Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.

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.

Death of David Kelly

Is a book review, which is for the most part hidden behind a paywall, and written by an author who is known to be critical of Tony Blair, an acceptable and verifiable source for stating as a fact what happened at a meeting attended neither by the author of the book being reviewed nor by its reviewer? Is it reasonable to state the claims as a proven fact when they contradict the findings of a judicial inquiry, and the evidence given by Tony Blair? (There is no exception in WP:BLP for accusations against Prime Ministers.) Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has now also been posted on the reliable sources noticeboard.Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As invited by Nishidani. I was resistant to do so lest it provoke accusations of forum shopping. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. But I'd hardly ask you to raise it there, and then challenge you for forum-shopping if you had! Even more humorous is you asking a question on this page, and not notifying me!Nishidani (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment without having sifted the underlying material. Articles in the New York Review of Books tend to be much more than reviews--in fact, many of them are highly interesting, deliberate coatracks where the book is used as the mere excuse for a disquisition on the topic. I think a lot of references to NYRB would stand either on the grounds that this prestigious, long standing publication is a reliable source, or, at worst, by analogy to WP:SPS because the authors are almost universally recognized experts in their fields. That said, I think contentious material about living persons sourced only to a NYRB review should either be better sourced or deleted. (I distinguish the smaller number of NYRB articles which are presented as actual reportage of the "letter from Cairo" ilk). Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I spent a little more time reading the thread on the article talk page. If Wheatcroft in NYRB is citing one of the books he read, it seems incumbent on anyone wishing to preserve the content to identify which one and to find and reference the underlying book (assuming it independently is a reliable source). References which state "X says in a book review that Y claimed in a book" are not encyclopedic. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I often endeavour to do this personally, where possible, as a matter of good practice. But where is the wiki ruling that supports your opinion?

This is amazing. I edit an article on a dead person, David Kelly, and the content of my edit is then construed as offending a living person! Let us stick strictly to the details. Sam is asserting that I or Wheatcroft makes an allegation. Neither I as editor, nor Wheatcroft as cited, or Rawnsley, make allegations in the edits. My edits have carefully chosen only those two elements of the review which provide us with details on what Mr Blair said on an airplane, and what took place on July 8. There is no allegation, there is only Sam's allegation that the inference he draws from these two details constitutes an allegation that is on the page! Come now, gentleman. This is really straightforward.Nishidani (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the way this unverified opinion is being presented as if a fact. One journo in his titillating book says this and another journo says is is true - its a double unverification presented as resulting in a positive guarantee of fact. Off2riorob (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me. What 'opinion' is unverified?

Neither Andrew Rawnsley nor Geoffrey Wheatcroft can be casually dismissed by the slightly pejorative slang 'journo'. They are both historians, qualified at respectively at Cambridge and Oxford in modern history in addition to writing for their living. Wheatcroft makes part of his living reviewing historical books from firstrate university presses. It is not customary for the TLS or the NYRB to engage hacks with a slipshod approach to work to review historical books. Both have letters to the editor columns where protests are made if the reviewer misrepresents facts. Nishidani (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George Melly used to tell of Geoffrey Wheatcroft having accused him of whilst at Stowe School "having expertly seduced poor little Peregrine Worsthorne". George Melly points out that he was two years younger that Peregrine and wouldn't have dared approached him, "expertly seduced" though he liked. You might find a YouTube interview of him relating that tale, could have been Parkinson. John lilburne (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I've read the NYRB but I've always had the impression that it is pretty much like the London Review of Books. If so the articles are indeed opinion pieces where the reviewer rarely focuses on the book itself, but instead uses the book to trot out the pet hobby horse. John lilburne (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Fordyce

Resolved

– subject expired, article has been updated, thanks

On 24 March 2011, claims that Fordyce had died were inserted into the piece. The sources for this information were unedited British media message boards, and as of 2330 UTC on 24 March there has not been any such death notice issued by a credible British news organisation. Consideing Fordyce's prominence in British radio and television for several decades, mere message board claims are extremely poor bases for such information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingDaevid (talk • contribs) 22:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How reliable is The Daily Express? They put out a piece saying he died: [1] NW (Talk) 23:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Saxton

Would any editors be available to have a look at the Aaron Saxton BLP? This includes an embedded video, originally self-published as part of a series on YouTube which has been uploaded to Commons (see Commons category). The YouTube video itself is, as far as I am aware, non-notable, in that no reliable sources have commented upon it. It, and the other videos in the series, make statements about third parties, and I am unsure if the embedding of the video in the article is in line with WP:BLPSPS. Views? --JN466 10:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He is making statements that the Church disputes. The embedded video is part 1 of 7; there is more in the other 6 parts, including allegations against named persons: [2]. The article shouldn't be a platform for his allegations. We should remove the embedded video, but leave the Commons link to them. As far as the use of the videos as sources for article content is concerned, it's mostly basic biographical detail, which is alright. The article also says "While a member of the Commodore's Messenger Organization (CMO), Saxton attempted to make sure those under his supervision had adequate nourishment.[23][24] As a recruiter for the CMO, Saxton typically tried to get Scientologists between ages 13 to 14 to join the organisation.[25]", sourced to these self-published videos. The first sentence could be perceived as self-serving. Other than that I don't see a problem with how the videos have been used to source content. --JN466 11:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Aura Urziceanu

Resolved

– article is not hosted on this wikipedia - advice given and a menu of helpful links added to the new users talkpage

Over a long period of time, some editors of the article Aura Urziceanu repeatedly added information poorly sourced about the alleged ethnic origin of the artist who is a living personality. The artist denied publicly and was offended by such allegation.

While the article is in Romanian, I do request assistance from the larger Wikipedia community because my repeated attempts to ensure the WP policy for this article is respected failed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gigi marga (talk • contribs) 13:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you send an email to OTRS (info@wikimedia.org) and/or bring this up on meta. The English Wikipedia controls only the English Wikipeida. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Can you please let me know what (and where) is "meta"? Thank you. Gigi marga (talk) 06:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Here Wikipedia:Meta is our article about Meta which explains what it is, and here is the the main page of Wikimedia, Meta-wiki. - Off2riorob (talk) 11:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Ring (astrologer)

The article as it stands is not impartial and wrongly denigrates Ken Ring, who has thousands of loyal followers and admirers. A dispute between scientists and alternative theoreticians should not enter the pages of Wikipedia, and the public should be able to make up their own minds, not being told what to think and believe by someone dedicated to the criticism of someone for personal reasons. It is better to say nothing rather than slant the posting negatively. Someone reading the posting for the first time will not form a good judgement. For instance Ken Ring saved many people's lives by warning successfully of the 6.3 earthquake in Christchurch on 22 February, 2011, a week before it happened. That result is fact and has been wrongly omitted. His advice has also saved many farmers from financial ruin. Ken Ring has been Channel Seven's longrange forecaster and presenter for the past 4 years. (Seven is Australia's biggest TV network). Some fairness please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanola51 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see if I correctly interpret what you're asking: you want to remove sourced criticism of his "predictions" and simply let Wikipedia state that he can predict the future? Do I understand that correctly? Chillllls (talk) 01:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never heard of this guy, so I went and read the article. In my opinion, it clearly fails the "smell test" for neutrality. To cite three examples:

1) The statement that Ring believes that weather is caused "solely by the Moon" contradicts the source, which states that weather "is caused mostly by the Moon in its partnership with the Sun."

2) The speculative and dismissive statement that Ring's predictions "may be shown to be less accurate than random guess" is unsourced.

3) The unsourced statement that Ring's successful March 20 earthquake prediction "was not outside the scientifically expected pattern" appears to have the sole function of downplaying or dismissing Ring's prediction, and the statement that the prediction "caused significant unwelcome stress amongst local residents" seems to be poorly worded.--Other Choices (talk) 08:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- note - article has been at AFD for six days and looks like a clear keeper. I resolved via editing the three issues above Off2riorob (talk) 11:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this for deletion so was waiting for its outcome before getting too involved in its editing. As Rob points out this is probably going to stay. I have added some sources and info to back up point 3 and will work on bringing the rest up to scratch over the next few days. AIRcorn (talk) 12:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pat O'Connell

Resolved

– link fixed

Pat O'Connell, surfer, born 1972 is NOT the Pat O'Connell who was a member of the CND Committee of 100. The LINK from the list of committee members to Pat O'Connell is wrong. It should go to and show a female, born in Ireland in the early 1900's and who died in London England in the early 2000's. This Pat O'Connell (Pat, short for Margret?) deserves, in my oppinion, a biography in her own right. Yours John Seager. email redacted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.46.250 (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the link. See WP:DAB. If the other Pat O'Connell deserves an article, you should register an account and write one! Thanks for pointing out the mislinking. The Interior (Talk) 09:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLPs of Politicians

Hello, I have been dealing with lot of BLPs relating to Indian Politicians. The problem is that (as with any other BLP), IPs come and insert criticism (mostly allegations) into the article. The thing is that their additions are usually well sourced. However, many additions are kind of trivial. If we allow such additions, then it will become nothing but a huge collection of political allegations, many of which are politically motivated. Politician BLPs are very sensitive, probably more than other BLPs. Is there any policy specially addressing these kinds of additions? I have also raised the issue at the Wikiproject politics. Yes Michael? •^Talk 15:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE means that if something is trivial, it may not be worth remarking. The thing to ask is, is the allegation the type of thing that simply makes a news cycle or did it have enduring significance.--Scott Mac 16:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. WP:UNDUE does say that, but it is not always easy to judge what is trivial, and what is not. Another problem is that most of these political stories are allegations, and nothing more. Do these deserve a place in the articles? Yes Michael? •^Talk 16:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on their notability. Some allegations are so much part of the story of the politician that yes they will warrant recording. But the fact that someone has alleged something, does not make it notable. I think it is easier to look at a particular example rather than generalisations here.--Scott Mac 16:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. I guess we can keep a timeframe of sorts; Like if a particular story is in the news for say, 10 days or so, it could warrant a mention. This could help filter out the chaff. Thoughts? Yes Michael? •^Talk 17:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I always err the side of excluding material entirely. However, I don't think this can be reduced to some "rule". It would depend on what we meant by "in the news" as well as the time. Is it in major newspapers? Quality or tabloid? Is it a footnote or a front-page? All we can do is examine on a case-by-case.--Scott Mac 17:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Yes Michael? •^Talk 17:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Political silly season" is the worst time for political BLPs on Wikipedia. ome folks seem to feel that the more dirt they can find on a politician (heck, anyone they do not like), the better. I am quite unsure that such is the best policy at all, and prefer to keep all BLPs written as even-handedly as possible. Collect (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you. I'm also trying my best to integrate criticism into main body of the article, so there's less chance of what I call "polarisation of POVs"! Yes Michael? •^Talk 17:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Wynne Jones

Resolved

– Reliable source inserted by User:Gran2.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Gaiman, a highly reliable (and individually notable) person has reported via Twitter that Jones died overnight [3] , authenticity confirmed by John Scalzi, president of the SFWA [4]. There don't appear to be any reports from conventional news outlets yet, but a death report has been added to the article, and a non-free image added on the basis that Jones is no longer a living person. I believe the information is accurate and appropriate for the article, but bump up against BLP/RS, which read technically prohibit sourcing any information concerning living persons, including death notices, from self-published sources nor controlled by the article subject. I think it would be best to retain the death report and to add a reference to Gaiman's post to the article, replacing it when a more conventional report is available, and am looking for further input on the point. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We haven't got a reliable source, seems like its all from the twitter post - from Neil Gaiman - He lives in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and the article subject lives in the UK, perhaps he got it from twitter...I agree with your comments but right now the claim is uncited in the article completely. The death does not appear to have been officially announced perhaps they are informing family and suchlike. Seventy people have re-tweeted it....Off2riorob (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the tweet from Gallman links to our article and was tweeted after the death had been added to our article and even links to our article [5] suggesting that he got the detail from here. It hasn't been disputed but I wouldn't add it myself without a WP RS. Off2riorob (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Gaiman is apparently in the UK right now [6]. He'd been posting/tweeting about visting a "sick friend" in hospice and had reported she was on the verge of death. Folks who know Neil recognized who he was talking about (there are recent references to her in the tweeter history); he just didn't report her name publicly until her death was added to the WP article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok. I went for the halfway house and removed the death dates and left the picture and added a comment about the claims to the lede and added the two citations you presented here. I also had a look and couldn't find anything RS additional. I see you are well informed but without us having a WP:RS, what do you think to my edit? Off2riorob (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm comfortable with that. We don't need to rush to update the article, but once a report like this starts spreading in public, I think it's very helpful to have a carefully phrased statement like your text to deter editors from adding unverified statements as factual. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I was reading the rest of Gaiman's recent tweets and it is clear that he has been visiting a friend that was in a hospice close to death and he has now named the friend as Jones so I am also happier removing the uncited claim and including the comment in the lede sourced to those two selfpub sources. Off2riorob (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asma al-Assad

User:Chowbok is having a problem with bullying here. I have tried to work with what the article originally covered, I have offered alternatives in organization (such as a separate article for the Syria Trust), I have tracked down official sources, and I have discussed all these things on the Talk board, trying to show a sense of humour to diffuse the hard sarcasm being used. In return, I feel I have been kicked in the teeth by those with ownership issues who appear to think it's their 'job' to insult everyone in the public eye, as well as insult other Wikipedians. You can read the earlier insulting language which was used to 'improve' the article (I referred to it in the Talk page as well). There seems to be a misunderstanding of what POV means: neutral, as opposed to insulting. This is not a politician or world leader, this is simply the First Lady of Syria who people are curious to know something about, particularly now. She is Chairperson of the Syria Trust which works with young people and such, pretty innocuous stuff imo and pretty similar to Laura Bush's reading program for kids, or Michelle Obama's exercise program for kids, or Nancy Reagan's anti-drug program for kids. Baseball, mom and apple pie stuff - it's what first Ladies do, and apparently she puts a lot of time into it. imo Chowbuk would be better suited to limiting his contributions to crooks and liars, as that seems to be his world view of everyone. If you don't want bullying at Wikipedia, you need to put a stop to this sort of thing, both his words and his actions. I am spending most of my time on the Cabinets and Ministers of MENA countries, along with the protests, and I really resent having to deal with drive-by attacks on an article which doesn't deserve this sort of attention at all. (I hate to think what he would do to an article about puppies or kittens.) Clearly some Wikipedians tried to create an article for this woman because they admire her. Instead of being helped with sources, the article was mostly deleted and they were insulted. I tried to help them out, whoever they are, so they wouldn't think all Wikipedians are jerks. So much for that idea. (btw - while notifying Chowbuk, I see he's been invited to be an Ambassador for Wikipedia. I can only hope that's in some alternative universe.) Flatterworld (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, I think you're overstating the bullying issues. I read through the Talk comments, and although they are occasionally a little strong, I wouldn't call them bullying.

However, I do think the article reads like an advertisement for its subject and for Syria. It's terribly written and terribly cited. I've removed some of the most obvious puffery, but it really needs some significant cutting. All the stuff about projects seems to be just an adertisement for the projects and only peripherally related to Asma. I removed one paragraph that was a verbatim copyright violation. Too much of it comes from the project websites and is therefore naturally couched in the most flattering terms. There needs to be third-party sources and justification that the stuff is relevant to the subject, and not just because she's married to the president, but in her own right. Wouldn't leave much left in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

iow, you totally missed my point. Yet another 'drive-by' who just can't be bothered to make any effort at all. Flatterworld (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave to others to judge whether I was being insulting, bullying, teeth-kicking, etc., but I would like to point out this part of Flatterworld's comment: "Clearly some Wikipedians tried to create an article for this woman because they admire her." Exactly. You shouldn't be able to tell that an article was written by admirers, and if you can, then the article is not NPOV and needs to be fixed.—Chowbok ☠ 03:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chowbok, if you think these 'improvements' you added are at all defensible, you don't belong at Wikipedia, imo. That was insulting, malicious and hateful to the newbies who created the article. Unlike you, they didn't try to write a hit job. I expect the Wikipedians who created the articles about Mozart and Beethoven admired them, too - why on earth would you consider that a problem and some breach of NPOV? Or have you added language like that to those articles, too? Flatterworld (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know very well that wasn't the version I wanted, or have been trying to get to. My initial attempts to make the article NPOV were all reverted, so I made it flip-flop both ways as a compromise attempt. And you are clearly missing the point. You may "expect" that the Mozart article was created by an admirer, but the point is that you can't tell that by reading it. That was emphatically not the case with this version you seem to be so fond of.—Chowbok ☠ 04:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RUBBISH. That is the version you left "03:02, 10 March 2011 Chowbok". Anyone can see you didn't return until 26 March, 16 days later. Your 'language' is exactly what I found. You purposely trashed the article. You couldn't find any sources with 'dirt', so you made it sound like a sleazy tabloid article, full of innuendo based on...what, exactly? Your personal feelings? Which don't belong in an encyclopedia. Flatterworld (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Bbb23. Since there have been several reversions lately, the two basic versions being debated appear to be the stripped down version and Flatterworld's version. He was asked to provide valid sources before restoring material but he has not, apparently believing that his sources are sufficient. I started a section to discuss sources and he has not provided constructive debate there and has stated that he refuses to engage me further. Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 04:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Viriss1 has refused to read the applicable guideline, making any discussion impossible. (bttw - I linked the 'Chowbok version' above, which Viriss1 no doubt thinks is wonderful.) Flatterworld (talk) 04:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't defend that version. I only did that after my attempt to make it neutral by deleting the irrelevant information was rejected. I'll admit I was being a little POINT-y with that. My original edit, which Flatterworld conveniently ignores, is this.—Chowbok ☠ 04:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop ignoring your gap between 10 March and 26 March (see above). You refused to engage on the Talk page when the others disagreed with you, so you threw a tantrum and tried intimidation by trashing the article. And it worked - for 16 days until I happened to see it. Flatterworld (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the three versions, I think the current stripped down one should remain and be expanded, if at all, very carefully, using independent third party sources. The other two versions are an unsourced piece full of "peacock" words and (the one the author acknowledged as "pointy") a complete critical synthesis, also unsourced. A very quick Google search found some third party sources such as this Vogue piece and a critical response in Slate. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Chowbok's removal was needed. If editors want to insert material, each piece will have to be reliably sourced and relevant.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jonathanwallace about the Vogue piece - mainly because I added it to the External links. (I left the Sun and fansite links alone as I didn't want to discourage whoever added them - I've seen much worse, and generally "the good drives out the bad" as more sources are found.) The idea at Wikipedia is collaboration, and I was attempting to get others involved (and re-involved, in the case of those chased off). I think the Syria Trust should be a separate article, as I suggested in the Talk page, and I added the sourced material from its official website to encourage at least a discussion of that option as it wasn't clear from the existing article just what the Trust included. Chowbok, of course, blithely ignored all that and instead immediately imposed his 'personal preference', once again, on everyone else. And none of you see any problem with his behavior at all? You consider that 'compromise'? 'Consensus building'? Really? I call it attempted intimidation. Just what do you think the Talk page is for? Or are you so certain you're so brilliant and every other contributor is so stupid they should be pathetically grateful when you 'correct' them, and you're angry your unilateral decisions (aka bullying) aren't greeted with groveling praise? If you're that clueless on how to actually work with people, then don't do it. There are lots of activities which don't require collaboration with others. Flatterworld (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I might add that Flatterworld's accusations of bullying are remarkably hypocritical. Just a taste of some of his comments on the Talk page:

you just detest the subject, so everything's 'puffery'. (directed at me)
You won the Vampire Award. (directed at Veriss)
Cut the teenage sarcasm. (directed at Chowbok)

--Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another rubbish 'comment'. All of you have refused' to look at the facts of what Chowbok actually did, but instead circled like vultures (you like that better than vampires-biting-newbies?) attacking the 'outsider'. You want to excuse Chowbok leaving an incredibly sleazy version in place from 10 March until 26 March, go ahead. imo it was despicable behavior, un-Wikipedian in the extreme, certainly meets the 'contentious' bar (which Veriss pretends means something else entirely), and should have been universally deplored. Yet you continue to defend him and are incredibly critical of my reaction to his 'work' and to your 'responses'. I expect anyone reading this can connect the dots here. Flatterworld (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, these kinds of disputes have a complicated and checkered history. However, as far as I can tell, the first edit by Chowbok to the article is on March 6 here, where he essentially stripped out all the material that has now been stripped out again. After that, two different editors (FunkMonk and Zozo2kx) battled with Chowbok and restored the material. Giving up at least for the moment, Chowbok then tagged the article. Not being at all sure what you consider to be the "incredibly sleazy version", the puffed-up, unreferenced version (in my view) remained in place contrary to Chowbok's editorial judgment. Then ensued the argument on the Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, apparently what I consider 'sleazy tabloid' is what you consider 'NPOV' or 'harmlessly POINTed' as Chowbok put it: THIS, which I've linked to already, is my definition of 'sleazy tabloid', aka "contentious material which should be removed at once": As First Lady, putting a glamorous face on Syria's dictatorship and distracting Syria’s population and the world from the nature of its regime is central to al-Assad’s work. She is portrayed...Underscoring both challenges is the inherent difficulty in increasing the standard of living of the nation (or at least appearing to do so) without simultaneously increasing demands for political freedom. Ha ha ha. Syria's in the middle of an uprising, people are getting killed, and you find it absolutely hilarious to pour gasoline/petrol on the fire. "Yeah, let's insult Syria's First Lady! We'll show those Syrians who's boss! We don't need no stinkin' sources!" And then you try to cover it up, make excuses for Chowbok, and intimidate me. As if. You're a real piece of work. Flatterworld (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For those following along at home: IF one has doubts about an acceptable source's objectivity, one can simply preface it with "As stated by (x)..." or "As reported by (x)..." But to delete a whole section based on "I don't like it" isn't acceptable. We have plenty of articles about CEOs which don't omit everything about their job "because it's a whitewash, all puffery, and they're only figureheads." Of course we reference the official site of the business and their official biographies, along with whateevver else we find that's from a reputable source. This is the first time I've seen that ridiculed. You're assuming a lot, stating it as fact, and providing no basis for that. Flatterworld (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I concur with Bbb23 about the hypocrisy of Flatterworld complain about bullying. I don't know much about the debate history of this article but in the 24 hours or so since I stumbled onto the scene and removed the poor quality sources and trimmed out the unsupported assertions, Flatterworld has attacked and insulted me personally three times, Bbb23 once and Chowbok once. While posting these less then helpful comments, not once has Flatterworld posted a constructive argument to discuss interpretation of any BLP policy points. Many of these posts are since he complained about Chowbok here which is pretty incredible in my view. Flatterworld's deportment on the talk page in the last 24 hours has been disruptive and I'm sure has discouraged other reasonable editors from joining in the discussion less they be attacked as well. Please see the last two discussion sections on the article's talk page. ~~I didn't want to go here, but on further reflection, I request that an uninvolved admin take a look at this.~~ Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me what you're asking for. If you want an uninvolved admin to look at the content of the article, that's not really necessary. You could ask for uninvolved editors to look at content issues, but that's really already been accomplished. If you want to have an admin look at Flatterworld's behavior, this not an appropriate place to make such a request. You could do so at WP:AIN, for example, but, honestly, although I'm not an admin, I don't think his behavior rises to the level of justifying administrative action. You might take a look at WP:WQA.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just as soon let this go. The article's been fixed, and I don't mind Flatterworld insulting me if it means he won't re-add the problematic material to the article. Let him blow off a little steam.—Chowbok ☠ 20:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about the insults either, was more concerned about the disruption to the talk page. I struck out the part about admin review. We'll see how things progress. Veriss (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meghnad Desai, Baron Desai

Resolved

– Ajaxyz indefinitely blocked. Sandstein 19:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the behavior of Ajaxyz (talk · contribs) is inappropriate, and what they are adding to this article may be a BLP violation. Ruslik_Zero 12:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At a quick glance, there is a huge WP:COATRACK here about Said Khadafy's PhD thesis. This needs a lot of pruning. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I trimmed a bit that was mostly duplicated and poorly written undue allegations of wrongdoing. Article needs some copy editing wiki style improvements as it is quite low quality at present. Off2riorob (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did some more general cleanup on the article. Should it be moved to Meghnad Desai? The Baron Desai designation should be in the first sentence though. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Going by Ruslik's logic, there can be no crticism section on wikipedia. Off2riorob needs to improve reading skills to understand long and complex sentences — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajaxyz (talk • contribs) 03:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ajaxyz is edit-warring to reinsert this BLP-violating "Criticism" section. Saif al-Gaddafi's thesis is already covered in an appropriate section, from top quality news sources. I have issued a final vandalism warning to Ajaxyz, who has also been warned by another. I have also done some copy-editing per Off2riorob and have raised the question of the article title in the relevant wikiproject, where it is being discussed amicably. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linda McMahon

[7] appears to use a primary source and asserts the term "Ring Boy Affair" whioh is not even found in that source in a BLP. The edit summary directed at me there is nothing wrong with the source, find some other victim) shows the nature of the editor's attitude. I seriously dount that http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2010/10/vince-and-linda-mcmahon-file-march-1993-lawsuit-against-wwe-employees-and-tv-show.php?page=1 qualifies as RS in any case, or that the link to a copy of a court document qualifies as proper in any BLP in the first place. Thus the "Ring Boy Affair" bit is fully unsupported by any reliable source. This article has long been a dumping ground for contentious claims, as multiple BLP/N sections show. Collect (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:COATRACK with significant WP:UNDUE problems--could possibly remain in the article if significantly slimmed down and reliably sourced. The link to the court doc has to come out per WP:BLPPRIMARY which says " Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now tell it to the editor who seems intent on treating this as a personal battleground :). Thanks. Collect (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took out the document. I do not see why a factual document like that would not be acceptable, but the policy on trial transcripts is very direct and I will not make an issue of it further. My apologies.--Screwball23 talk 02:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman descendants

There was previously discussion about this subject at BLPN here and here.

In a nutshell, part of the article Line_of_succession_to_the_Ottoman_throne was being used to provide poorly sourced info about non-public figures who are living descendants of emperors of the now-defunct Ottoman Empire. The decision was to remove that info, and it was removed. But then a POV fork popped up, and it was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession today.

Today, the editor behind all this stuff complained at the long-closed AfD page, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession today. Additionally, this editor restored all the info about living descendants to the following articles: Mehmed V, Abdul Hamid II, Murad V, Abdülaziz, Abdülmecid I. Not sure what to do about this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted all the large disputed uncited additions and left the user a note to come discuss the issue here, same as the recent same raised report. Off2riorob (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete everything? Those are interesting articles - you ruin everything, I do not understand. The members feel discriminated against by. I have you posted the official home of the family.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilek2 (talk • contribs)

You appear to be repeatedly adding what amounts to uncited not notable content - this has been pointed out to you on more than one occasion but you are continuing to insert the content, please stop re adding it until discussion and consensus to do so is clear. Off2riorob (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.ottomanfamily.com/ Here,this is the official Homepage of the Ottoman Dynasty...Dilek2 (User talk:Dilek2talk) 21:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a nice web site but it's promotional. There's also no indication that the living people who are being promoted want to be promoted. See WP:RS for more info about why promotional web sites are not good sources for Wikipedia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then you have to delete the Iranian dynasty

Because these are yes, no heir apparent or more? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilek2 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there's an article about the Iranian dynasty, then it's okay if it uses reliable non-promotional sources. Also, there's no problem saying who the children of the Shah of Iran are, but listing grandchildren and great-grandchildren is much more unusual and questionable. It could be unsafe for a person to be promoted as royalty in a country that long ago overthrew royalty and no longer has royalty.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you as a successor, Bayezid not deleted? Strange...He is also a Prince they was born in Exile... [Osman] Bayezid III, 44th Head of the House of Osman (2009-present), great-grandson of Sultan Abdülmecid I.?????

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilek2 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is a reliable, non-promotional source for Bayezid: 'Osmanoğulları'na insanlık şehadet edecek'", Zaman (newspaper) (2009-09-27). Additionally, as the person who would now be emperor, Bayezid is much more notable than other people in his extended family.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much More Notable? Well this is the story from ertogrul in your Link,...not from bayezid...and...the next Heir is not much notable? well the next are all the shezades they was listed...but you deleted The Heir...HA HA HA Just I know where you are....OMG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilek2 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that the Zaman article is not primarily about Bayezid, but it mentions him. Translating into English: "The new head of the Ottoman Dynasty, Osman Bayezit (85), was unable to attend the funeral." You would need a similarly reliable source for all the other people you want to mention.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This Article is not more reliable as the Ottoman Family link,that I have posted...They are all the living descandents... So what is your Problem with the others?In Yout Tube are many Video's about the Ottoman Dynasty. And hhh do you said there is nor more Ottoman Thron so why the name of Bayezid is listen? Crazy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilek2 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article in Zaman is considered much more reliable than a promotional web site. Please see WP:RS. I'm sorry if that seems crazy, but those are the rules here. I've tried to explain as best I can, and will now let others try. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no Ottoman throne anymore, so this article is necessarily a historical description of the line of succession, except where other info about the subject is well-sourced and inserted by consensus. There is now yet another discussion at BLPN at WP:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Ottoman_descendants.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)" This is your's...Forget it? aha the official Members Homepage is not true? WOW you said;all the Members are Liar's???oh oh...Strange but Bayezid is listen too in this Homepage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilek2 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bayezid falls within the exception I described: "except where other info about the subject is well-sourced and inserted by consensus."Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The next Heir is:Şehzade Dündar Aliosman Efendi (1930) (II. Abdülhamit) So He is a Liar? He is a not real Person? WOW...what a Mr.Superman do you are... Look at this Video...They are many Video's about Ottoman Dynasty in the I-Net.

Sehzade's... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCSxG3szB1A&feature=related — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilek2 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dilek2, I have no doubt that there is a lot of information "out there" on the internet about the Ottoman succession -- it's a naturally interesting subject, just as with other countries that got rid of their kings. The problem here, as Anythingyouwant has been trying to explain, involves specific wikipedia policies about (1) what sources can be properly used, and (2) what can properly be discussed in an article. Sometimes these policies can seem arbitrarily restrictive, but some kind of general rules are necessary to avoid chaos. I know from personal experience that there are grey areas where editors have disagreements about how to apply the rules. In a situation like that, consensus among editors becomes important, and sometimes I don't get my way concerning an issue that seem obvious to me, because the other editors involved disagree. That can be annoying, but sometimes that's just the way it goes around here.--Other Choices (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael McGinn Mayor of Seattle

I object to the overall tone of this biography as being biased against Mayor Mike McGinn. It reads to me as if written by a detractor. Many more negative citations and references are included than are positive ones, and I suspect the editorial work of a political opponent. Please mark this article as biased and in need of more balance. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.239.111 (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without specific examples, it is hard to assess your complaint. In any event, without a specific BLP violation, you should take this up on the Talk page of the article first before coming here.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has facilitated matters by putting a POV tag on the article and starting a discussion on its Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Canada

"Costly Program" section completely unsupported by citations and tone is questionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmkeating (talk • contribs) 22:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was a copy-paste from the New York Times, I've reverted it as a copyright violation. January (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Khaw

Resolved

– Deleted - speedy snow close at AFD

New article Claire Khaw needs checking for BLP / negative content, RS, etc. Chzz ► 23:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stubbed the article, eliminating all matter not reliably sourced, and it emerges as a one event wonder based solely on the Facebook shenanigan. It has been nominated for deletion and should go. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ronn Torossian

BLP edits were made which are inaccurate (Drive people out of Jerusalem never stated), not which he is noteable for (owns a PR agency), and not well sourced given BLP issues. Pls assist with cleanup as user is very agressively harming this live active person. --108.21.128.55 (talk) 13:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The criticisms in that article were attributed to the New York Times, the Forward (considered a reliable newspaper), The Atlantic, the Haaretz newspaper, and Ad Age. One quote was attributed to Herbert Nolan, a writer on the Gawker website. I would not consider Gawker to be a reliable source for information, even though it is highly respected within the PR community. However, I did not rely on that source for information, but only quoted Nolan's opinion. Nolan himself is well-known and a respected media critic.

The anonymous editor 108.21.128.55, in the article 5W Public Relations has used an interesting tactic - he has removed all the footnotes from the section critical of 5WPR, so that he can now contend that the information is unsourced and removed it. I am wondering if he used the same trick at Ronn Torossian. This editor has since been blocked for sockpuppetry. --Ravpapa (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(... or block evasion - take your pick.)

To echo the comment I made on Talk:5W Public Relations, I would suggest writing ultra-conservatively in this instance. Although the NYT tends to be used as almost the definition of what a WP:RS is, it also sometimes manages to host editorial pieces ("op-eds") that are definitely not the sort of material we want to be basing negative BLP content on. I would also consider leaving out the Gawker material unless it was itself discussed in a WP:RS. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to punish the sockpuppets by our even subconsciously allowing non-neutral negative material to enter articles that we believe the sockpuppets had a COI with. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I was, perhaps, carried away by my anger at someone trying to make a mockery of this noble institution. On the other hand, we have to take into account that the only really notable thing about Ronn Torossian is the controversy he stirs, both because of his aggressive tactics and because of his fringe views on Israel. If we excise those from the article, we might just as well delete it, as what remains is a mediocre PR hack with a crewcut. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst and young named him a semi finalist to ent of year pr week ad age 40 under 40. His clients (who may or may not be right wing) are for his firms webpage not for personal stories on him. He's been featured in ny times and business week feature stories none of which mention Israel. Your personal political bias are apparent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.72.4 (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The avatars of babasalichai and associates continue to surprise me with their inability to compose a simple English sentence, and their complementary inability to read and comprehend the written word. Here is what the New York Times profile has to say about Torossian's involvement with Israel:

While leading a group called the Coalition for Jewish Concerns, a 20-year-old Mr. Torossian protested at a presidential rally for Pat Buchanan in New Hampshire.

His first public relations job came in 1998 when Peter Vallone, then the City Council speaker and a candidate for governor, needed someone to organize a business trip to Israel. He hired Mr. Torossian, who was living in the country at the time.

In an oft-told story, Mr. Torossian said he persuaded the speaker to tour the settlements along the West Bank, despite the controversy surrounding their status. "There's no Arab voting bloc in New York," Mr. Torossian recalled telling him. "What's your downside? Who are you going to alienate?" A meeting was arranged with the mayor of the West Bank city of Hebron. "When we got out of the car," Mr. Torossian said proudly, "there were 40 reporters waiting."

In other words, the New York Times, while focusing primarily on his PR career, does indeed mention his commitment to Israel. Moreover, dozens of other sources discuss this aspect of Torossian exclusively. I am sure that Torossian himself considers his commitment to Israel an important part of his persona, and would consider a profile of himself that did not include that to be incomplete. Perhaps, 66.65.72.4, you could ask him yourself. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I don't get is the incessant need to write just the controversy. This Ravpapa editor seems ti believe that Gawker is the end all of genuine news, when in fact it is a blog that thrives on controversy. As for the Gawker writer writing about him being smart or not, is this writer a Mensa tester, a Regents adviser or other? Why is that quote relevant or treated as more than hearsay? Please be balanced and be fair.

Also, the Pistons piece - is that all there is in the article? Ronn Torossian being aggressive and brash is established, why can't balance be added to the piece to reflect possibly comments from those who don't mind it as much as those who do?

Abigail7 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I think one of your problems, Abigail, is with understanding the nuances of the English in the NYT quote. I am guessing from your many errors in writing that you, like NYCdan, babasalichai, and the others, are not a native English speaker. So I will explain: the quote "the consummate scrappy publicist" is meant as a compliment. The quote from Nolan is meant to balance this compliment.

By now, I have read quite a bit about Torossian, including interviews and things he has written himself. I have found no one who has not described his PR style as aggressive, brash, pushy. Some, like the NYT writer, find this an admirable aspect of his personality. Others, like Nolan, think that Torossian's aggressiveness is excessive. A legitimate disagreement, one that should be documented in this profile of him. That is what balance is all about.--Ravpapa (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading this too - and I am new here, but not new to news and happenings, and I see that while the NYTimes is a valid reference, the balance should be equally as strong. Gawker is not that. If you wish to argue Gawker, maybe the comment on his style would be balance (if you want to argue Gawker=NYTimes), but the part about Torossian not be that bright is just unnecessarily mean and only there for the purpose of disparaging. I would hope that other true objective Wikipedia editors would see this and realize that this while edit war it about highlighting the issues that make Torossian look as bad as one can.

--BetHillel (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another new user who just happens to have a fascination with a particular PR firm and its owner? That's like the fourth in 48 hours.

Anyway I have trimmed out 90% of the quote, purely on the grounds that it's not Wikipedia's place to be relaying opinions about the lack of intelligence of living persons. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t people love to sling mud at those who are more successful and accomplished than themselves? Torrosian has made a place for himself in the highly competitive world of PR at such an early age. His awards and success stories speak for themselves and naturally cause much bad blood which often results in his unfair criticism. But Wikipedia is no place to vent such negative emotions. Offensive article from Gawker which is libellous and include secondary sources and slander should be removed right away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelbstinnett (talk • contribs) 12:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I indicated on the Ronn Torossian talk page, I agree that Gawker is not the best source for this kind of criticism, and that I would remove it. I have duly done so, replacing it with quotes from two sources that are unarguably reliable.

I am pleased to note that the debate over Ronn Torossian and 5W Public Relations has inspired three new editors, hitherto anonymous, to create usernames and contribute to the Wikipedia. While the similarities in writing styles and in interests of Abigail7, BetHillel, and Michaelbstinnett are, perhaps, surprising, I nonetheless believe that each will bring his or her unique contribution to building the encyclopedia. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wade rathke

I was asked to come here to seek a third opinion on the article "wade rathke. The argument stems from a dispute based on several issues and it might be best for anyone interested to go to the subjects discussion page for a brief overview. Thanks. Knucklehead Dojo (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Xenophrenic is an experienced editor and appears to be offering you good advice, I would suggest you attempt to come to a compromise with the editor, its not recommended to repeatedly insert disputed content, best is to first resolve the issue on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is making the case that the content cannot be added because its not allowed under the policy. My own reading of the policy in question has not led me to this conclusion but he seems rather unwilling to engage in any kind of constructive debate about the issue and I came here hoping an outside party could look a bit deeper into it. Thanks for the reply. Knucklehead Dojo (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lara Logan

Comment on whether these details of her sexual assault are encyclopedic and compliant with BLP guidelines. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Lara_Logan&action=historysubmit&diff=421189231&oldid=421163799 Mindbunny (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion: delete Mindbunny (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd delete the information, but only because it seems to imply that the attackers were protesters. If the information was to be retained, I would at least delete the last sentence about the Times with the long quote, simply because it's too much information vis-a-vis the noteworthiness of the event.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went into the article, and all I did was correct a date error and move a sentence up to the paragraph above. An editor reverted me, apparently believing I was removing the information. How he could believe that is beyond me. Meanwhile, another editor then actually removed the information. I then made the mistake of looking at the Talk page. The issue of what to put in the article about the assault goes on forevever, and I can't figure out what the conclusion was or whether there even was a conclusion. One thing stands out is the heat of the discussion. I'm withdrawing my comment above, if for no other reason than Mindbunny, who was a participant in this extended discussion, could have alerted us to the contentiousness and history of the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm? It's a contentious issue. That's why I'm requesting outside views (again). If outsiders refuse to get involved in anything contentious, it removes a basic way of resolving contentious issues. Just to be clear: the page has been fully protected more than once over this matter, although the main issue was actually different from what seems to be the issue now. (Previously, it was mainly, but not exclusively, shouts of "Jew" whose appropriateness was contested.) Mindbunny (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been fully protected several times because there has been ownership issues and edit warring. [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] Previous votes and consensus efforts have been deemed irrelevant by Mindbunny. This is a part of the continuing effort whose objective is made clear by the above diffs.V7-sport (talk) 04:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has been never been consensus to include the material. While there was a poll, with respect to the material under discussion, the result was 6-6, no consensus, which means in a BLP that the details should not be included. Note that the "partial keep" vote specifically states that the 'stripped, punched, slapped, beaten with poles' stuff should be left out. That means that with respect to the specific material under discussion, which is precisely what is quoted, the "partial keep" vote is actually a "delete" vote. That's 6-6 and doesn't include me. I'll go ahead and add my !vote, even though 6-6 is no consensus anyway. Yworo (talk) 04:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, to wade through all that talk page discussion would take a full-time scorekeeper and hours, if not days. Give us an executive summary of the over all dispute. I think in most cases when a professional international journalist, her colleagues and her employer assert that she has been sexually assaulted, she most likely was sexually assaulted. How much more detail do we need to know? I don't care which orifice, if she was fully or partially stripped or bitten rather then pinched. I do care about the level of violence and any racial or national overtones if they are well sourced and most especially that she is receiving care and there is some hope of an investigation. The diff posted by the complainant does not on its surface appear to be overly graphic or lurid, even though it is more info then I personally care to know, I don't see much harm in that diff though I am a male so may be missing something. Beyond that, what exactly does V7-sport (no, I'm not sloshing through your 17 diffs to figure out your issue without some direction, give us a summary) insist must be published and what exactly does the privacy sensitive group apparently led by Mindbunny wish to keep private? I suspect that there is much more to this debate then the diff provided in the complaint. Veriss (talk) 05:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no value in just transferring the arguments from there to here. I was hoping for uninfluenced views. The basic concerns are that these details haven't been authorized or confirmed by the victim, the ultimate source is anonymous, and whether this much detail about a sexual assault violates due weight principles. Mindbunny (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Authorized? Is that the criteria for inclusion now? And no, the sources are not anonymous, there is the NY Post, the London Times, Fox, CBS, etc. etc.

Your ideas of "due weight" have resulted in an article that devotes more space to the "Michael Hastings controversy" and the utterances Glenn Greenwald and "Matt Taibbi (who) wrote a Rolling Stone blog entry titled "Lara Logan You Suck"... As the article stands now the reader has idea what happened there or any insight into the reasons why she has been off the air for 2 months.

And when you, several times, write things like "There is an obvious agenda among a surprisingly large group of editors focussed on Judaism and the Middle East who are intent on pushing a POV" as another excuse to cleanse the article of anything that might reflect badly on the people who sexually assaulted her it makes it difficult to believe that you are just interested in "due weight principles". V7-sport (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just back up , and stick to the content issues or move along, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re Veriss, I agree with you that the minute details of her assault needn't be posted, however I also agree with I do care about the level of violence and any racial or national overtones if they are well sourced and most especially that she is receiving care and there is some hope of an investigation. That material has been purged from the article. V7-sport (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "level of violence and any racial or national overtones" simply aren't pertinent to the subject of the article being discussed. They should be integrated into Egyptian revolution of 2011 where they would actually add something to the article! Yworo (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The level of violence and any racial or national overtones are pertinent. It establishes what she was doing and the level of risk involved in doing it. Funny how we can devote space to Glenn Greanwald and Matt Taibbi taking potshots at her from the safety their rec-rooms but no mention of dangerous environment that she put herself into in order to get a story or the consequences there of is permissible. It's a sliding scale of what is "on topic". V7-sport (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Beaten and sexually assaulted" is sufficient to establish that. Yworo (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To reply to Mindbunny's original query, I suggest that WP:BLP be interpreted to mandate that we don't include highly specific details of a sexual assault of a named living person unless she herself has disclosed them.Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She could have been "beaten and sexually assaulted" in Cleavland. What is sourced is that she went into a highly charged crowd, was mobbed, stripped, beaten with flag polls as the crowd chanted "Jew Jew" and "Israeli". The way the article stands gives the reader no idea of any of that while, for instance, it does go into detail on the opinions of her various detractors because she reported something they disagreed with. V7-sport (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is quite clear about where the event occurred and the general conditions present. You started a poll and the !vote went against you. Now you need to honor it. Yworo (talk) 23:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My name isn't Berean–Hunter and no, the article certainly isn't clear about the event or the conditions therein. V7-sport (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "authorized", yes. The details of the sexual assault of a named living person should be restricted to what the victim has confirmed, as a general rule. I can imagine exceptions, but I see none here. I certainly don't see grounds for an exception in the publication by the New York Post (voted the least credible publication in New York) of details that are anonymously sourced. Mindbunny (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The threshold for inclusion is not "confirmed by the victim" and that an assault occurred isn't even in question. V7-sport (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Logan's privacy should trump even reliably sourced details under WP:BLP and WP:NOTNEWS. Off2RioRob, any thoughts here? Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Rob, but I agree with Jonathan. It's a blend of policy and editorial judgment. In addition to the privacy issue, the details are simply not necessary to document the event. A line needs to be drawn. Wikipedia is not a tabloid of gratuitously graphic material.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"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." -WP:WELLKNOWN Jonathanwallace, I'm not advocating inclusion the details of this assault above and beyond that it was sexual in nature. The actions of the crowd however are important to the understanding of what transpired. V7-sport (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, in this case there aren't a "multitude of reliable published sources". There's a multitude of unreliable sources and perhaps *one* reliable source. So WP:WELLKNOWN doesn't apply. Yworo (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of details about the sexual assault is the only thing this thread is about. That's the text of the diff I brought here. That's the text that has been re-inserted and re-deleted recently. So, what does V7-sport mean when he says he doesn't advocate it? He reinserted it [25]. Mindbunny (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to stop you from paring down the section to insignificance, which you have succeeded in doing.V7-sport (talk) 02:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, as long as unneeded lurid detail is kept out of the article, you do not object to edits pertaining to this phrase "I do care about the level of violence and any racial or national overtones if they are well sourced..." I think addressing the level of violence and any racial/national overtones issue is most definitely relative to her situation, her career as a woman international journalist and why she has been absent for over a month. Racial and national overtones of the assault illustrate how terrifying the experience was for her and the intent of the mob assaulting her. Was she a symbol? That matters in this case. Logan apparently spent more then a few days recovering in a US hospital. I am not a doctor but it seems to me that injuries requiring that much hospitalization must have been serious and the level of violence must of been extreme. The article as it stands makes no mention of her extended hospital stay, the level of violence, what the overtones were, the fact she was overwhelmed by a group of "200" (that is a significant and terrifying amount) according to one NYT article, that it is was serious enough for President Obama to telephone her or that the incident has affected her career as she now has a new position. She is not a waitress in some restaurant, she is a high profile, notable, international journalist. The other unanswered questions need to be addressed. Are there concerns addressing the non-lurid issues as well? Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 04:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem with giving it a paragraph. Reputable sources gave it some space. 1 paragraph is not going to give it so much prominence that nothing else in the article is noticed. It might be lurid but we are not here to censor material. If reputable sources didn't censor it we certainly shouldn't.Cptnono (talk) 04:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So something like this? [26] or this [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Lara_Logan&diff=416991271&oldid=416981775} Losing the part "and red marks on her body initially believed to be bite marks turned out to be the result of pinching"? V7-sport (talk) 23:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No , nothing like that, this is getting tendentious, such additions have been rejected for the last month - its old hat, I suggest you take down your tent give it a rest - thousands of bytes here and there and still good faith objections from experienced editors and no vision of a consensus on the horizon - the incident is already in the BLP and well written according to BLP guidelines. Off2riorob (talk) 23:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, as it stands now it has been sanitized beyond BLP guidelines. V7-sport (talk) 01:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anousheh Ansari

I work on WikiProject Spaceflight and related articles. The current lead infobox for Anousheh Ansari (as of 2011-03-28) summarizes her career/life as "Space Adventures Tourist". While it is the case that this woman paid for the means to go to space on a Soyuz rocket and stay 10 days on the Space Station, this strikes me as a bit narrow. This woman is clearly both a quite successful businesswoman and also someone who went to space. I looked at the BLP guidelines and did not find any useful guidance on how one ought to think about these sorts of Infoboxes that summarize an entire life into a few words. Can anyone point me to guideline? Or offer assistance? Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she is a multi faceted person. Her family is in partnership with the Space Adventures company , and she is CEO of another major company, businessperson, CEO, Engineer, Space tourist. I am not well informed about infoboxs so someone else might know better but imo she is not primarily an astronaut and so she could use a different infobox than Infobox astronaut.. Off2riorob (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe if you use infobox person, for example, although you get a lot more useful parameters, you'd lose the astronaut-specific parameters. It's essentially a trade-off.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy on a BLP is not something we trade. If the infobox gives a misleading picture, change it. Period.--Scott Mac 16:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And I concur with the change that has been made in the article to replace the space-related infobox with the standard person infobox. Thanks for the help everyone. N2e (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Douglas

I just want to point out that 'Sarah Douglas' is the stage name of MARGARET PILLEAU, so saying that she is the daughter of Edward and Beryl Douglas is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Estelle65 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source to cite? Ian.thomson (talk) 14:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we'd need reliable sources to confirm that. We don't have an article on Margaret Pilleau, but the one on Sarah Douglas seems to confirm her parent's names - her own website makes no mention of stage names [27]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bit of Googling on this, but didn't find anything definitive - it is possible that Douglas and Pilleau are one and the same person, working under different stage names, but I've got no real proof of this. I think for now we will have to leave the article as is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iain Baxter

The artist legally changed his name to IAIN BAXTER& in 2005 -- the main heading of his wikipedia entry should be edited to reflect this change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alauder (talk • contribs) 15:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a reliable source for the name change? That's required. Yworo (talk) 16:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, as I just identified, the artist's official catalogue raisonne <http://archives.library.yorku.ca/iain_baxterand_raisonne/> hosted by York University, his dealer <http://www.corkingallery.com/?q=node/50>, the Museum of Modern Art <http://www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?criteria=O%3AAD%3AE%3A397%7CA%3AAR%3AE%3A1&page_number=1&template_id=1&sort_order=1> and many other print and electronic sources since 2005 <http://www.amazon.com/Passing-Through-Baxter-Photographs-1958-1983/dp/0919837751> , <http://www.moma.org/visit/calendar/exhibitions/971> identify the artist as IAIN BAXTER& -- this is his legal name . . .contact him directly if you wish <ibaxter@uwindsor.ca>, but until you institute this change you are unfairly representing him in wikipedia and damaging his reputation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alauder (talk • contribs) 17:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use implication for a legal name change. There are just as many sites which use his birth name, so a collection of sites using an apparent pseudonym don't prove anything. However, I've found an explicit statement in his C.V. which is adequate. Nobody is damaging anyone's reputation by using their birth name in an encyclopedia article. Calm down. Yworo (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally we use the name that is most prevelant in the media and reliable sources. If the person changes their name later, then this should be noted in the first sentence of the lead.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Connolley

The section on the subject as a wiki editor seems disproportionate compared to his biography as a whole. I've had a go at rewriting part, but the balance issue needs attention. The fact we know more about this troubled area, does not mean it's appropriate to write an unbalanced biography that gives it undue weight. Do we not know more about the rest of his life? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One problem is that he has achieved far more press coverage for his WP exploits than for anything else. As long as the material about WP is kept in some reasonable balance (favor/oppose proportional to sources), it is difficult to ask for much more - his notoriety is substantially due to that topic. If he were actually notable other than for his online existence (that is, for having a notable family life, notable research attributable to him, other facets than being online) then the weight issue within the entire article would be usable. WP:PIECE applies. Collect (talk) 11:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Healey

Article has been edited stating this prominent retired British politician has died; however no source is provided and a Google news search does not yet show anything. Can someone do an independent check? Timrollpickering (talk) 11:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone the revision per usual practice. It's not the first time I've undone his alleged death[28] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its been reverted by Zzuuzz - Uncited death claims should be reverted on sight, you can always then go and look for a reference and revert it back in later. Off2riorob (talk) 11:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Darcey Freeman

Resolved

– 30 March 2011 User:Shell Kinney deleted "Darcey Freeman" -‎ (article discusses living people with no sources, likely problematic for being notable only for a single event, trial is still ongoing and perhaps there will be enough for an article later but even then article would not appear at this name)

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

I've seen this newly created article on a pretty tragic story that I'm sure Australian editors will know well. Anyway, I know this noticeboard is for BLPs and the subject is no longer living, but I couldn't find a more appropriate place to ask for help. If someone knows of a better place for this to be discussed feel free to move it. Basically the article in question is about a 5-year-old girl that was killed by her father in 2009 and has received a lot of coverage in the Australian press. The father's trial is currently ongoing. The article is newly created and unreferenced, although it doesn't seem horribly POV or anything like that and I'm sure most, if not all, of the article could be referenced. So I'm honestly unsure what to do about an article like this. I doubt it would survive an AfD under WP:1E, but does this need to be speedily dealt with (though no CSD criteria fit)? Any advice would be appreciated. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 11:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really it needs to vanish. Perhaps an article after the trial if a case can be made that it is an especially notable murder for some reason, but there is no reason to have an article under that dead girls name and we should be a rolling trial report either. Death of Darcey Freeman is it already Murder of Darcey Freeman - Off2riorob - note - its been prodded - Irregardless of the spelling mistake in the title, we don't have articles on four-year-old (murdered) children even if their demise received some comment in the press - (talk) 11:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Yes, sorry I should have mentioned that the article name is incorrect. I also agree that should an article exist, it should be titled something like Death of Darcey Freeman, but it should probably not be created until the court case has been concluded. The article has just been PROD'd and then moved after I raised the issue on WP:AWNB, but I'm not sure if waiting seven days is the way to go here. Possibly a speedy with a customised reason would be appropriate? Jenks24 (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the spelling so that if it is deleted, then it is traceable in the future.The-Pope (talk) 12:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now an A7 tag has been placed on it -- not sure that'll fly with the reviewing admin, but I guess we'll see what happens. Jenks24 (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I thought of WP:A7 - lets see. Off2riorob (talk) 12:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Reilly

Request deletion due to non-notable individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrVerbatim (talk • contribs) 14:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly reverted your edits, you removed sourced content and added potentially controversial information without sources. If you feel the article should be deleted you will need to take it to WP:Articles for deletion. GB fan (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure about "non-notable" as he is mentioned at [29], [30], [31] etc. which appear to make him "sufficiently notable" for Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Fishman

No citations for an elaborate biography. Written in a biased and personal way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.7.171 (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs additional references, I have tagged it for additional references. I haven't done much of a review of it yet. GB fan (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article was expanded in a single edit on August 10 by an IP with three edits in this diff - much was a duplicate cut and copy from his imbd bio - I can't see if the content was moved from here to there or there to here but as it was anyway a large uncited expansion with the sort of personal commentary they could well be uncitable I suggest reverting back to the previous version. note - trimmed back, subject appears of minor notability, a redirect is a possible option as presently its uncited. Off2riorob (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing at Alison Cork

Over the past couple of months there has been a large promotional push at the Alison Cork article. This morning a very large amount (multiple paragraphs) of original research was added. I removed the prose as it was completely unsourced, POV and obviously promotional and left a note on the article talk page. The new editor User:Jackswain88, who has only edited this article, restored unsourced info and noted in his edit summary "I have been hired to revert this". I have to log off for a couple of hours, so I'm hoping someone may be able to watch the article to ensure that the information added is sourced, unpromotional, and neutrally worded. Additional follow-up with the SPA account will also likely be needed. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did a bit of depuffing in any case. Collect (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Burning Spear

To Whom It May Concern, Sir/Madam. This email is to inform you that the information you have is incorrect with regards to my Date of Birth- recording History. I Winston Rodney Aka Burning Spear want no mention of MRI/Mega Force with regards to Distribution your article is very misleading. I ask that you remove this article from Facebook. Thank You. Winston Rodney. <<redacted email>> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.205.170 (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On general principles, depuffed and removed material which would be of marginal importance in any case. Added cn to date of birth. Collect (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think if Winston was to tweet or blog his date of birth as he would be making himself three years older and that is not something people usually do for vanity reasons then we could consider accepting the date as self published. Off2riorob (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collect: You added a cn tag to the birthdate in the infobox, however there are two citations already included for the info in the lede (ref 1 and ref 2). There are a large amount of music compendiums via Google Books that also confirm the 1948 date as well as the San Diego Tribune (here). --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to have the 1945 dob if some means of verifying it could be provided. I would be happier if properly-sourced details of the MRI deal and subsequent dispute could be included (why is it misleading?), but can live with it being removed if that's the consensus. Removing mention of which Marley the article talks about and of the influence of Marcus Garvey, who is obviously a major influence is, however, definitely not an improvement.--Michig (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the 'citation needed' tag from the infobox, given that the date is supported by two citations elsewhere, and restored the deleted content about Marcus Garvey and Bob Marley, as it is necessary for the article to make sense. Not controversial, I hope.--Michig (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No , not controversial as far as I can see, perhaps the subject will tweet or blog a selfpub update for us to consider, thanks all. Off2riorob (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikko Briteramos

Blathery argumentative run-on article with profound BLP issues, in the midst of an edit war. Perhaps stubbing needed? Semiprotection? Edison (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stubbing or at a minimum cleaning up - pending protection would stop them and allow experienced users to clean it up to something worthy of defending - is he actually notable? we will only find out by having a good look at it. From a quick glance the content has some contentious claims - fully protect - warn and report the offenders for edit warning ??? So many options. Off2riorob (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A mess - there are obvious COI concerns regarding the major contributor's name too. And what is with all the bold text? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I got rid of some of that to see the wood for the trees - yes - COI clearly. I think he is a person that infected someone with HIV but there seems a dispute or a claim of inocense...We have an article were I recently moved a HIV infector that was not notable enough for his own BLP but I forget the exact title - this person may need to be moved to a couple of lines there. Off2riorob (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- note - it's been stubbed back (this version) and I agree the expanded version should be reverted out if it is replaced until we have chance to have a better look at it. - Me I think if he is wiki notable is a couple of lines here Criminal transmission of HIV and protect the redirect. Off2riorob (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Rob and Andy. The present article is way more encyclopedic than the one at the time I posted my concerns. Good job! Edison (talk) 04:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The disruptive editor has now edited the article again, restoring some of the features of its earlier unacceptable form. I have reverted, and blocked the editor for 72 hours for edit warring. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mordecai Tendler

I am attempting to recify this clearly one-sided and biased article, that by it's very nature appears to violate the biographies of living persons policies. I assumed that it was an honest error, until my attempts to correct the article by adding newspaper sources and omitted data was blocked by editor User: Avraham. All relevant concerns and source material is posted on the discussion page. Please assist in resolving this issue. Thanks. Koltorah (talk) 04:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the version you edited to does seem to me to not be compliant with some of our WP:Policies and guidelines, and a little messily formated, neutrality and uninvolved reporting are a core part of those guidelines. Discussion is also key to resolving disputes. Saying that this http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/06/prweb1024704.htm does look like a WP:RS and perhaps an update is required but I have only had a quick look. Although you have been reverted by multiple users as you mentioned user:Avraham I have left him a note with a link to this thread. Off2riorob (talk) 10:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PR Web is not a reliable source -- it is merely a web site for posting press releases, with no editorial control whatsoever. This is an astonishing error on your part, O2RR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is some kind of information aggregation site, as I said I only had a quick look and does look like a RS - and perhaps its not, I will look more later, it is some kind of reliable as it is an external one thousand and four hundred and ninety six times on this wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The requirement for verifiable information from reliable sources has been explained to this editor on the article's talk page. In this case, I believe the BLP strictures are being carried out properly, simultaneously preventing unacceptable demonization or hagiography. -- Avi (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PRWeb is a site which will publish any press release sent to it. It does no fact checking and is not a reliable source for any assertions except those permissible under the rules on self published sources. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right thanks, I was wondering - what is his major wikipedia notability? is it inherited notability? or is it the sexual allegations, and has he been found guilty of anything? From a UK perspective, he just looks like a minor local priest of very limited independent wikipedia notability. Off2riorob (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Priest"??? For the love of pasta -- please just stay away from Jewish topics... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer the question - please stop focusing on me and discuss the actual issue, as I requested - what is his actual qualification for wiki notability - at present it appears to be - inherited and a large portion of sexual allegations that have no charges at all. Off2riorob (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah -- but you haven't answered my question either. Let me pose it again: "priest"??? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, how about the list of published newspaper articles listed on the discussion page, which is ignored completely by Avi (talk). He keeps on talking about the press releases, but simply ignores the fact that there are multiple independent newspaper articles that contradict the content of the wikipedia article. In addition, the newspaper articles independently confirm (by making refference to) the content of the press releases. I really think that Avi (talk) should be held to task for what seems to be (at best) very questionable editing habits on the article. Koltorah (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these "multiple independent newspaper articles" ? I see many links to Jewish Press, is all. Tarc (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Thomson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Gayle MBE

He is currently in a relationship with Rachel Palin, an Oscar winning actress, after his heartbreaking relationship with Claudia Camacho, who notoriously cheated on him with his close friends.

Hardly dispassionate??

And if RP has won an Oscar, how odd that she doesn't have her own page!

Unsourced, no source found, deleted. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlisted - uncited contentious, revert , warn and block any repeat offenders. If need-be protect the BLP also. Off2riorob (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Genpo Merzel

I am posting notice of this article here again. Ongoing BLP violations, besides a host of other problems, continue to make this article either contentious in its current state, a state which has been reverted a couple of times, or unacceptable in a previous state. Why is the latter unacceptable? Too much basic information is sourced to the subject's own website (even with dead links), too much information (on wives, children, etc) is unsourced, and many of the claims to notability are improperly verified (look, for the heck of it, at footnotes 10 through 13 in the unacceptable version. Note also, in that version, that the references to reliable sources that were there are removed, and that also is unacceptable: I have warned User:Golgofrinchian, who was responsible for that in the first place, that this cannot be: future removal of such reliable sources I will consider acts of vandalism, since they remove validly sourced information contrary to a host of guidelines--and Golgofrinchian, with over 6,000 edits, should be aware of that.

The article's talk page contains some running indictment of me, and Golgo has accused me of "unskilled" edits--I'll gladly set that aside. I have no involvement with this subject or the broader topic; what I care about is that a bunch of editors seem to be ganging up and making a mockery of our BLP policy--and one editor's ignorance of such policy is pretty evident from a comment they made on the article's talk page, in bold print, Several of the links people are pointing to are websites Merzel himself has written. How is that improper source? It is not. He wrote it, it is his website, it is perfectly acceptable as proof. I rest my case. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been "reported" on BLPN twice before this year. First here and second here. Very little discussion took place on BLPN about the substantive issues or the contentious editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ronn Torossian

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lord Ahmed

Lord Ahmed has not been expaled by the Labour Party. He is a Labour Peer and belongs to the Labour Party. He was jailed for 15 days and the Court of Appeal overturned the sentence and released him . Technically he has never been to the prison —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.110.101 (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We need WP:RS reliable sources for such information. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the phrase about expulsion from the Labour party from the lede; it was unsourced. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to Sky News "He was expelled from the Labour Party when found guilty". [32] The Guardian article about his appeal refers to him as a "Labour peer" though, [33] so this is unclear. This article states that he was jailed, but was freed on appeal. I don't see how this could be interpreted as suggesting that "technically he has never been to the prison". AndyTheGrump (talk)

John Lurie stalker

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

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

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

After I jumped in to ride herd on the article and make sure it was neutral and well-sourced, Lurielurie began attacking me on my talk page, saying "You are in big trouble." (And again here.) Lurielurie followed that with several copy/past annoyances posted to my talk page: [34][35][36]

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

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

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

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

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

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