Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 05:30, 24 November 2011

Skip to table of contents

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.

Shortcuts

This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Loretta Lynn

Resolved

– Not a matter for this board. Drmies (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article has repetative information through out. More then one section contains information that contradicts a previous section, such as dates of certain events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.75.133 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 24 October 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

It's a long article and your comments are a little vague. So I looked at it, but I didn't spend all day on it. No dates referring to major events jumped out at me as inconsistent, and I didn't find any glaring contradictions. I also didn't find the level of repetition that bad – some things are repeated in summary in the intro, and some of the same topics are discussed in career, awards, and controversy. That's to be expected. I did remove most of the ugly slew of empty links, tangential material per WP:COAT, and an unreliable source for BLP purposes. I'm not questioning that there may be inaccurate dates somewhere in there. You can fix them where you see them, or leave a more specific note here or at the article's talk page. JFHJr (㊟) 19:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ben T. Smith, IV

Resolved

– Issues taken care of, article AfD'ed. Drmies (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HI, could be possibly get some administrative help regarding this Ben T. Smith, IV There is repeated reverting followed by editing that removes why i believe is a Neutral Point of view. I have opened talk dialog with people involved int he reverting to no avail. reverts are generally by user talk:71.116.80.15 and user talk:24.7.15.46 to my changes I have also placed talk on this subject with User talk: Cameron_Scott — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaMarcusMaximus (talk • contribs) 18:41, 26 October 2011‎ (UTC)

I removed the most egregious WP:RS vios and the claims they underpinned. Also removed lots of irrelevant WP:RESUME crap and left a note at the Talk:Ben T. Smith, IV. The article should probably be AfDed. In the meantime, be careful not to edit war. Future outright editing conflicts should probably go to WP:ANI. JFHJr (㊟) 19:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben T. Smith, IV. Drmies (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Schultz

Resolved

– See JFHJr's remark: repost if necessary. Drmies (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors persist in inserting biased and possibly libelous language in the "controversial statements" section of the article.Smiloid (talk) 08:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems there was a problem, but that it's being taken care of by experienced editors. I hope the edits centered around Rick Perry will decrease over time, but the article could use some watching in the meantime. If it turns into something more than reverting occasional IP poppycock, another note here would be a good idea. JFHJr (㊟) 20:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Gelb

Resolved

– Matter taken care of editorially. Drmies (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This man has mistaken Wikipedia.org for Amazon.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.197.43.178 (talk) 15:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted a large cut and copyright violation paste - he's not really independently wikipedia notable, it's more promotional than educational. Off2riorob (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. AfDed. JFHJr (㊟) 20:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ching chong

Resolved

– Issue seems resolved here, in the article, and on the article talk page. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was sure this issue has been discussed before, but couldn't find it in the archives. A section has been added detailing an occurrence at USC where a student uploaded a xenophobic video, and, of course, it went viral. Editors would like this included, I disagree on the grounds of BLP1E and NOTNEWS. A compromise where the incident is mentioned, but the person's name is not, has been put forward. I'm not hot on this, the sources all still name her, and this seems like an unsatisfactory solution. Discussion underway on the Talk page. The Interior (Talk) 19:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is relevant I guess. The Interior (Talk) 22:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it needs a bit of a trim - there are nine externals, most of them are low quality and some of the content is tangential imo and removing it will help - imo the current version it undue for such a minor issue. Tomorrow I will have a go at presenting a trimmed version. Off2riorob (talk) 00:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The more I looked at it, the less I liked it - I removed it completely - shes a one event private person. - Not notable student uploads video complaining about foreign people who use their mobile phone in the library - it might have got reported for a day or two but its not long term notable encyclopedic content. Off2riorob (talk) 11:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Darcy Olsen

The biography of Darcy Olson, head of the Goldwater Institute, reads like a biography put out by her PR firm. The description of their work similarly looks like it was directly lifted from one of their promotional fundraising brochures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.165.52.2 (talk) 02:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's clearly resume like. The creator of the version we have now (it was rewritten completely in June 2010) is User:Mr. Conservative - who has on his userpage that he is the Communications Director of the Phoenix, AZ based think tank the Goldwater Institute. - it also says he welcomes feedback so I left him a link to this report. Darcy Olsen is the Darcy A. Olsen is the president and chief executive officer of the Goldwater Institute ... Off2riorob (talk) 09:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reduced puff and resume-language a tad. Collect (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a conflicted editor. Mr. Conservative's edits here should be scrutinized and he should probably get a coi tag if he continues to edit his associates' articles. JFHJr (㊟) 02:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How many editors does it take to scrub a puff piece? I scrubbed it some more. The COI issue is serious enough: I am going to place a warning on Mr. Conservative's talk page that subsequent peacocking on this article will be followed by a COI tag--and perhaps further action. Drmies (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Atiya Khalil Arab

Resolved

– Nothing more to see here. This is a question for a different forum, if there was a question at all. Drmies (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atiya Khalil Arab is an internationally known arabic language and literature scholar, a Muhadissa, a poetess and above all a visionary who sees Islam and current affairs in a different light. Atiya Khalil belongs to a reputable scholarly family of India with origins in Yemen.

Family background:

Atiya was born on 27th December 1936 as the 7th child of Allama Khalil Arab. Her father was a distinguished arabic language teacher in India and was associated in teaching Arabic to the noted families of India during early and mid 1900s. Allama Khalil Arab was the son of Shaikh Hussain who migrated to India in late 1800s with a passion to impart knowledge of Arabic language and Hadith.

To be continued — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hassanokazmi (talk • contribs) 19:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't continue it here. If you want to write an article about this person, then read up on how to do that. I've posted some information on your Talk page about Wikipedia generally and about how to develop new articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Please, don't continue her biography here. Instead, let's have a look at this: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL).

The results seem to indicate she's not internationally known. If you think she's actually notable, please write an article here as your own draft that includes many reliable sources (see WP:RS) that establish notability (see WP:GNG). If you need help writing an article, the article wizard is a friendly place to start. Best of luck. JFHJr (㊟) 20:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Werner G. Goering

Resolved

– Text rectified, AfD started JFHJr (㊟) 18:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werner G. Goering (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

See Werner G. Goering. Article claims that the subject is the nephew of an infamous Nazi, based on a recent book that seems a bit iffy. Meanwhile, another book quotes the subject as denying the relationship -- that he's a distant cousin (see Talk here and follow the link therein). Article is currently at AfD (I'm not clear that subject would be notable even if the relationship is correct) but I wonder if that's enough given the delicacy of the article's assertion about the subject. Perhaps wiser heads than mine will know what to do. EEng (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarrely, it's the same book! The author makes the claim, which appears to have been picked up far and wide and found its way into Wikipedia, but then quotes the subject himself, Goering, as denying it. The claim seems unsupported anywhere else, and other published research contradicts it. RodCrosby (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. We're not getting much comment here, are we? EEng (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for other people but this issue seems not very pressing in terms of BLP. According to the same book Goering seems to acknowledge that he is a distant cousin, so apparently there is some remote relation. No adverse claims are made in the article against the subject so I would not consider this a BLP violation. On the other hand we may want to distance ourselves from this fact by making a specific attribution to the book which claims the relationship as well as acknowledge the subject's clarification that he is a distant cousin and not a nephew. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made the change. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's much better. Thanks. The question now is whether he's notable. The article's still at AfD -- can you weigh in there, since you've at least taken an interest? EEng (talk) 10:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your nice comment. I updated the link above because I made an additional change to the introduction. As for participating at the AfD I tend to rarely and selectively participate because I find the atmosphere there a bit too antagonistic. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 13:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Antagonistic? Antagonistic??? ANTAGONISTIC??? How DARE you call us antagonistic! Prove it! Prove we're antagonistic! I'll bet you're a sockpuppet! Or a meatpuppet! Or a ham-handed sockpuppet (sort of a meat-in-sock-puppet)! I'll have you banned! EEng (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Thanks for that. :} Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Barnes (author)

Resolved

– Subject has stopped editing the article, sought help at his own talk page, was offered a forum on relevance at the article's talk page JFHJr (㊟) 19:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

184.96.50.54 (talk · contribs) appears to be the subject editing his own biography per this edit, and appears in some cases to be removing sourced content as "irrelevancies". — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 04:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still see no way to make a note anywhere else, so if this is also contrary to policy, I suppose it is. Yes, this is the author trying to edit his own biography (not create, it has existed for many years before). The issues are as follows: while there are sources for the content, the content appears to be that 1) a total of about 1200 words of mine have appeared in two articles in Internet Evolution. This is out of about 4 million lifetime published. It's not even the paid blog where I've appeared most often (that would be TheCMOSite, with AllAnalytics a close second). That's one example of a sourced irrelevancy. 2) The other again appears to be a note to a librarian site where a couple of my books were classified as YA. Incidentally, there are almost certainly many more sites where my YA novel is classified as YA. 3) So in aggregate the entire content of WRITING appears to be two facts that somebody found somewhere and had sources for. The only reason for a WRITING subtopic here was probably that there was once a subtopic called WRITING AND PERSONAL LIFE that was about the once-popular fan theory that several of my less popular/more controversial books, especially Earth Made of Glass, were caused by my divorce from Kara Dalkey; that section was dedicated to debunking that (pointing out that the divorce was years after the publication of EMOG). Since that fan theory appears to have dwindled to nothing (the last reference I see to it was in 2006 with several fans jumping in to point the proponent to wikipedia), the removal of the debunking was entirely appropriate, but for some reason Kara continues to hang on in the entry. (Perhaps because she's the only wife that has a Wikipedia biography? And for sure she should be listed as writer/musician, the musician side has been far more active. But then shouldn't there be at least some mention of "scientist/physician Kathleen Albe" (#1) and "special education teacher/sculptor Diane Talbot"?

The "has taught at" correction to "full time tenured faculty" could be verified half a dozen places.

Anyway, clearly as Wikipedia works now it's inappropriate for me to make the corrections, and I guess I just have to hope someone takes these clues, looks a few things up, and straightens it out. I won't bother you again but I do hope this gets noticed somewhere -- John Barnes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.96.50.54 (talk) 04:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Barnes, the proper place to propose changes to the article about you is on the article's talk page. Just click on the "Discussion" tab at the top of the article. I've already made some comments there. Of course, we can mention your first and third wives, but if your second wife is the only one with her own Wikipedia biography, then she will appear with a blue link.

The solution to a "Writing" section that is unbalanced is not to remove accurate, well-referenced material. Instead, it for us to add much more accurate, well-referenced material that taken together, better portrays your entire career as a writer. Especially useful would be a reliable, independent source or two providing an overview of your career. Perhaps you can suggest such sources on the article's talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is untrue. Sometimes an undue weight problem must be solved by removing detail. Ken Arromdee (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dov Hikind

Resolved

– The content in question should not be included unless coverage of the issue is found in reliable sources. JFHJr (㊟) 19:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Need some help where a new editor (possibly vandal) insists on painting Hikind a liar based on the editor's transcription of a video.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, Brewcrewer did not bother to read the short newspaper article source before edit warring, where a transcription can be found. Go ahead punk (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By transcription do you mean the quote in the main text? Or is there a specific transcription linked here? If you're referring to the apparent inconsistency in reported statements within the article, you'd need to show the topic is noteworthy for inclusion. Is this apparent inconsistency receiving any non-trivial coverage in reliable sources? JFHJr (㊟) 16:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the following: 1. The quote that appears in the Daily Mail article is internally inconsistent. 2. The quote does not show up in other news accounts; to the contrary, other accounts report that Hikind said he had gone to see his mother, an Auschwitz survivor, now 90 and living in the same Midwood neighborhood.[1][2][3] 3. The Daily Mail article itself does not comment on the inconsistency, nor, as best I have been able to determine, does any other reliable source. In fact, my Google search suggests that the alleged discrepancy is being mentioned only in such locations as Stormfront. 4. Using this set of facts to add material to the article accusing Hikind of lying, under the heading "Gassed Mother claims" no less, violates WP:SYNTH and WP:BLP. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main problem is probably that the source is the Daily Mail, which is widely regarded as a piece of shit. I'm paraphrasing. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the problematic edit and the article's been still a few hours. I think Arxiloxos frames the issue correctly. It's WP:SYNTH, violates WP:BLP. Including the information would present non-notable information at most, and an internal inconsistency at least. No comment on moot issue of WP:RS; if you want to search for consensus, there's plenty of discussion about the Daily Mail at WP:RSN archives. If edit warring persists (with or without violating WP:3RR), I suggest a note at WP:ANEW. JFHJr (㊟) 18:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One more in agreement. The article is clearly internally inconsistent. That makes for two possibilities: 1) that Hikind is a liar 2) that the paper made a mistake. Now if the article wanted to accuse Hikind of lying, I think it would have said so much more clearly. Since it doesn't, I'm willing to bet that someone in the article writing process merely made a mistake. The fact that this is the Daily Mail, a tabloid without the best reputation, is icing. We need much more clear sources to accuse someone of lying about something so important. --GRuban (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually in reviewing the video Hikind seems to slur the pronoun before "mother" so it's unclear whether he is saying "my" or "her". The most likely explanation is that he meant "her" (his mother's mother), and the Mail indeed transcribed incorrectly. However, this does not mean that brewcrewer's original complaint was correct, which was that I had transcibed the video myself, and was made without looking at the article. Go ahead punk (talk) 07:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Avey

Resolved

– Talk page discussion should run its course. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avey has acquired notability having published an autobiography is which he claims that he broke into Auschwitz III on two occasions when imprisoned at a nearby camp for British POWs. There is no independent evidence to verify this claim, and it is broadly disputed in the UK and German media. The article has been repeatedly reverted to remove edits which reflect the genuine controversy which exists, even when these are written from a neutral point of view, using verifiable and reliable sources. Instead editors have restored material which is factually incorrect and based on material largely derived from interviews given by Avey during publication publicity for his book, consequently, the existing article does not have a neutral point of view and relies almost entirely on claims Avey has made about his own deeds either directly in his book or to third party journalists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Griz999 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest rephrasing your question about the article and not directed at an individual (as it could be seen as a personal attack). IRWolfie- (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, is that better? Griz999 (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the big BLP problem here--it strikes me as a content issue where the BLP policy is not directly relevant given that I see no serious defamation or libelous statements on either side of the conflict. If anything is possibly controversial, it's the plaintiff's edits. I have restored the current discussion on the talk page, and hope that matters will be settled there--or die a quiet death. In the meantime, I am going to archive this pending discussion on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nasir Schon

Resolved

– Clean-up courtesy of Cameron Scott. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page shows inaccurate information. Schon Properties is owned by Chairman Tahir H. Schon and Co-Chairman Mr. Nasir H. Schon (http://www.schonproperties.com/AboutSCHÖN/MessagefromChairmen/tabid/58/Default.aspx).

The Management team comprises of Mr. Khizer, Mr. Danial, Mr. Asher, Ms. Sonia, as can be seen from website (http://www.schonproperties.com/AboutSCHÖN/ManagementTeam/tabid/59/Default.aspx)

Please correct this information as soon as possible. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.98.16.114 (talk) 12:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was part copyvio, part unsourced puff-piece, I stubbed it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saab Magalona

Resolved

– There is namoore to telle. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To start with, her birthday is November 23, 1988 and NOT Feb 5, as stated on the page. I do not know where that came from and who created this page. I came to it because I needed to submit a profile of hers. It should also be noted that Saab has been known as an online personality through her writings, even before she was in show business. Her website www.isabellamagalona.com (SpellSaab) is widely known to her followers and to mainstream media as an influencer of Filipino lifestyle.

What more proof would you like? I am her MOTHER and manager, Pia Maria Arroyo Magalona and this is my account I am using. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piamagalona (talk • contribs) 14:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We like published sources - newspapers, magazines, that sort of thing. In this case, this confirms the birth date, so I restored it to Nov 23. Thank you. --GRuban (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Sandusky child sexual abuse scandal

Resolved

– It seems we have reached consensus here on this small matter in a big issue, at 5 to 1 (yeah, it's not a vote). Drmies (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two other editors and I have been unable to resolve our differences on Talk on whether a quote by Barry Switzer can be included in the article. I believe it is appropriate; they do not. The text in question is here and, after I offered to refactor it, here (minus the Mark Madden discussion, which isn't mine). - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ylee (talk • contribs)

It looks like the kind of rumor and speculation about living people being involved in sexual issues with children that has no place in a wiki article at all. We don't add that sort of redtop speculation. and a retired footie coach who is not a credible expert on child abuse - said he thought they were all involved/in on it. As per BLP policy, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, imo - no. Off2riorob (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Off2riorob. Switzer's comments are unfounded - just because he's been a college football coach, he doesn't know anything about this incident specifically. It's not as if there is any shortage of people shooting their mouths off about this incident. --GRuban (talk) 20:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree with switzer's sentiment. Simultaneously it is not appropriate for wikipedia, as it is not any kind of reliable source on this specific issue. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be used. Switzer not only has never had anything to do with the Penn State football program, it could have been considered a rival to his when he coached at Oklahoma and therefore he could arguably be biased. Daniel Case (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too speculative for a BLP, and the comments implicate other living persons as well. Wikipedia is not a tabloid.(olive (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Dan Barker

Resolved

– No clear BLP violation; AfD is the best forum to address a lack of notability JFHJr (㊟) 04:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems of very limited notability - sources include his own foundation etc. and his claim to fame is that he is now an atheist who appears on talk shows - but no sign of any sources for actual notability. Refs do not actually say much about him. One of his books is number 22,000 or so on Amazon, but that seems not quite important enough, I fear. Annie Laurie Gaylor has even less notability, if that is possible. And worse references (a Fox report that Air America will have an atheist show is not much to hang notability on). Books include ones published by their own foundation and by "Complimentary Copy Press" which I doubt is an academic source of much repute. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To play devils advocate (Sorry, couldn't resist) the arguement could be made that their notability derives from their co-presidency of Freedom From Religion Foundation, and just needs to be cited better. I'd call it a 50-50 shot at AFD. Not a slam dunk either way.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Foundation has an article - and likely meets notability, but that does not mean the officers of a foundation inherit that notability, does it? As individuals, the two seem to fail. BTW, I knew Robyn Murray O'Hair online - and she would decidedly be more notable than these two. After all, a Quaker preacher (?) is a rara avis - especially for him to be a fundamentalist [4] as well. [5] Quakers do not have pastors. Much less "associate pastors." Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google news finds plenty of hits for Dan Barker and quite a lot for Dan Barker Godless (Godless is apparently the title of one of his books), including the NYT (with some biographical material here and here), MSNBC and USA Today (which crashes my browser ;-). I don't think notability is a problem. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a lot of substantial articles there. I'm not sure I can think of a reason that GNG wouldn't apply.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But not for his wife. The newspapers are all mainly about his being an officer of his Foundation, and his role therein - not separate notability - I take it that officers of Foundations are now notable per se? Collect (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think not. The number of foundations out there is huge, and the foundations themselves are quite often not notable. If you are saying "the officers of an already notable foundation are inherently notable", then I would likely still disagree, althrough they are likely to actually be notable since they would have interviews with them and such. However, if those interviews are focusing solely on the foundation, and not that officer, I would say that does not count. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Collect's assumption is wrong. Most of the articles are connected with his promotion of atheism, but they are neither restricted to that topic, nor to his role as co-president of the FFRF. Barker also hosts a radio show, and is a successful composer. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for Annie Laurie Gaylor, it's really not that hard to type her name into Google News and search the archives. It returns about 1000 hits, with USA Today including her in a list of Prominent Women in the Freethought Community and the NYT providing biographical background. Of course, while she is "an officer" of the FFRF, she also is one of its founders, and hence slightly more prominent than the generic officer. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, if you think you have a case you can try to take either to AFD. I'd have to say though that IMHO you'd have a tough time trying to get by the GNG argument. Other than that there's no BLP Policy reasons for any action that I can see. Everything else seems to be a philosophical issue about are "WP:Notable" people really "Real World Notable".--Cube lurker (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is generally non-utile -- and she is not separately notable (the "100)s of hits" are almst all inconjeuction with her title, and not with her as an individual). And being host of a radio show which is paid for by one's own foundation != much (more like SPS than like a commercial show). It is currently broadcast by all of six stations. That standard would make over fifty non-WP-listed televangelists "notable" on their own <g>. Collect (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Separate notability" seems to be a canard. How many sources on Neil Armstrong do you find that do not mention the moon landing? Or on Napoleon that do not mention the Napoleonic wars? Gaylor has been with the foundation for 35 years, and has been mentioned in connection with many different related events. This would stretch WP:BLP1E far beyond breaking point. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Um -- Armstrong has a number of events and connections making him notable -- Barker has but one, And his wife even more tenuous notability. That articles on Armstrong do mention his most notable accomplishment in addition to other notable accomplishments and that astronauts appear, on their face, to meet GNG in any case, but people who pay for their own radio broadcasts do not. Or do you really feel self-financed radio shows make the person heading the foundation "notable" per se? And his wife? Cheers - but your argument about Napoleon and Armstrong is totally absurd. Google News archive finds a total of four cites in news media for "freethought radio" - of which 2 used the "Air America" press release when it started. It seems a tad less notable than most local shows with much higher listenership. Collect (talk) 13:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can figure out, your argument now boils down to "they do one thing that I think does not make them notable, therefore they are not notable". This is structurally nonsensical. However, I agree with CL below. You have not specified what you think is the BLP issue, nor what your aim in this discussion is. If there is no specific action you want us to take, I don't think we need to try to get everyone to agree on the premises. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect, so what do you want to do. No ones going to speedy it, or at least if they did it'd get snow overturned at DRV. This isn't AFD, and there's nothing that's a BLP violation in the sense of being slanderous or defamitory.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Dowbiggin 2

Resolved

– WP:SYN, sourcing issues resolved below. JFHJr (㊟) 19:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed a paragraph on the article subject's view on gay rights, as in my view there are WP:SYN and other problems in the way the sources have been used. [6]. Sources: [7] [8]

Input from outside editors requested. Thanks, --JN466 22:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Dowbiggin has given speeches at Pro-Life conferences.[9] Using Pro_Life sources for accessing his views is therefore apposite.
Ian Dowbiggin has written in The Quest for Mental Health: A Tale of Science, Medicine, Scandal, Sorrow text that amounts to saying that the American Psychiatry Association suffered a "serious blow to its reputation" by delisting homosexuality as a mental disorder.
Ian Dowbiggin has railed against the gay rights movement and its attitude to the Catholic Church (which denigrates homosexuality as a sin).[10]
Ian Dowbiggin's words, as taken from Pro-Life sources that have not been shown to be unreliable sources, have been removed from the article on the grounds of SYN. In addition, he wrote an article about homosexuals and the Catholic Church (see last link above), and a direct quote from that was removed as SYN. But SYN, by definition, is the taking of source A and source B to reach a novel conclusion C. This was not done in the article so there is no SYN. Jabbsworth 23:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at some of the problems:

Disputed text

Gay rights

Dowbiggin has linked the gay rights movement to abortion rights and said both reflect a "hatred of Christian moral teaching".^[1]^{[unreliable source?]}^[2]^{[unreliable source?]} He has also linked homosexual activists to anti-Catholicism, saying that homosexual demonstrators in the United States have "spat on the Eucharist, shouted down sermons, tossed condoms at church leaders and shouted outside Catholic churches".^[3]

According to your text,

Dowbiggin has linked the gay rights movement to abortion rights and said both reflect a "hatred of Christian moral teaching".

The source, The Interim, a Canadian "life and family issues newspaper", says,

Dowbiggin also explained the cultural implications of the eugenics philosophy and showed how has been integrated into our society today. Both euthanasia and eugenics are rooted in a philosophy that says it is better for society if certain people did not exist. But the connections, the philosophical roots go deeper than that he said, noting that the movements advocating euthanasia, eugenics, sex education, population control, gay rights and abortion all have something in common: they are connected by their “fervent dedication to over-turning centuries-old conceptions of life and death.” That is they are united in their hatred of Christian moral teaching and their desire to throw it into the trash bin of history.

Now, why would you mark "hatred of Christian moral teaching" as a direct quote, attributed to Dowbiggin, when it is not a quote but editorial opinion in the source, and then edit-war over it? And why cherry-pick gay rights and abortion, when what he is really talking about is euthanasia? I would have no problem if what he actually said (per the source: Both euthanasia and eugenics are rooted in a philosophy that says it is better for society if certain people did not exist. But the connections, the philosophical roots go deeper than that he said, noting that the movements advocating euthanasia, eugenics, sex education, population control, gay rights and abortion all have something in common: they are connected by their “fervent dedication to over-turning centuries-old conceptions of life and death.”) were added to the section on Euthanasia.

In the second source he is talking about various facets of anti-Catholicism and complains – among many other things – that there have been instances of gay demonstrators behaving in the way he describes – spitting on the eucharist, disrupting sermons, lobbing condoms at church leaders etc. Turning that into a statement that he has "linked homosexual activists to anti-Catholicism" is not an accurate reflection of the source, which is not about homosexual activism, but about anti-Catholicism. Why not have a section about anti-Catholicism, and reflect his views accurately and proportionately? --JN466 08:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read the phrase "hatred of Christian moral teaching" as his quoted words, not editorial opinion. On second look, it may be editorial opinion. That argument was not raised before. I'm not averse to changing the quote to "fervent dedication to over-turning centuries-old conceptions of life and death", as in Dowbiggin has linked the gay rights movement to abortion rights (inter alia) in their "fervent dedication to over-turning centuries-old conceptions of life and death".
Reverting Jesanj twice does not amount to an "edit war". Steady on, please.
Dowbiggin definitely has notable views on gay rights. He castigated the APA for delisting homosexuality as a mental disorder ... this is not a widespread view. It's completely out of step with modern thinking in psychology and psychiatry. He's speaking from the conservative religious right here, I'd say. Yet he is a well known commentator and author on issues of ethics and social issues such as euthanasia, abortion, population, mental health,, etc, so it is not out of order to encompass his views on these social issues in the article, even if they are a little startling at first glance.

Regarding your suggestion on replacing the Gay rights section with an Anti-Catholicism section, I'm fine with that. It may be a less contentious way of covering this data. Just as long as we remain broadly inclusive when covering what he has said and written. IOW, the section needs to state the same thing, that he has linked Gay activism to anti-Catholicism, which he indeed has. Jabbsworth —Preceding undated comment added 09:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Please avoid terms like "linking gay rights to ...", which are an unsourced interpretation. Just lay out his views, as given in the sources, in a fair and balanced way such that he could not possibly disagree with you that those are his views, and let them speak for themselves. (Note that his own writings are primary sources in his bio, and should not be overused.) --JN466 16:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Jabbsworth 06:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good job. --JN466 23:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Totonji

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A report to UAA led me to this article, where Jihadelamir (talk · contribs) replaced sourced but unduly weighted negative information about the subject with a rather innocuous unsourced list of accomplishments. I have reverted those changes, although I admit that the article as it stood was unsatisfactory and I just removed a very serious and unsourced negative fact as well. Yet the existing sourcing cites two publications with a known partisan bias that I am not sure meet our standards.

As it is, I'm not even sure the subject is notable. Can someone take a look and see what they can do? Daniel Case (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up the article, mainly removing some sensationalistic stuff that is tangential to Totonji. I've left in the unreliable source (it's a political magazine), mostly because without it, there's no source at all and because what's in the article now isn't particularly controversial. However, I'm not sure that all the things that are said about him (what he co-founded, etc.) are actually true. A lot of the organizations have Wikipedia articles (some of which may not be notable, either), but the references to him in those articles are unsourced (just points to his article). A Google news search turns up very little in mainstream sources. I'm not sure whether to AfD him.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After looking for some more information on the subject, I found his notability – if any – lies in his co-founding the SAAR Foundation. I think he merits a mention at that article, but this subject's stand-alone BLP shouldn't survive AfD. You should anticipate some !keeps just because he's mentioned in connection with the apparently marginally more notable foundation, which probably passes WP:GNG. JFHJr (㊟) 02:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Pathak (politician)

The article needs a bit of work, and unfortunately I'm a bit busy. There is a related OTRS ticket, if people are interested ticket:2011111610005941. NW (Talk) 20:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did a general clean up and NPOV of the content. Added to my watchlist. He seems a little notable , Member of the Legislative Assembly (India) are these MLA's automatically notable - there are about five thousand of them throughout India. I notice no one else in the story is notable - his mother , a mayor and his father and the person he defeated in the election , local? none of them have a wikipedia article. - He is currently only one of three out of 230 people that won a seat in this election to have a wikipedia biography. Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly Election 2008. Off2riorob (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And yes, I would think that he meets WP:POLITICIAN: "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature." NW (Talk) 03:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I wish more of our Indian editors would improve this disgraceful situation. Even cabinet ministers of large states like Andhra Pradesh may have no article about them; far less the rank-and-file MLAs! --Orange Mike | Talk 02:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Halperin

User:Zigzig20s added the following material in violation of BLP policy:

In 1992, he was accused of sexually harassing a male assistant professor, Theoharis C. Theoharis, in his department at MIT.([11]) ([12]) ([13]).

The "accusation" came from a Professor Wolff, who filed a lawsuit claiming various kinds of harassment against her. In Wolff's suit, she also alleged that in a meeting Halperin had demanded that a male professor be hired because Halperin was in love with him. Wolff also alleged that Theoharis (don't know if he's the same guy as the one Halperin was supposedly in love with), told Wolff that Halperin was sexually harassing Theoharis.

So, we are reporting on an accusation by a fellow professor that was tangential to a lawsuit the professor filed against MIT for harassment against her. This is garbage. It's hard to find a policy that this neatly fits into. I suppose the closest is WP:BLPGOSSIP ("whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject").

I reverted a couple of times until Zigzig seemingly gave up. However, User:Viramag reverted me with the usual fallback that the material is cited to reliable sources.

A secondary issue is this material:

In 2010, he wrote an open letter to Michigan's 52nd Attorney General Mike Cox to denounce the homophobic harassment of one of his staffer, Andrew Shirvell, towards a student, Chris Armstrong.

Assume it's reliably sourced. The first issue is whether it violates BLP for Shirvell. I would say it fails WP:BLPSPS in the sense that Halperin's letter is a self-published source that was reprinted in a reliable source (without any commentary). Even if one disagrees with my interpretation of BLPSPS, I don't see how it's even noteworthy in Halperin's article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Wolff harassment lawsuit is actually useful to mention, for a very interesting reason - Halperin himself wrote about it. Here: [14] It clearly made an impact on him. The New York Times link should be [15], by the way. --GRuban (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I used the refs from the article material. The NYT ref GRuban has is a better ref for #26 that was in the article. They are textually identical. Interestingly, the book cite wasn't even in the added material, but it wouldn't change my view. A good analogy is the silly accusations against Bieber. They were reported in reliable sources but didn't belong in the article. The fact that Bieber responded to them didn't make them any less problematic.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bieber isn't a good analogy - he didn't choose to respond, he was forced to, by a threat of a pending lawsuit. Halperin is deciding to write about the incident after the lawsuit threat is completely over. (And in a book, that from the summary at least is supposed to be about Foucault - er? In any case...) No one is forcing him. Clearly Halperin himself believes it's worth writing about. We shouldn't decide he is wrong. --GRuban (talk) 12:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping other editors would comment on this material, but, unfortunately, that hasn't happened. Bieber was not "forced" to respond in the press. He's only forced to respond in court. Not the same. But that's a bit of a quibble. Also, just because Halperin wants to write about something doesn't mean it belongs in the article. It's a self-published source, and we certainly don't report on everything that article subjects say about themselves. For many things, we can't use such sources. But let's put that one aside too for a moment. Even assuming I agreed this is worth reporting about and it's not a BLP violation (which I still don't concede), look at the way the material is worded now. It's oblique and accusatory by innuendo. It doesn't say anything about Halperin's point of view (that he expresses in his book, which, btw, doesn't really address the sexual harassment charge or the person's name). The current material just says Halperin was accused of sexually harassing someone. It doesn't say who the accuser is or how she accused him or give any context at all. Surely, you don't think the current wording is appropriate?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You do have a point about the phrasing. "He was accused of" often means that the target accused him, which isn't the case; the fact the accusation was by a third party does take a lot of weight out of it. In addition, Wolff was simultaneously accusing him of favoring the target. How about: "In 1992, as part of a larger lawsuit against the MIT literature department, a female co-worker accused him of recommending for promotion and sexually harassing a male assistant professor."? --GRuban (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without approving or disapproving your proposed wording, doesn't your own wording cause you to reconsider including it in the article? It kind of leaps out at me. You have a colleague who is clearly disgruntled generally about the atmosphere in the department filing a lawsuit against the university and throwing in as much dirt as she can find as background for her suit. Of course, her allegations against Halperin would never be adjudicated one way or the other because they are not really material to her suit, so they just linger out there as her opinion. Why would you want to include that in the article, even if Halperin has a paragraph about it in a book (published 3 years later) because it rankles him?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grr. You keep having these points that make sense. Can't you call me a sockpuppet or something that would be less persuasive? :-) Let me think about it a bit more. The thing is that it really has been written about multiple times by the MIT Press, once by the New York Times, reprinted in the Chicago Tribune[16], another in the Boston Globe[17] and again by the subject himself in a book he wrote years after, in most cases that would be plenty even for a BLP. But you are right that it seems to have been a side issue in Wolff's lawsuit. --GRuban (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23 needs to be warned for edit warring. He is trying to wage a one-man crusade to remove sourced material, despite the objections of two other editors - Zigzig20s and myself. Viramag (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be more helpful if you would comment on the substance of my objections. Considering the nature of the material, I think it's more prudent to remove it until a consensus is reached. Something that occurred in 1992 and hasn't been in the article until now can certainly wait a bit while the merits are discussed. Well, clearly you disagree as you've reverted me. Too bad.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Viramag - I don't support this disputed contents inclusion either and you should stop edit warring it back in until the discussion is resolved. The sourcing seems quite weak to me and he was not charged with anything was he? Off2riorob (talk) 01:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Drill.jpg

Resolved

– Vandalism undone at Commons JFHJr (㊟) 02:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although attributed to be the son of one user, the file was uploaded by another user and the "Description" field could be construed as defamatory.Novangelis (talk) 02:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting it. I'd say that was just vandalism on Commons. I reverted it there. JFHJr (㊟) 02:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mircea Cantor

Resolved

– Not a BLP issue for us, with thanks to Andy. Editor is softerblocked, for obvious reasons. Drmies (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello we writte from Mircea Cantor Studio. we have been alarmed that a certain Francis Vergne interfere and delete information form Mircea Cantor french wikipedia page. for exemple on the english wikipedia page is said " Mircea Cantor (born 1977) is a Romanian-born artist who lives and works on Earth. " and we wanted to keep the same on french page, and not to add that he lives in Paris and Cluj; because Mircea himself publishes in all his biographies that he lives on Earth, and since the english version of wiki accepted this, why somebody (francis vergne) delete it constantly!!!! Then a certain Richard Vegas, added usefull information on the "Liens externes" and again this Francis Vergne deleted them!!!! (they were very precious source quoted related to Mircea's recent activity! Then he deleted all modifications on his exhibitions and its layout with the years, for no reason! There was just correct information that was added, and then he deleted this also!!!! Now seems that he totaly blocked the possibilty to edit the page! This is scandalous!!! We consider that it's not fair to do this, since we are from Mircea's studio and that we follow closely his activity! And even without being close to his studio, how can somebody block without any reason and legitimate authority???!!!! We hope that you can help to solve this situation. You can contact us at: <redacted> Sincerely, Gabriela, Mircea Cantor Studio, www.mirceacantor.ro — Preceding unsigned comment added by StudioCantor (talk • contribs) 14:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:COI (I assume French Wikipedia has a similar policy). As someone connected with the subject of the article, you should not be editing it. I suggest that you discuss such issues on the article talk page. Also, note that this noticeboard is for issues relating to the English-language Wikipedia. We have no authority over others. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Daly

Resolved

– Deleted at AfD. JFHJr (㊟) 23:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article creator (who only edits with regard to the subject of the article) involved in this dispute, is repeatedly adding content to the article claiming that a once (somewhat) prominent transgender activist, who was interviewed on the Entertainment Tonight TV show, has since become a performer in pornographic videos. No references or sources of any type have been provided for the identification of the interviewee as the porn performer, just links documenting that the interview was broadcast. The performer uses a different name from the interviewee. In essence, the problem is this: "Jacki" appeared on ET, and is a real, identifiable person. "Amy" is a porn performer for whom we have no reliable biographical information. Nothing supports the claim that Jacki changed their name to Amy and went into porn. This is, therefore, a BLP violation with regard to Jacki.
User:TSWikis1 claims that various sources (from 2007, the date for the ET interview) show that "Jacki" became "Amy", even though nothing in the cited references discusses the point (and it appears quite implausible that 2007 sources would address events that occurred two years later). Instead, TSWikis1 seems to be mainly supporting the claim by comparing photos. (They also state the claim is supported by the bio section on the subject's website -- which, aside from being NSFW/sexually explicit, doesn't appear to have a bio section.) I see no way, absent much more reliable sourcing, this claim can be included in the article.
(Note that this dispute has arisen in the context of a rather contentious AFD [18], with a related 3RR report[19].) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I had a look around (note - adult content) - http://www.amydaly.com/blog/about - and on Amy's blog these details that User:TSWikis1 is desirious of adding to the bio do seem to be supported. Off2riorob (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muzaffar Iqbal

Resolved

– AfD begun. JFHJr (㊟) 00:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muzaffar Iqbal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A major edit. Cleaned up this entry, removed certain duplicates; it may now qualify for removing the warning label: "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (April 2011)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by YTur (talk • contribs) 03:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it needs *more* tags, it's largely unsourced and seems to be a puff piece. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; I added a notability tag to the top. I also removed the entire biography since it consisted of self-serving claims supported by a WP:SPS (résumé) and otherwise a lot of nothing. I've added a find sources link here as a courtesy, in case any veterans care to attempt a rescue before this article's destined AfD. JFHJr (㊟) 00:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert E. Scott

Resolved

– Misplaced content removed. JFHJr (㊟) 01:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Robert E. Scott article contains information regarding two different living individuals with the same name. The law school professor from the first section is not the same person as the Pennsylvania district judge who will preside over the Sandusky case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bakerleit (talk • contribs) 14:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the misplaced content. – ukexpat (talk) 14:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney Love

Sebastiangarth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It seems like we return to this subject every few years, note the similar 2007 filing. Kurt Cobain committed suicide in 1994, but there's been a long-running conspiracy theory that Courtney Love had Kurt murdered. At times we have very fervent and impassioned editors show up to Love's page and insist that this be included in some fashion into her biography. I and other editors have long contended that is is quite a horrible idea to do this, as the conspiracy is largely the unproven and unsupportable product of a private investigator Tom Grant (private investigator). Grant's theories are given coverage in the Death of Kurt Cobain article, and that is reasonably appropriate. But we have Sebastiangarth attempting to put this edit into the article, repeatedly. I feel it is a serious breach of WP:BLP policy to put allegations of murder into Love's article. It is not a widely-held conspiracy theory, the msnbc interview is just Tom Grant showing up again supporting a new (in 2004) book on the matter. Tarc (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc, will you please strike your second sentence, or render it invisible? The memory still hurts. Anyway, Tarc is correct, there is nothing to this, and there is no reason to include this stuff in Courtney Love. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to Cobain killing himself, no that edit does not need to apppear in the love article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, its already covered in two locations and it seems totally reasonable acording to WP:BLP not to include such conspiracy claims in her BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc, had your initial comments been made with as much effort as you are making now, we wouldn't even be sitting here. Anyway, I don't think this is so much an issue of whether or not this sort of material is allowed in a BLP, per se. In fact, the policy is actually quite clear:

"In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out."

(Case in point? The entry on Robert Wagner's bio about Natalie Wood's death.)

So the second sentence in the above policy really lays out what requirements need to be satisfied in order to warrant inclusion of the disputed text. Can we all, at the very least, agree on that? Sebastian Garth (talk) 01:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although we don't usually compare atricles and in WP:Otherstuffexists - I don't see the N Wood/Wagner case as comparable in any way. Its a simple fact of truth that Wagner was there on his boat when whatever happened resulting in the death of Woods happened. Its just a bit of editorial judgment with the statement from BLP policy that, "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." is the standard we desire in our biographies of living people. This content is what could easily be described as fringe conspiracy. We have not totally censored it , just reported it in two locations where it sits a lot better considering the speculative and accusatory fringe conspiracy content it is. Off2riorob (talk) 09:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invoking WP:FRINGE would be appropriate if we were talking about material that actually elaborates on such theories. In this case, however, we are simply recognizing that the accusation *itself* is notable (which it most certainly is), making sure that the appropriate weight is being given to the topic (which indeed has been done). Cherry-picking which articles in the project do and do not deserve it's mention may seem like a good idea from the standpoint of being sensitive to the subject of a BLP, but at the end of the day it still pretty much equates to censorship. Well intended, albeit. Sebastian Garth (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't worth discussing, WP:FRINGE is inapposite, and there's no need for a textual mention of conspiracy theories. Rob does a very good job explaining why. However, it might be appropriate to pipe a link at In 1994, Cobain committed suicide. JFHJr (㊟) 00:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contra principia negantem non est disputandum. I'll let the matter rest for now, but if this debate ever does get brought up again at some point in the future by another editor, you can bet I'll be weighing in for support. Cheers. Sebastian Garth (talk) 06:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack McKeon

Resolved

– Not a BLP issue. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The pronuciation of McKeon is incorrect. It should be (me'kew:en). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.232.55.20 (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That strikes me as a matter for the talk page, where I'll copy your comment. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More eyes needed please: Robert Wagner

Given this (and similar) news stories, the article has picked up a lot of activity, including several BLP violations. It could certainly do with some extra BLP-minded eyes on it. Let me know if semi-protection would be helpful...--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie Fine

If you don't know about this one yet you're not watching ESPN--and ESPN is the main reporting agency, it seems. I semi-protected the article yesterday, and the allegations have been added again today. I prefer to err on the side of caution, but I am interested in your opinions. Drmies (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe these allegations should be added to the article at this point. If something more substantial comes of it later, then it can be revisited, but it's not enough for now.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The allegations have been inserted into the article again, but unlike the past attempts, this one is more encyclopedic and includes the fact that he has been placed on administrative leave, which is more of an event than an allegation, even if it is based on what thus far are unsubstantiated allegations. Nonetheless, when you read the sources, two things emerge. First, one of the accusers has accused Fine in the past of the same conduct, and the university investigated it back then and found nothing to corroborate his story. The second accuser (apparently new) is a relative of the first. I still cringe a bit when I read the material in the article, and I'm on the fence as to whether it belongs in the article. The editor putting in the material relies on WP:WELLKNOWN, but most of the stuff comes from local newspapers, and it appears to be more of a local story that's received attention because of the Penn State problems. One compromise would be to trim the material (I think it's much longer than it needs to be) based on WP:UNDUE. I'd like to know what others think.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to trim the material pending comments by other editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the trim was appropriate. The only thing I might've done differently is leave the very brief and reliably cited mention of the Penn State scandal. In this particular case, it would serve as additional information about the objectively real context, and probably wouldn't run the risk of WP:COAT. Of course, the prose is also just fine without it. JFHJr (㊟) 17:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume your comment means you think the article should include some material on the allegations. The reason I took out the Penn State stuff was because it seemed to add weight by association. Thanks for adding the date reference, btw.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether it belongs at all. You've pretty well framed the situation, including WP:UNDUE, WP:WELLKNOWN, maybe touching on some WP:NOTNEWS and generally what belongs in a proper encyclopedia. As you point out, being put on leave increases the significance of the accusations as far as any biography goes. On balance, a consensus to include a brief mention will probably help avoid a dispute over the issue. If/when his leave ends, that might be a good time to revisit the issue. Regarding the Penn State mention, I understand your concern, and that's why I don't feel particularly strongly about the issue. IMO a context of these accusations "in the wake" of another scandal actually decreases their significance. But again, I see your point and rather agree; it's nothing I'd go adding just to add in this BLP. JFHJr (㊟) 18:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor who put the statement in, the changes are reasonable, although I think there was a bit too much trimming. The reason I put Penn State in is that this has received national attention. USA Today, The New York Times, and Fox News have original articles about this, in addition to ESPN who originated the story. In those articles they stated that Penn State increased focus on sex abuse in universities, and one of the articles noted that an accuser came forward because of Penn State. This is not a local story on the AP wire, but millions of readers are aware of this. The reaction by the players and the coaches other than Fine is also significant and should be included. Calwatch (talk) 06:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anya Ayoung-Chee

Can someone please look into the removal of items from the discussion page by O2RR [20]. I can understand that he's opposed to the inclusion of any mention of the well reported sex tape scandal regardless of what wikipedia's actual policy on verifiable scandals in blps is, but he really shouldn't be trying to remove comments from the talk page as "stale 2 months" when they're not even a moth old at this time, should he? 186.45.111.106 (talk) 03:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're just complaining about archiving, this is probably the wrong place. During your edit war there, you not only restored content inconsistent with the given edit summary(!), you also restored content that probably ought to be archived. If you continue to edit that talk page, I hope you'll consider trimming that conversation because it is indeed stale. On the other hand, if you're trying to bring up a WP:BLP issue, this is probably the right place. If, at the talk page, you can give an example of what you'd like to add and, crucially, sources you'd like to use, I'm sure I and others here will be glad to give it some thought. Here's a starting point: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 04:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the edit summaries you'll see that content inconsistent with the edit summary(!) was removed in the first place. 3rr was never violated in any way afaik and if you check you'll see that only one user bothered to try discussing the removal of newer material with the old, on the talk page, that's me. I never said that some of the material wasn't old, but the fact is that there has really only been ONE topic of discussion for going on 2 years; the suggestion to add specific content re the scandal. Some contributions to that discussion were made just about one month ago by diverse users. Those are being swept off by the actions of a person who's been directly opposed to any inclusion of comment on the matter for over two years[21], that's what I'm raising an issue with. BTW, Reliable sources were provided for all suggested content to be added several months ago[22]. As a noob I've also asked what the next step is as all previous RFC's have failed to draw consensus. I've not gotten any answer. It seems to me that the attempt has been made to sweep all of that off into the archive, you can draw your own conclusions, if you check. If he'd at least taken a little more care in trying to wipe away all traces of it, I'd have not had to try to revert it in the first place.02:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.84.210 (talk)

If you read WP:EW closely, you'll see it's not confined to WP:3RR. "Edit warring" applies to all sorts of things, most likely including what went on at the talk page. I think you might as well let go of what was brought up previously because it brought about no consensus and the RfC was closed (there is no "next step"). That older conversation devolved pretty readily anyway. That doesn't mean you can't make good use of it, archived or not. Major threshold issues in the previous conversation apparently included 1) undue weight, 2) wording, and 3) sourcing. It seems there was no consensus on any of these.

Because few will be inclined to trawl though article history to find cites or study up on that lovely RfC and continue a closed discussion, it would be most helpful if you could restate or rephrase what you'd like to see included, and give inline examples of reliable coverage indicating its noteworthiness. You might also indicate where and how the information might belong in the article (e.g. rename "Philanthropy" section to "Personal life" to cover everything outside her career). One last suggestion: if you fail to reach a consensus on the issue again, by all means try something somewhat different to the WP:DEADHORSE. JFHJr (㊟) 17:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like the "most likely" part, and agree from my short experience here that most would probably be uninclined to trawl through the history of an open discussion, let alone an archived one. Hence my attempt to alert the BLPN to the activities of an established editor who was archiving ongoing discussions inconsistent with the edit summaries(!)(!) (check the timestamps for dates younger than 2 months). Sourcing was only an issue in the previous discussion for those who considered CNN, ABC etc. "unreliable". The main grouse seemed to be that BLP doesn't allow such unencyclopedic and potentially harmful content, if you can believe that. Thanks anyway for your suggestions I'll definitely take them into consideration. BTW, just to be sure, from what you seem to be telling me the next step is to repeat the entire process?186.45.84.210 (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An edit summary in archiving is not important enough to edit war over. Nobody except you thinks this is "sweeping" things away. This isn't a place to make a WP:POINT or "alert" us of your complaint; try WP:ANI and read WP:AGF a few times. As I said before, you restored things that probably shouldn't have been restored. It's enough to just move your ongoing conversation back. So for a third time, you should raise a concrete suggestion regarding the changes you'd like to see, with cites, either here or at the talk page. You can even RfC again, but I don't recommend simply repeating what failed to gain a consensus previously. Good luck. JFHJr (㊟) 22:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Most likely edit war", please :). You can see that I was the only one that attempted to D at the end of BRD. Contrary to what you may believe this was not actually about getting the material added, but an attempt to get an involved editor who was not discussing his actions to take more care in his removal of content from the discussion page of an article, particularly where the content being removed was contrary to his 2 year viewpoint and not actually as old as he was claiming in his edit summaries(!). My reverts were of the whole of the material removed, so that the involved experienced editor could remove only that which needed to be removed. I made it clear why I was undoing it, the first time because unresolved material was removed was only a fortnight old, contrary to the edit summary(!), the whole was then removed again contrary to the edit summary of "stale 2 months"(!), (as can be confirmed by the timestamps on the comments and a quick check to see what 2 months adds up to), I returned it and pointed that out. You can see from the edit summary that a large chunk of the previous discussion, (the part with the majority of links and the actual RfC) the that was archived was not reverted at all despite containing comments only about 9 days old[23], so it's clearly not a case of me just trying to keep stale material on the talkpage. Now that it looks like he's chosen to set an archive bot on the page and set a standardised time for archival (I'm guessing based on what it looks like in the edit diffs), I've no further complaint about potential future archivals to be done by the bot per se, except the obvious lack of discussion of the move. I apologise for bothering the goof folks on the BLP Noticeboard with a matter that I believed concerned a BLP. Thanks again for your recommendations.186.45.84.210 (talk) 06:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Messian Dread (on "Christafari" page)

This is the second time someone had edited the paragraph "Messian Dread" on the "Christafari" page. The paragraph contains words like "self-promoting rants" to describe books written about the topic Christafari and phrases like "anti-semetic conspiracy theories" to describe Messian Dread's website. Not just irrelevant to the topic, they are also defamatory.

These edits are an abuse of Wikipedia and have nothing to do with providing information but rather to smear Messian Dread and the Dubroom website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdread (talk • contribs) 08:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed content is being added by a single user, User:Observation Station - I left them a note and a link to this report. I also on investigation removed the whole pierce - as "promotional - no assertion of individual notability" - the content was supported by two book download links to a message board and a link to the subjects website. - User:Mdread also has a WP:COI issue editing content about M Dread. Off2riorob (talk) 11:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully dispute MDread's claim that the description of his website as containing antisemitic material constitutes defamation as it is based on factual evidence, which I referenced in my edit. Said material has been listed as antisemitic by the Anti Defamation League which was founded in 1913 "to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all" and as such is the world's foremost authority on the subject. Please inform MDread that if he wishes I will be more than happy to request that the ADL review his website and render a decision. Although I do not feel he will be happy with the results as it will only provide a further reference citation for the entry in question. I also stand by my description of his e-books as "self promoting." True research papers do not include first person anecdotes or hearsay (ie. MDread's extensive account of a personal phone conversation he had with Mr. Mohr for which no transcription or audio evidence is provided.). However I do see that User:Off2riorob has removed said entry on the grounds it violates Wikipidia's COI policy ("promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages") so I will respect that decision.(Observation Station (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

The Anti-Defamation League finding something anti-Semitic is no sort of indication that it is. In any event, the content appears to have been removed from the article. --FormerIP (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:FormerIp Please provide factual proof of your statement as to the ADL's reliability (no opinion article's please). (Observation Station (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Oh, come on. They'd issue a press release accusing a plate of matzos of anti-Semitism if it said it supported the right of Palestinians to wear shoes or something. --FormerIP (talk) 02:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The same goes for all the activist opinionated groups/orgs. Quoting them is like quoting the opponents about the activist opponents - and the republicans said the democrats were useless and the democrats said the republicans were useless and the anti fascists said the fascists were rubbish, etc etc, all of is POV and valueless as long term, noteworthy, educational or encyclopedic detail. Off2riorob (talk) 02:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ FormerIP Following up an opinion with another opinion? I do not believe that is what this section is for.(Observation Station (talk) 03:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC));[reply]

That's just your opinion, following your last one. --FormerIP (talk) 03:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again. Please provide proof.(Observation Station (talk) 03:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC));[reply]

Guys, we are all agreed as to the removal of the content - lets enjoy that trio of agreement - any point of agreement is a good beginning. Off2riorob (talk) 03:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. (Observation Station (talk) 03:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC));[reply]

Not being very technically knowledgeable concerning wikipedia, I hope that this is the place to add my comments. For years, the first e-book on Christafari was mentioned and linked to on the Christafari page without any problem as it is a relevant book. I therefore would suggest the idea to not have this dispute result in not mentioning esp. the first e-book. This could take form in just providing a link under the "further reading" heading to either the e-book(s) and/or the relevant part on the Dubroom website which is dedicated to the critique on Christafari.

A link to the first book is http://download.dubroom.org/pdf/ebooks/messian_dread_-_christafarianism_2004.pdf A link to the relevant part of the Dubroom website is http://crc.dubroom.org/christafari.htm

Mdread (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:COI for reasons why user Off2riorob (with agreement of two other editors) deleted the entry. Furthermore, a self-published book about a musician written by another musician with the sole intent of smearing the first musician is not only irrelevant but may not meet Wiki's NPOV standards. (Observation Station (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

The entry in question was not created to add information about Christafari, as the history of the entry shows. Irrelevant links and slanderous qualifications were the main contents. After the entry was edited by Wikipedia in order to limit it to factualities, the slander was re-entered. The slander was again removed and since the chance is big that without deletion of the entry the editing by the originator will continue, it is positive that the entry is removed. Research will reveal that the first e-book on Christafari was rightfully mentioned on the Wikipedia page before the entry was created. Therefore I think it is better to link to the e-book under the "further reading" heading. It's qualification as "self-promoting rants" has been disputed on Wikipedia so that is not a reason not to mention it nevertheless. I ask other editors to check out the entry's creation and edit history as well as the creator's history on Wikipedia and take that into consideration.--Mdread (talk) 12:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The entry was removed as being "promotional - no assertion of individual notability." Other editors should take into consideration the following: the Messian Dread "e-book" ,written AND edited by a single entity is NOT published by a reputable source. It is NOT distributed by a reliable publisher. It is "published" on the authors personal website. The author is NOT a professional writer. He is NOT a professor. Nor is the alleged "research" paper a product of an accredited university or other legitimate organization. By all definitions the work is simply a BLOG in pdf format. Linking to this "e-book" would only open the door for anyone with a $5 domain name ask that their personal opinion in the form of "e-books" be added onto any other wikipedia subject's "further reading" section (imagine Perez Hilton on "further reading" lists for other entertainers). That is clearly NOT the intent of this project. Wikipedia is filled with hundreds of questionable entries that go unchallenged which account for User:MDread's e-book (yes User:M-Dread is the "author" of the disputed material,something other editors should also take into consideration) being in his opinion "rightfully mentioned on the Wikipedia page." Challenging the relevance of such material IS a part of this project as evidence by other entries on this talk page. (Observation Station (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Additional info on self-published sources WP:SPS(Observation Station (talk) 23:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I have no objection to the entry having been removed, as it did not add material about Christafari in that paragraph other than what was already on the page (the e-book). However: the same person who created the entry in the first place, did include the e-book in that entry and is now saying that it shouldn't be linked to. And: why create an entry only to agree with it being removed? History of the entry as well as comments made on this page raises the impression that the creator has some personal grudge against the writer of the e-book and apparantly is willing to edit Wikipedia pages in order to express that personal sentiment. Unverified claims about the author's name, verifiable errors such as "self described Rastafarian Socialist" and claims how the author's website should not be linked to in spite of the fact that the one who makes that claim has himself heavily linked to it surely raises doubts about the motivations. No to mention the irrelevant and slanderous accusations of anti-semitism add to these doubts. I suggest objective editors take a look at the e-book and decide if it is relevant to the topic, Christafari. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdread (talk • contribs) 16:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of Wikipedia's POLICY against using self-published sources does User:MDread not understand? Has User:MDread not read the policy ? WP:SPS He certainly has not bothered to learn how to sign his entries so I would venture to say he has not. Since he wishes to continue to attempt to play the sympathy card in an effort to force an editor into making an exception to Wikipedia POLICY by adding his self-published book to the Christafari page I have taken a closer look at that page. I see that the section titled "Criticisms" contains no citations in the sub-section titled "Rastafari." The sub-section title "Christian" contains a citation for "Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music" which is referenced elsewhere in the article. Thus I move that the section as a whole be deleted as the first sub-section violates Wiki's policy on Verifiability. Additionally a quick look at pages for entertainers like Kurt Cobain,Courtney Love,Britney Spears etc.. do not contain "Criticism " sections although it is quite arguable to say each have had their share of critics. So is it fair to have such a section on the Christafari page? Observation Station (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Tahir Abbas

This biography of an academic has in the past contained information on a reported investigation and finding of plagiarism, based on a Times Higher Education article from two years ago. The article in question is now no longer present on the THE website, which otherwise has archives dating back to at least the mid-90s. Nor is it present in the Internet archive, where other articles from THE are present. Editors have been unable to find any other secondary source covering the reported investigation, although it has been pointed out that one scholarly journal did withdraw a paper by Mr Abbas at the time. A statement on the journal's website says that the article contained some copied sections that were not properly attributed, and that the author apologised for his error.

IPs have asserted in edit summaries that the removal of the article from the THE website was the result of legal action against the THE. We're unaware of any sources reporting on that legal action, but can confirm that the article is no longer accessible.

Should the biography continue to refer to the plagiarism allegation? For the disputed content see this diff. Talk page discussion. Views? --JN466 14:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My own view is that in a matter like this affecting a living person's reputation, we must err on the side of caution. Given that this was only reported in a single article, which appears to have been withdrawn, for whatever reason, the lack of coverage by any other secondary sources that do not have a question mark attached to them means that the material is now undue. --JN466 14:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should err on the side of caution, but on the other hand I think it is important to consider that there is still proof that Abbas plagiarised (the statement linked) and that this is a very serious matter for an academic. Unlike some negative information that could be included in BLPs it is difficult to see how all the accusations could have been incorrect. It's not up to us to break it, but as it stands, there has been no retraction published by THE (which I should note, is exactly the type of high quality source we are encouraged to use in BLPs) and so I don't think the fact that it isn't available online should stop us referencing it. Not being online ≠ being withdrawn. FWIW the article is still kind of online anyway here at webcitation but hidden due to copyright issues, "copies can be made available for scholars on request". Myself and other editors have tried contacting THE to find out what the situation is but received no replies - surely if they no longer stood by the story they would just tell us? I've not been able to find any policies and guidelines which are of use in a case like this (or anything in the RSN archives) but I've certainly read before that if a source says something negative, but the subject says it is wrong for some reason, we shouldn't remove the information without a source confirming that the original one was incorrect. Overall, I'm sat on the fence about it, erring slightly towards inclusion. We need to reach a consensus though to stop the current slow edit warring. It might also be worth people considering the long term pattern of ownership that IPs have shown towards the article which has lead to the article being semi-protected 4 times before. This post at COIN and the linked pages are also of relevance. SmartSE (talk) 15:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without getting into the whole issue of why the source is no longer available online (guidelines and practices regarding dead links, etc.), I would be against inclusion because no other source can be found. If it were sufficiently important and noteworthy, then more than one source ought to have reported it. The material is simply too strongly negative to include absent strong, high-quality sources (plural).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Your view is not backed up by any policies AFAIK. One high quality source is completely sufficient for something like this. When the story came out, the subject nominated the article for deletion and there was a strong consensus that there were no BLP issues with the article as it was. SmartSE (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My view is often applied on this page by many editors. Certain reasonable inferences can be made based on BLP policy. Sometimes, even editorial judgment is called for (horrors!), as opposed to spouting policies and guidelines that often can be interpreted in a multitude of ways to suit the editor citing them.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, which is what makes this case tricky - we can cite policies and guidelines til the cows come home, but essentially it boils down to our personal choices. SmartSE (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A closer reading of BLP lead to me spotting this which is essentially the crux of the issue:

From both a legal and ethical standpoint it is essential that a determined effort be made to eliminate defamatory and other inappropriate material from these articles, but these concerns must be balanced against other concerns, such as allowing articles to show a bias in the subject's favor by removing appropriate material simply because the subject objects to it

Emphasis added by myself. SmartSE (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't much care if the subject wants it removed. I evaluate the issue independent of the subject's wishes. I generally favor disregarding a subject's wishes when deciding what should or shouldn't go into an article; it's an area in which I am often in a minority.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but it's obvious that they do want it removed. SmartSE (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In poking around trying to find a policy that might satisfy Smartse, it seems to me that the intersection of BLP policy (required removal of unsourced, controversial material) and WP:DEADREF + a little WP:REDFLAG might work best. If the web content from THE is no longer available and not going to be available, and there is no paper alternative for it (is there?), then the original citation cannot be deadlinked, and the material must be removed. Also, Redflag and its discussion of high-quality sources seems to support, by implication, my view that in these kinds of instances, more than one source should be available and required.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

THE is a paper publication so WP:DEADREF doesn't apply - any of us could find a copy of the article in a library with archive copies. What's more I just found a copy of the article on factiva (requires a subscription). I don't really see how this is an exceptional claim per WP:REDFLAG either. The source is of a high quality and discusses in detail that the university investigated the claims and found them to be true. I'm happy to provide a copy of the article by email to anyone who wants to check it themselves. SmartSE (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification about THE. Please do e-mail it to me, not because I don't believe it, just because it would be nice to read it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Smartse, I've now read the article. One thing that's confusing is that webcitation says that Paul Hanley is the copyright holder. Yet, to the extent that the article is copyrighted by the author rather than by the organization, Hanley didn't write it. Maybe Hanley is the rep for the organization. In any event, although theoretically my Wikipedia-based arguments shouldn't change after reading the article, I must say it's a compelling article for inclusion of the material.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the article too now, thanks to SmartSE's good offices. Given that more than one individual left the university prior to the article's publication, that there were evident personality conflicts in the department, and that the article contained no comment from the university itself, I am now actually more concerned about its reliability than I was before. --JN466 17:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have fully protected the article without the claims in for the moment to stop edit warring. This suggests that there may be evidence of a retraction and so I think we should leave things out until we know for sure. I will try and get hold of a copy. SmartSE (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This ought to be interesting. Mention of a "letter from TLS" (not the THE??) raises some questions. A private letter would not be a WP:RS and cannot equate to a retraction of a published article. It would be perverse to include the information if a letter acknowledged that the information was false. But a reason to invoke WP:RS in that connection is that it would be a simple matter to fabricate an email message or to add/change content to one. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.tsleducation.com/tsl_businesses.asp --JN466 00:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smartse, thanks for the update. Didn't even notice you were an admin. Good thing, too, as I might have been "undemocratically" influenced in my comments. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Williams

I'm currently battling an IP on this article who wants to add negative information about Williams (as if there weren't already enough). The IP also removed another editor's comment from the Talk page ([24]). I don't completely disagree with some of the IP's changes, and I've run out of reverts.

At this point, I have two problems with the material. The first is this sentence: "The story profiled two young women and their offenses that were portrayed as minor and meriting minimal or no sentences in other jurisdictions, but in Judge Williams' drug court each ended up serving at least 2 years in combined jail time and probation." ([25]) I don't think the sentence is necessary because of the sentence preceding it ("In March 2011, the radio program This American Life broadcast an episode about Williams's treatment of defendants in drug court."). However, even if we wanted to explain more about the episode, the IP's sentence is an original researchy interpretation of the source.

The second problem (more of a quibble) is this sentence: "On November 16, 2011, one of five Superior Court judges in Williams' circuit stated that Judge Williams has stepped down from her drug court position and will stop hearing criminal cases until the investigation has been resolved." ([26]) I preferred this sentence: "On November 16, 2011, Williams stopped hearing criminal cases until the ethics complaint is resolved." However, based on the IP's comment (they want the drug court part mentioned), I would be okay with "On November 16, 2011, Williams ceased control of the drug court and stopped hearing criminal cases until the ethics complaint is resolved." The rest is unnecessary.

My biggest beef is with the American Life sentence.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you'd make greater hay if you'd have come here before you "run out of reverts". As it stands, I don't see particular sourcing problems with any of the content. Maybe you could explain the OR aspect of the first sentence, and the specific issue you have with the second. If your actual problem is a matter of undue, it's not clear best how to resolve this. Most of the national and local reporting she has gotten has centered around her judgeship and drug court. Was there some aspect of her public life that you think is under represented? aprock (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read the plot summary and read the sentence in the article. Thanks for the tag.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The plot summary is not the source. The radio program is the source. Here is a link to the transcript. aprock (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reference points to a plot summary, not to the transcript. On the same page as the plot summary is a link to the transcript. The reference could have pointed directly to the transcript. It's not clear to me whether the article assertion is relying on the summary or the transcript, but I'm relying on the summary because that's the reference. And I think it would open up a can of worms for us to summarize the episode based on a transcript as it would undoubtedly lead to interpretive problems. I don't intend to read the transcript and get sucked into that. Plus, unlike some summaries, this summary was written by the show itself, so one would hope it would be reasonably accurate.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't intend to read the transcript... In that case, I suspect there isn't much to discuss. aprock (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one else has a comment on the sentence summarizing the American Life episode, even if it's just a suggestion on how to reword it? I stared at the plot synopsis for a long time trying to come up with a better way of reporting it in the article, but I came up with zilch.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rob very nicely replaced the American Life sentence with a quote from the radio transcript. I tweaked the sentence just a bit for flow and added a separate reference to the transcript itself. Hopefully, everyone will be satisfied with the changes.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keith L. Moore

There is an ongoing content dispute at Keith L. Moore. Moore (a Canadian scientist specializing in anatomy) has reportedly said that he believes statements in the Qur'an regarding embryology and human development support the Muslim holy book's claims to divine origin. Several editors feel it is important to mention this about Moore (balanced by recognition that his claims regarding the Qur'an are disputed); however, one editor strongly believes that the cited sources are not of sufficient quality to permit their use in a BLP. — Richwales (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the second source (and sentence is redundant), the article states his belief (in his own words) rather than a factual statement so it is fine on it's own. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nazeer Naji

Resolved

– Speedy deleted JFHJr (㊟) 16:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nazeer Naji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This was identified as a probable attack page here. I have proposed that it be deleted. If it isn't, it will need severe pruning and watching. Johnuniq (talk) 00:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, on both counts.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just an observation: it used not to be an attack page. It became one. The attack problem can be solved by a rather deep revert. Having said that, it lacks any WP:RS and would probably die in a conventional AfD. JFHJr (㊟) 02:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The earlier version also violated BLP. I've speedied it. I'm happy to restore it if any regula editor wants to fix it up.--Scott Mac 15:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It definitely needed to go. JFHJr (㊟) 16:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Fielder

Resolved

– No action required JFHJr (㊟) 16:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Born in Ontario, Canada. not Ontario, California. Born while father Cecil was playing for the toronto blue jays to a canadian girl. ref. http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ycn-8716469. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.214.14.23 (talk) 15:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, he was born in California. The confusion probably comes from the fact that CA is the abbreviation for both California and Canada. But other sources say California (also, I doubt they would just give the name of the province if he were born in Canada). Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Malebane-Metsing

Resolved

– Information and sources added JFHJr (㊟) 23:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Malebane-Metsing is still a member of the ANC, and he still has a seat in the Rustenburg Council as a PR Councilor to the , the notion that Clr Malebane-Metsing resigned from the ANC once again is false information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.38.152.4 (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show any reliable sources about his current membership? His resignation back in 1995 seems to check out. JFHJr (㊟) 19:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that it matters if he is only a member of the ANC anyway. According to the ANC website, anyone can join. I've also removed the unsourced sentence about the coup and added a couple of references from the 1990s about his history. What is being an Agriculture MEC anyway? Is that sufficiently notable for inclusion here?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My Googling gives me the sense that the subject easily passes GNG as a once prominent ANC activist. It looks like he has resigned from the party a number of times, most recently in 2010. What the article needs, obviously, is sourcing. --FormerIP (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it needs material and sourcing to support it. My Google of just news didn't turn up that much, although I confess I didn't look at the pay-per-views.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an article from the New York Times in which describes him being installed as the president of Bophuthatswana: [27]. --FormerIP (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've added the coup material back in (reworded) with the source you found.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen O'Doherty

Resolved

– There wasn't a picture within the article. JFHJr (㊟) 23:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The photograph attached to his entry is not of Stephen O'Doherty, former NSW politician. It appears to be of Jimmy Wales. Both have scrabbly beards but the resemblance ends there. I have met Stephen O'Doherty on a number of occasions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.206.165 (talk) 23:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i am not seeing any attached picture. Off2riorob (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the IP saw a fundraising ad. JFHJr (㊟) 23:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Glass

I am wondering if any of you can clear up something about Philip Glass regarding his middle name. From time to time editors try to add "Morris" (varied spellings) as his middle name. It seems that IMDb is the main place that I can find this name being used and we all know the problems with that website. The one other place I found it was this [28] as you can see they claim to have gotten their info from Encyclopedia Britannica but theat website [29] doesn't have the name on it. Because of the similarity to the tobacco company it feels like some IPs enter it as a joke - but if it is accurate, and can be sourced, then it would belong in the article. So many of you are so good at researching this sort of thing that I thought that I would see what you can find out. My thanks ahead of time for any time that you put in on this. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 23:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The middle initial seems to be "M", per Google Books. The New York Times confirms it here (but it's behind a paywall). You might get a reliable source for the full middle name here, if you believe this review.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the 1960 Juilliard Review from the Juilliard School of Music, where as a student Glass was awarded a composition prize. His middle inital "M" is given there on page 18 (bottom left). Mathsci (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Kildee

Just a pre-emptive notification - The Washington Times is reporting online that Dale Kildee, a United States Congressman from Michigan, will be holding a press conference tomorrow to address accusations that he sexually abused a second cousin decades ago. I added a sentence to the article but undoubtedly this will need extra eyes. Kelly ^hi! 02:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Unfortunately, it's best to being reporting once there's something to report. Echoing reports of an upcoming press conference isn't appropriate as encyclopedic content, nor is it of any lasting value, so it should stay out no matter how badly we want to know. See WP:FUTURE for more on why to wait. Also, if you plan to be involved in adding coverage to the article, be sure to assign the news WP:DUE weight. This is, after all, an elected public figure and it's quite likely a sex scandal would garner a mention in a BLP. JFHJr (㊟) 03:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking from experience (I was involved with writing John Edwards extramarital affair when that story was breaking, based on a request at Talk:John Edwards) - it's best to get some kind of neutral statement into the article right away, or visitors will feel obliged to add something, usually in a way that violates WP:BLP. Trust me, I am intimately familiar with the applicable policies. Kelly ^hi! 03:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. I'll trust page protection if it's needed, and not a BLP violation in the meantime. But seeing as you insist on including reports of something that hasn't happened yet, I'll be glad to watch you do that, as opposed to trust it's prudent. JFHJr (㊟) 03:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Lindsay (writer)

Resolved

– Disruptive edits removed. JFHJr (㊟) 03:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody is using defamatory accusations on this page,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Lindsay_(writer) under the non-fiction section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lqlarry (talk • contribs) 03:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed and watchlisted. Isn't there a novel by Stephen King with a similar theme to these accusations? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, here we go - The Dark Half - recommended reading for all novelists I'm sure. Incidentally, do be careful when describing accusations as defamatory (although they may be), as Wikipedia has very strong rules about legal threats.

I've also left a nice big warning triangle at User talk:SOUTHLAW, who was the user responsible for the addition. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Cottam

Resolved

– Problematic content removed, referred to WP:OTRS. G'luck Brad! JFHJr (㊟) 01:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am just trying to get the correct birthday on my own wikipedia page. It is Brad Cottam (american football player). It says my birthday is November 28, 1984 when it is in fact Novemember 27th 1984. I am sure this problem came about because information was taken from a University of Tennessee or Kansas City Chiefs program or website. Somehow it was printed wrong at Tennessee and it just carried over. I would be glad to prove to you who I am and when my correct birthday is. Just let me know.

Thanks, Brad Cottam (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.223.50 (talk) 04:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That really sucks. Unfortunately, I looked and couldn't find anything in a reliable source that mentioned a Nov 27 birthday. Could you try contacting WP:OTRS or e-mailing info-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org with your request? I think those might be your best avenue for posting correct information. JFHJr (㊟) 04:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what you should do, Brad. We have a policy WP:DOB which I have followed in order to remove the "28" from your article in the meantime. --FormerIP (talk) 00:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Carlson

Resolved

– IP author probably saw a fundraising banner. JFHJr (㊟) 23:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This photo does not portray the Ron Carlson, author, teacher, former ASU Creative Writing chair identified in the bio. Wrong photo, please change asap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.125.41.164 (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no photo on this page, and hasn't been for months (or more) - unless I'm missing something. Can you be clearer about which page you mean? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As in a report above - the IP seems to be seeing a fundraising ad. Off2riorob (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Drudge

Matt Drudge has seen a sudden re-adding [30] pf all the homosexual etc. allegations which were removed per WP:BLP when one editor had a forced retirement. The editor who added them this time appears to be the same one who was active in adding them in the first place, and who appears to be a re-incarnation thereof. WP:BLP has, in fact, been strengthened since he first was around, but he seems not to understand this. Eyes are welcomed on that article, as that editor decided to make this personal against me (sigh) [31] invited me to post here - and so I am doing so. [32] has him saying:

So of we are talking about what's "healthy" for WP, I'd venture that it's Collect, the right wing party apparatchik (or so it seems to me), who spends all his time reverting RS-sourced material from the bios of his like-minded brethren, who is, in fact, the truly unhealthy presence on WP

Which I find amusing considering the list of BLPs I have edited - incluuding such right-wingers as Alex Sink, Johann Hari and Chris Huhne etc. :) Cheers. Collect (talk) 04:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please ignore all the interpersonal aggression above. Let's start again: this section is about the adding of material to Matt Drudge concerning the well-sourced discussion in books and other media of his homosexuality. This is not about me, nor my alleged socks, nor is it about Collect. Please re-focus on the issue at hand here.

The material under discussion was passed under the eyes of Jimbo Wales at the time, and he did not say it should be deleted (I can try to find the diffs, but it would be a Herculean task going back years).
We have very similar material at Anderson Cooper, where it has been for many years without complaint.
Collect has deleted this material numerous times [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38], against the wishes of many editors (not me — I've invited admins to IP check them).

If nobody objects, and since the material was on WP for a long time without complaint until Collect's campaign to remove it began, I will now put the material here for consideration (give me a few minutes). Jabbsworth 04:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As Collect is objecting and I am also objecting and the content has previously been deleted from the article for BLP concerns - I have removed the content - a diff to the disputed content is plenty. Off2riorob (talk) 11:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Material in dispute : diff

Comments

Despite the very low quality of the sources, at any rate it looks like a very well written gossip. The very own sources, like this, talk about the unreliability of that info. To dedicate an entire section dealing with that sort of gossips is undue weight POV. At any rate, contentious contents dealing with living people but based on dubious sources, should not be included at all. PD: Solely to clear it up: Collect is not assuming bad faith, it is nothing alleged but a matter of fact that Jabbsworth is the 6 reincarnation of the sockpuppeteer Ratel. -- ClaudioSantos ¿? 05:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claudio, I thought you were asked not to interact with me after your last ban? This is wikistalking, please go away. Jabbsworth 05:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can check your last ban: the interaction ban is over. The matter here is a gossip remains a gossip. -- ClaudioSantos ¿? 06:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is an issue in a least 3 published books, including a well known person's memoir (Brock). It is also an issue addressed numerous times by the subject himself, with words that are (on occasion) very ambiguous. The sourcing is mostly sound. Any proper biography would cover this material, and so should wikipedia. Jabbsworth 06:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:BLP, dealing with living people demand higher standars than arguing the quantity of books dealing with the issue. Self-published books from third parties should be avoided per WP:BLPSPS. Contentious contents should be avoided due they may cause grievances to living people and at any rate this sort of contents should not be based on dubious sources. For instance, actually the author of one of those cited books, Jeannette Walls is well known as a gossip columnist. -- ClaudioSantos ¿? 06:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of these are self-published books. Wells is a novelist and columnist. Her non-fiction book Dish was described by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch as "a serious and accurate history of a persistent part of media coverage." David Brock actually dated Drudge. This is from the horse's mouth, not a "3rd party". You cannot call that gossip. In that case, all the "personal life" sections of every BLP should be deleted from WP. You have no argument. Jabbsworth 06:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even the title of Walls book has the word gossip. A testimony of an alleged dated source does not make it reliable much less verifiable. If all sections of every BLP should be deleted that is not the case here, but this section that looks like a gossip. Read: WP:BLPGOSSIP. -- ClaudioSantos ¿? 06:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Even the title of Walls book has the word gossip" — yeah, that's because it's a study of how gossipers like Drudge (a self-confessed gossiper BTW) nowadays have sway over the news cycle. But I guess that slipped past you, huh? And WP:BLPGOSSIP is about anonymous sources and weasel words. That's not applicable here. Jabbsworth 08:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the very sources that have been provided[39] I could find that Walls is known as a gossip columnist, but I can not find her credentials to qualify her book as a reliable "study" about gossips. In any way, the book is used not to deal about gossip as a topic of study but to document an alleged issue dealing with the intimate life of a person. Spreading comments about the intimate life of a person is indeed a gossip and I can not find the true purpose and relevancy in doing so, much less in the way it is being dealed in the proposed paragraph. -- ClaudioSantos ¿? 13:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is all completely over the top. "Allegations of homosexuality"?? As if it's a crime... There do appear to be some respectable sources in that list (though many are not), and perhaps a brief (one-sentence?) treatment would be appropriate -- but no-one is going to take seriously the notion of keeping what Jabbsworth is trying to add. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like the subheading, suggest another. Jabbsworth 08:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance it appears that some of the sources are solid. However, I agree with ClaudioSantos that it is undue weight to dedicate such a large amount of text to the issue. I also agree with Nomoskedasticity that the heading is inappropriate. I would suggest that a careful, well-sourced sentence might be appropriate. Jakew (talk) 10:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This kssue has been at BLP/N in the past - and every time has been found to violate WP:BLP. I ask that the extended violation placed on this board be redacted as being a slap in the face of WP:BLP. This gratuitous violation is contrary to WP policies and guidelines per se. Meanwhile, Ratel's insistence on this is perverse now - and his personal attacks on me even more so. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link? I don't think it was considered to violate BLP. And now that it's been deleted here, including all the updated links, it'll be difficult to know what it's all about. Nice strategy. Notice how other editors thought part of it at least should stay. Please review wp:CENSOR Jabbsworth 13:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise, I hope, that simply banishing all this data, even the parts that are excellently sourced, will do nothing to stop the constant stream of editors trying to add it to the article? I have not counted all the attempts, but looking at the page's history, many editors, over the years, have tried to put some of this data on the page. I do not object to cutting it down, but it does need to go in, in some form. You'll see much less drive-by vandalism if you stop censoring. Jabbsworth 13:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The content hasn't been added in the last eight months and then only by a blocked sock-puppet User:BozellHammer - is he one of your sockpuppet accounts? Off2riorob (talk) 22:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, for the nth time. This section is now more about me than the content, and so I'm out. I leave it to other editors to re-insert some of this content, much of it with impeccable sources. It seems we can have this sort of data on pages of liberals like Anderson Cooper, but it's a no-no for conservatives. Jabbsworth 23:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Massive coincidence? Jabbsworth today noted on the talk page for Matt Drudge that sourcewatch.org (a wiki) has an article on Drudge. Which was written TODAY (22 Nov)! The author of that article is an admin there named "Scribe" who mirabile dictu uses the exact same wording as Jbbsworth did! And whose user page makes clear that he is on Wikipedia, opposes "apparatchiks" etc. ... I find the coincidence of those two independent editors arriving at exactly the same wording and refs, and having Jabbsworth citing it the EXACT DAY IT IS WRITTEN ON SOURCEWATCH to be amazing. (Caps used because the coincidence is really, really, amazing). Collect (talk) 01:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detail - looking at that guys contributions, ya couldn't make it up - lots to investigate. Off2riorob (talk) 01:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder, does this comment fall under "off-wiki harrassment" or OUTING? I merely noted that Matt Drudge page at SourceWatch is a repository for the data for future editors to use. Your obsessive need to attack me over this shows that your personal animus towards me far exceeds your interest in this material for the encyclopedia. Jabbsworth 01:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are fantastic - wikipedia is so lucky to have your fantastic npov Contributions to the educational ambitions of the project. Let us put all your puppeteer violation contributions in one bucket and rename it so that we can see how valuable your efforts have been. Off2riorob (talk) 02:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um -- you refer to your own (?) article on the sourcewatch wiki (I consider it likely to be yours as the wording is identical, and the use of "apparatchik" about Wikipedia editors seems unusual) - and then complain because people read what you asked them to read? And then accuse them of stalking when you were the one posting it? Chutzpah is too weak a term! And for what it's worth - Wikipedia does not allow a WIKI to be used as a source. Sheesh! Collect (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The SourceWatch page on Matt Drudge is not offered as a source, but as a place where the disputed material, with its own sources, can be read by interested editors, since it was removed from this section for specious reasons.
Whether or not I am the author of that page is utterly immaterial. Sure, SourceWatch is a wiki, just like this one. So what? I would not use either as a source.
Stalking, hounding, outing, and off-wiki harassment are techniques that have been used against me in the past ... looks like it's on again. It's a pity this is looked upon with indulgence at WP. Jabbsworth 03:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I heve not stalked, hounded nor outed you, nor have the others on this board, I find such personal attacks to be quite contrary to the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Try dealing with your own precise issues, and not try to throw every charge imaginable at every other editor here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, please. I made several direct requests to you to stop following me around wikipedia, IOW to stop wikistalking me. To no effect. I then complained to at least 2 admins about it, and was advised to start gathering evidence and start a long, formal process to have you sanctioned. But I simply did not have the time. You know it, I know it, and I'll only hunt the diffs if asked by arbcom. Jabbsworth 15:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HUH? I did not follow you around at all. I noted a WP:BLP violating edit at Matt Drudge. The next thing I know, someone has posted on my UT page: [40]

Where are the discussions at BLPN? This material would be in any good bio on MD. The sourcing is A1. Jabbsworth 02:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning that I in no way "followed" you at all. You, if anything, "followed" me. Period. Nor have I ever "wikistalked" you. I have over two thousand pages watchlisted - please be aware that my overlap with you is de minimis at most. But what I do find is that you make false assertions about being followed by me - which I find to be discrepent from Wikipeda policies. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, we both know that you knocked heads with me on other articles before you turned up, long after me, at Matt Drudge. This happened years ago. Come on, this is not the place for this argument anyway. Jabbsworth 16:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And how could I have "known" who you were - until you made your use of socks apparent? I have no crystal ball -- and since I had not run across you in the past, what makes you assert that I followed you? I did not know who you were, guy! Collect (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, you're killing me. You were told who I was a short while ago. You know exactly who I am [41]. I think we should stop discussing this here, in deference to the purpose of this noticeboard. Jabbsworth 16:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still can not understand the purpose of offering a link to an outside wiki, instead of giving a link to wikipedia, like this one, which is also a repository for those contents. At least, I can not assure it was an evident effort to hide an outside identity nor to avoid that someone else could infer a connection between an outside identity and a wikipedia identity. -- ClaudioSantos ¿? 07:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claudio, the problem with that diff is that a lot of the links are dead. For some reason, web addresses have become quite unstable in the last year or so (perhaps upgrades or switches in databases). Jabbsworth 07:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it was me, to avoid outing myself by linking to another wiki, I would created a page in my workspace at wikipedia, with the updated content. -- ClaudioSantos ¿? 15:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not allowed, if it's material under scrutiny at BLPN. Jabbsworth 15:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But also it is not allowed to post a link to an outside wiki where that content is posted. If that is not outing yourself at least it is a BLP violation, a non-allowed way to circumvent the forbiddance and the respective consensus, even if circumvention was not the purppose. And yes, you are right, I have to correct myself: if it was me I had neither published those contents at my workspace nor at any other place because I do not spread gossips at all.-- ClaudioSantos ¿? 16:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Wiggin

BILLWIGGIN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:BILLWIGGIN has removed sections from theBill Wiggin article relating to the Expenses Claim scandal. He says, "I have removed the content added by Mr Miller. I have reported Mr Miller to the Police for harrassment and I hope that he choses not to replace this information about me. In line with Wikipedia policy.)"

The edits appear to be well sourced should they be replaced? Vrenator ^talk 11:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't replace that content as written. I looks a bit undue and well, written to exaggerate. - and wiki definitely shouldn't be saying as if in its own voice something like this that is not in the citation - "In effect, Wiggin was lying, hence his refusal to cooperate." - it all wants trimming a bit of weight and the outcome which was not very much - a repayment of some expenses. Off2riorob (talk) 12:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to do that? Vrenator ^talk 12:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If one of the regulars doesn't tweak it a bit and If its still waiting, or if you don't WP:BOLD - I will do it later today. Off2riorob (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - I decided to WP:BOLD! I've added a section trying to keep to the sourced facts. Let me know what you think.Vrenator ^talk 11:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grover Norquist

In the section "Involvement with Jack Abramoff" it states " According to Mr. Abramoff, Grover Norquist once lied to a Massachusetts NPR reporter while they were together, telling her he was Jewish (referring to the Jews as "my people")"

I suggest that it be determined if his mother came from a Jewish family, as I expect with her traditionally Jewish surname, Lutz, If her birth as a Jew can be verified, then by generally accepted Jewish law, her son is a Jew, irrespective of his nominal religion, Methodism. Therefor his reference to "my people" may be correct.

I suggest that the subject sentence be deleted, pending qualified investigation.

I lack the credentials to help further with this issue.

Thank you for your needed and important efforts with Wikipedia.

Robert Johnson Waterbury, CT <e-mail (Redacted)> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.121.59 (talk) 13:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the claim of lying is per se "contentious", it is clear that the allegation that he lied would need stronger sourcing that a quote from Abramoff. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That has been removed. The whole article is very poorly written. For instance the second sentence is a quote from a critic. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Rivas

An only-just/borderline notable musician/composer (has composed/written songs on albums/shows that have won Grammy/Emmy awards) has been charged with a serious crime today, but the subject of the article seems to have been trying to delete his own page (his official site has been taken down too). There has been only one incident of vandalism, by a non-IP, so I don't think that full-protection is needed yet, but more eyes on it would be good. The-Pope (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike McCready (music entrepreneur)

This page seems very biased. Almost all of the references are to the website belonging to the subject, Mike McCready, himself. It reads more like an advertisement than a biography. It seems as though the subject or someone close to the subject wrote this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordchoicehtx (talk • contribs) 17:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few tags to the article. The person appears to be notable, per WP:GNG, but the article needs some help in cleaning up its tone and writing. --Jayron32 17:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Woo

Editor repeatedly enters unsourced Chinese characters after the name of this subject, who is an American of Chinese descent, born and brought up in California. No indication that Mr. Woo uses these characters in his day-to-day life. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You simply refuse to accept the facts I've told you that hundreds of thousands of Chinese-speaking residents of Southern California commonly know. Calling the name unsourced is ridiculous because a simple Google search would yield everything you want--not that an English-only reader would necessarily understand. But that is not a cause for a challenge. Beside all the newspaper appearances, Michael Woo publicly campaigned, as one of top two runners for mayor of Los Angeles, using his Chinese name--in campaign ads, TV commercials, and most certainly printed in official ballots. You refuse to acknowledge the consistency issue--virtually all other notable Chinese Americans have their known/used Chinese names in their articles. HkCaGu (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming all of that is true, then it should be a simple matter to find a source that supports the use of Chinese characters in Woo's name. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Felipe Calderón

I consider parts of the wiki about the Mexican president Felipe Calderón (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felipe_Calder%C3%B3n) to be biased.

In particular the first paragraph which goes on to list many statistical facts on all the great things he's done during his presidency (more than 1000 hospitals created, due to his effort alone tens of millions more mexicans have access to health care, etc. etc.) while listing no 'bad' decisions he's done.

I request that someone look it over to ensure that the information listed is not biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by P950tes (talk • contribs) 19:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Pike

Last week, a campus police officer named John Pike was reported to be involved in the controversial pepper-spraying of students at Occupy UC Davis. Several attempts to create a standalone page on him have been rebuffed under BLP1E, COATRACK, and attack page policies. Since then, several redirects with his name have been created that link to the Occupy UC Davis article, and the John Pike disambiguation page has been altered several times to include him. I have two concerns about this: should he be included there at all, and if so, how should he be described? Right now about 1,000 more readers than usual have looked for information about John Pike in the last couple of days.[42] My main concern is that the short description of him meets BLP and UNDUE guidelines if we keep it. Because of the high emotion around this incident, all involved parties have had BLP violations in articles about them. Jokestress (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like undue in the lede and the picture in the lede like that. The lede reads as if the article is about the pepper spraying incident. I would reduce the weight of the pepper spray in the lede - remove the non free picture of the pepper spraying from the lede to the section about the pepper spraying. Personally I don't think a not previously notable in any way police officer following orders needs naming at the disambiguation page either. Off2riorob (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You want to remove the iconic picture for the demonstrations from their article's lead? On what grounds? Hans Adler 20:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. When I enter "John Pike" in my (Austrian!) Google search box, the first suggestion is to continue with "pepper spray". The Huffington Post explains what is going on.

Removed [43], I don't really see the problem. Hans Adler 20:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In case someone doesn't get it:

Removed Hans Adler 20:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are not here to support activists. Off2riorob (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Hans Adler 20:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Policeman obeying orders. Has he been charged with anything illegal? Has he been charged with torture Hans? Off2riorob (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Hans Adler 20:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hans, my concerns have nothing to do with my opinion on his actions and everything to do with adhering to Wikipedia policies about depicting living persons. The incident is notable, and his involvement is, but he is not notable enough to merit his own article. As such, any short description of him and his actions needs to adhere to policies. Jokestress (talk) 20:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed The cat is out of the bag. Look at the size of the Joe the Plumber article for comparison. People around the world know about Occupy, um, whatever it was, because of him. They want to read about the demonstrations because they have seen him on TV. Hans Adler 20:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hans, I find it highly problematic to say he committed a "criminal act" when he has not been charged. To say this on the BLP noticeboard is especially problematic. Jokestress (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Hans Adler 20:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for expressing your opinion, again and again, but it's clearly OR as far as Wikipedia goes to make the statements you are without sourcing. From what I have seen, I would agree that it seems like his actions aren't justified at this point, but videos show what the people who filmed them want them to show. Provide a source that says that his use of the spray was criminal. WP:BLP. --Onorem ♠Dil 16:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sufficiently familiar with the US legal system, and it appears to be so fucked up, that I wouldn't dare to give anything like a legal opinion.

Removed He was filmed by several cameras simultaneously from various sides. I believe this behaviour is actually not that unusual for police, but in Western societies they are normally intelligent enough to ensure that the media is absent before they start. In this case there must have been at least three running TV cameras around, probably half a dozen. You can compare them on YouTube, they were uploaded by the official channels of various news organisations.

Removed but it's still fair comment in the context of a talk page discussion.

Removed Hans Adler 22:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite - Kent State shootings is it - Four dead in Ohio. - - none of the guardsmen in those four student killing have articles or redirects - and no one remembers their names. The whole occupy sector is being over reported and is not NPOV. The trouble with the whole sector of occupy articles is they are being written by the activists and in general with weak policy application and are being bloated with extremely newsy short term content. Off2riorob (talk)

Removed This is all over the world media, and the focus is on John Pike. Hans Adler 20:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop posting your opinions about living subjects here Hans. Off2riorob (talk) 21:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit warring to enforce your POV as you did here. Removal of information simply because it doesn't fit into your world view is a clear example of censorship, and you know our policy about that. Hans Adler 21:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, we don't add names of people to disambiguation pages unless they have their own article. As it's been replaced by Hans again can someone who is a bit more clued up about disambiguation pages confirm or refute this situation. I am not censoring anything at all - I am simply attempting to correct the weight of the reporting. Off2riorob (talk) 21:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:WikiProject Disambiguation#Disambiguation of people. I tried to phrase it as neutrally as possible for the technical question that we want to solve here. Let's wait for a response from one of the hard-working disambiguators. Hans Adler 21:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you quite managed to avoid mentioning how world famous he is and how massive national interest is involved - your comments here (torture, criminal) assert your completely opinionated and involved against the policeman. This is a neutrally phrased question - disamgiguation_question - Off2riorob (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The four dead students in Ohio do, quite rightly as notable killings, have their own articles - Kent State shootings#Casualties - as regards this Cali campus peaceful one month demo - we now have a pepper spraying picture representing it when it has almost completely been non violent. See here - Occupy UC Davis - although the protest has gone on for a month at multiple locations without any violence at all there are claims that the pic is iconic, it might be iconic of police pepper spraying but it is not representative of a months non violent demonstrations and to portray that with such a dramatic picture is a false portrayal of the overall subject of the article. This is how they had it before I made an edit. - Off2riorob (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hans, I will give you an opportunity to remove all of the BLP violations you've created in this topic. If not, I will remove them myself.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness to Hans, he has not edited since I posted this comment. Given the time difference, he may have retired for the night. Still, the BLP violations cannot remain on this page, so I've removed them.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not retire for the night. I was watching three videos which a user had claimed somehow justified John Pike's behaviour. They did not. I protest against this edit, which was completely unacceptable as it removed statements of verifiable facts and fair comment on these facts. This was blatant censorship disguised as a BLP issue. There is nothing secret about what this officer has done after half the globe has watched him doing it on TV,

Removed. I am not the only one to have made this observation. To quote Martin Robbins on the Guardian Blog (a newspaper blog which we generally consider a reliable source, though not of the highest order):

Removed

And here we have a Pulitzer prize winner on the same topic. Hans Adler 00:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just back of with your undue statements and labeling of this living person. Off2riorob (talk) 01:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed biographical sources

The following sources appear to mitigate WP:BLP1E concerns in that the life of John A. Pike III is discussed in greater detail including his twice being honored for police work, his allegedly homophobic slur against a fellow cop resulting in a $240k settlement and the other cop quitting the force, and his earlier rise to the rank of sergeant in the US Marine Corps. The list of sources satisfies WP:GNG, in my opinion. I think a separate biography article can be written for the man. Binksternet (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"UC Davis officer, Lt. John Pike, honored, accused", San Francisco Chronicle
"Former UCD officer: Pike used homophobic slur", The Davis Enterprise
"Officer who pepper sprayed Occupy protesters was previously honoured", The Toronto Star
"Internet memes sprout around Occupy movement", AP wire story, carried in SF Gate
"Pepper spray cop was involved in anti-gay slur lawsuit which ended in $240,000 settlement", The Daily Mail
"Officer shows courage in the line of duty", UC Davis Dateline, June 22, 2007
"Pike twice honored for bravery during UCD tenure", The Davis Enterprise
"Profile of Pepper-Spraying Officer Pike: Ex-Marine, Twice Honored, Allegedly Used Anti-Gay Slur", KQED News

- I don't see any chance or reason to create a biography about this person. He is notable for a single incident that created a single news event and imo - wikipedia would be personally attacking him by hosting an article about his not noteworthy life. Off2riorob (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's shades of Anthony Bologna (must be something about pepper spray). I'm also not sure why we are discussing here whether this fellow is sufficiently notable for his own article. That was just a side note when this topic was begun.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of the 2007 article, all these references came after the pepper spray event. If the pepper spray event did not occur, it is unlikely any of these sources would have been published as some of these occurred yearS ago and never received press coverage that we are aware of. I'm not sure this really meets WP:GNG. 72Dino (talk) 00:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People that advocate for this article creation should be drop-kicked off the project IMO. This is Marcus Bachmann all over again; a person who has done, said, or advocated for something that others do not like, so they use the Wikipedia as a platform from which to denigrate and attack. Tarc (talk) 01:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just noticing that national and international news sources are looking into the guy's life. I don't want to add to any personal attacks on the man; he's already been/being pilloried in the media. If anything, a notional biography about him would allow for greater understanding of the pressures he was under. Such an article should describe the orders he was given by those above him. Binksternet (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Tarc for making up an absurd generalisation about the motives of many editors, which allows dissenters to be ignored with ease!

Personally, I don't think we need an attack article; but I think we do need an article on a topic which is subject to intense public attention and which passes the GNG by a large margin.

WP:BLP does not mean that we're barred from writing any articles about people associated with negative stuff (though that line has been tried in the wake of other high-profile incidents). BLP does mean that we have to pay extra attention to accuracy and neutrality. bobrayner (talk) 02:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. Binksternet (talk) 02:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason or need at all to write a biography about this person. The only thing you could do was write a specific pepper spraying article and there is no need for that either, its a section on the Cali uni protect article. - note to self - stop wasting my precious time talking about such absolute rubbish. Off2riorob (talk) 02:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. What's the "Cali uni protect" article?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Occupy University of California, Davis - uni... Cali.. - ha ha - time for bed. Protect was a missie and should have been Protest. Best - Off2riorob (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Yanukovych and Viktor Yushchenko

1. diff

Expert in Ukrainian politics Dr. Taras Kuzio believes that he has always prioritized personal revenge against Yulia Tymoshenko over Ukraine’s national interests.

2. diff

Ukrainian national deputy Taras Chornovil has claimed that Yanukovych “constantly believes that someone wants to kill him.”

I have reverted both as WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. Since these articles have traditionally encountered BLP problems I bring them here proactively, ahead of any possible reversions, so that we can have a head start should difficulties arise. Any comments would be appreciated. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stanislaw Burzynski

I think the LEAD of this article in not NPOV. There is a mention of all the vice about this person in the LEAD but not any mention of his 250 publications, 20 US patents for his treatments, or achievements. The user who is adding these also prevents my tries to maybe add other points of view to the LEAD, saying that I am edit warring. To prevent this I am bringing this to your attention. Please have a look at the article and also the discussion we had about the LEAD in the talk page Talk:Stanislaw Burzynski#Phase III clinical trial for progressive optic pathway glioma. I am leaving this to you, I think as of now the LEAD is rather biased and not NPOV. Farmanesh (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any difficulties with NPOV. There is no requirement for "balance" in the sense of equal treatment for positive and negative -- only proportional treatment relative to what exists in sources. Given the need for proper encyclopedic treatment of something like cancer treatments, I think the lead is appropriate as it is. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questlove

The section entitled "Snarky Sexist Attack on Michele Bachmann" is clearly poorly written, it needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucmeicu49 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article needs a severe slapping with a trout, but I've removed that particularly badly formatted addition as being irredeemably WP:POV. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Herman Cain

Yes I know it is political silly season - but the edit [44] on Herman Cain assigning every ill under the sun to Cain for the "Aquila financial collapse" seems a bit over-the-top even for Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem I see with the section is everything is based on just one source, an investigative/opinion piece.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I put that there and the source is very good: Wayne Barrett. All of the text is properly attributed to Barrett, who is a veteran reporter, well respected. Binksternet (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And it still is UNDUE as a minimum. Assigning the fact as a member of a board of directors and saying he thus was responsible for everything in the company makes for nice political POV stuff - but for a very poor WP:BLP which has higher standards. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a bit overstated. Barrett does a helluva lot more than just say that Cain is responsible merely because he's a member of the board. It's actually a fairly well written article with explanations as to why he says what he does. It's not mere accusations. That said, I agree with you that it's WP:UNDUE as we give what Barrett says a lot of space with no other secondary sources commenting on the issues and with no balance.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I trimed it substantially for several reasons. 1) It is far too much weight for one part of his career, it is not balanced by a substantially long section detailing all that he did for the other businesses that he worked. 2) If implies far too much guilt on Cain regarding the collapse of Aquila. Even Barrett does not explicitly blame Cain for much of the collapse, all Barrett really blames Cain for are the bonuses given to Parker. As chair of the compensation committee that Cain was on he would have had little if any influence on the collapse, and Barrett does not make that arguement. 3) The adding editor, Binksternet, shoehorned in a blog from Cain talking about AIG as a WP:COATRACK. Really, Binksternet, you thought this was a good addition? "Cain's continuing positive attitude toward executive bonuses was expressed in a blog entry he wrote in March 2009 about the "bonuses melodrama" of the AIG bonus payments controversy." In summary, the addition is little more than a political hit on Cain with some synthesis thrown in for good measure. Arzel (talk) 02:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arzel, you are mistaken about WP:SYNTH. Perhaps you did not read the Barrett piece—Barrett is very clear about the connection between Cain's blog, Cain's opinion about executive bonuses, and Cain's actions in favor of giving out bonuses to executives. I have reverted your trim job because your reasoning was off base. I would like to know that you have read the whole Wayne Barrett article before you make decisions based on it. Binksternet (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article, the whole convuluted piece. Just because Barrett said that Cain's comment about AIG showed that he was favorable to executive bonuses, you can't make that a factual statement and then link to the blog which supposedly makes that connection. And even after reading Cain's blog I don't see how it is remotely related to anything Cain did with Aquila, this is the very definition of synthesis of material, and it is a direct BLP violation, not to mention highly POV and undue weight. Arzel (talk) 02:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, there is no synthesis here as defined by WP:SYNTH. There is only Wayne Barrett saying that Cain is in favor of big executive bonuses, that Cain has given out such bonuses to Aquila execs, and that Cain has spoken out (on his blog) in favor of executive bonuses by attacking those who try to limit such bonuses. All of the connections between Aquila, Cain and bonuses are made by Barrett.

The only valid argument you have here is WP:UNDUE. I think the material is appropriate and relevant to the article, but you do not. Fair enough. Let's see what others think. Binksternet (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Little bit undue weight, but interesting stuff, well researched by a respected veteran journalist. Shorten by 50%, perhaps. Jabbsworth 05:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Hoffman

I am Rick Hoffman..Everything except the last credit of Zeus is correct. I am not in any commercial as Zeus. If you need proof of who I am, I would be more than willing to do that. Thanks, Rick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.38.174.2 (talk) 01:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing it to our attention. I've removed the sentence as unsourced.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^ Cite error: The named reference lsnews was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ "Excellent speakers at euthanasia symposium". theinterim.com. 2011 [last update]. Retrieved November 14, 2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)
^ Dowbiggin, Ian (2011 [last update]). "Why is Anti-Catholicism Tolerated?". catholiceducation.org. Retrieved November 14, 2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)

[lsnews-1] Cite error: The named reference lsnews was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[2] "Excellent speakers at euthanasia symposium". theinterim.com. 2011 [last update]. Retrieved November 14, 2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)

[3] Dowbiggin, Ian (2011 [last update]). "Why is Anti-Catholicism Tolerated?". catholiceducation.org. Retrieved November 14, 2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)

[1]

[2]

[3]

@@ Line 888: / Line 888: @@
 ::::::::Actually, no, there is no synthesis here as defined by [[WP:SYNTH]]. There is only Wayne Barrett saying that Cain is in favor of big executive bonuses, that Cain has given out such bonuses to Aquila execs, and that Cain has spoken out (on his blog) in favor of executive bonuses by attacking those who try to limit such bonuses. All of the connections between Aquila, Cain and bonuses are made by Barrett.
 ::::::::The only valid argument you have here is [[WP:UNDUE]]. I think the material is appropriate and relevant to the article, but you do not. Fair enough. Let's see what others think. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 04:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
+::::::::Little bit undue weight, but interesting stuff, well researched by a respected veteran journalist. Shorten by 50%, perhaps. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Jabbsworth|<font style="color:lightgrey;background:black;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Jabbsworth&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span></small> 05:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 == Rick Hoffman ==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards