Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Joekay (talk | contribs) at 20:15, 7 November 2007 (→David North (Trotskyist) (link removed)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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:

    |- ! colspan="3" style="background: #CAE4FF; font-size: 110%; border: 1px lightgray solid; padding: 0.5rem;" |



    Please edit the main page of the noticeboard.

    Individual articles

    Deleting material from history and revisions (closed)

    Sex scandal (closed)

    Braham, Minnesota (closed)

    Kristen Baker (closed)

    Christopher Erskine (closed)

    Daniel Theaker (closed)

    Defense Department list of terrorist organizations other than the Taliban or al Qaeda (closed)

    Alexander Radyushin (closed)

    Ed Kronenburg

    I removed material about the Bilderberg Group that was cited to infowars.com. User:Lord Chao objects.[27] Tom Harrison Talk 22:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm unfamiliar with the sources being discussed (though they look pretty dodgy to me), but wanted to point out that the conversation has moved to Talk:Ed_Kronenburg. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tagged the article as non-notable. Steve Dufour 19:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Shannon Miller

    Logan53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as well as the IP 24.44.52.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has repeatedly added a link to a site that appears to be an attack page on Miller, as well as lines which accuse Miller of fabricating a stalking charge (which was investigated and resulted in a court conviction). Obviously I'm deleting it as soon as I see it, but since the attack site is actually authored by the convicted stalker, and the user has not made any contributions save for adding this content to the Miller article, I'm somewhat concerned that there is a conflict of interest, the user is either the stalker or someone acting on his behalf, and this might be another attempt at cyberstalking or harassment. DanielEng 17:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    how do we add that link to the link blacklist? --Rocksanddirt 23:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Would that be a possibility? If so it would b a very good idea. DanielEng 15:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No I.D. (closed)

    Alexander Nooredin Latifi (closed)

    Skyler Goldsmith (closed)

    Thought Field Therapy (closed)

    Alex Kulbashian

    Alex Kulbashian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Would someone be kind as to have a look at this article. I am not an expert on the subject nor am I an expert in BLP but the article had incorrect claims and unsourced claims which I did my best to clean up. It's hard for me to determine if I've missed anything as I do not have access to some of the sources. Pocopocopocopoco 03:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to add, user:UnionPride keeps reverting back unsourced WP:BLP information that I have removed. These unsourced claims are quite serious, referring to someone as a neo-nazi without proof. On one of his reverts, he made a personal attack against me in the edit summary (calling me Pooperpooperspoopypoop) and on the other he said he was fixing grammar when he was reverting back the entire article. [28] [29] Pocopocopocopoco 00:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies, but I was under the impression that it was a fairly accepted fact. I'll obtain the required sources and do updated where needed.UnionPride 19:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to add another point, I think it would be prudent if all the articles in Category:Canadian_far-right_figures would be looked at as a quick glance has revealed many unsourced and poorly sourced claims. Pocopocopocopoco 00:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mikaël Silvestre

    Resolved

    Someone keeps adding less than generous references to the size and shape of Mikael's head on this page.

    It's sheer vandalism.

    I removed it once but it has now reappeared!

    "217.114.165.34 16:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

    Vandalism removed. Warning issued. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jill Saward

    Hulda Regehr Clark

    There are a number of court records being used in this article to defame the subject. The claim is that these don't constitute a primary source because they have been republished on another. 1) I don't think that mere republication on another site changes the status to a secondary source 2) The site on which these court records have been republished (Quackwatch) is a legal opponent of the subject.

    You will find the use of these court records (a probable cause affidavit and a declaration) in the Legal issues and the Criticism section.

    Further, as these documents are essentially just witness testimony and not a court ruling, I don't believe it is proper to cite these as a reliable source.

    Please note that I have removed these passages twice and each time got reverted. I discussed the matter, but was lambasted with much incivility. I thought when BLP is at question, removing the offending passages is standard practice.

    Anyhow, a pre-thanks to any and all for an outsiders opinion on this matter. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Not an outsider, as I've been involved on this article before - but some of the specific sources under contention, for reference, along with my 2 cents:
    • [30] This is an evaluation of Clark's claims by one of the foremost naturopaths in the U.S., hosted on and cited by quackwatch.org, which is a secondary source. I don't see a BLP violation here.
    • [31] This is sworn testimony from a deputy attorney general, a primary source but again hosted on and cited by quackwatch.org, a secondary source. This is perhaps slightly more iffy but I still don't see this as a BLP violation. MastCell Talk 18:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not an outsider but it's been awhile since I've been to this article. What I am seeing though is outright deletion of Quackwatch on this site and other sites that Levine has been editing. ARB, Barrett VS. Rosenthal keeps being used as a reason for the deletion of Quackwatch which ARB didn't say. The court case and the Quackwatch verification needs to be put back in to stop POV editing. Of course this is just my opinion but I see nothing wrong with the way it was written and there was a lot of us working the article back when these were added to the article. Thank you for listening to me. The history of the article will show all that came to the consensed about this information. --CrohnieGalTalk 11:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Without any real discussion of this issue, Shot info (talk · contribs) continues to restore this content which may be a BLP violation. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Without any real discussion of the issue, you continue to remove the content which is almost certainly NOT a BLP violation. I would go so far as to say that, without including the information in question, the article fails WP:UNDUE. If the BLP argument were to be valid, Clark must be deleted.
    I guess I mean the article must be deleted from Wikipedia, although I wouldn't be that upset if all traces of her were deleted from Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I contend that I am practically the only one there discussing the issue. Aside from MastCell, most users have evaded the issue. Some have resorted to incivility. Please go to the talk page and address why you feel that the use of primary sources without any secondary sources is valid. Because this seemingly goes against WP:BLP as I understand it. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I received an answer at ANI which I find satisfactory. I consider this matter which I opened here closed. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately the answer you received at ANI is not correct, while the answers given above are. I have explained once again at ANI. Forum shopping is unnecessary anyway: WP:BLP including its finer points has been explained to you dozens of times. Avb 00:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Witness testimony should not be used in BLPs unless the witness is the subject of the article. Applicable policies are WP:SPS and WP:BLP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed... if the witness testimony is taken from a self-published source. The dispute here seems to center on the question whether or not Quackwatch is a self-published source for the specific information removed by Levine2112. I note that you view it as self-published while quite a few others view it as a reliable source. FWIW, I do not wish to edit articles also edited by Levine2112 for reasons explained elsewhere so cannot participate in building a consensus on the SPS/RS question on the article's talk page. Avb 00:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    PS I've just read your new BLP/N entry on the subject which makes my comment above superfluous as we agree on the nature of the dispute. Avb 00:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mike Huckabee (From COI/N)

    Yesterday, new editor User:Shogun108 arrived, stating his declaritive intent to clean up the article[32]. I tried to clarify things about how we work via citation and consensus, but he was adamant that most o the stuff should be folded into 'political positions' or lost because it was negative about HuckabeeTalk:Mike_Huckabee#New_Editor_on_a_mission.. This AM, I found the following section, Talk:Mike_Huckabee#Regarding_new_editors, which explains that Shogun108 is one of a group now actively campaigning to 'fix' the article. They were solicited to fix it. One editor actively solicits peopel to become editors to game consensus: "Better yet, since edits run by consensus at Wikipedia, the best case scenario is for SEVERAL editors to keep the Huckabee entries honest. If only ONE editor from "here" changes things, the trolls will gather support and beat the one editor down. The rules are very loosey goosey over there. I've fought the good fight on several issues, and unless I get support, the lefties will gang up on you. " That editor's comment match this edit[33] by User:Mactogrpaher right down to the rationale and comments on the message board. Although Shogun108's comments seem less absolutist, he is still here as an SPA whose only edits are about Huckabee, and who came here specifically to 'clean up' the Huckabee page after solicitation off-wiki. Further, mactographer's comments indicate a generally dismissive tone about WIkipedia, so it is unlikely he will actively work to conform to our standards, and again, a solicited editor. I further wonder if Mactographer's open call to flood the page doesn't count as recruiting Meat Puppets. Thanks for reviewing this. Additionally, two editors at COI/N found this report credible, as seen here Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Specific_off-wiki_campaign_to_purge_Mike_Huckabee_of_criticism.. Shogun108 is proving to be a SPA as well, please see his contribs: Special:Contributions/Shogun108. // ThuranX 20:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a point of caution here, these editors have not shown to be overly pushing a POV without discussion. They're participating and seem to be following the process. I only say this as it seems a couple editors have jumped in defense, without actually taking the time to read some of the debate, which creates a anti-cabal-cabal. And no such cabal as feared above has yet to surface. We need to AGF and let this process move forward, which it seems the approach here is to assume bad faith. Anyway... just think we might be jumping the gun. Morphh (talk) 2:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    I would prefer this be evaluated by the BIO/N regulars, or over at AN/I, where I also posted it after nothing happened here. We've had one ridiculous vandal User:Huckabee08 alredy banned for vandalizing the pages, and would prefer some level of protection or at least acknowledgement that this represents a real concern. Morphh is dismissive of the problem, but I read that message board to be active CANVASsing off-wiki. ThuranX 20:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The agenda pushing continues; an IP tonight tried blanking a great quantity of critical material [34]. ThuranX 05:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    can we PLEASE get some help on this? today we had an IP come in, blank stuff, erase and reword other stuff to whitewash criticisms, and then changed (diff) the 'official forum' to Hucksarmy. The assault on this page by HucksArmy editors is slow but steady, and this report's been up for 11 days with NO action. ThuranX 23:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oscar de la Hoya

    Oscar de la Hoya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - An editor keeps restoring negative material (alleged photos of de la Hoya in drag) primarily sourced by a paparazzi website. There are a few secondary reliable sources about the controversy of whether the photos are authentic or not. Seems like a borderline case; I've deleted it twice, time for the experts. If the general topic is kept, I think the paparazzi links should go. Studerby 00:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    All those sources cited are tabloids, and the Post and Daily News have notoriously poor editorial oversight (that's the perception here in their home state at least). Coverage does not equal notability, and this material is immaterial to de la Hoya's biography. Salacious material that doesn't have established notability does not belong in an encyclopedic article and should go. east.718 at 03:07, 10/26/2007

    Template:Dominionism

    {{Dominionism}} - This template is being used to categorize living persons as "dominionists". These people do not self-identify as such and, since this is a perjorative, they should be removed from this list. I do not see any policy related to templates which work like categories in the BLP policy page, is this an oversight? // Kyaa the Catlord 02:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    In terms of its application within specific articles, its removal should not be problematic if the claim of dominionism lacks proper sourcing. While WP:BLP doesn't address the application of templates, per se, it's very clear about sourcing requirements for any information in BLPs. :) If reliable sources are identifying these individuals as dominionist, then there could be some complication. I wonder if this is a question that might be more fruitfully raised at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons. Not everybody who contributes there monitors the noticeboard. :) At one point, I requested that we require self-identification for any labeling of sexuality and (later) religion in a BLP (as it is required to apply categories with those labels), but the conversation grew complicated and I was distracted by other things. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No this template is seriously not on. For two reasons.
    1. Whilst an article may indicate that some people have called the individual x, and the reader can then assess the importance and credibility of the name-callers for themselves, a decision by wikipedia to put them on a list or template is binary. In effect we are saying they are or they are not. That's POV unless they self-identify as such. To try to get round that by saying "Reported Dominionists" is weasel wording. Can I create a list of "Reported idiots" and include George Bush - I'm sure I can find a reliable source to say someone reported him to be one?
    2. We require controversial claims to be a) attributed and b) directly referenced on the article itself. Putting the claim on a template fails both of these criteria. It may be that the claim is referenced and attributed on the biography, but someone reading another biography with the same template doesn't know that, and there's always the danger that the claims on the template and the claims on the article become different.

    --Docg 19:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Nom it for TfD. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nav templates are there to provide a navigational aid, not to assert a certain POV or give undue weight to certain viewpoints. Same applies to categories. See Wikipedia:Categorization of people. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The template is in AfD, and I have removed the WP:BLP violations in the meantime. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Tariq Ramadan

    A user has called Tariq Ramadan a "bigot" who "preach[es] mass murder of Jews" and accused him of "antisemitism" and "glorification of mass murder" as part of a content dispute on Talk:Banu Qurayza.[35], [36] None of these allegations are sourced, but they are made on the talk page, not on the article. Tariq Ramadan is a living person.

    Is this behavior appropriate? Given WP:BLP says "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages..." (emphasis added) should the user's comments be removed, or allowed to stay?Bless sins 02:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No. It is not appropriate. See WP:NOT#FORUM. Talk pages are for discussing the article and not to assert our opinions on the subject, and regardless if these opinions are correct or not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So is it a violation of BLP or is it just a violation of NOT#FORUM? That's the issue. Also, note that the claims are not "poorly sourced" but sourced and included as criticism in the article about Mr Ramadan. Str1977 (talk) 03:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not matter. Wikipedia talk pages are not for engaging in polemics. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It does matter indeed, as there has always been some room for stating opinions not diretly relevant to the article as long as it is not overdone. And I know what a realy soapboxer reads like. But here this is not the case. However, BLP is a much stricter policy. Here I feel it is invoked to restrict discussions. Str1977 (talk) 11:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Should such comments be "removed immediately"?Bless sins 04:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia talk pages are meant to discuss the article. My comment was an explanation why a certain edit that cited Tariq Ramadan, an academic widely accused of antisemitism and providing support to terrorist, as a source was not appropriate. So, it has nothing to do with WP:NOT#FORUM, let alone WP:BLP. Beit Or 10:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed that part of my comment that was not immediately relevant. The rest, however, is important and topical, and so will stay. Beit Or 11:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Quotes in references

    In checking the appropriateness of using large sections of "quote" in the references section of these and other articles, at the help desk and the citations talk page, I was also urged to bring the question up here, so here it is:

    I've come across an issue with another editor who simply insists on including a quote in each and every reference that he puts in. At times, these quotes can run into 2 or 3 sentences, or complete opening paragraphs/bios. This is done for even a very minor reference such as one for Ben Affleck, reference #5, Encyclopedia Titanica, or all of the references on the Dan Antonioli article. His explanation is two-fold: a) the reader needs to see the reference as it appears in situ (which makes no sense to me since to see the reference in situ requires one to go to the site to view it) and b) the citation template has a space for a quote (although the editor doesn't always use the author space, despite the author's name being available).

    My issue is that this practice is usually unnecessary as well as functioning to bulk out the page with unnecessary information in the reference section. In some cases, the references end up having an excessive amount of info in the citation yet leaves the article bereft of content. And then there is the copyright problems with it. Hoping someone has some suggestions. Wildhartlivie 03:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Conversation about this topic seems to be active at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Quotes_in_references. To avoid duplicating ideas, I'd suggest that any editors here who want to weigh in on this discussion should probably do so there. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    On an aside, I'm pretty certain Encyclopedia Titanica does not qualify as a reliable source. Quatloo 12:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael J. Devlin

    Michael J. Devlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Discussion centers around the use of what appears to be a personal blog [37], first as a reference to a nickname the subject is reported to have, and when challenged, as a straight external link. Another (more reliable) source was found to support the nickname assertion. The question now is whether the link to the blog, in which the author expresses personal opinions linking pedophilia with homosexuality, constitutes poorly sourced contentious matierial that should not be added; or if there is a less strict interpretation of this section when it is being used to support the addition of an external link rather than being used as a reference source. Risker 14:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    At a glance, this seems pretty clearly inappropriate per WP:BLP. I'm about to take a closer look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Have taken a closer look and removed the link. I've left a note explaining my actions at Talk:Michael_J._Devlin#Use_of_Blogs. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I'll keep an eye on it in case the other editor requires further clarification. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The other editor is persistent in believing the blog is appropriate. Additional opinions would be appreciated. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    William Villiers, 10th Earl of Jersey

    Changes to the article began when User:Gorkysfc removed information from the article, according to him/her, by request from the earl himself. After discussion, we both agree that none of the information he/she removed is libellous or defamatory, but one of the user's reasons for doing so was "an attempt to reduce [the earl's] web exposure in this context" (Talk:William Villiers, 10th Earl of Jersey). Granted, I've made added references and links since the original edits by the other user, but if neither of us regard any of the content as libellous or defamatory, then I fail to see why the information should be removed and so ask for some outside help. Note: Discussion found on mine and user's talk pages. Thanks, Craigy (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I will weigh in at the article's talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hulda Regehr Clark (2)

    There is a dispute in this article related to the use of an affidavit as a source for claims in this BLP. The affidavit in its entirety was copied and made available in a pertisan/advocacy website quackwatch.com, which seems legally involved with the subject of the article. My view is that it violates BLP, as the affidavit has not been described in any secondary source besides the aforementioned advocacy site, as as primary source, cannot be used as a source for a BLP give that Wikipedia is not a first publisher of information. Others believe that is borderline and that Quackwatch is a reliable source for this BLP. See previous discussion in the noticeboard: #Hulda Regehr Clark ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    John Magee (bishop)

    This artical pushes a point of view and therefore is biased. It is obviously written by someone with a grudge, who i suggest is at IP address 85.43.58.100, Lazio in Rome, and I have a good idea who this person is also. The artical was written in a manner that tries to twist every action of the Bishop to reflect badly on any of his efforts. I have attempted to correct this several times but 85.43.58.100 keeps reverting the changes. Can the page please be locked? many thanks - Truthsayer101

    I tidied it up some. It needs inline references, reliable source references, and a review of the external links to make sure they are not blp violations. The article needs work. --Rocksanddirt 15:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Shane Ruttle Martinez

    Shane Ruttle Martinez' article has a lot of information which is either unverified or poorly verified. It also has a lot of fluff and pumping up in it. For instance, the second sentence of the article reads " While noted for his writings on Cuban socio-economic and political systems" however the source is simply an article written by Martinez for a student newspaper. There's no evidence that his wrtings are have been "noted" by any third parties. There's also extensive information about Martizez' journalism but no evidence that he's actually a paid journo. Most of his articles have appeared in student newspapers or small alternative publications.

    Most of the "references" for the article are either unverifiable or unreliable. I've tried to prune it but two editors, who look like they edit all the same articles in the exact same wayu, are being very protective of it and have accused me of being a "fascist" for trying to remove poorly sourced material[38].

    Can someone take a look at the article? Cheap Laffs 18:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Cheap Laffs has already been confirmed as being someone with an agenda to cause more Wiki-drama on here. His "complaints" come at a time when investigations are ongoing into the vandalism of the Shane Ruttle Martinez and Richard Warman pages. The Shane Ruttle Martinez article has long been settled, as can be seen here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shane_Ruttle_Martinez#Protection http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_August_23#Shane_Ruttle_Martinez

    Entertaining the outdated whines of a fascist determined to upset our Wiki-community serve no purpose. UnionPride 19:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Any article could always use reworking, but Cheap Laffs is clearly editing specific parts of the article with the intent to belittle the individual, user is not editing in good faith. --Mista-X 23:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Must say I agree with Mista-X. By all measures this work of Cheap Laffs seems to be insincere in purpose, and malicious in intent. Petty suggestions, and bad faith all around. Frank Pais 00:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Question re Paris Hilton article

    I request an opinion about the item "a statue by Daniel Edwards" in the "popular culture" section of the Paris Hilton article.

    Is the item popular culture or obscene exploitation?

    Is it "notable"? Putting this item may give it far more publicity than it deserves.

    Here is the link: Paris Hilton#In popular culture

    It involves what seems a particularly crude and unnecessary bit of information to include.

    The following item, about the band Rush, is not as bad but also questionable. Wanderer57 21:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Notability only applies for whether an article should be here, not whether something is worth mentioning in the article. Obscenity is illegal portrayals of sexual conduct, generally graphical or video. If the sculpture were obscene that's a matter for the local police. I seriously don't think the sculpture is obscene. It's merely provocative. Paris Hilton is a public figure who thrives on celebrity. Her very notability is the scandals she creates. This is one of them. It is relevant to her public persona, and it comments legitimately (though crudely) on her well documented drunk driving and carelessness. Her entire notability is as a popular culture icon, so everything in the article is necessarily a pop culture reference. This is simply part of it. Daniel Edwards did something you don't seem to approve of. However, on Wikipedia we cover the whole world, the good, the bad, and the ugly. I don't see any BLP violation in a factual mention of a controversial piece of artwork. We don't censor here. Wikidemo 23:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's only obscene in the sense of hyperbole, and not by any modern legal definition. Not even close. Quatloo 17:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you. Any other opinions on this? Wanderer57 01:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It is indeed of bad taste, IMO, but that is no grounds for not including it, unless it is not a notable sculpture. Has the sculpture been reported in the mainstream media and art journals? if not, that would be grounds for exclusion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, very bad taste. And sophomoric. And stupid. And not very insightful. Plus, not a very good sculpture. But the guy seems to be a genius at getting press, and just like with Paris herself, with enough fame comes notability. Sadly, the world described by Wikipedia is not always a pretty one.Wikidemo 02:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you both for the input. I've removed the item on the grounds that the current source is the website of the gallery that exhibited the sculpture. Wanderer57 02:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have replaced the item, sourced to a feature article in a New York City arts magazine. FCYTravis 03:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Earl Washington Jr.

    Resolved
     – To AfD]

    Earl Washington Jr. - article about an innocent man. Probable COATRACK, but the large payout might make the case significant. violet/riga (t) 00:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    AfD'ed. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earl Washington Jr. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Image featuring a private person

    I can't find a policy at the intersection between WP:BLP and WP:IMAGE. What happens if a private person is featured in an image and decides that he doesn't want his face up on WP as an illustration? Does it matter if he was the one who uploaded the image (and thus relinquished all rights to it) and has now changed his mind? --BlueMoonlet 04:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The issue of "rights" isn't really an issue - he's in a public place. But the photo's of low quality and is unnecessarily duplicative of an existing, much-higher-quality photo. We have a photo of picketers with clear anti-Mormon signs - this photo is three people lined up smiling at the camera. That image says absolutely nothing - there's nothing in the photo to indicate they're attempting to convert Mormons. "Repent" could mean anything. There's no reason to antagonize the contributor for no good reason at all. We can get along just fine without the photo. I've deleted it. FCYTravis 08:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with your decision, but I'm still curious about the general case. Does a person have recourse if he finds himself in a WP photo and doesn't like it? Does the answer change if he was the one who uploaded the photo? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, there is no legal recourse under either case. First, there is no right to privacy in a public place - anyone can take any photo of anything, publish it, redistribute it, sell it, etc. If you're out in public, you may be photographed. That is established law. Furthermore, once someone uploads and releases a photo under the GFDL, that licence is not revocable and the author may not demand that his work be taken down. However, he may ask that it be deleted, and if there's really no good reason to keep it, then removing it will avoid needlessly antagonizing the contributor without really affecting the quality of the encyclopedia. The latter is the case here, I believe. It's not really an encyclopedia photo, more of a family photo, and it doesn't tell the story as well as the existing picture. FCYTravis 15:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Makes sense to me. Thanks. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Question - if one takes a photograph of someone in a non-public location (say, at a party, or in their house), is the photographer entitled to upload that image for use in an article? Neil ☎ 16:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He or she is certainly entitled to upload such a picture. However, a civil tort may exist if there was an expectation of privacy, and that is a separate issue. Quatloo 16:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And of course, Wikipedia cannot take the place of an attorney in advising you on these matters; and local laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction; etc., etc..... --Orange Mike 17:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But, to my thoroughly non-expert knowledge, the general rule, at least in the US, is that if the subject knew that he or she was being photographed and consented, there is no cause of action, even if the photographer later publicizes the image in an unwanted way. If the subject didn't know he or she was being photographed (for example, a hidden camera), it gets trickier. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia probably needs an amendment to WP:BLP covering inappropriate uses of images in articles. If I take a GFDL-licensed free image of Michael Jordan and insert it into the Nigger article, factually captioning it as nothing more than an example of a "black" person, then I have still done him some harm. Same goes if I take a person's image from Microsoft Office clip-art and widely publicize it in a campaign for/against abortion or some other hot-button issue - that person would have recourse against me for the inappropriate association of their identity, despite it being kosher from a copyright perspective. I am proposing such an amendment at talk for WP:BLP now. Reswobslc 16:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Vladimir Tismăneanu on two Wikipedia articles

    Hi. I would like to bring to your attention the article on Vladimir Tismăneanu, a Romanian and American scholar, Professor at the University of Maryland, College Park, and head of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Communist Dictatorship in Romania, who has been routinely attacked by sections of the Romanian press and political sphere for various reasons. The controversy is complicated enough, and the claims made about him have been generally unsubstantiated, and in some cases, according to third-party assessments and his own, racist. The enwiki article on him currently references all the positions, and puts them into perspective - feel free to look through it and related talk page. Past versions of the article were scandalous, featuring claims made by anti-Tismăneanu newspapers without attributing or presenting them as allegations, and, in one instance, without making it clear that the claims were retracted by the source (with an apology).

    Now, I was involved in the discussions, and actively took part in cleaning it up. In the process of looking for sources, specifically the manner in which Tismăneanu himself responded to allegations, I found (just recently) a Romanian-language interview in which he discusses the incidents and makes a statement about Wikipedia. The interview, which actually centers on a death threat Tismăneanu claims to have received and reported to American authorities, is published by the respected Romanian journal Observator Cultural, and the journalist asking him questions is Ovidiu Şimonca. The article is also made available in the same version from a Eurotopics link, with a summary that does not feature the detail on Wikipedia.

    Here is the full article (it does not carry a date, but the Eurotopic link gives June 13, 2007). The relevant Romanian-language section is here (I left out the diacritics, which were not present in the online version I'm quoting from): "Nu am tinut sa raspund la valul de calomnii (care au infestat si articolele despre mine din Wikipedia, atit in engleza, cit si in romaneste) pentru ca am urmat preceptul „You do not dignify them with an answer“". My translation follows: "I did not care to reply to the wave of calumnies (that have infested the articles on me on Wikipedia, both in English and Romanian) because I followed the principle 'You do not dignify them with an answer' [English as used in the original]".

    The main problem here is that the rowiki article he is citing has not only failed to go through a process of cleaning, but the edits which served to tone down its blatant bias have been removed by certain editors. Furthermore, the English article itself is coming under periodic attacks to remove virtually all edits that are anything more than simple attacks on the article's subject (most recently, this was attempted here).

    As we stand, the problem on enwiki seems to under control, and I am discussing with other editors the possibility of adding yet more reliable sources that identify many of the arguments raised against Tismăneanu as "antisemitic", "extremist", "neo-Securist" etc., and in general as "biased". One of these is the Washington Post - just to give you insight into the fact that this controversy has reached an international level, and that the more prestigious sources there have no difficulty in clearing up Tismăneanu's name. More details on these issues are available on the article's talk page (specifically, in the last three-four sections there), and I am willing to provide more sources and diffs to explain the nature of the controversies - I'm sure that several Romanian contributors would also like to add their insight.

    In short: what past versions of this article have done is to portray the man, whose standing and expertise are a given, in a negative light, to ignore/marginalize all other comments about him (either positive or neutral), and to present even the most ludicrous allegations as indisputable facts. I hereby stress that this sort of editing is still happening on the Romanian version (and also involves a series of related articles, such as the one on his father, who, despite having Romanian citizenship, is presented, due to his ethnicity, as a Jew, and whose supposed "moniker", "The Cripple", is presented alongside his name; for instance, a timid attempt to renounce at least part of this problem was swiftly reverted). Given that Wikipedia's reliability was implicated by the person to whom the articles refer, I think this warrants extra precaution from the community at large.

    I think it is also telling that, just recently, controversial edits promoting a non-reliable site connected with the journal Ziua have been made by a Ziua-related IP (see here). The journal and the site are identified by many as anti-Tismăneanu campaigners - for this, I direct your attention to the article, which references those sources, and I am also willing to translate other third-party sources saying it. This should add to the perception that Wikipedia was (and probably still is) targeted by a controversial lobby. (As a side note, the web site in question references past versions of the two wikipedia articles for its biographical information on Vladimir Tismăneanu).

    I leave it to you to assess the implications of this issue. Dahn 06:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I moved the above here from User talk:Jimbo Wales.WAS 4.250 07:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't mention anything about the lawsuits. --Thus Spake Anittas 07:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, from what I can tell from the source I cited, the claims which are currently subject to a lawsuit have all been removed from the English article, and the press organs cited have also been removed from the ro:wiki article (though one cannot tell for sure if the information based on them was also removed). Presumably, in the interview quoted above, Tismăneanu does not refer to those tidbits, but to other information (anyone can assess that at least three wikipedia guidelines are trespassed in the ro:wiki Tismăneanu article as it is at the moment). However, it may prove that the article on his father still uses info from the sources cited in the ongoing lawsuit - but I cannot tell for sure since, at the moment at least, all sources on the legal case speak in very broad terms. Dahn 07:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I will add this: at least some of the edits on one of the ro:wiki articles belong to a user who has promoted anti-semitic content, promoting the notion of a Jewish conspiracy against Romania. Despite the recent and praiseworthy efforts by many editors, the issue of antisemitism is, as I am writing this, still prominently present on ro:wiki (a step down from "endemic"). If it should be considered relevant for this discussion, I am willing to provide ample evidence for this comment (as I already have in other similar contexts), and, if given permission, I will use the comments made by other respected and reliable editors in support of this view.
    Since raising this issue was met with considerable resistance by a group of editors who have otherwise been involved in producing controversial material on Tismăneanu and other such articles, and since, as a consequence, it was implied that I am "campaigning against ro:wiki" (mainly because I proposed some extreme irregularities there to be brought to the attention of people managing this entire project), I will only expand on this point if called to. Dahn 08:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Atze Schröder

    Atze Schröder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - And here it is again, this persistent edit war that leaked in from German wikipedia. I'm sure some of you know all the details; for the others, here's a brief summary: Atze Schröder is a German comedian. The name is a pseudonym; the artist never uses his real name in public, and does not want it to be published, neither on Wikipedia nor in newspapers, etc. There are actually some legal proceedings around that before German courts.

    In my opinion, by WP:BLP, we should "do no harm" and not mention the name. Note that this is not a legal question, it's one of Wikipedia policy. Further, since the artist does not perform under his real name, the name is of little (if any) encyclopedic value.

    The real name keeps being inserted into the article at irregular intervals, by different users (anons, SPAs, but also some others). I have reverted quite a few times now, but it seems that this warrants a larger discussion. --B. Wolterding 11:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • This is a difficult one. I looked up the trade mark registration and in fact the name assumed to be the real name of the comedian is given only as the rights holder; it's simply an assumption that the rights holder is one and the same. WP:BLP#Privacy of names is however a rather nuanced policy. This clearly counts as an intentional concealment of a name but all the policy says is "it is often preferable to omit" the real name, and then says that the loss of context is the issue by which it is judged. In this case, the fight to preserve the confidentiality of the name is an issue which is relevant on both sides: it shows both intention to conceal, and that the real name is important and adds context. The Tron (hacker) issue is worth considering but the fact that the German court did find that the real name should not be disclosed is a strong factor which leads me to think that we should not have it in the article at the moment. Other people's judgments welcome.

        It might be a good idea to expand the article so that it doesn't get overladen by this issue. At present it does not give much context for people unfamiliar with Atze Schröder. Sam Blacketer 15:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

          • Regardless, the German court system's verdict does not apply to a server hosted in Florida. As a public figure he has no valid claim for anonymity, he's made himself public, if he wished to remain private he should have reconsidered becoming an actor. BLP very clearly does not apply in this circumstance.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 18:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's not a legal issue, but it is a moral one in which our community policy is involved. I disagree that BLP does not apply. BLP policy does cover the real names of people known by a pseudonym, and says that there are circumstances in which real names should not be given even if known. Given that we only have biographies of notable people, all biographies are of people who are not entirely 'private'. I also think there is a case for deferring to what is acceptable in the culture to which Atze Schröder belongs, and German culture is more restrictive on publishing personal information than is the US or UK. Sam Blacketer 21:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand that there is a decision pending by Berlin's court of appeals whether mentioning Schroeder's real name in a newspaper was correct or not. Schroeder also sued German wikipedia and then withdrew the suit. The court in this case pointed out that Schroeder is not a private individual but someone clearly adressing the public and appearing publicly. Therefore he can't request being treated like a private individual. The public's interest in Schroeder is justified because Schroeder himself has sought their attention. In short: Schroeder cannot appear publicly and at the same time request anonymity. This is also valid for this article. Btw, WP:BLP#Privacy of names clearly refers to private, living indviduals whose identities might need to be protected. It is not about people in showbiz using a pseudonym. Generally the real name behind an artist's pseudonym is revealed/mentioned in related articles. See for example John Wayne (dead) or Prince (musician), Björk (living). --Catgut 17:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The difference may be that the real names of those people have been widely published in the press and literature, while this artist's name has not been. As for the court case, I'm not a lawyer but one should note that the court in this case did not decide on whether the real name can be mentioned or not, it just decided who will bear the fees for a case that had been withdrawn. On the other hand, there was a court ruling which did decide whether it's permitted to publish the name, negatively (this is now at the appeals). Anyway: The criterion for Wikipedia is whether the name has been widely published, and whether it's relevant to the article. Both questions have a negative answer here, I think: Schroeder's real name has not been widely published in the press (while it has been published in a storm of blog entries, but that's an entirely different issue). As for relevance: While the controversy about the name may be relevant (maybe more to Wikipedia than to the artist?), the actual name is not - unless you want to contact Schroeder privately. (And I think that's what he wants to avoid.) By the way, who says that the privacy of showbiz people does not warrant protection? His name has not been "widely disseminated" in reliable sources. If he doesn't make his private life public, we shouldn't cover it. We're not a tabloid. --B. Wolterding 18:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I tagged the article as non-notable. It has no secondary sources and, as far as I can see, nothing that would be of interest to an English speaking reader. Steve Dufour 02:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sister Roma talk page comments

    Hi, I want to have an outside editor address this as I'm now the main contributor to the article. An anon IP has seen fit to target this bio as well as Hot House Entertainment (where Roma works) by deleting nearly all the content and tagging non-notable (first edit). Needless to say both articles have been semi-protected. Now that same anon (they have a floating IP so blocking doesn't seem to work) is now accusing me of various unsavory things on multiple talk pages but my specific request is for someone to check out this talk page edit on the article. And address it however they see fit; my specific concerns are calling the subject a "fag" and accusing me of various things. Benjiboi 18:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Benji, do you ever tell the whole truth? I referred to the subject as a "drag fag," not a fag. There's a difference.72.68.30.122 20:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User has been warned about aggressive cross-posting. If he persists with personal attacks, a post at WP:AN/I would be a better approach. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. User has been extremely persistent so I imagine that will happen. I feel leaving the slur as is and personal accusations comments unanswered is in error or is that feeding the trolls? Benjiboi 19:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    David Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley

    Are recent edits to this page adequately sourced? Sam Blacketer 22:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    People are adding and removing sources, so it is difficult to say. As it is right now the article is not adequately sourced, but the one source that is there for the most controversial piece is Reuters. There is personal information (family names) that should be removed per WP:BLP if sources are not found. Quatloo 12:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Cliff Richard bio

     Done
    I don't know how to do it myself, but somebody may like to remove the paragraph about Cliff being cryogenically frozen once a year. Quite funny, but untrue I imagine

    Richard Gibson142.179.185.10 23:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for bringing it to our attention. :) It was reverted by User:Jwy. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Johan Galtung

    A user is citing dodgy statments by professor Johan Galtung I have never seen. There are no publications of his either that supports the claim. The claim is that Galtung is against western democracy and freedom in general, and that he was a strong supporter of Soviet opression of European nations. They got ONE source with is a 'news' site with a heavy politcial agenda Nastykermit 18:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    One of the cites -- not sure if it is to the one you refer -- is to a publication by title only. At the very least the issue should be identified in order to track down the quote(s) if necessary. I'd say WP:BLP would require a full citation, not a broad reference by title alone. You might include pointers to the edits in question. Quatloo 15:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The 'source' in question is city journal. The article author writes "and his views on World War II suggest that he’d have preferred it if the Allies had allowed Hitler to finish off the Jews and invade Britain" witch is nothing less than absurd. I also suggest that an article written by a journalist citing no sources should not be validNastykermit 18:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There is one source to a Criticism section. It is an article by Bruce Bawer, published in City Journal, and subsequently reprinted in an abridged form in the Los Angeles Times. Links to both articles are given, and I have checked the statements the editor who entered the material made: they are indeed made by Bawer in the article. User:Nastykermit is correct that Bawer does not give his primary sources. But Bawer is notable, and both City Journal and the Los Angeles Times are reputable publications. In fact, this section of the article has better sources than the rest.
    User:Nastykermit has persistently deleted this criticism section, claiming that he "knows" that it cannot be true. I have persistently restored his deletions, and suggested that he add sourced material to the article if he finds it unbalanced. We've spent several days on this, with fruitless exchanges on the talk page and revert warring. Involvement by a few more editors would probably help settle this. --Anthon.Eff 15:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ann coulter is published in several magazines but that doesnt make her crazy ramblings any more credible. Bawer is NOT a journalist but a mere literary critic. Fact is, the burden is on YOU to verify rather me debunking it. Just by reading 'the peace rakcet' you should have the common sense to see it for what it is...trash. Spending 5 minutes on your 'source' will show just what type of site it is. It's a strongly conservative leaning site while the article is supposed to be neutral.Nastykermit 16:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    [cross-posted from Talk:Johan Galtung#POV rubbish since Anthon.Eff insists that someone comment on this issue in this forum]
    I'm an outside editor that has a history with Anthon.Eff (he likes to call me name, such as "communist", regarding another issue), so I'm not entirely impartial. But I have read the comments here and the article in question. In my opinion, the article is very strongly opinion based since the author, Bruce Bawer, cites a lot of quotes that Galtung supposedly made but doesn't say where the quotes have come from. I have done a quick Google search and have not found corroborating evidence (other than people citing Bruce Bawer.) Unless there is another source that shows that Galtung has in fact stated these claims, the text clearly violates WP:BLP and is defamatory and derogatory. Until someone takes the time to find corroborating evidence, it should be removed from the article immediately. If Anthon.Eff continues to replace the derogatory text in the article, he should be reported to WP:3RR.
    I would appreciate it if someone else could also look into this as Anthon.Eff has chosen to disregard my comments. –panda 00:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    By "involvement by a few more editors" I guess I didn't mean you panda, since you are clearly stalking. But heck, if no one else shows up, and you really want to participate, maybe you could start off by enlightening me where in policy you can find the support for your assertion that one needs two sources ("Unless there is another source that shows that Galtung has in fact stated these claims, the text clearly violates WP:BLP"). And just to keep this short, here is a link to what I think is the relevant policy. --Anthon.Eff 01:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said, I'm not an entirely impartial person as now Anthon.Eff is accusing me of stalking, another typical bad faith accusation that I've been getting from this editor... –panda 01:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Anthon.Eff your abusive comments in the edit history speaks for themselves. You have no valid sources and are violating WP:BLPNastykermit 18:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This issue is still unresolved. I've removed the text for now, but I expect that Anthon.Eff will revert. Anyway, the text in question can be found in an older version of the article. –panda 19:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    John Forester (cyclist)

    A user, Bepperson, is planning to add Original Research to this article. His choice of words in both the dicussion page and the article itself suggest he is also somewhat hostile to John Forester. >>I have replaced the two missing paragraphs that Tomasrojo vandalized by removing on October 25. I am not writing Foresters unofficial biography, I am writing his official biography. [...] Thomasrojo no doubt removed the paragraphs because, while not pointed out in the article, the information contradicts biographical information contained in Forester's C.V. In addtion, the introduction of certain biographical chracters is necessary because I have conducted interviews with these persons and they have comments on Forester's life and career which will be added as I go along. As I have previously noted, through his career, Forester has made himself a public figure and thus his life is subject to any scrutiny that is supportable by the facts and is not libel<< Tomasrojo 11:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have done some cleaning on this article and addressed some of its sourcing concerns with inline citations, although it needs more work, particularly beginning in the John_Forester_(cyclist)#Cycling_advocacy section, where I was when I ran out of time. :) I'll try to get to some of that later today, although I may not make it. Meanwhile, I've put the article on my watch list for the time being. If inadequately sourced material is added in the near future, I'll join you in addressing that on the talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much for doing that. I tried to clean it up in a similar fashion, but my edits were all reverted. I didn't have any citations either, so thanks a lot for those.Tomasrojo 09:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeremy Beadle

    I removed these uncited, and trivial, points. Steve Dufour 02:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    José Galisteo (closed)

    Giovanni di Stefano

    Giovanni di Stefano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which has long been a contentious article, including intense involvement by both the subject, a prominent European lawyer and Jimbo Wales, is being impacted by the actions of Privatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has created an alternative article in his userspace. The problem in the past has been repeated insertion of material which casts the subject in a bad light but avoids addressing his underlying status. This material originates in the mainstream British press which, in order to avoid legal exposure, are careful to imply without specifically setting forth the implication. Faced with the prospect of litigation, Jimbo and I have been quite conservative in our editing. Privatemusings, on the other hand, an alternate account of Purple (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which has focused on controversial issues, is now campaigning to reinsert controversial poorly sourced information. This is a difficult matter, due to recent controversy involving an abortive block of Privatemusings, but assistance would be appreciated. Fred Bauder 14:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The article seems OK now, and devoid of material as you describe it. I will add the article on my watchlist and keep an eye on it for a few weeks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Amir Abdul-Malik Ali

    User "Buster Friendly" continue to use libel and slanderous language about Amir Abdul-Malik Ali which I will inform the individual personaly. I understand there is two sides to debates and subjects, however agreement on nuetral lanquage not misrepresenting and causing libel on a person should take place, if there is any questions of possible misunderstanding they can be appeased by questions not blanket indictments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imhotep5 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    See #Amir Abdul Malik, five threads down. –panda 04:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jessica Seinfeld (closed)

    Xi Jinping (closed)

    David Wu (closed)

    David North (Trotskyist) (closed)

    Amir Abdul Malik

    I recently attended a conference in which Abdul Malik was an invited speaker. Not once did he mention the subject of zionism or make any references to jews. The wikipedia entry which portrays Abdul Malik as a vehemenent "anti-zionist" is a flagrant misrepresentation and character assassination of a living person. Furthermore, the term "Black Muslim" used to describe Abdul Malik is a misused political context. The term implies a political ideology of black separatism established by the Nation of Islam movement founded by Elijah Muhammad. Abdul Malik is a sunni muslim. The wikipedia entry suggests that Abdul Malik is a Black Muslim ideologue simply because his skin is black. This is indeed libel and racist to say the least. Characterizations which describe Abdul Malik as anti-jew or anti-white mislead the public and should be immediately removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.84.197.183 (talk) 04:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I did some research on this Abdul Malik, and he is indeed a racist bigotNastykermit 13:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The correct article is Amir Abdul-Malik Ali and the text is definitely verifiable. I left some references for the quotes in the article on the talk page. –panda 03:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There may also be some confusion about the subject of the article. In one of the references I found it states:[41]

    (Malik is also referred to as Abdul Malik Ali, Abd Al-Malik and Amir Abdel Malik Ali. Note: This individual is not Imam Abdul R. Malik Ali.)

    This should probably be clarified in the article. Cross-posting to the talk page. –panda 03:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jose Rodriguez (activist)

    In the last few days, multiple editors are reintroducing unsourced information (some of it plain silly, other likely defamatory) to this article.

    These are User: The Cite [42] (since blocked as a vandalism only account,) User: Yellowbilby [43], User: Fatkidjumps [44], and User: Timsdad [45]. Each has added more or less the same material once, getting one warning each. Any suggestions?--Slp1 13:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I will take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not much to do at this point. Will keep the article in my watchlist for a while. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! --Slp1 22:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Narendra Modi

    Relata refero (talk · contribs) has been continually deleting criticism of a biased magazine report vilifying this public figure. Revert 1, Rv 2, Rv 3. The user had the audacity in his third revert to tell me to "duscuss on talk" without doing it himself, and when I had already discussed my additions an hour before. The removal of counterresponses violates BLP, especially the problem that the criticism serves to "overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics".Bakaman 18:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I was about to come here to ask for more eyes on this. I urge people to read exchanges on the talk page; non-notable and irrelevant criticism of a widely publicized magazine report, when the individual in question has chosen to not make a response, does not, in my opinion, cause the article to side with the critics; we would otherwise have an infinite set of responses and counter-responses. The above user also has problems with civility as well as talk page usage, it appears, and has just called me a lawyer for terrorists or some such thing. (I strongly object to being called a lawyer.) Relata refero 05:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Internet Infidels

    Internet Infidels is an organization best known for running the Internet Infidels Discussion Board, a large online forum. A recent incident involved the ousting of a board member named Janice Rael, and the controversy that arose regarding this on IIDB and other message boards. Recently anonymous IPs and new users have been hitting this article adding unsourced and poorly sourced original research about the incident.

    Most concerning is links to petitions calling for the ouster of "one of the board members involved", whose identity is obvious to anyone either remotely familiar with the forum or anyone who follows the links provided. Would appreciate more eyes on this, as attempts to clean up the article are being reverted. - Merzbow 06:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have removed some of the stuff, the main contributor to the article is 71.225.187.87. Oysterguitarist 14:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. - Merzbow 18:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jenna Gibbons

    In August this year, while RC patrolling, I came across this edit by IamJennaG. Judging by her edit summary, she claims to be Jenna Gibbons. The user requested that her full name not be made public. There was a similar case with The New York Times writer Touré who didn't want his last name shown. The Mediation Cabal Case in Talk:Touré resulted in his last name being removed because of WP:BLP concerns. Perhaps the Jenna Gibbons article can be renamed to simply "Jenna G" (assuming the user is who she says she is). Spellcast 21:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The user has never returned to Wikipedia. Either it wasn't her, or it wasn't a big deal. --Orange Mike 21:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I left a message on her talk page shortly after her edit to see if she would respond. But since there was no reply, I decided to let it pass. Just thought I might as well bring it up here. Better late than never. Spellcast 21:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Jamie Rush

    I work for MTV and am updating the biographies for all the MTV host which where written by them. How would I source this if its in a word document? Also why were the links taken down if it links you to video footage of the host themselves? Jamierush 17:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Jamie Rush[reply]

    1) A Word document is not a reliable source. Information in Wikipedia needs to come from neutral, verifiable third-party sources not linked to the subject of the article (or his/her advocates). 2) Those links were inappropriate, and violated our policies on external links. These articles are not to be used as a directory or advertising for the subject persons. Please - read and follow our policies on conflict of interest. Briefly, an MTV employee is advised not to edit or create such articles at all (except for certain non-controversial edits, such as to repair blatant vandalism) but to instead use the talk page to request help from neutral editors. --Orange Mike 17:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Libelous statements persistently reinserted

    The use of the defamatory statement "and pseudohistorian[1]/novelist." in the listing for Dr Robert Lomas is inaccurate and libelous. He has never published a novel and he The term which it replaced 'amateur historian' Is accurate and fair. The replacement term is damaging to the reputation of practicing academic who works at reputable university and runs that university's masonic archive. I would suggest the phrase contravenes Wikipedia's policy on making libelous statements about living people and helps bring the site into deserving disrepute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.68.134 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=169941038"