Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive114

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

Gene Chizik

Alabama fans have edited the article and used completely untrue information. All you have to do is read the first paragraph and it will become clear what the false statements are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.194.148.238 (talk) 04:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to clean up the obvious problems. Thanks for bringing this up. Dayewalker (talk) 04:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Anti-union violence

[1] appears to directly accuse a living person of asking a Governor to kill pro-union protestors. Then another person is accused based on [2] . The issue is primarily one of coatrack against Governor Walker, who has not been alleged to have paid any attention at all to the suggestions - but the linking of him to the proposed violence is possibly a BLP concern. Is there a valid concern over the way Walker is named in the edit? Is there a concern over the way the other living people are handled in the edit? The editor making this new article states [3] fairly clearly that it was created as WP:POINT because his AfD on Union violence failed. Collect (talk) 08:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

This argument about WP:POINT is entirely mistaken, in my view. See Talk:Anti-union violence.

The sources for the living persons-related content are the American Bar Association, and CBS News. The information is factual, and reflects exactly what the sources state. The content is not in any way directed at Governor Walker, but rather, is about two other individuals, each of whom made an effort to contact Governor Walker to convey controversial information. Both lost their jobs as a result of these attempts, which is a notable fact. Richard Myers (talk) 11:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) [4] shows the same information added by the same editor to Union violence which would have the same BLP implication for Governor Walker. COATRACK is still COATRACK, and WP:POINT is still WP:POINT. This standard proposed by that editor would allow us to list every single email sent to a person suggesting violation of a law, and mentioning that person's name every time. I doubt that such is proper under WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 11:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. The news items are notable, they relate to unions, and are in articles about unions. Richard Myers (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I think the material is reliably sourced and relevant to the article. There are no WP:BLP concerns in the case of such widely and reliably reported information about the two people. Nor is there any implication that Governor Walker solicited or planned to act on these suggestions--and someone has now added his statement he would never consider violence. Therefore, I don't see any BLP concerns about him either, or a WP:COATRACK. The WP:POINT argument is not really for this noticeboard, and anyway the Talk page material you cite can be construed as a plea for the inclusion of opposing or balancing information, rather than the making of a tendentious point. (For the all time classic example of a WP:POINT, see Judaism and bus stops). The whole section might be slimmed down a little for weight and possibly added to the "Recent examples" list. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Kevin Jennings

I wasn't sure where better to ask - [5] a lot of these links don't seem to be from sources we can use. Is it OK to put them as external links? Jnast1 (talk) 14:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Good question and thanks for asking. The general answer is no. Better to park those yet unused sources on the talk page for future use. The External Links (see WP:EL) should be kept to a minimum and should feature links that are give broad insight into the life of the subject. For example the links to bio's and his official web site are appropriate but the others should be removed. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, thank you! Jnast1 (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Paul D. Hanson - in Alan Dershowitz article

This appears to be a BLP violation to me. The Alan Dershowitz article contains a paragraph about a controversy involving Dershowitz and Paul D. Hanson. The text only quotes Dershowitz' accusations and paraphrases his justifications. Here is the text in full from Alan_Dershowitz#Harvard-MIT_divestment_petition:

Randall Adams of The Harvard Crimson writes that, in the spring of 2002, a petition within Harvard calling for Harvard and MIT to divest from Israel and American companies that sell arms to Israel gathered over 600 signatures, including 74 from the Harvard faculty and 56 from the MIT faculty. Among the signatures was that of Harvard's Winthrop House Master Paul D. Hanson, in response to which Dershowitz staged a debate for 200 students in the Winthrop Junior Common Room. He called the petition's signatories antisemitic, bigots, and said they knew nothing about the Middle East. "Your House master is a bigot," he told the students, "and you ought to know that." Adams writes that Dershowitz cited examples of human rights violations in countries that the United States supports, such as the execution of homosexuals in Egypt and the repression of women in Saudi Arabia, and said he would sue any professor who voted against the tenure of another academic because of the candidate's position toward Israel, calling them "ignoramuses with Ph.D.s."[26]

Any thoughts on this would be appreciated. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, thats an impressively subtle hackjob. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 15:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking over the source I would suggest immediate removal, this seems to be non notable campus drama rather than anything substantial. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 15:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If anything, this makes Dershowitz look bad. My initial take is that the "campus drama" comment above is right on the money. Gamaliel (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

eh its all subjective on whose side of the I/P conflict you abscibe to and whether people think such a petition was a good idea The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Almine Barton

Resolved

– Incubated by The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs)

I have a concern with the edits and removal of pertinent parts of this article that I did extensive research on. Due to the simultaneously editing mishap/misunderstanding in 'not good faith' and claims of 'edit dispute'(see User talk:theonelife 'Warning'), I was told I am not allowed to make changes as it is deemed as edit warring under threat of blocking. I will try to make this as brief as possible, please bear with me.

Appreciation is extended to the earnest efforts of 'clean up' of the article, however I must state some recent erroneous edits that demean, and discredit the purpose of the BLP in question to the following guidlines per wikipedia standards WP:BLP.

PLEASE REVIEW: Erroneous Deletions and Edits by the following three editors:

Extended content

NOTE: 'The edits done by this User:JohnInDc below(#1), subsequently after he deleted 'credible' resources and sections, he requested deletion of his username space (see [here User:JohnInDc]).

1

User:JohnInDc:

Edit deletion in section of Teachings:(see last edit)of an article reference of "what it's like to be in a pod with Almine" but is pertinent under WP:PRIMARYTOPIC .

Re: deletions of entire Broadcasting with exception to one which doesn't air anymore and his own commentary in this user talk section above, ie:(Talk:Almine Barton - see'article concerns') is also erroneous under: WP:SYN and is considered WP:NOR under the policies and guidlines for 'cleaning up clutter' distorting the content of this section in regards of citations and referencing topic.

Re: deletion of entire Arachneography section: While I agree that there was 'one' link to the main website(this one could have been deleted without deleting all), all the other sites are not commerical sites, they all contained information on the topics of the 'Teachings' section that refer readers to material she teaches. (Perhaps, I could suggest to change this section to 'Further reading' under the 'Teachings' section of this article.)

2

User:Dougweller:

Dougweller re-titled section 'Peerage' to 'Titles'. He worded it wrong, then he corrected it, but the change of the sections from 'Peerage' to Titles is 'negative' POV in character due to the wording that it defames her stating she is only 'entitiled' to use the title "The Countess of Shannon" because she married the Earl of Shannon...which also falls under WP:NOR. #2- erroneous wording that she "re-married" the 9th Earl of Shannon when she only married him once. It isn't necessary to put in a BLP a section of why someone has a title, whether they were born in the family or married, I wish to revert it to previous section "peerage".

Dougweller also deleted section: 'Articles About Almine Barton' due to the claim the article "Stanford's Who's Who is a paid for self publication source and should not be included.(see Talk:Almine Barton section: Stanford's Who's Who) Under the section: WP:SELFPUB it is allowed due to Stanford's Who's Who is an 'press release article' written by a Publicity firm of the person the BLP is about.(see above section on "What a pod is like with Almine" for the references on deleted articles.)You will see that I had listed verifiable news articles about Almine.

3

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise:(see User talk:theonelife discussion 'Warning')

Re: While I appreciate this person's initial dialogue, has become a edit dispute due to the misunderstanding of simultaneous editing and this user states that I must refer to Almine by her last name in the article. No where in the BLP guidlines does it state that a BLP must refer to the person by their last name. After the 'Warning' of edit dispute, this user insisted that the use of the last name falls under WP:MOS and that there is no discussion about it or I would be blocked. Case in point - In the section wp:mos that he referred me to, guidline on name usage: MOS:FOLLOW ie: Almine's work and Books, this would fall under WP:COMMONNAME as in other BLP's.

Re: catagories: User:Future Perfect at Sunrise added-Catagories: Countesses, that was fine. I then added these catagories:

Category:New Age writers

Category:American spiritual writers

Category:1950 births

Category:Living people(deleted by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, but later added by user:JohnInDc)

Category:Date of birth missing (living people)

Category:Mysticism

These were quickly deleted by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise

I added the above catagories under criteria in WP:BLPCAT.

In respect to other parts about her that were deleted should have been left due to the description of a Biography- which states: ' "A biography is a detailed description or account of someone's life. A biography is more than a list of impersonal facts (education, work, relationships, and death), it also portrays the subject's experience of those events. Unlike a profile or curriculum vitae (résumé), a biography presents the subject's story, highlighting various aspects of his or her life, including intimate details of experiences, and may include an analysis of the subject's personality." ' These were referenced from her own accounts of her experiences and ancestry.

I request this article be put in 'incubation' or 'semi edit protect' status so I may 'clean up' the erroneous edits that discredit 'notability' and 'verifiability' on the key elements I stated above or 'adopted' by a guide who in 'good faith' will guide me on this and work with me on content and citations,etc without threats of blocking.

Thank you for your time, User:theonelifeTheonelife (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Okie doakie moving it into my userspace shortly for incubation and will adopt and guide user The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Now at User:ResidentAnthropologist/Almine Barton The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Richard P. (Dick) Haugland

This page is a blatant resume. Please note all the references are websites, without a single neutral, objective citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jupiterdasa (talk • contribs) 22:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and it doesn't really indicate what Haugland is notable for. If his philanthropy can be reliably sourced, maybe that is relevant, but otherwise I don't see why there should be an article at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It and Starfish Country Home School Foundation look like the work of a paid editor. Will Beback talk 23:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Frank Bleichman

Resolved

An IP editor has just introduced some material from a Polish newspaper into a new section he has called "Controversy". Someone has translated a the quote into English (presumably the IP editor). I've formatted it all for him but this article is a BLP and the allegation is potentially quite serious. Are there any Polish speakers who could check out the cite please? - Sitush (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

removed pending verification its a very serious charge The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd already reverted twice & so needed to adopt a different tack. - Sitush (talk) 00:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Watchlisted as well, I'm gonna keep an eye on it in the mean time if true is it WP:RS to make such an allegation The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, it appears to be a mainstream Polish newspaper, albeit one with a right-wing(ish) past. However, my gibberish is better than my Polish, so I'll leave it to the experts. - Sitush (talk) 01:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

So if true translation... The question is this the same "Franciszek Blajchman" as the one in the article? Was there a retraction or other editorial statement in the following days? This accusation seems to fly in the face too many other accounts of the official story.... The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not an impossible scenario by any means: these things do come out of the woodwork & obviously it would be in the interests of (potentially) both the US & the individual to have avoided the issue. However, I'm concerned that I struggled to find English language versions of the story as these sort of news items do not tend to stay confined to one country. Also, the IPN organisation which seems to be behind the allegation appears from its own WP article to have a somewhat controversial image at times - I realise that this is circular, but I'm just working with what I've got. Sometimes I wish that I didn't patrol the category for pages with missing refs ... Let's get the translation out of the way & then maybe it needs to go to WP:RSN ? - Sitush (talk) 01:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I funneled "the source" through google translate and as added to the article it could be accurate translation. I use google translate on occasion but nuances of language are often lost. The Google Translation says "In fact, Francis Blajchman - such that his name was included in the materials of" Which depending on how accurate that is could be "such a name" meaning possible coincidence or indeed "it was him." I we need some one who can tell us exact translation. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

~~There may also be an issue regarding a possible copyvio - I've put a note on the talk page.~~ AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

There is an OTRS ticket quoted there. - Sitush (talk) 01:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry - didn't see that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I have spammed one person who speaks polish and one person who probably speaks polish to get assistance. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I also speak polish (I saw the spam you had sent to the other person). Rzeczpospolita and Gazeta Wyborcza are the two main national daily polish-language newspapers in Poland. So it's like comparing the NYT to the WSJ. Give me a few minutes to type up a reply here. IPN is the government sponsored entity researching into the records of the past (WW II and the People's Republic), so there are bound to be controversial items that come up. Ajh1492 (talk) 01:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Did Frank Bleichman just publish a book last September (2010)? Can anyone verify this? Ajh1492 (talk) 02:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Already checked that on Amazon and Google Bs - came up with nothing. - Sitush (talk) 02:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The title of the book in Polish is - Wolę zginąć walcząc. Wspomnienia z II wojny światowej, and it translates into I prefer to die fighting. Memories of World War II. Ajh1492 (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's the key passage from the article:

Kim jest autor książki? Według wydawcy Blaichman jako 16-latek był świadkiem napaści Niemiec na Polskę, stworzył żydowski oddział partyzancki na Lubelszczyźnie, który walczył z Niemcami, a po wojnie pracował w UB w Pińczowie i Kielcach. Ale to tylko pół prawdy.

W rzeczywistości Franciszek Blajchman – takie jego nazwisko figuruje w materiałach Instytutu Pamięci Narodowej – w 1945 r. był p.o. kierownika Wydziału Więzień i Obozów WUBP w Kielcach. Jego wizerunek znalazł się też na wystawie "Twarze kieleckiej bezpieki" zorganizowanej przez IPN.

Which translates into (now, I am NOT a "certified" translator, so it's not going to hold up in a court of law):

Who is the author of a book? According to the publisher, Blaichman, at the age of 16, witnessed the German invasion of Poland. He created a Jewish partisan unit in the Lublin area, which fought with the Germans, and after the war he worked at UB in Pińczów and Kielce. But this is only half true.

In fact, "Francis Blajchman", or at least how his name was noted in the materials of the Institute of National Remembrance (IPN), in 1945 was the head of the Department of Prisons and Camps (WUBP) in Kielce. His image was also at the exhibition "Faces of the security the Kielce", organized by the IPN.

So the quote is a reasonable translation of what was stated in the article. Ajh1492 (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

... and spelling his name with an "a" instead of an "e" give this book - Sitush (talk) 02:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

... and quite a few news items in English. The article seems to have the wrong sp of his surname (even in the title) - Sitush (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The article specifically cites the slight difference in spelling between the IPN exhibition and elsewhere. It's the location tie-in along with the book which the newspaper article author is referencing. Ajh1492 (talk) 02:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. The book spells his name with an "a", and so do various Jewish news websites. That is, Blaichman not Bleichman - Sitush (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The question was is the quote in the article a reasonable translation of an article from one of the two leading daily national newspapers in Poland. The answer is yes, it is a reasonable translation of the article. I am not making a judgment on the allegations in the article, just stating that it is what was written in Polish. The IP Editor is citing an article from a mainstream source in Poland. Ajh1492 (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, then ResidentAnth queried whether even if the translation was ok, was it the same person. I think that the book storyline fits exactly with the article storyline (bar the recent edition, obviously). Since the book uses Blaichman as his name, that s/b the article title etc. Yes? No? - Sitush (talk) 02:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The IP Editor is from Poland coming in from a mobile/wireless connection from Plus. Possibly Warsaw. (apn-95-41-128-164.dynamic.gprs.plus.pl ) so definitely via a mobile connection - either a cell or more likely a gprs modem on a laptop. Ajh1492 (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Two more articles from the paper Żołnierze AK chcą śledztwa and IPN zbada książkę ubeka.

Newsweek Poland [6], Polish Radio [7], Jewish Institute in Poland [8], TVN24 [9], etc. Jut because it doesn't show up on CBS or the NYT doesn't mean that the story didn't exist. And never trust Google or Yahoo. Ajh1492 (talk) 02:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- That takes a pressure off us since multiple RS are reporting the same thing. Are they all treating treating the assertion the same? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you are still missing my point. I searched for Bleichman because that is the name of the article. got very few hits. Then you introduced the alternative spelling & I can get loads of hits. In other words, the article (& the Holocaust museum page upon which it is based) appear to be using a mis-spelled name. The article needs renaming & then it needs sourcing with all these various items. You can do the translations <g> - Sitush (talk) 02:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

If you want to find it you have to search with the proper phrase in Polish - Franka Blaichmana. They appear to be all treating the assertion the same. I would add the original Polish in the article along with the proposed translation and footnote it with all the cited sources. It could easily be the the Holocaust Museum page is wrong with it's spelling. Ajh1492 (talk) 02:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly ... and the article was a copy/paste of that museum's content. I'm starting to fix it now but ultimately will move the entire thing so that the article title also matches the authorial name.

Thank you all - and especially Ajh - for your help with this. I reckon that it is sorted now, unless anyone has any objections? - Sitush (talk) 02:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Glad to be of help. Ajh1492 (talk) 03:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Pratibha Patil

The entry has outrageous and libelous comments that are unsubstantiated. The entry claims that Pratibha Patil lived with Allen Ginsburg in Varanasi and was involved with Timothy Leary. These claims are incotrect, abusive, and must be removed immediately from the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.72.232 (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the uncited statements. I agree that they may be detrimental to her. However, if someone does come up with a reliable, verifiable citation then you'll just have to live with it. All I could find in a quick search was blog entries and comments to recent news stories about Wikileaks on MSN News etc. I'm watching the page now. - Sitush (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Sarah-Jane Redmond

Television Work : Call Of The Wild : Guest Lead / The Unsinkable Molly Brown—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.8.189 (talk) 02:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

could you please clarify your statement? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Aaron Saxton

Would any editors be available to have a look at the Aaron Saxton BLP? This includes an embedded video, originally self-published as part of a series on YouTube which has been uploaded to Commons (see Commons category). The YouTube video itself is, as far as I am aware, non-notable, in that no reliable sources have commented upon it. It, and the other videos in the series, make statements about third parties, and I am unsure if the embedding of the video in the article is in line with WP:BLPSPS. Views? --JN 466 10:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I did notice how the videoes were uploaded to youtube and uploaded from there to here and now removed from youtube, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgSWH64wmJE - I wonder if the permission we have is actually verified as the subject in question? I was wondering, if it was him , he will be aware they are all now hosted here and why the uploader to youtube removed them? The uploaders channel has basically been blanked - http://www.youtube.com/user/aaronsaxton1#g/c/B1EB614764CFDF0B - Perhaps someone with OTRS at commons could have a look at https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=4052753 and see who dealt with the original OTRS and what kind of verification of permission is there. As for the notability of the video itself as its self published and discusses other people that would create serious issues or a violation in my mind in regard to SELFPUB.Off2riorob (talk) 11:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, permissions seems ok, although no extra effort has been expended to ensure the granter was Saxton, but this is normally done only if someone challenges the copyright, or there is some other reason to expend extraordinary effort. So you'd be back to SEFPUB and other arguments for/against inclusion. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Who dealt with the original OTRS details. Off2riorob (talk) 14:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to know that. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - Seems a bit unnecessarily secretive - So the OTRS permission - was it an email from the copyright holder or was it just that the youtube account was in the name of the person in the video? Is there actually any verification at all? As regards not allowing a question as to who dealt with the original OTRS details, could you direct me to that policy/guideline, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of violating BEANS, I'll simply say I'm concerned about the Wikimedia privacy policy, and leave it at that. The person self-identified and used an email address which would indicate they were who they stated. More was not done, as I have mentioned before. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, well, thanks for looking. Off2riorob (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

- So, its so hard to assess when you are not an OTRS or an administrator, - this video was uploaded to wikipedia commons by User:Cirt on the 19th November 2009 from a youtube account in the name of Aaron Saxton and the next day after a verification email from Aaron Saxton the subject of the video had been received at OTRS, User:Cirt then added the ORTS verified permission template? Off2riorob (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, an OTRS volunteer "verifying" his own uploads... The secret documentation is an effective threshold against copyright challenges. As to the BLP issue, yes, the article is stronly dependent on this self-published source. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps its a side issue but the Aaron Saxton BLP was also written by ... User:Cirt - Off2riorob (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This is one of several videos of critics of the Church of Scientology uploaded to Commons by Cirt and collected at the Free-use Scientology-related video project. Although Cirt verified their own upload, Cirt is an OTRS volunteer and the ticket can be reviewed by any editor with OTRS access (as KillerChihuahua has done). The issue here is the use of the video on en.wiki, if claims are made about third parties. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I had a look at it, the written transcript of the video is here at commons - uploaded to the chat forum of the anti Scientology activist group Anonymous (group) on november 19, 2009 - uploaded to wikipedia by user:Cirt the next day. Off2riorob (talk) 01:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC) - as I see it, he is mostly talking about himself and his experiences in Scientology but doesn't mention any individual specifically , but, as per BLP an org or company such as Scientology is a group of living people - as per WP:SELFPUB it is touch and go I would say take it out, if in doubt take it out. The GA reviewer had issues about it himself see Talk:Aaron Saxton/GA1 but appears to have let it ride. It could be asserted that he is an vocal oppositional of the Organization and his negative comments about the Org are self published negative opinion and should be removed from the article. Off2riorob (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

He is making statements that the Church disputes. The embedded video is part 1 of 7; there is more in the other 6 parts, including allegations against named persons: [10]. The article shouldn't be a platform for his allegations. We should remove the embedded video, but leave the Commons link to them. As far as the use of the videos as sources for article content is concerned, it's mostly basic biographical detail, which is alright. The article also says "While a member of the Commodore's Messenger Organization (CMO), Saxton attempted to make sure those under his supervision had adequate nourishment.[23][24] As a recruiter for the CMO, Saxton typically tried to get Scientologists between ages 13 to 14 to join the organisation.[25]", sourced to these self-published videos. The first sentence could be perceived as self-serving. Other than that I don't see a problem with how the videos have been used to source content. --JN 466 11:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be a situation similar to that discussed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 62#Self-published Youtube video. In that case a similar anti-CoS video, also uploaded by Cirt but with the OTRS confirmation added shortly after by User:Kmccoy (who did not appear to be an OTRS volunteer at that time) was removed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't get that - why would User:Kmccoy be verifying OTRS claims when he wasn't an OTRS volunteer? Off2riorob (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure there is a simple explanation. I've left a note on Kmccoy's talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Kmccoy does not appear to be very active, so I have asked on the OTRS talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

note - removed in this edit as per the policy issues raised and as per consensus in this discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

John Lurie stalker

The actor, musician and artist John Lurie was the subject of a BLPN report here February 2011 because of a new editor who was posting nasty, mean-spirited little Lurie quotes in the article. Lurie certainly was cited as saying those things but they were trivial offhand comments unimportant to the man's biography—unencyclopedic and petty. They were gathered together by the editor to make Lurie look bad.

I am dead certain the BLP-violating editor is John Perry, a former friend of Lurie who was reported in The New Yorker in August 2010 as having had a "rupture" with Lurie in 2008, and then stalking Lurie. The BLP-violating editor repeatedly posted a link to John Perry's website, www.johnperrynyc.com.

The stalker-editor, Special:Contributions/Lurielurie, has been active on the page since February 3, calling John Lurie a hysteric, and saying Lurie was making up the story of having a stalker, and that Lurie repeatedly says Perry intends to kill Lurie, with "no evidence to support his claims".

After I jumped in to ride herd on the article and make sure it was neutral and well-sourced, Lurielurie began attacking me on my talk page, saying "You are in big trouble." (And again here.) Lurielurie followed that with several copy/past annoyances posted to my talk page: [11][12][13]

Lurielurie continues to edit war at John Lurie, change wording, altering the tone so that it makes Lurie look worse and the stalker look better. What is to be done here? Is there anything actionable? Does any of this madness merit an indef block for Lurielurie?

At the very least, I would appreciate more eyes on the case. Binksternet (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, more eyes would be appreciated. If erasing exchanges, then wholesale, his talk section wherein he acknowledges being self-serving is not reflective of his non-neutrality, so be it. Though based on properly sourced material, my early edits were clearly not in the spirit of Wikipedia. That they were removed is fair. If I am blocked by a truly neutral third party, fine. My recent edits, however, conform to NPOV, and are accurate based on sourced material.

Binksternet, by his elimination of source references which show that Lurie's claims are unsupported, and editing at the behest of the subject should likewise restrict his edits.Lurielurie (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I hope that some third party will not allow Lurie to disseminate his defamatory claims on Wikipedia, as Binksternet has now elected to capitulate.Lurielurie (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Added to my watchlist. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

One thing I note here, the article made reference to and characterized user comments on the Dangerous Minds blog. User comments are not reliable sources, and certainly shouldn't be discussed as primary sources. In fact, we shouldn't be linking to the article with comments displayed, but rather to the article without the comments displayed. If a reliable source discusses and analyzes the comments, we can report what that says, but we can't report directly on the comments. Yworo (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. When I put up the summary of the blog comments, I did so because they were the subject of previous edit warring, and because the blog was not notable by itself, but was made so because it attracted comments from the main actors: John Lurie and John Perry. At any rate, I can see the reasoning for your removal of that summary. Binksternet (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

We would suggest that you remove the link to Dangerous Minds completely. As you have stated the site is not notable, thus including this without the comments by Lurie and Perry is pointless. It is not a reliable source as it is Marc Campbell's uninformed opinion based on a phone conversation with John Perry. Thank you for your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yabangulu (talk • contribs) 02:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

A complaint about edit-warring has been opened at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Lurielurie reported by User:The Interior (Result: ). Anyone familiar with the issues on this article is welcome to comment there. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Reza Moridi

Would you please keep an eye on the biography of Reza Moridi Canadian politician? It seems that the individuals who might not have good faith or/and respect the neutrality of this Wikipedia biography are trying to misrepresent the facts in this biography of living person. Looking at the history of this Wikipedia page one could see that in the past there were biased changes done by some users. In the past users Jonathanwallace (talk) and Collect (talk) spent time cleaned up and editing this this Wikipedia biography, to make certain that the neutrality of Moridi’s biography is preserved. The nationality of Moridi is Canadian and his ethnicity according to the facts, documents and evidences is Azerbaijani. User Marmoulak (talk) have changed the ethnicity of Moridi from Azerbaijani-Canadian to Iranian-Canadian without providing any proper evidences and/or inline citation. The current inline citation and evidences clearly indicate that Moridi’s nationality is Canadian and his ethnicity is Azerbaijani. Starback (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The following important piece of information was added to Moridi's Wikipedia biography. Bill 63, Nowruz Day Act, 2006 received Royal Assent in 2006, and March 21 in each year was proclaimed as Nowruz Day in Ontario. Starback (talk) 01:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Cuyahoga Heights High School

Resolved

– content left out of the article

Having second thoughts on a deletion

I deleted this as a BLP violation. Taking a second look, I see that the source is not a true blog, it's a Cleveland Plain Dealer article with reader comments enabled. Now I'm wondering if the item could be restored if the technology coordinator's name is omitted. Thoughts? --CliffC (talk) 03:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Its a reliable source. There are possible WP:NOTNEWS and WP:WEIGHT issues. The statement could be included that the district is under financial scrutiny, without getting into individuals and resignations--or left out for now just to see what develops. Jonathanwallace (talk) 03:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

If he's the technology coordinator for the whole school district, why should this be mentioned in the article of a single school? Gamaliel (talk) 06:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for those good points, I'll leave it deleted. --CliffC (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Freda Payne

can You check the date of birth of Freda Payne and her middle name. In the "Guinness Encyclopedia of Popular Music" she was born September 19, 1945 and her middle name is "Charcilia". Joel Whitburn's book "Top Pop Singles" has the same date of birth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.71.79.161 (talk) 06:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I've corrected the spelling of her middle name in the article but a quick check of some databases shows both the 1942 and 1945 date. I suggest you post on the discussion page and discuss the matter with other editors. Gamaliel (talk) 06:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Mary G. Enig

Quick question about application of WP:BLPPRIMARY. This ref from a state government agency is being used as a reference (ref #2) for citing that Enig was a licensed nutritionist between 1988 and 2008. I rarely edit BLPs, and was wondering if this violates WP:BLPPRIMARY or not (public document, etc). Thanks! Yobol (talk) 12:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Mary G. Enig Link to article. Colincbn (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it falls under the BLPPPRIMARY ban on public records. Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that BLPPRIMARY is an actual ban on the use of government records. Just a very strong caution to how they are used. In fact, the policy in question specifically says there are times it is acceptable to use them in BLPs. Colincbn (talk) 05:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

BLPPRIMARY is categorical: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." This is a case of a public record being used to support an assertion that a living person was a licensed nutritionist for 20 years and is no longer. So its not a permissible usage. The exception stated in the section (using primary sources to supplement secondary) doesn't apply in this instance. Jonathanwallace (talk) 06:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Rape victims

Resolved

– 4 April 2011 User:Night Gyr deleted "Category:Rape victims" ‎ (WP:G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion)

Hello! I am Minerva and I made the Category:Rape victims. That page was deleted before, I don't know the reason, but I want to know if it violates WP:BLP in some way. I would like to get some viewpoints here. --Minerva97 (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Minerva, without having spent time thinking about your question, I did want to at least point you at the 2007 deletion discussion that was the basis for the category originally being deleted, it's here. That discussion also evoked a comment from Jimbo, here. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this, but is there any way we can speedily delete the category? It was deleted in 2007, and Wikipedia has become much stricter on BLP issues since then. Having looked at the previous discussion, I can't believe for one minute that this would survive another deletion debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Aside from how mind-boggingly offensive such a category is, the fact that it currently holds only 7 indivduals, when it clearly could hold thousands, is itself a sign of how unfeasible it is to have a category. Are we to have subcategories for survivors of incest, of children abused by teachers, etc etc etc? This should be culled from wikipedia asap. Echoedmyron (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of tagging it now. Tarc (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm the editor who recommended that Minerva97 bring the category up for discussion here. I didn't realize it had previously been deleted, but I did think it posed a problem both in terms of BLP and as inconsistent with the other subcategories of Category:Crime victims. Though I disagree with some of the objections being made here, I agree that the category is not really a good one. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Allison Parks and other Playmates

This Playboy Playmate of the Year is reported to have died in 2010. No genuine RS reference confirms that the person who died was in fact the Playboy model; the association is made via self-published sources associated with a Yahoo fan group. Tracing the history, it appears that most of the information supporting the identification was in the WP article long before the person died, so the identification appears reasonably reliable -- but still falls well short of BLP/RS standards. Other articles report Playmate deaths with far less reliable sourcing, mostly coming from mailing lists -- see Cathy Larmouth, Debbie Boostrom, Melodye Prentiss, and Tiffany Sloan. There are probably more. How should the situation be handled? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

If you ask my opinion, what you need is an obituary that confirms that this is the same person; at minimum matching birth dates and rudimentary biographical information that confirms something else reliable about the person, if the obit doesn't mention Playboy appearence. I.e. if one source confirms that Jane Doe the playboy model was born on Date XXX, was born in city YYY, attended high school ZZZ, and the obit states that a Jane Doe, born on XXX in YYY and went to high school ZZZ died on AAA, then you are probably safe, even if the obit doesn't mention the Playboy appearence. However, if its just "Jane Doe died on AAA" with no confirmational data, or if the sources are all unreliable, it should be taken out of the article until such time as a firm, reliable source is found. --Jayron32 20:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Local obituaries are easy to find. A newspaper database like News Bank or Lexis/Nexis makes it even easier. I wouldn't even cite a Yahoo fan group to prove that Yahoo exists. Gamaliel (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Michael Frost Beckner

Michael Frost Beckner, the subject of this Wikipedia article is a living person. I am an associate of Mr. Beckner and have contributed the bulk of this article with his direct knowledge and guidance.

An anonymous editor is repeatedly posting a false, unsourced, irrelevant and potentially libelous statement about Beckner's original, and entirely fictional story for his original screenplay, "Spy Game". This anonymous editor also attempted to insert the same information into the Spy Game article. Editors of that page removed the inappropriate addition and explained their decision in its discussion section.

The inappropriate text can be found in the Diff page: [14]

Mr. Beckner has never heard of this person and has confirmed this statement is a complete fabrication. Beckner's continued value as a writer of original fiction is undermined by this statement so it must be considered libelous.

The anonymous editor cites his references as:

1. "http://tvprnews.com/television_articles/2010/05/two-film-production-companies-plan-to-fund-and-produce-documentary-films-in-mexico-151910.htm"

--This is a PR news release made by Tom Golden's own company and merely repeats his false statements.

2. "http://latesthollywoodnewsrelease.blogspot.com/2010_02_01_archive.html"

--This is a blog article that repeats the false information from the PR release. The author of this blog article has been contacted and notified about the error.

3. "The Hollywood Reporter, Nov 20, 2003, Cathy Dunkley 'The Beckner Story'"

--This article does not exist. The anonymous editor simply changed the date of one of the actual references in the Beckner article and took Beckner's company's name (The Beckner Story Company) fabricating a new title for the article. Additionally, the cited author did not work for the Hollywood Reporter in 2003. She worked for Variety at the time (ref: http://www.variety.com/toc-archive/2003/20031117.html, 11/20/2003, Cathy Dunkley, Dana Harris, "Village Roadshow taps marketing, distrib exec" Dwwinter (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know about this issue. If the IP editor is fabricating sources in this way then it's very concerning. I have left them a warning on their talk page and have watchlisted the article. If they keep re-adding the same material without discussing the disputed sources, then we can consider some form of protection for the article. Incidentally, you may wish to read our guidelines on conflict of interest. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I just did a database search of the Hollywood Reporter and that article does not appear to exist, nor anything written by Dunkley. Beckner does pop in three articles, but none from 2003 and none of them mention Golden. Gamaliel (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Dwwinter's own contributions don't seem to hold up much better. Large chunks of the article were poorly sourced/unsourced promotion; some of his sources seem quite dodgy ("Fortean Times" on US intelligence agencies?!), and other text clearly distorts the sources cited (eg, the EW article "Blue Chip Scripts" states exactly nothing about "the highest prices ever paid for spec scripts up until that time" -- it only presents a selection of high prices paid. Anybody who thinks that statements like "By this time Beckner was firmly established as the most prolific and foremost visual storyteller of espionage in Hollywood" belong in a Wikipedia biography needs to go back to square one, read WP:BLP, and inform his client/employer/whatever that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Kim Thomson

There is no reliable source quoted for birthdate 1960 or 1959. That is because they are both incorrect. One was created first by an unreliable fan site. The Daily Record used wikipedia as its source (please do conform). I could give you hundreds of newspaper articles with conflicting dates. This is wholly inaccurate information that you are propagating. If necessary legal action will be taken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KTLT1 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the Daily Record used Wikipedia as a source. You may wish to read WP:NLT if you continue to edit here. MarnetteD | Talk 15:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict):I removed the birth date as it is disputed. We are always happy to do so when facts can't be reliably sourced, or the information is taken from Wikipedia and is therefore circular. However, legal threats are not taken kindly here, see WP:THREAT, and in fact editors who make them are usually blocked until the threat is resolved. Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the source is weak and disputed..so I see Johnathon has removed it, which under the circumstances, for the time being I support. She is of minor note anyways her specific age is of little value. We do need to watch out for this - recently (and I encourage others here to do the same) i have been noticing and tagging as uncited and removing - a lot of uncited claims of a specific date of birth - these have been sitting in our articles for far too long, - challenge then and remove if there is not a strong WP:RS that actually supports it. We are WP:MIRRORed all over the web and it is happening more often that we might imagine that some low grade source is referenced wikipedia without admitting that they got it here, and when you look here it was uncited in a BLP for years.. This is the reason that we should be pro - active in either citing to the strongest reliable externals or removal of weakly supported claims from BLP articles primarily but also wikipedia in general, this imo is especially true is regards to personal details about a living person, such as a specific date of birth and children and marriage etc. Off2riorob (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your posts JW and Off2. I was making a long post on Ms Thompson's talk page and did not see these until now. I will certainly defer to your assessments of the situation though I am still leery of the long term socking that went on. On another note - having seen her performances over many years I wouldn't call her of "minor note" but that is POV on my part (Off2 this is me trying to be humorous - if it causes offense then I most certainly apologize.) My thanks to you both for taking the time to post here. MarnetteD | Talk 16:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I agree, looking at her viewing figures and career and celebrity activities, medium note is much more correct. A picture would help, as at least that give readers a focus point as to her general age. Perhaps readers here can google-foo and strong claim for her DOB.Off2riorob (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

My (apparently minority) view is we should not have removed the birth year. We had a source for it, and I still can't follow why that source is unreliable or the basis for KTLT1 saying the source copied Wikipedia. Seems to me we're kowtowing to the user's threat, which is pretty damned silly anyway. What's her legal claim? Libel? She'd be laughed out of court. At the same time, I do agree that whether or not we list her birth year(s) is not particularly important, although the same could be said about many other articles, and Wikipedians, for reasons I often disagree with, generally love to include DOBs, ethnicity, religion, nationality, etc.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

BBB23--of all the edits I have made this month, that's probably the one about which I feel least strongly. However, here is my mild argument in favor. The editor who included her age looked at a source which said she was 49, and decided (as an act of synthesis) that she was therefore born in "1959 or 1960". So I still think it came out appropriately under our sourcing rules, and not because of the threat. Jonathanwallace (talk) 02:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

(I think the editor was me but haven't gone back to check.) If a source newspaper article says that Thomson is 49 at the time of the interview and the newspaper article is dated, how is that synthesis rather than math? I mean, I just used an article to source a precise birth date based on an article that didn't say the subject was born on that date but was born 8 days earlier (or later) than another date. I don't see the difference. I (or whoever) also put a note in explaining the process. (Technically, synthesis is combining two or more sources, whereas, here, I'm combining a source with my brain, but that can hardly be called original research.)--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:OR states: "This policy allows routine mathematical calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the sources." I think the best solution is "circa 1960". It would satisfy the general reader and they will understand it may be plus or minus a year. Encyclopedia Brittanica uses "circa" in many articles, especially where the only source is the age at death. Looking at her tired face in Google Images I would guess she was ten years older, so the reader is aided by the best possible reliable estimate to know she was not born circa 1940 or circa 1950. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Except we do not have any figrues to work from. Her birthyear (assuming the source is accuarte) could be any of three years (1959,60,61). Thus this is at best a guess.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why it should be a choice of three years: we have a dated source (The Daily Record, 18 October 2009) which states (para. 11) "Kim, 49, who is single". We can therefore feed those figures into {{Birth based on age as of date}}, to give born 1959 or 1960 (age 63–64). Hardly WP:OR and definitely not WP:SYN but since it is from a single source, it is WP:V. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, both cited sources daily express, dailyrecord) yield a year of birth that is 1959 or 1960. Unsourced dates or unsourced claims by editors that might have been floating around earlier are irrelevant.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Circa 1960

Approve --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Approve--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Born 1959 or 1960

Approve--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

No date

More reliable resources are available, they just haven't been tracked down yet. Gamaliel (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Writing content on WP doesn't require authors to track down the most reliable source available, but it requires authors to track down sources that are reliable enough--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a this is a better direction to progress. Off2riorob (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Ronn Torossian (new)

very recent discussion at this noticeboard, still currently active - see here

Ronn Torossian page has bias and multiple untruths which an individual user Ravpapa has gone wild on accusing many of sockpuppets (as if that would permit him to post the wild untruths). Torossian has won awards from Ernst & Young and Inc Magazine and owns 1 of the largest PR agencies in the US for which the NY Times, Business Week and others profiled him. His page went through many edits for many years and had multiple discussions. This user has now completely biased the page.

Of note is that user fancies himself an expert at inserting bias and has succeeded. www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:Ravpapa/Tilt

Years ago he was a spokesperson for Israel government and perhaps thats worthy of 1 line mention. In addition, review the post: His claim: "which urged Arabs to move out of Jerusalem[2]." Isnt supported by the source he claims - should be removed. 2 Rabbis who criticize: 1 criticizes a company not Torossian, and the other was in 1 politically slanted left wing newspaper which is a questionable source on a living person. (and he removed multiple positive quotes). Source is a blog and nowhere does it say he is a spokesperson: "He is spokesman for the Hebron Fund, a US foundation that supports Jewish settlers in the occupied West Bank city of Hebron[7]. --Greenbay1313 (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Why another thread? There's already an active one above. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Its been dominated by 1 user who has continued with negative sources solely. May we ask that you review the material. --Greenbay1313 (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

There's another thread because the article is locked, and the daily barrage of socks and SPAs are looking everywhere for some kind of loophole. I've told this latest editor on his page to please take his concerns to the relevant talk page, and to stop forum shopping. Dayewalker (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Greenbay1313 has now filed a COI complaint, complete with borderline personal attacks on another editor. I think we are officially through the looking glass on this one. The Interior (Talk) 18:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Unsure of what socks and SPAs are but may I ask if you reviewed said sources in the article. Ask users to visit the article and review the material which is blog sources and dangerous material. Greenbay1313 (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC) No personal attacks am saying simply user Ravpapa has biases he admits. Article has blogs and inaccurate sources of BLP. Opening up Wikipedia to a libel lawsuit. greenbay1313 (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Ronn Torossian page may have had sockpuppets but stay focused on the libelous material which is now there. Blogs, inaccurate statements and slander. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenbay1313 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to reiterate the response on my talk page here. Greenbay1313: By posting two complaints here at BLP/N, as well as complaints at editor assistance, RfC, arbitration requests, COI/N, AN, requests for feedback, AIV, and the talk pages of random and uninvolved administrators, you are actually making things more difficult. Please stop forum and admin shopping, or your edits will go from being simply uninformed mistakes to disruptive edits, and could even warrant a block against your account. Furthermore, please watch your wording. What you said above could be perceived as a legal threat, and making legal threats is also something for which you will be blocked. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 19:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

In all fairness, I think that Greenbay is suggesting that Ronn Torossian, not Greenbay, might sue us for libel - a reasonable concern if the article is, in fact, libellous. For the time being, in spite of all the circumstantial evidence to the contrary, we should assume that Greenbay is not Ronn Torossian, and, therefore, I don't think we should consider his post a legal threat.

Sometimes it is hard to understand exactly what Greenbay, NYCdan, Abigail7, et al, is/are trying to say, because his/her/their English is so bad. I think that is the source of the confusion.

But I leave this determination to administrators with more experience in this area than I.--Ravpapa (talk) 04:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hebron reference 12 is a blog. Binyamin Elon is not referenced on his site (and why is 5wpr.com used as a source and if so couldnt corporate clients be included ?) Those who wish to use Israel why have only negative sources been used and not sources which say he was a government spokesperson or praise of Rabbis ?

In terms of opinions others are included how about these ? 2011 - NY Times - For Grey Line - 1 of largest transportation companies in world - Is this not bigger than Israel 13 years ago views ? http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/tour-bus-post-to-sked-for-7am/ Publicly traded Soupman company ? http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-21/soup-kitchen-creditors-file-to-force-bankruptcy-update2-.html Musician Lil Kim: http://www.nysun.com/new-york/bar-worker-arrested-for-murder-at-lil-kim-party/83480/ Spokesperson for Israeli gov't: http://www.newprophecy.net/madonnawatch2.htm Restaurant chain Phillipe Chow: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/entertainment/confidential/sienna-gisele-caught-on-camera/story-e6frf96x-1111115728651 All of these: http://www.holmesreport.com/agencyreport-info/1930/5W-Public-Relations.aspx

Balance is required. --greenbay1313 (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Greenbay: Until reading your post, I thought that you and your chums were one person. You all write with the same typos and bad grammar, you all make the same arguments about the same articles. Yet I now begin to doubt this. Not only might you not be the same person, I am not sure you even talk to each other.

I say this because of this discussion at the 5WPR talk page. In that discussion, we suggested to theNYCdan that he rebuild the client list based on reliable secondary sources, which he partially did. And here you are, listing a bunch of reliable secondary sources saying who are 5WPR clients, yet you haven't added these to the client list at 5WPR.

Greenbay, get on the stick! Add these guys to the client list at 5WPR. Do some good for your boy, for a change! --Ravpapa (talk) 06:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Can I ask simply that users review the page for a few issues: 1: Where are any statements Torossian is active supporter of Israel as lead states. They appear to be clients - a few of many. 2: which according to Nathaniel Popper writing in The Forward, worked to push Arab citizens of Israel out of Jerusalem.[3][4] Thats inaccurate as Ravpapa himself knows. Push Arab citizens of Israel out of Jerusalem ? Most Arabs of Jerusalem are not citizens and noone can say Our Jerusalem (of which a cofounder was the head of Kadima coalition, Yoel Hasson) works to do that. An honest broker would use The JERUSALEM POST source, for what Our Jerusalem was: http://www.jpost.com/Features/InTheSpotlight/Article.aspx?id=150936 During what would turn out to be a two-year stint in this country, Torossian was one of three founders - together with fellow Betar alumni and peers, today Likud MK Danny Danon and Kadima MK Yoel Hasson - of Yerushalayim Shelanu (Jerusalem Is Ours), a secular organization promoting the right of Jews to live anywhere they choose in the city of Jerusalem. ... and amazing that a 4 page Jerusalem Post feature has no positive quotes in Wikipedia bio. 3: Rabbi Morris Allen, who heads an organization that exposed fraud in one of 5WPR's clients, called the firm's tactics in defending the client "outrageous, to say the least."[9] Allen is speaking about the firm should be removed from Torossian page. 4: Who says Torossian works closely with Christian supporters of Israel and are more than clients. Should be removed. There are many more issues but these are libelous, leaving apart unbalance. Instead of getting worked up about sockpuppets why not work to clean up possible legal issues dont be emotional simply review the content. Its wrong. greenbay1313 (talk) 12:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

One might think that if Ronn Torossian represented both, both Ehud Olmert and Benjamin Netanyahu, he cannot be as extreme as the bio esits show - If that were the case, neither could really work with him politically. Additionally, if these people are clients - not pro bono causes that were taken - they were jobs, not advocacy. A PR Company often takes on clients with varied opinions and the representatives cannot always be presumed to agree or disagree - it's just a job.

Then there is the fact that Torossian represented Sean Combs & Pamela Anderson and neither of that is deemed qualified for inclusion - Yet, with that fact, should the article say that Torossian is an entertainer, a hip hop star or Baywatch supporter?

--TLVEWR (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Posted a proposed Torossian re-write article here for compromise. Welcome edits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Greenbay1313/Sandbox greenbay1313 (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Theres now about 75% of the article about his Israel views - But he's a PR guy why relevant ?? 1: Why is Our Jerusalem mentioned 2x ? Incorrect mention @lead should be removed immediately. 2: 1 article says not many blue chip clients, but every other article says otherwise and so too does his website. Should be removed. 3: Current Wiki entree says "especially Israeli" ??? Whats the source for that. Absolutely incorrect. 4: Last 2 lines which on this page has been agreed should be removed still exists. Why ? 5: Why so much on Israel and nothing at all on what makes him prominent ? Folks this is absurd and undue balance. greenbay1313 (talk) 12:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenbay1313 (talk • contribs)

update SPI - just as a note for reference, the creator of this report/thread has been blocked as a sockpuppet the report is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Babasalichai - Off2riorob (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

wilbert keon

A user has repeatedly removed negative yet factual and referenced information on this person's biography.

Please see the diff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wilbert_Keon&action=historysubmit&diff=422237156&oldid=421777539

Can this article be locked or the user in question be blocked from further vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curiousottman (talk • contribs) 02:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Everyone involved in this edit dispute should be encouraged to use edit summaries and to discuss their issues on the article Talk page. WP:BLPREMOVE says: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced..." The link you are using is a connection to a site which claims to be an aggregator of interesting information, and which is presenting what purports to be an Ottawa Citizen article. This may be a copyright violation, or may not be an accurate copy of the article. For something this sensitive, you need a better source. On a quick Google search, I did not find a better source, so I have deleted the information from the article. If you can solve that problem, you may still hear from other editors here with objections on other grounds such as WP:UNDUE. Personally, I believe that the information should remain under WP:WELLKNOWN, only if it can be much better documented.Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia would be better off if we deleted all of the celebrity DUIs, one-night stands, and similar transient public embarrassments. Almost all of them are given undue weight. "Factual and referenced" doesn't mean significant enough to be included in an encyclopedic article. It's also interesting to note that the "factual" content you're insistent on keeping is itself misleading, since the article subject's resignation was rejected, and he stayed in his post for almost a decade more. And since when does disputing an edit twice over 10 months constitute impermissible edit warring? Especially if the complaint comes from someone who reinserted the same content twice in only a few days. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Since I reverted the edit, we're talking in the abstract here. However, the example given in WP:WELLKNOWN, which is policy, is: " A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but The New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing The New York Times as the source." Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, well known is part of BLP policy - "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article" - Currently there is only a single external to his official biography, so I was asking myself how public a person is he? Another issue would be weight with such almost nothing known about his private life, which this occurred in, I would say it would get undue weight in the article also a HW says, it actually had little effect on his life, he continued along in the same position. His public figure position would be at the senate - I don't know how public this actually would be considered, he was not elected and so did not stand as a candidate. IMO the lack of citations suggests he is more of a private person than public. Anyways, under the present conditions and cited to that source I agree its better out than in. Off2riorob (talk) 13:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

This is an easy one because we all agree on the deletion. However, I think he is a public figure as a senate member, regardless of whether he is appointed or elected. I agree that the "multitude' of sources envisioned by WP:WELLKNOWN are lacking. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Cool, if its replaced without any changes or discussion I recommend semi protection, I will watchlist it also, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 13:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

David Di Sabatino

- David Di Sabatino#Background and Education

I am David Di Sabatino. This article is about me, and it is simply riddled with wrong information.

Please take it down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.65.68 (talk) 04:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you be more specific and let us know what is incorrect? Thanks. Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

- One thing that is incorrect is that someone that claims to the subject of a BLP who makes a report here and it take eight hours for them to receive a welcome template or any policy or guideline advice at all. (note - this is not directed at anyone, just something to consider in general) - Off2riorob (talk) 11:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Yup, missed that--good catch. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that the fact that the IP followed up the complaint here with an immediate act of vandalism [15] both reduced its credibility and the inclination editors might have had to welcome it. That's not something most folks would do under their real name. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I missed that. Off2riorob (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Jas Dhillon

Look like a vanity publication to me. 38.98.7.86 (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC) JF

I did a bit of tidying, he is of limited note, could use improvement if there are additional reports out there. Article has existed since May 2008 doesn't appear to have ever been prodded ... might survive a WP:prod. Off2riorob (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

A Google search didn't disclose any third party sources of the type we favor, mainly his own web site and social media. Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

PROD'd. Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Matt Howarth

Would any editor be able to take a look at Matt Howarth? Apparently he is a cartoonist of some kind, but the whole article looks like a vanity to me. Most of the info is gleaned from [16]. Thanks. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a lousy article, but Howarth is quite notable in his field. Article history shows the likelihood of vanity editing to be pretty low. One IP may have copied a laundry list of guest appearances from the website, but that's a cleanup issue at worst. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

He's important but not mainstream, so sources may be difficult to dig up. I'll see what I can find. Gamaliel (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

He drew a bit for DC comics and has a minor note but no more than that - imo there are about five articles that could easily be merged there without any loss to readers. Off2riorob (talk) 22:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Taryn Southern

This is a messy bio of someone who achieved brief fame in the 2008 American election cycle for a viral video. She describes herself on her website as a "Webutante". It's almost completely unsourced (i'm not counting "the Wrong Hole" on Youtube as a source!) The early life section contains some eyebrow-raising claims, such as her two degrees by age twenty (if this is true, much respect Ms.Southern) I'm thinking this needs to be stubbed right down, or even AfD'ed. Thoughts? The Interior (Talk) 22:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it's an awful article, no doubt. A quick look at Google News (and the IMDB, and the ARS) tells me that AfD probably is not the best place to go--she is certainly marginally notable. But stubbing seems fine to me. Drmies (talk) 04:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Bill Vorn

I already wrote about it in the talk page of Bill Vorn, but I thought it would be better to bring it up here. It seems like there has been a "copying and pasting" from his personal website. What should be done about this? Edit it so as to make it seem original, or simply erase that portion of the article? Or should it simply be re-written? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ourhomeplanet (talk • contribs) 03:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You're right--that does seem like a copy and paste job. That is not acceptable for various reasons, including copyright issues--and I don't see permission for such copying. Here's what I'm going to do, and you can do this as well. I'm going to go through the history to find an untainted version if I can. If I can, I'll revert to that and take it from there. If this was copied from the get-go, I'm going to find a few reliable sources on this character and write a stub using the sources I can find, deleting the rest of it (which is then unverified). If I can't find any sources, I will nominate it for deletion.
That's what I think should be done, but there are other options--rewriting certainly is an option, but it begs the question of sources: this is a BLP, after all. Tagging it with a bunch of templates is also an option. Thanks for letting us now. Drmies (talk) 04:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Ralph Drollinger

Would someone be able to take a look at the Ralph Drollinger article? The "Ministry" section has been subject to long-term edit wars. (The article has been brought to the BLP noticeboard before; see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive99#Ralph_Drollinger.) Zagalejo^^^ 04:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I took a look and have watch-listed it. The information seems reliably sourced and relevant. Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that every user who has attempted to remove controversial information from the article from November 2010 until now has been blocked because they were sockpuppets of User:RK Drollinger (indeed, it was User:RK Drollinger who brought the article to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive99#Ralph Drollinger). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RK Drollinger/Archive. OCNative (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Abdul Nazer Mahdani

This article is a stub, it lacks a neutral point of view and most of the claims made by the article are not verifiable. Most of its external links are dead too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vyttilavarkey (talk • contribs) 18:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

IMHO without checking all the links, just a sample, they worked. The wording does not seem to be POV (I have never heard of the person before). For someone who has a specific view about the person it might seem POV by being NPOV. This is a person considered to be a political prisoner it seems, although it is not expressly said in the text. In cases of this kind it is notoriously difficult to get good sources since media inside the country have to be careful, and media outside have little reason to write about it nor much information to base their writing on. However, the article needs a bit more text to explain the context. Lindorm (talk) 11:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Dieudonné M'bala M'bala

There is not a correspondence in translation between the french page and the english one in the french text is clear that the actor was accused of anti-semitism and to be rightist, but also that he reject those accuses in the english text instead the translation give him a sure appartenance to the Front National party and his leader Jean Marie Le Pen, i am not agree a translation have to be strictly tied to the original text and not allow anyone to interpretate facts with personal opinions, I think that the cause is that who did it hated Dieudonné for his anti zionism and used Wikipedia non in an honest way, i wish in a correction as soon as possible, cause what i saw in my research is absurde and show how much can be manipulated the information :

Dieudonné, nom de scène de Dieudonné M'bala M'bala, est un humoriste, acteur, et militant politique français né le 11 février 1966 à Fontenay-aux-Roses (Hauts-de-Seine). Dieudonné se fait connaître comme humoriste dans les années 1990. Dans la deuxième moitié de cette décennie, il est de plus en plus engagé en politique, participant notamment à plusieurs scrutins électoraux. Particulièrement controversé en raison de plusieurs de ses prises de position, Dieudonné voit son image publique se modifier progressivement au cours des années 20001 : alors qu'il était classé à gauche dans les années 19902, il est désormais condamné par diverses associations antiracistes et considéré comme une personnalité d'extrême droite par de nombreuses formations et mouvances politiques3, ainsi que par une grande partie de la presse nationale1,2,4, qui l'accusent notamment d'antisémitisme5,6. Lui-même conteste ces accusations et se présente comme un républicain antisioniste anticommunautariste7, affirmant représenter « la vraie gauche »8. Dieudonné

Dieudonné M'bala M'bala (born 11 February 1966), generally known simply as Dieudonné, is a French comedian, actor and political activist. Initially a leftist, and an anti-racism and anti-Israel activist, he has moved to the far right of the political spectrum of France, developing close political and personal relationships with the Front National party and its leader Jean-Marie Le Pen as well as with prominent Holocaust deniers such as Robert Faurisson; however, he claims to be leading a 'justified fight' against Zionism, and Israel which he deems racist and oppressive.[1] Dieudonné has been condemned in court several times for antisemitic remarks. Since 1997, Dieudonné has regularly stood in parliamentary and European Union elections as a candidate at the head of fringe or splinter parties, and has tried and failed to run for two French presidential elections (2002 and 2007). Dieudonné M'bala M'bala —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.239.124.46 (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The place to post this is at Talk:Dieudonné M'bala M'bala where it can be seen by editors who an interest in the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually no, I think the best place is WP:BLP/N as this is clearly a BLP matter. I am moving this conversation there. Hans Adler 08:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't have the time to deal with this right now, but I note that the English Wikipedia article is not supposed to be a translation of the French one. For French people the French Wikipedia is likely to have more detailed and more NPOV coverage than we do, but there is no guarantee that this is the case. Without actually having looked at it, I guess carefully considering the French article and its history in addition to ours could in fact help us here. Hans Adler 08:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no built in relationship between English and French or any other language Wikipedia. We can have articles on the same topic which are completely unrelated to each other in their origins, wording and sources. In the case of an article originally translated from French Wikipedia, the editor may chose not to include all of the material and references, or may diverge from them if there is a good reason to. Once that translation becomes an article here, it can be edited by anybody and will continue to diverge from the original. So the only real question for consideration here is whether the statements which are causing your concern are reliably sourced, give proper weight etc. I will take a look at the article and see if I spot any issues. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I read the article, randomly checking a few of the French language sources. They are mainly large circulation, mainstream newspapers that say what they are cited for. The guy has staked out some pretty clear positions on French Jews and Israel. There is some coatracky material and a broken link or two. On the whole, the article seems to have been written or heavily edited by someone who wants to make sure the world knows the subject is an anti-Semite, so there may be weight issues (though if someone is notable mainly for bigotry, there may not be that much you can do to add "balance" to an article). This probably warrants an edit, cutting out some of the more extraneous, coatracky material (for example, one of his colleague's correspondence with Carlos the Jackal in prison). Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

luc tuymans

before 11 feb 2011 there were details on the family of the artist which could explain his political engagement this info was canceled on 11/02/2011 and i regret this because it was an essential point of view —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.130.203.162 (talk) 08:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not seeing a February 11 edit, and am having trouble finding the former content to which you refer. Can you give more details? Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Alena Gerber

Resolved

– nothing to see apart from editing issues

- Alena Gerber - self-published/relatively unknown

There have been major issues with Ms Gerber's German Wikipedia article. The entry here has seemingly been created to repeat claims that have already been proven false and have, as a consequence, been deleted by the German Wikipedia community.

This article is being used as an advertising platform for a still rather unknown model and aspiring TV host - something that Wikipedia clearly disapproves of, for a reason. Ms Gerber is not widely known in her country of origin, Germany, in either of these roles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabiaflora (talk • contribs) 18:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

- Such issues are pretty much outside the remit of this noticeboard -

This noticeboard is for reporting and discussing issues with biographies of living persons. These may include editing disputes and cases where contributors are repeatedly adding troublesome material over an extended period.
It is not for simple vandalism or material which can easily be removed without argument. If you can, simply remove the offending material.
For general content disputes regarding biographical articles consider using Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies.
All Wikipedia editors are encouraged to assist fellow editors regarding the reports below. Administrators taking actions they consider to be "special enforcement" may wish to note this in the enforcement log.

You should WP:BEBOLD and either edit the article to improve it or WP:PROD it or WP:AFD it. Off2riorob (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Sarah Carey

Sarah Carey is best known in Ireland for her role in the Esat Digifone mobile phone licence scandal. Any attempt to make this known is deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emerald ire (talk • contribs) 18:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Please don't WikiLink to Corruption in Ireland in someone's name.[17] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

If that is what she is best known for then she is not notable and the BLP should be deleted - she is of total minor note - wikipedia isn't about millions of articles about people of trivial note that you can find three citations with a mention of them in - not at all. Such is the weakness of the project. Esat Mobile Phone Licence Scandal is at AFD and Carey is not mentioned and she is not even mentioned in the Moriarty Tribunal article. Off2riorob (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

bobby gonzalez

I Wednesday, April 6, 2011FROM A DAILY DOSE OF HOOPS http://jadendaly.blogspot.com/

GOOD READ FROM SOMEONE FAIR. have added numerous links on my talk page so that this biography can be properly edited. Here is another one as you asked for: I also have another bio coming from SHU.Lindag3333 (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm putting together some references about this article at User:Demiurge1000/Bobby Gonzalez sources, with a view to addressing the perceived problems of balance and neutrality in the article. I've copied that URL there, but, with this comment: "Unfortunately, as a blog, this is unlikely to be suitable as a source, unless we can put together some verifiable information about its owner". Let me know about the info from SHU when it arrives. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

tyler blackburn

he doesnt look like that and he's NOT dead — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgayatri3 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. Someone vandalised the article, I have reverted their changes. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Alejandro Peña Esclusa

Rd232 introduced slander and libel on this page Alejandro Peña Esclusa and is reverting all my attempts to remove it. I will continue to revert in spite of the 3 revert rule because this is a long-standing issue that has gone on for YEARS on the Italian Wikipedia article about this politician, who is presently a political prisoner in Venezuela. May I suggest that you ban Rd232 from editing that page. Lindorm (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindorm (talk • contribs) 14:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Cough, not content to spew legal threats everywhere over an issue which got him banned from the Italian Wikipedia, not content with a spurious COIN report, he forumshops to BLPN too. Well I'm quite happy to have more eyes and hands involved. Rd232 ^talk 15:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

User JRSP has joined the edit war on the side of Rd232, also reverting to a potentially libelous text, without addressing the concerns that I had previously expressed on the talk page. Lindorm (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless I'm misreading this diff, you appear to believe that merely moving the text and adding an WP:OR claim that the Venezuelan government is persecuting Esclusa solves the alleged libel problem. Hum. Also, you're at about 5RR. I can't be bothered to report you, especially as you appear to believe WP:BLP exemption applies, but really, can some others chip in here please? Rd232 ^talk 15:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You are partially right. By presenting the same information in a different manner it becomes a good Wikipedia article. The overall goal of an article is to be accurate and being accurate entails more than containing accurate facts, it means to convey an accurate impression of the subject. That is why the same sentences can be or not be libelous, depending on how they are presented and framed. Lindorm (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem continues: User Rd232 is contributing to improve the article, but at the same time consistently and persistently introducing biased (POV) language that reflects the propaganda message from Venezuela's socialist government. Every day I find myself having to clear about a half dozen or so biased (POV) features from the article. This has to stop, we cannot allow Wikipedia to be a propaganda vehicle for a dictatorship wishing to crush its dissidents by spreading patently false information that gets picked up by editors here and presented in the manner that they designed it to be presented. We have to use judgment! Lindorm (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm only adding sourced information; there are some disagreements which one ought to be able to work through without hyperventilating, and mostly we are. Incidentally, I've pointed this out several times, so here it is again, crystal clear: NPOV is the objective. The N in WP:NPOV stands for Neutral. That you can't get this straight suggests you never got round to even reading this key policy. Rd232 ^talk 17:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixed typos (NPOV -> NNPOV, biased, POV). Rd232 undid a number of times revisions of that article without addressing the concerns I had expressed in edit comments and talk page, and continued many times to edit the article into a form that clearly gave more prominence to the views of the dissident's political enemies, than a balanced and neutral view. This long-term editing pattern of Rd232, editing in a way that is biased pro-Chavez and against regime dissidents, is very troubling, especially given that he is an Admin. It endangers the very credibility of the Wikipedia project, unless the project demonstrates that it is able to effectively handle the situation. Lindorm (talk) 11:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, user Rd232 is clearly working on that article as an editor and not as an administrator and I think if you ask him/her they will say as much...as I mentioned yesterday, you guys are discussing and clearly capable of working towards some agreements and meeting in the middle, remember - there is no deadline, choose a single issue you have with the content and either add a cited rebuttal or agree some consensus wording, for issues you are unable to agree on, its better to request outside comments such as using the Wikipedia:Third opinion for minor issues and WP:RFC on the talkpage for larger issues. You are both allowed to hold an opinion about the subject but requested to edit from a neutral point of view. WP:NPOV Off2riorob (talk) 11:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's irrelevant here that I'm an admin - I'm not wearing that hat. Lindorm seems to wish to use the article to promote his anti-Chavez activism, but is gradually, slowly, grasping what NPOV actually means and I think we've actually made a lot of progress, though his tone often doesn't reflect that. Dispute resolution remains an option, but the talk page has been a bit underused (for detailed editing issues) so far. Rd232 ^talk 12:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Rd232 has finally given in and allowed the article to stand in an NPOV fashion, but it was a long fight to make him give up his pro-Chavez bias. Lindorm (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you've finally accepted that what I did was basically NPOV, and some tweaks here and there achieved some improvements that seem to leave you satisfied. If you call that "giving in"... well whatever makes you feel good. Rd232 ^talk 16:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Lindorm please pack it in calling the kettle black, your anti Chavez position is like a lighthouse, you have a personal web blog that espouses that position. It was not a fight it was an editorial discussion, if a compromise has been agreed that is a reason to celebrate and make friends not to assert or claim victory. User:Rd232 is an experienced contributor and you would do well to listen and take advice when offered. Off2riorob (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Kaci Brown

There is another person under the same name as Kaci, Kaci Battaglia, they are the same person and both articles need to be merged — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpking88 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll take a look. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The Brown bio says she was born in July 1988, in Sulphur Springs, Texas. The Battaglia article says that she was born in October 1987 in Clearwater, Florida. From the two bio's they don't seem to be the same person, though looking at images I found on Google, they could perhaps be. I dunno though. I think someone else had better take a look. Or do you have a source that actually states that they are the same person? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

They are different people as far as I can see, their lives seem totally different - in some pics they look a bit similar but imo and without anything wiki reliable to support the claim they are two totally different people. I boldly redirected Kaci Brown to her 2005 album as the BLP was long term uncited and low notability, feel free to revert and improve, and tweaked and tidied the externals/dead links on the other. Off2riorob (talk) 11:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

- - Kacy brown interview 2005

- Kacy Battaglia interview 2009

Doug Collins

Doug Collins (basketball) did not lead the Pistons to the 1996 Eastern Conference finals. That year it was the Orlando Magic and the Chicago Bulls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.104.122.208 (talk) 01:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, this says you are correct 1996 NBA Playoffs I removed it as a false claim - I left you a menu of helpful links on your talkpage, if you see an error in an article and you have a WP:RS to support the alteration please WP:BEBOLD and edit the article. Off2riorob (talk) 11:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Rizwan Ali

relkiable referecnces have been added — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mubee786 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Biography is now at AFD. Off2riorob (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

India (pornographic actress)

India (pornographic actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This page [18] and this page [19] associate, without references, a supposed "real name" with an African-American pornographic performer who also has a career as a singer. I can find no reliable sources associating the two names; worse, there is another African-American singer of the same name [20], bearing little resemblance to the pornographic actress. The non-porn-associated singer got some publicity associated with American Idol [21]. It looks to me like some level of suppression might be needed, but this information has been on-wiki for so long, (and has by now, unfortunately been widely mirrored and recirculated), that I'd like to get some input before proceeding, just in case there's sourcing I've missed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Go for it, remove it and oversight. That India (pornographic actress) blp article is pure porn industry promotion, she is not independently notable - Personally I think that AVN should be blacklisted as spam. I removed the comment from the disambiguation page, I thought when there were only two name that a disambiguation page was not required? - I reverted back to the redirect, I don't see a need for disambiguation, feel free to disagree. Also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 April 8#Shamika Brown - someone may have a citation at least they have a few days to come up with one now. Off2riorob (talk) 16:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

King ov Hell bio

I would like to submit that the paragraph entitled "Relationships with the broader metal scene" contains gossip and/or tabloid-like content that is intended to cause harm to the subject of the bio and should be removed permanently. This content does cite a source but the comments are only opinions of the persons quoted and should not be considered as biographical information. A quick search of Google can show that the poster of the content, username "Dark Prime", has made a career of posting untrue or otherwise disparaging comments about the subject throughout the internet simply for the purpose of causing harm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DataBasss (talk • contribs) 19:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the whole section pending discussion and consensus here, as it appeared to be an attack section sourced to blogs and other possible unreliable sources. On closer exam, if some of the sources appear to be reliable and weight and neutrality issues are addressed, some of the content may be re-added. Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:RSN could use input from editors of this board

On WP:RSN we are discussing the reliability of a source regarding a living person. Because it concerns BLP issues, editors from this board are invited to join the discussion. Thank you. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Jeff Monson

Resolved

– new user has been advised in regards to Wikipedia:Reliable source guideline

I'm having a discussion with a user who is probably the subject's wife. She wants to add some information about her marriage to Monson and their children. (Studying the history, I just noticed there was another user and at least one IP trying to add this info as well.) She kept being reverted and templated, which I though was kind of bitey, so I tried a more personalized approach per WP:BLPEDIT. Discussion is here: User talk:Monson.danielle and here: User talk:Valfontis#Jeff Monson. Can someone who has more experience in these matters please offer some suggestions or a better explanation? I always hate trying to explain that we can't take the subject's (or a closely associated person's) word for something--because it seems so counterintuitive. Feel free to discuss on my talk page. Thanks! Valfontis (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems like the user has been pointed towards WP:RS required, your non-bitey approach seems to have got the message across, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 11:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Jesse McCartney

The article says that Jesse McCartney is married to Lea Faddis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_McCartney This is completely false; Jesse McCartney is not married to anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.90.76 (talk) 03:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Uncited claim has been removed. I watchlisted the Bio as it is getting a lot of unconfirmed acccounts adding uncited claims. Off2riorob (talk) 09:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Steven L. Herman

Subject has expressed displeasure, here. I have opened a thread to vet the refs, Talk:Steven L. Herman#Request from subject, here. Herostratus (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Farid Esack

The Wikipedia article about Farid Esack states that he lived between 1800-1871.

The article doesn't clear up whether or not he's dead or alive.

Dr. Esack is a contemporary. Although I don't know him or much of anything about him (hence my visit to Wiki and inability to edit his page for the correct dates), I'd wager a guess that he's very much alive. There's a Facebook tagged "Author" under Dr. Esack's name. In a strange twist of irony, the incorrect Wiki entry is listed as his description.

The Wikipedia article in question also states that Dr. Esack delivered a lecture in May 2005. A few paragraphs later, the article claims that Dr. Esack was a visiting professor at Harvard until 1839.

I think the dates in the article warrant fact checking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.25.14 (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, it seems to have been vandalism. I've reverted to the previous version, though it could probably do with a more thorough check - I'll look into it later if somebody else doesn't beat me to it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Mister Cee

I protected the article to prevent some additions of this kind of material that wasn't properly cited, but I am not sure whether these two are RS or not. --Dweller (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh noes..its reported as allegedly due back in court in june... Off2riorob (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

http://manhattan.ny1.com/content/top_stories/136864/hot-97-dj-arrested-on-lewd-behavior-charge?ap=1&MP4
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/public-indecency/hot-97-mister-cee-075392

Both NY1 and thesmokinggun.com links refer to a criminal arrest (thesmokinggun.com link contains the actual arrest citation), so there is NO issue of libel. Both are respected sources that have legal counsel on staff that approve information before it is disseminated. I am going to undo your edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agriffinny (talk • contribs) 00:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The BLP policy does not exist primarily for the purpose of avoiding libel. Confidence that article content is not libellous, does not automatically establish that the content in question meets the policy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

As it's been readded, we probably need to come to a consensus as to whether it's appropriate for the article. Should that discussion take place here or on the (currently empty) article talk page? Dayewalker (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The content is perfectly appropriate for Wikipedia. We're talking about a public figure here. Details about this public figure's arrest have been widely disseminated in the media. Several famous celebrities have been caught in exactly the same circumstances (e.g., Hugh Grant, Eddie Murphy, Teddy Pendergrass) and their Wikipedia pages have links to articles stating the unsavory particulars. I feel there may be some squeamishness afoot or an effort, perhaps, to protect Mister Cee, neither of which is the concern of Wikipedia. Agriffinny (talk) 01:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, just looking at the Eddie Murphy example, at least one of the sources it's referenced to is a much more reliable one than these, plus the issue is given much more appropriate weight in that article (a single sentence in a huge long biography). Would it be a huge problem to wait until we have similar sources for this incident, or until any legal issues are concluded? As for protecting Mister Cee, I never heard of him other than on Wikipedia... as for squeamishness, I like sordid gossip just as much as the next person - just not on a Wikipedia BLP. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Ron Torossian

Resolved

– nothing to see - beneficial edits

Large number of positive edits by unlikely (otherwise legitimate) editor in an article frequently having issues with both promotion and libel. Torossian is involved in PR. To me it seems like COI edits by proxy. For details, please see the article talk page. I've written more there. --Atavi (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes it becomes necessary for an uninvolved editor to step in and tweak an article up without the history of involvement with the subject - I can't see anything wrong with Dweller's contributions there, they all look beneficial to me. Off2riorob (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Depuffed a tad. Collect (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Fraud and Front Companies

Some enterprising editors have been beefing up our coverage of corporate fraud. The articles on Pearlasia Gamboa, United Assurance Company Ltd., and Allied Artists International are overflowing with claims and counterclaims, court documents and primary sources from Federal Databases. I'm working on it, and it's not out of control, but a few eyes might be helpful, particularly people used to working with Corporations and Crime, allegedly. Ocaasi ^c 03:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Ungodly mess of a BLP. Commented out material not remotely part of a lede though it leaves ref errors -- if the material is moveable, the errors should go away. Tempted to delete every single primary source -- the lede makes it clear she is "despicable" but WP is not the place for complete rap sheets on anyone. Collect (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Willie Revillame

The article has a negative slant towards the personality, being Willie Revillame.

Only negative aspects of his biography, such as controversies, were posted. No positive aspects were posted whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.206.59.53 (talk) 04:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I made a few edits, removing unsourced and poorly sourced tendentious material. The article needs more attention, which I don't have time to give it right now. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I've removed sections from the article as wholly unsourced (and tagged for some time). I've also removed some other material. Unfortunately, it leaves the article with nothing but the Controversies section (better sourced, although I haven't verified all of it) and Revillame's body of work, but nothing much else. Thus, the article now is strikingly unbalanced.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Cut "controversies" to the gist of the controversies. Collect (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

John Anderson, 3rd Viscount Waverley

Recent changes seem to have violated policy on biographies of living persons. The material added is unverified. Discussion is on Talk:John Anderson, 3rd Viscount Waverley. The author may not be following WP:V and has removed the article tags that indicate so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niluop (talk • contribs) 19:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. I removed the unsourced tendentious material, a clear WP:BLP violation. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Added a current ref - talk about timing. Collect (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Vito Roberto Palazzolo

An friend of the subject (User:Fircks) has alleged that there is defamatory content in the Vito Roberto Palazzolo article in threads at WP:ANI. Archived complaint, Today's complaint. Could someone look into this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.23.51 (talk • contribs)

Let ANI deal with it. Fircks has no idea what he's doing. He posted a message on my Talk page. See here for his February edits to the article itself (and, as I recall, this isn't the first time he's made these kinds of edits). Understandably, it was reverted.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, at least one editor at ANI told Fircks to come here. Sigh.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Here are links to two previous discussions of Palazzolo on BLPN: January 11 and February 9.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

- I have a degree of sympathy with such reports that an article using sensationalist sales driven media reports results in a portrayal of a living person that is a poor reflection of the actual boots on the ground reality. - Such a situation is hard to correct as what we do here is report reports in wikipedia classified reliable citations. The best chance Vito Roberto Palazzolo has got of getting his article edited/corrected or removed from the en wikipedia is by contacting the wikipedia foundation and explaining his issues with the article. Off2riorob (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

fixed the lede a bit. What a mess. Collect (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I will contact the Foundation, as you suggest. Thank you.

Fircks (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Caz Ferreira

Caz Julius Ferreira (born November 26, 1996), better known by his stage name CAZ, is an American actor/model. Born in Hillside, New Jersey, and raised in Naples, Florida. When Caz was little he used to dream about being an actor, and later began to pursue a career in acting/modeling. Caz's parents always knew that he would be known for being something in the entertainment industry. After Caz got his first job as a Paper Boy in a short film and starring in many theatrical performances, he started to figure out that maybe he could make it big. After seeing himself on music videos, and TV commercials he soon realized that his dream was slowly unfolding. While getting tons of calls and emails from different agencies/agents, Caz's family knew that his career would soon take off. He idolizes stars such as Katy Perry, Selena Gomez, Dylan and Cole Sprouse and hopes to make it as big as them. Caz looks forward to his future and hopes to make it big! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CazFerreira (talk • contribs) 03:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Other editors have already advised this user on his Talk page of the issues pertaining to autobiographies and have provided links to useful materials about Wikipedia. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Line of succession to the Iranian throne

I don't think its much danger or any really, interesting story though , the Palavis don't have a deal of luck - it is weakly cited though to what looks like the french wikipedia and ancestry dot com. I don't really see any danger to anyone, Patrick is not difficult to find and is on facebook - was imprisoned in Tehran multiple times, originally by his uncle (the Shah). Reza Pahlavi who is first in line appears to live the life of an exiled ruler and publicly campaign against the government in Iran and is a fighter pilot so I don't think he needs protecting....it seems like a relevant topic, there might be a case to be made that apart from these two notables the rest are not notable and so listing of not notable living people is not something useful to publish here. Off2riorob (talk) 11:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Also note that "abolished thrones" have a remarkable longevity. The "abolished thrones" of Spain, etc. are testament to that. Collect (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

What were you thinking as a solution Anythingyouwant? Off2riorob (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Either include reliable sources or delete the information, especially the information about living persons, some of whom are minors. There is zero indication that these minors wish to be known as aspirants to the power currently wielded by the mullahs in Iran. French Wikipedia, Facebook, and Ancestry.com are not WP:RS.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

On Facebook are several Ottoman princes and princesses related to http://www.facebook.com/login/setashome.php?ref=home#!/profile.php?id=1607752391

http://www.facebook.com/login/setashome.php?ref=home#!/profile.php?id=100001407461886

http://www.facebook.com/login/setashome.php?ref=home#!/SEHZADE.ORHAN.OSMANOGLU

Also here http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~royalty/turkey/persons.html

Dilek2 (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dilek2, you seem to be recreating pages that were previously deleted using different names, such refusal to listen is approaching the need for administrative intervention and you should be aware that your ability to edit here is a privilege and can be restricted. I have nominated your most recent for WP:AFD discussion - and requested speedy deletion under WP:CSD G4 as a previously deleted recreation. Off2riorob (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

If it makes you enjoy the article to delete it, do it anyway. On my talk page, readers can read it anyway. As I said, thanks to Facebook, there can be thousands of people read Wikipedia loses credibility.Dilek2 (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC) But what is with this Heir? I do not created it ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%BCndar_Aliosman But he is the next Heir,that's true...He is also of the Official Webside...Dilek2 (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The only source, [22], doesn't meet standards. It's so poorly sourced that stubbing would be an alternative. The first entry is obvious, but after that it gets speculative. Will Beback talk 21:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Rory Mcilroy

An editor has altered the facts of the life of Rory, and has made fictional characters prominent in his life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RORSfan (talk • contribs) 03:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the latest edits as clearly vandalism, but this article probably needs a bit more looking at. I'm off to bed now, so if another editor can take a look it would be useful. Thanks for pointing this out, RORSfan. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Pete Hamill

Concern regarding major recent revisions, the sum total of which has been an expansion and improvement of the article. However, they've also removed all inline references, as well as quotes by the subject and unpleasant material related to the family. More eyes on this would be appreciated. 99.168.85.28 (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I've removed Chekhov61's troubling comment in the article, that all the information was written and approved by Mr. Hamill [23]. Whether the account belongs to Mr. Hamill (in which case, I am an admirer), or a family member or friend, WP:COI is a real concern. A subject may use the article talk page to discuss inaccuracies, or delete libelous material, but writing and 'approving' one's own biography falls afoul of neutrality guidelines. 99.168.85.28 (talk) 19:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I have removed some large uncited recently addition and User:Bbb23 has also edited the content - a note was left to the user that expanded the article to comment here. Off2riorob (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I suspect there was conflict of interest, though I didn't doubt the veracity of the edits. Lack of sources and Chekhov's unwillingness to engage made this rather inevitable for now. 99.168.85.28 (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, we are here primarily to develop and improve articles any strong support for that will be supported. Off2riorob (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The author's daughter is asking for help; I agree that the article can be greatly expanded, and hope that a lot of the content provided by her father can be restored, if properly cited. Despite COI issues, Wikipedia doesn't often get contributions from writers of this caliber..... any help with sourcing and working with Ms. Hamill will be greatly appreciated. 99.168.85.28 (talk) 02:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Can somebody please tell me what I'm allowed to do/change if I have proper citations? I don't know how to change citation links. If possible can you change it for me? The 1st one needs to link to the new york post and Denis Hamill's New York Daily News link has moved. I would appreciate it.

All factual and errors i will change. for example: list of dates for books, in the bio he was also editor in chief of the New York Daily News. I think that needs to be known if the new york post one is in. I apologize for my lack of knowledge with Wikipedia. I will be sure to use citations on all changes. Please e-mail me if you have questions, Thank You. The dates of some of his books need to be added and I will do that today and there are also some missing.

I just changed the years of books published, I have all of them on my bookshelf, so I added all books with dates and a couple of books that were missing as well as adding that he published 10 novels instead of 8. As you can see he wrote 2 short stories, four books on journalism, two memoirs and two biographies. I didn't put that down but I think it should be noted. Also can be checked on Amazon.

I have to say I'm glad to see that there are people monitoring these pages but I hope factual errors can be fixed. I think it's important to have the facts correct since there are many people out there who believe in everything they read on Wikipedia regardless of authenticity and citations. I'm going to collect a series of citations and the proper links. Before you remove any changes that I just made,can you please e-mail me or better yet call me and we can talk more and I can offer more details. I think it's important. Also he is married to Fukiko Aoki also a writer— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chekhov61 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chekhov61 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Steve Mariotti

This BLP article was created in 2008, is fairly short, and written like a Who's Who advertisement (or a resume):

Considered one of today’s leading experts in education for at-risk youth, Steve Mariotti changed career paths in 1982...
While teaching in this hard-hitting environment for six and one half years, Mr. Mariotti gained insight...
As a bachelor in the 1980's Mariotti dated Edie Falco...

And more. There are no sources listed for anything. I stuck an "Unreferenced" tag at the top and removed a spammy list of publications and an EL to his company web site.

I need advice, please. I've not messed around much with BLPs but I understand the risk involved. I don't believe anything on the page is defamatory; on the contrary, it seems like a fluffy-puffy promo spiel. The problem is, I don't know what to do next. Slap a CitationNeeded tag at the end of every sentence? Propose deletion? Do nothing? Any advice someone more experienced in such matters could give me would be appreciated.

Thank you! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 02:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree it isn't the best. An editor seems to have copy-pasted the same material several times (here, for example) and later been reverted because it's too promotional. It looks like it was copied from the website of the foundation set up by the subject (NFTE), so needs to be removed unless permission is supplied by the copyright owner. I reverted it and will leave a message for the editor who added it. --Kateshortforbob _talk 11:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Great! Thank you! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 17:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

D.B. Cooper Duane Weber I

Duane Weber was my husband of 17 yrs...I have chose to alter the post about my husband as the information was NOT Correct. I made the corrections, but bear in mind I am not a writer - so I may have made some grammatical errors or spelling errors. The information was NOT correct - my husband was in the navy and the army - I hope you let the information I posted stand as it is the truth where as many writers over the yrs have made incorrect statements regarding Weber and myself his widdow - you can verify that I am who I say I am that . The FBI will also verify the information you guys had up by someone else was NOT factual. Thank You and please let the corrected information I place stand - it may need spelling and grammar errors fixed - but it is the truth. Thank you, Jo Weber - widow of Duane L. Weber. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spillway (talk • contribs) 06:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your edits to the article because based on personal knowledge we have no way of verifying, and posted some information on your talk page explaining Wikipedia policies and suggesting a better way to proceed with corrections. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparent self-promotion: Faisal Tehrani

Sorry, no idea if this is the right place to put this, can't find the right template to tag with. I drew Faisal Tehrani in the "reference a random biography" lottery. The page is not just unreferenced but highly promotional in tone; a principal contributor appears to be User:Tehranifaisal. I've not gone through the whole history to assess the extent of that user's contributions. What is the correct course of action here?
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Although the COI account hasn't edited the article for years now, most of the promotional material was indeed added by that COI account. I would say the correct course of action is to remove promotional material ruthlessly, and support what's left with such references as you can find. If it's extremely difficult to find suitable references then it might be suitable for AfD, but my first impression is that won't be necessary. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

That would be the correct form of action but it is such a fine example of how to be highly promotional in tone it almost seems a shame to fix it. The paragraph starting "As a novel, Tuhan Manusia is..." is marvelous. Even better, it's all quoted here on his site and at the top he says he doesn't know who compiled the Wikipedia article, so clearly User:Tehranifaisal is just coincidentally similar to the subject's name. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Sylvester Stallone‎

An IP editor (User:86.6.93.113) continues to blank sourced content from the Sylvester Stallone article (specifically his full name). After warning them on their talk page that sourced content deletion without explanation appears as vandalism, they continued to blank the information, but included an edit summary that makes assertions about Stallone's personal life without including any sources to back up the removal. I again explained that we need to use reliable sources to confirm content, and pointed the IP to the article talk page to outline their argument and sources; instead they simply blanked the content again. Before restoring the info I double checked and found multiple reliable sources in Google Books and Google News supporting the removed content. Could someone here try to impress on the IP the need to state their sources? I seem to have hit a wall with them. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 16:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I reverted his unsourced edit and warned him (again) on his Talk page. He seems rather tenacious, though; I don't think this will stop him. I suspect Administrator intervention will be required. Sorry! I tried to help. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 18:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he is certainly tenacious and has now has clammed back up again. I'm sure he will just bounce to the next IP address and blank the info again, in which case the article may need to be temporarily semi-protected in order to force them to the talk page. They may have a valid argument, but one can never know as they refuse to discuss it in any detail. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 18:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

At it again, only explanation is that they " are in the know". [24] Maybe a 3rr block would help things? The Interior (Talk) 19:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

There may be a clue in Good housekeeping: Volume 189. All I can see in google is "In the Italian tradition, he'd named our new son Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone after some members of his family. ... he announced, "my name is Mike. Just plain Mike." So Mike he was. throughout the rest of his school years and long into ..." Sean.hoyland - talk 19:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

An administrator, Courcelles, full-protected the page a little while ago. Unfortunately, the incorrect information was being displayed at the time. I've left him/her a note asking that the page either be restored to match its source or semi-protected so one the interested editors can fix it. I don't know if Courcelles will like/agree to this or not (it's not my decision, I just thought an update here would be a good idea). — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 22:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

stanley tookie williams

Resolved

[redacted] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.14.127.17 (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

That is a very serious allegation. I have removed it as unsourced. Thank you for bringing this to our attention, but in the future this sort of thing can be removed by any editor - just explain yourself using the edit summary. The Interior (Talk) 21:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Laurie Penny

Not only are my eating disorder and sex work history prominently and repeatedly referred to, unnecessarily so as they are only a small part of my early history, the 'politics' and 'career' sections are simply long list of criticisms made against me by libertarian and conservative opponents. the large amount of positive responses and successful campaigns my journalism and writing have generated are entirely ignore. the article reads as unbalanced. Is there any need to list people's responses to my work at all, can't people make up their own minds?

I'm quite young and unused to being this 'well known' and am fairly distressed by the fact that this has happened - like my identity is being rewritten by my enemies - so if someone could help I would be really really grateful. I'm not expecting the page to read like a panegyric, just a bit of balance and less weighting of my ignominous teenage years would be good.

I have taken the liberty of gong in and deleting some of these sections for now, I haven't changed anything as I'm probably not the right person to do so. I hope that's ok as a stop-gap until something more balanced can be written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.125.176 (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Laurie. I have watchlisted the page and will keep an eye on it in the future. Editing your own page is something we strongly advise against, so bringing the issue to a noticeboard like this without making any edits is the best route. Cheers, The Interior (Talk) 23:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Adam Guillette

The user has inappropriately created this entry. The subject created and edited the entry in order to promote another page.

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

From his facebook account:

"I was creating a page for CLPAC and found that it kept getting removed because it, 'wasn't relevant'.

Then I read that if something is linked to by other wikipedia pages it will be less likely to be removed. So I took what someone had written about me on the old 'gatorpedia' site, polished it with propaganda, posted it on wikipedia, and linked to CLPAC. And the CLPAC page has stayed up ever since."

The page he references is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Leadership_PAC

I suspect that neither page is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.69.136 (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I AFD'd it on the grounds of WP:NOTE. Let's see what happens. Quinn ^☂THUNDER 03:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I have AfD'd the org; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservative Leadership PAC. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Line of succession to the throne of Baden

In Germany there is no kingdom more.

Why these people can be listed?

The Ottoman prince be deleted?

Dilek2 (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

amazingly enough, extinct throne lines are notable. Sometimes (vide Spain) they even reappear. Collect (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The topic is interesting, but that doesn't remove the need for reliable sources. Moreover, regarding your example, if General Franco had seen an encyclopedia article describing the young Juan Carlos as an aspirant to Franco's power, would Juan Carlos have been safe? Would Juan Carlos have wanted the attention? I doubt it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately the encyclopedia is full of this kind of nobility cruft. Such information always relates to living people, is almost always unsourced or not properly sourced, is usually either out of date or has been updated with no or improper sources, and is often contentious. In my opinion such articles should be deleted unless they have very good sources. This one does not. Hans Adler 18:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Unlike Spain, Baden no longer exists as a sovereign state. I suggest nominating it for deletion. Will Beback talk 21:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You can try it, but Wikipedia has a large contingent of nobility fans who swarm in in such cases. I believe such articles are usually kept but not improved in any way. I have started User:Hans Adler/Lines of succession to get an overview of the problem before attacking it systematically. Hans Adler 22:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Another route is to stub it and require any new material added be properly sourced. Most of the sources for these pages are self-published or otherwise unable to meet BLP standards. This is the only source for this article: [25]. Here's the "home page": [26]. Obviously self-published and unusable. The creator of this article worked on many succession articles: Xxy (talk · contribs). Maybe the problem is limited to a few users who don't understand WP standards. Will Beback talk 22:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Curiously enough, most rulers do not really view such lines as being a threat to their power. QE II does not seem to regard the potential Scots claimants as potential threats. See Pretender and Category:Pretenders with 49 entries. Collect (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

A number of countries which were formerly monarchies have exiled the deposed rulers and their heirs. They apparently were quite concerned about efforts to restore the thrones. Such things have happened in the past. "Able was I ere I saw Elba". But that's not the main reason to require properly sourced articles on pretenders. Will Beback talk 21:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia the home of obsessive, nutty, bizarre, and meaningless lists. John lilburne (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Rosemary Clooney

In her article it states she was next to Bobby when he got shot but thatis not true. She was in their hotel room taking care of Bobbys kids when he got shot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.128.234.142 (talk) 03:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The claim that she was next to RFK gives a source - if you want to change it you'd need to show evidence. Also, the place to discuss that issue is on Talk:Rosemary Clooney - this noticeboard is for issues relating to biographies of living people. Cheers - --GenericBob (talk) 04:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Found better source only stating that "I heard the shots" which seems about as good as we will get. Prior source was not verifiabkle online. Collect (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Appropriate image?

I don't know how to judge whether a photo of a living person is appropriate. I've posted a comment here: [[27]]. The case in question is Athanasios Orphanides, Governor of the Central Bank of Cyprus. Rinconsoleao (talk) 11:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You acted correctly in removing all images from the article for the time being. The one added by the other user is inappropriate (amusing though) and it sounds as if the original one may have been a copyright violation. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm still having a hard time understanding what Wikipedia means by 'appropriate'. If Orphanides were a rock musician instead of a central bank governor, I never would have thought the second image was inappropriate. Actually, in that case I might have considered the first image inappropriate. But all this involves guessing what another person's preferences and values are, which is pretty slippery ground.Rinconsoleao (talk) 12:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure. But let's go on the side of caution here. We aren't losing much by not having a picture. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I've just found the copyright policy applicable to material appearing on the webpage of the Central Bank of Cyprus. It suggests that the original image can be legally used on Wikipedia (see discussion on talk page.) It may just be that copyright was wrongly described when a user first uploaded the image. Rinconsoleao (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, very good. So let's just stick that back in. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

keith wainwright mbe

{{helpme}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmotown (talk • contribs) 19:24, 11 April 2011

Keith Wainwright (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is a new article created by Pmotown that needs some TLC. Johnuniq (talk) 08:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Gay actors

I'm not sure how to go about fixing this because who actually does qualify as a "gay actor" is totally ambiguous... but right now this category is completely ignoring WP:BLPCAT - including just about everyone and anyone who is both gay and an actor, indiscriminately. So instead of taking it to CfD (which, really, I would have preferred to do), I'm seeing if there's some criteria that can be discerned here. A WP:BEFORE? Bulldog123 20:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how the category is that different from many other categories at Wikipedia, which, unfortunately (in my view), don't have any description of the category's criteria. I guess it's supposed to be self-evident, but, of course, it often isn't. At least the gay actor category has a warning about BLPCAT in it. I believe you're going to have to take the category on a case-by-case basis to determine if a particular article subject is properly categorized. I doubt you'll get anywhere nominating it for deletion. Wikipedians appear to have a love/hate affair with categories, and god knows we wouldn't want to eliminate a controversial one and thereby ruin countless, endless debates about whether it should be added to or removed from a particular article. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Laurie Penny

Resolved

– Hopefully without injury. --Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Laurie Penny. New Statesman political columnist. Hatchet job article, concerns from subject. Needs severe BLP axe and monitoring - David Gerard (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

See above - looks like most of the offensive content has been trimmed. The Interior (Talk) 23:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

(slaps self upside head) This is what I get for posting in a steaming hurry without checking. Sorry about that. Thank you very much :-) - David Gerard (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Ricky Salmon

The article contains links which (I) Link to more than one doorway page domain (II) Repetition of the the same URL (III) Sites not related to the biography.

The additional link/references that relate to BigFish Media Wikipedia Entry are of concern as (I) The company is not a noteworthy company over and above any other or more reputable agencies. (II) The Big fish media stub reads like a commercial for the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonBournes1 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I've deleted the unrelated links, for a start. As for the article itself, it needs evidence for Salmon's notability from external sources, at minimum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Whittemore Peterson Institute

The Whittemore Peterson Institute (WPI) is a somewhat controversial private scientific organisation known for its 2009 paper stating that a virus (XMRV) is associated with and probably causes chronic fatigue syndrome. Because of the intense interest in this problem, many scientists have tried to replicate these results, but at least ten groups have published negative results. Despite these conflicting reports, the Institute and its employees have made increasingly broad statements that have raised considerable concern in the scientific community, including that the virus also causes autism, fibromyalgia, Alzheimers, Parkinson's disease, and other conditions. The Institute is also going ahead with plans to start a medical clinic to treat patients with the putative viral infection with antiretroviral medications. For this purpose, they have hired a doctor who is a CFS patient; takes antiretrovirals in the belief that she is infected; and states that the virus is spread by vaccination. The consensus in the medical community is that there is currently no indication for taking these drugs and that anecdotal treatments are in any case of no help to the medical or disease communities.

At the same time, WPI's reported finding generated considerable interest in the CFS patient/advocate community, including a contingent of editors here on Wikipedia who are admirably energetic in advancing their views on the illness. They have raised BLP objections to the inclusion of various bits of verifiable information that they feel portray WPI or individual employees in a less than laudatory manner; these items are sourced to the New York Times, Nature and the Chicago Tribune.

Here are quotes of the items objected to at the article (sources in parentheses):

Judy Mikovits [the research director] was introduced to the Whittemores and hired as the research director of WPI in 2006.(NYT) Mikovits had left the NCI and moved to California to get married in 2001.(NYT) Later, a patron in the yacht club where she was tending bar noticed her interest in viruses and put her in touch with a mutual friend of the Whittemore family.(NYT) As research director, Mikovits attempted to find a connection between CFS and infections, but was initially unsuccessful.(Nature)

In my view, none of this is derogatory, and it's very well sourced. The background of how the research director was hired is interesting and relevant, especially as it is somewhat unusual. Clearly, the New York Times thought so. The editors at the page, however, suggest that I am trying to portray the research director as a "bartender", not a scientist. She is not a bartender, and I am not trying to portray her as one: Mikovits worked at the National Cancer Institute for almost 20 years before moving to California, as stated elsewhere in the article. This information does tell us about how the Institute found its research director and why she joined (she was unemployed at the time, according to the New York Times).

Jamie Deckoff-Jones, a doctor who has CFS and takes antiviral medications, is director of clinical services.(Chicago Tribune)

There is nothing derogatory here. It is relevant that the director of clinical services is herself a CFS patient (can empathise better with patients) and is taking the same drugs she might prescribe to her patients.

To what extent are these two passages, traced to impeccable sources, BLP violations? If violations, can these statements be worded alternatively in a manner that is both true to the facts and sources but less offensive to editors with passionate feelings for this Institute and its work? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The Death of Kent Leppink

This article is mostly about the trial of Mechele Linehan. It looks like the title was changed after previous criticisms by multiple readers and editors.

In the past I made some improvements without changing the original article much, and added details with accompanying references (many more than the initial author) multiple times, but each time I do someone follows right behind and deletes all of my contributions. Today I added more details about the trial and appeal and I included source references, but all of my work was immediately deleted. I've added my contribution again, but no doubt she or he will delete it again. It has much more detail, corrected typos, and many more references now, and it discusses a still living person facing another trial, so it is unethical to delete verifiable information.

This report was made by User:Akminister - Off2riorob (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history you have been repeatedly requested to discuss on the talkpage and you are massively expanding the article diff, with primary citations such as this http://touchngo.com/ap/html/ap-2253.htm and http://cmm.lefora.com/2010/09/21/kent-leppink-mechele-kaye-hughes-conviction-thrown and other such issues - I can only suggest you take some time to read some wikipedia policies and guidelines and then discuss and present your desired additions on the article talkpage section by section for discussion and assessment from additional editors. Off2riorob (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Andrew_Cohen_(spiritual_teacher)

Hello. Can anyone who is familiar with Wikipedia's libel rules and the biographies of living persons policy have a look at this page, particularly the "Criticisms" section and the links to critical websites below it, and see if such a negative attack on a living person is accepted by Wikipedia? This article is that of a popular American spiritual teacher, and a certain faction of his ex-students consistently maintain this section on his biography page, despite all attempts to minimize it. But very few other teachers, even known controversial ones, have this on their pages...

Thank you. --Kosmocentric (talk) 06:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The two blogs shouldn't be used as sources, or even mentioned unless there are reliable secondary sources for them. However, even excluding those, it's the best-sourced part of the article. Will Beback talk 06:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I've removed mention of the two blogs. I agree that the rest looks fine. JoshuaZ (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Urban Ahlin

The article on sexual harassment is not in line with wikipedias policy. Expressen is a tabloid. I feel sorry for the guy

Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth Conquer (talk • contribs) 14:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I have removed it, since Expressen is listed in their article as a tabloid it does not appear to be a reliable source for negative information about a living person. GB fan (talk) 15:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

GB fan - tabloid in many European countries refers to the dimensions of the publication and is unrelated to the content. A note should be left at WP:RSN as it appears to be a national news publication in Sweden. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 15:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Follow-up: I have left a note at WP:RSN regarding the reliability of Expresssen and the use of "tabloid" as a descriptor. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 15:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

For what it is worth, running the Swedish Wikipedia article on Ahlin through Google translate shows that the allegations aren't mentioned there. [28] I'd suggest that without further sources, this is best omitted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't suggesting restoring the information without discussion, I'd just like to clarify the use of the word tabloid in this case. The first step after removal should be to discuss the reliability of the source; if it is a gossip rag then any further discussion as to WP:UNDUE and such becomes moot. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 16:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC) --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 16:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Here are the details, two articles in the same (online part of the) publication written by the same person on the same day, translated via google - one, two, written by Niklas Svensson on the ninth November 2010 - content talks about allegations from two years previous. (circa 2008) - I was wondering if this led to any charges or if it was widely reported? Following content is cited to these two articles. It was added (strangely enough, on the ninth November 2010 - the same day both articles were published) in a single edit by an IP from Sweden with only one edit and no welcome template.Off2riorob (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

"I'm not accused of it, nor has it ever been. I had been accused of it I wish that someone had gone to the police so that it had investigated." ......quote from Alin, for discussion purposes only from the linked diff. Off2riorob (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Allegations of sexual harassment

On 9 November 2010 the tabloid Expressen wrote that Ahlin was the subject of allegations of sexual harassment against a female co-worker at the Social Democratic Party's parliamentary office. The unnamed sources cited by the newspaper said that Ahlin, among other things, had tried to enter the woman's hotel room during a drip to Washington, D.C. in 2008. He was also accused of having sent SMS messages with sexual content to the woman during political meetings. According to the source, the woman was transferred to a different job after the incident in exchange for promises to keep quiet.

Social Democratic Party leader Mona Sahlin was informed of the allegations shortly after the trip. Ahlin was also reprimanded by the party's parliamentary group leader Sven-Erik Österberg after the incident: "I was very clear. It's not acceptable that anyone should feel violated in a job situation. I discussed that with him in very sharp terms. I also stated that this may not be repeated in any way", Österberg said. Ahlin himself denied all allegations of sexual harassment. (reply to Q below - I posted it, it is the content that the two citations were supporting, I suppose the Q would be, is the incident notable enough and well sourced enough and compliant with WP:weight, and WP:BLP and well known to be replaced. Off2riorob (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC))

Who posted the above and what is the question?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Simon Southerton

The last paragraph, added in April 9, 2011 may have been written by someone with an axe to grind against Mr. Southerton. It seems to be factually untrue as the link below that is to an article that states Mr. Southerton was excummunicated from the LDS Church after his opinions became public. The wording, in addition to be grammitically incorrect in a spot or two, could be taken as a derisive attack on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrty22 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this issue. I've removed the section in question - which clearly didn't meet WP:NPOV, and probably not WP:BLP either - and left a caution notice for the user responsible. I've also watchlisted the article, as I'm sure this won't go away soon. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Also the entire article is rather weakly sourced for accusations and controversy such as it still includes. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Diego Arria

Could someone please disabuse User:Attarparn of the notion that a minor blog is an acceptable source for an image at Diego Arria? (I'm not too happy about his edit summary either, especially as I've previously explained a similar issue to him about sourcing a PDF document to a blog and believing the blog's claims of provenance). Rd232 ^talk 00:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Wait, it gets more complicated. I've just seen that after I removed the picture, an OTRS verification was added to the Commons page of the image. To what extent can this ticket be relied upon as verification? It should surely be explicitly attributed to the article subject, at least - so how would it be cited? Rd232 ^talk 00:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Wayne Warrington

Pretty sure this page was simply setup by Wayne himself to increase his importance. He seems to be tricking craigslist users into signing up for his "epicurian club" by telling them he has a job for them, then blasting them with a cookie cutter email to get them to sign up, at the end of the process it asks for a credit card. Looks like a huge scam. He doesn't seem to warrant his own wiki entry and it probably violates the biographies of living persons policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.221.184 (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I proposed the article for deletion after failing to find independent third party sources confirming notability. Article was created by a SPA who hasn't been active in a few months. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thom Hartman -- progressive radio talk show moderator

I would just like to suggest that additional personal information be added to the Thom Hartman wikipedia entry. Examples of the information that I would like to see in this article are the following items:

1) Does Thom Hartman have any brothers and sisters? 2) Where did T.H. go to grade school and high school? Did he attend public schools, private schools or "other" (such as homeschooling)? 3) What is the name of his wife? When did they get married? where did Thom meet her? Is this his first and only marriage? 4) Does Thom Hartman have any children? Genders / names / ages, if possible. 5) Why / when / how did T.H. become so interested in ADD and ADHD? Did T.H. himself have hyperactivity disorders when he was a child? If so, does he believe that he currently has adult ADHD symptoms? 6) When / why did T.H. get so interested in herbal remedies? Does he still strongly believe in herbal and alternative healing remedies? Does he consider herbal remedies to be a good remedy for children with ADHD?

Okay -- that's all the questions that I have about Thom Hartman. Thanks for trying to update / clarify his wikipedia listing.

Sincerely,

(Mrs.) D.O. Naperville, IL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.135.169.108 (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I placed a "welcome' template and some other comments on the user's talk page. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Vito Roberto Palazzolo

Has an SPA on Mafiosi who appears not to have read WP:BLP. Request another pair of patient eyes thereon. I suspect that "contentious" does not cover this adequately. I suspect he may have similar problems on other BLPs. Collect (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

This has already been posted above. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Terry Richardson

The article Terry Richardson, which I have just filled with tags, is ugly. At least two sources for Terry Richardson#Sexual-abuse allegations appear unreliable,[29][30] but if I remove the contributions I fear User:Gregorik and probably User:Spanglej will revert me. Gregorik has proven willing to revert war,[31][32] while Spanglej has not replied to me in Talk:Terry Richardson#abuse allegations. DinDraithou (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh and "In interviews, Richardson has described his attitude and approach." originally read "In interviews, Richardson has confirmed his behavior.",[33] before I corrected it. DinDraithou (talk) 02:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Ungodly mess with one editor insisting on inserting prurient and other claims not backed by reliable sources. Collect (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah it was and to some extent remains pretty horrific. That editor has actually linked to new sources, which we should keep, where Richardson's prominent defenders, of whom I was unaware, are mentioned and quoted. The problem is that he appears to be insisting on a completely negative POV for Wikipedia in the article, and could be on his way to getting in real trouble for it. DinDraithou (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on the article, btw. I was worried no one would come to help. DinDraithou (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

BLP and dead people

Does BLP apply to someone dead 40, 50, 100 years? It's getting silly. Merrill Stubing (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Officially - no. Should it? A deep philosophical issue. IMO, it ought to apply a great deal more than some others appear to feel. Collect (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you asking for permission to add unsourced or poorly sourced contentious claims? Such things should still be removed - the only issue is urgency. With BLPs, it's urgent and with non-BLPs, you can consider, if the claim isn't too ridiculous, adding a {{fact}} tag instead of immediately removing it. --B (talk) 13:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Our BLP policy states: "This policy does not apply to edits about the dead...But questionable material about dead people which has implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of recent deaths, should be removed promptly." Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't investigated the revision history fully, so I don't know whether the notion that our policy on biographies of living persons also applies to dead people is a recent addition or not. We certainly want to respect the dignity of biography subjects to the greatest extent we can that's consistent with telling the truth, whether they're alive or dead, but I'd think it would have been called something different to reflect this notion if that had been the intent.

Something like "our policy on biographies of living persons and of deceased ones who have living friends or relatives". This isn't the place to discuss policy or policy changes at length ( that's what the BLP page's talk page is for ) but I think it's worth observing here that I did notice there has been some controversy about this passage, less than three months ago, in January 2011. – OhioStandard (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It's hard sorting through the history, but it appears that the section on deceased persons was first added on January 4, 2009. See here. I've found discussion of it earlier (in 2007). See here, but without looking more deeply, have not been able to find any contemporaneous transfer from the 2007 discussion to the policy itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

If someone famous and living has a dead mother, and the Wikipedia article about the mother includes a lot of unsourced crud, it seems reasonable to look at the two articles holistically as a single BLP. Stuff could be put in the mother's article to make the kid look bad (e.g. she was a criminal, had mental problems, had weird sex habits, wore army boots, et cetera).Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Kevin Stallings

citations needed for last two sentences in Head Coaching Jobs Vanderbilt sections — Preceding unsigned comment added by TommyDore (talk • contribs) 00:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

All sources echo what the wiki contributor is saying, and it's referenced well enough" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.93.68 (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with TommyDore. I don't understand what the IP is saying. I added a template for the whole article because it has almost no sources. I added specific templates for more controversial unsourced assertions, including the ones Tommy is talking about.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Bob Parsons

Resolved

– after considerable discussion, compromise content added to both the BLP and the company article

Parsons, who is CEO of GoDaddy.com, was recently in the national news for videotaping himself killing elephants and a leopard in Zimbabwe. PETA and the Humane Society called for a boycott of GoDaddy. Some editors of Parson's page have repeatedly reverted any attempt to mention this event, while refusing to offer their own compromise wording. Editor/administrator input is requested to decided whether the event should be mentioned, whether it should be part of another section or its own section, and how the wording will be determined. Thanks!Brmull (talk) 09:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I made a comment on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

This seems like a fit topic for the noticeboard, so I will comment here rather than the talkpage. This material can be reliably sourced to Huffington Post and merits a neutral sentence in the article along the lines of "Parsons recently posted a video of himself shooting an elephant in Zimbabwe and distributing meat to villagers. As a result, PETA has called for a boycott of his company, Godaddy." For weight purposes, I would not give it its own section. Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the post above. The sources merit a one sentence, neutrally worded mention of the event, along the lines of the text suggested by Jonathan.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I like the write up. Its written in a way I wanted to see things go. However I think it might be more appropriate in the Go Daddy article. What PETA did was towards Go Daddy. If that isn't the consensus though I'm fine with it in the Parsons article. Basileias (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there a citations that supports Parsons was "distributing meat to villagers"? Off2riorob (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Well the above suggestion seems a bit undue there is already a section in the Go Daddy#Animal rights article and I have edited that today for npov. I will bring my comment back from the talkpage as you desire to discuss it here is my offer at a neutrally worded addition.. I would also prefer not to have a section header but as the BLP is currently laid out it may need one, if it does then Animal rights is imo a reflective enough neutral header. Basically I have jusrt reported the basic detail - we are not here to be a soapbox for PETA opinions. This issue is actually only really noteworthy at the company article as something actually occurred to make it notable at least in a minor way - PETA said they were going to close their account because of it and so we can say there was a direct effect on the company, if PETA actually did have any accounts with Go Daddy - we have only their claim for that. Off2riorob (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

This has to do more with Bob Parsons himself than Go Daddy, although they sometimes seem to be inseparable. Presumably Go Daddy didn't pay for the safaris. So I definitely think there needs to be mention of this in the Parsons article. Also, it was not just PETA that closed their accouts, so did the Humane society, and CNBC reported that tens of thousands have switched.Brmull (talk) 08:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

That claim about "tens of thousands" is going to need some serious backing. There's no proof PETA even had an account with them. Basileias (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you got the citation for - "so did the Humane society, and CNBC reported that tens of thousands have switched" - Off2riorob (talk) 10:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is one for "PETA, Humane Society dump Go Daddy accounts after CEO kills elephant" and here is one for "Video of elephant shooting turns into donations". CNBC was quoting industry publication TheNextWeb so I left that off.Brmull (talk) 03:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Animal rights

In 2011 Parsons was criticized by PETA and environmentalists after he uploaded a video of himself shooting and killing an elephant in Zimbabwe to his personal blog, the shooting was at the request of tribal authorities to protect their crops for harvest.[1][2]

The first clause through "blog" is fine. The second, starting "the shooting...." I would like to see the source but suspect it should be a separate sentence saying, "According to Parsons, the shooting..." This is more neutral, as its not up to us to say in Wikipedia's voice either that he had a visceral desire to shoot an elephant, or that he was being noble and protective of others. The business about giving the meat to villagers is in the Huffington Post article and apparently sourced to his video--described as including scenes of the villagers carving the meat off the carcass. However, I don't care if its mentioned--it was just there to suggest for neutrality, as you do, that some good arguably came of it. Jonathanwallace (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, here is the source for that, I imagine there are more but agree that claim if mentioned needs attributing to Parsons - The villagers ate the elephant - they were very hungry but Parsons did not as I have seen cited ""distributing meat to villagers" - I have looked at the huffington post report and am I missing something but that claim is not there???....please point me to the support for this claim.. Off2riorob (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep the first clause, except maybe change "environmentalists" to "animal rights groups." Scratch the second clause because that's just Parsons unverified claim. Scratch "distributing meat to villagers." There's nothing in the video that shows that. The video shows the villagers scrambling for meat while Parsons films from above.Brmull (talk) 08:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Animal rights (2)

I tweaked the possible addition and moved it to the bottom for continued discussion - Off2riorob (talk) 10:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI Reference #1 (business insider) is not NPOV and should be replaced. Reference #2 is okay.Brmull (talk) 08:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

This looks fine (except the comma after "blog" should be a period). I saw the claim about distributing meat in a different HuffPost article (sorry to spin your wheels citing the wrong one): "Then the video gets really graphic, as Parsons records villagers who come out in the early morning to slaughter the dead animal, stripping it of its flesh." Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence is fair and balanced, although "animal rights groups" is more accurate than "environmentalists." The second sentence just gives Parsons' view. It needs to be counterbalanced with something from the opposing view such as this from The New York Times:

Said a spokeswoman for PETA, “Parsons is trying to play this off as if he’s helping people, but he’s not doing anything to solve the problem — he’s just committing a heartless act.”Brmull (talk) 08:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I was really trying to keep petas opinion out of the entry, as in the situation they are a very opinionated source. We should also remember - the subject did nothing illegal at all and the practice is although abhorrent to PETA it is not so to the starving locals, it seems that there is a elephant problem in Zimbabwe and the population numbers are out of control and culling and forced contraception are under discussion - culling was common practice in the past. http://elephantpopulationcontrol.library.uu.nl/paginas/txt07.html. I would like to see this kept to as minimum without all the attacking comments from opinionated activist sources. The references are all basically reporting the same thing and I added two , not the best quality, feel free to change or suggest others. Off2riorob (talk) 10:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Foggins is not a neutral source. He works for the Mugabe government. If you are not comfortable with PETA I consider the Humane Society and WWF reliable sources and can find quotes from either of them.Brmull (talk) 03:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

In 2011 Parsons was criticized by animal rights groups including PETA after he uploaded a video of himself shooting and killing an elephant in Zimbabwe to his personal blog, Parsons said the shooting was at the request of tribal authorities to protect their crops for harvest. A spokesperson for PETA described the killing as "a heartless act".^[1]^[2]

^ "Go Daddy CEO embroiled in controversy! Bob Parsons defends elephant murder". Showbizspy.com. April 4, 2011.
^ "GoDaddy chief draws criticism for elephant hunting video". The New York Times (blog - Nick Bilton). March 31, 2011. Retrieved April 9, 2011.

This is okay with me. Although there should be a period after "blog."Brmull (talk) 03:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

If the concensus is that this is to go into the GoDaddy article (as it appears it should) then it is probably best to add in that PETA said they are dropping GoDaddy. "A spokesperson for PETA described the killing as "a heartless act" and dropped GoDaddy as their web host." ...Or something along those lines. Other than that it looks good for the GoDaddy article. Arzel (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, currently with have this in the GoDaddy article Go Daddy#Animal rights - actually I am having issues with this being included there at all, the issue actually has nothing to do with Go Daddy business at all apart from an activist group has said they are going to remove their business and we have no independent assertion that they even have any accounts there, has anyone got any reliable independant support for that claim? Is there a reliable citation that supports that PETA used GoDaddy services? We should not be a mouthpiece for extreme activist groups campaigns. GoDaddy the buisness has no position at all in regards to animal rights and GoDaddy the buisness has done nothing at all in regards to animal rights. Off2riorob (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I was just thinking of that. What proof is there PETA and all these other groups had an account with them? The sources we have don't seem well written. Basileias (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The Showbizspy.com website seems a bit unprofessional. Would this work as an alternative?

In 2011 Parsons uploaded a video of himself shooting and killing an elephant in Zimbabwe to his personal blog. A spokesperson for PETA described the killing as "a heartless act."^[1] Basileias (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

This wording is okay with me.Brmull (talk) 03:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I vote this should be included in both the Parsons and the Go Daddy articles. There is no way to independently verify how many domains PETA, HSUS, or anyone else had with Go Daddy without doing original research. So drop that part. But the fact that those organizations did encourage people to boycott Go Daddy has been widely reported. Go Daddy the business has made a $100,000 donation to the AZ humane society so they do have a position on animal rights. Parsons himself often talks about GoDaddy in the first person, so who knows what his legal arrangement is. I don't see Go Daddy rushing to distance themselves from Parsons' personal life.Brmull (talk) 03:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with adding it without the explanation from Parsons, as presented in this comment it simply says, nasty man kills elephant, he is heartless...the showbizspy is good enough for me , if you dispute its reliability we can ask at the RS noticeboard or find another with the same comment. Perhaps we should not add it to his life story as if he wasn't Go Daddy ceo this wouldn't even be notable, he would just be one of perhaps hundreds of people with a license to kill troublesome elephants in Zimbabwe. Its not like its illegal, you get a license. Off2riorob (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm agreeable with including an explanation from Parsons. I don't think the whole write up should be added to both articles. PETA is a group that isn't that significant in this situation other than being, their claim, a customer of Go Daddy. I still favor having it in the Go Daddy article only. Basileias (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

(1) I'm agreeable to adding a once sentence explanation from Parsons, but then I think there should also be an explanation from the animal rights groups, such as the sentence I proposed above from PETA. (2) If we're going to use showbizspy we might as well use TMZ. This isn't gossip. There are many better sources that say the same thing. (3) If Parson's weren't Go Daddy CEO he probably wouldn't have a BLP at all. This definitely belongs there. Since Go Daddy is handling the PR for this matter it belongs in the Go Daddy article too. (4) Something doesn't have to be illegal to be controversial. Take Octomom. (5) If not PETA who would you suggest would be an authoritative counter to Parsons explanation of the provenance of video.75.19.164.163 (talk) 02:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

[34] from the New York Times would appear to be a preferable RS to HuffPo. Collect (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a comment: This controversy is clearly notable and it must be added to the article. It's omission is a violation of NPOV. Will Beback talk 01:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

No. This is another case of spreading some 3rd parties nonsense across BLP articles just because the 3rd parties nonsense happens to have been printed somewhere. There are numerous sources documenting the comments that Charlie Sheen made about Chuck Lorre, but we don't spread the controversy into the Chuck Lorre article, because quite rightly editorial discretion is applied.

In this case the issue is that PETA does not approve of the culling of elephants, and particularly when rich people are paying for the privilege to do so. That is a PETA issue, not an issue in respect of the person paying to take part in a cull. Including it in the BLP article is in itself a NPOV violation. Any activist will tell you that the most effective tactic is to isolate and personalize an issue. By adding PETA commentary into the BLP article you are simply proxying for the activist organisation. 194.193.183.253 (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

When you say "article," are you meaning Parsons, Go Daddy or both? Basileias (talk) 03:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe he means the Parsons article since the Go Daddy page already has this info.Brmull (talk) 07:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

In 2011 Parsons was criticized by animal rights groups for tweeting a video in which he shoots and kills an elephant in Zimbabwe. In response Parsons stated, "The tribal authorities requested that I and others like me patrol the fields before and during the harvest." PETA said they would be closing their account with Go Daddy and urged others to do the same.Brmull (talk) 08:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

As it has been 40 hours since the last comment, I'm importing the latest version to Bob_Parsons. If there is no objection, 48 hours after that I will remove the NPOV flag and close this thread.Brmull (talk) 00:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

This thread will be resolved if no objection in the next 24 hours.Brmull (talk) 02:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

As the content is now in both articles I have marked as resolved, many thanks to all for the input and discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

^ "GoDaddy chief draws criticism for elephant hunting video". The New York Times (blog - Nick Bilton). March 31, 2011. Retrieved April 9, 2011.

[1] "Go Daddy CEO embroiled in controversy! Bob Parsons defends elephant murder". Showbizspy.com. April 4, 2011.

[2] "GoDaddy chief draws criticism for elephant hunting video". The New York Times (blog - Nick Bilton). March 31, 2011. Retrieved April 9, 2011.

[3] "GoDaddy chief draws criticism for elephant hunting video". The New York Times (blog - Nick Bilton). March 31, 2011. Retrieved April 9, 2011.

[1]

[2]

[1]