Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive224

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Question on correct sourcing the instance of A Prize Awarded to Person X

Will be an info source (publication, website) run by the Awarding Entity, announcing the instance in question, considered a "primary source" in relation to Person X' biography? Exhibit A: Sir Winston Churchill's Nobel Prize. In Winston Churchill article the used reference is http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/nomination/nomination.php?action=show&showid=3319, i.e. info on nobelprize.org. Exhibit B: Paul Krugman, living person. Again nobelprize.org is used.

The present question: For Minna Sundberg article in a clause on her NCS Reuben's Award for 2015, can http://www.reuben.org/2015/05/reuben-awards-winners-2015/ i.e. info on the Award's site, be considered as a "primary source" for Minna Sundberg's bio? The alternative is to cite the media reports. Thanks! DBWikis (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Not enough traction on this RFC, repeating below for 2nd try. DBWikis (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

James Heilman

Footnotes are numbered in the order they appear as in the article:

There's a dispute that references 4-8 inclusive should remain in the article. Why?96.52.0.249 (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The issue is whether these footnotes support the statement that, "He is an active contributor to WikiProject Medicine,[4] was the president of Wikimedia Canada between 2010 and 2013, and is the president of Wiki Project Med Foundation.[5][6][7][8]".Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
IP 249, are you aware that WP:EL includes the following statement? To wit: "This guideline does not apply to inline citations or general references, which should appear in the 'References' or 'Notes' section. This specifically includes e-commerce and other commercial-sales links, which are prohibited in External links but allowed in footnoted citations...." Does that help clear things up?Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps this could be used to support the statement that he is an active WPMED contributor? It quotes him as saying, "The medical side of things was more formally organized in 2004, when internist Dr Jacob Wolff, who is based in the United Kingdom, started Wikiproject Medicine. I joined the project in 2007."Everymorning talk 23:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
The article claims that James Heilman is the president of WikiProject Medicine. A reliable source could be a diff of that page stating the election results. I couldn't find it. That one diff would be more authoritative than 4 newspaper articles. Citation 7 is a misrepresentation of the source when the word president doesn't occur in the source.
The issue with wikiproject medicine is these sources are talking about it as if WP:MED is something separate from Wikipedia. Fiona Fleck in this asks James Heilman "how have the health and medical articles evolved since Wikipedia was established" and James digresses onto the topic of Wikiproject Medicine. The fact is that Wikiproject Medicine isn't a separate community from the rest of Wikipedia, but the sources (including [1]) misrepresents WP:MED as it is. It's simply a subforforum for editors.96.52.0.249 (talk) 01:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I have just moved footnote four to the end of that sentence. Now, footnote [7] need merely support anything in the sentence to which it is attached, which it clearly does. Moreover, if some of our cited sources say some stuff that is incorrect, but we do not put that incorrect stuff into the Wikipedia article, and instead we only rely upon those sources for other (correct) stuff, then I don't think you're really in much of a position to object.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

We have two separate entities, Wiki Project Med Foundation [2] which is an incorporated NGO in the state of NY of which I am a founder and the current president. And we have Wikiproject Medicine which is a Wikiproject on Wikipedia which was started by Jacob in 2004. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Mass vandalism of birth and death dates

71.30.20.14 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is indiscriminately changing birth and death dates on a large number of biographical articles. There doesn't seem to be any particular rhyme or reason to the changes, but at least several of them are highly improbable, including this change which would make British actress Liz Smith 114 years old. Possibly this will jog someone's memory concerning a past SPI. General Ization Talk 02:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

American Douglas Thomas (politician) seems to have died/will die in 2021 (in a Chuck E'Cheese restroom no less)

Janet Henderson

Janet Henderson

I have worked at Saint Michael's Hospice Harrogate as a Spiritual and Pastoral Care Manager not a chaplain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.190.103 (talk) 10:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, this has been amended with appropriate sourcing found. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 03:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Oversight-worthy BLP vandalism on Konstruktivits

Konstruktivits just got a piece of oversight-worthy defamatory vandalism from a random O2 Wifi IP (so probably not helpful to block, and liable to collateral damage if I did). I revdel'd it and sent it to Oversight, who concurred and supppressed it; I've semiprotected the article for three hours, but it would be helpful if others could add it to their watchlists in case the driveby defamer returns - David Gerard (talk) 12:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Natalia Gavrilenko

HI

I am translating a page in russian into English. Somehow it is marked as innapropriate and something with the inks/ I can't understand how it can be as the new page in English is linked to its original Russian page -> https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%BE,_%D0%9D%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%8F_%28%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irshik g (talk • contribs) 15:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Irshik_g On the page itself, it says there are no references, looks like the page on the Russian Wikipedia has no references either. As it's a biography of a living person,it's critical that references are there, a "See also" section doesn't meet the same criteria. In the very least, references would need to be there. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 15:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Basically the same issues were raised for N.Gavrilenko article in Russian Wikipedia as well: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%8F%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C. The references used there are to simona-vilar.ru, fantlab.ru, and other repositories of fiction, containing Gavrilenko's texts. The article in question needs to be wikified and needs all references as specified by the tags applied to it. References to appropriate sources are crucial, if the article is about a writer then the publications need to be (a) cross-verified by ISBNs, and (b) given refs to reliable and independent reviews. Please look up articles on fantasy books and fantasy writers in Wikipedia, and follow the examples. Otherwise the whole question of conformance to GNG will inevitably araise. DBWikis (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

2015 Texas pool party incident

Will someone please point out that Eric Casebolt's name has both been "widely disseminated" as well as being "directly involved" with the 2015 Texas pool party incident to those who keep removing his name from the article, claiming WP:BLPNAME as a justification?[3][4][5], etc. Besides which: he was a public servant, not a private citizen. I would hope the noticeboard would frown upon its mission being perverted like this. -- Kendrick7talk 03:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not particularly receptive to the "public servant, not private citizen" argument as an absolute. Sure, it holds for congresspersons and the like, but applying it to an ordinary policeman is a bit much. Nevertheless -- referring to Casebolt by name is a horse that has left the barn, bolted across the paddock, and jumped the fence. There's no policy-based case for withholding something that has been reported in numerous high-end reliable sources such as the Washington Post, the Guardian, the new York Times, the BBC, etc etc etc. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Not that it necessarily applies here, but the legal standard includes ordinary police officers as public officials as far as libel standards, etc. You have to show actual malice in order to prevail, and I don't think you can show that when almost every publication in the US has printed his name. GregJackP Boomer! 06:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but our BLP policy is intentionally more conservative than US libel law. VQuakr (talk) 04:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
The requirement at WP:BLP is to use "greatest care." Yes, someone with an internet connection can probably find this name, but that is not adequate reason to parrot it here. Using the name adds nothing to a reader's encyclopedic understanding of the event. The person, whose decision to go into hiding indicates a desire to remain low-profile, has received death threats. VQuakr (talk) 04:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
To my reading the page meets all criteria of BLP policy as of this timestamp. Casebolt is mentioned over and over again in thousands of high quality secondary sources. The pedia isn't protecting the subject in any way by omitting his name; neither by mentioning it is Wikipedia indicting the subject for the misbehavior which defines the subject incident and caused his resignation in the interest of "healing". Including the name of the incident's primary actor is hardly "parroting". If the subject is receiving death threats, that's an unfortunate consequence of the wide dissemination of his name in a vast number of reliable secondary sources reporting his confessed misbehavior. If the guy wasn't wearing blue that day he'd be in police custody right now. The incident he provoked may end up costing the city a huge sum in legal fees and settlements. Appropriately including Casebolt's name on the page does nothing to increase or decrease threats against him. BusterD (talk) 04:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Agreed with the above. We should not be withholding the name if it has been covered in multiple reliable sources about the incident. Connormah (talk) 04:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
If one name is going to be used, then all of the names of the participants should be used. Seems that the article was more regarding the officer than the event. But is the event itself worthy of it's own entry? But that is probably for another discussion. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I see such a discussion is underway. That's the big question here. If the page is kept at AFD, then this discussion becomes operative. If the page is deleted, this discussion is moot. BusterD (talk) 05:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
@BusterD: while there usually is no WP:DEADLINE, even ephemeral BLP violations have the potential to do harm. VQuakr (talk) 05:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
And if there were a BLP violation here, we'd be in agreement. But I've seen nothing on the page, even when the name is inserted, that violates BLP policy. This headline (What McKinney police officer Eric Casebolt did wrong) from the unquestionably reliable Washington Post demonstrates that the horse is well out of the barn, and no amount of censoring Wikipedia is going to put it back. The name search on Google this morning gives one million ghits. BusterD (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
@BusterD: I agree that the name has been widely reported, but why does that justify our contributing to it? Where is the upside, the benefit to the reader, to counterbalance the possibility of the article contributing to real-world harm? VQuakr (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

And yet the name continues to be removed.[6] -- Kendrick7talk 11:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

What is the benefit to popularizing the name? I see this as a choice in which including the name has zero upside and a very significant downside. Per BLP we should be more caution than news sources. VQuakr (talk) 04:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean, "zero upside"? The absence of the name widely reported in reliable sources is almost a glaring omission that would make casual readers scratch their heads. Connormah (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

2nd try: Question on correct/preferred sourcing reg. the instance of A Prize Awarded to Person X

Will be an info source (publication, website) run by the Awarding Entity, announcing the instance in question, considered a "primary source" in relation to Person X' biography?

Exhibit A: Sir Winston Churchill's Nobel Prize. In Winston Churchill article the used reference is http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/nomination/nomination.php?action=show&showid=3319, i.e. info on nobelprize.org.

Exhibit B: Paul Krugman, living person. Again nobelprize.org is used.

The present question: For Minna Sundberg article in a clause on her NCS Reuben's Award for 2015, can http://www.reuben.org/2015/05/reuben-awards-winners-2015/ i.e. info on the Award's site, be considered as a "primary source" for Minna Sundberg's bio? The alternative is to cite the media reports. Thanks! DBWikis (talk) 12:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It is a primary source, but we should not doubt it if there is no other controversy or source against, but there is another problem of due weight, if we only have the Awarding-Entity and not a secondary source, how much weight must we give it in the article? Spumuq (talq) 08:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:SELFPUB, primary sources are allowed to be used to support specific facts, but there are conditions: the fact must be neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it must not involve claims about third parties; it must not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there must no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and the article (as a whole) must not based primarily on such sources. I would say that citing award reuben.org for the fact that it awarded Sundberg the Ruben Award passes those conditions. So, as far as reliability goes, I think it is OK.
However, Spumuq makes a good point about DUEWEIGHT... Reliability is not the be-all-and-end-all of whether we include a fact or not. Akin to the issue of DUEWEIGHT is the question of "Triviality". We have to ask whether the fact that Sudberg was given a Reubens award is an "trivial thing to mention" or "an important thing to mention" in his bio article. That is something of an editorial judgement call... a lot depends on how prestigious the award is (a Nobel Prize would obviously be prestigious, and being awarded one is not trivial... and so it should be mentioned. Being given the "Person of the year" award from the Anytown, USA Chamber of Commerce - not so much... it's likely to be considered trivial). I don't know enough about the Reuben award to opine on its triviality. Blueboar (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Spumuq and Blueboar. The question was twofold: first, about comparison of AwardingEntity.org vs media reports, and second, about Sundberg and her award in particular. Regarding the first point my reasoning is that the materials on Awarding-Entity site are primary source for the awarding entity but NOT primary for the awardee per se, since not being driven by that person. Setting aside Nobels, let us use NCS Reubens specifically. Exhibit C: Stan Goldberg, in whose article the fact he was given Reuben is sourced via reference to reuben.org, and not to media reports. Regarding Minna Sundberg, the article was cleaned up somewhat and given more secondary sources, Reuben Award is rather a significant distinction for her area, and made national headlines in Finland, so my main motivation with pressing on with this question is more related to settling the matter in principle, because in comparison of two following claims for Bio article on person X: (A) "AwardingEntity.org announces X is awarded prize", and (B) "Media outlet M reports X is given award by AwardingEntity" the source of info should be (A), while (B) is indeed secondary relative to (A), in context of Biography of X, giving the preference to (B) seems to be counterintuitive. DBWikis (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Could you perhaps explain why you are concerned about this?... I am not sure that it matters whether the source is considered primary or secondary. Blueboar (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I started inquiring on matter of principle, because in resolution of juxtaposition of the (original) claim by AwardingEntity.org vs media reports on the matter, the preference given to the latter seemed to be counterintuitive. Following this logic, if you, for example, should cite the result of elections, should you cite the release by electoral commission, or local newspaper covering it? I.e. should you use something right of the horse's mouth, or rely on a reporter covering the event. All this needs to be seen in context of the Biography of the affected party like recipient of the award, etc. I guess this line of thinking granting status of the arbiter / official seal of approval to the media, appears to me somewhat troublesome, particularly in our capacity of encyclopedists on quest for reliable information. DBWikis (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
As a general point, I think it is a very good idea to prefer secondary sources for awards. There are many 'impressive sounding' awards listed on biographies here, many of which are vanity listings (one set of examples is International_Biographical_Centre#Awards) and really have no place in an encyclopedia notwithstanding the apparent enthusiasm of some biographers here to include them. Of course we know that say an Academy Award is very worth mentioning, that is trivially obvious, and we might think it doesn't matter much whether a primary or secondary source is used - however we can be quite sure that there will be myriad secondary sources available for this to demonstrate it is not undue to include it prominently in the biography. I would suggest where there is no secondary source which comments independently on an award, it shouldn't be included here. Where an award is not necessarily well known to the ordinary reader, as I suspect is the case in the example you provide, I would suggest a citation to a independent secondary source is very helpful in demonstrating the prominence of the award in the field. --ℕ ℱ 17:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, ℕℱ, I think I finally understand why The Washington Post reporting about Reuben Awards is considered to be more reliable than NCS itself being the entity bestowing these awards: people know The Washington Post but hardly heard about NCS or Reuben Award. It now makes sense to me, at least in this particular case. The matter of principle is still not settled decisively though, at least in my opinion. DBWikis (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I hope it helps, it isn't really a question of reliability or verification. If Ferret Fanciers Monthly awarded me FFM Ferret of the Year award, then that primary source is of course reliable and provides verification that that award was actually given to me. However, it is very unlikely to be worth mentioning in a biography on the weight of that source alone. If WP or WSJ commented on how pleased they were to finally see me getting the recognition I deserve as a result of winning the award, then it is both reliable, verifiable, and, most importantly, worth mentioning since it is also demonstrably widely recognised (in that a well recognised national source outside of the narrow ferrety sphere had commented). That's how I understand it anyway. --ℕ ℱ 19:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you again, it does help indeed. The point of providing ref to WaPo is therefore presenting implicit blending of reliability and notability. Taking something from horse's mouth means citing the authentic info source, however citing a report in The New York Times on the event will have the added flair of authority. So for Nobels or Academy Awards the public exposure is enough while Reubens awarded to cartoonists by cartoonists might appear to the general public more akin to a petty sticker giving in obscure gathering on niche interests etc. I guess the best policy will be probably to cite both the awarding entity and media reports as well. DBWikis (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Kyle Hawkins

Just stumbled across this. Is this chap sufficiently notable without the BLP1E stuff about his sexuality? --Dweller (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe he would be if he's coached matches under the U-19 National banner. I'd like to see more comments on this, however. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 03:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
How does that make him notable? Spumuq (talq) 08:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, there's no specific guideline for lacrosse, but over at WP:NSPORTS coaches for national teams are usually considered notable. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 02:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
In that context I think "national teams" means the top-level national team rather than junior teams. --ukexpat (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

jamie maclaren youth team is incorrect, needs that section deleting

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

everything about jamie maclaren page is ok, apart from youth team stats need to be removed they are incorrect and the athlete is going to report whoever uploaded those false statements. he has 38 games and 11 goals for perth glory, no other professional stats about youth perth should be there, remove!

Please calm down, nobody's reporting anyone. If you believe the sources cited for those facts are wrong, feel free to provide appropriate referencing to counter that information. The sources listed, as far as I could tell do not support the information in the article. I did, however, find sources discussing games played by him for PG Youth, such as this. In light of such contradiction, I recommend you look for better sources so that we can piece these details together and improve the article. Let me know if you need help. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 03:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Jim Butterworth (politician)

This page contains a tremendous amount of opinion and false information. The page is definitely libelous and was created, without question, by one or more disgruntled former employees of the Georgia National Guard. One former employee lives in Washington, DC and the libelous edits show the anonymous IP address to be from that area. It is unfair, and probably constitutes libel, for this page to be displayed on Wikipedia. It is therefore against the Wikipedia Terms of Use and should be reverted to content displayed prior to the unscrupulous edits which have been made by this individual. I have not spoken with the individual to whom this page is directed, but I'm positive he would agree with these assertions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.192.219.6 (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Which particular parts do you object to? It looks like some objectionable uncited things have been removed, and some of what's left has decent citations; but there are a few odd uncited parts. --Aquillion (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I've copy edited the article accordingly, removing unreferenced bits. Please provide independent and reliable references for any future content. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 03:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Yehuda Glick

Recently, an editor put "Yehuda Glick is a dangerous extremist whose actions could plunge us all into a bloody religious war" in a source quote though it doesn't support the text. Seems like back door for WP:BLP material which is visiable to the reader as much as the text itself.

In addition, talk about a picture in one of the places he lectured. Seems like a way to tie Glick with Kahana. It might be true but this is a pathetic way of sourcing it. entry, revert and talk page 212.76.112.113 (talk) 09:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmm -- easy way to resolve this is to write/add some text that draws on that quote. Sound good? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
errr....not quite, what our IP editor is referring to is a quote by another source placed in by Nishidani. That doesn't seem to be a BLP. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
In fact I'm having great difficulty in trying to make the IP understand the distinction between a source, and an editor. I added what the source says, and he blames me. As they say in Rome, Boh!. Nishidani (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
What Nishidani does is making WP into BWP which stands for blackwashpedia. While good editors, some of his edits are as unencyclopedic as it gets. A picture on the wall, how 'informative', POVful and pathetic. 31.44.136.75 (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

<- Maybe someone should look into what Ashtul is doing nowadays since their topic ban ([[7]]). Sean.hoyland - talk 05:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Haneen Zoabi

Hey guys! :)

I recently had to undo some edit experiment here, and just want your attention and/or some sort of alertness, if OK to ask for it,, for the case that specific sort of unacceptable content manipulation in the intro recurs in any circumstance soon. The possible (fully legit) claim that "Palestinian" is just how the article's subjects describes herself is as we know absolutely irrelevant in the intro (which is and should be straight-factual & stand identical across all persons that share being Israeli Arabs - as in Nadia Hilou, Issawi Freij etc....) and it is anyway mentioned right in the beginning of the paragraph "Political views". Probably no sound reason that's supported by Wiki's guidelines should be seen for allowing singling-out just this personality as a "Palestinian" in the intro. Please stand on the guard.. Thanks so much! 5.102.207.49 (talk) 04:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC) ...and the IP was almost immediately undone. It is a long-standing consensus that what they self-define in should be in the lead, here. The IP tried to undo that, Huldra (talk) 22:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Laurie Patton

Hi there

About ten years ago an entry in my name was placed by the guy who looked after the TVS (Television Sydney) website and such like.

I recently updated it (alas he died some time ago). It now has a message attached to it from a Wikiperson asking for references, etc.

I have done my best to oblige but the message remains.

Perhaps someone could let me know what else is needed or delete the message?

Thanks

LAURIE PATTON — Preceding unsigned comment added by InternetAU (talk • contribs) 04:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the article has been nominated for deletion probably due to poor sourcing (mostly unreliable or non-independent sources). For some reason the discussion page hasn't been created accordingly. The best you could do to contest the nomination is providing good sourcing. For a guide on what we consider good sourcing, see WP:IRS, WP:IS and WP:REFB. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Eyes needed at Kareem Abdul-Jabbar article

Today Abdul-Jabbar used some irony at the beginning of an opinion piece about Rachel Dolezal. That is now being used to edit his height to 5'8" in his article. If others could add the article to their watchlist until this blows over that would be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 20:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

For goodness sake... FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more FoCuSandLeArN. The conversation on the talk page has gotten very silly. I wish Graham Chapman's Colonel would show up to put an end to the sketch. MarnetteD|Talk 22:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
@MarnetteD: Indeed. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Love it FoCuSandLeArN. I was about to go and dig through my DVDs but you have saved me the trip. Many Thanks :-) MarnetteD|Talk 22:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I've just topic-banned an editor who is being disruptive in this regard, pursuant to the discretionary sanctions covering biographies of living persons. I haven't done all the "paperwork" associated with the sanction, as I have BlackBerry-only access right now plus this is a very silly case, but I will if I have to. Hopefully this can stop now. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I thought I had seen everything on Wikipedia then someone comes along and ups the ante. This one clearly qualifies for WP:LAME.--ukexpat (talk) 00:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

A perfect example of argumentum ad absurdum Scr★pIronIV 02:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Omar Barghouti

Perhaps not the most savoury character, but even so: this edit removes a paragraph containing factual claims, sourced entirely to an op-ed. This edit restores it, saying the claims are a matter of opinion. Talk page section. Article subject to 1RR; I could remove it again per BLP but I'd rather have someone else weigh in. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no BLP issue here, and if you remove it again , expect a 1RR report. All Rows4 (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, you reverted TWICE ([8], [9]) an edit from an op-ed that had the qoute "Glick is a dangerous extremist whose actions could plunge us all into a bloody religious war". Twice!!! W/o participation in the talk page!!! It didn't even support the text "religious rights activist".
Being an anti-Israeli (quite a few people identify as one) isn't even close on the BLP metter to 'dangerous extremist' but somehow you are against the former and fight for the later. 31.44.136.75 (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Since this is an op-ed by all accounts, I guess it has to be asked - who is Roberta Seid and why is her opinion about the subject important? §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
She is "a historian and former lecturer at the University of Southern California. She is a researcher and consultant on Israeli history" [10], so quite a relevant expert on the topic at hand. Perhaps her opinion is not of importance, but that is a WP:UNDUE question to be discussed on the article's talk page, not a BLP issue. Whenever the goalposts move as rapidly as they have here , from claims that the quote violates WP:RS, to claims that there is a WP:BLP, to now WP:UNDUE, I suspect that there is some other agenda at play, and the wikilawyering is just a pretext. All Rows4 (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Jack Sarfatti talk page specifically the section "what has he done"

the statements by Calton, Vufors & JanBielawski' are of no objective substance, but are defamatory and blatant cyberbullying in violation of Wikipedia policy. 2601:646:101:8E38:A139:5F13:7EC7:49B2 (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Your definition of 'objectivity' appears to be somewhat contrary to the general understanding of the term. And nothing on that talk page is either remotely defamatory nor bullying.
And for background reference: [11] AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Hastert

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

This is just a brief update. The lead of our Dennis Hastert article was the subject of a recent RFC regarding "sexual abuse" allegations. Then a request was made to close the RFC, and so it was closed by an admin. Then the close was appealed by the editor who had requested it, and the close was then overturned. So, the RFC now remains open, and it raises BLP issues. The open RFC is at the article talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Zulu_(musician)

The subject of this article is blatantly writing and editing it himself, including unsourced information and self promotion. He is reverting corrections to the article without any commenting. He is trying to add a copyrighted image to the article as well. I believe this article should be deleted due to not falling under of the guidelines of WP:NMUSIC. 71.96.93.217 (talk) 03:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Why would someone promoting themselves need to upload a copyrighted photo, surely they have plenty of non copyrighted photos of themselves Govindaharihari (talk) 06:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
He claims to own the copyright to the image, but did not take the photo himself (he credited a photographer for the image). This would suggest it is not user-created, and it is not clear to me that the image follows Wikipedia's image use policy. I welcome anyone to chime in on this and the other issues.71.96.93.217 (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Zulu_(musician)

Carlos Latuff antisemitic?

Presently, only marginal activist sources, like Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Aktion Kinder des Holocaust and Stephen Roth Institute calls Latuff antisemitic, while sources like The Jewish Daily Forward says he is not. Still editors insists on having the allegations in the lead, in addition to a large section dedicated to the issue further down in the article. I think that this is WP:UNDUE, and a WP:BLP-violation. Input from "outsiders" is welcome, Huldra (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The above is wrong, on multiple counts. First of all , theStephen Roth Institute - a research institute at Tel Aviv University in Israel, is far from being a "marginal activist source". Neither is Joel Kotek, a professor at Belgium’s Free University of Brussels who published an acaemic book on the topic, a marginal or activist source. Next, the The Jewish Daily Forward said nothing about this - it featured an interview with Latuff, where Latuff denied the allegations against him. The lead is supposed to summarize the article. The article features a lengthy section on this notable controversy (indeed , it is the controversy itself which arguably makes this otherwise non-notable cartoonist notable), so a single line in teh lead which describes the allegations and his denial of them is not only proper, it is required.All Rows4 (talk) 22:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Sigh: There was a reason why I asked for views from "outsiders"; as not to make this an exact replica of the Talk:Carlos Latuff Huldra (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
You presented the situation in a blatantly false way . Let's hear outsiders' opinion now that I set the record straight. All Rows4 (talk) 22:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • As an outsider, the thing that strikes me here is that the only generalist source used in that paragraph is The Jewish Daily Forward, and it doesn't think he's a antisemitic. Most of the other sources are narrow niche sources which look like they might be partisan. That speaks to me of the whole thing being a storm in a teacup and thus suitable for inclusion in the lede. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Fredrik Fasting Torgersen

Strictly speaking this is not a BLP issue, because the subject died on June 19. An account with socklike features (Gazprompt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has seized upon this event to make massive edits to the article that strike me as far from neutral. This only came to my attention because of a provocative post to Jimbo's talk page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&type=revision&diff=667641998&oldid=667628716 ). Other than that I have never even heard of this person, so I couldn't think of anything better to do than to bring up the matter here. Looie496 (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Looie496, I haven't looked at the Article, or the edits, so can't comment; but thought it worth mentioning that, per WP:BDP, the WP:BLP policy also applies to the recently deceased. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 20:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes the BLP would still apply for upto 2 years. If there's enough to leave you to believe that anyone in particular might be a sock you might consider opening an SPI.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Albert Robles

(1) The picture on the Wikipedia account for Albert T. Robles is of a different Albert Robles who is the current Mayor of the City of Carson. (2) The Article is about Albert T. Robles of South Gate, CA however, the title on the page is missing the "T" and is being confused with the current Mayor of the City of Carson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justawikithought (talk • contribs) 16:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Moved the article to Albert T. Robles. Created a redirect Albert T Robles. Albert Robles is now a redirect for this page though so it will still link to the same article. If the Mayor of Carson is notable however you could convert that redirect into an article about them.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Paul Banks (singer) page

User Ebyabe has multiple times reinserted unsourced information and deleted sourced information without prior discussion in a manner that suggests they are vandalising. The Probability Wizard 18:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Probability Wizard (talk • contribs)

Yep, evil vandal, that's me. You can check my contribution history to see what a horrible unproductive Wikipedian I am. And lord knows I haven't been responsible for any useful projects since I've been here.  :) --‖ Ebyabe talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 18:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Note that User:The Probability Wizard is evading a block, and has said as much at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Aurora_Prince. They threw out a similar BLPN boomerang about their other article of choice last week. --McGeddon (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Ebyabe, please keep your comments relevant to the topic at hand rather than utilising emotional pleas and inappropriate language. Your revert to the Paul Banks page had no reason behind it and was suspicious given no prior interest in that page on your behalf. McGeddon, this account is open and not blocked and so your comment too is irrelevant. If you have questions about edits, a simple Talk page discussion rather than unfounded and melodramatic accusations should suffice. The Probability Wizard 18:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Probability Wizard (talk • contribs)

The Probability Wizard indefinitely blocked for block evading. --NeilN talk to me 19:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Matt Haag

The wikipedia page of Matt Haag, or OpTic NaDeSHoT, incorrecly lists Matt Haag as playing for FaZe Clan. This is veritably incorrect. The user making the edit, Katie3738?? is repeatedly changing this to FaZe Clan. The user needs to be banned from editing and the information should be replaced with OpTic Gaming and their positionings in the tournaments (which were incorrect in the list.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.236.228.239 (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Warned user. No warnings had been left on the talk page of Katie7638 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I have left an edit-warring warning. —C.Fred (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

2015 European Games

Could someone please check the appropriateness of the The Guardian article as a source here. I don't think that the expressions such as ″murderous old brute″, ″mafia state″, ″crime family″ are appropriate for a serious encyclopedia. It sounds more like a yellow press report, and I doubt that such labels are in line with BLP policy. Grandmaster 21:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed - I have removed the material while it is discussed. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Really wouldn't say there's much to discuss. The removal is a sound call.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The same source is also used in Patrick Hickey (judoka). It is a BLP article. Grandmaster 10:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the material while it is discussed. Per Serialjoepsycho above, this may not be a long discussion. Grandmaster, please feel free to remove any similar WP:BLP concerns that you might find. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 11:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for your comments. I just wanted to have a community consensus before I do something. Grandmaster 19:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Yanis Varoufakis

The article currently includes quotes (under the Greek Finance Minister section) with glowing compliments. One is unsourced, however, the other two are from people with whom he published books, as noted further down the page. This is typical logrolling and lacking in credibility - contentious in the words of the living persons policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.189.205.1 (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Guillermo Cabanellas

Deleted as copyvio. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The article does not seem to have encyclopaedic relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.97.70.45 (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome to nominate it for deletion if you wish (although I'd recommend creating an account first). However, you must do some homework before you do that, and my guess is the subject probably meets WP:PROF if nothing else. The onus is on the nominator to prove that the subject does not meet our inclusion guidelines. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I have nominated it for deletion, as it is just one long curriculum vitae. WP:PROF (if someone wishes to show it meets this, feel free) isn't an end-around the WP:GNG anyways. Tarc (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mark Chelgren

The following information was removed from the Mark Chelgren article with the comment Removed politically motivated material:

In 2015, Chelgren proposed a bill to the Iowa Legislature requiring all university professors to teach at least one course each semester, to terminate employment of professors receiving poor course evaluations, and to hold a student vote among the five professors with the worst course evaluations, in order to terminate the contract of the professor receiving the fewest votes.[1][2][3] In an interview with the Chronicle of Higher Education regarding the bill, Chelgren asserted: "When I went to school, the professors who graded the hardest were among my favorite professors, not among my least favorites. The ones who seemed like they were just going through the motions and weren’t actually doing their jobs were the ones that were very frustrating. Instead of me working with that professor, you’d be pushed off to a TA or you’d simply deal with a professor who was so arrogant that you couldn’t actually ask questions without being demeaned in class. You talk about education in general and avoiding bullying issues, but a professor runs their classroom like they’re some kind of dictator."[4]

What is the relevant policy to determine inclusion or exclusion of such information? Arguably, almost any information on a politician can be considered to be added or removed with political motivation. What Wikipedia policies apply here? Does this paragraph belong in the article or not? --Gerrit CUTEDH 16:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Gerritholl, I'd say Educrat132 is wrong to remove your entry. Yours was sourced reliably (except the one source linking to acadameblog). Further Educrat123 seems to be editing ONLY the Mark Chelgren article, making him likely an SPA, further he appears to be whitewashing the article, in | this edit he removed a fact added in by Sysop Northamerica10000, and made essentially the same edit | here as well , added puffery here , removed a reference | here , twice as well as here, where he removed a reference and added in puffery | here. If Educarat123 isn't Mark Chelgren, I'd wager it's some one with a strong COI or someone under his direction. I'm inclined to put it back and see him warned. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
It made the news at NPR as well, so I'd say that's notable enough for inclusion, along with the Chronicle of Higher Ed source. Tarc (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Senate File 64, by Chelgren
  2. ^ Iowa bill proposes faculty play survivor
  3. ^ Culling the Iowa faculty
  4. ^ http://chronicle.com/article/Iowa-Legislator-Wants-to-Give/229589/

A bit of a head's up

I revisited the article for Deray McKesson tonight since he was mentioned on Fox News's Hannity show (my grandfather watches it religiously). It looks like he was the focus of a concentrated series of online attacks via Twitter recently, so there's a chance that this could spill over on to Wikipedia. So far I don't see where there's been anything to truly worry about, but I figured that having a few other eyes on the article would help. Also, if anyone wants to help flesh the article out that'd be fantastic - I've done stuff here and there but I'm not overly familiar with everything and I normally don't follow the news in general, so if anyone is more familiar with the Black Lives Matter movement then they might be a better asset to the article than I am. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Angela Rose

A few different editors (who may be related or SPs) have repeatedly added copyvio to and removed sourced content from Angela Rose. I have requested page protection, but I am not very familiar with which process is preferred for BLPs, so I am posting here as well. I have reverted this copyvio a few times and do not want to run into accusations of 3RR. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Page has been protected. I made a series of edits to also cleanup the page and remove unsourced content. Meatsgains (talk) 02:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Naomi Wolf

Hi, it appears that no editor is keeping watch over this BLP, but in the past few days it has been attacked by IPs. I reverted this yesterday, but there is a persistent effort by this new IP to add "titillating" and otherwise slanderous material to the page. I am going to undo their edits now, but I am asking for page protection or for someone to help. This is my first experience with vandalism of a BLP, so I am not sure if I'm responding appropriately. It seem obvious that the following is not appropriate. Should I ask at ANI for this IP to be blocked? Thanks in advance, petrarchan47คุก 21:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

  • "She later fell in love with the movie producer Avram Ludwig, whom The New York Times said possesses "the skill to deliver orgasms that make the leaves outside her upstate home glow in Wizard of Oz Technicolor."
  • see changes
  • tendentious editing
Protected for two weeks. Those edits were a bit much. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Thank you so much. petrarchan47คุก 21:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Added to watchlist. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 12:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Mohammad_Yaqoobi

This article was listed as 2014 for copy edit and I reviewed. I found that this article did not meet the requirements for notability or independent sources for biography of Living Persons. I highlighted it for deletion and notified authors. My edits were reverted without explanation. Isthisuseful (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit summaries explained the reason for the revert. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
See also User talk:Miniapolis#Proposed deletion of Mohammad Yaqoobi. Pinging Miniapolis to notify that this revert is being discussed here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Poorly sourced material on someone who just died a few days ago?

Hi all! I have an odd question for you: there is an editor repeatedly adding poorly sourced info to wikipedia about an actor who just recently died. I've removed it a few times and spoken with the editor on his talk page but, he just put the info back again with the same poor source that doesn't say any of the info he's adding to wikipedia (other than the fact that the actor is dead): no dates for his tenure on the show, no confirmation of the characters he played. Is this allowed or can I continue to remove it? What should be done? Thanks in advance.Cebr1979 (talk) 12:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@Cebr1979: Please provide a link so other editors can have a look at the page and take whatever action may be necessary. Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 12:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
He actually just added a better source so the point is now moot. Thanks anyhow, @Eagleash:.Cebr1979 (talk) 12:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Julian Priestley

In the Wikipedia article on Julian Priestley on the right side there is a reference to his post as Secretary General of the European Parliament 1997 - 2007. The presidents during this time (of the European Parliament of which he is the SecGen) are referred to as well. Unfortunately, the names given are those of the Presidents of the European Commission. Could somebody set this right, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.41.42.3 (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Antonin Scalia

4th paragraph, last sentence should be deleted. It states that on June 26, 2015 (today) Antonin Scalia was arrested for attempting to burn down the Supreme Court Building. This is obviously non-sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.92.148.18 (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Already reverted by another IP. Monty845 16:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Lea Michele

User:Attmcb is insisting on including material in the Lea Michele article regarding an alleged sale of her home in Los Angeles. ([12])

The user claims, in an edit summary, that the photo in the cited realty site page "is the same picture" as the picture in the Daily Mail article cited as source #1 in the article ([13]). While these two pictures are similar, they are not identically the same photo (they could be the same house seen from two different angles, or they could be two separate houses in the same housing tract which happen to look very much alike). Nothing on the realty site page identifies Lea Michele, or anyone else, as the current or former owner. In my opinion, saying these are "the same picture", and on that basis concluding that this is/was Lea Michele's house, violates WP:SYNTH.

Further, the realty site page gives the address of the house in question — thus arguably providing Lea Michele's recent-past residence address. Even if such information is accurate, it is inappropriate per WP:BLPPRIVACY. On that basis, I reverted Attmcb's original inclusion of this new material, suppressed it per the oversight policy, and notified the user ([14]); however, he/she has restored the challenged information.

What do others think is appropriate here? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  • he information has already been deleted as suppressed, but I agree it doesn't belong. —МандичкаYO 😜 11:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Penderyn (whisky)

Controversial assertions regarding Penderyn director Nigel Vernon Short are not supported by the link provided, nor are they germane to the subject of this entry.

This section has been multiply-reverted by user Ibadibam, who appears to have a wish to defame the person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ontarioboy (talk • contribs) 19:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

It is difficult to assess the reliability of source from an archive link - but regardless of whether it is reliably sourced or not, a discussion regarding what one of the directors did in relation to an unrelated business seems off-topic to me. 20:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Fairly clear that this is an WP:UNDUE WP:COATRACK. Information has already been removed by AndyTheGrump. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Richard C. Hoagland

Could we have a review of the article? It appears to me that the subject is openly being trashed both in the lede and body of the article, in an obviously unencyclopedic way. I don't pretend to understand Hoagland's theories, but he was a science advisor/commentator, appearing with Walter Cronkite at CBS for three years, an inconvenient fact which is omitted entirely from the lede, while violations of core WP:BLP policy abound, as I see it. The phrase "never held a degree" is one example of slant in the text of the article, but the lede is particularly nasty: I earlier today attempted to remove the second and third paragraphs, but was reverted. The obvious hostile slant is an embarrassment to the encyclopedia. Reads like an attempt, line by line, to discredit, shame, and belittle the subject, who according to the Talk page, has complained about his Wikipedia article. No matter what one believes about this person, the encyclopedia has to do a much better job than this. Clear violations of WP:UNDUE, even if sourced properly. Jusdafax 23:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The page has already had at least one very extensive review. I invite interested parties to this discussion to inspect the 7 May 2014 version. You will then appreciate how extensive the review immediately after that date was. User:Jusdafax seems to want a rosier version of this man's curriculum vitae but, absent any endorsement of his "work" in the public record, I would say it's going to be near-impossible to source such a version adequately. Stu (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
What I want is not a "rosier version" but an encyclopedic article that does not come off like a hatchet job. Again, I request a review of the article from an uninvolved party. Even a cursory look reveals BLP violations and WP:UNDUE emphasis. Jusdafax 06:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
One of your recent edits there removed the second and third paragraphs from the lead. But if he isn't notable for bizarre "scientific" claims and conspiracy theories, what is he notable for? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I removed the paragraphs because in my view they require a fundamental rewrite and need to be discussed. And as I say above, not to include any mention of Hoagland's years of television appearances on CBS with Walter Cronkite makes the lede unbalanced. I do see a bit of improvement, after my removal, but as it stands the lede is unencyclopedic, the version prior to my deletion extremely so. Jusdafax 07:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I'd support inclusion of appearance with Cronkite. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I came here because the regular editors at the article appear to have the attitude that Stu, above, has. Rather than add material in now, I'll continue here. Now how do we justify the third paragraph in the lede? It's out and out trashing to have Oberg's and Greenberg's opinions of Hoagland there to conclude the lede. Oberg, according to his article, is a hostile "skeptic." Again, is this an encyclopedia or a bashing forum? Jusdafax 08:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Jusdafax, I think your description of James Oberg as a "hostile skeptic" is quite unfair and borders on a BLP violation itself. Let me first disclose that I corresponded extensively with Oberg about space policy, going back about 35 years. He served with NASA for 22 years, he is one of the foremost U.S. experts on the Soviet space program, and now the Russian space program. He is highly respected and widely considered to be a person of great integrity. My familiarity with Hoagland also goes back to the 1970s. His professional reputation is poor. Of course, the article should not be a hit job, but it also should not sugarcoat Hoagland. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
So, you have a personal relationship with Oberg, Cullen. Ok. Now, this is from his Wikipedia article, which I assume you have read. "He is a Fellow of the skeptical organization CSICOP and a consultant to its magazine Skeptical Inquirer " . My description of Oberg, as I said originally, comes from his prominent membership in organizations that use the term in their titles. So, I am "quite unfair" for, well, for what? For pointing out facts you don't like? Jusdafax 02:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Oberg's participation in skepticism and criticism of charlatans is a minor part of a long and distinguished career in the technology of space exploration. Hoaglund is notable only for activism advancing bizarre conspiracy theories. One of them is indisputably reliable, and the other is the opposite. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

...looking still further via Google reveals an interesting dispute between Greenberg and Hoagland regarding the origins of the theory that there is an ocean of liquid water under the crust of Europa, and that no less a figure than Arthur C. Clarke acknowledged Hoagland's work for Clarke's inspiration for the plot point in Clarke's "2010." Greenberg's Wikipedia article, by the way, is loaded with unreferenced claims, and arguably should be tagged for speedy deletion. Is this a worthy citation for the lede? I'd say no, and suggest deleting the third paragraph at once. Jusdafax 09:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
If someone writes that there were ancient civilizations on the moon etc. and that the American government is conspiring to hide this information, I think "conspiracy theorist" and "pseudoscientist" are not unfair. There are other sources for these descriptions apart from Greenberg. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

If User:Jusdafax wishes to add that Hoagland was a consultant to CBS TV News 43 years ago, I assume he or she has a reliable source for that. Obviously, to be encyclopedic it isn't enough that Hoagland claims this. Stu (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Took me about 5 seconds to find this. Also this, a book discussing conspiracy theories (but not a conspiracy theory pushing one). Also this. There are thousands of hits, there are bound to be many more, and one only has to be careful how many of the websites have recycled press releases from Hoagland or his website. Black Kite (talk) 14:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
All right, good enough. Just be sure, please, not to go along with Hoagland's claim that he was in some sense a personal assistant to Cronkite. The sources I've seen say he was one of four consultants to the CBS Apollo coverage, along with Lindy Davis, Charles Friedlander and G. Harry Stine. Stu (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with how the article treats the subject, or anything that would violate BLP or NPOV. When someone is extremely notable for promoting fringe conspiracy theories, WP:FRINGE instructs us to make it clear how those ideas differ from the mainstream. I think NPOV is often confused with "neutrality" and "let's make both sides of the issue sound respectable and let the reader decide". When it's warranted, Wikipedia is not neutral. And this is certainly such a case. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Well we are making a bit of progress, thanks to Nomo and Black Kite. We also have some interesting comments from the regulars at the article. Stu has admitted he hasn't bothered to look for sourcing, which is interesting judging from his previous statements, and Louie doesn't "see anything wrong." Noted. I'd like some additional commentary from others uninvolved in this article, if possible. I say again, before I came along and took issue with it via deletion and bringing it here, that the article was one of the worst examples of bias in a BLP that I have seen in over six years of editing Wikipedia. Jusdafax 01:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Now now, let's not get snippy. I never wrote that I couldn't be bothered to look for sources. To the contrary, I wrote what my sources told me about Hoagland's status at CBS. However, one source is a blog, and another is a video recording of a press conference by Hoagland himself. Neither would pass muster here, I think. Stu (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I ask again for uninvolved editors to review the BLP and give it a neutral assessment. With few exceptions, the commenters here can't really be called neutral, in my view. Jusdafax 15:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Julian Gardner (poker player)

There is currently a discussion on the talk page of Julian Gardner's article regarding whether a certain piece of information about his playing habits should be included. There have been some concerns expressed about whether all points of view are being equally included in the discussion, so I would appreciate it if any interested editors would take a look at the discussion and weigh in with their thoughts to help us reach consensus. The article is also currently the subject of a deletion discussion if any editors are interested in adding to that discussion as well. Thanks! ~ RobTalk 04:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if youre all still discussing this. Simplest solution is just to keep it out. This is in no way vital to the article. Its unsourced. And some editors are concerned that it may be a slight at Gardner's character (of which there is no apparent reliable source). If there were a source backing it this would be a different discussion. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Amit_Khanna

This article is poorly sourced and not written from a NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.22.72 (talk • contribs)

I had a look over this Article, but do not see anything obviously violating WP:BLP. Suggest that concerned editors raise their issues on that Article's Talk page. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 12:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
A WP:PEACOCK statement removed, but agree with Ryk72: no obvious BLP violations. Minor issues are better discussed at the talkpage. GermanJoe (talk) 13:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The biography for Dan Puric is libellous.

The page about Dan Puric on english wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Puric is written by Mycomp, a user who hates him and the page is written in bad faith. The article is poorly documented and I think intentionally misleading.

In the first paragraph he wrote about this romanian actor that he is a "Christian Orthodox taliban" quoting a source from a newspaper article that doesn't exists anymore.

Dan Puric is an actor, essayist, author and Romanian theater director and indeed he believe in Christian values, bun he is not fundamentalist in any way.

The romanian page here: https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Puric, is written as a list at the moment but one can see how manny books he wrote and the prises he won, and the english article sais nothing of this, just some quots from one controversed book of the author, published in 2008, where he expressed his disslike for the western countries that left Romania to the comunism after world warr II and allso express his opinion on hommosexuality and that homosexuals should not adopt cildren, but even this oppinions are not expressed with hate or fundamentalism, as a mater of fact the author always speaks about love.

Dan Puric never speaks or writes with hate, like this wikipedia article is written, and I think the article should be completed or completely removed for the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazmandev (talk • contribs) 12:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done - Removed sections of lede & "controversies" section, per WP:BLP; Watchlisted. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 12:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Bill Hudson

Bill Hudson is the father of Oliver and Kate Hudson. Just because, as a public figure, he has disowned them in the press, does not warrant the elimination of their names from the Wikipedia-page. This is a page based in supportable facts and not emotional outbursts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poboxbrian (talk • contribs) 20:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, we should keep an eye on this article. Factual information needs to remain. One cannot delete biological children. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Affair and blackmail section

I came across the Susanne Klatten article by chance in my COI work and noticed that it has a dedicated section about blackmail threats she received. It looked undue to me, especially since a lot of the content is about the arrest and indictment of the perpetrator, rather than anything she did herself. My potential COI would take too long to explain - just thought I would flag it here as something worth taking a look at. CorporateM (Talk) 23:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Hmm... on one hand I can see your point - it is a bit undue. However on the other hand, it does have quite a bit of coverage and resulted in an arrest. I'd probably recommend re-writing the section to be less salacious but keep some mention of this in the article since it apparently did get a bit of press. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Maybe merge it into personal life? There's already a bit about her attempted kidnapping and we could probably boil this down to a few sentences. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I also noted that apparently he was brought to court over multiple similar schemes, not just what he did to Klatten, so I tried to work that in as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks @Tokyogirl79:. Yah, I figured either that, or the criminal himself may warrant an article, where his crimes can be covered in greater depth. I didn't look too much into it; just thought I'd flag it. I made a similar post about a company page here, but we don't have a BLPN equivalent for company pages and so I'm not sure that was actually an ideal place to put it. If anyone has a minute to look at it, it's the Internet Brands page, which has a large poorly-sourced Controversies section. CorporateM (Talk) 15:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Rick Ross (consultant)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rick_Ross_%28consultant%29

I have tried to have edits made to correct the selective representation of my criminal record 1974-1983.

I think that the criminal record must be done accurately and not selectively. However, nothing seems to be going on regarding the suggested edit. The account of my criminal record remains selective and incomplete. I suggest the following;

In 1974 at the age of 21, Ross was arrested for the attempted burglary of a vacant model home, but later pleaded guilty to misdemeanor trespassing. He was sentenced to probation. The next year Ross was convicted for the felony conspiracy to commit grand theft.[1] He again plead guilty, made full restitution and received probation, which was ended early for good conduct in 1979. Arizona Superior Court later dismissed all charges, expunged Ross' criminal record and restored his civil rights in 1983.[2]

The word "expunged" can be linked to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expungement_in_the_United_States

Rick Alan Ross173.72.57.223 (talk) 17:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello:

Does anyone check this page?

There is a serious problem at my bio, which is being used as a propaganda platform to attack me and my work.

Rick Alan Ross173.72.57.223 (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The thread at Talk:Rick Ross (consultant)#New request for edit re: Criminal Record has gone untouched since 8 June. It looks like the concern may have been over the sourcing for the expunging of Ross' record. —C.Fred (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

When can this issue finally be resolved? I have repeatedly offered the original documents in addition to them being in PDF online. Rick Alan Ross173.72.57.223 (talk) 16:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

ross money mitchell

There is no such boxer. All the references are fake

Ross Money Mitchell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.175.65 (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Jeffrey Dale

His name is spelled wrong and his birth place is incorrect

Its Jeffrey Dale

Born in Winnfield, Louisiana

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisatalbott (talk • contribs) 05:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be about our article Jeffery Dale, former safety for the San Diego Chargers. The spelling of his name is debatable, LA Times does have Jeffrey[15][16], but NFL.com says Jeffery[17] as does the USA Today College Football Encyclopedia[18]. I'm going to list both, just in case. As to the birth place, NFL.com clearly says Pinevill, and I can't see Winnfield anywhee ... except that second LA Times article that says he went to high school in Winnfield. So I am going to restore Pineville, and add Winnfield HS. --GRuban (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Rosin_Jolly

Controversy[edit source | edit] Rosin is criticized by public for getting close to Rahul Easwar in the reality show Malayalee House. They responded by saying that the issue is hyped up. [4]

this is unsourced item , i have removed it many times but some one is posting it again & again there is a TV show and nothing happned inside like controversy between two persons , — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sibipaul (talk • contribs) 05:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done - removed controversy section per WP:BLP; reference deadlinks; quick search of source does not easily find same information.

Leon Brittan

This article may need more eyes at the moment. An editor, now blocked for legal threats (who may not go quietly) was also faking references. The latest material he had added to the article was not only redundant (covered at length in another section) but contained material not remotely supported by the references he added. Note the subject died 6 months ago. Voceditenore (talk) 13:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the page's been watchlisted. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Callum James Greens

This page Callum James Greens appears to be factually incorrect and written by its own subject. The person / page does not fulfil the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endofcity (talk • contribs) 14:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I have proposed this for deletion. None of the "facts" about this person are verifiable and it comprehensively fails to pass any of the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people). All sources are either by the subject himself or referenced to publicity blurbs in a blog. I can find nothing better. Voceditenore (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Definitely fails WP:MUSIC and General Notability. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Blogspot pages do not make notability. Spumuq (talq) 13:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Tom Lister, Jr.

Tom Lister, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello , I have a situation i want to get fix , but i need help i was send here since they didnt know what to do. Tommy Lister Jr is born from Compton, California . los angeles memorial hospital has his birth certificate on file and i also have his birth certificate since he send it to me . i contacted the source u got on his wikipedia page the encyclopedia of arkansas due to the lack of information they took down his article on there page . i emailed them Mr.lister's birth certificate i have . would u be able to help me please ? thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohgeejay (talk • contribs) 20:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe WP:OTRS? GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Vincent Niclo

Probably incorrect date of birth - compare the French version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.42.165.23 (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Changed to 1975 in Vincent Niclo per multiple online sources (BBC, Gala, music charts and magazines). Make sure to change all dates (lead, infobox, persondata, cat) in the article, if 1975 is wrong despite those sources. GermanJoe (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

List of Big Brother 17 HouseGuests (U.S.)

I've raised this at the talk page of List of Big Brother 17 HouseGuests (U.S.), but so far no one seems interested in participating, so I'd like to get a wider input and see where we're at. For those unfamiliar, Big Brother is a reality tv series; sometimes the houseguests are notable for something before coming in, e.g. [Vanessa Rousso]] this year, but with the exceptino of the eventual winner, these people rarely become notable enough for standalone articles. An IP editor has added dates of birth several times which I have removed, erring on the cautious side of WP:BLPPRIVACY. DOBs do not appear on the official BB show page, nor in reliable sources that I have been able to find, so I am concerned that this info is being culled from the subject's social media and the like.

Articles on past seasons (List of Big Brother 16 HouseGuests (U.S.), List of Big Brother 15 HouseGuests (U.S.) have this problem that I'd like to see fixed as well, unless this approach to BLPPRIVACY is seen as too conservative? Tarc (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Edward Snowden

We have a BLP edit war currently going on at Edward Snowden. Here is the offending edit. (The contention in the edit summary that there is consensus there is no BLP violation is patently false.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused - can you make clear what your reasons are for removing that content that is sourced to the Sunday Times and the BBC? --ℕ ℱ 22:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Seems fine to me too. Backed up by three sources that are commonly considered reliable. Eagleash (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
You have to dig a little deeper. The Sunday Times story isn't reliable as it's been roundly and completely slammed by reliable sources - see the discussion I just started at Edward Snowden#Sunday Times story. Beyond that, this is an extraordinary and completely unsubstantiated accusation of wrongdoing by a living person. Numerous reliable sources have rebutted the claim, so even if the Sunday Times story is reliable, repeating the accusation without any response is grossly non-neutral. (The BBC source merely reports on what the Sunday Times wrote. And even the BBC published a rebuttal story.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to me quite as clear cut as you are presenting it. The Sunday Times and BBC reported that unnamed govt sources advised them spies had to be moved as a result of them being compromised by information that may have been obtained by China and Russia. It is clear that the govt sources did not provide evidence of that to the newspaper - wouldn't you be surprised if they did? Any possible evidence would be likely highly classified. There was then criticism of the story by people saying look they didn't have evidence. Nobody has disputed that the government did say that though, I'm not clear on how that is a rebuttal. How could anyone outside the government know whether spies had to be moved? The BBC story you mention as a rebuttal just reports one person's criticism of the story. --ℕ ℱ 22:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The journalist admitted to CNN that all he did was talk to some guy at Downing Street and then report what the guy said, anonymously. That's an unsubstantiated accusation of an extraordinary claim. It also utterly fails all journalistic standards, both in the national security realm and out. The BBC story doesn't just report on "one person's" criticism. It reports statements by a professional and highly respected journalist with first-hand knowledge of the facts -- likely one of the most reliable witnesses there could be, and one who is bound by basics of journalistic ethics (unlike some unknown person at Downing Street, not even an intelligence officer). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I would agree that since two reliable sources have denounced the story, it would be better to wait until media has sorted it out. For now, WaPo offers a good reason to reject the addition: "Asked...whether the Sunday Times had any evidence to substantiate these claims, Harper responded, “No. We picked up on the story a while back from an extremely well-placed source in the home office”. petrarchan47คุก 06:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Agree, except that the media has sorted it out. It has roundly rejected the Sunday Times' story as not meeting journalistic standards. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • These are numerous solid sources, how is it a BLP violation? Spumuq (talq) 13:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Read immediately above. If you're not willing to read (and acknowledge) what others have already had to say on the matter, find another topic where you are willing to do work of that sort. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Why so hostile, we should discuss sources, not editors. Spumuq (talq) 14:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Spumuq, hostility aside, Nomoskedasticity is right. When we evaluate sources we look at the specific article, not just at the publisher. The particular article in question has been roundly slammed by the media (reliable and expert sources alike) as not meeting journalistic standards. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Mike Hoare

Reuters dispatch listed Mike Hoare,his wife and two daughters as murdered circa 1990.He has not been since this time by any person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Statemachine 01 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Statemachine 01: Do you have a source for that? §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I've had a look at a few news databases (Factiva, etc) for anything to confirm this and drawn a blank. Unless more information can be provided as to when this dispatch was raised and if it was ever confirmed, this 'fact' should not be in the article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC).

luke saville

Obvious vandalism to Luke Saville reverted. —C.Fred (talk) 13:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Luke saville was born in Berri, Australia, and the info on his page from before 28 June 2015, Someone has instead some saudi arabia related nonsense about his birth place, favourite football club and names of his siblings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.175.61.111 (talk) 12:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gamergate controversy

My opinions are repeatedly called "fringe" in this discussion. This is not an accusation that should be slung around without sources backing it up. Auerbachkeller (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like you ought to go to Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard.

Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules and policies are often references by acronyms and abbreviations that are either cryptic or, as here, look more alarming than they ought. The questions under discussion is whether -- and how -- your provocative Twitter post [19] can be used in the Gamergate Controversy article. As always, editors must weigh the source, the argument, the publication in which it appears, and its relationship to other reliable sources. One policy that's mentioned here is WP:RS and the question of self-published sources -- the encyclopedia typically considers material that appears in multiple mainstream sources as more reliable than self-published sources, though the latter can be used in some special circumstances. The other policy being discussed is WP:UNDUE -- whether the argument advanced by this source is representative of the consensus of reliable sources -- that is, whether it's "common knowledge" -- or is controversial though widely held, or whether neither is the case. The shorthand for the latter situation is WP:FRINGE and covers a host of things . Believing the earth is flat or that fluoridation is a communist conspiracy is WP:FRINGE, but so is the belief that Huckleberry Finn is a lousy book (pace Jane Smiley) or that the novels of Susan Sontag are overrated (Bull Durham) or any other exceptional opinion. Any striking opinion piece is likely to qualify as WP:FRINGE on publication -- the point of such pieces is to open eyes, after all. It could be worse: my classics training cries out to say that you're making an argument ex silentio, which would be a Bad Thing in Classics Quarterly but, after all, you're not writing for CQ. We can't point to dozens of articles in major newspapers and magazines that agree with the thesis you propound: that’s why you wrote this. The question before the encyclopedia is, which ideas are broadly agreed-upon by lots of sources and which, newly argued here, we must wait upon until a broader community has considered them. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I think that description of WP:FRINGE is overly expansive, but the point stands that "fringe" is being used as a term of art. Rhoark (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I gather this will not be addressed. Please correct me if I am wrong, or else I will take this feedback as a refusal. Auerbachkeller (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@Auerbachkeller: That's a discussion about the validity of your article as a source. Those are the opinions of individual editors and nothing there rises to the level that would require action by administrators. Nor is that talk page seen by 99% of the people who read the article. So I guess the question here is what would you like us to do? §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
It's true that policy about living persons does apply to article talk pages. At that talk page, it appears the pertinent discussion was primarily among User:Aquillion, User:DHeyward, and User:TheRedPenOfDoom. Are you seeking for any talk page comments to be deleted? You might have more success with such a request if you would first go to the noticeboard that I suggested above, i.e. Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard. Alternatively, if you would like us to change the word "fringe" to something like "non-mainstream" then please say if that would be satisfactory.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
@Anythingyouwant: That will not help. The use of WP:FRINGE in that context was incorrect, at least as far as Wikipedia considers the term. "Fringe" in general around here is alternative medicine and sasquatch and UFOs. "Fringe" as used in that discussion I assume means it's not mainstream or reliable or valid enough to include in the article. It's an incorrect application of the definition. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Frog. I pinged the three editors so they can explain how they meant the term. If they used the term incorrectly, perhaps they can agree to replace it with something else.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I've read through the rest of that horrible talk page and I think I understand what's going on. It seems certain sources have been called "fringe" in order to exclude them from the article. Which in my opinion is incorrect, but then that whole article is a true clusterf*ck anyway. Short of removing every comment that invoked WP:FRINGE I'm not sure how we would address this, and quite frankly as it is not clearly something that breaches WP:BLP I don't believe it is actionable. "Fringe" used to be limited to alternative theories about subjects that deviate greatly from the mainstream, but here it is being wielded as a weapon of sorts. Auerbachkeller, I would recommend bringing this to the Administrator's noticeboard where it will get more attention from experienced editors, and perhaps actioned in some way. On the other hand you can simply just ignore what random people on the internet say about you. But that's up to you. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Auerbach's self-published source is not fringe. It's basically a followup to his cited work in Salon. An opinion does not become "fringe" simply because it appears in a different source or form. If I say "the Earth is round," it doesn't become FRINGE simply because I wrote it in the notoriously unreliable source known as Wikpedia. In Auerbach's case it is not fringe and it's descrption as fringe is a BLP violation and should be corrected promptly as I originally did. We have no sources identifying his view as FRINGE. --DHeyward (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
WP:FRINGE is not about where an opinion or theory is published; it is about its relative prominence in the field. Auerbach's theories are, at least in my opinion, clearly not prominent -- almost no reliable sources agree with his interpretation of the situation, especially on this particular aspect -- so they fall under WP:FRINGE. Beyond that, as I said below, arguing that the mere assertion that a theory falls under WP:FRINGE is a BLP violation against the person who holds it would render us effectively unable to discuss the relative weight of sources. --Aquillion (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree this is not a BLP vio (because I agree we need to be able to discuss these issues), however I disagree with the application of the term "fringe" in that particular context. But that's neither here nor there. So long as BLP is being observed there's nothing for us to do. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
WP:FRINGE is, as people have explained above, a Wikipedia policy dealing with how to cover theories that are not widely-accepted; it is not meant to be derogatory, merely a comment that your opinion-pieces do not reflect the mainstream coverage of GamerGate among the rest of the press, and therefore shouldn't be given excessive weight. I stand by my opinion that your theories fall under that policy; they are directly at odds with the overwhelming majority of mainstream coverage. More mainstream outlets have, for instance, clearly taken the position that AAA publishers have condemned GamerGate. See eg. LA Times, NPR, PC Gamer, and The Washington Post; on the other hand, I'm not aware of any other reliable sources expressing your opinion that there is a secret well of AAA support. Beyond that, there are several other details of the opinions you express in your twitter that I feel are far out of mainstream coverage or scholarship on the subject, too -- I could provide more details if you want, but I think rehashing the subject's entire debate here isn't really necessary; it's enough to show that my position is at least reasonable, even if you disagree. Your opinion can still be mentioned, but I think it's clear that quoting your opinions on the controversy repeatedly throughout the article (as some people want to do) would be giving undue weight to a view that is not widely held. Now, all this is just my interpretation, and obviously some people disagree -- but that's why we have those talk page discussions in the first place. The important part is that saying that I feel your theories fall under WP:FRINGE is not a insult to you personally, and reading it that way would have chilling effect on our ability to discuss the relative weight of sources, which is a vital component of building a balanced article. --Aquillion (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Whether the views in question are "fringe" or not, that word is commonly defined as something that is marginal, additional, or secondary to some activity process or subject. It is certainly not a compliment, but it's not necessarily a personal insult either. I wish Wikipedia would reserve the word for Sasquatch-UFO type stuff, and use a milder word for more accepted small-minority views, but that's just me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
To me, "fringe" would be someone saying that GG is a conspiracy by the lizard people (albeit one presented very professionally). This is not fringe, nor are most of the sources referred to as fringe in that discussion and the archives. Yet apparently at some point "fringe" became "counter to my views" and no one did anything to prevent it. Just another toxic side effect these articles have on the project. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I object to that; please remember to assume good faith. I can understand your position that WP:FRINGE should be reserved for academic subjects with more clearly-defined standards of publication, but I think that it is still appropriate to use it to describe theories and takes on current events that go against a near-universal consensus among the reporting of mainstream reliable sources, as I believe to be the case here. Either way, my usage is clearly based on my honest belief that Auerbach's views are far out of the mainstream (which I think I have established reasonably well, both here and, at further length, on the talk page for the main article, and which I think is reasonably clear when you compare his take on the controversy to almost any other mainstream source.) I've presented much more coherent arguments than just "counter to my views", and by asserting that that is my reasoning you are implying bad faith on my part. If you feel that reading or application of WP:FRINGE is off, that's fine; if you feel that I'm wrong about Auerbach being out of the mainstream, you're welcome to dispute that on the talk page for the article. But implying, as you have here, that reasons behind my arguments are purely based on disagreement with Auerbach rather than a legitimate belief that his take on this issue is far out of the mainstream (and, I suppose, a legitimate disagreement over how to apply WP:FRINGE) is inappropriate; people with different perspectives on a topic and its coverage can have different views on what opinions are mainstream, what is prominent and what is WP:FRINGE, and so on. Those disagreements are not automatically signs of bad faith. --Aquillion (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
@Aquillion: My comment was not directed at you, sorry if it seemed that way. It's just a general observation about what goes on in that talk page. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

So you are placing me under this rubric (from WP:FRINGE):

We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field. For example, fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and have little or no scientific support.[3] Other examples include conspiracy theories and esoteric claims about medicine.
  • Creation science and Intelligent design – The overwhelming majority of scientists consider this to be pseudoscience and say that it should not be taught in elementary public education. However the very existence of this strong opinion, and vigorous discussion regarding it amongst groups such as scientists, scientific journals, educational institutions, political institutions, and courts of law give the idea itself more than adequate notability to have articles about it on Wikipedia.
  • Holocaust denial – Claims of Holocaust deniers – that Adolf Hitler had no genocidal intent against the Jews of Europe, that no gas chambers were used for mass murder at camps such as Auschwitz, that the number of Jews killed by the Nazis was far less than six million – are rejected as false by an overwhelming majority of professional historians, although the Holocaust deniers themselves will still occasionally get some public notice and therefore notability.
  • Moon landing conspiracy theories – Conspiracy theories which aim to show that the Moon landings were fake, while probably not held as true by very many people, have generated enough discussion in books, television programs, debunking statements from NASA, etc., that they deserve an article on Wikipedia.
  • Paul is dead – a famous urban legend alleging that Paul McCartney of The Beatles died in 1966 and was replaced by a look-alike, sound-alike duplicate named William Campbell. Denied by all four Beatles (including McCartney, who is alive and well as of 2014), this conspiracy theory was fueled by "clues" found among The Beatles' many recordings. The rumour has been the topic of much sociological examination because its development, growth and rebuttal took place very publicly, owing to The Beatles' enormous popularity.

And I take it you are indeed refusing to rescind this claim that I fall under this rubric, nor back it up with sources. Good to know. Again, please correct me if I am wrong. I want to be clear on this point. Auerbachkeller (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

You're misreading that list; it is a list of examples of highly notable fringe theories (which therefore tends towards ones that are particularly bold in their claims.) I am not asserting that your theories fall under that category. But I am indeed asserting that they fall under the general definitions of a WP:FRINGE theory, one that "is not broadly supported by scholarship" or is "an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view" in that particular field. I continue to hold the opinion that the theories you advanced in the twitter post in question (which may not, of course, describe your entire thinking on the issue) fall under both the letter and the spirit of our WP:FRINGE guideline in that respect. I believe I have provided sources above showing where the specific claim under contention goes against mainstream coverage, and I feel that going over the sources for the article makes it clear that the overarching position you advance in that twitter post departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view of the controversy. Now, of course, not everyone would agree; but as I said above, I think that it is vital that editors be able to express their honest opinion on the weight due to a source and whether it is WP:FRINGE or, similarly, whether it falls under any number of other policies that an author might interpret as derogatory. Certainly many authors would be as unhappy as you are here if they knew we described their words as 'unreliable' or 'biased', but we must be free to make those assertions, even if people might legitimately disagree, in order to produce a usable encyclopedia. --Aquillion (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC
I think your interpretation is lacking. FRINGE is not about how much it is accepted in reliable sources, it's how much it's rejected. There are many physics theories involving gravitons and strings that are not widely accepted and are not fringe because there is very little opposition but also very little support. Comparatively, fringe theories have direct opposition in mainstream sources. "Flat earth" is widely refuted and is fringe due to its opposition. Auerbach by contrast has no mainstream opposition. That, by definition is not fringe. --DHeyward (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I've decided to hat the discussion because it was going nowhere except bad places. Does that resolve everything?Bosstopher (talk) 22:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Is the resolution that the claim that I am "fringe" as described above is not going to be rescinded? Auerbachkeller (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
To clarify, I am not saying that you are fringe; my opinion is that the specific theories you advanced in that one particular Twitter post are WP:FRINGE. Fringe-ness, at least under our policy, applies to theories and ideas, not people. You are not fringe, but I feel that your opinion that there is a secret wellspring of support for GamerGate among AAA publishers, specifically, is a fringe theory under our policy. If you feel it's a BLP violation merely to describe a theory you articulated in this manner, I don't know what to say; I feel I've cited several reputable mainstream sources that contradict it, while the only source we have for it is your twitter post (which, even if you turned around and published it in a reputable publication, would still only be one opinion piece from a single person.) In a situation like that, I ultimately don't think it's reasonable to interpret criticism of a theory you've advanced as a BLP violation. --Aquillion (talk) 23:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I guess I have my answer. All right then. You say that I subscribe to a "theory" that your classification places on a par with Holocaust denial and creation science. You stand by that claim. Understood. Auerbachkeller (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
People may wish to see the items listed at Category:Fringe_theories.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
And with Godwin's Law validated, we are certainly now done with any productive discussion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I specifically said I didn't feel that that list of examples was a good comparison (since it's a list of fringe theories notable enough to support their own article, which naturally tends towards the incendiary and highly controversal.) I wouldn't compare the theories you advanced in your twitter to those things, no, but if you look at the Fringe Theories category above, they cover a much wider range. Beyond that, though, a theory stating "there is a secret hidden group of people who support this", in the face of reliable coverage of that same group opposing it? That is a fringe theory to me. Similarly (since it has gotten a bit more coverage), the theory that there is this group of indie journalists and vaguely-referenced "allies" who you believe are colluding to manipulate games journalism for the purpose of gaining social influence? That's... not what the overwhelming majority of mainstream sources say, so I'd describe it as pretty fringe; in fact, the article has many sources describing it as a conspiracy theory (though I suppose some of its advocates might describe it as a "conspiracy fact".) See NYmag, CS monitor, Forbes, washington post, Ars Technica and The Guardian, among others. These are sources I'd consider mainstream; who else is there of comparable stature who agrees with you on these things? --Aquillion (talk) 00:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • What is basically being said here is that it is being argued that Auerbach's piece is a minority view that would fall under WP:UNDUE of whether to include or not (weight of all opinions involved), but should not be called as a "fringe theory" as the term in art means a theory that goes against well-established facts, determined by scientific, medical, or legal evaluation. Flat Earth is a fringe theory because of the huge amount of proof the earth is round. But Auerbach's opinion piece on GG cannot be treated a fringe theory because there is no factual assessment of GG to say it is fringe. It is certainly the minority view where undue coverage and weight apply, but we cannot be applying WP:FRINGE to the Gamergate situation. --MASEM (t) 01:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
FYI, I gave a heads up to the Fringe Noticeboard about this discussion.[20]Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Masem, A fringe theory is not a theory that goes against well-established facts, it is a theory that doesn't (yet) have mainstream acceptance. Fringe theories sometimes turn about to be correct. For example, Germ theory and Continental drift were fringe theories in their day but are now widely accepted. - MrOllie (talk) 02:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • MrOllie that's nonsense. There are many physics theories involving string theory, gravitons, and multi-dimensional space that lack mainstream support. They also lack opposition. Fringe theories are defined by active opposition in mainstream sources, not by lack of mainstream coverage. There is quite a bit a difference between active opposition and a lack of coverage. Lack of coverage is not fringe. Einstein's predictions were not fringe even though it took decades to prove. Same with Hawking radiation and rotating black holes. If no one is willing to refute them, they are not fringe even if they are not widely accepted. That's fundamental scientific inquiry. --DHeyward (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Recapitulating the discussion (which is going nowhere, slowly): Some editors pointed out that Mr. Auerbach's Twitter essay is difficult to use in the encyclopedia because it is a self-published source. Others noted that its core argument, whole interesting, is not widely shared among reliable sources, and placing too much weight on it might be WP:UNDUE. Others point to WP:FRINGE -- which is related to WP:UNDUE, and which concerns a variety of ideas which are held -- sometimes strongly and persistently held -- by small groups but are not broadly accepted. (Another obvious example of a WP:FRINGE argument is the belief that Gamergate concerns ethics in journalism: it could perhaps be true, and Gamergate fans insist it is true, but right now the overwhelming majority of the best sources dismiss it.) MarkBernstein (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor my view is that WP:FRINGE was not the right policy to cite. WP:UNDUE covers the question of how much weight a particular view should be given on a topic page, and WP:RS covers what sources might be cited in presenting a view. There is no disagreement here on policy, just a breakdown of communication between editors where AGF has come unstuck. I would hope that the editors could refocus on the article content; if not, they should go to arbcom.Martinlc (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Grace Dunham

The biography of Grace Dunham is currently under attack by scrutiny-avoiding IPs inserting questionably-sourced, salacious, undue-weighted and overtly-negative descriptions of fringe claims, while removing the subject's own responses to such claims. Broader editorial review of this page would be appreciated. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

71.84.89.114 (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Diezani Alison-Madueke

Diezani Alison-Madueke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The statement that this subject, Diezani Alison-Madueke fled the country a few days before the expiration of her tenure because she was in fear of being probed by the incoming administration is an outrageous, malicious lie borne out of a vicious rumor mill. Rumor mongering is common phenomena in the Nigerian political landscape. The statement is unsourced, false,malicious and libelous. It unconscionably aims at ruining the name and image of the subject and must therefore be removed effective immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.89.114 (talk) 15:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Given that no source was cited, I've removed it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:DIVA

Does this essay violate BLP because it mentions Jânio Quadros who was born after the year 1900? Count Iblis (talk) 19:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Dead since 1992. WP:BDP does not apply after 2 decades... also death is mentioned on government page (archive version here) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
The reference to that person is, however, only made in the caption of his photograph and not in the essay as such. Removable indeed. Not a BLP violation in itself, but decidedly something of no clear benefit to the essay. Start an RfC on it if anyone insists it remain. Collect (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Libelous remarks against my biography - Mike Bingham

Mike Bingham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

One or more editors (almost certainly people with vested interests in Falkland Islands politics) have published libelous information regarding my scientific credibilty and educational credentials. I see little point in editing the page since they will simply change it back again unless they are stopped. My web site has nearly 2 million 'likes', and my work is entirely funded by income from our penguin adoption programme, so stating that I have no scientific credibility not only damages my personal reputation, but also damages the funding which I rely on to fund penguin research. Such comments are a violation of Wikipedia's rules, and I hope the editor(s) responsible will be tackled and prevented from abusing their position as editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.178.230.223 (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Please specify what exactly you consider a problem on the page. I did a little clean up on the page. Removed unsourced quotes and controversial statements. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I removed everything cited to a court case per WP:BLPPRIMARY and virtually all of it was negative. I also removed comments that reflected negative information about a school as if it reflected on the subject. --DHeyward (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Was this a BLP violation at Kevin B. MacDonald‎?

See [21] - the statement that "MacDonald has also been accused of employing scapegoating techniques that resemble classical Nazism." has twice had "that resemble classical Nazism" removed, the 2nd time as a claimed BLP violation( the first time as pov). However, the reference has a quotation from the source which says " MacDonald's techniques of scapegoating may have evolved in complexity from classical Nazi fascism, but the similarities are far from remote." I'm not at all clear where the BLP violation is, although if I'd written the text I would probably have attributed it. I restored it after the first removal as we of course allow varying points of view but mainly because it seems to be a reflection of the source. The editor who called it a BLP violation, User:GingerBreadHarlot, has said on the talk page that "This entire article is Antigentile smears, defamation and slanders against Kevin B. MacDonald from activist groups and individuals that make a living off the anti-Semitism canard". Doug Weller (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps enclosing it in quotes would be better, given the delicacy of the claim. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
An excellent point, although at the moment the sourced text isn't there. Hm, it isn't actually a quote though, so perhaps moving some of the quotation in the reference there, with attribution? Doug Weller (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I think that would be fine (the source seems OK to me). Has GingerBreadHarlot discussed the issue further? §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
On the Kevin MacDonald article, there appears to be an over abundance of BLP slandering and defaming him with Antigentile accusations of the anti-Semitism trope, Racism red herring or using the Neo-Nazi canard, because he critically analyzes Jews, Judaism, Jewish culture or Israel. This is obvious BLP and POV stalking when you look at the editors history who repeatedly push the ADL / SPLC lines or find other references to push the anti-Semitism smear. Criticizing Israeli government or analyzing Jewish culture / behaviors using scholarly resources is not anti-Semitic, even if the outcomes hurt some peoples feelings. Basically anyone with opposing opinions gets defamed by ADL / SPLC with the anti-Semitism canard and then POV warrior activist editors re-write the articles attacking him using scholarly sources that make statements that are obvious defamation of character. More quotations are needed in the article around the smears and it should be clearly defined who is making these Antigentile accusations, especially in the lede. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't see a BLP violation if something is sourced. Calling sourced things 'canards' and 'political correctness' is a tad much. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
From my perspective, this editor is pushing a pov and trying to remove criticism he doesn't like. His last series of edits[22] removed a quote from the Cal State Long Beach academic senate that said ""the anti-Semitic and white ethnocentric views he has expressed his research." replacing it with "his research", a statement from One People's Project on the grounds it was self-published (it should have been atttributed), and a whole section that said "Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), an institute that monitors neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups, has said of MacDonald that "he put the anti-Semitism under the guise of scholarly work... Kevin MacDonald’s work is nothing but gussied-up anti-Semitism. At base it says that Jews are out to get us through their agenda ... His work is bandied about by just about every neo-Nazi group in America."[1] The Anti-Defamation League has included MacDonald in its list of American extremists, Extremism in America, and written a report[2] on MacDonald's views and ties. According to the ADL, MacDonald's views on Jews mimic those of anti-Semites from the late 19th and early 20th centuries." Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 05:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
And what's this "anti-Gentile stuff"? Doug Weller (talk) 05:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure that those criticisms should be called out in a separate subsection with its own heading, but they seem to be well-sourced and appropriate responses which belong in the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm happy to see them moved, just don't have time to do it myself. Doug Weller (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

And at the talk page the editor is now calling some edits a crime, pretty close to a legal threat. Doug Weller (talk) 09:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ CSULB Online 49er: volLIVno119: Academic dishonesty punished more leniently
  2. ^ Kevin MacDonald, Extremism in America

Yes, this MacDonald article has numerous BLP and POV problems. Eg, someone keeps reinserting a claim that "MacDonald has been accused of academic fraud." But there is no source that accuses him of academic fraud. Putting in a passive voice attack like this is disgusting libel. As for the vague Nazi comparisons, haven't you guys heard about Godwin's law? Sure, lots of people may have called a Nazi in some stupid name-calling rant. WP does not need to enumerate everyone who has been called a Nazi, as that would probably include all major politicians. The article should restrict itself to substantive criticisms, and skip the name-calling. Roger (talk) 00:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the 'academic fraud' sentence, and I see that the scapegoating sentence doesn't use the bit about his methods perhaps having evolved from classical Nazi techniques. But your dislike of the word Nazi isn't reason enough to remove anything else so far as I can see - anyone so closely related to Nazi groups/sympathisers, etc. is going to attract comments on those associations. Doug Weller (talk) 14:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Non-factual smear on Zeitgeist the film page

On the page Zeitgeist (film series)‎, two non-factual statements by reviewers are cherry-picked to say the film producer, a living person, is anti-Semitic. Neither reviewer alleges to be stating a fact or basing the allegation on factual material, but that the films "borrow" ideas from the statements of a list of named antisemites. It is guilt by association. The reviewers have no information that the producer everheard of those people or read their works. Neither the films nor the producer have said anything that could be taken to be antisemitic, and the ADL has never named the films or the producer. I have deleted the mentions and the changes were reverted within a few hours.[23]. I have reverted the page a second time just now in keeping with WP:BLP, but third editor promises to recommend a block on whichever editor loses this argument (which I consider a counterproductive threat, as both of us are operating in good faith). Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

We're not making a judgement on the truthfulness by including such passages, just noting that reliable sources have made the claims. One of the sources in question is titled Loughner, “Zeitgeist - The Movie,” and Right-Wing Antisemitic Conspiracism, so it's kinda hard to gloss that over. Tarc (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think repeating malicious gossip on WP is OK, even if sourced to a professional gossiper. And I don't see support for that position in WP:BLP. If that is what the policy means, though, it should just come out and say so. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Nonetheless, the issue is one of weight not factual accuracy. I don't happen to believe that the Merolas are anti-semitic, they are simply cranks, but anti-Fed activism has a very strong antisemtic streak and it's not exactly an outrage to link the two, even though I disagree with it. Guy (Help!) 07:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
On second thought, the sources are not really the quality I initially thought, and there seems to be little else out there outside of the blogosphere making similar assertions about the film series. Tarc (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
When it comes to libel and slander, the legal risk makes BLP a matter of factual accuracy. That is why the WP:BLP policies are in place. We are not commenting on whether it's a nice movie. We are accusing the man of spouting antisemitic opinions, and that could ruin his career. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
NB I have created the sub-heading below (and copy-pasted one comment above) in order to seperate 'outside' and 'involved' editors comments. This is done to allow new editors to leave their comments above, should they wish.Pincrete (talk) 12:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from 'involved' editors

If our sources say something we can put that into an article. Otherwise it would be censoring the article to your opinion. Malicious gossip? No, just a citation that is reliable giving some information. There is no censorship on Wikipedia. Earl King Jr. (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
The real problem with the Zeigeist article isn't so much that it includes statements of opinion to the effect that the films are 'right wing' or 'antisemitic', but that it excludes any contrary opinion - sources have been systematically cherry-picked to the extent that (for example) a passing comment in a review of another movie entirely was cited for a characterisation as "conspiracy crap". Clearly unacceptable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Firstly a correction, both the source and the criticism section of the article state that the film is "steeped in …… covertly anti-Semitic conspiracy theories" NOT that the producer is 'anti-Semitic'. Secondly I am the editor who reverted (though not the one accused above of making a threat on 'talk', and someone who has largely tried to stay out of the in-fighting on that page). Thirdly user Grammar/Sfarney has brought this here without meaningful discussion on talk and indeed threatened to do so on the first instance that he raised the issue: [24].
Clarification of the BLP implications here would be helpful.Pincrete (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump, with respect, that isn't a subject for this noticeboard.Pincrete (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
In as much as WP:BLP is clearly relevant when discussing works so clearly identified with a single individual, non-adherence to WP:NPOV is very much an issue for this noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
For the same reason (identified with a single individual), calling the films antisemitic is effectually calling the producer antisemitic. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
'steeped in … … covertly anti-Semitic conspiracy theories' isn't the same as 'anti-Semetic', I'm not trying to minimise the accusation, merely trying to discourage over-statement of it.Pincrete (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
There has been plenty meaningful discussion of these two quotes in days past. It came to nothing. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Sfarney|Grammar, the link you offer is discussion about Edward Mullins, (which is background I agree), but it has nothing to do with 'anti-Semitism', which is, ostensibly the reason for this BLP Noticeboard action.Pincrete (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
On the contrary, Goldberg mentions Mullins to strengthen and elongate her accusations of antisemitism. It is of the same device -- antisemitism by association, which consists of having made comparable statements about super-rich international bankers -- but in the case of Joseph, having nothing to do with Jews. It is a cheap shot with very nasty implications, and it does not deserve to be featured on the Encyclopedia. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
On second thought, the sources are not really the quality I initially thought, and there seems to be little else out there outside of the blogosphere making similar assertions about the film series. Tarc (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Not all such are negative, nor contain similar assertions. See this. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Sfarney|Grammar, how does one article that DOESN"T mention 'anti-Semitism', invalidate one (of several) that DO. By all means try to include text (as opinion - just as this is being used) that gives a positive opinion of the film, that is completely different from trying to remove text that doesn't.Pincrete (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Positive and negative do not capture the discussion. The issue is Goldberg's statement that because the film says super-rich international bankers have too much political power and consume disproportionate quantities of the world's resources, the film (and thus the producer) is antisemitic. That is a logical leap of bizarre proportions, and it becomes a statement more about the reviewer than the reviewed. As such, it might belong on Goldberg's page rather than the target of her wrath. We might find comparably reliable sources calling people slut, nazi, pervert, stanist, chavanist pig, rake, fraud, theif, or any of hundreds of other defamatory epithets -- and antisemitic is among the most extreme with the most severe professional consequences. Do we just repeat such statements because they are colorful? To demonstrate the case, I challenge you to find such words among the WP articles on past presidents, though any number of such epithets could be found in the printed media. In ordinary society, repeating such colorful accusations is called "gossip," and the more colorful is termed "juicy gossip." But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a gossip megaphone. The currency of an encyclopedia is fact, not slander. We know from Goldberg's own statement that the films (and the producer) contain not a particle of real antisemitism -- not a molecule. She tells us the logical leaps she is taking to get to her slander. Hence, we know those epithets are not fact and not even valid opinion. They are on the same fact level with, "You look like the SOB I had a fight with last night." Yet by cherry-picking out that statements with three repetitions of word antisemitism in the article, the stink is hammered home to the reader in disingenuous association. Bottom line: We don't megaphone slanderous denunciations through Wikipedia on the slim excuse that someone else said them first. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a gossip column. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Example: James Forsyth of the Washington Post wrote that many Europeans consider it obvious that Bush is a moron.[25] Regardless of RS (eminent political commentator published in a blue ribbon new source), the comment does not belong on Wikipedia's George W. Bush page. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Even if it were asserted, in Wikipedia's voice, that the film were antisemitic, it wouldn't mean the director is antisemitic. And, technically. The Producers draws on "antisemitic conspiracy theories". Does anyone want to complain that Mel Brooks is antisemitic? Issues about the film do not necessarily reflect the producer-director. There are three (or more) questionable inferences required to get from the statements we quoted to the implication that Peter is antisemitic. We should expect the readers to see that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Technically, The Producers is a fictional satirical comedy, and the comparison to Zeitgeist does not apply. If The Producers were a documentary, we would have a different discussion. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 01:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
On the other hand, statements by Grammar'sLittleHelper, including the title of this section, do constitute a WP:BLP violation against Ms. Goldberg, who I presume is still living, or at least recently dead. WP:BLP doesn't apply as strongly to discussion pages as it does to articles, but it does still apply. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, that escalated quickly. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 01:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I think there are two issues here, and it doesn't help anyone to muddle them. The first is whether ideas in the film are similar to those of (named), extreme-right individuals ('Mullins' discussion). I'm neutral as to whether that connection should be made, very possibly not. The second issue is whether to 'edit out' of a review the opinion that the film is 'steeped in … covertly anti-Semitic conspiracy theories'. An editor is asserting that it is somehow 'non-factual' or 'malicious gossip' for her to think so.Pincrete (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk page discussion herePincrete (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Statements by Grammar'sLittleHelper, including the title of this section, do constitute a WP:BLP violation against Ms. Goldberg. I believe that Grammer is totally wrong in his assessment or opinion of how Wikipedia works. Goldberg is notable. Other notable people have asserted the same information that Grammer does not like. Grammer is accusing Goldberg and other authors of reliable sources of framing or an attacking of Peter Joseph. That is not so. If information can be found that says otherwise then that information if well sourced can be added. It appears that Grammer wants to strip information out of the article because he thinks the information is about the author of the information being this or that unfair. He really should not accuse and attack Goldberg and his own opinion as being correct. Saying Goldberg has smeared Joseph is way off the wall and that talk page is way out of control, confusing and there are many supporters of the Zeitgeist movement that are attempting to present ideas according to Zeitgeist instead of according to outside from Zeitgeist sources. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The comment above is a whole lot of personal attack in violation of WP:PA. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Grammer please do not strike through my comments. I reverted that. If I made a personal attack which I don't think I did, I will apologize, but striking through another persons comments seems a bit much. Apparently emotions are intense about editing this article but lets deescalate. Content is the problem I think and possibly you so not agree with what I was saying. I am saying that Goldberg is describing the movie and its sources and that same description can be found in multiple sources beyond here. We have to go by our cited information and not an editors feelings/opinions about things. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Just confine your remarks to the content and don't try to paint me as a Zeitgeist groupie when I argue for a decent encyclopedia page. Goldberg is not describing the movie. She is speculating that Joseph "borrowed" the theory about international bankers from a list of antisemites that she names. That is not a description. Then she calls Joseph's theory "covert antisemitism" -- like wow. Where did that come from? -- if you complain about super-rich politically powerful bankers you must be a covert antisemite??? And yet that is the path of her thinking as told in her column. Chip Berlet follows the same twisted path. Their attack on Joseph has nothing to do with the movies or with Joseph as real person. But when we cherry-pick those wild-eyed speculations out of the gossip columns and frame them in the Wikipedia as "reliable sources," brother, we are violating WP:BPL. Wikipedia is not a gossip megaphone, but it could become one if we include nonsense like that. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Chip Berlet, has credibility as studying far-right organisations and their ideas, Goldberg has not and is mainly quoting Berlet. For that reason the linking to those organisations (if used), would probably be better done 'directly', not through Goldberg. Sfarney|Grammar, I've no idea what 'Joseph as real person' is like.Pincrete (talk) 10:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
There is no "linking" between Joseph and any organization named by Berlet. It's just slander. And the Socialist Standard does not agree it's "right wing." If the great Chip Berlet can't get that right, how good is he sniffing out "antisemitism" in a film that never mentions Jews outside the religious context. These people have the reliability of witch doctors predicting rain. So much for the "R" part of RS. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with Sfarney's WP:BLP argument, but I think this discussion illustrates the source may have other problems; primary source FRINGE given undue weight. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Sfarney|Grammar, IF you think 'Socialist Standard' also has a valid opinion on the political ideas in the film, (though hitherto you have been very disparaging about it). Propose some text for inclusion in the 'response' section of the article. The fact that one reviewer doessn't mention 'right wing ideas' does not 'disprove' one (of several) that DO. Pincrete (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
This is not the topic talk page. There is one issue here and one only: The baseless charge of antisemitism against Peter Joseph that has no foundation in logic or fact. Chip Berlet is free to throw around that slander in any publication that is willing to host it. But the Wikipedia has specific WP:BLP policies about living persons that we must follow. And casting baseless charges of antisemitism does not conform with that policy. Mindlessly parroting Berlet and/or his puppets when we know the charge is baseless also does not conform with that policy. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Your interpretation of policy - to me - is indisinguishable from 'I alone know what is true', (so I don't need sources to support anything I say). Pincrete (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Bear with me a moment. A year ago I had never heard of Peter Joseph or Zeitgeist. Sometime in the past year I saw part of the first reel and lost patience. I still have no knowledge of Joseph, but (1) I hold as a sacred trust that it is wrong to slander strangers who may in fact be of good will, and (2) I want WP to be a good encyclopedia. I have no dogs in this fight other than that. Chip Berlet gives us all the evidence he has that Joseph is an antisemite, and he confesses through his own erroneous reasoning that his accusation is essentially baseless: Joseph says some of the same things X said, so Joseph must have got his ideas from X (ILLOGICAL ALERT #1); since X was an antisemite, Joseph must be an antisemite (ILLOGICAL ALERT #2). That reasoning is so terrible, Aristotle must be groaning in his grave. I also do not know Berlet from a bar of soap, but I would never ask an intellect of that caliber to investigate anything. And we have no business repeating it. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
It is properly sourced as Chip Berlet's opinion. Think it is still a weight issue. David Duke's page doesn't shrink from identifying him as an antisemite, but I suppose there are many more sources for that assertion. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
There is no logical connection between David Duke and Peter Joseph. Nowhere. Nohow. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Just an example that referencing a source that refers to individual's work as antisemitic or right-wing isn't necessarily a BLP issue. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 20:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Convince me that I could write and publish an antisemitic book and not be labeled an antisemite. In most cases, nothing else is required to make the list. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
No, thank you. References cite critic's statements that conspiracy theories are antisemitic and statements are accurately attributed to those expressing that view. It may be a primary source FRINGE view that may be given UNDUE WEIGHT, but it doesn't appear to be a BLP issue. Wiki has plenty of articles with critics describing people/things/ideas as racist, sexist, ect. As appropriately attributed commentary it ought to be fine. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Now that is REALLY cherry picking. There is no support for the theory that a person accused of writing an antisemitic book or producing an antisemitic documentary could escape being labeled antisemitic. The consequence is inevitable. And now you suggest we should bury a living person with the slander, a person who never mentioned the word Jew or any synonym. That would be truly irresponsible and not in keeping with WP policy. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Sfarney|Grammar, stating the obvious, if you knowingly wrote a book that was anti-Semetic, you would BE anti-Semetic. I think you mean ACCUSED of being XYZ, which of course does not mean you ARE XYZ. Readers have brains to understand the difference, (and if they don't we are all wasting our time).Pincrete (talk) 09:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Now you've got it! There is no way to accuse a book|video|documentary of being antisemitic without directly accusing the author|producer|writer of being antisemitic. These nice arguments that "we are labeling only the video and not the man" are utterly empty. The statements in the video are non-fiction, non-satirical, non-comedy, alleged to be fact statements, made by the face of Peter Joseph. And if Wikipedia says those are antisemitic statements, Wikipedia is accusing living person Joseph of antisemitism. WP:BLP Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Your interpretation of policy Sfarney is indistinguishable from 'I alone know what is true so I don't need sources to support anything I say. That is a problem because now we have tied up the talk page editing tendentiously over your theory of the Zeitgeist being wronged. You say you do not know about the movies really or the group but want to defend them. If the group's movies use a platform of classic antisemitic theory which conjures up aspects of the Elders of Zion and Alex Jones with some other Banking conspiracy inferences it is legit for use to give the sources like this [26] or [27] or this [28] and on and on. It is considered a conspiracy theory movie which draws its information from classic conspiracy theory like this example [29]. We are just reporting that. It is an overwhelming amount of citations that say that. Your personal opinion unless you are notable on this subject can not be used no matter how much you personally are thinking it is not fair or 'right' to give these sources. Calling one of these people smearing is not a good argument. There is a belief in a conspiracy on Wikipedia to defame or exclude Zeitgeist [30] with the Zeitgeist group descending on the Wikipedia article claiming conspiracy about marginalizing them. I would say there is no conspiracy and the average editor does not really care just edits though there may be some personal interest, that has to be transcended for good editing. Goldberg is just writing her thoughts about the movie as a journalist. Accusations of smearing are not appropriate. We should not be attacking or saying they have wrong or sinister motives in your claim to defend Wikipedia from them as your logic. Your interpretation of policy is not Wikipedia policy. I suggest we close this now. The sources for the information are legit. No one said Peter Joseph is lying. He just made a movie according to our sources which uses sources that clearly plug into those classic conspiracy arguments. Then the movie is described as propaganda, agitprop, conspiracy, etc. by our reliable sources, overwhelmingly so. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Try hard to thread your remarks, King; you can do it. (1) I have never stated Zeitgest was harmed; This is the Living Persons page and Peter Joseph is a living person who is wronged by these baseless allegations parroted on WP. (2) Let us not use verbal magic. Joseph's films do not mention the Jews or the Protocols of Zion or the Blood Libel or anything tied to the Jews except Jesus. (3) If Americans cannot discuss banking misconduct without being charged with antisemitism, the US Congress, many prosecutors, the FDIC, the FHA, and every newspaper are in a whole heap of trouble. Antisemitism in this case is just a smear. (4) I have not accused those journalists of sinister motives. I have accused them of badly flawed reasoning. (5) So far, only two sources accuse Joseph of antisemitism because of this vague similarity between statements of misconduct, and one of those sources quotes the other. No one here is overwhelmed by those two sources. (6) Some of your text is WP:PA/ad hominem that does not require response. (7) There has been no reliable discussion of Peter Joseph's sources beyond speculation. Allegations of his sources by the sources cited have used weasel language that indicates they don't care what his real sources are. The charges against Joseph are without basis and are slanderous. WP is not a megaphone for slander. I would like WP to be a respectable encyclopedia. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 01:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The descriptions are about the film, and its ideas, films are not living persons and cannot be slandered (by the way, it's libel when written). Leni Riefenstahl's 1930 films are often described as embracing Nazi aesthetics, but whether she was an active ideologue, an opportunistic 'fellow traveller' or an innocent artist remains an open question. Should we have also suppressed that debate while she was alive?Pincrete (talk) 09:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't know anything about that issue, but your description already draws two great differences. (1) Nobody questions whether Nazi aesthetics were the aesthetics of the Nazis. In contrast, Berlet and Goldberg make the leap of faith that anyone who criticizes the undue political influence of global banks is criticizing Jews. (2) The question here is not "suppressing debate." The question here is whether Wikipedia should be retailing the slander that Joseph's film is antisemitic because it criticizes bankers. There was no debate until Laval and I brought it up -- it was asserted as fact in the article. And as stated above, the film is an intimate creation of Joseph, with Joseph authoring, producing, directing, and narrating the film with his face on the screen. It is impossible to assert the film is "antisemitic" without labeling Joseph. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
But the article DOESN"T say either the film or its maker are antisemitic, it says that named critics have accused the film of being 'steeped in …… covertly anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.' and 'far-right ideas'. If the article said what you KEEP saying it says, I would wholeheartedly agree with you, but it doesn't. Perhaps Ms Goldberg is hyper-sensitive on such matters. If we followed your logic, no feminist critic could ever say that she thought a book or film was mysoginistic or sexist, since it could not be established as a fact that the book (or even less the author) was.Pincrete (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
And perhaps Ms Goldberg (a) works for a publication protected by a team of aggressive lawyers, (2) has errors and omissions (E&O) insurance, (c) has the legal shield of being a reporter, and (d) has a deep pocket that can absorb a libel suit. Wikipedia has none of this, which is why Wikipedia has a BLP policy. Wikipedia does not have all the same armor as those hypothetical "feminist critics." As you said above, if a person wrote a truly antisemitic book, that would be sufficient proof that the writer was antisemitic. But, "antisemitic book" as determined by ...? Sorry, that is even worse. If the issue were taken to court and Joseph were able to show by a variety of evidence (1) that neither he nor the video is antisemitic (i.e., the statement is false -- it doesn't even mention Jews), (2) that we knew or should have known when we made the statement that it was false and had a reckless disregard for the truth (which is the character of your argument), and (3) that he had suffered damage to his reputation as a result of this publication, Wikipedia has a defamation problem.[31] If we want to keep Wikipedia alive, we don't go there. It doesn't matter whether saying those things scratches a personal itch, we still don't go there. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 07:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to think that WP has a BLP policy for more honourable reasons than libel law alone, and on talk you claimed the legal issue was irrelevant. I said 'knowingly wrote', etc., there are countless examples of works/words/films etc. having offended this group or that (Salman Rushdie?), the creators claim the offence was non-existent or unintended, we report that denial as well as the criticism. In the Rushdie case, we wouldn't ask an Ayatollah/Muslim critic to show us his 'certificate in logical reasoning' before reporting the criticism he makes, readers can judge whether that criticism is logical or fair.Pincrete (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Better you should find my actual words and quote them as written in context. In this case, we can see the reasoning is illogical and Goldberg admits Joseph never mentions Jews. Apparently, there is no other hint about a specific religious or racial heritage in his film, else we can believe Goldberg would have mentioned it. Rather, she gives full proof that her accusation "hangs in the air like a mountain suspended by a thread," to quote the Talmud, and has no basis in fact. But that does not stop her from making the accusation. It should stop us, though. We know the accusation is without foundation, both by Berlet and by Goldberg. That is the gross error of confusing opinion with fact, as I mention elsewhere. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 07:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so are there any credible sources that say Peter Joseph was just walking along minding his own business when all those connections just happened to fall in his lap? Accusing one or more of our sources of slander is serious business. Are you planning on taking them to court? Your post above works as a Facebook blog entry but not here. Please stop trying to denigrate legit sources by saying they are slandering the subject. Are you making a legal threat? Are you a lawyer? Are you notable beyond being a Wikipedia editor and have published something that takes apart these aspects? Reliable sources are just that, reliable. Personal diatribes saying our sources are slandering someone is a mistake. A free press says what it wants and the Zeitgeist movement also says they are being slandered? Has anyone written about it that would make a source or is it just your personal feeling? Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

After many warnings to King about his conduct, and now this. I have reluctantly referred the matter to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Earl_King_Jr. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 07:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Mike Bingham

IP editor blocked by Bbb23 for 1 week for making legal threats (non-admin closure) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Today I discovered libelous information posted about myself attacking my professional reputation. This libelous information has caused some sponsors of my work to withdraw financial support. I have copies of the libelous material that was posted and the damage is already done. I made a complaint and the page was modified to remove the libelous information, but the page still contains factual errors. I therefore corrected these errors, but almost immediately the corrections that I made were reversed by "EvergreenFir", so these factual errors are again posted, damaging my reputation. It is clear that people editing this page are politically motivated and are deliberately seeking to damage my work with misleading information. For example: 1) The article states "Bingham qualified as a biological surveyor though the Open University" which is untrue. I did indeed study through the Open University as an under-graduate, but I later obtained my post-graduate Biological Surveying qualification at Otley College in Ipswich, Suffolk, UK. Why not contact them and ask them? The Open University doesn't even have a Biological Surveying course. Why did the Wikipedia editor not check the facts before writing something that was untrue, and then delete my correction? 2) I left the Falklands in February 2004 not in 2003. I can provide proof if needed, Why does the Wikipedia editor insist on deleting the correct date and putting an earlier incorrect date without first checking the facts? 3) The article mentions that I took the Falkland Islands Government to the Supreme Court, but fails to mention that I won the case, a fact which was previously cited on the page. When I edited the page to add that I won the case, that fact was immediately deleted again by EvergreenFir. Why does a Wikipedia editor not want people to know that I won the Supreme Court case? 4) On two occasions the article rambles on about how I was given 'permission' and 'leave' to pursue my research whilst working at the power station. What possible relevance does that have to the article? It is also untrue. Months before being employed at the power station I set up the Environmental Research Unit as a limited company, with the Falkland Islands Governments written authorisation. My subsequent research work was therefore clearly being done under the auspices of the Environmental Research Unit, and not in my capacity as a power station worker. Since my research unit was up and running with written government authorisation prior to my employment at the power station, clearly no 'permission' or 'leave' was needed. The statement is not only untrue, but totally irrelevant. 5) It mentions that I set up Chile's first long-term penguin monitoring programme in 1997, but deleted the reference to the fact that I also conducted a census of penguin populations in Chile and Argentina in 1997, to verify that the penguin decline was only occurring in the Falkland Islands. This is a fact that is confirmed in three of the cited publications, and is very relevant in showing that penguins in Argentina and Chile are not declining. When I added that fact it was deleted again. Only the Falklands would wish to hide the fact that penguin populations in Argentina and Chile are protected and healthy. 6) To provide supporting documentation, I added that my work has featured on TV documentaries by Paramount Pictures USA (1999), the BBC (2009), Mare TV in Germany (2006) and Argentine TV (2007). These TV documentaries are all on You Tube if anyone doubts the truth. The BBC is stated in the Wikipedia guidelines as being an acceptable supporting citacion. Finally, I am not looking to write my own page, but I have already been slandered on this page by a couple of your editors. I have almost 2 million followers on my web sites, and I rely 100% on these supporters to fund penguin research throughout Chile and Argentina via a penguin adoption programme. It is not right that this penguin research suffers a financial loss because of viscious libelous remarks and false information by editors that have a political Falkland Islands agenda. Impartial editors can easily research what I do from independent sources such as peer-reviewed scientific publications, TV and newspaper articles, and other publicly available material, in order to provide a truthful summary of my work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.178.230.223 (talk) 06:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Bingham: The specific editor you are currently complaining about, EvergreenFir (talk · contribs), does not appear to have a political motivation. In fact, most of the work that editor has done on your page was deleting the sort of material that you posted concern about earlier. The reason that editor gave for undoing your edits - and I see no reason to doubt it - is because we discourage people from editing articles about themselves, per our guidelines on conflict of interest. I recommend you post your specific suggestions on the article's talk page. That way, some other editor can review your suggestions and add the material that is appropriate and appropriately sourced. --Nat Gertler (talk) 08:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
When I first found this article it entirely self-promotional and included unfounded allegations made on WP:SPS websites. It had carried a [[WP:NPOV]] tag since 2012. The only none WP:SPS source I found was the court judgement from the judicial review and I was unaware of WP:BLPPRIMARY. After talking to DHeyward I have reviewed and identified everything sourced to the case and if it were all removed it would leave nothing behind. Hence, I've WP:PROD'd the article.
Its worth noting, as I note in the deletion notice, the article was originally written solely by Doctorpleiades, who did nothing else but write the original article [32] and upload pictures of Mr Bingham to commons see [33] and [34]. It seems fairly clear there was a WP:COI in the drafting of the original by someone with a close personal relationship to the subject and sharing their views. Some of the information Mr Bingham is complaining about originated from that draft. WCMemail 17:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you NatGertler for replying to the OP. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Another ANI post

This is the third time that I have requested removal of incorrect information attacking my work, my education and my personal reputation. Wikipedia has failed to do so and is clearly incapable of preventing politically biased editors such as Wee Curry Monster from posting false information about me and my work for political motives. I request that Wikipedia delete this article immediately and block further comments about me and my work. I also want the identity of the person who made these libelous remarks so that I can take legal action against them for financial damages. The editor responsible is clearly a Falkland Islands official. Only a Falkland Islands official would have access to the confidential government documents posted by Wee Curry Monster, and I have the backing of the Argentine government in taking action against the Falkland Islands officials responsible for this politically motivated attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.178.230.223 (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the very editor you're complaining about had already moved for the article to be deleted before you posted this request. Wikipedia does not give out its editor's identities at someone's request. As for the legal threat you made here, I suggest you review our policy on making user threats against editors and recant your threat if you wish to be allowed to continue posting here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Court judgements are public domain, the full judgement in this case was published - see [35]. The allegation I am being fed "confidential" documents by a Falklands official is completely untrue. I have reported this threat of legal action to WP:ANI per WP:NLT and as I note there I have no objection as principal author to this article being permanently deleted. WCMemail 21:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
@190.178.230.223: Stop making personal attacks against users please. Again, if there's something in particular you wish to have changed on the article, make a request on the article's talk page. Stop with the nonsensical accusations and conspiracy theories. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Luis Posada Carriles

Issue resolved, article tweaked for neutrality. Thanks to Vanamonde93 and Location. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 16:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A concern was raised through OTRS that this article is too one-sided and negative towards the subject, which I'd tend to agree with, however my concern is more with the lede. Is it appropriate to describe the subject flat out as a "terrorist" and a CIA agent rather than a more neutral "Cuban exile militant" or "activist" or something like that? I don't necessarily question his anti-Castro activities or his association with the CIA and the fact that he has been indeed called a terrorist is sourced, however as in many other cases this is a loaded term depending on who uses it. I feel the lede could use some more neutral wording. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, scholarly source material uniformly describes him as responsible for terrorist activities, if not actually a terrorist. The fact that the plane he was responsible for blowing up was from Castroist Cuba doesn't change the fact that was convicted for blowing it up. I would be amenable to something like "was responsible for...." or "is considered a terrorist in...." but I'm not overly concerned with the current version, either. "Exile militant" is not terrible, but "activist" refers to a completely different sort of action; besides, I see no support in the sources for "activist." Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: I agree "activist" is inappropriate, yes. The problem is that "terrorist" on the other hand is in Wikipedia's voice. It would be better if he was described as something like "Cuban exile militant" and then the terrorist part was worded as you say, "considered by..." and so on. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I am not necessarily arguing for this, but the BBC has called him an "anti-Communist activist" (as well as a "militant)[36] and he has been called an "Anti-Castro activist" by CNN[37] and The Washington Post.[38] Highlighting the issue here, the lede of The Washington Post article states, "He is, depending upon whom you talk to, either a terrorist or a patriot." That could even be used in the article. My own view is that "anti-Castro activist and militant" is likely the most neutral way to describe him in the lede. There is precedent in similar articles to leave out "terrorist" and describe what the person has done. Although he is called a "CIA agent" by various sources, that term is also not very descriptive. Various individuals directly work for the CIA direct representing the goals of the United States, whereas others who might have overlapping goals might be paid by the CIA or be CIA assets. I also have concerns about the use of primary source documents which appear to be cherry-picked. - Location (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
This discussion was had on the article's Talk page already: see here. I agree with the editors who went around this subject already: If the FBI and CIA and the Cuban government agree he is a terrorist, that is indeed a broad consensus. I understand your reluctance to use the loaded word "terrorist," but in this case it is warranted. Moreover, we should be careful about applying this word only to Arabs or enemies of the United States. If you blow up an airliner and kill 73 people, you are a terrorist by any definition. Chisme (talk) 01:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, there was some discussion of this eight years ago, but it does not appear to me that there was a clear consensus on how it was to be handled. At least one of those in favor of using "terrorist" was later blocked for using sock accounts. I have no objections to the use of "terrorist" in conjunction with attribution, and Osama bin Laden serves as a prominent example of how this should be handled. See Osama bin Laden#Beliefs and ideology which states: "His viewpoints and methods of achieving them had led to him being designated as a terrorist by scholars,[55][56] journalists from The New York Times,[57][58] the BBC,[59] and Qatari news station Al Jazeera,[60] analysts such as Peter Bergen,[61] Michael Scheuer,[62] Marc Sageman,[63] and Bruce Hoffman.[64][65] He was indicted on terrorism charges by law enforcement agencies in Madrid, New York City, and Tripoli.[66]" Similar to this subject, bin Laden was labeled a terrorist by CIA officials (e.g. George Tenet). What is terrorism is a matter of perspective exemplified by those who are convinced the 9/11 attacks were justified and that the downing of Iran Air Flight 655 was a nefarious action on the part of the US. - Location (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)This is one of those situations where we are far better off relying on scholarly source material (of which there is no shortage) than American newspapers. We wouldn't use the Cuban or venezuelan press without attribution; we certainly should not use the US media in Wikipedia's voice, either. It is very easy to perpetuate systemic bias here, because Americans are heavily represented among both editors and media source material, and simply because he was anti-Castro, more likely to look (relatively) favorably upon him. Scholarly sources do tend to refer to him as terrorist; in addition, agencies of both relevant governments do, and he was convicted of blowing up an airliner by a third government. Location, which primary documents are you referring to? Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
The only source that I see that could be considered scholarly is the National Security Archive, whose objective is "to check rising government secrecy", and all their work on this subject seems to have been compiled by Peter Kornbluh. As above, I have no objections to citilng them, or even agencies of the US government, in a manner consistent with what is noted in bin Laden's article. Regarding primary documents, for example, the opening sentence uses this document to state that Posada was a terrorist and CIA agent when the document only states: "We have determined that this agency had a close relationship with one person whose name has been mentioned in conjunction with the bombing." - Location (talk) 03:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Rather than hemming and hawing, maybe we should rely on the dictionary. From Merriam-Webster: terrorism: 1) the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal; 2) the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. Is "scholarly source material" really required here when Carriles orchestrated the deaths of 73 people on Cubana de Aviación Flight 455? If that isn't enough for you, he admitted to plotting attacks that damaged tourist spots in Havana and killed an Italian visitor there in 1997. He was convicted in Panama in a 2000 bomb plot against Fidel Castro. Yes, he's resting comfortably in Miami, but that doesn't make him any less a terrorist. Chisme (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we should not, otherwise that would be original research. I'm not contesting that the man is considered by many sources to be a terrorist, but rather than the current use of the term in the lede is inappropriate because "terrorist" (unlike "singer" or "businessman") is a completely subjective term. Someone's terrorist is someone else's freedom fighter. We should be neutral and highlight both ends of the spectrum in the article, not just one. I'm not arguing for the removal of the term "terrorist" from the article, just for the re-wording of the lede so that it doesn't seem like we are declaring the man to be a terrorist. Combined with the "CIA agent" bit and the intro looks disingenuous and it makes us look like we have an agenda and a bone to pick. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
And I highly agree with Location's suggestion that this be handled in a manner similar to the Bin Laden article. "X is a blah blah blah... considered by Y to be Z" is the correct and neutral way to handle all such material. Not "X is a terrorist". §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

How is it "original research" when someone by his actions conforms so thoroughly to a dictionary definition? Words are words, terrorist being one of them. Someone's terrorist is NOT someone else's freedom fighter. A freedom fighter doesn't commit actions with the goal of frightening or murdering civilians. You guys are splitting hairs and turning an encyclopedia into a Caspar Milquetoast adventure, but I see there is no arguing with you. The Spanish wikipedia says about Carrilles in the lead, "Es considerado un terrorista por los gobiernos de Cuba y Venezuela por ser el autor intelectual del atentado contra el Vuelo 455 de Cubana de 1976." Chisme (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

"Is considered a terrorist" is not the same as "is a terrorist". Why is it so hard to understand that? This is not your blog, it's an encyclopedia that is supposed to be neutral. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Of course it's not the same. I speak Spanish. I know this isn't my blog. I disagree with you, but I understand the need to take into account the delicate feelings of murderers in online biographical articles. I presented the Spanish wikipedia's lead as a suggestion for a compromise here. Chisme (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:BLP and WP:NPOV apply everywhere, to everything. If you don't like that then you're in the wrong website. This is not the place to advance your dislike of the subject of an article, sarcastically or otherwise. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Could we take it down a couple of notches, please? Yes, "terrorist" is a subjective description, and should be attributed. What is not subjective is that the FBI and the Cuban government call him a terrorist; that he was convicted of blowing up a civilian plane with hundreds of people in it; and that he was for a long period of time a CIA agent. There is no dispute about these last three facts, and they are attested by a number of sources, and ergo should form the basis of the lede. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I would like to fix the problem, not entertain other editor's opinion that their preferences should trump our policies. So what is the proposed wording then? Something like what I initially suggested, with "...has been called a terrorist..." later? §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I would word the first lede paragraph like this; "Luis Clemente Faustino Posada Carriles (born February 15, 1928) (nicknamed Bambi) is a Cuban exile militant and former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) agent. He is considered a terrorist by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Government of Cuba, and has been convicted of involvement in the bombing of Cubana flight 455, which killed 73 people." That is slightly wordier than the present form, but if you dislike "terrorist" in Wikipedia's voice and still wish to maintain neutrality, I believe that is the way to go. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I think that is a good suggestion. I have no objections to adding mention of other notables who consider him to be a terrorist (similar to the bin Laden article). If possible, I would like to see the "CIA agent" issue (per page 6 of this source) clarified. Not crucially important: the first section briefly refers to "activist" and I wonder if this view should be expanded with appropriate weight to those who have used that label for him. - Location (talk) 14:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93 and Location: I'm about to head out on break until Monday (probably won't have edit access until then) - I have no problem with the proposed wording. That's how "terrorist" should be presented. Once we say "is considered X by Y" then the problem with Wikipedia's voice goes away. I agree with having a bit more clarity around the CIA bit, but that's secondary. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, "agent of the CIA" can mean many things, but the lede is not the place to get into that. It is a broadly accurate descriptor. Therefore, unless there are further objections, I will insert this version in the next day or so. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tony Hall, Baron Hall of Birkenhead

A few more eyes looking at that article would be appreciated. There are persistent BLP infringements - untrue and/or highly partial claims - falling just this side of vandalism. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Kenny Laguna

Could someone look at whether some WP:REVDEL of previous edits is necessary on both the article and talk page? The actual birth date of this person is known from primary sources. Some of the previous text versions and talk page versions refer to that date. In the past, IPs - presumably closely linked to the article subject, though that is unconfirmed - have sought to include other, false, birth years. Most reliable sources that I have seen give no year of birth - though some do, giving different dates - and nor does the current version of the article. But, the anonymous IPs (for instance here) are still seeking to remove any discussion of the question. So, that information may need to be excised from records of the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know that this falls under WP:OVERSIGHT, certainly not under revdel. Although I agree that primary sources should not be used at all, obviously. If we don't have a reliable source for the DOB then there should be no DOB. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

David Premack

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

David Premack died june 2015 [39]. Who could help with the sources--Pbk (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

There don't seem to be any further sources - and it would clearly be inappropriate to rely on a Twitter posting, even from Steven Pinker. Given the date (12 June), and the fact that there have been no further reports, I wonder if it was an error? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • there is an article in Polish [40] about his death, but without the daily date of the death--Pbk (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Brad Schreiber

Brad Schreibers Article is clearly an Autobiography, full on libelous and on top of the general lack of sources, the ones mentioned do not work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.17.29.50 (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive224&oldid=1119034689"