Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive78

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Carol Connors (pornographic actress)

I have reverted back to your version. When someone vandalises like this, you need to warn them by substituting warning templates on their talk page, and then report them to WP:AIV if the persist. Martin451 (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Paul Neil

Christopher Paul Neil

Somebody keeps adding a picture to this article claiming that its the convicted child abuser Christopher Paul Neil. I'm reluctant to assume good faith in this matter because there was an incident in 2007 when a troll tried to put up a picture of their friend (not Christopher) in the article as a prank. One user even got a picture from a Wikipedia admin's MySpace and added it to the article. See Talk:Christopher_Paul_Neil#Picture_on_the_left, Talk:Christopher_Paul_Neil#Pic. The users Jon P Stevenson (talk · contribs) and Meanlevel (talk · contribs) were blocked for this back in 2007, and now there's a new suspected sock Mollie White (talk · contribs) doing this. The picture stayed in the article for a month (5 December - 5 January) this time; extra eyes on this article would be helpful. Thanks, --Zvn (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Picture did appear to be a fake, I have nominated it for deletion here . Off2riorob (talk) 10:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Artie Lange

Resolved
 – Additional reliable sources have been found. See article talk page for further information Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 14:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel remotely comfortable about this, the addition of details about Lange's alleged suicide attempt. I fear that editors would get their panties in a bunch if I attempted to remove sourced information, so I would really like to get a second opinion.... here are my issues with the source: the New York Post is a well-known publication, but it's also a salacious tabloid with a track record of printing vast amounts of harmful and mean-spirited gossip. That's not to say that we should never use the Post as a source, but in this case it seems hopelessly shady... if you read the article, it uses only vague, anonymous sources and doesn't allude to any confirmation from hospital or law enforcement authorities, or from Artie's family or representatives. Most importantly, the anonymously sourced article is the only news source claiming Artie has stabbed himself. All other articles covering the suicide attempt refer to the New York Post as their only reference. Until some independent confirmation of Artie's status can be given, it does not seem appropriate to reprint such sensitive and personal details in a BLP.

If you reply, please reply on the Artie Lange talk page, I'm copying this note there.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Lawrence Seldon Bacow

Hello,

Acting as a representative of Tufts University and the subject of this entry -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Seldon_Bacow -- I wanted to point out an updated bio page with additional information that may be beneficial to this entry:

http://president.tufts.edu/1173361337309/Pres-Page-pres2w_1173575082497.html

Thank you,

Tufts Office of Web Communications

TuftsWebComm (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Sanjay Gupta

Another editor is trying to insert what I feel is soapboxy material into this article. Can other editors please share their thoughts here. --NeilN talk to me 17:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Jason Stewart

This page has been subject to massive insertions of fraudulent information, probably from an offsite coordinated attack. I reverted to what appears to be the last good version, however I would appreciate it if someone could double check. Thanks, Triplestop x3 18:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussion concerning User:Marknutley/The Gore Effect

Earlier today I nominated User:Marknutley/The Gore Effect for speedy deletion as a BLP-violating attack page per WP:CSD G10. It is a recreated version of a page that has been deleted three times - twice deleted following two AfDs and subsequently speedily deleted in a new version. It was speedily deleted again after I nominated it but has since been restored and is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Marknutley/The Gore Effect. Views from uninvolved editors are invited on what should be done with the page. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The BLP implications of this article are questionable, at best. The page does not denigrate the subject, it merely notes an apparent correlation between Al Gore and the weather where he speaks on global warming. I believe that the article has merit as a description of a notable pop culture phenomenon (i.e. the coining of the term "The Gore Effect") that has spontaneously emerged. --GoRight (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
If it sought to document the pop culture phenomenon (and there were sufficient non-trivial-mention WP:RS for that), it might be OK. But instead it seeks to document a series of coincidences between Gore and the weather, with obvious selection bias and WP:OR issues. In other words, it is not a document of the pop culture phenomenon, but a perpetuation of it. The BLP issues should be obvious, and in case they aren't, the page included this choice bloggy phrase "Al Gore has become the commander-in-chief for those warning about the dangers of global warming". Rd232 talk 17:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Understood. Please note that the page was only recently resurrected and improvements are on-going in user space where little harm, if any at all, is done. Reasonable time to work on the article in user space should be accommodated to address the previously raised concerns. --GoRight (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
A glance through the week the draft has existed doesn't inspire confidence; others have noted that the user doesn't seem to have understood the AFD issues. Anyway, it is possible to draft things offwiki, non-publically, in the unlikely event that the user suddenly changes their view of the topic 180 degrees, and/or the whole thing becomes a lot more notable. Rd232 talk 17:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
It is worth noting that the creator of the article is not longer the only editor working on it. --GoRight (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Correct, but that has no bearing on the unencyclopedic nature of the topic of the article. What next, an article on "Al Gore is fat"? -- ChrisO (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny_Hardaway

Hi there,

Perhaps you can peruse this post - it reads like a fan page and not a standard Wikipedia entry. I have problems with various parts of this page - here's an example:

Legacy and playing style

Hardaway's style of play was rare in the early 1990s. Players of his height were encouraged to play closer to the basket and often were not ball handlers. He was a pass-first point guard who could score like a shooting guard. Hardaway was too big for most point guards to defend and too fast for shooting guards to defend.[17] Hardaway was also an underrated defender who finished in the top six in steals on three occasions. Hardaway's versatility and size set him apart from many other players of his era. He was the only player during the 1994-95 and 1995-96 seasons to average 20+ points 5+ assists and shoot above 50% on field goals. Early in his career Hardaway's flashy style of play was the closest thing the NBA had seen to Magic Johnson since his retirement. After the departure of Shaquille O'Neal in 1996 Hardaway's role changed to that of the primary scorer. Hardaway continued his role as a shooting guard in the early part of his stint with the Phoenix Suns. Later in his career injuries limited Hardaway's style to that of a versatile, smart role player who was a steady influence on younger players.

Hardaway's popularity reached its peak in the summer of 1996 as he was coming off two consecutive All-NBA first team selections and a selection to the USA Olympic Team. In addition he had the most popular basketball shoe on the market complete with the "Lil' Penny" commercial campaign for Nike, featuring a tiny puppet voiced by Chris Rock.

Todd <email redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.32.110 (talk) 07:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As someone who knows nothing about bball and who has never heard of this player, the article reads pretty well to me. The section you don't like doesn't seem unreasonable to me, but if you toned it down, I wouldn't object to that either. In any case, I don't see a BLP issue here.Jarhed (talk) 07:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Koestler - Deletion of Discussion on Rape Charges + Other Subjective Changes

At least one credible accusation was made against Koestler of rape -- made by the respected British writer (and wife of the former Leader of the Opposition) the late Jill Craigie. This used to be discussed in the article on Koestler. Reading the discussion page for the article does not reveal any general consensus that all discussion of this matter should be sanitized from the article. But now it has disappeared. This seems to fit in with a larger effort in recent edits to portay Koestler in the best possible light: (a) playing down the significance of his healthy, much younger wife's joint suicide with him on the grounds that she had "no life without him", and (b) minimizing the detail provided on his interest in the so-called "paranormal." I have tried to re-insert some sense of balance into the discussion of his wife's suicide (we will see how long that survives...). If others care about having a credible article on this subject, perhaps they could pitch in on the other sections that have been edited in this way. Nandt1 (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

While this isn't a BLP issue per se, I tend to agree that The Homeless Mind by David Cesarani is a reputable source, and certainly one of the major biographies of Koestler. The material about his suicide pact, and about the treatment of a number of women described in Cesarini's biography, would seem to be a reasonable part of an encyclopedic biography. MastCell Talk 18:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
That is reasonable and I agree.Jarhed (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I hve added a short referenced section on the above.Cathar11 (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You are of course right that this does not concern a living person. Apologies for that: my mind must have been wandering!Nandt1 (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Maria Lourdes Afiuni

The article Maria Lourdes Afiuni seems like a classic WP:BLP1E. At the same time, the related Eligio Cedeño is a bit of a battlefield. Suggestions? Rd232 talk 11:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

She seems to be important enough. The article needs some work to bring it up to WP standards. Borock (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not convinced. As a reminder, WP:BLP1E says "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. ... In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." Rd232 talk 20:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit waring to include a WP:BLPSPS violation.

Resolved
 – No administrative action required. (inserted from discussion page) AniMate 02:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

People here should be aware of a conversation that I began at [1] which involves a WP:BLPSPS violation being edit warred into a BLP. I do not mean this to be a WP:FORUMSHOP. I only raise it now because it was pointed out there that I may have chosen the wrong board. Please direct any discussion of this topic to the other board so that it is conducted in one place. Sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused. --GoRight (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Rumour about Lady Gaga

Some editors would like to include a rumour that Lady Gaga is an hermaphrodite in her article, see Talk:Lady Gaga#The hermaphrodite thing needs to be addressed. The rumour has appeared in multiple reliable sources.[2] Thoughts? Fences&Windows 00:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

This has also been discussed before: see Talk:Lady_Gaga/Archive_4#Hermaphroditism_rumours. Reliable sources aren't so much the issue as WP:UNDUE and WP:HARM, which has been brought up in prior discussions. Several editors have noted other biographies such as Michael Jackson where rumors about the subject are mentioned, however, this is where guides like UNDUE apply, since rumors about Michael Jackson have been so widespread they became a part of popular culture and almost every professional biography ever written about him. In contrast, Lady Gaga rumors have been largely an internet hoax, far from making any legitimate impact on her career or biography thus far. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Exactly right. Besides, have any other "she is a transsexual/hermaphrodite" rumors ever proved true? It's almost certainly utter nonsense, and even if it's not, it's nobody's business except the article subject's and Lord Gaga's. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I see no value to the reader in adding this gossip and speculation, all arising from someone saw a bulge in her nickers, it was probably her Genital jewellery . She has totally denied it and said she was offended by the accusations, unless there is a development like she herself says it is true then keep titillating gossip out of articles. Off2riorob (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Genital jewellery?? Not really... --KnightMove (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

What's the probability that, accidentally,

  • a female megastar is visibly wearing something looking like a penis between her legs on stage,
  • a simulcast camera is in place from an unusual downward position to tape it?

Of course it was a publicity gag of Gaga, and most likely one of the all-time best (and she's really embarrassed and harmed by the rumour...). It has been mentioned in quality newspapers. As written in timesonline: "If you google Lady Gaga the first thing you see is a related search asking “Is Lady Gaga a hermaphrodite?”". The information should be included as a matter of course. --KnightMove (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

See , here you add your own personal belief that it was a publicity stunt, if this becomes clear we can add it, but presently it has no encyclopedic value. To explain, this is what you want to add...It was reported in the times on line entertainment section that a bulge that looked like a penis was seen in her knickers and she might be a hermaphrodite..sorry but its not very encyclopedic is it, if people want to read this kind of titillation they can go to those type of places, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Off2riorob (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
You're perfectly right that personal beliefs do not belong in articles, and I did never intend to do so. But here (and in prior discussions) people plead their personal believes that this content should be ruled out due to WP:HARM. I deem this wrong and explained the reasons. The facts that this rumor was extensively discussed even in serious media (Example: Austrian Die Presse) and denied can be embedded into the article in a perfectly neutral way, and that's what should be done. --KnightMove (talk) 09:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Jesse Ventura and Bilderberg Group

See [3] which is about Ventura's program that you can see here [4] and accuses its members of planning genocide. Can we use this in the article? It also accuses Obama of attending the 2008 Bilderberg meeting, which he didn't attend. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Side note on sources - some newspapers of the time did carry a story that Obama and Hillary Clinton had an undocumented meeting saying that they met "after an event in Virginia". The event referenced was Bilderberg but there is no claim that Obama attended the meeting itself, however this did create a fair amount of speculation in less reliable sources and may cause some confusion if someone were searching on the internet for this story; see example news item.—Ash (talk) 10:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't look like the program is respected much as far as factuality goes, as you say, they accused Obama of going when he didn't. I wouldn't add it, repeating such titillating imaginations would imo be more tabloid than encyclopedic. Looking at the article there are a few other conspiracy type comments about living people that could use trimming. Off2riorob (talk) 10:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Whatever was claimed on the show has to be mentioned in the article under the Conspiracy Theories section. It is another conspiracy theory and although whoever removed my edit probably doesn't like that theory, it's yet another theory presented in a TV show that was produced by a former governor, a show with high viewing ratings (highest ever in TruTV). Even if the claims of the episode are totally flase, that's what the show claimed within the scope of a conspiracy theory, and therefore my paragraph should be resored in that section. John Hyams (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I support the removal of the content. I also see that whole section as troublesome and was thinking that it would be better removed and sitting in its own article Conspiracies about the Bildeberg group where all the conspiracy people could go and add all the titillating stories they can find. Off2riorob (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the conspiracy theories regarding the group may indeed require a separate article. John Hyams (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Conspiracy theories by their very nature are troublesome especially when they refer to living people, it is simply what someone thinks, for example a person like David Ike who is mentioned on the bildberg article, sees aliens everywhere and reptiles also, the Bildeberg article should simply report the details of the meetings and attendees and so on with a comment about how they don't like publicity, to go on excessively on the article about all of these rumors and titillating stories and opinion of people who perhaps are not in themselves reliable is not very encyclopedic or conservatively writing. I am on my way as we speak to look at the David Ike article. Off2riorob (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
A separate article would be a clear pov content fork as well as impossible to keep NPOV. Yes, we have a chemtrail conspiracy article, but there are no such things as chemtrails, whereas there clearly is a Bilderberg group. Please don't create one, that will only cause more problems as we don't allow pov forks. Dougweller (talk) 07:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia cannot put its head in the sand and not report/describe a wide-scale and gaining popularity phenomenon. Either on a separate article or on the same page (I prefer a separate article), whatever a former United States governor is claiming should be mentioned and not be covered up/cencored. In addition, the TV show gained the highest viewing ratings ever in TruTV, and if the living people (Bilderbergs) who are accused in the show are offended/appalled by the accusations, then they can file a civil lawsuit against Jesse Ventura and TruTV. If they deny that they ever discussed or planned depopulation, then they should/could make a minimal attempt to refute Ventura's claims. Morever, if Jesse Ventura would claim, for example, that the moon landing was a hoax (it wasn't), then Wikipedia should mention this here. There is no escape from some conspiracy theories; they merit mentioning in Wikipedia as long as they adhere to WP:FRNG. John Hyams (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, as dougweller pointed out, a seperate article at this time would be a pov fork, there is no support here to add this controversial content containing unsupported claims regarding living people, this is an encyclopedia and we don't have a responsibility to add every obscure point of view, as you see there has been no support here to add the content. Off2riorob (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Obscure point of view? Definitely not, this is a wide-spread phenomenon on the internet and on TV documentaries, including a History Channel documentary. No support here? Well here, this talk page, is not exactly a place where public opinion can be measured. Unsupported claims? Well, that is only your opinion. I watched the eposide and whatever it presented merits investigation in my view. In any case, are you suggesting to remove the Conspiracy Theories section altogether? A side note: the Bilderberg is a group, it has no personal biography, some of its members are dead, and I don't quite understand why this debate is done here and not on the group's talk page. John Hyams (talk) 12:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
As for "pov fork", that is currently the policy for the following: List of conspiracy theories This includes False flag operations in which numerous living people are mentioned, regardless of whether the claims are supported/unsupported. John Hyams (talk) 13:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Just another point, the Bilderbergs are also mentioned here: Global warming conspiracy theory. Was the global warming conspiracy theory article under Wikipedia's responsibility (as an encyclopedia) not to add unsupported claims? Why was this "POV fork" allowed? The reason: it adheres to WP:FRNG. John Hyams (talk) 13:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Peter_R._Orszag

  • Peter_R._Orszag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Peter Orszag is Director of the Office of Management and Budget in the Obama Administration. There has been recent widespread reporting regarding his child with Claire Milonas. Updates to his page by several editors have been revised by an anonymous IP address citing security reasons.. // 96.231.74.2 (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to be a BLP problem, his girlfriend had a baby and its widely reported and not disputed, not excessive and is plainly written. Off2riorob (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Amir Vahedi

 Done Rumors are surfacing all over the net that Amir Vahedi passed away, as of right now, there are no reliable sources to this... only blogs of some notable poker players. I've made several reversions, but somebody might want to give it a second set of eyes to see if it should be protected... I don't want to do it as it might be perceived as a COI.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Iris Robinson

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

Born again Christian, and Northern Ireland MP. Just over half the text in this article is a controversy section, most of which is devoted to her views on homosexuality. It has recently come to light that last year she had an extramarital affair. This really needs some eyes. Martin451 (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree I tried to de pov this article but gave up, talk about undue weight. BigDunc 20:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I have had a little look and it does at first glance appear to be unbalanced to these comments. Off2riorob (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
It is indeed unbalanced... but most of the things that are listed appear to be reliably sourced. Does UNDUE require us to curtail coverage of the firestorms she's unleashed by her public comments, even if that's most of what she's been noted for? FWIW, I took out a bit of partisan language, but there's going to need to be carefully thought out surgery on what's there. Jclemens (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Her comments on sexuality were very controversial and resulted in a significant amount of media coverage. With that in mind it does not seem that the text we have is undue weight. Rather the onus is on contributors to beef up the section dealing with her parliamentary and political career. 81.155.240.216 (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Care must be taken with her bio despite her political views in light of her mental health issues and attempted suicide.Cathar11 (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be very hard to balance out the amount of text given to her views by beefing up other sections, but I think the views are given too much weight in the article. However given the amount of press coverage and more recent news, it definitely belongs in her article. Martin451 (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Its been trimmed a bit, undue weight imo in this case was represented by basically going on excessively about the comments, adding multiple peoples comments about her comments and adding multiple opinionated citations from opposing organizations, it looks a bit better, all the citations are still there but imo there are excessive citations than are needed to support the comments. Off2riorob (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Some of her comments could be trimmed down too. She is not that an important person.Borock (talk) 05:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this article is acceptable as it stands. Yes, it does go into some detail about Mrs Robinson's views on homosexuality, but that is by far the most notable thing about her - it's what she's best known for, and whenever she's in the news, it's mentioned. We do need to be careful to respect BLP policy with this article given the recent admissions that she had an extramarital affair and attempted suicide, but I think the attention given to her anti-homosexuality comments is proportionate and appropriate. Robofish (talk) 13:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The weight towards the homophobia is a result of Iris Robinson herself and the surrounding notability. The article is simple reflecting this. IMO it is wrong to take a hatchet to the article simple becuase the article looks unbalanced. If she does something notable in her political career then add it to the article. Vexorg (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

What is this, Wikiquote? A lot of the unbalance can be solved relatively painlessly by reducing the redundancy of the overquoting, and removing the pull quotes, which are inappropriate. Also, the names of her children are not necessary. Rd232 talk 17:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I also support the removal of the excessive quotes as they are presently presented in the article. The editor Vexorg is basically reverting back to the original position from whence the discussion began, this reverting is also replacing the childrens names that were removed. Off2riorob (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
This suggestion that Vexorg states here of it is all cited if its unbalanced add something nice about her to balance the content it a poor positiion to take, the fact is these details are being over reported and over cited whether or not there is any other content to add that is about something else. There also seems to be a lot of what I would call non neutral citations like Pink and Stonewall, these organizations clearly have a not neutral stance as regards homophobia. Off2riorob (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
User Vexorg has again reverted back to the original position, is it worth it I ask myself. Off2riorob (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with citing Pink News / Stonewall etc, if it's notable ("Bigot of the Year" probably is). But what's up with vague, weaselly stuff like "Robinson was described as "Iris, Wicked Witch Of The North"?" Described by who? The whole thing could be boiled down to one longish paragraph with no loss of substantive content. We do the reader no service being so repetitious. Rd232 talk 18:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I personally don't think you will get a very neutrally commented article if you excessively use citations that as in this case are totally opinionated about the issue. I totally agree with you about the rest, although bigot of the year awarded from stonewall is imo not very notable, the whole thing as vexorg has reverted back to is repetitive and poorly written. Off2riorob (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
The bigot of the year award is notable enough. I haven't reverted completely back btw. I restored some sections because I could see those editing the article with a large hatchet were getting carried away. I'm an inclusionist and while a long rambling article isn't good neither is a huge hatchet job. Much stuff was being edited just for the sake of it. Vexorg (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

How about this version of mine? Can still lose detail on the petitions I think, as I said on the article talk page. Remember it's a bio of a person, not an article on the controversy - that should influence the level of detail. Rd232 talk 22:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree - the section on sexuality comments was a bit too long. I've cut a bit more which seemed a bit peripheral while retaining the key points. Now that there is more to say on the financial issue and resignation, this section on sexuality is looking more of a reasonable length, where previously it stood out a bit. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Rajendra K. Pachauri

The subject is the head of the IPCC. Allegations of a conflict of interest emerged in mid-December. Pachauri issued a rebuttal and the news seems to have died down according to Google News--just two hits on "pachauri conflict of interest" in the past week, one is a website run by the John Birch Society and the other is in a user's comment on a news blog.

I'm in favor of waiting to see whether the story re-emerges before adding it in. The allegations appeared in a Sunday Telegraph special report in December and that story was covered in terms of "The Telegraph alleges..." and the like by reputable third party sources. Pachauri has been in the news a lot recently, for other reasons, but in this case the mud doesn't seem to have stuck. The speed with which the story was dropped by the mainstream media persuades me that this is a nine-day wonder and it would be undue weight to discuss the allegations at this stage.

Others suggest that the standard for inclusion has been met, as long as Pachauri's rebuttal is included. Further opinions are solicited. --TS 14:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

These allegations were reported in several reliable sources: The Telegraph, The Business Standard, The Australian. There are several other sources reporting Pachauri's denial, including The Guardian. The sourcing for these claims is reliable without question, and far less sourcing has been required for similar conflict of interest charges, when directed at Pachauri's opponents in the climate debate. Examples of such are provided on the talk page. ATren (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
It's not the sourcing that's at issue. It's whether this shortlived and apparently quickly dismissed event, which has seemingly vanished without trace, merits coverage (at least, at present--we don't know whether it will resurface). That's why I'd like somebody other than those already involved to comment. --TS 18:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. It was a notable event, relatively recent, and far more transient and less notable accusations have been added to GW skeptic BLPs, mostly relating to ties to Exxon. To allow those while suppressing the Pachauri accusation is incorrect.
In any case, this is the incorrect forum since it's clearly not a BLP issue.' ATren (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
For reference, the text is as follows: "On December 15th 2009 in an open letter, Lord Christoper Monckton and Senator Steve Fielding of Australia called for his removal as head of the IPCC. This was due to allegations of a conflict of interest in being the head of the IPCC and his involvement with carbon trading companies. Pachauri has strongly denied the allegations." sourced to The Telegraph, Business Standard, and the Guardian. See this diff for links to the sources. ATren (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
This is fundamentally an issue of weighting, a particularly pertinent concern since the source of the open letter, Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley‎, is rather a fringe figure. The fringiness of the source is quite likely why the allegations have not received much coverage. The question, as far as we're concerned, is whether every micro-controversy should be documented in a biography or not. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd really like to avoid rehashing the talk page discussion, chaps. Could we agree to leave it there and allow a previously uninvolved party to get a word in edgeways? --TS 18:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm only involved in a small way..I don't see the big deal, so and so have said that he has a conflict of interest due to his involvement in such and such companies. It was widely covered in reliable global sources. Get over it. its not very controversial is it. Off2riorob (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The article could use a better picture too. Borock (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, that picture is a BLP violation. Off2riorob (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
... what? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if it wasn't clear, but that was a joke. Off2riorob (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Names of under-age persons in murder case

Stureby murder

I would be grateful if someone with experience in applying this policy would comment on the issue brought up by me at Template talk:Did you know#Stureby murder. --Hegvald (talk) 05:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I have taken the names out for now, the names of the murderers do not appear to be in the citations, all the citations are in Swedish, could you please also provide a link to the Swedish article. It seems funny when murderers should be protected, but that is sometimes the case, I would request any comments about this issue please. Off2riorob (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Murderers are minors and so it would be best to be conservative about personal data.Jarhed (talk) 06:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
The link to the Swedish article seems to be in there already. You can use Google Translate to make some (limited) sense out of the discussion page. --Hegvald (talk) 09:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
WP:BLP does not exist to protect murderers from embarrassment. Old enough to do the crime, old enough to deal with the crime being written about. That said, the names must be cited to reliable sources if they're going to be in a Wikipedia article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Robin Brooke

Brooke is a former All Black with a distinguished career in sport. Over the last few days he's been in the New Zealand news for an alleged groping and assault in Fiji. I am concerned that the coverage of this incident occupies too great a proportion of the article, and a discussion has ensued at Talk:Robin Brooke#Brooke's bad behaviour. I don't think the discussion is coming to a consensus, and would appreciate some further feedback at that page.-gadfium 07:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

An accusation that he touched a 15 year old girls bottom on new years eve, two weeks later he hasn't been charged? Off2riorob (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:Attack page article at Constant Rijkenberg

The article creator added a link about a "scandal". The victim of the alleged "scandal" is the owner of the website alleging the scandal (I can add links proving that but perhaps I should not). The content edits of the editor User:DegenFarang primarily consist of linking to this same website, plus repeated abusive edits to BLPs like John Roberts and Russ Hamilton. I would simply revert the second sentence (of the two sentence article) and remove the link myslef, but the editor is wiki-hounding me so it seems best to leave it to others to check out. 2005 (talk) 08:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the site in question http://pokernews.theplayr.com/Constant-Rijkenberg-Staking-Scandal for people to have a look at. I left DegenFarang a note about this thread in case he should want to comment. Off2riorob (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
This is an extremely transparent attempt by 2005 to discredit me. The Constant Rijkenberg article has been up since April and the staking scandal addition has been up for several months and 2005 did nothing or said nothing about it. Suddenly the day after I asked on Baloonman's talk page where I could bring up the issue of so many poker-babes.com links being included in Wikipedia, 2005 makes multiple posts across Wikipedia calling my actions into question. Again here 2005 has violated WP:OUT by claiming I am the owner of ThePlayr.com, which I am not.

Beyond that, I'm not even going to dignify this 'issue' with a response. It is just 2005 playing a game and attempting to divert attention from the real issue - hundreds of dubious poker-babes.com links across Wikipedia. Can somebody please tell me now where I can raise that issue?DegenFarang (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:EL. Dougweller (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Or WP:RSN if it's being used as a source. Not 100s though, see [5] Dougweller (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

As should be obvious by now, I didn't bring this up sooner because I didn't want to face the blizzard of abusive wikihounding and deliberate falsehoods that occur whenever engaged with User:DegenFarang. See for a sordid mess he created at John Roberts. The greater wiki community needs to deal with this finally instead of just banning him and letting him come back. 2005 (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

JamshidAwal

Hi all I am new to this section of Wikipedia. I had an article about the Hon. Ali Mirzad which has gone through excruciating drilling and I have made all necessary changes (trying to please) every john smith that leaves a tag on my article ..lol But now I think it finally completed. Could an Admin remove thos infamous tags from article, please. Thank you for your time and cooperation. --JamshidAwal (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see the article talk page.Jarhed (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • There is nothing on the talkpage? This is the article in question Ali Mirzad ? There are still many issues and JamshidAwal appears to be in a revert situation with the disputed content. Content in the article has got a lot of issues it has been stubbed down tonight by two editors. Off2riorob (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

JohnYettaw on "John Yettaw"

John Yettaw (BLP)

User:JohnYettaw -- who has the same e-mail address as the owner of his travel blog (linked to in his WikiBLP's external links) and who has provided a recent photo to me for use on his biography here -- has interspersed within it comments addressing Yettaw's assertions that he is being portrayed in a false light, mostly due to poor sourcing that had been utilzed by Newsweek in a profile they had published about him.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 18:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

some of the statements to which he objects are reported in multiple news sources, but in many cases attributing them to "family members" or to specific named relatives without independant verification. One of these sources refers to his past as "murky" and implies that soem of these statements are based on things family members had been "told" by unnamed sources. If Yettah has self-published, even on a blog, his responses to any of this, that could be cited as a rebuttal when writting about Yettah. DES (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

All of the personal details that have nothing to do with the incident that is the subject of this person's notariety should be deleted. I am no lawyer, but this article looks like a lawsuit waiting to happen.Jarhed (talk) 06:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

John Yettaw Comments: I would like to thank "Jarhed" for his insight concerning a lawsuit "waiting to happen" (Rhetorically: If I were to sue any media-outlet... I would sue organizations that wrote and perpetuated articles that have defamed me and placed me in False Light). My 11 year old daughter learned about highly personal and tragic bits of my childhood concerning Child Sexual Abuse, also know as "CSA," when she read about it on Wikipedia's "John Yettaw" bio, and from Newsweek. In other words, my daughter and was NOT aware of my experience with "CSA" until she read about my childhood as reported on Wikipedia and Newsweek. I mean... "Tramps" shouldn't have to endure Invasion of Privacy... Libel... Or be Misfitted with painful images created by journalists with obvious "Father Issues."

I am still new to the backside of the screen of Wikipedia and when I am unable to figure out how to email an individual... I just press what buttons I can to leave a few words of concern - here and there. A few hours ago I left a message to whateverhisnameis who calls himself "Mandsford" who call me a "Dumb sonofabitch." - no matter how clean the vessel is... there always seems to be some bit of non-symbiotic-bacteria stuck to the lining. Mandsford... I am neither "Dumb"... and I KNOW you weren't talking about my mother.

Was there one of you (Wikipedians) who was in the water with me at any point? Is there one of you who can tell me that (at least) one highly trained 2-man team (with back-up) was NOT going to enter Inya Lake and enter the Compound and enter the home and seek to Murder the woman/women? I mean... let's face it... it's not as if someone could actually enter the Lake and penetrate the junta's active - AK-47 - grip on the compound... and get into the house. I was not "captured"... the junta/Court has my map with the police outpost circled with the words "Police" next to the spot identified as "US Embassy Residence." I say someday Intelligence Reports are going to surface that are going to make Mandsford-like-critics appear to be inconsiderate and impatient Human beings.

There is more to the story than what was "lost in translation" (and suppressed) during the trail and what Aung San Suu Kyi could talk about... and myself, as well (I never broke into the house... and I have it on a reliable source perhaps that someone initially refused to enter... and that the "Burmese" are watching the back side of Wiki - looking for tid-bits and details). Also... BTW... it was my Burmese Attorney who started the story (and reported to the press) that "God" had told me to save the woman (aka: Aung San Suu Kyi). I did not testify in court that "God" told me anything. I mean... I may seem Stupid to some of you ...I am not a Dumb SOB." I may have done something that was without question unconventional but from where I was standing in the water... I Did The Right Thing. I don't care if the entire world doesn't believe that Aung San Suu Kyi was targeted for murder via the Lake... there are a few people in this world who know otherwise. I had the courage to get into the water... while many mis-informed critics did nothing but poke their fingers at me on keyboards to ridicule and slam me. There have been some who have taken a deeper look at things and have refrained from negatively judging me. Some have even spoken positively about the increased attention that both ASSK and Burma have received.

I am Grateful for the experience of being exposed to... and enduring... world-wide Castigation. As I see it, I am in a great position to espouse the blessed-liberties of democratically endorsed Freedom of Speech and the spiritual and intellectual/mental/emotional freedoms found in practicing Forgiveness all in the same sentence and breath.

As I see it, there is a full-circle aspect to forgiveness which allows this phenomenon to become more readily obtainable... and - potentially - more fully capable of being prolonged (1) by sincerely asking for forgiveness from those whom one has offended (though forgiveness may not have beed granted)... and (2) freely extending forgiveness to those, of whom, offense(s) have occurred (though forgiveness has not been sought/requested). My dissertation is centered on the subject of: "Forgiveness as a Means of Emotional Resilience: Coping Skills from (and for) Survivors of Torture (and Torment)."

Tying-in my Wiki-posts with the Suu Kyi incident... I may not have done it exactly right, but I have successfully gotten my point across. You-all have been able to see my Wiki-Point-Of-View. And as far as the "Suu Kyi Trespasser Incident" goes... the incident CLOSED-OFF THE REAR OF THE COMPOUND.. and closed the "Rear Door" to - what could have been - a viable tragedy. To this end... I say... We Shall See... whether or not what I have shared is accurate.

For those of you who have sought to belittle me... may I suggest that you consider learning to bridle your crita-sizzles (aka: criticisms) in the absence of knowledge and relative-truth/accuracy and seek/attempt to direct your energy toward sustaining/protecting the lives and liberties of the less fortunate. As I am certain that most of you do... but for those who don't: Consider increasing the scope of your research/writing talents in Stopping/Reducing Genocide/Ethnocide though greater awareness. Consider Torture and Suicide Awareness as worthy endeavors, as well.

Please forgive me for my entry mistakes/impositions... but some of you people have pissed me off by perpetuating Newsweek mistruths about me and my choice and blessed childhood-and-current family. Your "JWY" page hurt my daughter. I am going to disappear from Wikipedia soon. For those of you who have been decent/respectful toward me (and have extended respect to many others who have been misunderstood) - Keep up the Good Work of Sanitizing the Project. I appreciate Wikipedia. I am neither a "Tramp"... nor am I "'The' Missouri Misfit"... nor am I a "Dumb sonofabitch." Period! Pardon my language.

Thanks to those of you who pertetuate kindness. John Yettaw JohnYettaw (talk) 11:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Yettaw, let's continue this discussion on the talk page of your biography article. In the meantime, please stop making changes to it and let other editors take care of it.Jarhed (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Seyran Ohanyan

The Seyran Ohanyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article is making an extreme and unsubstantiated claim that Seyran Ohanyan is an "alleged war criminal". I had removed this claim [6], but it has again been reinserted [7].
The sole source is a propaganda webpage from Azerbaijan [8] that alleges two unproven claims - that a regiment of Russian forces took part in an alleged massacre of civilians (it calls the regiment a "genocide regiment") and that Ohanian led those Russian forces (a quote from the source "Xocalı şəhərinə hücum əməliyyatına 366-cı alayın zabitləri Seyran Ohanyan" - "Officers of the 366th regiment led by Seyran Ohanyan went to the city of Khojali"). No national or international court or international body has made this allegation against Ohanyan. No evidence is presented to back up the claim. The same webpage is filled with phrases and allegations that would make it unsuitable as a source for even a general article let alone one about a living person. For example, it talks about "Genocide of Azerbaijanis" by Armenians, of Azerbaijanis being "peaceful" and a "sinless people", of the alleged massacre being "one of the 20th century’s most serious crimes against all humanity – equal to Lidice" (Dinc əhalinin vəhşicəsinə kütləvi qırğını bütün insanlığa qarşı ən ağır cinayətlərdən biri olmaqla, XX əsrin Xatın, Lidiçe, Babi Yar kimi dəhşətli faciələri ilə bir sırada dayanır), and that "lying Armenians" and "Armenian nationalists" have "invented" the 1915 Armenian Genocide to gain sympathy at an international level to justify their claims against the territory of Azerbaijan (Erməni millətçiləri qonşu dövlətlərə, o cümlədən Azərbaycan Respublikasına qarşı ərazi iddialarına haqq qazandırmaq, bunun vasitəsi kimi seçdikləri işğalçılıq, soyqırımı və dövlət terrorizmi siyasətini pərdələmək üçün hər vasitədən istifadə edərək, guya 1915-ci ildə ermənilərin soyqırımına məruz qaldıqları barədə uydurmaların beynəlxalq səviyyədə qəbul olunmasına cəhdlər göstərirlər). Meowy 17:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all, the reference in the edit to the Human Rights Watch document doesn't mention either Ohanyan or the 366th MRR, so that can't be used without extensive further documentation. As for the foreign language reference, we need something that helps editors evaluate both the text of the reference and the reliability of the source. The war criminal charge is a big one, and I would need to see reliable documentation. Until then, delete it as a BLP violation.Jarhed (talk) 06:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
About Ohanian you can find some info here: [9] [10] He was the commander of the 2nd battalion of 366th regiment, who later defected to the Armenian side and joined the Armenian forces. HRW also mentions the role of 366th regiment here: [11] Also here: At Nakhichevanik Armenians and troops of the CIS 366th regiment opened fire on the retreating OMON militia and the fleeing residents. [12] The accusation of Ohanian comes from the report of the special commission of Azerbaijani parliament, which investigated the massacre. I think it should be presented as an opinion. Grandmaster 07:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
If the information can be reliably sourced, there is no question that it belongs in this bio. On the other hand, you can see that it is reasonable to be suspicious of such sources, especially when making an allegation of this gravity. Please marshall your citations and write the relevant paragraph on the article's talk page. I will do my best to help you evaluate it.Jarhed (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
The accusation comes from a piece of propaganda that cannot be used as a source. I cited other extracts from that same propaganda piece precisely to reveal its nature. Would you accept as credible a report that claimed that the Holocaust was a hoax, invented by lying Jews in order to gain international support for the foundation of Israel? The Helsinki Watch source [13] says "...the troops of the 366th CIS regiment (who were not apparently acting on orders from their commanders)..." - so it actually excludes Ohanyan, if the sole reason for mentioning Ohanyan in conection with this incident is that he was a commander of the 2nd battalion of the 366th regiment. Meowy 21:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
The best place for this discussion is on the talk page of the article.Jarhed (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it would probably be easier to deal with it here as a BLP issue. Meowy 22:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
This article needs the attention of an editor that has no POV and you got it. I would appreciate it if we could continue this discussion on the talkpage. Of course, you can do as you wish.Jarhed (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Though maybe the issue is settled for now - the sole source is the Azeri source, so the allegation is not reliably sourced and (as you said earlier) should be removed. Meowy 22:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I proposed my version at talk. Please have a look. Thanks. Grandmaster 08:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Mandingo (pornographic actor)

Sourcing problems on a BLP, could use some attention. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 07:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Philip Alston

Can some editors add this article to their watchlist ? It has been the subject of some recent BLP violations, which have stood for hours and days, and have even garnered media attention. I have semi-protected the page for now. Abecedare (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Suu Kyi trespasser incidents

Pete Townshend

Basically Townshend fans are arguing that a reference that claims Townshend was "falsely accused" of a child pornography offence should remain in the article [Townshend, in 2003 admitted to and accepted a police caution for a child pornography offence]. My position is that Townshend's own words and admissions, here [15], here [16] and here [17] should speak for themself, and that unless the article's subject claims to be falsely accused, or there is reasonable evidence that he was mentally incompetent or unstable, we should not admit such claims by unconnected third parties. Sumbuddi (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

What was the outcome of the last RFC? Off2riorob (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
The outcome of the RFC was to remove the claim. But since then a new user has come along and started things up again, trying to add it back, which resulted in the article being locked.Sumbuddi (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Here is the section if anyone wants to have a look, the debate is about the second paragraph, should it be in or out? IMO..It is well cited so just leave it in, Townsend was only cautioned for accessing one sex site and an investigator claims he didn't even do that, whats the big deal. Just leave it in and forget about it. Off2riorob (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
For me the big deal is that it's misleading to people trying to find out about Townshend and this well-publicised incident. Townshend did something, he says he did something, he said so several times, we don't need to contradict that. I read the article and was given the impression that he didn't do anything, it took a lot digging and now several months of discussion to find out that the article was wilfully misleading. Sumbuddi (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't see it as willfully misleading at all. The comment is well cited and as far as it goes not very controversial, all the details of the incident are in the first paragraph, his actions were more of a misdameanor than a crime and this investigator had a look at the operation ore records and his cited comments are there, really it is no big deal, the content is not imo causing us to represent him in a good light and is all cited and not imo excessive at all. As this content is a repeated problem lets allow some time to see if any other editors see it as a problem.Off2riorob (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the info should be included. People are trying to force The Super Bowl not to let the Who perform at half time on the grounds that Townsend has been accused, whether he was found guilty or not. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
That story is here from the Florida child abuse activists if anyone wants to investigate. Off2riorob (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Disgusting article - American trash media at its worst. Meowy 18:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what that outburst lends to this discussion, but thanks for sharing.Jarhed (talk) 06:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
It shows where these "activists" are coming from, and their character and values. Meowy 02:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Update, just noticed that the disruption to this page stems from a call-to-arms on this fansite: [18] Sumbuddi (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Official fansite, to be clear. Just to remind that Townshend was found GUILTY, why should we care about what Campbell wrote later while the early news reports are more relevant, authentic and decisive? --Scieberking (talk) 10:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
And in a similar vein, let's go edit Solzhenitsyn#Imprisonment so that it just says he was found GUILTY of being a traitor - that, after all, shows what sort of person he was. Why should we care about what later commentators have written about Stalinist justice and the Soviet system? What the 1945 Soviet judiciary said is more relevant, authentic and decisive. Meowy 02:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't know anything about Solzhenitsyn guy, or his imprisonment thing, so I wouldn't like to edit that article. Thanks for your suggestion, anyways. --Scieberking (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Conrad Schmidt

I cleaned up and expanded Conrad Schmidt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) some months ago (although I find myself unable to recall what lead me to it). Since then there have been repeated removals of sourced content. The editors removing the sourced material now purport to be the subject of the article, but do not seem to stick with any single account. I left instructions to contact OTRS in my edit summaries, but have to assume that they were not read since the blanking continues. I asked for the page to be semi-protected in an effort to get the editor to discuss their concerns, but this was denied. Any advice? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it could well be the subject, at least they are claiming to be. Advice, ..run and leave him to it, take it off your watchlist.. otherwise, do your best to try and talk to him, see what his problem is, you have already tried to point him the right direction, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink, the content is not at all controversial so there is no desperate BLP issue, the article is mostly viewed by bots. Off2riorob (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Frankly, that doesn't seem like a terribly good solution considering that the subject of the article is a political activist. It is not unknown for political rivals to mess with BLPs. How do you know that the article is mostly viewed by bots? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
The article is not exactly high traffic, if you take away wikipedia passers by and the bots you have not much left, although that is just a comment, you yourself said you are unable to remember what you went there for.. anyway, you have directed him towards OTRS you have done that, so if you don't feel to communicate anymore with them, just revert them for cited content removal, warn them as required and then if they continue, report them. Off2riorob (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Anjem Choudary

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

  • Anjem Choudary is currently very much in the news, being the spokesman for an about-to-be proscribed Islamist organisation, Islam4UK. While the article is generally quite well balanced, a few editors have lately been adding material from sources such as The Sun, and The Daily Express. These are tabloid sources, whose reporting of this man, and his group, are quite clearly reactionary in nature, and in no way neutral (headlines such as "£25,000 BENEFITS? IT’S ALLAH’S CASH SAYS PREACHER OF HATE", "Hate Cleric's Buggy Cheek", "Jihad enough to eat?". The list grows longer when you include the headlines from their peers.
  • My objection to the insertion of the material (about Choudary's financial status) cited from these sources, however, is not so much from the sources themselves, but from the fact that only the tabloids are giving much space to the claims. None of the broadsheets are reprinting the tabloid claims about Choudary's financial status. He has been asked, in an off-the-cuff manner, about his benefits status in television interviews, but that's it. No television or broadsheet interviewer has ever thought it important enough to expand upon the matter.
  • My point is, how, if no reliable and generally neutral news sources are giving any time to these matters, can we claim that its important to mention? How can we claim to have a neutral article on a very notable figure, if we mention such things, but do not offer any context? Nobody knows if he is employed. Nobody knows why he claims for benefits. Why then, should we echo the criticism from the tabloid press, and not offer any reasoning for doing so? At least the tabloids have an excuse - they're here to sell newspapers. We're here to offer neutral, informative articles on notable subjects. We can't do that by reporting the views of tabloid newspapers as important fact. Parrot of Doom 15:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I have also asked for a RFC for this content. This is the disputed content and the citations...Off2riorob (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

on January 12, 2010 when asked why he lived on Social security benefits, Choudary said, "The money belongs to Allah and if it is given, you can take it."[19] He is understood to be employed by a Muslim organisation on a shoestring wage, which allows him to claim income support .[20]

  • I should like to point out that I have now had chance to see a copy of ITV News at Ten from last night, where their reporter Angus Walker (UK editor), asked him “Why if he hates the British State so much, why does he live off state benefits” – to which Anjem Choudary is then shown answering "The money belongs to Allah and if it is given, you can take it." - so the fact the cite is from a tabloid is more related to ease of access. Codf1977 (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Perjury

I thought this was a pretty scary page - you'd really wanna make sure everything was sourced on pages like this, with the list of famous people on it. I semi'ed it as I figured it was a BLP minefield, as are all pages whose focus is "list of famous people with some controversial thingy (eg mental illness/depression/legal issue/drugs etc.)". I have semied some ones which are lists of famous people with mental illnesses for the same reason. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed all the uncited, I had to stop myself from continuing, what is biographical about the a list of people that were accused and not found guilty of perjury? Nothing is it. Off2riorob (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Have they been "accused and not found guilty"? It just seems to be "accused" - no court has said guilty or innocent. I don't think "alleged perjury" has a place in the article - the article should be about perjury, citing notable examples of those who have committed it, not about legally unproven allegations of perjury. Meowy 02:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I also agree Meowy, although, what limit should we set for a notable example of perjury? Widely reported and well known would be perhaps a guideline? Off2riorob (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest the minefield here is to be carefully noted, and the value of having such examples in the article may not be worth the risks. It is also clear that POV stuff creeps in on several of the examples given. And any "facts" about a living person fall into the WP:BLP requirements - there is no need to define "biographical" at all here. Yank all the stuff which does not simply refer to the subject of the article. Collect (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
In an article about perjury I think it is appropriate to cite a selection of notable examples of perjury (which will mean mentioning some names of those who have been legally found guilty of having committed it). Meowy 17:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Did you note the POV problems involved in the citing of some of the cases perchance? Collect (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
No, not really. There are not thousands, or even hundreds of notable perjury cases. I don't see any unavoidable POV problems in deciding which cases are notable enough to be mentioned. Meowy 00:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Some extreme BLP violations

Can someone have a look at Ken Saro-Wiwa, which seems to have been written as straight propaganda and violates WP:BLP against Brian Anderson, a living person, (as well as arguably defaming Shell). As an example look at the statement, presented as straight fact "Brian Anderson, the Managing Director of Shell Nigeria, met with Owens Wiwa, Saro-Wiwa’s brother and offered to trade Saro-Wiwa’s freedom for an end to the protests against the company." The POV attack site source on which this is based [21] does not name Anderson and actually says "By reaching the settlement Shell avoided embarrassing testimony that would have alleged that the managing director of Shell’s Nigerian subsidiary at the time met with Owens Wiwa, Saro-Wiwa’s brother and offered to trade Saro-Wiwa’s freedom for an end to the protests against the company." This seems to me like a straightforward libel against Anderson, the source is a hearsay of an allegation that he acted illegally and we present it as fact. --BozMo talk 21:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement deleted, I didn't see anything else that looked like a problem.Jarhed (talk) 08:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Landeryou

On 12 December, the AfD on this article was closed as keep no consensus. I edited the article to add info and references, as several notable parts of Landeryou's life were not included and much of it was unsourced. All the statements in the article should now be sourced to reliable sources. Starting 23 December, an IP-hopping editor has been periodically sanitising the article, with the exception of a brief period when the article was semi-protected. I've recorded the edits made and why I object to them on the talk page. The IP editor(s) have never communicated; the IPs geolocoate to Australia, so it is possible that Landeryou or an associate is making the edits. I'd appreciate extra opinions on what the article should state about Landeryou, and whether the article needs to be indef protected. Fences&Windows 23:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Article has been semi protected for a month. Off2riorob (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Roman Polanski

Resolved
 – discussion closed

We could use investigative help from this board's regulars at the thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Let's look_at the OP too. There is a pattern of abuse that bears scrutiny. Jehochman Brrr 16:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't imagine why you think that dispute belongs in this forum.Jarhed (talk) 07:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The discussion did involve the editors additions to a BLP so posting a note here seems fair enough to me, the discussion is now over I will mark this as resolved. Off2riorob (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Krisztina Morvai

All the edits done on the subject of Krisztina Morvai should include full references to the sources used. The person in question seems to bee increasingly popular in Hungary, and her position as a MEP (Member of the European Parliament) increases her political potential.

Adolf Hitler also seemed to be increasingly popular in Germany in 1932, and i'm not collecting this Godwin point for nothing: [22], [23]. --RCS (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's now talk about Krisztina Morvai for a moment, okay? Krisztina Morvai may turn out to be a really interesting person, but as always, all sources should be controllable. This is even more important, if the person in question has any real potential as a political leader. Krisztina Morvai has it, so it is a critical task to check all the sources! By the way, learn some Hungarian instead of trusting on second-hand translations :o)

Michael Winner

An anon/SPA has added several variations of a description of a recent subtrivial TV appearance by the article subject, all but one completely unsourced, the most recent partly sourced. The anon's intent is clearly derisive; one of its edit summaries sarcastically describes the edit as intended to provide "an insight into Winners' winning personality". This should not be controversial, but User:Little grape has inexplicably reinstated the material while acknowledging on the talk page that the relevant BLP issues remain unresolved. I'm therefore looking for input from other editors. I find this (minor) contretemps of particular concern because the anon seems to have no other purpose in its recent edits other than to belittle article sujects (note the gratuitous insulting comment in this edit summary [24]). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Michelle Rhee

Hello, I reverted some unsourced material on Michelle Rhee's BLP. The user then readded it, but with a source. I've again reverted due to the nature of the material (negative material about her fiance) and that the language used wasn't quite accurate. I've added a quick note on the user's talk page. As I normally don't deal with BLP issues (I do watch this one however) I'm not even sure I was in the right and as I'm approaching 3 revisions, I'd appreciate it if someone else kept an eye on this article for a bit. Thanks Hobit (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverting that edit is an excemption to the 3rr rule. I have watchlisted the article. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I was pretty sure it was, but I'm not 100% on stuff like that, thus I came here. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The BLP policy asks us all to be bold in deleting such things. Don't be afraid to do it.Jarhed (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Story

A user has undone edits that were factual, while at the same time re-inserting information that is essentially unsourced. The user in question asserts that a single book, which I own, contains information, which it does not. Even if it did, mainstream reviews of the book claim that the info in the book is of duboius origin and that the book makes many factual errors.

The book in question also contains NO SOURCES and NO FOOT NOTES.

I'm not sure how an unsourced book can be a source for "facts" on wiki.

In addition, I placed other actual beliefs of CS on the page.

The user removed those beliefs in a effort (I can only assume) to make CS look more reasonable.

This is essentially political editing on the users part.

If this entry is to be considered valid, it needs to use real source material and the subject's own words should not be removed from the entry.

Can someone please look into this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leelikchi (talk • contribs) 17:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

John Walker Lindh

Resolved
 – Picture has been moved from the infobox to the related section. Off2riorob (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Please check out the, very offensive, picture. I know he is a "bad guy" but I don't think this is the kind of picture that we should use at the top of a bio. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You mean File:John Walker Lindh Custody.jpg? Nothing offensive here, except perhaps that it shows arguably inhumane treatment, but that is described in the article and hence an illustration of it is appropriate. I've moved it out of the infobox and into the section dealing with his capture, though, since it is not the type of image normally found in infoboxes.  Sandstein  15:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I have no objection to it being shown there. The impression it gave me, at the top of the article, was that it was put there to mock him. That wouldn't exactly be "encyclopedic." As I understand it mug shots are not encouraged on WP. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
That's not a mugshot. Mugshots are frequently used in articles about criminals when there are no other images available. – ukexpat (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Phil Hare

The page about US Congressman Phil Hare is being repeatedly vandalized to include unsourced and politically charged material. The "Issues" section contains weasel words and appears to have been written to distribute biased information. The "Political Scandal" section is completely unsourced and refers to a scandal committed during the previous Congressman's term, making libelous statements about Hare's role in that administration. It should be locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HiFi22 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have told User:Philharefan to discuss their edits on the talk page. If they don't, please let me know. Fences&Windows 00:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

HiFi22 as well as IP addresses 99.25.185.21 and 173.28.114.94 have been vandalizing and removing statistical information that has been very well documented and cited. Please check the jobs section and explain why those statistics have been removed. These users are clearly Hare staffers--whether it is congressional or political and should be completely ignored and disavowed. I move to block them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricotruth (talk —Preceding undated comment added 03:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC).

User Philharefan and user Ricotruth are reverting any changes without discussion. Every time they revert the changes, they restore unsourced and factually inaccurate material. Hare was not elected on Memorial Day; there is no citation for the Political Scandal section; the issues sections contain partisan bias. The belief that I must be working for the guy to want his page to not read like a partisan hit piece is ridiculous, and more revealing of Ricotruth's partisan agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HiFi22 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I have fully protected this article for a week (undoubtedly the 'wrong version'). Can all participants please use the talk page to discuss the content and sourcing. Fences&Windows 16:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Current version appears to be by "hagiographers r us" type editors. Collect (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Are you going to help discuss the details on the talk page, or just opine? You probably missed that Phil Hare#Political Scandal is poorly sourced, that's one part of the dispute. Fences&Windows 01:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I have looked over the article and it is fairly obvious that many citations have been removed. Both users have been vandalizing the page by adding libelous claims as well as removing the necessary citations for each claim. I move that the article be reverted back to the previous article, WITH all citations! This will help decide what is credible and what is not. Furthermore, the section on jobs is some what biased, but SHOULD NOT be completely removed. The number of job losses is credible because Hare WAS Evan's district director.

Philharefan should also take not that if he is going to post that Hare was Evan's campaign manager, then he should provide the citations. Phil Hare was NOT Evan's campaign manager-only a volunteer for the campaign-hardly someone involved in any scandals like mentioned.

What say you fences?--Celticsbruins (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

B. Joseph White bio page

The page for B. Joseph White has become a page mainly about issues at the University of Illinois rather than about White as an individual. I am pasting below an alternative version of a biography that seems to be more in line with an encylopedia entry and with those entries of other university presidents. White's wikipedia page has become a place for individuals to air grievances about recent events at the University of Illinois. It seems like these should be deleted from White's page and, if individuals choose, added to the University of Illinois page, particularly given that White is no longer president at the University of Illinois.

Here is an idea for an alternate biography that is more balanced in its view of White and that is not so heavy with issues specific to the University of Illinois.


Bernard Joseph White (born 1947 in Detroit, Michigan) is the James F. Towey Professor of Business and Leadership at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He focuses on governance, leadership and management. He is the author of The Nature of Leadership[1]. White was born in Detroit in 1947 and raised in Kalamazoo, Michigan.


Education

White graduated magna cum laude from the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in 1969. He then earned an MBA with distinction from Harvard Business School and a doctorate in business administration from the University of Michigan.

Career

Following graduation in 1975, White remained at Michigan as a professor of organizational behavior and industrial relations. He spent six years (1981–1987) at Cummins Inc. in Columbus, Indiana, first as vice president for management development and then as vice president for personnel and public affairs.

He returned to academia and served for a decade (1991-2001) as dean of the University of Michigan's Stephen M. Ross School of Business. He served as interim president of the University of Michigan in 2002.

White was named 16th president of the University of Illinois in November 2004, succeeding retiring president James J. Stukel, and took office on January 31, 2005.

White announced on September 23, 2009 his voluntary resignation as president effective December 31, 2009[2]. His resignation followed an admissions controversy at the University’s Urbana-Champaign campus that resulted in most members of the university’s board of trustees resigning and new members being appointed by Governor Pat Quinn. In a letter to the board chairman, White said he took the action to enable the newly constituted board to select university leadership going forward. He said the effective date meant he would forgo a retention bonus as well as the remaining 18 months of a contract that was extended by unanimous vote of the trustees on November 13, 2008[3].

White’s tenure as president was marked by success and failure. The $2.25 billion Brilliant Futures fund raising campaign, launched July 1, 2003, achieved 76% of its goal by August 31, 2009 with 72% of the campaign period elapsed[4]. The Global Campus Partnership, an initiative to make University of Illinois programs and degrees available online to qualified students, was terminated in 2009 due to an inadequate number of programs and students[5]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.72.118 (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, thanks to you for presenting that, i'll have a look, it is true that the article is a biography of the subject and not an article about the university even if he is strongly connected to it. Off2riorob (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the next step? Would it be appropriate for me to post the above bio on White's page or is there an issue with taking out what has already been written? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akilib (talk • contribs) 14:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Drew Pinsky

A former associate of Drew Pinsky told the gossip rags that they did a lot of coke back in the 80s. It may or not be true, but it should be from a better source than lifeandstylemag.com, right? It's only been added from one IP (multiple times), but I suspect it'll come from elsewhere. tedder (talk) 05:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This could be a disaster. This allegation attacks the subject's income and professional reputation. I don't see how anything less than a source based on a court document could be acceptable. I agree that the article is going to be pummeled over this. It should probably be semi-protected.Jarhed (talk) 07:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I've semiprotected the article for a month. Like Jarhed said, an assertion like that would need a pretty good source, and the one being used was nowhere near reliable enough. AlexiusHoratius 08:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
What is wrong with lifestylemag.com as a source? From the webpage it is a recognisable publication from a named business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.143.19 (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
It's a supermarket tabloid; the fact that they ran with a story like that based on the sources they had doesn't say much about their journalistic standards. If it's true, find a better reference, one from a reliable source. AlexiusHoratius 05:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Kaleb Schwade

Resolved
 – AfD discussion has been created here. Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 20:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

.

Hi. I wanted to get some feedback on this article. I don't remember how I first came upon it, but I've monitored it for BLP concerns for some time. It's about an infant (now little boy) who may or may not have been abused by his babysitter. It's marginally notable, with a smattering of reliable sources and enough public interest to have inspired an e-mail meme that led to a Snopes report ([25]) and a sand volleyball tournament somewhere in Florida ([26]). Nevertheless, it's a BLP about a minor whose only notability is in having possibly been the victim of a crime, and it has the potential to do harm to the childcare provider, who maintains her innocence and whose criminal status I've been unable to determine — the latest info I was able to find, she was expected to go on trial in October of 2007; if she was cleared but the papers no longer cared enough to report it, this "pending" status could seriously harm her reputation. (OTOH, it also provides neutral, sourced information.)

I've tried to figure out if this could be merged or redirected somewhere, as perhaps at Shaken baby syndrome, but there really doesn't seem to be a proper place. It could be moved to an article about the case in accordance with the suggestions at BLP, but under what name? And what to do about the unresolved information on Saunders?

I'd appreciate thoughts on this. I'd put it at the article's talk, but nobody would ever see it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I left a couple of comments and links on the talkpage, the case is ongoing and next date is in February, the child is only notable for this one sad single event, any opinions as to a redirect or merger? Off2riorob (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Unless there is something about this particular instance that clearly sets it apart from the other 1,200 to 1,600 children in the US alone estimated to be effected yearly (the referenced statistic used in the Shaken baby syndrome article), then the article should be deleted under BLP1E. If there is something significant about the case it should be moved to a page about the case/trial. Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 17:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
The case itself doesn't appear to be particularly notable, sad but not especially notable, we could send it to AFD which would allow people to comment? Off2riorob (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I think that's the best call; if there is some angle not currently covered in the article that would support the significance of the event, it will likely come to light during the discussion. Would you like to do the honours, or shall I? Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 18:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I support the position under policy, but recently I am becoming more of an inclusionist... so I am not going to do it. Off2riorob (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
but recently I am becoming more of an inclusionist...don't go to the dark side!! use the force :) j/k --Tom (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hédi Annabi

Resolved
 – Reliable sources have been added to the article confirming the death. Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 20:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

.

I would like to think this person is not dead until his body is pulled from the rubble (and note that a bodyguard has just been rescued, unscathed) or until Ban Ki-moon says so. 201.137.210.141 (talk) 15:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I have removed the presumed comment. Off2riorob (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I restored the Living People category and BLP banner associated with the article and also removed the entry from the Deaths in 2010 page. I searched online for the most recent updates and he is still only being reported as missing/unaccounted for. As rescuers are still pulling people alive out of the rubble there is no harm in leaving the BLP banner up until his death is confirmed (if that is indeed the case). --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 15:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Sad news is that Reuters are reporting confirmation of his death Off2riorob (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I've reverted my changes now that Reuters is confiming the death. --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 18:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I understood that the President of Haiti has already said that he's dead. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
He is not officially dead, you need a body for that, he is missing. The article has been locked in this position until there are any official notifications. Off2riorob (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Asim Butt (artist)

Resolved
 – subject was confirmed to be dead.

There was some potential vandalism by IP editors on the article earlier claiming that Butt committed suicide earlier today, there were no sources added so the edits were reverted and the article semi-protected. It now appears that he may, if fact, have died, but reliable third-party sources are not forthcoming and some ip-editors, who claim to have known Butt personally, are concerned that a strong cultural bias against suicide will keep his death out of the news and as such deprive us of reliable sources. I did find one source discussing his death but it appears to be a blog(the link is on the article talk page) and I am not sure it is a strong enough source to include in the article. Having some extra eyes on the article for the next couple days, especially those of experienced editors, would be very helpful. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Rachel Maddow

UrbanisTO (talk · contribs) insists on describing the subject as a "Canadian American" because of some obscure Canadian law, but presents no reliable sources that describe Maddow as such. After failing to push this into the article, the editor began removing "American" from the article (despite the fact that she is described as such in a number of the reliable sources within the article). I would appreciate some suggestions. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion on the talk page unhelpfully cites no sources whatsoever (that I can see). Which of the sources in the article describes her as American? Rd232 talk 01:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
She was born in California. Her mother was Canadian. [27] "my dad worked for the water company, my mom was a Canadian and worked for my middle school" -- Proofreader77 (interact) 01:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
The answer "she was born in California" would seem to have the same status vis a vis her being American as "her mother was Canadian" to her being Canadian. Are there sources (preferably not blogs...) that clarify it better than that? Rd232 talk 01:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Progressive blogs don't misquote progressive's about who their mother was. LoL As for born in California, I got that from Wikipedia. :-) Don't think too hard — this is not that hard. Proofreader77 (interact) 01:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
She's American with a Canadian mother, she would be able to apply for dual nationality but there seems to be no citations that she has done that. Off2riorob (talk) 02:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I've just added a citation that explicitly notes her California birthplace. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Born: born April 1, 1973 — if she'd been born a few years later, she'd automatically be a Canadian, too (by descent).
-- Proofreader77 (interact) 04:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Seyran Ohanyan Again

The Seyran Ohanyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article is repeatedly making an extreme and unsubstantiated claim that Seyran Ohanyan is an "alleged war criminal". I had removed this claim [28], and after it had been inserted again [29] I started a discussion on this page [30]. The claim was then removed as a BLP violation, but it has again been reinserted. I would remove it again, but there are, unfortunately, persons who would seize on this as a chance to block me for breaking revert restrictions. Would an administrator please remove the claim and protect the article until the matter is settled. Meowy 17:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

  • I have removed it as it is controversial disputed content about a living person and the discussion is clearly not over, please attempt to find a consensus regarding this content. Off2riorob (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
    Off2riorob, could you please join the discussion to help find a consensus? Grandmaster 11:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I left a comment but it might attract a wider audience if you lay out your desired addition and ask for a RFC, personally, I find the accusations weakly cited to opinionated sources and as they could do a great deal of harm to a living person I would leave them out. Off2riorob (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
That's a regular practice here. See the article about Thomas de Waal, for instance. This British journalist wrote an internationally acclaimed book on the history of Karabakh war, but there's a whole section in that BLP article, dedicated to criticism from Armenian partisan sources. If it is Ok to use partisan sources in other BLP articles, why is it a problem in an article about Ohanyan? The parliament of Azerbaijan is a notable organization, and I think its opinion needs to be reflected in some form. Grandmaster 09:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I am not a big fan of other stuff exists but I had a look, at that article the criticism is directed at the book which is of course not a living person, naming someone in a biography here at wikipedia to be a war criminal, when you have only a partisan source is a totally different situation and could have real life issues. Why don't you present your desired addition here with the supporting citations and see if there is any support to add it? Off2riorob (talk) 14:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I proposed it at the talk. I can copy it here. This is what I propose to include:

Military personnel of the 366th Motorized Rifle Regiment, stationed in Stepanakert, was directly involved in the attack on Azerbaijani town of Khojali on 25-26 February 1992, in the course of which hundreds of Azerbaijani civilians were killed by Armenian forces.[6][7] The National Assembly of Azerbaijan (Milli Məclis) of the Republic of Azerbaijan stated in its declaration that Ohanyan was one of the officers of 366th regiment who led the attack on Khojaly.[8]

  1. ^ New York: Amacom, 2007
  2. ^ “U of Illinois President Resigns in Wake of Admissions Scandal,” Chronicle of Higher Education, September 23, 2009
  3. ^ News Release, University of Illinois, September 23, 2009, “B. Joseph White resigns as president of the University of Illinois”
  4. ^ News Release, University of Illinois Foundation, October 3, 2009, “ University of Illinois Brilliant Futures Campaign passes 76% mark on way to $2.25 billion goal”
  5. ^ “What Doomed Global Campus?” Inside Higher Ed, September 3, 2009
  6. ^ Bloodshed in the Caucasus: escalation of the armed conflict in Nagorno Karabakh. Human Rights Watch, 1992. ISBN 1564320812, 9781564320810, p. 21
  7. ^ Thomas De Waal, Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through Peace and War, NYU Press, 2004, ISBN 0-8147-1945-7, p. 173
  8. ^ Declaration of Milli Mejlis of Azerbaijan with regard to the 15th anniversary of the Khojaly genocide
I'm not proposing to call him a war criminal. Only that the parliament of Azerbaijan claims that he was one of the people who led the attack on the town of Khojaly. As for de Waal, the criticism in that article is not just about the book. It even includes a claim that can be interpreted as a death threat from the leaders of separatists in NK (it seems to him that he and his like will not be responsible for anything. But he is mistaken…). Grandmaster 09:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
My personal position is that as a wikipedian editor with the editorial responsibilities to the wiki that brings...I can't believe you think this is a good thing to add to the biography of a living person, I realise it is important to you personally but please, it is a weakly cited controversial damaging comment that I would not even consider supporting with these citations, feel free to take other opinions but this is mine. Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
And Grandmaster has wikilinked "attack on Azerbaijani town of Khojali" to Khojaly Massacre - so it is wrong for him to claim the text he wants is not calling Ohanyan a war criminal - it is, and is doing it in a weasel-worded way. Meowy 22:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

David Copperfield (illusionist)

Was thoroughly vindicated of all rape charges. [31] The police are quoted in a RS that the accuser has made false allegations against another person. (assuming that the AP is RS) I cited the account, and was reverted twice [32] (second revert) and the editor noted on his page [33]

How do you know she wasn't set up by a paid agent of the accused? You assume far too much. Her lawyer denies the version of events you have uncritically accepted and her civil case against the accused continues. You also say that he was "vindicated by police of the rape allegation". Whaaat? Where do you get that from? You need to re-read [1] and [2], especially:

Investigations may be closed without charges if prosecutors determine there is no federal jurisdiction, no federal laws were broken, or that it would be impossible to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. "Neither the investigation, nor its termination, should be perceived as a comment on guilt or innocence," the statement said.

Editing 101, really. ► RATEL ◄ 23:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Where a person has been actually vindicated by the police, noted by the Associated Press etc., is it improper to note the person was vindicated after months of the WP BLP containing the allegations? The editor involved previously sopught to have the rape prominently handled, alomg with allegations of "secret children" and the like, so I am unsure how to interpret his first revert comment of No appropriate. This is not germane to the article, would not be submissable in a court dealing with this case, and it is not our place to smear or exonerate individuals) Collect (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, any disputed BLP inclusion that hinges on something not in an RS should be immediately deleted. That goes double if the hinge is someone's interpretation of the law, which is pure POV and should be disregarded. It is also my opinion that any notable scandal where a person has been found not guilty should be mentioned in the barest possible terms, if at all, with the vindication prominent in the article.Jarhed (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Which was my position for a long time -- that the entire allegation did not belong. The other editor, however, worked mightily to keep the rape allegations in the article. Now that the Feds dismissed it, he wishes to not note the facts about the accuser found in the AP article <g>. The entire article was a repository for smears on Copperfield, and it is time to clean it out. Collect (talk) 01:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Flowanda opened a discussion about my additions noting that Copperfield's accuser is under investigation by Seattle police for making false charges of rape against another guy and for prostitution. I believe that this, widely reported in reliable sources, belongs on the page in the relevant section. I think we need third party assistance here, and welcome Flowanda's invitation to discuss thisKarelin7 (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC). Karelin7 (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Ron Nehring

Saw this over at WP:RFPP - could use some attention and additional eyes and some cleanup. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 07:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

David Copperfield (again)

The discussion and wording of a section concerning sexual assault allegations could use some eyes, please. I took a shot at shortening the section while adding current details, but it needs work, and the discussion needs some better guidance. The proposed edits and discussion are at Talk:David Copperfield (illusionist)#Investigation ends. Thanks. Flowanda | Talk 23:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Sergiu Băhăian

Sergiu Băhăian, allegations are serious, sources are in Romanian, and sorry but I'm off to bed. ϢereSpielChequers 23:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

A quick G News Archive search gives this apparently reliable newspaper The Google translation of the title says: "Sergiu Bahaian will stand over 5 years behind bars"--and the G translate of the article itself seems consistent with the Wikipedia article. I don't think we need to be concerned. DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. ϢereSpielChequers 23:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Marcus (comedian)

Resolved
 – article has been stubbed back to cited content.

Article Marcus (comedian). After a long series of unexplained reverts an IP Address user has claimed to be Marcus the subject of the article. If we assume good faith, despite the offensive tone, broken edits, and forced deletions, this user still needs to go through official channels. The article needs to be clearly marked so that editors like myself do not get hassled for making Good Faith efforts to preserve material or waste time trying to find citations. -- Horkana (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Try and be gentle with him, he could well be the subject of the article, and will have a lot of knowledge about himself, point him in the right directions, if he likes to identify himself thats up to him, it is not illegal to have issues with your own biography, suggest he stops editing it but ask him what his issues are and have a look at them to see if the article can be improved. Off2riorob (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

He made many edits and unexplained reverts before making any attempt to explain himself and he was very impolite when eventually did so. He has made a twitter post which is credible confirmation it was him. Massively impolite but at least credible, this is the most effort he has made to repond so far instead of just pushing through edits. http://twitter.com/ComedianMarcus/statuses/7879267179 He goes by his first name for his performance and he seems to have problems with his full name being included in the article, although it was referenced. Another editor had tried to add it with a weak source (a radio show) and I restored it with a better source, a local newspaper that even included photos of him. Most of the rest of the article is not properly referenced, quotes are excessively long, some of it is dubious self promotion, a lot of that would have to go too if I had been strictly enforcing WP:BLP. Maybe I should have done it sooner but I did post suggestions and links to guidelines the IP address talk page, and he had been previously warned for unconstructive edits. He doesn't get that he should read the guidelines, and ask for help. -- Horkana (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I see he has contributed on other IPs. Hes got seven edits on this IP four of then removing this content he clearly didn't like..For much of his stand up career his surname was unknown as his stage name is simply Marcus. In an interview on Radio From Hell on Thursday July 16th, 2009, Marcus stated that his last name is Hardy. cited to this [karaokes-still-king-big-mamas/ knoxville dot com ..karaokes-still-king-big-mamas] link, The content seems to be gone now? If I was you I would go through the BLP and remove anything uncited and anything weakly cited to possibly not wikipedia reliable sources as well. I have trimmed it back. Off2riorob (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel further edits by me at this point could be seen as me antagonising him. He doesn't get that my edits were in good faith and how his behavior looks to another editor.
On the talk page I urged the other active editor to enforce WP:BLP consistently if he was going to enforce it at all. At this stage I would appreciate a neutral third party or experienced admin to help him sort out the article, deleting the poorly cited materials, and promotional material that might not be notable and so on.
I hope he will not be given what seems a lot like a veto on the article describing. I can understand someone wanting not to have wikipedia article to protect their privacy but giving him license to micromanage the article, to selectively delete cited material, and not meet the same standards of verifiability as everyone else seems deeply unfair. I hope someone in charge can explain to Marcus how he is not supposed to edit the article about himself (in most cases) and how to complain through the appropriate channels. -- Horkana (talk) 01:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
No worries, the content is trimmed and that should be that. I'll keep my eye on it. Off2riorob (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
A more recent edits summary (seemingly) in response to your edits:

You're a fucking asshole. Thanks for erasing everything, you fucking prick. I hope I find out who you are, you piece of shit. Enjoy sitting in your mother's basement being a fucking loser. Fuck off.)

He seems pretty indignant, an admin really needs to talk to this guy and explain how wikipedia is supposed to work. It would be bad PR move for an admin to not at least try to explain to him where he went wrong, even if he is not motivated to read the WP:BLPHELP guidelines himself. -- Horkana (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that and have no problem with it under the circumstances, it doesn't really need to be posted here though. Off2riorob (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Bernie Miklasz

Bernie Miklasz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User:Sdiver68 keeps on adding negative content in a "controversy section" from self-published sources, clearly not wp:rs. Trying to avoid 3rr. The only one that isn't a message board is "Bleacher Report" which is user-generated content. See [34] Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 06:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the controversy section on the grounds of being...well, not actually controversial. I've also started a discussion on the talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 06:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree about it not being controversial or notable....which is why it hasn't been covered in a wp:rs! Thanks for your help. I tried to reason with the user on my talk page and got nowhere. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 06:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
This discussion has continued after the editor returned from his block, He seems dead-set on calling this sportswriter out on his opinions as a "controversy" section. I'm trying to explain that controversies need to be established as controversial in reliable sources. Perhaps another opinion there on the page would help, more eyes would be appreciated. Dayewalker (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

A. P. J. Abdul Kalam

Resolved

The subject is the only living former President of India.

  • This is a contentious image in the article which I believe should not be onpage for the following reasons
  • It is "contentious" because it was taken inside a "prohibited place" (as defined in Official Secrets Act (India)) the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre and its creation / publication prima-facie constitutes an offence of espionage punishable under section 3 of the Official Secrets Act 1923.
  • It was taken in a private place (evidently without the subject's knowledge), and there is no "model release" from the subject as required by WP:IUP (privacy rights).
  • The original image [35] has been cropped to generate a possibly "negative" depiction of the subject in a slouched posture with his eyes closed (as though he is asleep).
  • Although the image uploader "Jijith" claims he created the work by himself, this is doubtful because he is present in the image (photograph obviously created by someone else) and is captioned "My photo with APJ". Hence the copyright of this image is dubious - and is probably a scanned version of a print possessed by the uploader.
  • There is no dearth of positive images in the public domain, and already in the article, concerning this notable subject.

There has been some mild reverting over this image, so I am reporting it to this NoticeBoard (and not to an image deletion noticeboard) because it involves contentious material for this BLP. Annette46 (talk) 07:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything that would be a BLP violation in this notice. At best, this should be a discussion about the photo's copyright status on the appropriate page. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Discussion has moved to the article talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

John Kricfalusi

Repeated creation of "Criticisms" (sic) section that focus on name-calling. Might be the same person each time, because it's always "Criticisms" and it always points to the same sources. ----IsaacAA (talk) 13:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Though I admire Billy West, one person's opinion does not a Criticism section make. Besides, any BLP-compliant criticism should be integrated into the main text of the article, not broken into a separate section. I've removed the section from the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Maria Lourdes Afiuni and Eligio Cedeno

I've asked here briefly before, with underwhelming response, so let's try a more general and more elaborated question. Maria Lourdes Afiuni and Eligio Cedeno are both apparent WP:BLP1Es; Afiuni being the judge in a recent Venezuelan court case involving Cedeno, Cedeno being known for little else but the case, and Afiuni for nothing else. Maria Lourdes Afiuni was split from Eligio Cedeno, since the creator of Maria Lourdes Afiuni wanted a section on Afiuni in the Cedeno article and others disagreed.

So, what do people think: are one or both WP:BLP1E; and should they be

  • proposed for deletion?
  • Merged?
  • Merged into an article that is on the Cedeno case, rather than a bio about Cedeno, about whom little else is known?

I'm not entirely convinced that an article on the Cedeno case alone is justified (WP:NOTNEWS), but if the content is to have a home, that would be the best place. It's worth mentioning that the creator of both articles has sought repeatedly to add references to the case into a variety of Venezuela-related articles, including Venezuela, Politics of Venezuela, Government of Venezuela, and Human rights in Venezuela, and discussion on that has generally been unproductive. There is also a related AFD on Political prisoners in Venezuela, half of which is again taken up by Cedeno/Afiuni.

If I made that sound complicated, it isn't: what to do with these two related BLP1Es? Suggestions please. Rd232 talk 20:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Article on Michael Steele

This article contains unconfirmed information as to the subject's father's death due to alcoholism, (quoting the NYTimes is not a legal defense against libel). It contains an entire section headed "Criticisms" with no balanced section of Achievements. Almost every comment is made by persons of the opposing political party of this subject or magazines and newspapers known to be politically slanted. It is so obvious it is embarassing to read, even by an Independant. This article should be heavily revised or deleted altogether. Mugginsx (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC) 11:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view, not "balance." Second, if you feel the article is unbalanced, you can discuss it on the article's talk page. Keep in mind that people of all political persuasions edit these pages, so the articles (while leaning towards criticism) tend to be politically neutral. Finally, the part about his father's death is already gone. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
The material is out because I took it out. Removed other ridculous materials as well without contention. Article now looks more historically balanced and less political bias on either side of the issue. The rest belongs in a political blog. Apparently everyone else agrees. Mugginsx (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC) 12:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Conrad Schmidt 2

The information on this page is incorrect. I have tried correcting it, but somebody called RaseaC and Delicious keeps adding it back. I really do not want to take you to court, because wikipedia is the greatest invention ever. Please either remove this page or let me correct the info.

The section on my community involvement is not correct. I was part of a collective that organized those events all I did was help with the media for the event. The reason why it causes me a lot of trouble is because the other people who did most of the organizing are upset. Also I no longer have a radio show, that was 3 years ago.

I think the best thing to do is remove the page. I am not a famous person and should not have a wiki page giving me credit for things that I can't take credit for.

If you have any questions please give me a call [phone number redacted] —Preceding unsigned comment added by ConradSchmidt (talk • contribs) 18:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see, , wikipedia, no legal threats WP:NLT this policy is taken extremely seriously. Off2riorob (talk) 20
03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
If you identify yourself to WP:OTRS you can make a request there for the removal of your biography. Off2riorob (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
If you visit the page Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem you will find an explanation of the process, with a direct link for contacting people able to assist with biographical issues like this one. I think this would be a good route for you to take, and may well get you more satisfaction that attempts to edit the article. Off2riorob (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
(e/c)I have been trying to communicate with whoever has been removing material from Conrad Schmidt without success because they do not stick with any one account (see similarly named posting above). Are you that person? The trouble is that it is fairly easy to find and use sources which credit Mr Schmidt even if this is not accurate. That is how Wikipedia works, like it or not.
I am actually sympathetic to your situation. In my opinion, which is not widely shared on Wikipedia, I believe anyone who is not otherwise well-known should be allowed to "opt out" of having an article. I would be happy to nominate your article for deletion, but I would want to know that you actually are Conrad Schmidt, and not someone who is attempting to remove information. Some advice - first, read WP:NLT. You are risking being blocked for making the mention of suing Wikipedia. Second, if you are Conrad Schmidt, go to WP:OTRS where you will get help dealing with the errors in the article, and perhaps they will get the article deleted for you. Best of luck. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Conrad, can you post something on your blog saying that contrary to media reports, the events in question were organized by a collective? Please add a note to the Conrad Schmidt talk page when you've done it. Then we can add your point of view to the article, e.g. "According to source X, Schmidt did Y, although Schmidt said later that Y was the work of such-and-such a group." Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Allegations of infidelity

Resolved
 – content was disputed and limited consensus was against inclusion.

There has been discussion at the article for Erik Prince about an allegation made. The material in question is "Prince was unfaithful to his first wife, Joan Nicole Prince, cheating on her with their nanny, Joanna Houck. When Joan Prince died of cancer in 2003, Houck attended the funeral while pregnant with Prince's child. Prince and Houck were married a year later.". Now that is some pretty contentious stuff! The sole source for this allegation is a book called "Master of War: Blackwater USA's Erik Prince and the Business of War" by Suzanne Simons. The book provides no evidence. No media sources have even made this allegation, let alone stated it as fact like this author does. Given Prince's reputation, I find it very difficult to believe that the mainstream media never repeated this allegation if it was even reasonably defensible. Even though the book could possibly be considered a reliable source, and we can't speculate on the authors intentions or motives, I (and other editors) have removed it because the allegation is pretty serious and isn't coroborrated by any other sources. Even the allegation isn't being made in other sources. Could I get some opinions on this? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Note, I have removed the material in good faith until this can be resolved and posted a link to this discussion on the talk page. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm reminded of the song A man needs a maid by Neil Young. Off2riorob (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Seriously though, it adds nothing of encyclopedic value, in fact it is pure titillation and not widely reported at the time or after, so I would support keeping it out. Off2riorob (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
As for the notability of his infidelity, Erik Prince is well known for his religiosity, so something that is hypocritical is interesting for the readers and I disagree with the statements of Off2riorob. As for RS problem, there are many BLPs in WP where subjects' infidelity is mentioned based on an interview in their biography. If we choose to opt them all out, then we will probably never be able to include something like that in an article. Sometimes, mainstream media take on it and it is hyped(like in the case of VS Naipaul), sometimes NOT, based on their on systematic biases sometimes. I suggest, we keep it. Zencv Whisper 14:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Again, otherstuffexists is not a reason to add similar stuff to all articles. It may be well known to you that he is especially notable for his religiousness but it is not given much emphasis in his biography, we do try to be a bit careful as regards controversial claims about living people, are there any other citations that support this claim? Off2riorob (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Correct, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a reason to keep it in. Prince is best known for running Blackwater. His religious stances came to light after that. But his religious beliefs are irrelevant to this discussion. The fact remains that this is a very contentious entry that is based on one source saying that someone told them happened. They don't even term it an allegation, they present it as fact. Yet the mainstram media, the same media that has constantly taken any shot they could at Prince, hasn't even repeated it as an allegation, let alone stated it as fact. That is a big part of the problem. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Off2riorob, I did not mean to come up with OtherStuffExists, Niteshift36 brought this up in the talkpage here, citing another incident as an example - so I just wanted to mention that if one were to look at other sruff or crap, one would find more than enough reason to include them rather than exlude them. Off2riorob, erring on the side of caution is fine, but that can be achieved by better formulation of the allegation rather than complete removal. Just wanted also to mention the illegitimacy of his "single source" argument as it is not a requirement to have multiple RS Zencv Whisper 23:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
  • My example isn't othercrapexists, it is the opposite. It is a very parallel debate that happened on this noticeboard where a subject was being labelled based on the say so of a single source and that source was more reliable and had more evidence than the one you are relying on. If anything, mine is othercrapdoesnotexist. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, thanks, we also can apply common sense here, especially in the protection of living people, as I said originally, it is titillating tabloid style speculation that appears to not have been reported at the time in wikipedia reliable sources and that adds nothing of encyclopedic value to the reader at all, so lets keep it out. Of course if you can find a degree of consensus support to add the disputed content that would be fine. Off2riorob (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Instead of spending time trying to prove the "illegitimacy of his "single source" argument as it is not a requirement to have multiple RS", you might want to read BLP. First, the author of the book has a POV to push. It's evident from her title. From BLP: "Look out for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources" (Notice that says sources plural.) It also states: "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases and attributions to anonymous sources." In this case, the encyclopedic value is in dispute and the only person making this claim in print doesn't share the source. BLP goes on to say: "It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy." A claim made by one person, with no evidence, regardless of whether or not she wrote it in a book, barely rises above being a rumor and again, the encyclopedic relevence is in question. I'd also note that on the question of marriage, divorce etc, BLP says: "In a biography of a living person, an event such as marriage, divorce, legal separation, or when the intention to marry, divorce, legally separate is verifiable by its wide publication in several reliable sources, the name of the subject's intended spouse, spouse, or ex-spouse is not private, unless there has been a court seal on the disclosure of the name." Now I ask you, why does WP want "several" sources to print that someone is getting engaged, but you think it is "illegitimate" to ask for more than one source for something like this? Again, your source states it as fact, yet offers no evidence of it. That is a problem. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
NiteShift, To include something in WP(even in a BLP), what kind of "proof" that normally is needed other than being cited in a published book? Of course, you seem to have problem with the source(ie, book), but that is your problem and I can imagine why you oppose the whole thing then. I am not keen to put/keep anything malicious in a BLP, but I disagree that it is not worth mentioning this at all and this goes with my general belief that allegations in a book is best put it in a way that makes it clear that way. In this case, if we don't state it as an obvious fact, then should anyone has a problem to mention it that way? Zencv Whisper 16:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Clearly I am not the only one who disagrees. I'm also not the only one who has removed it from the article. I haven't, however, heard anyone else make a case for inclusion except you. And your sole argument has been "it's in a book". You have not even attempted to address the question of why something so lurid and damning about someone so despised by the media hasn't been reported anywhere else. I've at least had the courtesy to address different points, rather than just repeat "it's in a book" over and over, to find a very parallel case (and how you can't see the parallel escapes me) and to keep this about the topic, not about you. Where is the corroboration? I'd love to hear you opine why multiple sources are needed for a pending engagement, but not for something like this? Go to a science article and try to edit in some extreme theory that has appeared in only one book and see what happens. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
We will not know how many agree or disagree, though there was another anon user who brought this up and who opposed adding it, if he has to be counted. I dont understand why this issue which Mr.Prince had never bothered to deny should be so contentious to others. It is beyond us to speculate why tabloids didnt pick this up. Maybe there is an obvious reason why Fox News did not report it, in any case I dont think that we have to propogate the same bias to this article. What keeps me from proposing a compromise statement is the fact that I had not been able to read the book so far(I don't know whether you read it either), but after that I would be able to propose something(if I think it can be put in a neutral way based on what is written there). If you are bringing parallels, then I have to say other stuff or crap exist need not be brought up here. As for the source, it looks like this book is far more unbiased than many conservative propaganda materials that are profusely used as sources in WP. Zencv Whisper 21:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Why wouldn't the IP editor count? Because he doesn't agree with you? You also forget Off2riorob, another experienced editor doesn't think it belongs without corroboration either. Perhaps Prince doesn't respond because responding lends creedence to the allegation? Fox News? Who said anything about Fox News? Bringing them up (when nobody else has) and not even mentioning any other outlets is very revealing Zencv. Then you go on to accuse them of a bias and claim we are propogating the bias. How deftly disingenuious. You pick out Fox, claim a bias and ay we are doing the same. Why hasn't CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC or anyone else reported it? None of those networks have hesitated to report anything negative about him or Blackwater, if it was reasonably supportable. Neither have the NY Times, LA Times or any number of other papers. Yet none of them have reported it. They have full staffs of investigative reporters who can't find enough evidence of this to report it. But you want to take the unsubstantiated word of a barely known author, whose only other book was a childrens book about dolls, and claim it is fact. Put aside your dislike of Prince (which is evident) and see if that even sounds the least bit logical. She works for CNN. If this was supportable, why wouldn't CNN use it themselves? Their own employee gets an alleged bombshell like this and they ignore it? Or is CNN part of the "neo-con conspiracy" too? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
As I wrote, I am not keen to guess why media ala CNN did not pick this up and I think thinking in that direction doesn't make me a better editor or improve the quality of article in general. A disproportionate amount of scandals related to liberals, lefts, immigrants, Muslims etc. are sourced to Fox, The Sun, Bild etc. Now may be you are getting why you don't hear much about Prince's affair in these kind of media. Also Prince is no celebrity ala Tiger Woods, so media apathy is partly due to that. I don't expect Western popular media to focus excessively on the sexual exploits of a (alleged)neo Crusader. If it had been Ahmedinajad or his Chauffeur who did this, you may have found abundant reports in all the media you have mentioned. You put as if there were many editors who are serious about removing it, hence I mentioned that you just have the support of an Anon(in the talk page). In general, it is irrelevant whether I am a fan of Prince or not, but the question is whether there is a strong case to remove a sourced content which in my opinion is no. I don't think that having a few secondary sources that mentions that improves anything. Off2riorob: If we have a book which says "Obama is a follower of Hitler", we don't have to write that as a fact in his bio, but it would be worth mentioning that a bio by XYZ states/alleges that "Obama followed Hitler". I hope you get it now Zencv Whisper 00:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • You don't want to speculate on why CNN didn't air the claim, but you're more than willing to speculate why Fox didn't, then go on to blame them for half the scandals? How can that NOT look biased? The fact that you can't see your blatant prejudice is saddening. You want to ignore that fact that no reputable news outlet, with all their staff, would put this accusation out there and instead believe that a woman who his writing her first non-childrens book scooped everyone else on the planet. Then, her own employer doesn't even have enough faith in it to even report that she made the claim. No thinking person would believe that CNN, MSNBC or all the others wouldn't have jumped all over that story if they thought is was even reasonably defensible. Notice how the material you put in about Prince was stated as a fact. Period. No "so and so said" crap, just plain fact. But when you make your simplistic Obama/Hitler example, you weasel with "so and so alleges". I can't even assume good faith with you. Your bias is so evident that it's hard to accept that this has nothing to do with your dislike of Prince with a straight face. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • NiteShift, you don't have to throw stones while lieing within glasshouses(ie, accusing me of bias). Not surprisingly, there is a "consensus"(although Wiki is supposedly NOT a democracy) and could be a good encouragement for selective BLP censuring in the future Zencv Whisper 20:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I have a problem that you want to add, that this persons maid was pregnant with his baby when his wife died, according to the writer of this book. . I have a problem with it whatever way you write it, as I said if you can find several reliable citations to support the content or you can find a degree of consensus support to add it I would be fine with that. Off2riorob (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really think there is anything I need to say here, WP:BLP is quite clear, but, I shall do so anyway to be absolutely transparent;

Regarding Negatively sourced material, BLP has several, clear requirements:

  1. No self-published sources unless they are published by the article subject, and even then:
    1. it is not unduly self-serving;
    2. it does not involve claims about third parties or unrelated events;
    3. there is no reasonable doubt that the subject actually authored it;
    4. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
  2. The material cannot be poorly-soured: Poorly-sourced material is that attributed to a single source, but has not ever been listed in any other reliable sources. Meaning you cannot use a single source for attribution, it just be several, reliable sources.
  3. They must be reliable sources. A single book by an author whose only other book is a children's book is not a reliable source.

I believe that is all. Now, as said, I want to be absolutely clear, so, let us examine this thread for a minute:

Those in support of addition of material
  1. Zencv (talk · contribs)
Those in support of removal of material
  1. Niteshift36 (talk · contribs)
  2. Off2riorob (talk · contribs)
  3. Daedalus969 (talk · contribs)

Consensus is pretty clear, and I am sure, nothing more needs to be said.— Dædαlus Contribs 00:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Roman Polanski Sexual Abuse Case

Is this Wiki worthy? Seems like the old Court TV-like BLOG material to me, and potentially libelous in the discussion and reprint of certain (Secret) Grand Jury Testimony which seems to have never been legally released. Mugginsx (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean some specific content or the whole article? Off2riorob (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I must say the entire article. If someone (perhaps they did) wanted to do a biographical article on the subject, his biography, his achievements, with perhaps a small mention of his sexual abuse case, that would be one thing; but to devote an entire article on this case seems to me to belong in a newspaper, blog or tabloid. If we are going to set a trend of devoting an entire article on the scandals of public people, I predict that it will not be long before Wiki turns into something other than it's original premise. It is also my opinion that it is dangerous in the legal respect, in that some of this casually posted material can be potentially libelous in that the references are from newspapers and print that are generally protected from libel. That is my view as a Wiki editor and a former paralegal in Criminal Law. Mugginsx (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
We have articles on notable court cases and public scandals (aka Lewinsky scandal). Polanski's case gained much more notoriety when he fled the country so, unfortunately, it's notable enough for an article here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
How very sad to hear that. Thanks for the information. Mugginsx (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • This article is or at least appears to me to be very opinionated and is imo in need of a total rewrite, all it needs is a decent editor who is neutral on the details that is prepared to take it on and have a go at at a rewrite. Off2riorob (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Horst Ehmke

Resolved

At the Horst Ehmke article, about a retired German politician, an issue arose the other day about how to present and hedge the statement that the subject was briefly registered as a member of the Nazi party during his youth, but today denies he ever did so knowingly. An open-proxy IP user who is obviously some banned user with a grudge against me has now hijacked that issue and keeps reverting my BLP enforcement edits with edit-summary attacks against me (like, me being a nazi myself, and so on). Because of the unsavoury nature of these attacks, and because this is likely related to one of several very persistent harassment situations with various banned fans of mine, I would ask some other admin to take over watching this article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The article looked okay to me. The incident in mentioned in a neutral way. Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
He was referring to edits like this. It's OK now, and I've added it to my watchlist. Rd232 talk 12:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Elisabeth_von_Magnus

There is a discussion User_talk:Gerda_Arendt#Elisabeth_von_Magnus where an editor has been advised against including details of the age and parentage of this Austrian mezzo-soprano. The German Wikipedia has apparenttly previously agreed to respect these wishes. On Googling for her name, the first hit I find is http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Bio/Magnus-Elisabeth-von.htm, which indicates that Magnus has contributed to the article. The conductor Nikolaus Harnoncourt is mentioned more often than any other performer as one with whom she has worked. Surely it is relevant that this Nikolaus Harnoncourt just happens to be her father (as stated in our article on him and in some sites on European aristocracy linked in the above thread)? In my view in would be unencyclopedic to conceal the fact that she has worked so often with her father.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

de.wp (partly for legal reasons) respects subjects' wishes a lot more than en.wp does. Presented with appropriate reliable sourcing, weight, etc, there's no obvious reason to exclude. Rd232 talk 17:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Both the German WP article and the English one have Personennamendatei (Authority Contriol PND) at the bottom, which verifies that he's her father [36]. It's from the German National Library. See also Austrian television ORF [37], the German newspaper Die Welt [38] and the New York Times[39]. And presumably she's mentioned in this book. This is hardly "private" information, and her father is not a private person either, he's a very famous conductor. He's even got a photograph of her as a child on his official website [40]. I don't see how simply mentioning that she is his daughter is a violation of BLP and it is pertinent information for a complete biography. Voceditenore (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
The birth date is a different matter. That is arguably private information, especially if it has not been published in multiple reliable sources. Neither geneall.net nor thepeerage.com are reliable sources. Voceditenore (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks both, I've now installed information into the article. As far as dob is concerned,French Wikipedia cites what looks to be a reliable source.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Aafia Siddiqui

Some input at Aafia Siddiqui would be welcome.

  1. The article had developed into this formless 55kb monstrosity, much of it amounting to an attempt to prosecute her via WP:SYNTHESIS (and in a really, really badly structured over-detailed duplicative way).
  2. on the basis that this was an uneditable mess, much of which was really not usable in the current form, I cut it back radically with a very brief summary, as a basis for developing the article in rather better form, and a note on talk linking to the old version and suggesting the old version be used as an info source for rebuilding the article.
  3. This was swiftly reverted as "large scale removal of well sourced information and references".

Discussion at Talk:Aafia_Siddiqui#Issues with article. Rd232 talk 18:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

There is now a consensus discussion as regards the two differing versions on the talkpage and editors are requested to comment there, the case has today opened at court so it is attracting an increased viewing figure. Off2riorob (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
There is not and has never been a consensus to cut out 2/3 of all references and information what reminds me on censorship. I dispute that this was all original research by synthesis and your assertions about that. And i dispute that it was a 55kb monstrosity that can not be edited in the normal way. These information are established and all based on reliable sources. There are better ways to fix other issues. Sure the article can be improved. Let's do it step by step. Could you please tell me which part is not based on WP:RS reliable sources? And where do you see the violation of synthesis? There is no reason to cut out all these sections with tons of references. These and other questions can and should be addressed on the articles talk page. IQinn (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Clever Hoax Article

Resolved
 – speedy deleted as a hoax.

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

The article creator selected a user name of british artist Michael Craig-Martin, and made some claims on the artists' article about an alleged affair with an american artist/painter (Sandie Waters), citing a book by Richard Cork as a source. A google-book search within the same book reveals that the claimed material is not in the book. The article of Sandie Waters looks like a real BLP, but in effect is a hoax. Search engines do not know any painter/artist by the name of Sandie Waters, and thus I have CSD#G3 tagged the article. Amsaim (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Neil Gaiman

There's a dispute on the talk page over the inclusion of some content about Gaiman's family connections with Scientology that was recently printed in the New Yorker. Input from more people would be welcome.Prezbo (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no dispute. Gaiman expressly denies being a Scientologist and obsessed fans want to add that to his bio in express disregard to DO NO HARM. If that is allowed I will get him to deny being a Zoroastrian, a Catholic and Spock and have those included too. This is hatchet work on someone's reputation.HomolkaTheAllKnowing (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed this discussion. I believe HomolkaTheAllKnowing is a sockpuppet of a previously banned editor - see WP:AN/I#Banned user returns? for discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see the discussion on the talk page. Nobody is trying to harm Gaiman's reputation; we're merely suggesting that his parents' religion is a noteworthy aspect of Gaiman's background, and should be included now that a reliable source (The New Yorker) has confirmed it. (To be clear: Gaiman's parents are/were Scientologists; Gaiman says that he is not. An anonymous editor has made this addition, which has been twice reverted. Discussion is ongoing; if Homolka is indeed a banned user, then only one editor has objected on the talk page to the material being added. --Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see now what this request on my talk page was about (I didn't get round to replying to it). This really does not show Wikipedia in a good light. "The pivotal fact of Gaiman’s childhood is one that appears nowhere in his fiction and is periodically removed from his Wikipedia page by the site’s editors." [41] I think I might raise this at AN/I to get some wider input. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
See WP:AN/I#The New Yorker takes a swipe at Wikipedia. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I didn't see any problems with the article. The religious upbringing of a person is certainly worth noting, if reliabley sourced of course. Not a BLP issue but the article did seem a bit long, going into a lot of fandom type information which would not be of interest to anyone but a hardcore Neil Gaiman fan. When will they learn that less is more and that the best use of a WP article is to get non-fans interested, not for fans to share their obsession with each other? Kitfoxxe (talk) 09:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sarath N. Silva

Resolved
 – General cleanup and standard BLP slashing applied. Needs a little a little love and formatting.

Sarath N. Silva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I stumbled upon this one due to copyright concerns, and was struck by what essentially looks like a very one-sided and poorly sourced negative BLP. Expert eyes would be required. MLauba (talk) 12:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm on it. It certainly needs more sourcing and I'm just chopping out anything remotely "positive, negative or controversial" per norm in a broad manner, and {{fact}} elsewhere such as in the lead. This should end up a fine article with some care, and even many of the statements included in the original form would have been okay with some copyedits, grammar fixes, and POV check. Working on that as well, and the result will be a tolerable Sri Lankan political stub... if we have a category like that. Hot damn, we do, for judges even. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 00:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Roberto Flores Bermúdez

I have twice tried to correct the biography of Ambassador Roberto Flores Bermúdez. The corrections have been reverted on both occasions to the Mandara.

There are inaccuracies in the Jan 18, 2010 posting by Jared Preston.

Ambassador Flores Bermúdez has not been at any moment Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Micheletti Administration.

The text posted today Jan 20, 2010 accurately reflects his biographical profile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Concernedhonduran (talk • contribs) 16:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried to discuss this with the other editor? That's the first step to resolve a content issue such as this. – ukexpat (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Susan Roesgen

Saw this at WP:RFPP. Other admins feel free to intervene as appropriate. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 01:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal at village pump

Okay, how about this - Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Possible_way_forward_on_BLP_semiprotection_-_proposal as something which is using tools we have and might be moderate and workable enough to be acceptable overall. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Greg Caton

Greg Caton has a number of challengable statements and someone saying it has legal probs. eyes would be appreciated. ϢereSpielChequers 22:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It sure did, editor User:Threeafterthree had a good look at it and its a fair bit better now, feel free to add it to your watchlists and keep it in a similar state. Off2riorob (talk) 00:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Appreciate the improvements to the Greg Caton article. Jettparmer (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Madness at several little watched BLPs

Someone is trying to connect the BLP articles Eric Daniels with the unrelated BLP articles Paul Daniels and Debbie McGee as well as the article 52 Pickup. The user has inserted claims that Eric Daniels, a Lloyds TSB executive in the US and son of German/Chinese immigrants, is the brother of Paul Daniels, a British magician who was born in the UK, to parents with English names, and that Eric Daniels also "studied magic from an early age" and invented the practical joke 52 Pickup.

The user has so far been operating with the following SPAs:

The IPs resolve to Lloyds TSB in London and to a British broadband provider.

Could an admin please verify that I am not seeing things and block the hoaxter and do whatever else needs doing. Thanks. Hans Adler 14:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hans, I blocked the account indefinitely and the IPs for 24 hours. The Lloyds IP has, oddly, been involved in a lot of disruptive editing. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 15:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
(ec) As I recall the game from about 1952, and it was old then, the claims seem to verge on vandalism. Someone act on those folks, please! Thanks, SV! (added)Collect (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Bored brokers vandalizing. If it crops up again, a note to their IT dept might stir something up. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Or an increase in their taxes? Collect (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, all! Hans Adler 16:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:George Stephanopoulos

There is a mention that he was arrested in 1995 for leaving the scene of the accident. Did he plea bargain? Or was the charge dropped? Or he was fined? Or found not guilty? If not guilty, then BLP requires we mention this because to omit this would be a smear. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

[42] is RS for the arrest. [43] for the charges being dropped, other than the ones of driving with expired license and expired registration. The rationale appears to be that while he left the parking space where the accident happened, he was still in the same parking garage. Collect (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Frank Turek

Frank Turek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) No references, lot's of claims and praisal 109.240.196.178 (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

alan callan - editorial request

Resolved
 – stubbed and cited.

i have been reviewing the biography of alan callan, and others, for a few years. i have noticed there are regular libellous and other unsupported attacks made. the subsequent editorial entries that i know of can be verified and the page seems to be in transition so that in depth sources and links are being produced - this may eventually prove especially helpful to people suffering from multiple myeloma. it appears therefore the recent request to delete the page may also be entirely malicious.

a recent discussion with the lawyer representing alan callan resulted in the lawyer suggesting a request be placed to lock the page in order to prevent malice. it seems so curious that after many years, as the links and information improve that a deletion request should suddenly appear. a muzick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amuzick (talk • contribs) 23:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The deletion prod was not malicious, it is part of an attempt to clean up wikipedia from unreferenced articles like this one. Is his cancer really so notable that it needs over half of the 19kB of prose? Martin451 (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Jimbo Wales libelous characterization of Roman Polanski

Resolved
 – hope so, issue has calmed down since 11 days.

User:Dream Focus has been advised of libelous comments, but is repeating the reinsertion, including ALL CAP version for emphasis.

Will add all diffs shortly, but posting this now [Diffs now listed]. Proofreader77 (interact) 11:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You advised someone not to do something you didn't like. And of course, like most people, I just try to ignore your nonsense. Stop vandalizing a talk page! The rules here are for articles, not for talk pages, which operate under totally different rules. Dream Focus 11:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
please get acquainted with WP:BLP#Non-article space. Sssoul (talk) 11:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Note: User talk:Jimbo Wales is a highly public forum. These are libelous posting in the most visible forum in Wikipedia. Proofreader77 (interact) 11:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Discussion

We have been through this many times on Roman Polanski. The guilty plea is for "unlawful sexual intercourse" which is not rape (according to L.A. court officials). The shouting (all caps now) of "CHILD RAPIST" is libelous, and I have advised [Dream Focus], then refactored the comments out when the response was to add the all-cap version. Proofreader77 (interact) 11:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia does not censor. We mention what was said in the major media sources, many of which called this rape, and child rape. Dream Focus 11:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I propose indefinitely blocking Dream Focus, who is blatantly using Wikipedia for purposes unrelated to building an encyclopedia and is by his actions bringing Wikipedia into disrepute. --TS 12:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone else brought up the topic there, attacking someone, I then responded. And how does this bring Wikipedia into disrepute? Ignoring all the news media that calls him a child rapist, because you don't want to offend his fans, would damage Wikipedia reputation for accuracy. Dream Focus 12:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a scandal rag. --TS 12:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Concur with proposal of block if editor does not immediately agree to cease. Proofreader77 (interact) 12:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I have raised this issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --TS 12:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: Editor has been notified of ANI. Proofreader77 (interact) 12:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Dream Focus, you're soapboxing through WP:BLP violations. You may not agree that your posts have gone astray of BLP, but consensus will most likely be that they have done. Either way, your soapboxing on the most widely watched user talk page on this website is blatant and isn't allowed. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Please respond at the ANI [47] How is it soapboxing? Is me calling the director a child rapist, and linking to a CNN article where the District Attorney calls him that, and other news source calling him that, a violation of any rule? Dream Focus 12:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
You asked here, I'm giving a short answer here. Public statements by magistrates are often wholly adversarial and meant to be so, you're soapboxing in support of an adversarial position, not an accomplished legal outcome. In doing so, you're also astray of WP:BLP. There's more to it than this, but that's the pith. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Statements about Polanski, anywhere within wikipedia, should stick to what he was actually convicted of, which is basically statutory rape, not "child rape". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I think you are making a distinction without a difference. Under the definition of statutory rape. "Different jurisdictions use many different statutory terms for the crime, such as "sexual assault," "rape of a child," "corruption of a minor," "carnal knowledge of a minor," "unlawful carnal knowledge", or simply "carnal knowledge." Thus: "rape of child"...the guilty party would then be a Rapist of child, which in common parlance would be a child rapist. The charged law in California is known as unlawful intercourse with a minor. A minor is a child. The crime must have a child as the victum, which is why you said it was statutory rape. There is no difference between the terms statutory rapist and child rapist, as the condition making them true, is always the age of the victim, which is always a child. The term libel is proper when the statement is a not the truth. While this may be distasteful, it remains what it is. --Tombaker321 (talk) 13:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Please use the exact wording of the reliable source. Anything creative risks a block, if done repetitively against warnings. You've been warned. Jehochman Brrr 13:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for giving me a meaningless warning for discussing a topic in an absolute generic sense (see above). This is simply talking about the definition of a crime. There is no difference in the definition of child rapist and statutory rapist. If you need help, look at the Wikipedia for some standard definitions of words like statutory rape before you go off half-cocked]]. --Tombaker321 (talk) 08:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Put another way, a linguistic leap like that is original research, setting a spin which isn't allowed in any article, much less a BLP. As Jehocman says, any wording of this kind must be straightforwardly cited back to a reliable source and moreover, there may be a need to quote and attribute such wording in the article text itself, minding Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise (see also the link there about coatracking). Gwen Gale (talk) 14:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Gwen Gale I realize you have a vested interest in defending your support of Proofreader77's warnings to Dream Focus, but it does not change the English language and its terms. You are just wrong that its OR or some sort of leap. A person who pleads guilty to having unlawful sex with a minor, has committed the act of statutory rape. Its just the definitions. If something is measured as 60 inches, it can alternatively be said to be 5 feet. This topic is about what a different editor said in a talk page, and all the pomp of dreary notions of a slippery sloop, are overdone. Remember this topic is about a talk page, in which you protected Proofreader77 as he edit warred and OWN another users talk page. Sources able to be used are the actual legal documents, the transcripts, the judgments, and the penal code. I started my comments to this thread by saying we have a distinction without a difference and my remarks are confined to this topic thread only. --Tombaker321 (talk) 09:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to use carefully sourced language in the article. There's probably a need to back away from soapboxing in some parts. I also think that in this situation with this well known, oft debated event, yelling LIBEL everytime someone phrases it differently then his exact plea is also unproductive.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree --Tombaker321 (talk) 09:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Alan Grayson

Resolved
 – article was rolled back and cleaned up and stable for 11 days.

This US politician article seems on someone's muck list. It was reasonably ok a month ago but has degraded again with a hitlist controversy section. I've tagged it for NPOV and would appreciate anyone willing to have a go. Even fresh eyes to see if there are some easy fixes would be lovely. -- Banjeboi 20:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This BLP has been under attack by opposition forces for a while now, why not just revert it back to when it was half decent and lets get it locked up. Off2riorob (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to that, this version seems acceptable to me. Anyone else? -- Banjeboi 21:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Looks good to me, flagged revisions is not in action yet but when an article is under attack as that one has been, if it is semi protected at least we it will be easy to keep decent. Off2riorob (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Not marking as resolved, and not watching BLPN or Grayson's page, but I've semi-protected for 2 weeks, which should help matters. tedder (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! -- Banjeboi 21:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Álvaro Uribe

Resolved

- 2/0 (cont.) 20:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Álvaro Uribe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - over a long time this article has been repeatedly and deliberately vandalized by adding unsourced libelous claims, mainly by IPs, such as here by IP 186.80.103.26 and here by IP 70.50.197.35. I therefore ask for semi-protection of the article. // Túrelio (talk) 08:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I gave it a month - this is far from the worst BLP-violation magnet, but there appear to be relatively few people watching the article relative to the prominence of the subject. If vandalism resumes after protection expires, please use Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, and just mention BLP as required. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Gerald Blanchard

Resolved
 – New editor moved to discussion, article watchlisted Off2riorob (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Possltd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The user keeps re-adding unreferenced information to the article about Gerald Blanchard, a notable criminal. In fact, the user claims[48] to be the subject of the article himself and keeps adding details of the crimes (e.g. the bit about parachuting) not mentioned in the references cited in the article. I am not sure what to make of all of this, but I think a look by another editor or two would be helpful, as maybe I am overreacting here. // Nsk92 (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Quite an interesting story, he is not adding anything derogatory just uncited, could be the subject, I have left him a friendly note to try to get him to see that adding uncited content because he knows its true is not the way it works, hopefully he won't need to be blocked. Off2riorob (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC

Michal Bucko

Resolved
 – the result was delete.
  • Michal Bucko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - In my opinion, after reading the article, the notability of this person should be questioned. Additionally, the sources point to the company similar to others in Poland (with no notable achievements), a Polish language newspaper, the person's profile on milw0rm, a Polish version of the page of a product being created by the person in question, an article in a Polish security-related magazine, and a link to a Polish high-school web site. Additionally, the vulnerabilities are interesting, but are they notable enough for Wikipedia? Even if the person is considered as notable by other Wiki reviewers, it should be changed, hence the lack of proper sources. // 87.105.185.61 (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Take it to AFD. It is certainly worth discussing deletion.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
The article author keeps deleting the changes made to the article (my notability tag and someone's else WP:PROD) - please check the history: [49]. Could someone take a look at this, I'm afraid I do not have sufficient Wiki-management knowledge to handle this case. 87.105.185.61 (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Having read the sources, and done a google news and scholar search, I can't see any third party sources that establish his notability, so have sent it to AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michal Bucko Martin451 (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Please, refer to links from Notable Security Input section (and to vendors' web sites). When it comes to Google Scholar search, one might find: "Central human-enhancement facility for human quality management" thesis, "Against Code Injection with System Call Randomization" (quotation) and possibly "Short review of modern vulnerability research" whitepaper. When it comes to Google News, one can find information from heise.de. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.163.128 (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


Hello, user 87.105.185.61, I left now only very credible 3rd party sources (Microsoft, VMware, IT Underground, IEEE (in discussion), and Mr Bucko's company as well as his notable projects). Thank You for help. In my humble opinion the article contains much credible information, since it's important due to the fact that it's a bio of a living person. Hope it is enough well written to be valuable to Wikipedia. There are also other credible sources such as Gazeta Prawna (link provided) or Polish TV appearances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamilborkowski3 (talk • contribs) 10:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear 87.105.185.61, for Eleyt's notable achievements, please refer to the following: http://eleytt.com/research.html, then to Microsoft's or VMware's web site. When it comes to sources, I think I have added many sources and may provide even more. Please, refer to IEEE's "Against Code Injection with System Call Randomization, Zhaohui Liang; Bin Liang; Luping Li; Wei Chen; Qingqing Kang; Yingqin Gu". Thank You again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamilborkowski3 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. However I am afraid that the page is malfunctioning, and the advisory links do not work (they all point to the research.html file). Additionally, most of these vulnerabilities are DoS class. Additionally, after entering the "Gadu-Gadu emots.txt Remote Code Execution Vulnerability" into google, I've got this link [50], which credits a person called "j00ru", which after entering in google, gave me this advisory [51] - as I understand, this is the same vulnerability, and it does not state anything related to the eleytt company. In this case, I cannot agree that Eleytt is a notable company, hence lack of innovative or notable work. 87.105.185.61 (talk) 11:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Please, refer to facts and links in Notable Security Input, or refer directly to companies involved to ask. I do not comment on business-related elements nor defend the article. I tried my best to make it valuable and provide many credible 3rd party sources. Let anyone judge by his understanding of the facts. Thank You for insightful tips, which in some way helped me to improve the article. Btw. I am not in IT security field, more in business.

I've expressed my opinion enough, and I will leave the decision to the Wikipedia contributors that are willing to vote in the articles AfD. Please note that I appreciate your contribution to the Wikipedia, however I cannot agree about the person in question being notable. 87.105.185.61 (talk) 11:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yours sincerely, Dr. Kamil Borkowski —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamilborkowski3 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I have now significantly improved the document, provided many notable sources, removed many external links and made a section with ext links (everything based on the AfD discussion). I have given short notes describing links, removed less interesting part of paper. Hope now it is a valuable article. Sincerely Yours, Dr. Kamil Borkowski —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamilborkowski3 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

External Links

Would it be appropriate to include links to the webpages of a notable living person's business interests in the external links section of an article? I ask in relation to Kwong Wing Lam. Simonm223 (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Have a good read here Wikipedia:External links Off2riorob (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I had a look and an external link was flagged as an attack site, I removed all the externals and prodded the article. Off2riorob (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Julianne Moore, atheism and sourcing

Resolved
 – Binksternet (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

There has been an issue arise about WP:BLP and a contention based on a response Moore gave on Inside the Actors Studio. Earlier in the week an editor came through and added "atheist" to a number of articles based on sourcing to the user-driven website celebatheist.com. That website claimed Moore said she was atheist in her response to the questionnaire given on the Actors Studio. The exchange went: If there is a God, when you arrive at the Pearly Gates, what is the first thing you'll say to him? Moore's response was "Wow, I was wrong, you really do exist." That was put forth as an admission of being an atheist, although the discussion did not include that specific answer. It was removed based on WP:RS. The issue now is that another editor has returned the same contention and cited the same questionnaire response as a basis to say she is an atheist and gave a cite to the San Francisco Examiner. Two of us contend that in either case, extrapolating that conclusion based on that response is synthesis. The editor who added said that the synthesis is on the part of the reporter who wrote the article. We still contend that to include such a claim in the Wikipedia article, in order to satisfy WP:BLP, a more definitive source is required, not the Actors Studio response, such as a interview in which she says "Yeah, I'm an atheist." More eyes and opinions on this are needed. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

  • The "San Francisco Examiner" should pass RS anyway. It is nothing more than a collection of local writers who enjoy writing and they get paid on a "per-view" basis. They aren't employees and Examiner.com does no fact checking. I currently write for them and have never had anything fact checked. They review articles posted, but don't really verify anything unless it becomes an issue. They were booted from Google news search results for a while and just recently got put back on the search results after agreeing to watch what they call news a little more closely. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Answering that to the question is not a good reference to tag them as an Atheist for the rest of their life. At the Category Atheist it reads as a condition of inclusion..
This category contains Atheists,
  • who have expressed being an atheist,
  • and of whom it is known how they define their atheism.
She has done neither of these things clearly has not expressed her Atheism in any clear way. So she does not belong in the cat, you could if you had a reliable citation and thought it a valuable addition, add the reply she made to the question in the body of the article, personally I wouldn't bother adding the reply or the question as it is simply pretty vague. Off2riorob (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Thank you, Niteshift36. I did not know that the Examiner had fallen so low in the way you describe. My promotion of that source is at an end—the writer's conclusion about Moore never got the approval of the usual newspaper editorial staff. Binksternet (talk) 04:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the problem is not only the sourcing. Wikipedia was making a completely unambiguous statement - "Moore is an atheist", and I think the danger lies our assertion of this as a fact. Regardless of how well Moore's Inside the Actor's Studio comment is sourced, and I don't doubt that she has been quoted correctly, any interpretation of that statement is an interpretation. Even if a reliable source can be found to have synthesised Moore's reply to a one word label, we still have to be careful about how we include the information in this article, if we choose to include it all. Unless Moore makes a clear statement one way or another, the best we can hope for is "According to such-and-such reliable source, Moore is an atheist", even if the "such-and-such reliable source" turns out to be the Pope. Nobody but Moore is in the position to make it an absolute statement. Rossrs (talk) 07:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I totally support that position Rossrs, she was asked a silly question and gave a silly answer, it in no way asserts that she is affiliated and sees herself as an atheist. The comment is not worth adding at all, no matter where it is cited to. Off2riorob (talk) 08:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with everything here and I just wanted to add that a few months ago I initiated a discussion on the RS noticeboard about examiner.com. The outcome of the discussion was that the source has about the same reliability as a blog with the same rules for citation.--Jarhed (talk) 06:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Ben Bernanke's Picture Title

Resolved
 – Another IP fixed it. RayTalk 21:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I have never done edits before on Wikipedia, but could someone please remove the racist remark over Ben S. Bernanke's picture titled "smirk jew". I don't agree with his current policy approach but there is no need to reference his religion or make remarks about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.88.92.113 (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Jules de Martino of the Tin Tins

 thanks Off2riorob (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

He was not born in 1977. He was born in 1968/69 as I went to school with him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.15.242 (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Radu Berceanu

Resolved
 – Page semiprotected by User:Angusmclellan. Come back if troubles continue after semiprotection expires. RayTalk 23:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm having problems with an IP editor who keeps inserting the claim that this (living) politician was born "Arad Bercovici". First of all, Berceanu states on his website that he is an Orthodox Christian and that both his parents were. Second, calling someone a Jew (and "Arad Bercovici" is undoubtedly a Jewish name) is unfortunately a form of slander in certain spheres of Romanian political discourse. Third, the "references" the IP has added are: a forum posting, the press organ of a xenophobic, anti-Semitic political party; and a blog posting. No reliable sources exist to corroborate this claim; it is counteracted by the subject himself; and it is (at least meant to be) defamatory. Could someone please intervene, perhaps to semi-protect the page? - Biruitorul Talk 17:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Stedman Pearson

Resolved
 – article was improved and expanded, giving the content less weight.

I get complaints about this section all the time, the IP has claimed he is the subject or someone close to the subject but there is no comfirmation, this is the section they want removed, I also think it should be removed, the content is not very encyclopedic, it is more tabloid and titilating, it is a minor incident and it was not widely reported and for us to give it global coverage in a small biography of a person who is not even excessively notable is a bit demeaning.. does anyone support removing it? citation one is virgin media [52] Two, is a book, rock movers and shakers and three is an interview with his sister commenting in the guardian.

'In 1990, Pearson was arrested for public indecency following an incident at a public toilet in New Malden in south west London.[1] He later pleaded guilty to the charges and was fined £100 and agreed to be bound over for a period of one year.[2] In an interview in 2008, Pearson's sister Denise (lead singer with Five Star) commented "...Stedman was arrested in a toilet, long before George Michael was - I remember him coming into my room and crying, "I didn't do what they said I did." [3] Off2riorob (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, such trivia is what is meant by "contentious" <g>. If it is not a felony, we whould not be pushing it in any biography. Collect (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
The arrest of any public figure (actors, musicians, politicians, authors, etc) is notable information and belongs in an encyclopedia. It doesn't matter how long ago it was, or for what it was for, or whether some people find the subject matter distasteful, it is still notable. Pearson was arrested and the matter went to court. This is not just trivia. Since Steadman Pearson is notable enough to have an article page, then we should not be censoring details about him. As long as the details are adequately sourced (and it is) then it should be included. Judging by the edit-warring and talk page discussions on the article, it seems the only people bothered by it are an anonymous IP user who claims to be acting on behalf of Stedman Pearson himself (and therefore a total violation of WP:COI) and Off2RioRob, who began this report thread. You seem to be exaggerating the matter for your own purposes Rob, since you clearly haven't received complaints about this "all the time" as you claim. Roguana (talk) 07:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
My purposes as you call them are the protection of individuals especially living ones from insertions to BLPs that can do them real life damage, this is a very minor crime indeed and actually the wikpedia is for all purposes the only place anyone is going to come across it, we are the propagators of this content, and imo it adds nothing of encyclopedic value at all. I have had requests about this content on my talkpage and it is repeatedly removed and it has been brought up here more than once, COI in this case is nothing more than the subject of the article asking that it be removed, I have a leaning towards supporting that position especially when the content is of little value to the reader. Off2riorob (talk) 07:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid you have missed the point of Wikipedia, Rob. We do not censor factually accurate, sourced details. Wikipedia is a collection of facts, good and bad - not a PR spin website. It does not matter what the subject was arrested for or whether you consider it to be a "minor crime", the fact is that he was arrested - and prosecuted. This is notable information about any public figure. I am still unconvinced about the alleged many requests on your talk page that you claim to have received, because I can only see one - and that is from the anonymous IP user who has been told off repeatedly for continued edit-warring on the article. As we now know, the IP user has a vested interest. And why they are "requesting" anything from you is beyond me unless they are under the misbelief that you own Wikipedia. In fact, you're not even an administrator. Roguana (talk) 07:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, when you ask my what my purpose is and you have edited here on only two days and have 14 edits and the first one was to add some gay comment about section 28, it is not hard to see what your purpose here is. Off2riorob (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean "some gay comment"? If you turn this discussion into a homophobic rant, you will find yourself being reported. Do I make myself clear? Roguana (talk) 08:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I am another editor that wants the section removed, and I do not appreciate your tone. It is extremely contentious to threaten to "report" someone, and do you even know what you are talking about? You seem not to realize that the stance you are taking, that any nasty data should be included in a BLP just because you think it should, is a controversial one. I, for example, could not disagree with you more. I would appreciate it if you would try a little harder to be persuasive so that you can win people over to your viewpoint. As it stands now, I hope you get yourself blocked.Jarhed (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, just keep talking like that Jarhed, and you'll be the one getting blocked along with your pal Off2RioRob. And if Roguana doesn't do it, I will. Rob has already been reported for incivility on numberous occasions in the past year, not to mention several blocks for misconduct. It's not a pretty picture. Meanwhile, not only has Rob been misleading people on this noticeboard about "receiving complaints all the time" about the section in question, but when he says that this has also been through the BLP noticeboard before, what he isn't telling you is that he is the one who brought it there [53]. He failed to get it removed then so now he's having another go with a different set of punters. In addition, at least three separate editors on the article's talk page have also told Rob that the section is appropriate for the article and is well sourced. As stated above, we do not censor Wikipedia just because it may not be flattering towards a subject. The section, as is, is at the foot of the article and does not give undue weight to the incident, nor is it judgmental or sensationalised. It merely states the facts in a totally impartial manner. At the time when the incident occured, Stedman Pearson was in one of the most successful British bands of the era. His arrest is notable information, much like George Michael who was arrested for the same thing in 1998. Pearson's was widely reported in the national press and on television at the time. There is even a video on You Tube from a TV show in 2003 in which he discusses it. If we start censoring Wikipedia just because celebrities, fans, or anybody else want unflattering details removed, then Wikipedia stops being an encyclopedia and becomes little more than a biased fansite, and its value diminishes. I suspect O2RRob's motives for continually trying to delete this information though are for other, more personal reasons. MassassiUK 12:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if everyone would calm down. I appreciate that everyone has emotions and agendas on this particular article. My only agenda is to help with the BLP issue. I haven't even looked at the article in question, and I do not have a problem with any reliably sourced edit. My problem is the bullying attitude that is being displayed. I have just as much to say about this edit as you do, and I would appreciate it if someone would explain the issue succinctly and without resorting to personal attacks. Now, if you want to continue to throw around threats about getting me blocked, please be my guest to do so.Jarhed (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
You admit you haven't even looked at the article in question and yet you are demanding that a section of it be removed? If you haven't read it then you have no business taking part in this discussion, and it is obvious you are here solely to support your pal Off2RioRob. And don't ever accuse anyone of making personal attacks after the way in which you spoke to another editor above. The only people who have stepped out of line in this thread are you and Rob. The latter of which does not surprise me in the least. MassassiUK 06:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Pearson is a lesser known singer, there are only 4 citations on the article that is not much more than a stub, the toilet story makes up almost half the content and uses three of the four citation that support the whole content, I assure you, there is no comparrison with George Michael. The toilet incident is of no value to anybody and it is clearly upsetting the subject that it is on his bio, I agree with him that it should be removed, it is not a massive issue, it is a tiny offense I fail to see why a few people think it is such valuable content because it isn't. If I brought it here before that is highly possible I Don't see the content has any encyclopedia value at all. Coming here and gong on about my block record and such won't change anything, don't worry too much we are only talking about it. Off2riorob (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the removal, and my main reason for this is the obvious agenda pushing by a couple of editors here. I want to assume good faith, but they have already shown that they are not amenable to reasonable discussion.--Jarhed (talk) 07:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
It's a little too late for either of you to be trying to take the high road I'm afraid. It makes no difference if he is a lesser known singer, he is still notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. The content in question does not take up nearly half of the article at all, so stop trying to mislead people again. It is currently three and a half lines. It is sourced. It is notable. It is neutrally written. It is not your place to decide whether or not it is of value to anybody. And it is completely irrelevant if the subject of the article (or somebody claiming to act on his behalf) wants it removed. As long as it is factually accurate and sourced, we do not censor Wikipedia for anybody. You have made your opinion quite clear, but I'm afraid you have still failed to make your case. Now move along. MassassiUK 09:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Join the discussion on the article talk page.Jarhed (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Gail Riplinger

Resolved
 – Several editors are watching the article

Could someone please take a look at the Gail Riplinger article? There is a large unsourced "controversy" section which is larger than the rest of the article information combined, both of the references in the article are from the individual's own writings, and the external links section is a link farm divided into "support" and "criticism". Also, most of the edits are being done by an SPA...Should the article just be stubbed to what can be reliably sourced? --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 20:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Seems reasonable. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I blew away the linkfarm. It's still in the history if somebody wants to use any of the previously linked material for sourcing. RayTalk 23:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    It's back again, but I don't feel like edit warring today. Kevin (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed resolved tag--reasonable edits were reverted.--Jarhed (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

Resolved
 – New picture found, provided by Monckton himself

I would like to raise for discussion the use of an image in the lead of the above article. The image was added December 14 by User:ChrisO.[54] It was removed on December 30 by User:GoRight, and has been a source of controversy since. It was removed by User:Wereon on January 2,[55] as a “highly unflattering, POV picture,” and was replaced by User:Kittybrewster without explanation.[56] It was removed twice by GoRight as a WP:BLPSPS violation on January 9,[57][58] and replaced by User:Neilj, User:William M. Connolley and User:ChrisO.[59][60][61] It was removed again by User:Off2riorob,[62] and the page was protected. Following protection it was replaced by Kittybrewster,[63] and then by User:Peterlewis, User:ChrisO, and User:Beyond My Ken against a User:Qichina who stated that it was a “derogatory representation of a living person.” [64][65][66][67][68][69] It was again removed by User:Alexh19740110,[70] an IP,[71] User:Unitanode,[72] and then by myself,[73] before the page was again protected in its current state. The image has been the source of repeated and extensive disagreement on the talk page in the short time since it was added.

I see the image as a clear violation of WP:BLP, in that it presents the subject out of context and in a disparaging light. See WP:MUG for WP:BLP on images. It is out of context primarily in that it was put up on Flickr as showing Monckton while he was being “confronted,” and his event “disrupted” by youth activists,[74] yet this context is not provided. It is disparaging in that Monckton looks strained and uncomfortable, which is classically the type of image that is used for attack pieces, negative advertisements and the like. Here are a couple of examples with others. Here is another example with John McCain.

The image has repeatedly been defended on the ground that Monckton only looks this way because of a medical condition. I do not see how this is an acceptable argument. Monckton does not look strained in other photos, nor in another photo from the same event.[75] Nothing in the article mentions any medical condition, thus no reader would conclude this. Any medical condition is also missing context, per WP:MUG, although the context would seem rather profoundly inappropriate in the lead of the article. The image of McCain could equally be used saying that he looks strained due to war injuries, and that we should not hide his injuries.

I think the policy is clear, but I also think WP:BLP is clear that the burden is on editors to show that the material is acceptable ("The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material."). Many editors have opposed this image, from as early as it received any attention at all. The problem is that editors keep saying that Monckton looks just fine, or alternatively that he only looks odd because of a medical condition that we do not discuss in the article. I think there is much to indicate that this is simply false, and that rather he is quite agitated. I do not believe one should need to establish consensus against a picture that has been so widely contested as a BLP violation, but given that the article is now protected I'd like to ask for other views on the matter here. Mackan79 (talk) 05:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a BLP. It is quite clear that any controversial claims must be fully sourced -- using a photo to source a claim of a medical condition clearly falls into that category. Only direct reliable sources making the claim in text can be used. As the photo is, according to the above, being used to avoid the need for a RS on a medical condition, it is being improperly used per WP:BLP entirely. Collect (talk) 05:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that is actually being done Collect, they are not using the picture as a citation to include details of his claimed illness, they are using his claimed illness as an excuse for how bad he looks in the picture and therefore suggesting that the picture is ok to use, there was a fair bit of discussion previously and for certain there was no clear consensus to add the picture, the picture is on someones blog saying how it makes him look awful and yet it has been inserted again, I heard that someone claimed that if you wrote to Monkton he would provide a better picture it is worth a try but I imagine he would rather have his bio deleted if he has read it, it could as a compromise be moved out of the infobox down into the article where the detail that he is being surprised by activists could be added, at least this will minimize the profile of the picture until a better one can be found. Off2riorob (talk) 05:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
No the fact of his bulging eyes is something that he acknowledges in his spirited blog. That was not included because ChrisO felt it gave UNDUE WEIGHT. Maybe so. Don't have a view. Perhaps it should be included. Monckton himself won't provide a picture and licence to wikipedia. He dislikes the article. And this event in Copenhagen was one he himself sought out. He told the activists opposed to him (whom he called Hitler youths) they should not have stormed into his meeting on the previous night and their photographs were now all over the world - so live with it. Tough. [76]Meanwhile everybody is content to see the photograph replaced with another with a licence; we just don't have one. Its tough. Kittybrewster ☎ 06:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
It seems a little strained to call this a BLP matter; this has the feel of one of those issues where BLP is being used as a cudgel. That said, the picture doesn't seem especially encyclopedic. It looks amateurish, at best, and detracts from the article. It seems preferable to go with no picture (pending a higher-quality, freely available one), rather than keep a poor-quality picture up, to me anyway. While it's disappointing to see this picture become the latest climate-change battleground, I think there is some credibility to the idea that this picture makes the subject look unduly undignified, and we should aim higher. MastCell Talk 07:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
As the protecting administrator, I would not object if an uninvolved party were to remove the image pending discussion iff you feel that any potential chilling effects are outweighed by any potential harm from leaving the picture in the article pending discussion. Note also that I set the protection to indefinite, as I had protected the article for the same reason scant weeks ago. Please do not unprotect it absent assurance that the edit war will not resume. Thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Re MastCell: I appreciate the sentiment, though probably I should have been clearer that I was quoting WP:BLP quite closely. The policy has two sentences on images, the first of which states that "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light." Considering this was taken by youth activists in an ambush (yes, there is a YouTube video showing that they were putting stickers on his back and trying to interrupt him to show live images of the prank), I'd consider that relevant context. Adding in the medical issue only worsens the point. I don't like to make a cudgel of anything, but in my view BLP is quite important here. Mackan79 (talk) 07:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I received a mail from Lord Monckton today, a new image is forthcoming which he has chosen himself. 2/0 to stop further arguing on this issue would you remove the current image until the new one is sorted out. mark nutley (talk) 09:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
No need to put the horse before the cart. The current image should stay in place until the new image is uploaded and vetted. Because it came from Monckton is no guarantee that it is usable on Wikipedia. Does he own the rights to it? If so, then you'll probably need to get Monckton to file an OTRS ticket to verify the rights. This may take time, and in the meantime, there's no reason that the current image can't stay. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Please retain existing image or replace with Nutley's new one. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Can I point out that those of you arguing to keep this picture are making no effort to explain its compliance with WP:BLP, which states that images that are taken out of context and disparaging cannot be used? "There's no reason that the current image can't stay," sure, if you have not read any part of this discussion and are completely unfamiliar with policy. Frankly that is why WP:BLP is necessary in cases like this, and should be used more proactively if anything. Editors who show no concern with this type of issue on a WP:BLP should not be editing the article. That is a separate issue, but lacking any rational arguments for how this does not plainly violate WP:BLP in that it is out of context and it is disparaging I'd again ask that it is removed immediately pending any further resolution. Mackan79 (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

A photo of LBJ showing him with his gall-bladder surgery scars is about as proper as this photo is. It is clearly being used to enter information for which no proper RS source is being given, It is therefore deletable on sight under BLP policies. The salient part is not the part on images but the part on contentious material -- whether or not it is in an image. Collect (talk) 11:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This is looking resolved now. I would suggest that the article can be unlocked. --FormerIP (talk) 13:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean by resolved? Are you in agreement with removing the image? Never mind, I see this has been resolved on the article talk page. And thank you to Mark Nutley for proactively working on a solution. I think that replacing a potentially unflattering picture with one supplied by an article subject is a courtesy we should extend across the board to anyone. MastCell Talk 19:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 Done. The new picture is much better, thank you Marknutley. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Where's the picture? Mackan79 (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hurray: actual problem actually solved. New picture is fine. Rd232 talk 21:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

YEA, well done mr monkton for coming up with the goods and also to Mark Nutley for doing the needed. Off2riorob (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Andrew de Rothschild

Resolved
 – Hoax articles deleted, creator blocked

I don't think Andrew de Rothschild actually exists. Searching this name in Factiva brought up nothing while a Google search brought up nothing substantial. I did a search for his supposed mother "Arianna Vanderbilt" in the New York Times archives and found nothing, although the birth, debut, marriage or death of such a person would have been reported there at some point. I think that the website "Rothschild Estates" (see link in the profile) is phony -- some kind of elaborate gag or perhaps even the work of an imposter, like the French fake Rockefeller from years back.

Andrew de Rothschild, his alleged parents, and his young heir Stefan are all probably fictitious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benf64 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't find anything either, if it is a hoax it is very elaborate, does any other editor have any thoughts or knowledge about this? Off2riorob (talk) 08:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
One editor came along on the 10th Jan, 73 edits later and he had created three articles and connecting link to a few more, I can't find any verification, this website is the central detail for the pics and detail, there is a washington post were the company is pledging 2.5 million to haiti, and that press release is also on the web site, this http://www.rothschild-estates.com is the website. They could well be a hoax, or just perhaps private people. Off2riorob (talk) 08:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, I sent then to AFD to get some more opinions, Stefan_de_Rothschild and Andrew de Rothschild Off2riorob (talk) 09:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If they are so ultra-private, how come they have a website (with statements like "We do not foresee any new development in the Brazilian market in the near future")? There is nothing specific about their supposed assets except for famous vineyards actually owned by other Rothschilds. How come little "Stefan" is allowed to blog publicly? Real Rothschilds would have some kind of news trail. I can find nothing about their holding company "Rothschild Estates" either, or their supposed executives like "Christopher Wolfe" and "Miles Farrar-Hockley." This doesn't smell right. If there was a billionaire named Andrew de Rothschild, I'd probably have heard of him before. Perhaps the individual(s) behind this hoax intend to solicit money or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benf64 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for bringing this to our attention, we have been looking into it and there do appear to be some issues. Off2riorob (talk) 13:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This contact page (hxxp://www.rothschild-estates.com/#/contact/4537695150) is further proof of the fraud. It says to email their New York office "for US, Canadian, Chinese and Brazilean estates". Lol. My guess is that the person (hxxp://www.ted.com/profiles/view/id/416242) blogging as the teenage heir Stefan de Rothschild on Huffington Post (hxxp://www.huffingtonpost.com/stefan-de-rothschild) is behind it.

I don't think Stefan is a teenager, even. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benf64 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you are right well spotted Benf64 it looks like a hoax. I have been following the trails. As soon as I have concrete confirmation it is a hoax (or someone does this before me) then all of these articles should be speedy deleted. Polargeo (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with this all being a rather elaborate hoax. In addition to the 'Rothschild Estates' website, there is also Rothschild Arts which looks dodgy, and probably more. Quite a lot of work has gone into all this. I suggest a speedy delete of all content created by User:Womblethereof. Whatever nefarious activity is going on, wikipedia should try not to be a part of it. Quantpole (talk) 15:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I have had solid confirmation of the hoax and have made a report on ANI. Polargeo (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
This is a serial hoaxer, Stefan Roberts, who began as heir presumptive to various titles, progressed to being Viscount St Pierre complete with fake London Gazette page to show that his father Andrew had been created an Earl, and then became a hedge-fund billionaire with a chateau in France, an art gallery in NY, etc. He has changed his surname this time, but "Baron Stefan de Rothschild" also has a father called Andrew, also was made a director of the family business while still in his teens, and has the same birth date - 2 July 1992. See his pictures here and here. JohnCD (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Yea, thats him, he wants reporting to the police. Off2riorob (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Look how much work he has put into building up his new persona - four websites:
not to mention his social-networking:
I'm not sure he has actually done anything the police would be interested in, but should we tell the real Rothschilds? JohnCD (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I left a (probably pointless) voice message with the New York office of Rothschild North America. Benf64 (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps if they might send us a delicious bottle of vino. Off2riorob (talk) 03:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
And I have emailed the (real) Rothschild Foundation. My first thought was the NM Rothschild bank, but their website doesn't give an email address: I asked the foundation to pass it on if they thought necessary. JohnCD (talk) 10:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks John, it would be interesting to get a reply. Off2riorob (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
The Rothschild Foundation replied "Thanks for your message - it has been passed it on to the relevant authorities." It will be interesting now to see if Stefan's fake sites suddenly disappear. JohnCD (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, cool. Yes I am surprised they are still there, the wine is in the post, hehe. Off2riorob (talk) 11:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin article

Not a BLP issue. Moved to Wikipedia:Content noticeboard#Led Zeppelin article - moved from BLP noticeboard. Onorem♠Dil 15:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Marlon King

Resolved

I don't know the technical term, but could an admin please wipe the history of this edit? Edit summaries used to personally attack a living person should be summarily wiped. Sadly it appears to be a dynamic IP so there's little value in blocking, but we can at least clean it up. WFCforLife (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but IMO , that is unworthy of oversight, it is a bit rude but not very rude, if we had to go around WP:Oversight -ing edits like that we would be very busy. Off2riorob (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Emily Deschanel

I'm in a bit over my (inexperienced) head here and was wondering if someone with a better knowledge of BLP issues (and COI issues) could give me a hand. The page Emily Deschanel has recently undergone a few edits by User talk:Fbeals indicating an official website for Emily Deschanel as seen here. While it's entirely possible that this is the real website, and I hate to not WP:AGF, it just doesn't feel like a professional website, and there isn't enough information posted yet to confirm or deny that this is her official site.

Unfortunately, it appears that User talk:Fbeals is the web designer for this site. This is quite clearly a WP:COI, but I don't think that matter is quite as pressing as the BLP issue: we can't have a website proclaiming to be the official website for a living person when it isn't.

Should I just delete the external link and warn the user? Or does this type of misrepresentation warrant more than a warning? Thank you so much for any help you can offer! Jhfortier (talk) 04:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Update: Further investigation into this user's contributions show that many are addition of links to websites which the user has designed through his own webdesign company. I'll notify the user about NPOV, but would still appreciate some guidance re: possible misrepresentation of an actor's "official" website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhfortier (talk • contribs) 04:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Its been removed, I reverted his other not very good edits and gave him a note about that, just forget about it, no harm done and if you see any more poor edits from him let me know. I'll also keep my eye on him. Thanks Off2riorob (talk) 06:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
If User talk:Fbeals is persistently linkspamming they should be warned appropriately and if necessary reported to WP:AIV. – ukexpat (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
User talk:Fbeals has once again added the link to the Emily Deschanel page, although without the proclamation that it is the official website of the actress. I've left a firm note on the user's talk page asking for his reasons for including the link (hopefully we can avoid edit wars and WP:AIV, and instead encourage constructive editing). I'll watch the page carefully, and perhaps keep an eye on the user's other contributions to ensure that no link spamming is occuring. If further issues related to COI or linkspamming arise, they'll be dealt with as well. I'll mark this issue as resolved, since the BLP issue has been dealt with (Many thanks to User:Off2riorob!) Jhfortier (talk) 06:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Resolved

User talk:The8thbit

Daniel Tosh asked on his latest episode for everybody to vandalize his wikipedia article which was subsequently locked, this page seems to have been a dumping ground for users to edit instead. It's debateable as the man himself asked for it, but *shrug*, I've posted it here for others to decide. Q T C 07:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The risk to WP for anything on this page seems extremely remote to me.Jarhed (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Gideon Levy

A quote I put inside this article was removed, citing as reason: (→Criticism: delete 8 year old information; no evidence it is still true).

There followed several reverts (not by me) and no agreement on the talk page.

Setreset (talk) 10:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The charge sounds as if it could harm this individual professionally, and I can't tell if the source is reliable. Also, the subject is a journalist, and the editors on the article have a lot of POV.Jarhed (talk) 11:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Kevin Bacon

Resolved

I am struggling to find reliable citations to the quotes on Kevin Bacon. I found one reference which might be unreliable here, but I don't know what to do with the other quotes. The quotes that need citing are in the Personal life and Acting Career sections. I would be grateful if anyone can help me out. Thanks. Minimac94 (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

If you can't find a citation delete them, or move them to the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I moved the quotes to the talk page. Good idea. Minimac94 (talk) 09:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Harriet Klausner

Concerns about tone, and UNDUE WEIGHT. Could use some additional eyes on this one. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Watchlisted to stop it getting any worse, perhaps she is not a living person at all there are no pictures? Who reads five books a day? Off2riorob (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I used to. One single college course ("War, Revolution and Totalitarianism") (aeons ago) had a required reading list covering over 8,000 pages alone. Last Harry Potter took me 6 hours. Collect (talk) 12:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Criminality

Resolved
 – not really, but comment was left in, editors were reminded that if they can't support a comment with a citation they should not post it on the talkpage as BLP applies on the talkpage too.

I seem to have a difference of opinion with another editor regarding whether calling people "criminals" absent an actual conviction (or even trial) for criminal activity is consistent with our BLP policy. The specific edit in question is here[77] ("the criminals are going to get off on a technicality"). Opinions from uninvolved editors would be appreciated. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw the note to this on your talk and proceeded to slog through most of the talk page. Although this is not article space, I think that WP:LIBEL applies, and that those comments and all discussion relating to them should be rapidly removed. Awickert (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
That comment is a million miles away from Libel, you should respect other users comments even if you disagree with them, useing weakly claimed libel to remove another users comment is disruptive to the editing environment, if you really think that something libelous has been posted, take it to ANI and see if you get any support to remove it, you should only touch another editors comments in very serious situation, otherwise, leave them alone. Off2riorob (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting Andy and Off2, though I was really hoping to get some input from uninvolved editors. Maybe some will show up in a couple of days? This seems to be a low-traffic board. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
As the editor who made the original comment that Short Brigade Harvester Boris brings up, I want to point out that no living person is mentioned (or even implied) in my post. Many reliable sources have covered the fact that the UAE violated Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).[78][79][80][81][82]. However, none of these sources (to the best of my knowledge) have identified which specific people are responsible for the FOIA violations. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Given the persons and institutions involved there's no doubt whatsoever that it refers to Phil Jones, though you may not have realized it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
No, that's not fair. Sure, PJ works for the UAE, but we don't know he's the one they're referring to. Many other people work at the UAE. We simply don't know which person(s) are responsible. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree completely with Short Brigade Harvester Boris: there's no question as to the target of this attack, and as such it clearly violates WP:BLP. I will remove the comment myself if necessary. I also share Boris's concerns that this board has become somewhat of a low-traffic corner of Wikipedia where at least one editor with a disturbing block history and ongoing behaviour issues regularly imposes (or attempts to impose) decisions. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Please try to keep focused on the content and I rather request that you keep you personal opinions about me to yourself and that rather than throw your accusations around you should rather make a report to any appropriate board, also I would like to point out that I have over eleven thousand edits and almost six months since my last block and that I have on my talkpage two barnstars as regards thanks for my work at this noticeboard, I suspect that your animosity towards me is nothing more than pique because I nominated your article Andrea Whittemore-Goad for deletion and it has been deleted, again, a fact that shows that the community agreed with me. Off2riorob (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Interesting, that: a request for focus on the content is followed by a litany of accusation and suspicion directed against another editor. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, you just directed "accusation and suspicion" towards me by falsely claiming "there's no question as to the target of this attack" which even Boris didn't do. The fact is that we have no idea who committed the FOIA violations. Ironically, I find myself in the position of defending PJ. It can be anyone at UAE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree the comment should be removed - ideally by its author. Referring to people as "criminals" is only appropriate if it is clear that this is what they are. Since the same editor also thinks that the people in question "will get off on a technicality", then there must surely be some doubt as to whether they have broken the law ("get off on a technicality" being roughly equivalent to "what they have done is not actually illegal"). --FormerIP (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
If you haven't already, please read the articles I cited above. The reason why there will be no prosecution(s) is that the statute of limitations has expired. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
You've explicitly stated that there has been criminal behaviour, but in fact there will be no convictions. Technically, then, you are wrong to refer to anyone as a criminal. Other editors who have read your comments have taken them as referring to PJ. Perhaps this was not your intent. Our BLP policy is clear, however, that we must strive to avoid any potential misunderstandings like this. Since your phrase has now been repeated numerous times by other users, perhaps there's no point in removing it. Nevertheless, you might earn yourself some goodwill by deleting. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
If I honestly thought that my comment violated WP:BLP, I would remove it immediately . But I don't think that's the case. In a previous discussion, I asked about how WP:BLP applies to unknown individuals and I was told that it was OK if based on reliable sources and no specific person was identified.[83]. The comment in question meets both qualifications. It's based on reliable sources and no specific individual is named. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
The problem is you're apparently conflating 2 different cases/examples. The other case referred specifically to unknown or anonymous individuals i.e. individuals who's identity was not known by nearly every and could not be known. In that case, the issue of BLP is questionable since it cannot in any sense reflect negatively on any living person as long as the inviduals remain unknown. As I understand it, in this case we're referring to unspecified but not unknown individuals. The identity of the people who work for the institution in question is public knowledge. The people alleged to have been involved in wrong doing is also public knowledge. While you may not have specified any invidual, a reader could easily interpret your comment to be directed at the specific and known individuals. To use a counter example, if I were to say "the denialists hyping up climategate are very likely guilty of war crimes and should be prosecuted accordingly" that would fall afoul of BLP amongst other things because even though I didn't specify any individuals, it's clearly directed at specific individuals who's identities are publicly known Nil Einne (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Cristina Fernández de Kirchner

Resolved
 – template removed, it wasn't really relevant to the article

At Talk:Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs), Trust Is All You Need (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to insert a WikiProject Socialism template, wich does not corresponds with the biograpyh of a living person who has never defined herself as socialist. The user refuses to give adecuate refs to his libellous claim. See [Hist]// --IANVS (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a new talkpage template that is being added to multiple article talkpages, in this case the association is a bit weak imo, the word socialist is not mentioned once in the article, Off2riorob (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Gavan McDonell article

I am the subject of this article and would be interested in assisting with the two issues listed templates-style, and connections with other articles-by supplying materials/ drafts/ links etc but would not wish to do the editing myself. Would be glad of feedback, please —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antlion1932 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to make suggestions (or even offer re-writes) on the talk page. Then other editors can consider it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Vanessa Perroncel

Resolved
 – result was delete

I declined the speedy on this article but nonetheless have concerns about it with respect both to WP:BLP1E and the extent to which it is sourced to the British tabloid press. Consequently, I would be grateful if other editors could take a look. CIreland (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand your concerns; certainly the tabloid sourcing was sub-standard. However, there are plenty of additional sources in highly respected publication and I have added some from The Daily Telegraph, BBC etc. The way forward is to continue to improve the sourcing. With regard to WP:BLP1E I don't think that this is applicable. She had plenty of publicity in the 2006 FIFA World Cup as one of the England WAGs and there has been other coverage. I would add that this is not someone who has been dragged unwillingly into the public eye. She actively courted publicity, for example as a lingerie model and in her attempts to launch a film career. In the court case, the high court judge described her as "famous", and British judges are not given to hyperbole. Whether this makes her notable is a different matter and that is a question for the AFD. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Article has been sent to AFD for discussion . Off2riorob (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Manuel Rosales

Resolved
 – Content has been removed.

This edit to Manuel Rosales removed several sources (replacing the references with {{fact}} tags); the validity of the source given is under current dispute at WP:RSN#Venezuelanalysis. The edit also removed entirely a highly contentious claim neutrally reported and clearly ascribed inline to the source (Al Jazeera). The edit summary for this was "now, THIS, is what a WP:BLP violation looks like, very poor sources, to a very serious charge, double standards in Ven articles !!!!"

Comments please. Was it a BLP violation? And is it reasonable to delete sources in this way? Rd232 talk 09:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say that adding that AlJazeera link to their exclusive interview with a hitman , to support this content ..In September 2009, Al Jazeera showed footage of a Colombian police interview with a paramilitary assassin, who claimed that in 1999 Rosales had offered him $25m to assassinate Chavez ....IMO does clearly have some BLP issues, it is a very serious allegation with only the hitmans word for the whole thing?? Yes clear BLP issues. Off2riorob (talk) 10:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
The information is presented neutrally and factually, and attributed explicitly: it is left to the reader to judge the significance of the claim, taking into account the clearly described sourcing. It could be argued that it's WP:UNDUE given the source (there was one other source given in the article, reporting the Al Jazeera report), and that it doesn't seem to have been covered much. Rd232 talk 11:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I am not being funny but you would have to be a blind person not to think that this content has BLP issues. you have a video of an unidentified man who claims that he is a Columbian hitman and he also claims that he was offered 25million by Rosales to kill Chavez, it is totally unsupported by anything at all and is a very very serious claim, my god, of course you should never have added it at all' Off2riorob (talk) 11:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
It's sourced (explicitly) to Al Jazeera, a well-known news source with a show hosted by Sir David Frost which I place some weight on in terms of suggesting some degree of sensibleness in their general sourcing/editorial policy. That doesn't make this particular claim from the person they interview true (I'm not sure Al Jazeera say it's true either - I haven't watched it), but it does make it non-ridiculous to add. Rd232 talk 11:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I had a look at the start and soon saw enough, RD I am surprised at you, an admin also, you are letting your personal opinions get the better of you here. Off2riorob (talk) 11:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
This is the third BLP issue with Rd232 now; he is filling Venezuelan articles and BLPs with tendentious, POV edits sourced to a non-reliable source.[84] I've already gotten Thor Halvorssen Mendoza cleaned up (see thread above), and we've dealt with Mark Weisbrot (see another Rd232 thread here); these cases show a strange double standard that Rd232 applies to BLPs (what's good for pro-Chavez people is apparently not good for anti-Chavez). I've left sources at Talk:Manuel Rosales for replacing the non-reliable sources that Rd232 prefers in BLPs. Rosales is well covered by the mainstream international press, and it's shocking that an admin added such an egregious BLP violation to Wiki. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Venezuelanalysis. This tendentious editing is going on across hundreds of articles, there are few of us who can speak Spanish and know Venezuelan sources and can clean it up, and I'm afraid what I just found on Rosales barely scratches the surface of the cleanup that will be needed. See Center for Public Integrity and National Review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll just give you another opportunity to ignore this question: WHAT WAS THE PROBLEM WITH THIS VERSION OF THOR HALVORSSEN MENDOZA, AND WHAT DID THIS EDIT IN WHICH I MOVED SOME TEXT ABOUT HAVE TO DO WITH IT? version, edit. Rd232 talk 12:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't respond to being hollered at; Halvorssen has already been cleaned up by another editor, that issue is closed; Weisbrot has been dealt with; but I am now very concerned about what I'm going to find when I start examining all the BLPs you have edited. This is going to take some time to clean up, not to mention the tendentious edits and poor sourcing on other Venezuela articles. And I haven't even looked at Hugo Chavez yet! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
So that's a no then. Other editors may judge Sandy's disengenousness for themselves: apparently these edits cleared up the egregious BLP violation in that article! Rd232 talk 16:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • To me this seems pretty unambiguous. It's a BLP violation based on a single interview with no corroborating evidence. AniMate 12:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Well yes and no. It's not relying on the interview to make an accusation; it's reporting the claim, with sourcing clearly explained in the text; there's a big difference. But yeah, on reflection after it's pointed out, I see it should not be included. Rd232 talk 16:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
    • It is serious BLP violation to add that interview by a channel. Please do not add it again without consensus and Venezuelanalysis is an unreliable source for making allegations against a living person, especially who is actively involved in Venezuelan politics. I am shocked to see this kind of edit was done by an editor who has administrator status. --Defender of torch (talk) 12:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, its out now, it was put in in October and sat there for quite a while unchallenged, I think we can close this thread as resolved. Off2riorob (talk) 13:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

For the record: the hitman's claims were made public earlier in the year, before the Al Jazeera interview: at the time the claims were reported by the Miami Herald; [85] (El Mundo), and, er, that bastion of Chavismo, El Universal [86]. Rd232 talk 09:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting to re add it, with these citations? Off2riorob (talk) 10:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't, but if anyone wants to make such a suggestion, I won't stand in their way. My point was that the original addition was not quite as egregious a BLP violation as it appeared; the controversial claims had been reported in mainstream sources. Rd232 talk 10:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Really, that is disappointing, this content should never have been included in a BLP under any circumstances and never will be again. Off2riorob (talk) 10:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
?? If at some point the claim becomes notable enough, with sufficient reliable sourcing, or even proven, of course it should be included. PS I meant "won't stand in the way of the suggestion". It would need a lot of discussion and clear consensus to actually add it, of course. Rd232 talk 10:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Claims of criminal acts, sans any proof (a hitman does not qualify) are per se "contentious." We saw this in David Copperfield (illusionist) where allegations of criminal behavior remained in the article for an extended period, only to be shown false. I would suggest the recent discussions about BLPs make this abundantly clear. Collect

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive78&oldid=1140872009"