When attack started against A-V.Human Immunology Editor,Nicole Succiu-Foca said in 2002 that many pro-Jewish people had asker her A-V dismissal. I insist if you are not prepared to study a WP topic in deep,please do not touch it.Iberomesornix (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It only gets worse. Now we have another editor adding a quote from Villena complaining that he was the victim of the "Jewish lobby". Of course, the quote is miserably out of context, but that doesn't seem to matter. The cited source is contextual, but the quote is a separate add-on to the sourced article that was Villena's response to a different incident.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but Arnaiz puppets has written here many miserable accussations (did you now that according to him I am a secret agent in a conspiracy against him?). He has written here in the WIkipedia that there is a conspiracy of editors working for the Secret Services against him. He has added many unsourced claims even in the article, and, for instance, he asked to delete Prof. De Hoz references accusing him of libel (here, but not in the Court), as he asked to delete any reference which criticised his linguistic fringe theories. For once, there is an accusation of his that it is really sourced and that is EXACTLY in the context of the reason he claimed when accused in an interview in a newspaper for which he had written (it is what HE said when answered on the accusations against him). The quote puts exactly the question in its place, providing Arnaiz's point of view. To disregard this, only because not favourable, would be an editorial intervention. (Besides this, the theory, tall story, that he is a victim of a political conspiration is something that he is repeating here once and again ad nauseam) Dumu Eduba (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I've bowed out from editing the article for the moment (although not because of Iberomesornix's absurd comments). I'm awaiting the outcome of the SPI investigation before doing anything else. It would still help, though, if other editors would take an interest in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

On the SP investigation and precedents of this case (with more on the same) do not forget the "deeds" of user Arnaiz1 who claimed to be Arnaiz, was blocked as puppet and had the same writing ticks in the signing tag: [33], [34]. Dumu Eduba (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Iberomesornix now blocked as a sockpuppet. Dougweller (talk) 06:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a curious case.Even the 2nd Arnaiz-Villena part has disappeared from this Noticeboard.I do not understand how evident oldest information is left in this biography,even annotated.This is my last word in Noticeboard.Saturraran (talk) 08:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Tzvi Erez

Resolved

– Article deleted. causa sui (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Additional review of this new article, with a keen eye towards BLP issues, would be appreciated. The subject was charged with various fraud crimes, but the charges were dropped due to a shortage of court time and judges, so he was never actually convicted of anything. At this time it appears to be a case of WP:UNDUE, with a couple sentences related to his work as a pianist, and the remainder focusing on the ponzi scheme and its fall-out. If the crime is really the notable nugget in all of this, then perhaps the article should be moved to reflect that? Other opinions would be appreciated. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 15:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Did some minor trimming, but it could use more. Details of the alleged malfeasance are sourced to a single Globe and Mail article. The Interior (Talk) 16:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

His claim to notability is that he "released" some CDs (no mention of a record contract, could be self-published) and has "over" four million views on YouTube. There are no third party sources except those reporting on the alleged Ponzi scheme, for which he was never prosecuted. Why don't we just delete this article? causa sui (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

After looking at the original revisions, I've speedied this as an attack page. If anyone disagrees with this decision, please let me know on my talk page and I will un-delete and kick it up to AFD. Regards, causa sui (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I would not argue against deletion. It seems there are essentially two questions that need to be answered first:

1) Is Tzevi Erez notable per WP:MUSICBIO? If so, the article should be kept;
2) If Erez is not notable, is this particular Ponzi scheme notable? If yes, the article should be renamed to reflect the crime and the article re-organized/re-written with an eye towards the criminal notability of the case

If Erez does not meet WP:MUSICBIO, and the crime is not particularly notable, then it should go to AfD. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 17:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It helps that deleting the article under CSD is not a prohibition against re-creation. While there may be a neutral way to approach the subject, the tone of the article presumed guilt (especially in the early revisions). AFD will find it easier to reach consensus on the MUSICBIO issues once the BLP problems are thoroughly eliminated. Still, if you really think we need an AFD discussion on these edits I will undelete the article, blank it, and AFD it. I'm not clear from your comment whether you think that's necessary. causa sui (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I had missed your note with regard to the speedy deletion when I wrote the above. I was essentially musing aloud about possible solutions and have no issues with the article having been deleted. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 19:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Jay Severin

I am having problems at the Jay Severin article with neutrality/undue weight issues and a nascent edit war. The original article didn't follow any wikipedia format and seemed (to me) to consist of a bloated lede followed by a list of the subject's misdeeds (he's a recently-fired talk radio "shock jock" from the Boston area). I posted a comment in the talk section of the article indicating an intent to correct the perceived deficiencies, then re-formatted the article in my sandbox to conform to the biography template, pared back the criticisms section, and created the missing sections. In the absence of comments rejecting my assessment, I made the changes about six days later. A possible (likely) edit war is brewing between myself and Xerxesnine over the changes. My opinion is that the original article was well-referenced but placed undue weight on the Severin's tenure in Boston and specifically on the controversies he generated as a radio talk show host. If someone neutral could drop by and evaluate the situation, it could help Xerxesnine and I to reach an amicable consensus. TreacherousWays (talk) 10:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Article was under-referenced and puffed (in some cases, negative puff was given undue weight). Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time, Collect. All comments are welcome. TreacherousWays (talk) 11:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The revised article that I wrote has been removed again. I am not reverting because I want to avoid an edit war. TreacherousWays (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with the undue weight tag, which has been restored. My problem has always been with the absurd amount of brand new unsourced material in the rewrite. Xerxesnine (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Aaadietya Pandey

I have been trying to improve this BLP, lots of dead links and promotional stuff. Other than a few brief mentions in Times of India articles I cannot find any good sources for this person. There also doesn't seem to be an article in Hindi for him, which is strange for an Indian person. How to go forward with this one? MakeSense64 (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Adrian Lewis Morgan

I am Adrian's Agent and have removed the details about his Personal Life as these were not added by Adrian and he prefers that this information be kept private. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinorhilton (talk • contribs) 16:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a note that in general the subject's wishes are not the over-riding final factor in deciding what information is kept in a biographical article.

However, in this case the section was totally unreferenced (and much of it not very encyclopedic) so you were entirely right to remove it.

Thank you for making clear your connection with Adrian; some extra notes on this are at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Rybka and Vasik Rajlich

In light of plagiarism accusations, do we have a clear BLP policy of assuming innocence until proven otherwise by a court of law (not championship)? Artem Karimov (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

As an amateur tournament chess player who uses engines to learn in lieu of paying Russian expatriats >$80/hr, I have some personal interest in this subject. You make a good point that these articles should be watched closely, so I will add it to syndication. In general, it shouldn't be problematic for us to cite the ICGA decision and stick to the facts. That way, we don't have to presume anything, guilt, innocence, or otherwise. Regards, causa sui (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Nandi Special Jury Award

Resolved

Article about an awared (which may or may not be notable, but that's a separate issue) which lists a number of names of those awarded it but has no references at all. Santosham Film Awards is similar except it is mainly a list of daughter articles which are the articles including names, not all unsourced. Dougweller (talk) 08:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I speedied it under CSD A1. causa sui (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Raymond Hoser - (part two)

Has had original research added to the effect that he is the sole author of a journal - for which the editor simply examined the onlne journal. I suggest that this is the essence of OR, that any contentious claims in a BLP must be sourced, but I am met with

" WP:IAR - this is excessively strict adherence to the letter, not spirit, of a policy, preventing improvement of an article via incorporating relevant information. If the existence of the journal is relevant, so are the tremendous differences between it and every other journal. Conversely, if we are indeed neglecting these differences, I suggest that the journal itself fails to meet notability guidelines by even the most generous standards. The only thing that makes the journal relevant or noteworthy is the very fact that it's a "vanity journal", and if we don't acknowledge this fact, it's inclusion is misleading at best.

Is WP:BLP now irrelevant when an editor wishes to state that a journal is a "vanity jurnal" but can not find an actual RS making that claim? Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Is the disputed content potentially defamatory? --causa sui (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It is decidedly "contentious" at the least. Collect (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

How so? If one downloads all the articles in the journal (available here), Mr. Hoser is indeed the sole author to appear in the journal. Note also that the journal lists no editorial board or other trappings one associates with a journal. I don't see anything at all wrong with Mr. Hoser having a self-published journal where he gives his observations of snakes, but we owe it to the reader to make it clear that this is not a scientific journal in the usual sense. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hoser is a "living person. A biography of a living person actually falls under WP:BLP. No matter who the person is, how evil or despicable he is.
WP:BLP requires unsourced or poorly sourced contentios claims to be removed.
WP policies state that "reliable sources" are secondary sources making a claim.
Making claims based on an editor's own research is WP:OR and is not WP:RS

QED: Claims based on such OR and not based on a reliable secondary source must be removed from BLPs. That is "da rules" SBHB. Sorry if you dislike them <g>. Cheers Collect (talk) 11:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. How is the fact that the fellow has set up a venue to publish his observations "contentious" or pejorative? Anyway, as far as I can tell the "journal" has received no mention at all in secondary sources, so by your strict constructionist approach we shouldn't even be mentioning it or any of its articles. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

No objections there - but where an editor sought to make super clear that a journal is a "vanity publication" it is required that such claims be reliably sourced. The claim which made sense was that he started the journal. The part which is "contentious" is that he is the sole author for it - which is a specific claim which WP requires be reliably sourced. Simple really. Collect (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see where the cited source says that he started it, either. I think that given that he is the editor and sole contributor, it's reasonable to conclude that he is also the founder, but it's strange to me to say that it's acceptable to extrapolate "he is the founder" but not to observe "he is the only contributor." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Short Brigade Harvester Boris; I don't understand. How is the fact that the fellow has set up a venue to publish his observations "contentious" or pejorative?; how is the fact he wrote a book about corruption contentious or pejorative? Yet you removed that despite being cited to an independent source (ok, not perhaps the best source, but it is a pretty detailed one). We can cite that content to a WorldCat listing if need be. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Kristin Bauer

I hope an admin can look into this, I wasn't sure whether to post this here or at the COI noticeboard or inappropriate username. But there has been an ongoing dispute about the subjects date of birth - year. Now it has been changed by user:fifteenminutespr and a message left on the talk page. There is a Fifteen Minutes PR firm: http://www.fifteenminutes.com/ I have changed the date back a few times, from an IP's edit, but I"m ready to let someone else take a look.Bluebonnet460 (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the 1966 date. Normally birthdate issues are easy to resolve as the date can simply be removed until a reliable source is provided for confirmation. In this case however, there is already a source included in the article that supports the date Wikipedia uses. According to the source, Bauer graduated from high school in 1984. If the 1973 date the the PR firm is attempting to change it to is correct, she would have been 11 when she graduated. This Journal Times article also states she was 29 when their story was printed in 1996. Unless a very reliable source is provided that can explain all the discrepancies, the date should not be changed. As a side note, Fifteenminutespr is a username violation. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 20:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The cited source does not mention her year or date of birth. I've looked her up in the biographical reference work Contemporary Theatre, Film and Television, and that cites November 26, 1973 as her date of birth. Even if this RS is incorrect, we can't declare it wrong and another date correct based on conjecture. I'll refrain from inserting the 1973 date into the article for now, but I've removed the 1966 date as unsourced. Gamaliel (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, if there are actually conflicting reliable sources, then that changes things. Unless consensus to use one date over another can be reached, it may be preferable to remove the birth date entirely, or the conflicting information can be worked in to the article prose with both sources presented. This will help prevent the date flip-flopping back and forth between the two sourced versions. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 14:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source for the 1966 date? The citation that I removed did not contain her birthdate. That said I think maybe leaving it out entirely is preferable to creating a "birthdate controversy" that only exists in the article and nowhere in the real world. Gamaliel (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The source is the Journal Times newspaper article. It does not state "1966", it states she was 29 at the time of publishing (February 8, 1996), and that she graduated in 1984, both of which would preclude her being born in 1973. I agree about leaving it out, perhaps with a hidden note to check the talk page for the reason why it is not included. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 15:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The suggestion in your last statement seems like a good idea to me. Gamaliel (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for looking into it. I agree that not mentioning dob until there is a definitive source for it is best. Bluebonnet460 (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Look her up on pipl.com - public records say 1966. But I guess that's original research. An admin already looked into it if you look at the second page of the history of the article. Somebody alleging she was KB's lawyer tried to get the date changed back to 1973 - guess they want to fiddle with her age a little. Bottom line: she gave an interview to a newspaper before she was really famous (before True Blood) and said she graduated high school in 1984, so she couldn't have been born in 1973. Ravenscroft32 (talk)

Gene Melchiorre

The statement in Melchiorre's article contains an erroneous statement, namely that he scored 71 points in an NIT Tournament game. According to the Bradley University Sports Information Office, Melchiorre never scored as many as 30 points while playing for Bradley. Also, according to the NIT, the record for most points scored in one game is held by George Mikan. His record is in the low 40's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BradleyProf (talk • contribs) 20:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

From reading Melchiorre's Hall of Fame profile, it does indeed appear that he scored 71 points in the 1949 NIT tournament. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 14:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Glenn Mulcaire

This seems like a textbook case of BLP1E, so I redirected it to News of the World phone hacking affair, but I was reverted by none other than Jimbo Wales. I'm a bit surprised by this so I thought I'd ask BLP regulars for their thoughts. Gamaliel (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

As an American, I don't know enough about this British scandal to speak definitively. However, it appears that Mulcaire was involved in a pretty wide range of hacking incidents in a variety of circumstances. Accordingly, BLP1E may not apply. Also, since he has been convicted of some charges, BLP concerns about accusations are lessened a bit, though we have to be sure to write neutrally based on reliable sources, and not get swept up in a tabloid firestorm. Cullen328 (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I think he's borderline on the BLP1E. I started the article on the assumption that as he was involved in a wide range of incidents that there would be more than one proper profile done on him, giving sufficient context to create a full biography. I've spent a fair amount of time on it by now, and I'm less and less sure there is enough.

I reverted Gamaliel's move because there is a discussion on the talk page and people are working on the article. It seemed premature to cut it off.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a standalone article is justified here (his football career needs to be clarified re. whether he meets notability criteria as a sportsman), but it could be merged to News of the World phone hacking affair and a leaving a redirect would be appropriate in the case, but there already appears to be discussion going on on the article's talk page, so I would suggest joining that discussion. I can understand the redirect being reverted while that discussion was ongoing.--Michig (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

BLP policy requires immediate action, which is why I created the redirect regardless of the discussion. I believe you when you say that he's notable for multiple incidents, but there is zero evidence of that in the article right now. The priority should not be discussion but to put that information in the article to justify the existence of that BLP or redirect it until that information is found. Gamaliel (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

What is the BLP issue that you feel requires immediate action here? The only concern appears to be notability.--Michig (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Nancy Grace

Resolved

Ridiculous comment posted by someone... In CAPITAL LETTERS under 'Career as Prosecutor' Please Remove! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shalimar777 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

This was a case of vandalism that was very quickly reverted (within seconds). Note that if you come across similar cases of vandalism on articles in the future, you can simply removing the offending material yourself. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 23:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Micahel Shapcott

Resolved

Described in first line as "an Ass Activist", with the word "Ass" hyperlinked to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spamhole (talk • contribs) 22:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

This was a case of vandalism that has since been reverted. If you still see the offending material you are likely viewing an outdated version of the page, please try clearing your cache. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 23:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Yoshimitsu Yamada

The article cites no outside sources whatsoever. It needs to be cleaned up. It has a random quotation section citing "he has been heard to say" and the only thing that actually is a citation directs to the pages, where Yoshimitsu Yamada either is a boss, owner, or board member. I suspect it was written by someone very close to him in the organization that this man owns if not by Yoshimitsu himself.

None of the claims in this article are verified and frankly the article also lacks in notability. It should be either cleaned up or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.91.184.39 (talk) 04:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Aelita Andre

Hello, I'm writing here because I want to clarify a few things regarding a recent series of edits made on an article that I wrote and am maintaining, Aelita Andre. Earlier today, User:Cramyourspam made four successive edits to the article, the end result of which was:

(1) The addition of critical information about the article's subject sourced only by a private blog.

(2) The addition of an autobiography tag justified with a statement that I, the article's author, "seem" close to the subject because there isn't really anything negative about her in the article. I contested this on the article's talk page, because it isn't true and because nearly every sentence of the article is followed by 1 to 3 inline citations from reliable sources, so the accusation was sort of ridiculous.

Because this user made four uninterrupted edits in a row, I undid them with four uninterrupted edits in a row. I'm afraid now that someone might see this as more than 3 edits in a 24-hour period, but this was actually a single edit in 4 parts (since the other user did not edit between my 4 edits). Additionally, these edits were done in order to remove contentious material in a BLP. Curiously, this user's page explicitly states that edits to the user's personal talk page are not welcome. Because I wanted to draw the user's attention to the article's talk page so we could have a discussion, I simply reverted the next edit that he (or she) made with an edit summary stating "Cramyourspam, I undid this only to let you know I want to talk about this on the Talk Page since you don't want messages on your page." If anyone here is interested in the full chronology of events and in everything that was said on the article's talk page, please take a look. I hope for two things from you:

(1) I'd like some form of confirmation that the situation is understood in case anyone sees, at a quick glance, that I made the three uninterrupted reverts in a row, and in case that person doesn't notice that these are all really a single change undone in the same consecutive steps in which they were created in the first place. Moreover, I want to point out immediately that the motivation behind the edits was to remove contentious, poorly sourced information in a BLP. I strongly encourage anyone interested to view this page in detail.

(2) Although an uninvolved rollbacker chanced upon the page, reverted it to its original state (what it was before Cramyourspam's first edit), and helped to resolve the issue by now, I would like some feedback on how I handled the situation so I can improve my response in similar situations in the future. Of course, if you don't have time to do that, I understand.

Thank you for your time, Armadillopteryx^talk 02:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:3rr has an explicit statement in it somewhere to the effect that consecutive reverts are all counted as one - you won't have any problems there. The other user's talk page looks pretty weird - it's not something I've seen on a talk page before and seems pretty strongly contrary to the spirit of collaboration. I'm going to notify them that there is an ongoing noticeboard discussion about them - which would normally be polite but will probably be interpreted as rude in this situation but seems a good thing to do anyway. Kevin (talk) 02:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine. I'll check this page regularly to see when more information is added. Thank you! Armadillopteryx^talk 02:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You did well. (Incidentally, any statement on a user talk page that comments in general aren't welcome may be freely ignored. After all, "the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user".) -- Hoary (talk) 04:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

cramyourspam here. on the article discussion page, arm'x asked for real research. it was already in the article i used originally ("Reports of Art World Acclaim For 4-Year Old Artist Dupe Global Media" http://grumpyvisualartist.blogspot.com/2010/12/blog-post_9002.html ) which you deleted --the article on that art writer's blog. from that article (and i'll just copy the art writer's references):

[blockquote] Wikipedia sums it up well: "A vanity gallery is an art gallery that charges artists fees to exhibit their work and makes most of its money from artists rather than from sales to the public." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanity_gallery ) According to an article by artist/gallerist/critic Lenny Campello: because a vanity gallery rents out its walls, "the main driver in having a show at a vanity gallery is not necessarily the quality of the artwork, but the artist's ability to pay the gallery to host his/her artwork." ( http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/vanity-galleries/ ) Campello continues, critics and curators ignore such venues "much like book critics ignore most self-published writers, who use 'vanity publishers'." ( http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/vanity-galleries/ )

Lest they incur bad publicity, vanity galleries don't generally admit to being pay-to-play venues, but enough information appears on Agora's website to connect the dots. From Agora's submissions page: "Please note that Agora Gallery charges an annual fee for its representation and promotion services." ( http://www.agora-gallery.com/artistinfo/postal_submissions.aspx ) From Agora's FAQ page: "If I am accepted what is the cost of the annual promotion and representation.... We offer a few options starting from $2950."( http://www.agora-gallery.com/artistinfo/faqs.aspx ) For a solo exhibit, "Please email [email protected] for more information" --note the telltale email address: sales. ( http://www.agora-gallery.com/gallery2/ ).

To split hairs, Agora doesn't officially require fee payment to exhibit, but instead does require purchase of promotional services. No such purchase: no exhibit. It is therefore pay-to-play --just paying for required "promotion" rather than for exhibition. There is little real difference.[/blockquote]

so there's some research. you can see that the gallery's own website explains the requirement for exhibitors to pay promotions fees to be allowed a show; wp and others explain that pay-to-play venues are vanity galleries. if you're going to argue that the gallery's own website doesn't count, you should step out of the loop and leave the article to less biased-looking writers. Cramyourspam (talk) 02:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It's already described at Aelita Andre as being a vanity gallery, so I'm unsure as to what the point of your post was. I don't mean that sarcastically - please clarify what you meant/what action you were trying to bring about. Kevin (talk) 03:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I just posted this on the article's talk page, but it appears the same reply is relevant here: I don't know why Cramyourspam keeps insisting on using that private blog as a source in anything on Wikipedia, much less a BLP. It's not a reliable source now and will never be, so I would like to understand why there has been so much insistence on blog use here. Armadillopteryx^talk 07:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Because Cramyourspam's post here is copied and pasted from the article talk page, I'm also going to copy and paste the second half of my response here:

Listen, I'm a patient person, but I don't take kindly to your repeated personal attacks accusing me of bias, being close to the subject, etc. I would mind less than most people if you actually justified any of what you've said about me, but so far your only arguments have been variants of the fact that the article doesn't include the fact that it's a vanity gallery (which it now does, by the way) or say many negative things. Well, at best, that's a weak argument for NPOV, but nowhere in there is it justified to attack me as a source close to the subject or as a biased writer. Moreover, even your NPOV ideas can't go anywhere because until a reliable news sources publishes a critical story about the subject, we can't put in anything more negative than the fact that the Agora is a vanity gallery. We can't go into criticism of her without explicit sources of the criticism. Please read WP:BLP. Armadillopteryx^talk 07:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

( ... However, this is secondary to what Kevin noted above, which is that the Agora Gallery is already introduced as a vanity gallery in the article, with the citation being from the gallery's website, as it has been since 01:07 on 17 June.) Armadillopteryx^talk 23:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Mark Hackel

Mark Hackel is an elected official whose father was convicted of a serious felony. I've been having a disagreement with another user about the issue; he wishes to include this information in Mark's article while I think it should not be. The talk page and article history should tell the tale more fully, but in short I believe the conviction is not sufficiently relevant to Mark's notability to be included and is merely inflammatory, which as I understand the policy would make it a BLP issue. Could we get some eyes more familiar with the nuances of BLP than I to see if it actually is or not? Imyourfoot (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I agreed with you completely until I read the particulars, specifically that Hackel's father held the position of sheriff and was forced to resign because of this felony, upon which he was replaced by Hackel himself. This seems to a pretty significant matter concerning public officeholders and their offices and directly related to the subject of the article as the felony was the reason the subject assumed a public office. It does seem ridiculous to put his father's conviction in the introduction, though. There's no way to justify putting those kinds of irrelevant specifics in the intro to his son's article. I would leave out many of the specifics and limit the discussion to the "Macomb County Sheriff" section only. Gamaliel (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. You make a good point regarding how it was relevant to him becoming sheriff, so I'll go ahead and follow your suggestion. Imyourfoot (talk) 23:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice work. I imagine that edit will be satisfactory to all the editors on that article. Gamaliel (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)