Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive204
 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Clark Aldrich
Clark Aldrich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Suggested or supposed real name is clearly not well known even if it is real - the chat is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Clark_Aldrich#Source
the story taken down is - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clark_Aldrich&diff=617005848&oldid=603837451
writer is using these Internet links
http://alumni.brown.edu/classes/1954/events.html - http://ceoroundtableblog.com/2011/12/frank-wezniak-photovac-member-in-the-news/ - http://www.mocavo.com/Clark-Wezniak-Lisa-Eastwood-Connecticut-Marriage-Record-Index-1959-2007/01780009497083875935 - pp 6-8) - Brown Alumni webzine: http://alumni.brown.edu/classes/1954/events.html
the take down editor has suggested a trolling issue and wrote this - According to documentation here (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/27077549/Clark%20Aldrich.pdf), Clark Aldrich's birth surname was indeed Aldrich. Further, according to the same genealogy report, he is the 11th great grandson of both Governors John Winthrop and Thomas Dudley. This is consistent with his bio here: http://unschooling-rules.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html#bio At this point, insistence by the troll community at Get Off My Internets of the birth name Wezniak is best characterized as libelous. User:Intrepid French Learner
I do not understand so well the rules here - please assist, comment - Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- @Mosfetfaser: What do the majority of reliable sources call him? Aldrich? Then that's what we should be calling him, period. I see discussions in the talk page around rather unreliable sources ("genealogy trees" no less) which we know are not acceptable on any BLP. WP:SYNTH and WP:OR are also not acceptable. Just call him what everyone calls him. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 03:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Reliable sources, and there aren't that many, use a confusing variety of names and the diversity is not limited to the surname. There is diversity. This is a fact. A generic response without a detailed examination of the reliable sources isn't going to be useful in this instance. If it were that easy it would have been resolved already. Wikipedia editors obviously don't have the freedom to ignore reliably sourced information like Conduit, the magazine of the Department of Computer Science at Brown University. Any policy based solution is going to have to deal with the diversity. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- So... you have a magazine put out by CompSci students, and a "Bangor Daily News article about the Chewonki Foundation Camp in Wiscasset". That's it? And you feel that somehow overrides the sixteen sources in the article? Judging from the comments by Intrepid French Learner there, it might be that he changed his name. But if there is no reliable secondary record of that, then it's irrelevant. It is as simple as that: We call him what the majority of sources we have call him. If you feel so strongly about this then go ahead and open an RFC. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 04:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- "And you feel that somehow overrides the sixteen sources in the article?"...read what I wrote again. Of course it isn't "as simple as that". Of course reliable sources are not irrelevant. No one is talking about renaming the article. Of course I don't make content decisions based on 'feelings'. "it might be that he changed his name. But if there is no reliable secondary record of that"...sure, he may have changed his name, and the existence of reliable sources that use different names probably represent a reliable secondary record of that. Information in reliable sources does not go away by repeating the mantra 'it is as simple as that'. Diversity and inconsistencies between reliable sources are common are our job is to reflect the diversity, not bury it. So the question is how to do that. If you don't have an answer to that question in this instance you can't help. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- the existence of reliable sources that use different names probably represent a reliable secondary record of that ...I think you need to go read WP:SYNTH. As to the level of help I can provide, I can provide nothing more than my knowledge of policy. If you don't like it, you're free to ignore it. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- FreeRangeFrog wrote "So... you have a magazine put out by CompSci students, and a "Bangor Daily News article about the Chewonki Foundation Camp in Wiscasset". That's it? And you feel that somehow overrides the sixteen sources in the article?" "Conduit" is not "a magazine put out by CompSci students", as you put it; it's a publication of the Department of Computer Sciences; i.e., the faculty. If you don't understand the difference between a university department and a group of some of its students, you have no business discussing the subject. Also, AFAICT, no one is suggesting that the article be changed to "Clark Wezniak"; merely that the lede contain a mention of his birth surname, as is typical with those who have changed their names (cf. Ralph Lauren). Next, those "sixteen sources" you mention are actually not sixteen sources. For example, source #1 never even mentions Aldrich, source #2 is no "source" at all; it's merely a quote by someone calling themselves "Clark Aldrich" which states "Our industry's equivalent of the Oscars. --CLARK ALDRICH", source #3 is an abstract from a 2011 article in Computer Weekly News that mentions Clark Aldrich, and so on. Significantly, none of the sources provided predate 2003. If Aldrich changed his name in the '90s, none of those sources -- even if they do mention Aldrich by that name -- would negate earlier records of him under a different name. Occam's Shaver (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- His previous name is not well known, is it? does he use the name at all? is there any notability to his previous name? is his notability connected in any way to his previous name? is it important at all here to scour the Internet to publish his birth name when he appears to not use it or reference it at all? Your comparison to Ralph Lauren fails - Lauren is a high profile public figure, Aldrich is not - he is almost not worthy of a story and deserves a bit of personal privacy as this wp:blp directs us to provide - that is my interpretation of this story, you may get support for another interpretation but just having link a dinks does not auto qualify publishing your story with wiki Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- Mosfetfaser -- Aldrich has himself made the subject of his ancestry (and hence, his name) relevant. For whatever purpose, the bio he wrote and posted on his business website includes this: "(Aldrich) is the ninth great-grandson of Governors John Winthrop and Thomas Dudley, first and second Governors of the Massachusetts Bay Colony." His wife, Muffy Aldrich (AKA Lisa Aldrich, née Eastwood) is far more widely-known a public figure than is he. She has a website called "The Daily Prep" which likewise has far more traffic than her husband's site. On 26 July 2012, she posted this on her website: "Muffy Aldrich is not a nom de plume. For better or worse, the name Muffy Aldrich is real, in as much as 'Muffy' was a nickname foisted upon me decades ago and used by many friends; Aldrich is my husband’s family name" (emphasis added).source More recently, on 18 June 2014, she posted this: "...for a birthday present years back, my mother-in-law gave my husband Clark membership into a genealogical society. While many want to join a society using an ancestor of the same surname, the professional genealogist that she hired suggested that instead of using his direct ancestor George Aldrich (father's name/side)..."source (emphasis added). So the issue of Clark Aldrich's surname is one that she had been promoting before anyone questioned if it was the one with which he had been born. Indeed, both of them have used the "Aldrich" surname as a promotional device for him. That's the crux of the matter. It matters very little whether or not Aldrich's profile is high or low; it seems to be high enough to warrant a Wiki and thus, the facts about his identity are relevant. To claim that they are not would have a chilling effect upon any article about a living person and would require editors to try to guess whether or not factual material they were adding met some vague standards set by you or others. He and his wife have promoted his surname as relevant. That makes his surname (or surnames) noteworthy in the context of this article. Occam's Shaver (talk) 07:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- There's no significant external sources commenting on whatever name he may or may not have formerly had. Without those significant external reliable sources, we literally can't write anything. What has been dug up are genealogy web sites, blogs, vague alleged public records and so forth. Our policy on biographies specifically and explicitly excludes any such content from the encyclopedia.
- Wikipedia is not a repository of every alleged fact about every person ever. It is an edited encyclopedia, and our editorial policies permit us to choose which information to include and exclude. Editing is not censorship and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- NorthBySouthBaranof -- In the article, Aldrich (or whoever the WP editor was who added his educational background) makes the claim that he earned a degree from Brown University. Elsewhere (e.g., his Linkedin page) he states that he graduated in 1989. However, there are no sources provided in the article to demonstrate that this claim is true. As you well know, WP requires reliable sources for all claims -- particularly for contested ones. You wrote "There's no significant external sources commenting on whatever name he may or may not have formerly had." That's simply not the case; one significant external source does indeed comment on a name he may not have formerly had: The 1989 graduation program published by Brown, of which I have a copy and which may be seen on-line. It certainly qualifies as a "significant external source". It lists all of the graduates' names, but there is no one named "Aldrich" amongst them. There is, however, a "Clark Bennett Wezniak". You can't have it both ways. Either claims will be reliably sourced and may stay, or if they cannot be sourced, they must be removed; no amount of handwaving can make that go away. As Wikipedia:Verifiable but not false states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Aldrich can only claim to have received his degree from Brown if he can demonstrate that he did. I'm calling him (or the editor who added the claim) out for adding false information. The evidence clearly shows that "Clark Aldrich" was not a graduate of the 1989 Brown class. The onus is on him (or other editors) to prove otherwise. Occam's Shaver (talk) 04:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- Mosfetfaser -- Aldrich has himself made the subject of his ancestry (and hence, his name) relevant. For whatever purpose, the bio he wrote and posted on his business website includes this: "(Aldrich) is the ninth great-grandson of Governors John Winthrop and Thomas Dudley, first and second Governors of the Massachusetts Bay Colony." His wife, Muffy Aldrich (AKA Lisa Aldrich, née Eastwood) is far more widely-known a public figure than is he. She has a website called "The Daily Prep" which likewise has far more traffic than her husband's site. On 26 July 2012, she posted this on her website: "Muffy Aldrich is not a nom de plume. For better or worse, the name Muffy Aldrich is real, in as much as 'Muffy' was a nickname foisted upon me decades ago and used by many friends; Aldrich is my husband’s family name" (emphasis added).source More recently, on 18 June 2014, she posted this: "...for a birthday present years back, my mother-in-law gave my husband Clark membership into a genealogical society. While many want to join a society using an ancestor of the same surname, the professional genealogist that she hired suggested that instead of using his direct ancestor George Aldrich (father's name/side)..."source (emphasis added). So the issue of Clark Aldrich's surname is one that she had been promoting before anyone questioned if it was the one with which he had been born. Indeed, both of them have used the "Aldrich" surname as a promotional device for him. That's the crux of the matter. It matters very little whether or not Aldrich's profile is high or low; it seems to be high enough to warrant a Wiki and thus, the facts about his identity are relevant. To claim that they are not would have a chilling effect upon any article about a living person and would require editors to try to guess whether or not factual material they were adding met some vague standards set by you or others. He and his wife have promoted his surname as relevant. That makes his surname (or surnames) noteworthy in the context of this article. Occam's Shaver (talk) 07:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- His previous name is not well known, is it? does he use the name at all? is there any notability to his previous name? is his notability connected in any way to his previous name? is it important at all here to scour the Internet to publish his birth name when he appears to not use it or reference it at all? Your comparison to Ralph Lauren fails - Lauren is a high profile public figure, Aldrich is not - he is almost not worthy of a story and deserves a bit of personal privacy as this wp:blp directs us to provide - that is my interpretation of this story, you may get support for another interpretation but just having link a dinks does not auto qualify publishing your story with wiki Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- "And you feel that somehow overrides the sixteen sources in the article?"...read what I wrote again. Of course it isn't "as simple as that". Of course reliable sources are not irrelevant. No one is talking about renaming the article. Of course I don't make content decisions based on 'feelings'. "it might be that he changed his name. But if there is no reliable secondary record of that"...sure, he may have changed his name, and the existence of reliable sources that use different names probably represent a reliable secondary record of that. Information in reliable sources does not go away by repeating the mantra 'it is as simple as that'. Diversity and inconsistencies between reliable sources are common are our job is to reflect the diversity, not bury it. So the question is how to do that. If you don't have an answer to that question in this instance you can't help. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- So... you have a magazine put out by CompSci students, and a "Bangor Daily News article about the Chewonki Foundation Camp in Wiscasset". That's it? And you feel that somehow overrides the sixteen sources in the article? Judging from the comments by Intrepid French Learner there, it might be that he changed his name. But if there is no reliable secondary record of that, then it's irrelevant. It is as simple as that: We call him what the majority of sources we have call him. If you feel so strongly about this then go ahead and open an RFC. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 04:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Reliable sources, and there aren't that many, use a confusing variety of names and the diversity is not limited to the surname. There is diversity. This is a fact. A generic response without a detailed examination of the reliable sources isn't going to be useful in this instance. If it were that easy it would have been resolved already. Wikipedia editors obviously don't have the freedom to ignore reliably sourced information like Conduit, the magazine of the Department of Computer Science at Brown University. Any policy based solution is going to have to deal with the diversity. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- It would appear that this is an attempt to import an off-wiki battle or debate into the encyclopedia content. There are no significant reliable sources provided that suggest any reason as to why we would need to discuss this in his biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- @Occam's Shaver: I think I am halfway capable of determining if a source is appropriate in context, and in this context, not only is it not appropriate, it's actually completely inappropriate, because you are attempting to use it to arrive at a synthesis conclusion. Let's step back for a second: Do you have a reliable source that plainly states X changed his name to Y? No? Then all that stays off the article. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Augie Wolf
Augie Wolf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Awolf99 appears to be the biographical subject of Augie Wolf. He appears to take offense at content that I believe accurately summarizes a Los Angeles Times article. He contends that the article had factual inaccuracies. Ordinarily, I would revert with a mention of WP:TRUTH. What consideration should we give to the WP:BLP. According to Talk:Augie_Wolf#Content_removal_discussion, there was some discussion about this bio in Novmeber 2013.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - How widely has this "material" been covered? Can we find other sources or citations? I would err on the side of caution, especially if we are relying on only one source or citation. Just my .02$. I did some minor copy editing as well. --Malerooster (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- Agree with Malerooster. I think it would be worth it to try to find another source, given the nature of the claims. The subject's argument that "no official documentation exists" is irrelevant because whatever that is would likely be a primary source anyway, but with things like these in a bio I feel we could be more diligent in finding citations to more than one source. Journalists have been known to get things wrong, and media have been known to ignore requests for revisions or retractions unless accompanied by a legal threat. Additional sources would mean the information is significantly more verifiable. Otherwise, I'd say just keep it off. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- I am unable to find another source.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
William Bastone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A single purpose account is repeatedly adding unsourced negative material to the William Bastone article [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] and other articles, where they claim the subject endorses child prostitution. [6] At no point have any sources been added to support these accusations. Edward321 (talk) 03:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- You should report this at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Done Article semi-protected, dubious usernames blocked. Gamaliel (talk) 03:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Lindsey Doe
Lindsey Doe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I came across an edit to Lindsey Doe on Huggle where the creator removed the notability tag and on the talk page has declared that it satisfies the BLP policy because she has x number of subscribers on Youtube based on WP:N#ENT. Does 130,000 Youtube subscribers count as notable? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'm the author. I just wanted to note that I'm using that number heuristically and that I don't have a precedent for that number.TopherDobson (talk) 04:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- The policy is very ambiguous. It says 'large followers'/'cult following'. While the article in question may satisfy the BLP or Notability policies, I'm more interested in determining what minimum number gives credibility. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- In my view, topic specific notability guidelines are just useful and generally-accepted rules of thumb that can be used quickly to decide that it is likely that a topic is notable. They are not policy. Given the nature of YouTube, I do not think that X number of subscribers guarantee notability, as subscribing is free and takes only a click. We still need to see evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to establish notability, especially when dealing with a biography of a living person. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Ah okay. that sounds good. I guess, this needs to be discussed a little more in depth? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- In my view, topic specific notability guidelines are just useful and generally-accepted rules of thumb that can be used quickly to decide that it is likely that a topic is notable. They are not policy. Given the nature of YouTube, I do not think that X number of subscribers guarantee notability, as subscribing is free and takes only a click. We still need to see evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to establish notability, especially when dealing with a biography of a living person. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- The policy is very ambiguous. It says 'large followers'/'cult following'. While the article in question may satisfy the BLP or Notability policies, I'm more interested in determining what minimum number gives credibility. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Clyde Lewis
Clyde Lewis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A person or persons are continuously and repeatedly altering the Clyde Lewis page by inserting words such as "bizarre" and "farfetched" to describe this person in an attempt to defame his character. I have repeatedly removed the offensive, opinionated material as it detracts from the intended fact-based purpose of wikipedia. People read the articles on wikipedia to learn facts about the subject matter, not to read the opinions being inserted by vindictive persons with an agenda to malign the character of a person referenced in a wikipedia article. However, every time I remove the inappropriate content it is reinserted just a short time later. This has happened over and over again despite my ongoing efforts to keep the inappropriate material out of the article. "Bizarre" and "farfetched" are opinions, not facts, and have no place in a wikipedia article that had previously been 100% fact-based. The wording being inserted into this article is clearly done in a deliberate effort to portray Clyde Lewis as crazy. The article should contain facts, not opinions. If Clyde Lewis is crazy than the facts of the article will make that clear to the reader. Inserting opinions into this long-standing article for the sole purpose of defaming the subject of the article is not appropriate and devalues wikipedia as a whole. If the persons who have been altering the article feel so strongly about Clyde Lewis then they need to find a more appropriate website or other venue to make their opinions known, but wikipedia is not that place. I should not have to edit out the offensive material on a nearly daily basis just to keep the article objective and unbiased. This has gotten absurd and needs to come to an end.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Subglobal (talk • contribs)
- This person above (subglobal) uses the excuse of the word "bizarre" to vandalize the text by deleting hundreds of words because she/he wants the page to be an advertisement. I deleted "bizarre" and "farfetched" and left the facts--which probably won't satisfy the fans and followers.Localemediamonitor (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Localemediamonitor is writing stuff like this - Lewis maintains that the notion of artificially-induced climate change - http://www.groundzeromedia.org/seeking-intellectual-honesty-about-global-warming/ - is a global conspiracy directly linked to Nazi ideals; he writes that efforts to combat perfectly natural climate change could lead to another Holocaust. This one would be carried out by the UN's "green police force, carrying out the same old and tired lies that led to genocidal directives that killed millions of people 70 years ago. "http://www.groundzeromedia.org/green-helmet/ Lewis also believes that the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting could have been a conspiracy designed to facilitate government gun control http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rlmkkQ6iLY (accomplished by using devices to beam homicidal thoughts into the shooter's mind.)http://www.groundzeromedia.org/mental-hopscotch/ - rubbish verification imo Mosfetfaser (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I have had to take down a replacement of the disputed content added without any chat at all by User: Bearian https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clyde_Lewis&diff=prev&oldid=618033730 - sorry to see such an experienced wiki writer as User: Bearian edit warring this poorly sourced disputed story back into the wiki - Mosfetfaser (talk)
there is some warring going on to rep[lace this disputed content - User:/Roberticus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Roberticus has turned up to replace the disputed stony - Mosfetfaser (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes User: Mosfetfaser is deleting entire sections that have verification and citations. I think experienced wiki writer User: Bearian was right on this one. User: Mosfetfaser is also issuing warnings to me, what's up with that? Is User: Mosfetfaser working with vandal User: Subglobal (who also is vandaling my user page?) in order to make the whole entry into an advertisement because they are fans? - unsigned by User:Localemediamonitor
- Nothing there in your chat of any value then - Mosfetfaser (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
"User:Localemediamonitor is attempting to war the story into the article again - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clyde_Lewis&diff=618037931&oldid=618036813 - Mosfetfaser (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Mosfetfaser is the warring editor who is ignoring experienced users and deleting perfectly fine citations and verification. What wiki guidelines say you can do that? Localemediamonitor (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
again to go to the story write - WP:PRIMARY and a you tube link that is removed because of copyright violation - seems to violate all wiki rules for living peeps - Lewis maintains that the notion of artificially-induced blp:Primary and a you tube link - - seems to violate all wiki rules for living peeps - Lewis maintains that the notion of artificially-induced climate change - http://www.groundzeromedia.org/seeking-intellectual-honesty-about-global-warming/ - is a global conspiracy directly linked to Nazi ideals; he writes that efforts to combat perfectly natural climate change could lead to another Holocaust. This one would be carried out by the UN's "green police force, carrying out the same old and tired lies that led to genocidal directives that killed millions of people 70 years ago. "http://www.groundzeromedia.org/green-helmet/ Lewis also believes that the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting could have been a conspiracy designed to facilitate government gun control http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rlmkkQ6iLY (accomplished by using devices to beam homicidal thoughts into the shooter's mind.)http://www.groundzeromedia.org/mental-hopscotch/ - Mosfetfaser (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Well-sourced information should be kept. I attempted to fix the article, and was rebuffed. Bearian (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- You User:Bearian did not attempt to fix anything at all - you simply revert warred without any attempt at discussion at all - It is not well sourced content in any way is it - User:Bearians total contribution without a single discussion was this revert - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clyde_Lewis&diff=618033730&oldid=618024182 - Mosfetfaser (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- you Mosfetfaser did not attempt to fix anything either, you just deleted entire sections, which is why you have been overruled by everybody. Localemediamonitor (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- You User:Bearian did not attempt to fix anything at all - you simply revert warred without any attempt at discussion at all - It is not well sourced content in any way is it - User:Bearians total contribution without a single discussion was this revert - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clyde_Lewis&diff=618033730&oldid=618024182 - Mosfetfaser (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Support inclusion of the material in question per my comments @ the article talkpage, and WP:SELFSOURCE to support the inclusion of the sourcing from the Ground Zero website. Let's try to build a consensus here. Is there any doubt that http://www.groundzeromedia.org is published by Lewis? If not, the primary sourcing should stand. I do agree modifiers such as "bizarre" and "farfetched" were appropriately edited out by User:Localemediamonitor. It is fair though to say he discusses these sorts of ideas when he clearly publishes it. I also feel the secondary sourcing is acceptable. Roberticus talk 00:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Mosfetfaser is now engaging in personal attacks against Bearian [7] and The Magnificent Clean-keeper [8] [9] Edward321 (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
benjamin netanyahu
Benjamin Netanyahu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Benjamin Netanyahu is not the first Israeli prime minister born in Israel, Yitzhak Rabin was born in Israel and was prime minister before Netanyahu.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpmonch (talk • contribs)
- Without looking at the details, here's my guess: Rabin was surely born before 1948, thus before there was a State of Israel. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed, Rabin was born in Mandatory Palestine. The question of whether that 'counts' as Israel, is subjective and really depends on one's definition. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC).
Clark Aldrich
Clark Aldrich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Suggested or supposed real name is clearly not well known even if it is real - the chat is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Clark_Aldrich#Source
the story taken down is - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clark_Aldrich&diff=617005848&oldid=603837451
writer is using these Internet links
http://alumni.brown.edu/classes/1954/events.html - http://ceoroundtableblog.com/2011/12/frank-wezniak-photovac-member-in-the-news/ - http://www.mocavo.com/Clark-Wezniak-Lisa-Eastwood-Connecticut-Marriage-Record-Index-1959-2007/01780009497083875935 - pp 6-8) - Brown Alumni webzine: http://alumni.brown.edu/classes/1954/events.html
the take down editor has suggested a trolling issue and wrote this - According to documentation here (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/27077549/Clark%20Aldrich.pdf), Clark Aldrich's birth surname was indeed Aldrich. Further, according to the same genealogy report, he is the 11th great grandson of both Governors John Winthrop and Thomas Dudley. This is consistent with his bio here: http://unschooling-rules.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html#bio At this point, insistence by the troll community at Get Off My Internets of the birth name Wezniak is best characterized as libelous. User:Intrepid French Learner
I do not understand so well the rules here - please assist, comment - Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- @Mosfetfaser: What do the majority of reliable sources call him? Aldrich? Then that's what we should be calling him, period. I see discussions in the talk page around rather unreliable sources ("genealogy trees" no less) which we know are not acceptable on any BLP. WP:SYNTH and WP:OR are also not acceptable. Just call him what everyone calls him. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 03:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Reliable sources, and there aren't that many, use a confusing variety of names and the diversity is not limited to the surname. There is diversity. This is a fact. A generic response without a detailed examination of the reliable sources isn't going to be useful in this instance. If it were that easy it would have been resolved already. Wikipedia editors obviously don't have the freedom to ignore reliably sourced information like Conduit, the magazine of the Department of Computer Science at Brown University. Any policy based solution is going to have to deal with the diversity. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- So... you have a magazine put out by CompSci students, and a "Bangor Daily News article about the Chewonki Foundation Camp in Wiscasset". That's it? And you feel that somehow overrides the sixteen sources in the article? Judging from the comments by Intrepid French Learner there, it might be that he changed his name. But if there is no reliable secondary record of that, then it's irrelevant. It is as simple as that: We call him what the majority of sources we have call him. If you feel so strongly about this then go ahead and open an RFC. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 04:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- "And you feel that somehow overrides the sixteen sources in the article?"...read what I wrote again. Of course it isn't "as simple as that". Of course reliable sources are not irrelevant. No one is talking about renaming the article. Of course I don't make content decisions based on 'feelings'. "it might be that he changed his name. But if there is no reliable secondary record of that"...sure, he may have changed his name, and the existence of reliable sources that use different names probably represent a reliable secondary record of that. Information in reliable sources does not go away by repeating the mantra 'it is as simple as that'. Diversity and inconsistencies between reliable sources are common are our job is to reflect the diversity, not bury it. So the question is how to do that. If you don't have an answer to that question in this instance you can't help. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- the existence of reliable sources that use different names probably represent a reliable secondary record of that ...I think you need to go read WP:SYNTH. As to the level of help I can provide, I can provide nothing more than my knowledge of policy. If you don't like it, you're free to ignore it. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- FreeRangeFrog wrote "So... you have a magazine put out by CompSci students, and a "Bangor Daily News article about the Chewonki Foundation Camp in Wiscasset". That's it? And you feel that somehow overrides the sixteen sources in the article?" "Conduit" is not "a magazine put out by CompSci students", as you put it; it's a publication of the Department of Computer Sciences; i.e., the faculty. If you don't understand the difference between a university department and a group of some of its students, you have no business discussing the subject. Also, AFAICT, no one is suggesting that the article be changed to "Clark Wezniak"; merely that the lede contain a mention of his birth surname, as is typical with those who have changed their names (cf. Ralph Lauren). Next, those "sixteen sources" you mention are actually not sixteen sources. For example, source #1 never even mentions Aldrich, source #2 is no "source" at all; it's merely a quote by someone calling themselves "Clark Aldrich" which states "Our industry's equivalent of the Oscars. --CLARK ALDRICH", source #3 is an abstract from a 2011 article in Computer Weekly News that mentions Clark Aldrich, and so on. Significantly, none of the sources provided predate 2003. If Aldrich changed his name in the '90s, none of those sources -- even if they do mention Aldrich by that name -- would negate earlier records of him under a different name. Occam's Shaver (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- His previous name is not well known, is it? does he use the name at all? is there any notability to his previous name? is his notability connected in any way to his previous name? is it important at all here to scour the Internet to publish his birth name when he appears to not use it or reference it at all? Your comparison to Ralph Lauren fails - Lauren is a high profile public figure, Aldrich is not - he is almost not worthy of a story and deserves a bit of personal privacy as this wp:blp directs us to provide - that is my interpretation of this story, you may get support for another interpretation but just having link a dinks does not auto qualify publishing your story with wiki Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- Mosfetfaser -- Aldrich has himself made the subject of his ancestry (and hence, his name) relevant. For whatever purpose, the bio he wrote and posted on his business website includes this: "(Aldrich) is the ninth great-grandson of Governors John Winthrop and Thomas Dudley, first and second Governors of the Massachusetts Bay Colony." His wife, Muffy Aldrich (AKA Lisa Aldrich, née Eastwood) is far more widely-known a public figure than is he. She has a website called "The Daily Prep" which likewise has far more traffic than her husband's site. On 26 July 2012, she posted this on her website: "Muffy Aldrich is not a nom de plume. For better or worse, the name Muffy Aldrich is real, in as much as 'Muffy' was a nickname foisted upon me decades ago and used by many friends; Aldrich is my husband’s family name" (emphasis added).source More recently, on 18 June 2014, she posted this: "...for a birthday present years back, my mother-in-law gave my husband Clark membership into a genealogical society. While many want to join a society using an ancestor of the same surname, the professional genealogist that she hired suggested that instead of using his direct ancestor George Aldrich (father's name/side)..."source (emphasis added). So the issue of Clark Aldrich's surname is one that she had been promoting before anyone questioned if it was the one with which he had been born. Indeed, both of them have used the "Aldrich" surname as a promotional device for him. That's the crux of the matter. It matters very little whether or not Aldrich's profile is high or low; it seems to be high enough to warrant a Wiki and thus, the facts about his identity are relevant. To claim that they are not would have a chilling effect upon any article about a living person and would require editors to try to guess whether or not factual material they were adding met some vague standards set by you or others. He and his wife have promoted his surname as relevant. That makes his surname (or surnames) noteworthy in the context of this article. Occam's Shaver (talk) 07:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- There's no significant external sources commenting on whatever name he may or may not have formerly had. Without those significant external reliable sources, we literally can't write anything. What has been dug up are genealogy web sites, blogs, vague alleged public records and so forth. Our policy on biographies specifically and explicitly excludes any such content from the encyclopedia.
- Wikipedia is not a repository of every alleged fact about every person ever. It is an edited encyclopedia, and our editorial policies permit us to choose which information to include and exclude. Editing is not censorship and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- NorthBySouthBaranof -- In the article, Aldrich (or whoever the WP editor was who added his educational background) makes the claim that he earned a degree from Brown University. Elsewhere (e.g., his Linkedin page) he states that he graduated in 1989. However, there are no sources provided in the article to demonstrate that this claim is true. As you well know, WP requires reliable sources for all claims -- particularly for contested ones. You wrote "There's no significant external sources commenting on whatever name he may or may not have formerly had." That's simply not the case; one significant external source does indeed comment on a name he may not have formerly had: The 1989 graduation program published by Brown, of which I have a copy and which may be seen on-line. It certainly qualifies as a "significant external source". It lists all of the graduates' names, but there is no one named "Aldrich" amongst them. There is, however, a "Clark Bennett Wezniak". You can't have it both ways. Either claims will be reliably sourced and may stay, or if they cannot be sourced, they must be removed; no amount of handwaving can make that go away. As Wikipedia:Verifiable but not false states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Aldrich can only claim to have received his degree from Brown if he can demonstrate that he did. I'm calling him (or the editor who added the claim) out for adding false information. The evidence clearly shows that "Clark Aldrich" was not a graduate of the 1989 Brown class. The onus is on him (or other editors) to prove otherwise. Occam's Shaver (talk) 04:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- Mosfetfaser -- Aldrich has himself made the subject of his ancestry (and hence, his name) relevant. For whatever purpose, the bio he wrote and posted on his business website includes this: "(Aldrich) is the ninth great-grandson of Governors John Winthrop and Thomas Dudley, first and second Governors of the Massachusetts Bay Colony." His wife, Muffy Aldrich (AKA Lisa Aldrich, née Eastwood) is far more widely-known a public figure than is he. She has a website called "The Daily Prep" which likewise has far more traffic than her husband's site. On 26 July 2012, she posted this on her website: "Muffy Aldrich is not a nom de plume. For better or worse, the name Muffy Aldrich is real, in as much as 'Muffy' was a nickname foisted upon me decades ago and used by many friends; Aldrich is my husband’s family name" (emphasis added).source More recently, on 18 June 2014, she posted this: "...for a birthday present years back, my mother-in-law gave my husband Clark membership into a genealogical society. While many want to join a society using an ancestor of the same surname, the professional genealogist that she hired suggested that instead of using his direct ancestor George Aldrich (father's name/side)..."source (emphasis added). So the issue of Clark Aldrich's surname is one that she had been promoting before anyone questioned if it was the one with which he had been born. Indeed, both of them have used the "Aldrich" surname as a promotional device for him. That's the crux of the matter. It matters very little whether or not Aldrich's profile is high or low; it seems to be high enough to warrant a Wiki and thus, the facts about his identity are relevant. To claim that they are not would have a chilling effect upon any article about a living person and would require editors to try to guess whether or not factual material they were adding met some vague standards set by you or others. He and his wife have promoted his surname as relevant. That makes his surname (or surnames) noteworthy in the context of this article. Occam's Shaver (talk) 07:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- His previous name is not well known, is it? does he use the name at all? is there any notability to his previous name? is his notability connected in any way to his previous name? is it important at all here to scour the Internet to publish his birth name when he appears to not use it or reference it at all? Your comparison to Ralph Lauren fails - Lauren is a high profile public figure, Aldrich is not - he is almost not worthy of a story and deserves a bit of personal privacy as this wp:blp directs us to provide - that is my interpretation of this story, you may get support for another interpretation but just having link a dinks does not auto qualify publishing your story with wiki Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- "And you feel that somehow overrides the sixteen sources in the article?"...read what I wrote again. Of course it isn't "as simple as that". Of course reliable sources are not irrelevant. No one is talking about renaming the article. Of course I don't make content decisions based on 'feelings'. "it might be that he changed his name. But if there is no reliable secondary record of that"...sure, he may have changed his name, and the existence of reliable sources that use different names probably represent a reliable secondary record of that. Information in reliable sources does not go away by repeating the mantra 'it is as simple as that'. Diversity and inconsistencies between reliable sources are common are our job is to reflect the diversity, not bury it. So the question is how to do that. If you don't have an answer to that question in this instance you can't help. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- So... you have a magazine put out by CompSci students, and a "Bangor Daily News article about the Chewonki Foundation Camp in Wiscasset". That's it? And you feel that somehow overrides the sixteen sources in the article? Judging from the comments by Intrepid French Learner there, it might be that he changed his name. But if there is no reliable secondary record of that, then it's irrelevant. It is as simple as that: We call him what the majority of sources we have call him. If you feel so strongly about this then go ahead and open an RFC. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 04:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Reliable sources, and there aren't that many, use a confusing variety of names and the diversity is not limited to the surname. There is diversity. This is a fact. A generic response without a detailed examination of the reliable sources isn't going to be useful in this instance. If it were that easy it would have been resolved already. Wikipedia editors obviously don't have the freedom to ignore reliably sourced information like Conduit, the magazine of the Department of Computer Science at Brown University. Any policy based solution is going to have to deal with the diversity. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- It would appear that this is an attempt to import an off-wiki battle or debate into the encyclopedia content. There are no significant reliable sources provided that suggest any reason as to why we would need to discuss this in his biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- @Occam's Shaver: I think I am halfway capable of determining if a source is appropriate in context, and in this context, not only is it not appropriate, it's actually completely inappropriate, because you are attempting to use it to arrive at a synthesis conclusion. Let's step back for a second: Do you have a reliable source that plainly states X changed his name to Y? No? Then all that stays off the article. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Augie Wolf
Augie Wolf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Awolf99 appears to be the biographical subject of Augie Wolf. He appears to take offense at content that I believe accurately summarizes a Los Angeles Times article. He contends that the article had factual inaccuracies. Ordinarily, I would revert with a mention of WP:TRUTH. What consideration should we give to the WP:BLP. According to Talk:Augie_Wolf#Content_removal_discussion, there was some discussion about this bio in Novmeber 2013.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - How widely has this "material" been covered? Can we find other sources or citations? I would err on the side of caution, especially if we are relying on only one source or citation. Just my .02$. I did some minor copy editing as well. --Malerooster (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- Agree with Malerooster. I think it would be worth it to try to find another source, given the nature of the claims. The subject's argument that "no official documentation exists" is irrelevant because whatever that is would likely be a primary source anyway, but with things like these in a bio I feel we could be more diligent in finding citations to more than one source. Journalists have been known to get things wrong, and media have been known to ignore requests for revisions or retractions unless accompanied by a legal threat. Additional sources would mean the information is significantly more verifiable. Otherwise, I'd say just keep it off. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- I am unable to find another source.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
William Bastone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A single purpose account is repeatedly adding unsourced negative material to the William Bastone article [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] and other articles, where they claim the subject endorses child prostitution. [15] At no point have any sources been added to support these accusations. Edward321 (talk) 03:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- You should report this at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Done Article semi-protected, dubious usernames blocked. Gamaliel (talk) 03:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Lindsey Doe
Lindsey Doe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I came across an edit to Lindsey Doe on Huggle where the creator removed the notability tag and on the talk page has declared that it satisfies the BLP policy because she has x number of subscribers on Youtube based on WP:N#ENT. Does 130,000 Youtube subscribers count as notable? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'm the author. I just wanted to note that I'm using that number heuristically and that I don't have a precedent for that number.TopherDobson (talk) 04:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- The policy is very ambiguous. It says 'large followers'/'cult following'. While the article in question may satisfy the BLP or Notability policies, I'm more interested in determining what minimum number gives credibility. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- In my view, topic specific notability guidelines are just useful and generally-accepted rules of thumb that can be used quickly to decide that it is likely that a topic is notable. They are not policy. Given the nature of YouTube, I do not think that X number of subscribers guarantee notability, as subscribing is free and takes only a click. We still need to see evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to establish notability, especially when dealing with a biography of a living person. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Ah okay. that sounds good. I guess, this needs to be discussed a little more in depth? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- In my view, topic specific notability guidelines are just useful and generally-accepted rules of thumb that can be used quickly to decide that it is likely that a topic is notable. They are not policy. Given the nature of YouTube, I do not think that X number of subscribers guarantee notability, as subscribing is free and takes only a click. We still need to see evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to establish notability, especially when dealing with a biography of a living person. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- The policy is very ambiguous. It says 'large followers'/'cult following'. While the article in question may satisfy the BLP or Notability policies, I'm more interested in determining what minimum number gives credibility. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Clyde Lewis
Clyde Lewis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A person or persons are continuously and repeatedly altering the Clyde Lewis page by inserting words such as "bizarre" and "farfetched" to describe this person in an attempt to defame his character. I have repeatedly removed the offensive, opinionated material as it detracts from the intended fact-based purpose of wikipedia. People read the articles on wikipedia to learn facts about the subject matter, not to read the opinions being inserted by vindictive persons with an agenda to malign the character of a person referenced in a wikipedia article. However, every time I remove the inappropriate content it is reinserted just a short time later. This has happened over and over again despite my ongoing efforts to keep the inappropriate material out of the article. "Bizarre" and "farfetched" are opinions, not facts, and have no place in a wikipedia article that had previously been 100% fact-based. The wording being inserted into this article is clearly done in a deliberate effort to portray Clyde Lewis as crazy. The article should contain facts, not opinions. If Clyde Lewis is crazy than the facts of the article will make that clear to the reader. Inserting opinions into this long-standing article for the sole purpose of defaming the subject of the article is not appropriate and devalues wikipedia as a whole. If the persons who have been altering the article feel so strongly about Clyde Lewis then they need to find a more appropriate website or other venue to make their opinions known, but wikipedia is not that place. I should not have to edit out the offensive material on a nearly daily basis just to keep the article objective and unbiased. This has gotten absurd and needs to come to an end.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Subglobal (talk • contribs)
- This person above (subglobal) uses the excuse of the word "bizarre" to vandalize the text by deleting hundreds of words because she/he wants the page to be an advertisement. I deleted "bizarre" and "farfetched" and left the facts--which probably won't satisfy the fans and followers.Localemediamonitor (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Localemediamonitor is writing stuff like this - Lewis maintains that the notion of artificially-induced climate change - http://www.groundzeromedia.org/seeking-intellectual-honesty-about-global-warming/ - is a global conspiracy directly linked to Nazi ideals; he writes that efforts to combat perfectly natural climate change could lead to another Holocaust. This one would be carried out by the UN's "green police force, carrying out the same old and tired lies that led to genocidal directives that killed millions of people 70 years ago. "http://www.groundzeromedia.org/green-helmet/ Lewis also believes that the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting could have been a conspiracy designed to facilitate government gun control http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rlmkkQ6iLY (accomplished by using devices to beam homicidal thoughts into the shooter's mind.)http://www.groundzeromedia.org/mental-hopscotch/ - rubbish verification imo Mosfetfaser (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I have had to take down a replacement of the disputed content added without any chat at all by User: Bearian https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clyde_Lewis&diff=prev&oldid=618033730 - sorry to see such an experienced wiki writer as User: Bearian edit warring this poorly sourced disputed story back into the wiki - Mosfetfaser (talk)
there is some warring going on to rep[lace this disputed content - User:/Roberticus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Roberticus has turned up to replace the disputed stony - Mosfetfaser (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes User: Mosfetfaser is deleting entire sections that have verification and citations. I think experienced wiki writer User: Bearian was right on this one. User: Mosfetfaser is also issuing warnings to me, what's up with that? Is User: Mosfetfaser working with vandal User: Subglobal (who also is vandaling my user page?) in order to make the whole entry into an advertisement because they are fans? - unsigned by User:Localemediamonitor
- Nothing there in your chat of any value then - Mosfetfaser (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
"User:Localemediamonitor is attempting to war the story into the article again - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clyde_Lewis&diff=618037931&oldid=618036813 - Mosfetfaser (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Mosfetfaser is the warring editor who is ignoring experienced users and deleting perfectly fine citations and verification. What wiki guidelines say you can do that? Localemediamonitor (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
again to go to the story write - WP:PRIMARY and a you tube link that is removed because of copyright violation - seems to violate all wiki rules for living peeps - Lewis maintains that the notion of artificially-induced blp:Primary and a you tube link - - seems to violate all wiki rules for living peeps - Lewis maintains that the notion of artificially-induced climate change - http://www.groundzeromedia.org/seeking-intellectual-honesty-about-global-warming/ - is a global conspiracy directly linked to Nazi ideals; he writes that efforts to combat perfectly natural climate change could lead to another Holocaust. This one would be carried out by the UN's "green police force, carrying out the same old and tired lies that led to genocidal directives that killed millions of people 70 years ago. "http://www.groundzeromedia.org/green-helmet/ Lewis also believes that the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting could have been a conspiracy designed to facilitate government gun control http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rlmkkQ6iLY (accomplished by using devices to beam homicidal thoughts into the shooter's mind.)http://www.groundzeromedia.org/mental-hopscotch/ - Mosfetfaser (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Well-sourced information should be kept. I attempted to fix the article, and was rebuffed. Bearian (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- You User:Bearian did not attempt to fix anything at all - you simply revert warred without any attempt at discussion at all - It is not well sourced content in any way is it - User:Bearians total contribution without a single discussion was this revert - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clyde_Lewis&diff=618033730&oldid=618024182 - Mosfetfaser (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- you Mosfetfaser did not attempt to fix anything either, you just deleted entire sections, which is why you have been overruled by everybody. Localemediamonitor (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- You User:Bearian did not attempt to fix anything at all - you simply revert warred without any attempt at discussion at all - It is not well sourced content in any way is it - User:Bearians total contribution without a single discussion was this revert - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clyde_Lewis&diff=618033730&oldid=618024182 - Mosfetfaser (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Support inclusion of the material in question per my comments @ the article talkpage, and WP:SELFSOURCE to support the inclusion of the sourcing from the Ground Zero website. Let's try to build a consensus here. Is there any doubt that http://www.groundzeromedia.org is published by Lewis? If not, the primary sourcing should stand. I do agree modifiers such as "bizarre" and "farfetched" were appropriately edited out by User:Localemediamonitor. It is fair though to say he discusses these sorts of ideas when he clearly publishes it. I also feel the secondary sourcing is acceptable. Roberticus talk 00:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Mosfetfaser is now engaging in personal attacks against Bearian [16] and The Magnificent Clean-keeper [17] [18] Edward321 (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
benjamin netanyahu
Benjamin Netanyahu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Benjamin Netanyahu is not the first Israeli prime minister born in Israel, Yitzhak Rabin was born in Israel and was prime minister before Netanyahu.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpmonch (talk • contribs)
- Without looking at the details, here's my guess: Rabin was surely born before 1948, thus before there was a State of Israel. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed, Rabin was born in Mandatory Palestine. The question of whether that 'counts' as Israel, is subjective and really depends on one's definition. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC).
Report
Ankit Mohan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I have created this wiki page for A popular Hindi Television Actor, It is not poorly sourced, when I add sources/references they also get deleted. Why is Wikipedia behaving this way?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.236.134.199 (talk • contribs)
- You should always log in to your account before editing here. In addition to other problems, you may run into trouble otherwise.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Are you referring to this edit? Those are not sources. They are what the user who reverted them called, "spam". Meatsgains (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Roger Goodman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
RED SLASH and Breawycker keep changing entry to include libelous material. RED SLASH has been contacted twice and refused to remove. Please see copy received earlier this evening from KOMO 4 News--showing that it is recognized that an error was made. They have corrected the libelous statement accordingly, therefore, any changes to reflect otherwise are considered intentional. I will be sending a copy of this message to both wiki editors. THANKS.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Liv Grohn (talk • contribs)
- Liv,
- A few minutes ago, KOMO changed the offending sentence in the text version of our story about the PAC funding ads against the Roger Goodman campaign to read:
- “I asked Carns if it was fair to quote divorce documents in the Goodman ad.”
- The videos we post to our website are cut from our aired newscast and thus cannot be edited after the fact. The video has been removed.
- Kelly Just
- Executive Producer, Problem Solvers Unit
- KOMO-TV
- 140 4th Ave. N – Suite 370
- Seattle, WA 98109
- Desk: (206) 404-4235
- 04:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)Liv Grohn
- I have reformatted the above posting by User:Liv Grohn so that it appears in the correct place. Looking at the article quickly it seems a fairly explosive sort of claim made by someone who apparently has a history of, to put it kindly, "hoaxes", and the sentence in question probably needs toning down somewhat. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC).
- I just came here to post a message about the same article. There is some information at User talk:Liv Grohn#Roger Goodman Background, User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Roger Goodman and User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Roger Goodman Edit-Thanks.. Based on the first message I removed this and based on the second I have removed it all. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 04:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- The more I think about this, the more I agree with what User:CambridgeBayWeather has done in removing that content altogether; basically we have he said/she said with a rather defamatory undertone, there's nothing of actual substance to repeat here yet, just a whole bunch of dirty accusations. Wikipedia generally, and a BLP especially, should not be the venue for that kind of sleazy rumour mongering. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC).
- I just came here to post a message about the same article. There is some information at User talk:Liv Grohn#Roger Goodman Background, User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Roger Goodman and User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Roger Goodman Edit-Thanks.. Based on the first message I removed this and based on the second I have removed it all. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 04:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
tepai moera
Tepai Moeroa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
played his junior rugby league at Colyton Colts JRLFC from under 6 to under 10 before going to St Clair — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.175.213.211 (talk) 06:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- Are you telling us this and wanting it included in his page? Meatsgains (talk) 12:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Website Find my Past
There is a website England & Wales Births 1837-2006 (which I refer to as "Find my past") where one can look up certain information about births registered in England and Wales.
Some people - including Trillionstarz (talk · contribs) and 92.8.20.63 (talk) - are using this website to give references for full names, full dates of birth, and place of birth. Unfortunately, none of those is given with 100% accuracy. Full names may be shortened, by abbreviating all the given names except the first; dates of birth are given no more accurately than a particular quarter of the year; and the place that is shown in the column headed "District" is not the actual place of birth, but the place where the birth was registered.
I have verified this by checking out around thirty members of my own extended family - only in about 75% of the cases does the district tally with the known place of birth. Two of my cousins, for example, who were born in Blackburn, have the district shown as Clitheroe, a town a few miles to the north: my uncle worked in Clitheroe at the time, and commuted there from Blackburn - he most probably found it easier to get to the Clitheroe registry office rather than the Blackburn one within office hours. Some of the other information has errors - when I looked up my own entry, it's not just truncated my second given name (the one by which I am usually known) to a single letter, but it's also got my mother's last name wrong - it's just a typo on one letter, but this shows that errors exist on that site. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- You haven't verified anything. What is recorded on findmypast (official birth records!) is what is written on peoples birth certificates. Presumably where your relatives were born didn't technically come under Blackburn. It's funny, that most people manage to use the service properly - all my relatives are properly recorded where they actually were born and it also confirms accurately other peoples birth details.
- 92.8.20.63 (talk) 11:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- I rather suspect that Blackburn Royal Infirmary is in Blackburn. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- WP:BLPPRIMARY applies here; and yes, where the birth was registered is not the same place as where the birth actually occured. GiantSnowman 11:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- I rather suspect that Blackburn Royal Infirmary is in Blackburn. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Not living people, but I figured since this was where all the people who understood biography policies are, it was the best place for a good-faith notice of doing something novel. Dictionary of New Zealand Biography is the national biography of New Zealand. More than a decade ago there was a concerted effort to balance it for race, gender and class. Some of these people left few if any secondary sources as to their lives, resulting in encyclopaedia articles built entirely from primary sources. Some time ago I did a major push to get DNZB articles into wikipedia. Some of these balancing people are pretty borderline notability and quite a few got nominated at AfD. The overwhelming majority passed. There are a few problematic ones. In a (novel?) solution to this problem I've created a new section in the DNZB and am redirecting these very problematic ones to subsections there, but using persondata and cats on the redirect. See Barbara Weldon and Jessie Finnie. I'd appreciate feedback on this approach. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- I suggest either a list article, or just outright removal. I don't think a Representative Entries section is correct, since surely Jessie Finnie - who doesn't seem in any way different from no doubt hundreds if not thousands of others - isn't representative of the typical entries in the dictionary, which presumably include prime ministers, movie stars, and other more distinct and notable characters. --GRuban (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe I need a better intro to the section. These entries are not representative of the entries in the DNZB, but representative of the population of New Zealand being covered. I need to make that clearer. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be better to try to include them in one or more pages in Category:Lists of New Zealand people? John Carter (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- Category:Lists of New Zealand people are by-and-large only for notable people, and the root of the issue is that these are people who may not be notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- List of people executed in New Zealand is a noteworthy counterexample. So something like List of people in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography perhaps? A sentence for each, and links for those with Wikipedia articles, which, should, hopefully, be a significant percentage. --GRuban (talk) 23:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- List of people in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography would be >3000 people long, rather than the handful of those with questionable notability. That seems like overkill. I believe that all of the people on List of people executed in New Zealand are notable, I just haven't got around to writing stubs for them yet. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- List of people executed in New Zealand is a noteworthy counterexample. So something like List of people in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography perhaps? A sentence for each, and links for those with Wikipedia articles, which, should, hopefully, be a significant percentage. --GRuban (talk) 23:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- Category:Lists of New Zealand people are by-and-large only for notable people, and the root of the issue is that these are people who may not be notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
It's interesting that they have those entries, and I think it's better not to lose them, but a Wikipedia article probably shouldn't have a sentence directly explaining and referencing Wikipedia rules. The article is about the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, not Wikipedia. I also think it's OR to say that these are somehow "added", "extra", or "less-real" biographies. I think the assumption should be that the editors of the project added all bios they thought worth adding of people they thought worthy of study and note, and not an assumption that they added things they didn't fully believe in. I don't like the second-guessing of a reliable source with the idea that someone with no grounding in New Zealand history would write the reliable source differently. I think that these people were added to the original source text helps define them as noted, and should support inclusion of them somewhere.
There are masses of biographies that were taken from things like the Catholic Encyclopedia and many others in Category:Wikipedia sources. Most of these articles have few or no secondary sources beyond inclusion in the reference work, if that reference is generally seen as a reliable source. Basically these people were the subject of scholarly study, and according to the source had some notability in their lifetimes: And, from about 1870, the West Coast Times court reporters became rather fond of publishing items about Barbara Weldon 'the notorious'.
__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- The West Coast Times reporting the scandalous details of the life of the local prostitute is covered by WP:NOT in the section on 'Scandal mongering' and in no way amounts to a secondary source. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- We're not talking about a situation where it's only the West Coast Times reporting; it's the West Coast Times and the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. We have plenty of biographies about characters who first became known to historians from reports in tiny local papers (for example, so many minor American Wild West outlaws/farmers). It is the historians who gather primary or weaker sources that are our RS, not the sources the historians use. The section on scandal-mongering has nothing to do with this, as I don't see an entry in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography as being simple "gossip" heard on the grapevine. If a better reliable source thinks a historical criminal is worth talking about, that's what we should reflect. People like Martin Cash are mainly sourced to the Dictionaries of Biography of New Zealand and Australia and that's not scandal-mongering just because it's about some basic criminal behavior. It's reporting what historians have gathered.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- The West Coast Times reporting the scandalous details of the life of the local prostitute is covered by WP:NOT in the section on 'Scandal mongering' and in no way amounts to a secondary source. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Chris Alexander (editor)
Chris Alexander (editor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm coming here because of information on the page Chris Alexander (editor) and a discussion on the talk page that has grown somewhat heated. The article has a little history behind it and some of it can be seen at the AfD for the page. Knowing the history is somewhat important here, as Alexander himself is participating in the talk page. When the article was up for deletion, Alexander was concerned that the article was submitted to AfD out of malice. On July 16th a controversy section was added to the article that discussed a piece written for Fangoria by "Ben Cortman". (For the sake of diplomacy I'm not going to refer to it as either a review or an article, due to the nature of the discussion on the talk page.) The section stated that Alexander wrote the piece as a review with the intention to promote the film without stating that he was writing under a pseudonym. It was sourced via a site that Wikipedia would not consider to be a RS. I re-wrote the section since I felt that it wasn't really enough to warrant a separate section and I used a Bloody Disgusting article to back up the re-written information. It was the only RS I could really find that discussed the piece. This concerned me and I was also somewhat worried that it was a bit WP:UNDUE weight in Alexander's article, and voiced on a talk page that it would probably have been better in an overall controversy section on the Fangoria page if we could find enough information for a controversy section, as just about every major magazine has them. Alexander has come on to the article's talk page and argued that the piece was not supposed to be a review and that it was supposed to be a joke article. He also stated that the information in the BD article (which is an interview) was incorrect. The information has been removed and replaced several times. User:NinjaRobotPirate has been somewhat more involved with the discussion in the last few days since I went on vacation and was unable to get onto Wikipedia until today.
The question here is basically whether the information should be kept or removed. Some discussion will likely be necessary on the article's talk page, as that's where most of the discussion took place. I can see both side's argument, as I can see where it'd be interesting to add to Wikipedia and we do have the one source, but I can also see the argument that we should remove the information because we only have the one source. I do see BD as a RS but it's still only one source. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- There's a bit more to this but I want to write this as diplomatically as possible so I encourage reading the talk page. To sum it up in a very basic one sentence summary: Alexander is arguing that this is a personal attack by him by a former writer, Dave Pace, and Pace is arguing from basically a censorship angle. I say "basically" since he has not expressly said censorship. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- The biggest problem, I think, is that the Bloody Disgusting article explicitly states that the interview has not been edited in any way and has been posted verbatim; this runs contrary to WP:BLPPRIMARY. I (and two other editors) have restored the content when it was removed over concerns that the removal was vandalism, but the latest content restoration was by an involved party, one of the IP editors who believe it to be relevant. So, the situation isn't quite as bad as the article history makes it look, but I think an edit war is beginning to simmer. I agree that there are policy-based arguments to make on both sides, but everything thus far has been based on WP:THETRUTH. If someone can locate a secondary source, I'd be happy to say that it should stay; since nobody has yet found one, I'm inclined to believe that it's undue. I'd go with whatever consensus is reached here, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- If I understand this correctly, the dispute is primarily regarding this edit and whether this interview is a BLP compliant source for contentious information. With an interview, the secondary source that typically has editorial control is passively passing on information from a non-reliable source, however, in this case the actual reporter, not the person he was interviewing, does say "who was caught reviewing his own movie under the pen name Ben Cortman". If this author "BigJ" is a professional journalist than his statements should be reliable. CorporateM (Talk) 02:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'd just like to make sure it's understood that outside my blog (which I contend adheres strongly to high journalistic standards but concede lacks editorial oversight) I do work as film journalist. Fangoria published thousands of my words for 3 years on their website and I have also appeared in the print magazine. Now, in addition to my blog work I also freelance for Rue Morgue magazine starting in the August issue. I am, by the standards of the industry, a professional journalist. I have a professional reputation at stake when I run these stories and I am very careful in my approach. I just wanted to make sure that was clear. This "BigJ" author is using my work as his source for that information about the whole Chris Alexander/Ben Cortman affair as is the subject of the interview. If there is editorial oversight over BigJ at Bloody Disgusting, and there is, then you could argue it is a valid secondary source. Editors at BD wouldn't have vetted Fisher's statements but they should have vetted BigJ's statements because he speaks for BD, they risk liability otherwise. I think that's a valid argument in favor of allowing the information to be included but I am not an expert on Wikipedia policy, I'm just offering my 2 cents. 70.25.97.35 (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC) Dave Pace
High journalistic standards. The standards of one person. An ex-FANGORIA blogger on an obsessive revenge trip against the editor who he believes wronged him.
Like this latest, thoughtful, "feature": http://www.psychotronique.anidealforliving.com/fangoria-musick-presents-the-music-of-chris-alexander-editor-of-fangoria/
Or this classic: http://www.psychotronique.anidealforliving.com/charles-band-launches-delerium-magazine-chris-alexander-announced-as-eic/
Nope. I see nothing personal there. Just high-quality journalistic standards. Inspiring!
And now, Mr. Pace has managed to find work as a freelancer with MY ex-employer and closest competitor, Rue Morgue:
http://www.psychotronique.anidealforliving.com/rue-morgue-magazine-completes-transparency-survey/
Oh, the scandal!
I'll say my own 2 cents: Dave Pace grooves on scandal. By his own admission. And if he can't find any, he'll create some that suits his agenda. I've said before, after wasting SO much time arguing with this ex-blogger-o-mine on his awesome blog, that I would never address him again in a public forum because it is exactly what he wants and frankly, I think feelings were hurt on both sides. Not interested such things. And, as I've said, if the Wiki brain-trusts deem him and the erroneous Bloody Disgusting interview quote that stemmed from his blog, a valuable addition to my bio that they have created and maintain, I won't waste another word here. As Pace has said earlier here, Wiki is not my Twitter feed and I cannot control its contents.
But regardless of the outcome, I'm fully expecting and look forward the next Pace blog news item, in which he painstakingly details his triumphant battle with me on the back pages of Wikipedia, complete with screen grabs and IP address reveals. He'll share that link on his Facebook page. He'll share that link on a few horror message board forums. He'll say I'm a terrible, awful person and get a few high-fives from his fans. He'll sleep well.
High journalistic standards indeed!
-Chris Alexander — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.61.206 (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- Chris, I think it's highly inappropriate of you to carry on like this in this forum. We've both been told very clearly by the people who manage this community that this isn't the place to feud or air personal grievances. Get some control over yourself. If you can accept having "fans" and collecting accolades as a public figure you need to accept having critics and your truly ugly attempts to bully me and other critics into submission is not something I'm prepared to surrender to. Out of respect for the request of the volunteers who manage this incredible resource I have nothing more to say except to note that not once did I make any personal attack against you other than report on your actions after giving you every opportunity to provide your side of the story. If you think I've said anything untrue or defamatory about you should consult a lawyer and do something about it or kindly refrain from calling me a liar. If you think I'm compromising my ethics maybe you ought to write an article about it. You have your own magazine to do that with.
- A quick edit to note that at no time did I say anything to you about Wikipedia not being your Twitter feed. That was another Wikipedia editor. I'd suggest you pay attention to who is talking and really think about being more considerate of your surroundings. 24.36.85.150 (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC) Dave Pace
You confuse bullying with your own "truths", Dave. All I have done here is re-link to your own blog entries. You have a pattern of attack, spelled out over an entire year on your blog, literally right up until 2 days ago, it seems with that confusing "news" item about my new record label. All to perpetuate more fabricated scandal and position yourself as, what? Morally righteous? Some kind of crusader? 90% of your content is about FANGORIA, the only place that ever published you!It's mind-blowing and really, really strange. You came to Wikipedia to attach yourself to my personal bio, but you're a bit off-base if you think I'm not going to be explicitly clear about who you are, your past, your patterns and your motives, with the staff of Wikipedia.
And again, we both know this entire exchange will end up on yet another axe-grinding blog, a twitter post, a Facebook blast, a forum bell-ringing. Another tired public cry/challenge for me to "lawyer up". It's what you do. It's all you do. I'll NEVER try to silence you. I could care less what games you play with yourself on your blog. But, if pressed publicly, I WILL always be crystal clear about who you are in relation to me and to FANGORIA.
Good luck with Rue Morgue. Hope that works out for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.61.206 (talk) 03:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Does anyone know what BigJ's real name is, so that we could review his/her qualifications as a reliable source, and/or know more about this publication? CorporateM (Talk) 04:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Bloody Disgusting is a pretty big deal in the world of horror films. They produced a few films, including V/H/S and V/H/S/2. They're not some minor, fly-by-night website run by fanboys. It's generally not too difficult to find the real names of the contributors, as they usually link to more formal, non-pseudonymous websites, such as LinkedIn and Facebook. However, I have no clue who BigJ is, and I can't say that I've ever seen his name before. Maybe I just never noticed it before. When the controversy erupted on the talk page, I tried poking around to see if I could find any details on BigJ, but I didn't see anything. Most of these guys have official Twitter accounts, though, and I've found that useful to track down real names for when I cite them on Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- I wrote that previous reply when I was pretty tired. I'm surprised that it's so coherent. Anyway, I tried again now that I'm more awake, and I didn't see anything on Google. He seems to contribute mainly to comics-oriented news, which is maybe why I haven't seen his name before. I would probably tone down the language used to describe the controversy; we don't need to make the controversy sound so dramatic as "he was caught writing a review". I would suggest: "Bloody Disgusting wrote that he reviewed his own film in Fangoria under a pseudonym." I think that's a bit more neutral and moves the claim that it was a review over to Bloody Disgusting, since Alexander disputes that it was a review. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Writing your own review is a pretty bad behavior (illegal actually) and definitely something that is "covert", so I think "caught" is neutral. However, I am not confident-enough regarding whether it is actually true to support inclusion. First, there seems to be some conflict of interest type issues, where the person lodging the allegation is from a competing magazine. Second I was not able to find any other, better sources that corraborated the allegation. Third, and most importantly, I cannot confirm whether the author is actually part of the newspaper's staff and not a "guest post" of some kind. That's not to say that it is or isn't a reliable source for sure, but BLP suggests that we errr on the side of caution to avoid mistakenly tarnishing someone's reputation (in the event that it is not actually true). Since there is no way for us to identify the author and confirm if they work for the magazine, I suggest we err on the side of caution and remove it. CorporateM (Talk) 21:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- I wrote that previous reply when I was pretty tired. I'm surprised that it's so coherent. Anyway, I tried again now that I'm more awake, and I didn't see anything on Google. He seems to contribute mainly to comics-oriented news, which is maybe why I haven't seen his name before. I would probably tone down the language used to describe the controversy; we don't need to make the controversy sound so dramatic as "he was caught writing a review". I would suggest: "Bloody Disgusting wrote that he reviewed his own film in Fangoria under a pseudonym." I think that's a bit more neutral and moves the claim that it was a review over to Bloody Disgusting, since Alexander disputes that it was a review. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Greg Mortenson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Somaly Mam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There is absolutely no connection between these two people, but an editor keeps adding each of them to a "see also" section for the other in an attempt to tar them with the same brush. It has been admitted on talk that doing this in the text of the articles would violate the coatrack policy, but it is still being done as a See Also. Jonathunder (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- I've commented critically on this attempt at Talk:Greg Mortenson. Norton's going to have to get consensus and at the moment he doesn't have it. Dougweller (talk) 11:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani
Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani contains a section called "Supporting Terrorism" which contains very presumptuous material, and offers little neutrality. It needs to be reviewed very carefully to form a less biased approach to the issue and offer a fairer characterization of the issue. Labeling multiple political groups as "terrorist organizations" is not helpful either, and it should not be so blatantly biased on a Wikipedia page. Such groups have their pros and cons which is for the reader to decide on their own respective time; we don't need to turn such controversial topics into 'facts' when there are many differing opinions on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.239.157 (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that the section was poorly supported, with a significant number of polemic and unreliable sources and it contained numerous untenable violations of the neutral point of view policy. The subject appears to be something that should be discussed in his biography, but it needs to be completely rewritten and sourced.
- I have removed the section and invited the editor who added it to open a dialogue on the talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Roy Stuart
Roy Stuart (photographer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Roy Stuart photographer page is often vandalized. The vandal consistently posts incorrect birthrates in order to make him appear to be older, posts other defamatory false information. The page needs to be protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carldecanada (talk • contribs)
- Protection seems like overkill, but there is a different board for that.--Malerooster (talk) 22:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- I nominated it for deletion. It's got no sources at all. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Thane Rosenbaum
Thane Rosenbaum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The issue here concerns Rosenbaum's recent WSJ article. Another editor added the paragraph a few days ago. "Roozee" deleted it and I've twice restored it. My explanation (from the Talk page): "My rationale for doing so was that this is a writing of the subject's that has generated controversy and attention. Indeed, as someone who closely follows the Israel/Palestinian conflict, I was unaware of who he was until he wrote the column in question. I did soften the language as the editing record shows. The contention of Roozee ... seems to be that the article is either insignificant given the volume of the subject's output and/or that the article has been misinterpreted. I think I've countered the former claim; for the latter claim, rather than deleting the reference, I think it'd be better to further massage the reference to assure NPOV."
Here's a diff page
Aemathisphd (talk) 01:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- If you have some outside source pointing to that article as particular significant regarding the subject of Rosenbaum and selecting that quote as the important one, then you should put that forth. Otherwise, it seems to be you picking and choosing a quote because of what you think is important, and that doesn't fit well with balance. You may have countered a claim by making a counterclaim; you did not do it by presenting any evidence that I can see. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, I didn't choose the quote. Read the history page. Aemathisphd (talk) 02:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Irrespective of any current controv, the article is quite overblown & well-larded with complementary quotes etc. Needs attention from experienced editors to depuff. 94.193.14.28 (talk) 12:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Fair enough. One should avoid simply picking a quote that is of interest to the editor from the article's subject and treating it, through it's inclusion, as particularly indicative of that person's place in the world.... and when that concern has been raised, one should avoid repeatedly reinserting it with that concern being addressed. It's better to find a significant source talking about the article's subject and see what statements they focus on. I may think "Whenever I get that sad, depressed feeling, I go out and kill a policeman" to be the most interesting P.G. Wodehouse quote, but if I choice that of my own taste to be how we present Wodehouse, I am inserting my own POV. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, I didn't choose the quote. Read the history page. Aemathisphd (talk) 02:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Dick Cheney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Have an edit warrior insisting that are "associated with the Tea Party Movement" based in one case on a speech given by Trump in front of a group which had some Tea Party members, as well as many non-members, and in the other case by Cheney saying the TPM was a "positive" for the Republican Party. No sources have been given making any greater links than those, which are prima facie insufficient for the contentious claim that they "support the Tea {Party" or are "associated with the Tea Party". Appropriate requests for a self-revert and pointers to WP:EW, WP:RS and WP:BLP have been given repeatedly. I am en vacance and would like someone to keep an eye on those BLPs please. Collect (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- What is the source the user is providing to support these claims? Also, if there is only one source used for support, then it does not deserve to keep on the page. Meatsgains (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
The sources are (later ones were added by one editor but do not, IMO, strengthen his claims) :
- http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/12/cruz-and-paul-greeted-by-cheers-at-tea-partys-2016-warm-up/ (article on a AfP/Citizens United gathering it appears and not specifically a "Tea Party" gathering at all
- http://www.c-span.org/video/?318743-2/donald-trump-freedom-summit video of speech
- http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/16/trump-bashes-boasts-and-curses-in-first-major-tea-party-speech/ video of Presidential campaign speech
- http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/trump-believer-tea-party/2013/10/10/id/530486/ Newsmax article which also includes: Trump said that Boehner, Obama, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid all have the country's best interests at heart, but have different beliefs on how to achieve it. And one of Obama's problems is that he's not a natural deal-maker. Which rather makes him sort of a Harry Reid supporter as well.
- http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/7/donald-trump-says-hes-a-tea-party-member/ using a headline for the claim which is not in the body of the article I certainly seem to be in a sense. They like me, and I like them. And we have very much the same principles,” Mr. Trump answered. “When I speak to the Tea Party, they have the biggest crowd of anybody.” What he says is the TPm members like him, and he likes them, but that is a far cry from being a TPm member himself.
- http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2011/04/trump-on-the-today-show-im-with-the-tea-party.html Asked if he considered himself part of tea party, Trump said, "I think so. I'm very proud of some of the ideas they put forth. They want to stop this ridiculous, absolutely killer spending that's going on. What's going on in this country — the way we're spending money like drunken sailors — we are absolutely, we're going to destroy our own freedom." which appears to refers to issues he agrees with rather than any actual "association" with any "tea party."
As far as I can tell the sources do establish that he supports some specific ideals of the "tea party" and that he spoke before an audience which included members of the "tea party", and that in his Presidential campaign he spoke before at least one Tea Party group, as well as libertarians and others not associated with the "tea party" but is quite insufficient to say he is specifically a "person associated with the Tea Party movement" per se. Collect (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Max Bennett (actor)
Max Bennett (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is an unbalanced article which has been repeatedly edited by the PR for the actor. It continually is edited to embellish the actor's CV by multiple anonymous sources. It takes film roles which constitute nothing but 'extra' work and pretends that these are substantial speaking roles. The article has been consistently abused to enhance the largely unknown actor's profile.
Wikipedia should consider deleting this article. There is no sense in having such an embellished CV online for a unknown theatre actor when several more established actors have very little written about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fightingliars (talk • contribs) 15:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Joseph A. Kechichian
Joseph A. Kéchichian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Thank you for keeping a page on me but there are a few blatant errors in it and I am not sure where the author/s fished them.
What is correct is the intro: Joseph A. Kéchichian is an American scholar of Armenian descent, a renowned[1] historian and political scientist specializing on the Persian Gulf region, focusing in the domestic and regional concerns of Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. He [was] an Adjunct Professor of U.S.-Middle East Relations at UCLA and Pepperdine University, a senior researcher at the RAND Corporation in California , and is now a Senior Fellow at the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
The next sentence is pure fabrication as I never attended Vanderbilt University, Duke University, or Georgetown University. Instead, I earned my PhD from the University of Virginia in 1985 [Department of Government and Foreign affairs]. Let me know if you need details about BA and MA and I will gladly provide them.
While the list of my books are accurate, you may want to update them:
The Al Sa‘ud Consigliere: Shaykh Youssef Yassin of Sa‘udi Arabia [forthcoming]
‘Iffat Al Thunayan: An Arabian Queen, London: Sussex Academic Press, 2015.
Legal and Political Reforms in Saudi Arabia, London and New York: Routledge, November 2012 (January 2013 for the paperback edition).
Power and Succession in Arab Monarchies, Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2008 [translated into Arabic as Al-Sultah wa-Ta‘aqub al-Hukm fil-Mamalikah al-‘Arabiyyah, 2 volumes, Beirut and London: Riad El-Rayyes Books, 2012].
Faysal: Saudi Arabia’s King for All Seasons, Gainesville, Florida: University Press of Florida, 2008 [translated into Arabic as Faysal: Al-Malik wal-Dawlah, Beirut: Dar al-‘Arabiyyah lil-Mawsu‘at, 2012].
Extremism & Opposition Movements on the Arabian Peninsula, New Delhi: Observer Research Foundation, 2006.
Political Participation and Stability in the Sultanate of Oman, Dubai: Gulf Research Center, 2005 [translated into Arabic as Al-Musharakah al-Siyasiyyah wal-Istikrar fi Sultanat ‘Uman, Dubai: Gulf Research Center, 2005].
The Just Prince: A Manual of Leadership (with R. Hrair Dekmejian), London: Saqi Books, 2003 [translated into Turkish as Adil Hükümdar, Istanbul: Kirmizi Kedi Yayenevi, 2009].
Succession in Saudi Arabia, [New York: Palgrave (2001) [translated into Arabic as Al-Khilafah fil-‘Arabiyyah al-Su‘udiyyah, Beirut and London: Dar Al Saqi, 2003].
Iran, Iraq, and the Arab Gulf States, editor, New York: Palgrave, 2001.
A Century in Thirty Years: Shaykh Zayed and the United Arab Emirates, editor, Washington, D.C.: The Middle East Policy Council, 2000.
Oman and the World: The Emergence of an Independent Foreign Policy, Santa Monica: RAND, 1995.
Political Dynamics and Security in the Arabian Peninsula through the 1990s, MR-167- AF/A, Santa Monica: RAND, 1993.
A simple Amazon search or a Google search would have provided these details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.126.129.76 (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- I have deleted the unsourced educational history. I have not added any information, nor expanded the bibliography; the entry is already mostly bibliography, I'm not sure we need a complete bibliography for the subject, and I don't feel like determining a source for what stays and what goes. (The addition seems to have been a change by an IP user whose sole edits were alterations to people's educational histories, unsourced and uncommented. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- I have now undone all of that IP editors edits which were not already undone, except for one changing capitalization and one which merely used the more common name for the proper university. --Nat Gertler (talk)
timothy mcknight
Tim McKnight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.147.56.4 (talk) 02:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't see any Timothy McKnight. Is it Tim above? --Malerooster (talk) 03:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Dan Sebring
Dan Sebring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Dan Sebring article does not show the notability of the subject. In addition, some of the material is copy/pasted from a source, one of the "sources" is Sebring's Facebook page, among other issues. The anonymous editors 107.209.244.18 and 69.131.98.54 have only edited on this article, specifically replacing poorly sourced material that has been removed by other Wikipedia member editors. Please let me know if there is some other action I should take aside from posting here (I am somewhat new at Wikipedia). Thanks! Seen a Mike (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- SaM: Always good to have new folks aboard and asking questions. You could really help by lending a hand on that article. You have basically three good choices of what to do:
- If you think that Dan Sebring is notable, and the article just isn't covering why, then edit the article to add some information about what makes him notable (with references, naturally.)
- If you're not sure whether he's notable, edit it to put <code>{{notability|Biographies}}</code> at the top of the page. This will display a banner noting that the notability is questioned, and encouraging people to add content establishing notability if they can. (You may want to add a message on the talk page describing why you feel the subject isn't shown to be notable.)
- If you're pretty sure he's not notable enough, you can start a deletion discussion using the process described here.
- And meanwhile, if there is stuff that is just copied from elsewhere, edit the file to delete it, and note in the edit summary box that you're doing so due to copyright concerns. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Yank Barry
Yank Barry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Yank Barry lawsuit, now dismissed/withdrawn, is mentioned in the article Yank Barry#Court cases. When it was first brought up Talk:Yank Barry#Lawsuit, there were BLP objections, and they were ignored, and I brought it up again (under an erroneous section title) Talk:Yank Barry#Lawsuit against WMF in the article?. I find the discussion has been pretty lame, sometimes utterly ridiculous. So far as I can tell, its mention in the article is a clearcut violation of WP:PUBLICFIGURE (one third-party reference only) and WP:BLPPRIMARY (not cited in the article, but part of the talk page "proof" that this is supposed to be "significant", and later, to justify providing "balance" regarding the closure of the lawsuit, so far). Some of the posters explicitly stated that its presence makes sense in light of YB's pattern of behavior regarding filing silly lawsuits in general, as if that were relevant. One extremely experienced editor stated point-blank that since lawsuits typically involve lots of money, any lawsuit is of course significant. Choor monster (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- There are now two RS, so this is entirely moot. Choor monster (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- The mention of the cost of lawsuits, was a parenthetical (literally) explaining why lawsuits against WP editors are so rare. Indeed, although one of my bots had it's IP address subpoenaed, I am not aware of any that have come to court in the US. I am astounded that my comment should have been interpreted in this way. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 07:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC).
This article of a actress named Maria Vacratsis
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Maria Vacratsis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Since I put in the article she voiced the Queen_Metallia in the English dub of Sailor Moon; though many people don't know her for anime role very well. Should there a be reference to that statement? Is it a policy of Wikipedia to have a Citation_needed? Venustar84 (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Ira Casson
Ira Casson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The newly created BLP Ira Casson appears to exist solely to present the controversial aspects of the subject. There is nothing positive in the article. Gnome de plume (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- It says he was the former co-chair of the NFL, that's not negative. Saying he was involved with research isn't intrinsically negative, either. The solution here is probably to add more biographical context, as the article is the article is otherwise generally sourced from good RS, currently. His connection with head injury research seems to be a major part of his overall notability, so I don't see that (or well-sourced assessments of his history) being removed, but it could be put in greater overall context. Otherwise, there could be a case for the article to be merged with Concussions in American football.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- I've fixed the article. He wasn't co-chair of the NFL (the position does not exist. The NFL has a commissioner). He was a co-chair of an ad hoc committee created by the NFL to study the effect of concussions. No statements as to the other aspects of the complaints about the article, but the article incorrectly represented what was in the sources, and I have fixed that. --Jayron32 19:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- I fixed it a bit more , I moved it to the committee title - it was an attack page, total negative story about a single issue - not a biography of a notable person at all - deletion would fix it even more Mosfetfaser (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- I've fixed the article. He wasn't co-chair of the NFL (the position does not exist. The NFL has a commissioner). He was a co-chair of an ad hoc committee created by the NFL to study the effect of concussions. No statements as to the other aspects of the complaints about the article, but the article incorrectly represented what was in the sources, and I have fixed that. --Jayron32 19:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you editors for changing this article. You editors have convinced me to agree with what you were saying. His research was notable, but it would be better to have more biographical content to make an article on him. Making an article on the committee itself would be much better. Robert4565 (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC) (the creator of the original article)
I didn't intend to give this guy a bad reputation, I was just just trying to add notable research to an encyclopedia. Robert4565 (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- I reviewed the page and removed the statement, "The NFL Players Association wanted to get him fired for being "biased" by criticizing a useful study" because I could not find it in any of the sources provided. That isn't to say that it's not true. Feel free to add it back if you can provide a RS. Best, Meatsgains (talk) 08:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Flávio Kenup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Can someone help with a source check to see whether "a.k.a. Viola Kenup" is legimate unsourced comment or not. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Call sign Viola - appears official and agrees with the first part so ... the aka has some legs http://www.jiujitsutampa.com/index.php/programs/82-instructors/75-flavio-bio Mosfetfaser (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Nico Rosberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An IP has been adding their own commentary at Nico Rosberg despite being told not to do so on multiple occasions. I've reverted three times and I'm unsure on what to do next. Can someone take a look? Thanks. NQ talk 16:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- I've given the IP one more warning on their talk page - if it occurs again, report it at WP:3RRN. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Curt Clawson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)- I wanted to get some uninvolved input on this discussion. This new congressman has been in office for about a month. Last week, he made a public speaking faux pas in which he mistakenly thought 2 US govt. employees appearing at a committee were from India rather than Indian-American. There is no dispute that the incident took place. What is being disputed is the merit of including it.
I contend this is textbook WP:RECENTISM, nothing more than a minor incident that got some coverage during the news cycle and quickly drops to obscurity. Including it is giving it UNDUE weight. Arguments for inclusion have been:
- ) "the only notable thing that Clawson has done since assuming office". As I said, he's been in office for a month. Inserting this for lack of anything else is a poor reason to include it.
- ) It has 4,000 sources. Yes, there are 4,000 GHITS, but we know that alone doesn't mean anything. Fact is, of those nearly 4000 sources, 6 were from the 27th and 5 from the 28th. All the rest were in the first two days. 11 out of 4000 made it past 2 days. That strongly indicates that my position of this being recentism is correct. The essay suggests a '10 year test'. This incident isn't passing a 10 week test.
- ) WP:BURDEN has been met.: Again, nobody disputes that it happened. But WP:NOTNEWS tells us "However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." It also tells us that " While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. " This is, in my view, one of those events that gets some attention for being funny and then quickly falls into obscurity because it really has no enduring notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- At this point it looks undue and definitely does not need a full quote of his mistaken words. I don't think it should be included at this time. That might change in the future. If the gaffe has long term secondary effects on his political prospects, as evidenced and covered by future reliable sources, then it should be referenced at that time. Essentially, if future sources treat it as a one-time flub and don't mention it again, keep leaving it out. If people later write that it made a significant change to his future, it should be included in that context (for instance, it soured a working relationship, made a law harder to pass, long term became a thing he was known for like Todd Atkin, hurt an election bid like Rick Perry's speaking flub, he flubs the exact same way multiple times and shows a pattern, etc.) Right now it looks like an ugly faux pas, but I'd leave it out until future sources weigh the longer term impact, if any.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Shorter version: Leave out now if the only news is about the event and it's confined to a couple days around the event. Insert later if reliable sources write that there was a significant consequence resulting from the event. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
This user was unhappy that three other editors disagreed on having that material deleted, so he posted here to seek additional input. The discussion is at Talk:Curt Clawson - Cwobeel (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- You keep yapping about forum shopping, but clearly never read the policy that talks about the issue. This is exactly why this noticeboard exists. It was brought to ONE noticeboard, the most applicable one. Bringing it to a noticeboard is RECOMMENDED by the policy. So get over it. The discussion is now here Niteshift36 (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Despite his uncivil response,
the worst of which I've, Niteshift is correct, bringing it to this board was an appropriate step to take. Gamaliel (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)redactedstruck
- Well, I've attempted to redact Niteshift's immature sniping, but he has insisted on edit warring regarding this issue. If you wish his comments to be removed, User:Cwobeel, please let me know on my personal talk page and I will take stronger action, but right now I don't feel like wasting anymore time on this nonsense. Gamaliel (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Don't you mean you will ask someone else to take action? You are far to involved in this to be the one taking action. P.S. Love the hypocrisy of making uncivil remarks ("immature sniping") while complaining about some comments you want to remove because you consider the uncivil. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- "Yapping" and "sniping", you're both getting into a bit of a bunfight that will leave you both looking a little dirty. You should probably both step away for a bit and get some cookies or a glass of water instead.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Despite his uncivil response,
- Posting at a number of noticeboards = "forum shopping". Posting at the single most applicable board != "forum shopping". Making accusations about the OP instead of dealing with the issues involved = (fill in the blank). Collect (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- I am disengaging from that page, as I abhor the snipping and heated heads. There are thousands of article out there. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Except that you've returned to the page twice since you posted this to make uncivil remarks. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- I am disengaging from that page, as I abhor the snipping and heated heads. There are thousands of article out there. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Allegations of plagiarism by John Walsh (U.S. politician)
John Walsh (U.S. politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The NY Times recently reported that they had uncovered what they allege is evidence that Senator Walsh plagiarized up to 2/3 of his 2007 master's thesis at the U.S. Army War College . The Times' allegations, Senator Walsh's responses (claiming variously that he didn't think he'd done anything wrong, that it was or was not explained by PTSD, and/or that it was unintentional) and news that the War College is investigating have been widely and extensively covered by numerous reliable sources including CBS News, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, Fox News and others.
Currently any mention of this is buried in 4 3 bland sentences (after Montanabw just reverted one of them) in a section titled 2014 election near the very end of article. When Presbyterian1 tried to move it into an earlier section on education, Montanabw reverted with the edit remark, "Drop the effing stick, Presbyterian1 before we have you blocked."
In discussion on the talk page at Talk:John Walsh (U.S. politician)#Plagiarism allegation, Montanabw opposes additional coverage arguing WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM and that we should wait until the War College makes a decision. Wehwalt also opposes, arguing WP:BLP. Billmckern argues that the coverage should be one place but does not appear to oppose a more in-depth treatment.
It appears to me WP:UNDUE does not apply insofar as this is certainly not about a minority or "fringe" theory, nor does WP:RECENTISM apply insofar as this is not a story of "flimsy, transient merits". And while this is indeed a WP:BLP, Senator Walsh is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE, meaning that "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."
My concern is with what appears to be a case of whitewashing by editors who may/may not be completely WP:NPOV and whose behavior may be overly and inappropriately protective of the subject. May I request additional opinions, please? Msnicki (talk) 02:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- I suggest that plagiarism is unlikely to fit recentism. When a prominent figure is accused of plagiarism in the NYT or WAPO or similar is tends to stick forever. (e.g. Joe Biden, Steve Ambrose). This should be in the article. It is not undue. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- It IS in the article, My position on the matter is that we have the incident mentioned, it is sourced, and that it is mentioned in an neutral, encyclopedic tone (someone else's "4 bland sentences"), that fits WP:NPOV as well as BLP and UNDUE. It is currently in the campaign section because that is the appropriate place until or unless the War College does something or additional things develop that might warrant placing it elsewhere. To obsess about it until the story develops further is WP:SYNTH and runs the risk of putting a bias in the opposite direction. Montanabw(talk) 04:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- It belongs in the Education section; it has nothing to do with "2014 campaign". I agree with keeping it brief -- but it's clearly an issue connected with his education, not with the campaign. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think it has to be one or the other, at least until the War College is heard from again.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- It belongs in the campaign section -- for now. Until the sources coalesce around his thesis being the result of plagiarism, we should leave it out. Just as we treat people who are accused of a crime as innocent until proven guilty, Walsh should be afforded the same treatment. Please keep in mind that Walsh could be in considerable jeopardy legally speaking, as this thesis was done on the taxpayers dime. Most of the coverage of this relates to his cmpagin, so this seems the natural place to put it util the dust settles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two kinds of pork (talk • contribs)
- Perhaps the coverage is happening at the same time as coverage of his campaign. But it's really quite obviously an "Education" issue, not a campaign issue. I really don't understand the desire to see it otherwise. Montanabw didn't provide a reason for this view at all (simply said "it's the appropriate place" without providing a reason), and even the notion that it's being covered during the time when other campaign issues are being covered is far from persuasive. Alleged plagiarism in the context of a degree is relevant to education. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- That was an accurate recap of my position. Of course the allegation that Walsh plagiarized his War College work needs to be included on the page. Of course it needs updated as more details become available. My specific argument was that one particular contributor wanted to include it in more than one place on the page, complete with incorrectly formatted references. I thought my placement of the allegation was OK -- a separate paragraph at the end of the page, with a link under "education" to tie his War College education and the plagiarism allegation together. But for me, where the plagiarism topic ends up on the page and how much detail is included are less relevant than the point that it doesn't need to show up three times -- once is enough. Repetition doesn't add anything to the discussion.User:Billmckern (User talk:Billmckern)
- Perhaps the coverage is happening at the same time as coverage of his campaign. But it's really quite obviously an "Education" issue, not a campaign issue. I really don't understand the desire to see it otherwise. Montanabw didn't provide a reason for this view at all (simply said "it's the appropriate place" without providing a reason), and even the notion that it's being covered during the time when other campaign issues are being covered is far from persuasive. Alleged plagiarism in the context of a degree is relevant to education. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- It belongs in the campaign section -- for now. Until the sources coalesce around his thesis being the result of plagiarism, we should leave it out. Just as we treat people who are accused of a crime as innocent until proven guilty, Walsh should be afforded the same treatment. Please keep in mind that Walsh could be in considerable jeopardy legally speaking, as this thesis was done on the taxpayers dime. Most of the coverage of this relates to his cmpagin, so this seems the natural place to put it util the dust settles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two kinds of pork (talk • contribs)
- I think it has to be one or the other, at least until the War College is heard from again.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- It belongs in the Education section; it has nothing to do with "2014 campaign". I agree with keeping it brief -- but it's clearly an issue connected with his education, not with the campaign. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- It IS in the article, My position on the matter is that we have the incident mentioned, it is sourced, and that it is mentioned in an neutral, encyclopedic tone (someone else's "4 bland sentences"), that fits WP:NPOV as well as BLP and UNDUE. It is currently in the campaign section because that is the appropriate place until or unless the War College does something or additional things develop that might warrant placing it elsewhere. To obsess about it until the story develops further is WP:SYNTH and runs the risk of putting a bias in the opposite direction. Montanabw(talk) 04:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
(od) At this point, it is well past "allegation" as the use of unattributed material is freely admitted by that Senator. It belongs in two places - under his education and under his career, as it is intrinsically directly applicable to each for different reasons. (The first reason being directly related to his academic history, the second for the possible loss of rank in the Army, being separate issues) The kidnapping of verbiage for at least 1/4 of his entire thesis is well documented at this point - vide [19] and [20] which has The Army War College, in Pennsylvania, said it has found preliminary evidence of plagiarism and asked a review board to investigate. The school may revoke Walsh's degree if it finds he intentionally presented the work of others as his own. which clearly states it is past the "allegation" stage. None of these sources appears t have any partisan bias against Walsh. A single mention that the problem exists should be as brief as possible in the lead primarily because readers will expect to find it noted in at least five words there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs)
- The lead?? Don't be ridiculous. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC) Oh, I get it -- he's a Democrat… Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- His party is not relevant -- and the sources given are decidedly not making charges "because he is a Democrat" for sure. That sort of aside about sources is not reasonable at all. And if readers expect to find a short sentence in the lead, then that is what Wikipedia should do. Lynn-Jones (who had several pages of his work used verbatim sans credit) stated He probably shouldn’t count on any campaign contributions from me.. The HuffPo, clearly also a GOP rag, says Since The New York Times revealed Wednesday that Walsh plagiarized at least a quarter of his master’s thesis without citations for his degree from from the United States Army War College, he’s been criticized by veterans upset over his bringing PTSD into the discussion. Neither source shows any sign of singling Walsh out for being a Democrat. I have absolutely zero political opinion about him -- only a belief that contentious claims must be strongly sourced, and that the claims of plagiarism appear very strongly sourced at this point. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- No, you misunderstand -- it's apparent that you'd like it in the lead because he's a Democrat. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- IOW you are making a claim that I deliberately make edits on a political basis - which is grotesquely untrue and a personal attack for which I ask a retraction. Such personal attacks are uncivil and not likely to make anyone respect your posts here. My position on Alex Sink is exactly the position I have here and on every single BLP on which I edit. Contentious claims must be strongly sourced, and where they are strongly sourced, then they can be placed in BLPs. Period. So have a gallon of tea or something - your snark is not going to help this project one whit. Collect (talk) 13:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Folks, this is in part an NPOV issue and part a SYNTH, and the only reason it is here at all is due to a question of relative weight and placement; I think what we maybe need here are some folks from outside the USA to take an objective look that transcends party politics. If this devolves into a GOP-vs-Dems situation, that's a no-win. Right now, what we know is a) Something like 70% of a 14 page term paper (JMO but since when is a 14 page paper a "thesis" anyway? I wrote stuff that long as an undergrad...) was either copied or closely paraphrased without proper attribution. b) Walsh's campaign has said he was suffering from PTSD and other assorted difficulties at the time and he didn't mean to do so. c) The War College is looking into the matter. End. Of. Story until further developments. Really, four sentences is plenty, and at the moment, it's a campaign issue more than anything else. When the War College weighs in, and the various news and punditocracy analyze, then we will need to reassess and see what else to add. Until then, that's all there is. Accusing each other of party bias isn't going to help. Montanabw(talk) 20:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Another assertion of "campaign issue" without any supporting argument attempting to persuade us on the point... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Folks, this is in part an NPOV issue and part a SYNTH, and the only reason it is here at all is due to a question of relative weight and placement; I think what we maybe need here are some folks from outside the USA to take an objective look that transcends party politics. If this devolves into a GOP-vs-Dems situation, that's a no-win. Right now, what we know is a) Something like 70% of a 14 page term paper (JMO but since when is a 14 page paper a "thesis" anyway? I wrote stuff that long as an undergrad...) was either copied or closely paraphrased without proper attribution. b) Walsh's campaign has said he was suffering from PTSD and other assorted difficulties at the time and he didn't mean to do so. c) The War College is looking into the matter. End. Of. Story until further developments. Really, four sentences is plenty, and at the moment, it's a campaign issue more than anything else. When the War College weighs in, and the various news and punditocracy analyze, then we will need to reassess and see what else to add. Until then, that's all there is. Accusing each other of party bias isn't going to help. Montanabw(talk) 20:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- IOW you are making a claim that I deliberately make edits on a political basis - which is grotesquely untrue and a personal attack for which I ask a retraction. Such personal attacks are uncivil and not likely to make anyone respect your posts here. My position on Alex Sink is exactly the position I have here and on every single BLP on which I edit. Contentious claims must be strongly sourced, and where they are strongly sourced, then they can be placed in BLPs. Period. So have a gallon of tea or something - your snark is not going to help this project one whit. Collect (talk) 13:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- No, you misunderstand -- it's apparent that you'd like it in the lead because he's a Democrat. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- His party is not relevant -- and the sources given are decidedly not making charges "because he is a Democrat" for sure. That sort of aside about sources is not reasonable at all. And if readers expect to find a short sentence in the lead, then that is what Wikipedia should do. Lynn-Jones (who had several pages of his work used verbatim sans credit) stated He probably shouldn’t count on any campaign contributions from me.. The HuffPo, clearly also a GOP rag, says Since The New York Times revealed Wednesday that Walsh plagiarized at least a quarter of his master’s thesis without citations for his degree from from the United States Army War College, he’s been criticized by veterans upset over his bringing PTSD into the discussion. Neither source shows any sign of singling Walsh out for being a Democrat. I have absolutely zero political opinion about him -- only a belief that contentious claims must be strongly sourced, and that the claims of plagiarism appear very strongly sourced at this point. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. It's an issue that needs discussion in the article even if Walsh announces this afternoon that he's decided not to run. Calling it a "campaign issue" sounds a little too much to me like a thinly-veiled attempt to bury the issue until after the election. I also think it needs a lot more than 4 sentences to discuss what specific evidence the NY Times alleges they've discovered, the various responses Walsh has made and the reactions. Msnicki (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- IMO, the issue does belong in the article, but certainly not in the lead. I'd be inclined to move it under the personal section, or the education as a second choice. It's not really suited for the campaign section. I will admit that I was on the fence over the recentism of it, but since Walsh is conceding that there could be some sort of issue, I'm leaning toward inclusion. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- It has to go in. That's simply a matter of policy, given he's a WP:PUBLICFIGURE and the allegations have been reported by multiple reliable sources. At most, there's a content question of how much column space is appropriate. But notice that a lot of the article is based on minor local papers like Billings Gazette with a circulation of 45,000 and the Missoulian with a circulation of 66,700 and various WP:SPS sources like the Kiwanis. Yet we're getting objections to including material from the NY Times (with a circulation of 1.8M) and other major sources. Frankly, I'm appalled that we would have a long hagiographic article extolling his military career and other wonderfulness like helping to fight wildfires but suppress what is likely to be the most noteworthy and most reliably and extensively reported information we have on him, especially when these allegations are the only reason most anyone living outside Montana might even know his name. If he didn't want his life picked apart, he shouldn't have become a senator. He chose that and as a public figure, he is not entitled to the usual protections of a WP:BLP. Msnicki (talk) 01:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Having already said I think the issue belongs in, I have to disagree with some of your reasoning. Just because something gets reported on doesn't mean it automatically merits inclusion. WP:NOTNEWS tells us that most newsworthy events don't merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. Second, your notion that bigger is better is wrong. Just because the NYT is bigger than the one in Billings doesn't lessen the reliability of the Billings paper. Big ones screw up too. Jayson Blair didn't work in Billings, it was the NYT. Jack Kelley was with USA Today, not the Missoulian. Janet Cook at the WAPO. No, circulation size isn't the standard we use. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- It has to go in. That's simply a matter of policy, given he's a WP:PUBLICFIGURE and the allegations have been reported by multiple reliable sources. At most, there's a content question of how much column space is appropriate. But notice that a lot of the article is based on minor local papers like Billings Gazette with a circulation of 45,000 and the Missoulian with a circulation of 66,700 and various WP:SPS sources like the Kiwanis. Yet we're getting objections to including material from the NY Times (with a circulation of 1.8M) and other major sources. Frankly, I'm appalled that we would have a long hagiographic article extolling his military career and other wonderfulness like helping to fight wildfires but suppress what is likely to be the most noteworthy and most reliably and extensively reported information we have on him, especially when these allegations are the only reason most anyone living outside Montana might even know his name. If he didn't want his life picked apart, he shouldn't have become a senator. He chose that and as a public figure, he is not entitled to the usual protections of a WP:BLP. Msnicki (talk) 01:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- I just noticed that Wehwalt protected the page on July 25, citing "Violations of the biographies of living persons policy". It doesn't appear to me that there have been any violations whatsoever. It looks a lot like an abuse of his admin status simply to get the content outcome he wants. He's a participant in the discussion, not an unbiased admin. Here again, what I think what we're seeing is an attempt at whitewashing by his supporters. (And, btw, in case anyone's wondering, I'm a Democrat myself and would not be happy to see his seat go to the Republicans. But my personal agenda simply doesn't belong here and neither does that of any other editor, even if he is an admin.) Msnicki (talk) 01:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- We are now talking in circles. I've explained the situation and provided several reasons, but no one else is listening because everyone seems to have their own agenda. We seem to have folks with both GOP and Democratic bias accusing each other or being biased, and that is just a waste of time. If no one noticed until now that Wehwalt protected the article, then CLEARLY, no one has been paying much attention to content. The issue is, at present, something that has arisen during the course and scope of the 2014 campaign, hence its current location. The election isn't until November, there is no whitewashing, it's just due weight while the story develops. Plenty of time to figure out what the pundits have to say in the long run. We cannot engage in WP:SYNTH. So time to let go of the partisan bickering. The issue is in the article, I agree it needs to be in the article, and the rest is relative weighting and content. For now, let's just drop it and see what happens. Montanabw(talk) 04:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- The protection is only semi, so it's really not a matter of Wehwalt using admin tools to get the content he wants. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Nor have I edited the article. I have no connection to the article. Nor have I have been as assertive on the BLP issue as many people are.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- The only one I see doing any WP:SYNTH is you, with your claims that this is about the election. That's not in any of the articles I've seen in the NYT or anywhere else. That is YOU combining things and you've been repeatedly told not just by me but by others as well that the plagiarism allegations have ZERO to do with the election. Reporting exactly what the reliable sources state as the allegations, Walsh's responses and the reactions is not WP:SYNTH, it's not WP:UNDUE and it's not WP:RECENTISM. It is simply doing what the guidelines at WP:PUBLICFIGURE tell us we are supposed to do with allegations that are reported by multiple reliable sources.
- More to the point, it is now pretty clear that you and Wehwalt are the only ones trying to sanitize the article by minimizing this to just 3 sentences and burying it at the end of the article. You are in the minority and it's time for you to step back and allow this section to be written without any new edit warring and without any new threats that you're going to seek a block against anyone seeking to include something you don't like about a candidate you do like. I haven't made any edits yet to this article because I could see that both of you were treating the article like you owned it and I first wanted to hear other opinions. I think I've heard them and they don't support you. You should hear that, too. So far as I can tell, they simply support using good editorial judgment and keeping the discussion brief. No one, so far as I can see, is proposing to turn this into an attack piece. No one is proposing to turn the whole article into a discussion of these allegations. But what reliable sources say is what the article is going to report, it'll report it in the section on education, it'll meticulously follow the sources, it will be more 3 sentences and you and Wehwalt are simply going to have to make your peace with that. Msnicki (talk) 06:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Added: The reason no one noticed the article was protected (or at least, the reason I didn't) is because Wehwalt didn't put a protection tag on it (meaning, there was no lock at the top) and because the obvious edit warring behavior, I had no intention to even try editting the article without discussing first (meaning I never saw the warning you get when you try to edit.) I first noticed it was protected when Tbhotch placed a {{pp-vandalism}} tag at the top earlier today. There being no evidence I could see of vandalism, which has a very particular meaning here on WP, I replaced that with a generic {{pp-protected}} tag. Msnicki (talk) 07:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- We are now talking in circles. I've explained the situation and provided several reasons, but no one else is listening because everyone seems to have their own agenda. We seem to have folks with both GOP and Democratic bias accusing each other or being biased, and that is just a waste of time. If no one noticed until now that Wehwalt protected the article, then CLEARLY, no one has been paying much attention to content. The issue is, at present, something that has arisen during the course and scope of the 2014 campaign, hence its current location. The election isn't until November, there is no whitewashing, it's just due weight while the story develops. Plenty of time to figure out what the pundits have to say in the long run. We cannot engage in WP:SYNTH. So time to let go of the partisan bickering. The issue is in the article, I agree it needs to be in the article, and the rest is relative weighting and content. For now, let's just drop it and see what happens. Montanabw(talk) 04:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I do realize. And you don't have one supporting your protective behavior. Tomorrow, I'll take a cut at this, making a good faith effort to treat it in an WP:NPOV manner. And if you don't like what I do (which I expect is likely), you can discuss your objections with me on the talk page and, if need be, we can come back here for more opinions. I trust you will do that rather than edit war me. Msnicki (talk) 06:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- I will vigorously oppose any sort of bombastic treatment of this issue. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I do realize. And you don't have one supporting your protective behavior. Tomorrow, I'll take a cut at this, making a good faith effort to treat it in an WP:NPOV manner. And if you don't like what I do (which I expect is likely), you can discuss your objections with me on the talk page and, if need be, we can come back here for more opinions. I trust you will do that rather than edit war me. Msnicki (talk) 06:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- I intend to give you zero reasonable cause for that objection. I will report succinctly, fairly, precisely what the sources actually say and I will cite meticulously. But it will be in a section on education and it will be more than 3 sentences. Msnicki (talk) 06:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Here's the thing, though. You expect this to be opposed. The normal way, then, is to propose something on the talk page and gain consensus for it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- I intend to give you zero reasonable cause for that objection. I will report succinctly, fairly, precisely what the sources actually say and I will cite meticulously. But it will be in a section on education and it will be more than 3 sentences. Msnicki (talk) 06:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Not exactly. I expect two editors to oppose it. But then again, I think those two editors would likely oppose anything longer than 3 sentences. I think I can satisfy most people and based on what I regard as the reasonable views you've expressed, I expect to satisfy you. Msnicki (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, it's done. Feel free to complain, but I think I did this correctly and fairly. Msnicki (talk) 04:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Surprise. I can live with the last round of edits—though I still think that the move to education is debatable, the edits do not make the same mistake as the original problem editor. That person's problem was a repeated long drawn-out poor set of edits that was of undue weight. As I have said all along, we watch and update as the story unfolds. Interesting that the Army itself is taking over the investigation from the War College. Montanabw(talk) 05:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Aparently, I spoke too soon. I see you've now cut out a lot of material and made other changes I simply don't agree with in this edit. I especially disagree with this portion of your edit remark, "quotes taken out of context, correct material misattributed". I think I was very careful and I that my quotes are supported by the citations. At minimum, I was really hoping you would discuss your objections, first, rather start reverting it piece-by-piece.
- May I request that others review, please? I refuse to edit war, but I stand by my edit and I ask that it be reinstated. Msnicki (talk) 06:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, I thought the other person's edit was yours; you quoted too much stuff and were very wordy, plus you were a bit too selective in stating nly the negative, not the full context of a couple of things. But mostly, it was just messy and repetitive. I kept most of your substantive content, actually, but chopped redundant material, fixed one bit where you misattributed material, and then as I went through the article, found other stuff that was very poorly written and did some cleanup - and not just your stuff (I wish that other editor would learn to use the citation templates and clean up his older work!). I have over 15 featured articles to my credit, I know how to write for wiki, though I'm not saying this was my best prose, either - I still think this article needs a lot of work, but it is not one of my priorities. (IMHO, the campaign was doomed from the outset even before this stuff anyway.) I really didn't feel like taking three hours of my time to clean up everyone else's work, but as it sits now, the article's space is 1456 words, and over 450 of them (i.e more than 25% of the article) are devoted to assorted "scandals" which I still think is undue weight, but I'm leaving most of it in. Montanabw(talk) 06:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
nick burdi
Nick Burdi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The wiki biography for nick has been trolled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.218.2 (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Obvious vandalism has been dealt with. WP:Administrator intervention against vandalism is the better noticeboard for issues like this. —C.Fred (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Christopher Mtikila
Christopher Mtikila (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I do not know if this article meets notability, but it is a highly critical, unsourced article. My first reaction was to nominate it for deletion, but I would like to hear any responses first. I know nothing about the subject, and came to the article after seeing him interviewed in a pbs documentary. TFD (talk) 01:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- I see it has now been
blanked, and nominated for speedy deletiondeleted. Given the content and the complete lack of sources, this looks appropriate enough to me. If the individual concerned meets notability criteria (which will of course require sources), there will be nothing to prevent a new policy-compliant article being created. From what I can figure out, Mtikila is (or was) the leader of a minor Tanzanian political party, who has been involved in a long-running legal battle concerning restrictions on candidates in Tanzanian elections. [21] Whether there are enough sources to give appropriate coverage to any of this, I'm unsure - it originates in the early 1990s, and online sources are likely to be sparse. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)- There are plenty of book sources. That article only had a single problematic sentence, but it deleted before I could contest the speedy. __ E L A Q U E A T E 04:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- I wish someone had checked Google books before that happened.__ E L A Q U E A T E 04:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Why? We should not keep unsourced articles about living persons. If you think the article can be written according to policy, then go ahead and do so. But do not expect other editors to. I question though whether the sources in books are sufficient for an article about him. Probably better to put them into the article about his party, and his page could be a re-direct. TFD (talk) 03:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- I don't expect other editors to write articles (and I never made that suggestion or implied it in any form), but I can expect them to sometimes follow the advice for WP:A7 speedy nominations before they eliminate an existing article. WP:A7 has exactly zero to do with whether an article has sources. I think you're probably right that material about him is better merged to the party article. It would have been better to have more chance of a discussion with even a single editor who said they knew the first thing about Tanzanian politics before zapping it under a rationale that didn't apply. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Why? We should not keep unsourced articles about living persons. If you think the article can be written according to policy, then go ahead and do so. But do not expect other editors to. I question though whether the sources in books are sufficient for an article about him. Probably better to put them into the article about his party, and his page could be a re-direct. TFD (talk) 03:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- I wish someone had checked Google books before that happened.__ E L A Q U E A T E 04:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- There are plenty of book sources. That article only had a single problematic sentence, but it deleted before I could contest the speedy. __ E L A Q U E A T E 04:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Dylan Penn
Dylan Penn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Could some of the experts here please assist the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Dylan_Penn on writing a BLP-compliant DYK hook for the main page?--184.147.144.166 (talk) 10:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Rich Constable
Rich Constable (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Could BLPN regulars please take a look at the Rich Constable article - it has been raised at the help desk by an IP who suggests that it is being edited in an unduly negative manner, [22] and from a quick look, I'm inclined to agree that there may be problems. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
User: Djflem is obsessed with posting negative POV about the BLP. Every day he edits this page by providing articles and information to bolster Mayor Dawn Zimmer's unproven and uncharged allegation of extortion. Djflem also gave serious treatment to matters that are marginally relevant to Constable for the sole purpose of making him look bad (See HGI and COAH discussion). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:1506:76ED:2159:80B4:EA3D:F423 (talk) 14:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Michael French
Michael French (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
According to this article, French doesn't talk to tabloids, like London Evening Standard and The Mirror. As for the bio information, I don't think sources are trustworthy. But what can I do? --George Ho (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- @George Ho: I don't see any contentious or controversial material there. Tabloids are not necessarily reliable sources, so of there is any material there that is disputed, per WP:BLP you can remove it as the burden is on the editor(s) that want the material included. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Dave Horne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
written by Dave Horne. This is an autobiography — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.2.33 (talk) 06:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, and not an objective one. I started on it, but mainly fixed some minor grammar instead. More interesting, and easier than figuring out the truth behind all these "political" misfortunes and "paths to success". Doesn't exactly seem notable, so I don't want to invest time, then see it deleted. But I wouldn't mind seeing it deleted. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Done I spent some time on it today and cut it back to just sourced content. Another editor and I removed the tags and cleaned up the refs. Its looking pretty good now. I did not dig into the sources so I have no opinion on the notability. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Good job! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Aize Obayan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article appears un-encyclopedic, promotional with notice of WP:COI policy violation connected with the article creator. I proposed the article for deletion but darreg (talk · contribs) who was the article creator reverted the edit and even clean-up all maintainance tags on the article.Wikicology (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Wikicology also tried to put this up for deletion, but RHaworth (talk · contribs) removed the afd tag, giving the reason that "no discussion page exists" (diff) instead of completing the process. I don't quite know what to think.--Auric talk 21:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Technically Haworth should not have removed the tag even though the AfD process was incomplete but a case could be made that it was justified. So.... rather than play the blame game you can resubmit it to AfD if you want to just make sure to follow all the instructions and complete the process. If you need help ping me on my talk page. I'd nominate it my self but the notability is not clear one way or the other so I'm going to take any action it.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Elizabeth Hollingworth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Elizabeth Hollingworth is an Australian judge who issued a 'super injunction' against (as I understand it) the publishing of allegations related to a claims made by Gillian Bird. The injunction was leaked by wikileaks and uploaded to commons. An editor linked to the commons copy from Elizabeth Hollingworth's article. The whole thing is a BLP nightmare that's likely to blow up if/when details get published in the local press. Even if the current coverage is appropriate, extra eyes would be appreciated for that eventuality. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- For now it should be kept off both articles, since all we have is a primary source. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Bennett Ratliff
Bennett Ratliff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The edits by Anomalocaridid include information that is generated by sources with a documented history of political attacks, misleading information, and a clear political agenda for the scores, reports and opinions that are produced. The particular groups cited vigorously supported the opponent of Bennett Ratliff in the last election with lies, innuendo, and misleading information and thus cannot be considered as impartial, unbiased sources that should be included in the BLP page. Mr. Ratliff would like to protect his reputation from false and misleading information about his service to the State of Texas.
- Pretty much all interest groups are, by definition, biased. If there is no consensus agreement on which ones should be cited and which ones shouldn't, I've just removed all of them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
michael J meade
Michael J. Meade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
a search of the Huffington post reveals mentions of Michael Meade by other authors but no articles authored by Michael Meade. To the best of my ability I cannot find a single article written by Meade on the Huffington post site let alone frequent contributions.
- I had no problem finding Huffington Post articles written by Michael J. Meade. Below is an incomplete list of some of his articles:
- Hopefully this clears some things up. Meatsgains (talk) 13:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- I've also added this source to support Meade as a frequent contributor to HuffPost. Meatsgains (talk)
Abhay K
Abhay Kumar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am reporting the article Abhay K for notability. He is just a diplomat, with some minimal work, just like any other diplomat of any other country. This is a very well constructed Wikipedia article, possibly written by Abhay K himself, but it certainly does not merit inclusion. If this merits conclusion, every public servant in every country should be on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.73.190.194 (talk) 04:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Looks plenty notable to me. Try this if you feel that's not the case. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 06:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Bob Isherwood
Bob Isherwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I recently went through and added citations and edited the article for Bob Isherwood and was hoping this would get rid of the warning header at the top about needing citations (which is several years old and no longer relevant). I know this may not be the place to post this but I'm curious as to how I would go about getting rid of that header now that the article is properly cited and the header no longer applies.
Thanks! JLarson15 (talk) 05:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- I removed the BLP sources tag because it is outdated and no longer applies to the page. The page is adequately sourced. Meatsgains (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks so much,
Regarding the "reads like a resume" tag (which is also over 3 years old), it doesn't look like that applies anymore either with updated sources and information, and the more editorial aspects taken out. Is it possible to get that tag removed as well?
Thanks again JLarson15 (talk) 20:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Scott Woods
Scott Woods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The official website does not lead to Scott Woods' website. It leads to http://www.blackair.org/ which is now a commercial site on tax preparation. I cannot find the official website for Scott Woods' poetry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.237.64.89 (talk) 10:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- I have removed the now-dead external link. All is done here. (Although the article is unsourced, avoids BLPROD by having a link to a bio from Contemporary Black Biography; if anyone here has familiarity with the poetry slam world, this may be with evaluating/putting eyes on.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Is answers.com ok for the EL section? I would get rid of it myself but don't really care to strongly. --Malerooster (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Done I've removed the flaky EL and replaced it with the official web site. I've also added 4 cites and revised the article. Its now up to WP standards.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Ralph Drollinger
Ralph Drollinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article needs some careful attention. In May, I fully-protected it for 2 weeks[32] in response[33] to a RFPP request[34] by User:Demiurge1000.
Today I had a rather odd request on my talk[35] from User:Accuracymattersman, asking me to block an editor who was allegedly to have "a vendetta" against the subject.
A little investigation shows that there is an long term edit war on this page, so I have fully protected it indefinitely.[36] (I initially protected it for 2 months,[37] but decided that this was inadequate)
The subject is a former pro basketball player, who later became involved with a Christian group called Capitol Ministries. This relationship involved a dispute and litigation, and the edit war relates to that dispute.
The two editors involved in the current edit war are both single-purpose accounts:
- Accuracymattersman (talk · contribs) has edited only 2 articles: Ralph Drollinger, and Sean Wallentine (also involved in Capitol Ministries)
- Proverbs6:16-19 (talk · contribs), whose 19 edits to date are all to this article.
The article was previously edited extensively by another apparent SPA AccuracyInPosting (talk · contribs).
The situation has previously been discussed on the article's talk page, where admin Zagalejo and Orangemike both noted the relevance of WP:BLPPRIMARY#Misuse_of_primary_sources.
The backlinks show that this article has been discussed at ANI December 2012, and here at WP:BLP/N on multiple occasions: November 2010, April 2011, October 2012. It has been mentioned at WP:COIN in November 2010, while Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/RK_Drollinger/Archive is a very busy page.
All three usernames, and their WP:SPA histories, along with their persistent use of primary sources related to a current legal dispute, make me think of WP:THETRUTH.
I do not have the time to review all of the sources in detail, so as an initial step I have removed[38] nearly all of the section relating to Capitol Ministries. There may be some material which should be reinstated, but I think that it is better for a BLP to under-report a particular topic than to retain contested info derived from primary sources.
The usual practice with page protection is for the protecting admin simply to protect the latest version. Having taken the unusual step of following protection with the removal of content, I will leave a note at WP:AN inviting other admins to review my actions and revert them as they see fit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- WP:AN notification here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Marek Dochnal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marek_Dochnal) presents false informations about the person: - all press links talking about Dochnal trials and allegations have been repeatedly removed (14 links to press publications concerning Dochnal trial are missing, 2 irrelevant links are put instead and one of them is Dochnal website), - the article contains spurious suggestion that Dochnal trial had political background while Dochnal has been validly sentenced for bribery, which is well documented in multiple press publications. The latest (27.07.2014) news regards court order of imprisonment of Dochnal, issued by District Court of Warsaw City, on 27 of July (http://niezalezna.pl/57763-dochnal-bedzie-siedzial-sad-wydal-nakaz-doprowadzenia-przestepcy-za-kratki), - the article contains spurious suggestion that Dochnal case is similar to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Khodorkovsky case while Dochnal guilt was proven and announced in valid court sentence in 2013. - the article suggests that European Court has spoken up for Dochnal innocence ("In September 2012 Marek Dochnal won a long awaited case against Poland in The European Court Of Human Rights in Strasbourg") which is deliberate manipulation.
This article should be tagged to warn readers of spurious informations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.243.164.159 (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Should this even be an article? I removed the unsourced material. Not much left to see. --Malerooster (talk) 03:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Would this citation be enough?--Malerooster (talk) 03:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- I added a PROD tag to the page. Subject is not notable. Meatsgains (talk) 12:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
George Will
Can the watchers here please opine on the weight of the controversy and criticism sections of this article? To be certain, His views and columns have agitated quite a few, but that is no cause for this article to be slanted, especially towards more recent events of the past decade. I've noticed this sort of "creep" in articles of all stripes. Might some consolidation be in order?Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Jacqueline Fernandez
Jacqueline Fernandez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There's been ongoing disputes about the subject of the articles date of birth. [[39]] had dates of birth that was a combination of sources. Two sources gave a month and a day but no year, one of which was a twitter source, the third was a source with just a year. I removed them because to my view it's original research we can not take the sources add them together and get a full DOB as this qualifies as WP:OR. One editor has disagreed with my assessment of the sources and requirement. It's been discussion and no edit wars so no issues with User:Bollyjeff I thought this just might be a good way for a BLP consensus for DOB as this issue has been onging for more then a year by the talkpage. Dear lord why are Bollywood articles DOB BLP info crazy? Lol thanks folks. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Here's just one of the sections [[40]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Look, I can give a dozen sources that have the entire date if you want, for example: [41],[42],[43],[44],[45]. The trouble is that these are lower quality sources than what have been provided, and there are also some lower quality sources that give a different date of her DOB. Therefore, I thought it best to use the highest quality sources, including here own twitter and video accounts to provide the best reliable information. If you remove it totally, some IP will just add it back the next day anyway, and probably with a lower quality source, and maybe the wrong date. There is no policy saying that the month, day and year must all come from the same source. BollyJeff | talk 12:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- User:Bollyjeff, There absolutely is, it's called Original Research or WP:OR, if you read this subsection WP:SYNTHESIS. It states quite explicitly, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources" Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Okay then, lets just wait and see what others here have to say. Would it be preferred to give just her month and day of birth with one source, and no year; or give just her year of birth with another source, and no month and day? Wait, how about month and day in one section with source a, and year in another section with source b? See how silly it sounds when you put it that way? BollyJeff | talk 18:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- It's not a wait and see thing though. The only thing I would say to include is the year of birth only, You are right that it would be super silly just to do the days. Sadly Bollywood articles seem to have particular issues with the DOB, we would prefer to not source it at all if we can't fin multiple reliable sources that agree. The main person I know that work BLP in Bollywood is User:TheRedPenOfDoom, I've pinged him to get his opinion, I highly respect his knowledge and he's very fair in regards to sourcing, if it's good or bad they will let you know regardless how you feel. I think it's important to intimate again though to I'm not upset with BollyJeff and I don't think he's upset with me, just a difference in policy interpretation and this has already stretched since 03/13 lol! Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- I would prefer that you do not call in editors that think like you to take your side. I know this editor, and have not had good experiences with them. Can a random BLP expert or two please chime in here? BollyJeff | talk 23:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- When in doubt, use the reliable source that has at least a year. If in doubt, go to WP:RSN to get reliable source info. And keep researching. It's out there somewhere. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. To prove one of my points above, someone just added a bogus birthdate. It was pretty stable for a while, before my previous sources were removed. BollyJeff | talk 02:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- And again. Almost every day, some editor adds one of the two conflicting dates with some bad source into the infobox. I think that we are better served by having my original date sources there to protect against this. What is the harm of using one reliable source for the day and month, and another for the year? BollyJeff | talk 15:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'm with Bollyjeff here. This is not, in my opinion, original research. It's simply using one secondary source for the month and day of birth, while using another reliable source for the year of birth. How is that original research? It is not synthesis in any meaningful way. The issue is that HiaB is treating the birthdate as if it were one whole item, when it is actually three distinct items: month of birth, day of birth, and year of birth. In theory--though not likely--a separate reliable source could be used to source each piece. Doing so is not original research, and is certainly not, in my view, a violation of BLP policy. LHMask me a question 16:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Not synthesis. If we can write "She was born on August 11", and "She was born in 1985" in two different sentences, then it is not synthesis to write "She was born on August 11, 1985" in the same sentence. Synthesis would be writing "... so because of this she was too young to do such-and-such in 2003" without an explicit source. Just combining two facts in one sentence that do not imply any more than their combination is not synthesis. --GRuban (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Exactly. It seems fairly legalistic to take the position that HiaB has done here. LHMask me a question 23:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- I guess that's why we are here, to see if I'm offbase, I still think it's fairly straightforward and legalistic when working with BLPS, especially when there is multiple sources that conflict each other. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- It is not clear to me that it is a "reliable source" for an age when it is merely celebrity gossip site using an out of context "28-year old" tossed off as a random adjective. If it were "The 28 year old is still playing teenagers in the recent youth oriented XXXX" or "The 28-year old sat through 3 hours of make up every day to play the role of the old crone" where there is an indication that the age was validated, but that is not the case here. And given that the age has been multiply contested, we need to get it right. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- I guess that's why we are here, to see if I'm offbase, I still think it's fairly straightforward and legalistic when working with BLPS, especially when there is multiple sources that conflict each other. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Exactly. It seems fairly legalistic to take the position that HiaB has done here. LHMask me a question 23:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Not synthesis. If we can write "She was born on August 11", and "She was born in 1985" in two different sentences, then it is not synthesis to write "She was born on August 11, 1985" in the same sentence. Synthesis would be writing "... so because of this she was too young to do such-and-such in 2003" without an explicit source. Just combining two facts in one sentence that do not imply any more than their combination is not synthesis. --GRuban (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'm with Bollyjeff here. This is not, in my opinion, original research. It's simply using one secondary source for the month and day of birth, while using another reliable source for the year of birth. How is that original research? It is not synthesis in any meaningful way. The issue is that HiaB is treating the birthdate as if it were one whole item, when it is actually three distinct items: month of birth, day of birth, and year of birth. In theory--though not likely--a separate reliable source could be used to source each piece. Doing so is not original research, and is certainly not, in my view, a violation of BLP policy. LHMask me a question 16:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- When in doubt, use the reliable source that has at least a year. If in doubt, go to WP:RSN to get reliable source info. And keep researching. It's out there somewhere. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- I would prefer that you do not call in editors that think like you to take your side. I know this editor, and have not had good experiences with them. Can a random BLP expert or two please chime in here? BollyJeff | talk 23:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- It's not a wait and see thing though. The only thing I would say to include is the year of birth only, You are right that it would be super silly just to do the days. Sadly Bollywood articles seem to have particular issues with the DOB, we would prefer to not source it at all if we can't fin multiple reliable sources that agree. The main person I know that work BLP in Bollywood is User:TheRedPenOfDoom, I've pinged him to get his opinion, I highly respect his knowledge and he's very fair in regards to sourcing, if it's good or bad they will let you know regardless how you feel. I think it's important to intimate again though to I'm not upset with BollyJeff and I don't think he's upset with me, just a difference in policy interpretation and this has already stretched since 03/13 lol! Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Okay then, lets just wait and see what others here have to say. Would it be preferred to give just her month and day of birth with one source, and no year; or give just her year of birth with another source, and no month and day? Wait, how about month and day in one section with source a, and year in another section with source b? See how silly it sounds when you put it that way? BollyJeff | talk 18:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- User:Bollyjeff, There absolutely is, it's called Original Research or WP:OR, if you read this subsection WP:SYNTHESIS. It states quite explicitly, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources" Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Look, I can give a dozen sources that have the entire date if you want, for example: [41],[42],[43],[44],[45]. The trouble is that these are lower quality sources than what have been provided, and there are also some lower quality sources that give a different date of her DOB. Therefore, I thought it best to use the highest quality sources, including here own twitter and video accounts to provide the best reliable information. If you remove it totally, some IP will just add it back the next day anyway, and probably with a lower quality source, and maybe the wrong date. There is no policy saying that the month, day and year must all come from the same source. BollyJeff | talk 12:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Gossip mag? Okay here are two of the biggest newspapers in India, The Times of India[46] and Hindustan Times[47] recently saying the same thing. Your friend Mr red pen is known to be found of removing content and fighting consensus rather than contributing to the project in a meaningful manner. I think this is pretty much settled with the agreement of the un-involved third parties above. BollyJeff | talk 22:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Actually there really isn't a consensus here, you have three seperate editors saying what I"m saying and three editors saying what you are saying. and if there is to be one it will need an admin to determine that consensus. Yes RedPenOfDoom removes a lot of content but it's content that is usually inaccurate or poorly sourced. It's similar to pruning trees. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Is there any genuine dispute about this woman's date of birth? I fully understand the theoretical points being made here, but we have articles with unsourced negative statements and even falsehoods that need attention, not to mention articles that could use general improvement and upgrading, so can we limit the arguing about things that are of peripheral concern? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know how to answer that? This guy Hell in a Bucket removed fairly well sourced information and then came here to argue about it. What else can I do? There is source of her tweeting and speaking what her birth day is, and what is isn't. Then lots of sources for the year. I don't understand why it's not enough for these people who love to argue. I would like to work on other stuff if they would back off. What would you suggest? BollyJeff | talk 01:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- User:Newyorkbrad I said the year only because of multiple sources that disagree and the combination of two sources when the year of birth is really the only reliable info we have. I'm somewhat surprised to hear BJ think I'm redpen which is pretty easily apparent to see it's not the scase if you actually look at our editing histories, usually you hear that nonense from new users but I'd like to further point out that I am not redpen and my typing quality or lack thereof should prove that added to the fact we edit at the same times a lot. As to the other part yes there is disputed sources on the date of birth as there is in loads of Bollywood article...BJ just because you don't like a contributor does not mean you can discount a highly experienced and respected editor like RPOD and throw out their opinion. I didn't ask because I know he would agree I ask because he is one of the most experienced and active editors in Bollywood articles and he can give a much needed overall view and overall consensus as he is involved with quite a few. That being said calm down smoke a joint and try to assume a bit more faith, I've tried to make it perfectly clear what the issue is and I'm discussing it at length cordially and with respect to your and your opinions without assuming bad things about you so a little back in this direction would be nice. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- I am a very nice person, but you are driving me to drink with this argument and bringing out my bad side. I want this to stop! Is the year still in dispute for you after seeing the above sources? If not 1985, then when? Or is it the day and month? Have you seen the video of her proclaiming those? What is the real problem at this point that is stopping you conceding? BollyJeff | talk 19:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- BJ if this is upsetting you then you are giving me way too much control over your actions...seriously. I've stated several times I have no objections to listing the year only and adding the month and day when we have a source that includes all three. But hey you know what when NYB sees the post and reads then he can make the decision. I've stated my only objection is combining the sources together to make a full date and that the consensus will be determined by an admin., NYB is one. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- I am a very nice person, but you are driving me to drink with this argument and bringing out my bad side. I want this to stop! Is the year still in dispute for you after seeing the above sources? If not 1985, then when? Or is it the day and month? Have you seen the video of her proclaiming those? What is the real problem at this point that is stopping you conceding? BollyJeff | talk 19:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- User:Newyorkbrad I said the year only because of multiple sources that disagree and the combination of two sources when the year of birth is really the only reliable info we have. I'm somewhat surprised to hear BJ think I'm redpen which is pretty easily apparent to see it's not the scase if you actually look at our editing histories, usually you hear that nonense from new users but I'd like to further point out that I am not redpen and my typing quality or lack thereof should prove that added to the fact we edit at the same times a lot. As to the other part yes there is disputed sources on the date of birth as there is in loads of Bollywood article...BJ just because you don't like a contributor does not mean you can discount a highly experienced and respected editor like RPOD and throw out their opinion. I didn't ask because I know he would agree I ask because he is one of the most experienced and active editors in Bollywood articles and he can give a much needed overall view and overall consensus as he is involved with quite a few. That being said calm down smoke a joint and try to assume a bit more faith, I've tried to make it perfectly clear what the issue is and I'm discussing it at length cordially and with respect to your and your opinions without assuming bad things about you so a little back in this direction would be nice. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Alan Guth
Alan Guth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Can someone take a quick look and tell me if talk page edits like this and this, describing the subject of the page as a "fraud," requires intervention? I'm not conversant with the latest BLP rules and practices and I am in disputes with the editor in question on other fronts (original research, civility, editing and discussion practices, etc), so I think I'm the wrong person to even try to make the call. Thanks for taking a look.. -- SCZenz (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, saying that the subject of a BLP "looks like a fraud" is way over the top. I left a warning at User talk:Holybeef#July 2014 2. There is a related discussion at ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 11:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- I blocked Holybeef a couple of days ago for continuing to edit this and another article improperly. I believe this thread can be closed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Ashok Chauhan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm in a content dispute over this BLP article with several IP's. The section "Controversies" contains claims about arrest warrants against the subject. The claims are supported by an article by Tim Sullivan (AP) from 2007, which was adapted/reprinted by other newspaper outlets, also cited in our article. However, a critical article by Mint (newspaper) has an update stating that "A Frankfurt court has also ruled that there are no crimincal proceedings against Chauhan and that the arrest warrant issued has been revoked." From what I have learned during my previous research, the business with education in India is a very dirty business, but I have a question: Is it appropriate to associate a living person in an encyclopedic article with arrest warrants that have been revoked? The last revert at least mentions that "the charges have been later cancelled" (my earlier addition/update), which is better but I have to ask for an independent opinion. My opponents cite WP:PUBLICFIGURE as an argument, and it might be a valid argument. What do you think about that? --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes education does seem to be a dirty business. All users deleting the Controvery section (like you did) with edit summaries (very similar to yours) have been blocked as sock puppets of Writers Media, most probably a PR company. And I mean all users. You also have deleted the Controversy section claiming sources are required, disregarding that there are 7-8 extremely reliable sources (from Wall Street Journal to Deccan Herald to Associated Press to Tribune to Tehelka, all independent of each other unlike what you claim above) supporting the Controversies section in the exact manner as WP:PUBLICFIGURE dictates. What is foxing is that you write above, "I'm in a content dispute over this BLP article with several IP's." You use the word "I". You strangely do not make a mention of all the other sock accounts that deleted the Controversy section like you did. Should it be understood that you have some knowledge of those accounts? I think you an administrator should really be clarifying right now what's going on, whether you have any connection with the socks and whether you're in any communication with others off-wiki with respect to this article here?! 93.186.31.81 (talk) 11:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Don't be silly.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- I said "business with education in India", I don't think that "education seems to be a dirty business", as you try to imply. There were not 7-8 extremely reliable sources when I questioned the claims, but several sources based mostly on the claims of Mr. Sullivan. Your team (?) repeatedly removed the update by Mint, only yesterday you or a related account reinstated the claim. I'm not in any way connected to Writers Media (btw, could you link their website, if there's any?) or to the socks operating here. This is what brought my attention to the article, another example of extremely tendentious and biased editing. I'm not a censor, I want to see a balanced article without someone's agenda, and that's why I asked for an independent opinion here, instead of reverting. The current revision and sourcing is not so bad, only the unnecessary claim A USA Today news mentions "he's a self-proclaimed philanthropist who is often surrounded by a phalanx of bodyguards: grim-looking men in polyester safari suits." is troubling and lacks context. In my opinon it borders with defamation unacceptable in an encyclopedic article. But that's just my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Your insinuation above that my "team (?) repeatedly removed the update by Mint" is really ridiculous and a quite silly and unwanted personal attack. Strike the comment and stop making childish personal attacks because someone pulled you up for blatantly bad edits. You're as bad an example of admin talk as they come by. If you're saying you're not related to Writers Media or to the socks, then I don't know whether to believe you for your word. You have still not answered one of the questions: are you in any communication with others off-wiki about this article here? (And please don't reply with another doltish personal attack) 93.186.31.81 (talk) 11.22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- I roughly know how bad I am so I don't need your review. You implied in your first comment that I'm associated with some "Writers Media" or a sock farm damaging Wikipedia (a part of a team??) which is nonsense. I've never talked about this article off-wiki, I have no special interest in this particular article, I just want it to be written in a neutral and unbiased way, which is why I'm here. This is my 7th year of transparent editing on various topics on this project, I live thousands kilometers far from India and its problems. However, there's a lot of strange manipulation in articles about educational institutions in India, and false information might affect decisions of real people in real world, which is troubling. I firmly believe that the article was created with the intention to defame the subject in a wider effort to damage Wikipedia, I pointed out to it and I would do the same with any other problematic Wikipedia topic. Please understand that I'm not your enemy, refrain from further comments about me and my motives and discuss the article. Thank you for your understanding. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- I really don't care about claims of 7 years of editing. What matters is if you understand BLP policy. And on the face of it, you don't have a strong grasp or even an average one imo. That's not a crime. You're not expected to know it all. But if you want to be taken seriously, read up more on the BLP policy. I don't think you should edit any biography, this or any other, with preconceived notions that any negative information is defamatory and all that Wikipedia should have are spanking clean bios. That's why sourcing is so relevant and I don't need to teach you that. If you're worried about defamation so much then you should be blaming all the news articles that report that this man is/was wanted for fraud in Germany. Simply report what the sources say. Don't use your "firm belief" POV editing to have only ultra clean biographies especially of such people by claiming that as charges have been dropped, even the news should be dropped. That's hilarious. Read WP:NPOV. If you've already read it, read it again. I think you're quite spaced out on your understanding of NPOV too. A balanced view doesn't mean only having sissy positive stuff & claiming negative stuff is being put only for sinister reasons. You sound almost delusional claiming that. Anyways I've removed the philanthropy stuff you were so worried about. So stop complaining & start reading up on policies. You need to. 93.186.31.81 (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hello, it seems you have been listing out links of your so called research you've done on this article and some other articles in some forum on Wikipediocracy.com. Is that true? You seem to have grandiosely claimed above that you have not discussed this article with anyone off-wiki. Can you give some clarification of what is really going on out here? Is there some ulterior motive that you have in editing this article (perhaps to prove something to your Wikipediocracy mates)? Please clarify. 93.186.31.81 (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- This is over the top. I've checked your posts on Wikipediocracy.com. Not only are you quite comfortable interacting in forums infested with self-confessed sock account holders, banned editors and self-confessed paid editors (like Greg Kohs), you're even showing off your research on this and other articles to these very editors. What hypocrisy by an administrator here!!! Wow!!! Have clean hands first then try and whitewash biographies of all controversial material. I'm amazed at the audacity of your claim above of not having discussed this article off-wiki. Can we have some clarifications? Please stop editing the BLP as I do not think you have clean hands.93.186.31.81 (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- I've removed the section only after someone intentionally reinstated outdated info about fraud charges. I posted here almost immediately after that. Previously, I removed promotional stuff etc. but never criticism. I wrote above that the current revision is acceptable to me, so your "whitewashing" hysteria is not needed. As for your latest fantastic revelation: All important facts I posted on this matter are on Wikipedia, not on Wikipediocracy. Wikipediocracy is an open forum, my comments there are transparent and anyone can read what I wrote there under my name. I reserve to myself the right to comment where I consider appropriate, and I don't need your approval. Btw, could you provide a link to a Wikipediocracy forum where I discuss the article Ashok Chauhan? --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- This is over the top. I've checked your posts on Wikipediocracy.com. Not only are you quite comfortable interacting in forums infested with self-confessed sock account holders, banned editors and self-confessed paid editors (like Greg Kohs), you're even showing off your research on this and other articles to these very editors. What hypocrisy by an administrator here!!! Wow!!! Have clean hands first then try and whitewash biographies of all controversial material. I'm amazed at the audacity of your claim above of not having discussed this article off-wiki. Can we have some clarifications? Please stop editing the BLP as I do not think you have clean hands.93.186.31.81 (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hello, it seems you have been listing out links of your so called research you've done on this article and some other articles in some forum on Wikipediocracy.com. Is that true? You seem to have grandiosely claimed above that you have not discussed this article with anyone off-wiki. Can you give some clarification of what is really going on out here? Is there some ulterior motive that you have in editing this article (perhaps to prove something to your Wikipediocracy mates)? Please clarify. 93.186.31.81 (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- I really don't care about claims of 7 years of editing. What matters is if you understand BLP policy. And on the face of it, you don't have a strong grasp or even an average one imo. That's not a crime. You're not expected to know it all. But if you want to be taken seriously, read up more on the BLP policy. I don't think you should edit any biography, this or any other, with preconceived notions that any negative information is defamatory and all that Wikipedia should have are spanking clean bios. That's why sourcing is so relevant and I don't need to teach you that. If you're worried about defamation so much then you should be blaming all the news articles that report that this man is/was wanted for fraud in Germany. Simply report what the sources say. Don't use your "firm belief" POV editing to have only ultra clean biographies especially of such people by claiming that as charges have been dropped, even the news should be dropped. That's hilarious. Read WP:NPOV. If you've already read it, read it again. I think you're quite spaced out on your understanding of NPOV too. A balanced view doesn't mean only having sissy positive stuff & claiming negative stuff is being put only for sinister reasons. You sound almost delusional claiming that. Anyways I've removed the philanthropy stuff you were so worried about. So stop complaining & start reading up on policies. You need to. 93.186.31.81 (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- I roughly know how bad I am so I don't need your review. You implied in your first comment that I'm associated with some "Writers Media" or a sock farm damaging Wikipedia (a part of a team??) which is nonsense. I've never talked about this article off-wiki, I have no special interest in this particular article, I just want it to be written in a neutral and unbiased way, which is why I'm here. This is my 7th year of transparent editing on various topics on this project, I live thousands kilometers far from India and its problems. However, there's a lot of strange manipulation in articles about educational institutions in India, and false information might affect decisions of real people in real world, which is troubling. I firmly believe that the article was created with the intention to defame the subject in a wider effort to damage Wikipedia, I pointed out to it and I would do the same with any other problematic Wikipedia topic. Please understand that I'm not your enemy, refrain from further comments about me and my motives and discuss the article. Thank you for your understanding. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Your insinuation above that my "team (?) repeatedly removed the update by Mint" is really ridiculous and a quite silly and unwanted personal attack. Strike the comment and stop making childish personal attacks because someone pulled you up for blatantly bad edits. You're as bad an example of admin talk as they come by. If you're saying you're not related to Writers Media or to the socks, then I don't know whether to believe you for your word. You have still not answered one of the questions: are you in any communication with others off-wiki about this article here? (And please don't reply with another doltish personal attack) 93.186.31.81 (talk) 11.22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
mike smith
Subject deceased — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.160.35 (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- [citation needed]. Also, which Mike Smith? We have several dozen articles on folks called Michael Smith. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Mike Smith (television presenter) - but I don't see any problem here. Shritwod (talk)
- The only reason I can think of is the belief that since he is no longer alive, he is no longer notable.--Auric talk 14:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Oooooh Auric, that smarts. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- I assume the OP was asking us to remove the "living person" tag, etc. That has been done; thread can be closed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- Oooooh Auric, that smarts. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- The only reason I can think of is the belief that since he is no longer alive, he is no longer notable.--Auric talk 14:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Mike Smith (television presenter) - but I don't see any problem here. Shritwod (talk)
Abid Qaiyum Suleri
Abid Qaiyum Suleri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Abid Qaiyum Suleri is a well-known scientist of Pakistan. I edited the article and added comprehensive references; however, the article has been resorted to the previous version. Pls help me in clarifying this move? Cheers -Dr Musi — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrMusi (talk • contribs) 10:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
DrMusi (talk) 10:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)DrMusi
- I echo the same concern. I edited the article Abid Qaiyum Suleri providing complete citations and references; however, the article has been reverted to a very old version. Even the publications sections which I updated (all cited and referenced) have been reverted to old publications. While he has published tremendous amount of work during the past few years. May I request for a "sample" page to follow so that I may learn where I was wrong as a contributor. Would also appreciate if editor may talk to me and point out my shortcomings instead of summarily deletion of all my contributions. Thanks a lot
(Sabazkot) sabazkot 11:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Use of an unpublished source for criticism of an aerospace engineer's work
EmDrive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
We could use some assistance at EmDrive. There is a disagreement among involved editors about whether or not an unpublished paper titled Why Shawyer’s ‘electromagnetic relativity drive’ is a fraud is acceptable for criticizing the experimental work of Roger Shawyer, and aerospace engineer. See EmDrive#Shawyer's New Scientist article for how the source is used. The source is also used in three other citations. Thank you.- MrX 18:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- For easy reference, here is the paper in question. My feeling is that while the author of the paper clearly attacks the device (the EmDrive) with some vehemence, he does not attack Shawyer personally. --Ashenai (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for adding the actual source which I forgot to do. I'm wondering about the Costella's credentials. He seems to be a guy with a blog. His comments at NewScientist.com are interesting, to say the least- MrX 18:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Costella seems to be an electrodynamics PhD who published a few papers in journals between 1994 and 2001 and is no longer in academia. --92.4.162.106 (talk) 23:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Where the paper discusses Shawyer's theories rather than the man himself and is used in an article about EmDrive rather than Shawyer, there is no BLP violation. TFD (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- If the paper isn't published, we can't use it as a source, per Wikipedia:Verifiability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- More specifically, the source fails WP:RS. I can imagine instances where an unpublished paper might pass RS (say, if it was presented at a conference after a peer-reviewed selection process) -- but this is just some guy typing stuff up on his computer. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- If the paper isn't published, we can't use it as a source, per Wikipedia:Verifiability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- The issue is (technically) WP:RS, not WP:V—it's certainly verifiable that Costella posted the paper on his web site; there's no reasonable doubt or question that he wrote the paper or that its contents are anything but what appears on his web site.
- As for reliability, well—New Scientist isn't a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It's a weekly popular science magazine. New Scientist has a rather...credulous...take on certain fringe science topics, because that's what's fun and interesting and will move magazines off of newsstands. They're in the business of entertainment, not scientific publishing; they need to sell ads and eyeballs. New Scientist got a lot of blowback from their EmDrive cover story, because it was, well, overly-credulous crap. Since they're an entertainment magazine and not a scientific journal, they weren't expected to follow up at all; there weren't any retractions, no editors were fired.
Nevertheless, the publishers still made specific reference to Costella's paper in their own response to criticism of their silly article, discussing Costella's paper and linking directly to it. (MrX has already linked to the publisher's comment above.) Like most pseudoscientific and pathological-science news articles, there will be a paucity of robust, peer-reviewed sources. So if we're going to try to cover this sort of thing at all, then we're down to WP:PARITY in deciding which sources we can or should be able to use. Given that Costella's rebuttal was good enough for New Scientist to refer to, it should be good enough for us.TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)- Could you please point out where "...the publishers still made specific reference to Costella's paper"? All I see is that they re-posted some comments from their web page and some emails.- MrX 21:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- No idea where I got that from; I have struck the error. For some reason I thought that there was a direct link from the publisher's own comments. My comments about the general reliability of popular press articles on scientific topics (especially of New Scientist) still stand. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Could you please point out where "...the publishers still made specific reference to Costella's paper"? All I see is that they re-posted some comments from their web page and some emails.- MrX 21:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
FYI
There are some BLP-related discussions currently ongoing elsewhere, including a BLP RfC and a discussion at AN/I. A past & possibly relevant discussion from this board is also located here. Guy1890 (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)