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.

David Codikow

This person is not notable. The content is written like a press release, by a publicist. Merely starting a law firm is not notable, and "consulting" in the music business is not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.246.210 (talk) 01:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article was WP:PRODed by Nomo and de-PRODed by by Arxiloxos with the summary "Codikow was reasonably significant figure in music business, article has a few sources already & GNews ARCHIVES & HighBeam show potential sources; thus PROD not best option, AfD better if necessary." I've removed unreliably sourced content based on various WP:BLP guidelines. Claims involving third parties, themselves notable, was a rather problematic recurrence. As was the apparent use of cites to support minutiæ but not the substance of claims. As far as I can tell, this subject hasn't actually been called a creator of anything in reliable sources; at most he co-manages and co-produces. I also removed a lot of text sourced ultimately to blacklisted URLs. I've inserted a bit that shows coverage but may or may not pass the test of time in regards to WP:BLPCRIME, as it is applicable to lawsuits in general. JFHJr (㊟) 00:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated for deletion. JFHJr (㊟) 06:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin O'Leary

No source for his favorite dessert being peach pie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.111.146.86 (talk) 05:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. JFHJr (㊟) 19:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If only all BLP issues were that easy! -- Zanimum (talk) 02:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Easy as pie? Qworty (talk) 09:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I took out the entire 'personal life' section as it consisted of three statements, he has gone off women, he likes peach pie, and he plays guitar. Still, got reverted in part. Got to love the obsession with gossip some editors have. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - … and their complete disregard for verifiability and accuracy. The tidbit that was restored wasn't even supported by the source cited, if you look, which said something rather different. Uncle G (talk) 13:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clifford Irving

Clifford Irving (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a huge amount of content in this article that has stood unsourced since 2010. Of that, much is very questionable, e.g. describing criminal forgery and fraud. This article is in need of a thorough review and deep cuts. --causa sui (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal forgery and fraud? He wrote a book admitting to it. And a film was made of the book. No BLP violation here. Qworty (talk) 09:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was also some puff in it, as well as unsourced claims - needed a bit of a cleaning. As an aside -- did you know the Irving Trust Company was on the bottom floor of the McGraw-Hill Building? Collect (talk) 13:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced claims that could defame the subject are BLP violations. Period. Please review the policy. --causa sui (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that almost everything is in his book, the NYT etc. there were a few too many "cn tags" placed -- I added the salient sources in a couple of minutes. I found no defamation other than that which he writes about himself. Collect (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, these edits are good progress. For future reference, that it is in the book does not help if it is not actually cited. It would be worthwhile to consider removing the uncited content until sources are found. causa sui (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Rodriguez (heavyweight boxer)

Resolved

They continue slanderizing the individual, after repeated attempts to delete.

David Rodriguez (heavyweight boxer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaboom (talk • contribs) 00:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"They" is actually a single person with an IP address that geolocates to El Paso, and Yworo has reverted that person's wholesale rewrite of the article back to a prior version. Uncle G (talk) 13:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel C. Ferguson

Daniel C. Ferguson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Daniel C. Ferguson was initially created at Articles for Creation but was speedily deleted as an attack page [1]. I have no idea what that version looked like, but shortly thereafter it was re-created in main space with some clear BLP problems remaining which I removed, e.g. [2]. The article's creator has now insisted on adding this assertion. It was originally referenced to this source which not only fails to support the assertion, but is also an improper use of WP:BLPPRIMARY. I left a note to this effect on the editor's talk page. The response was this thinly veiled legal threat and a restoration of the assertion [3]. I'd appreciate some extra eyes on this article and a view on whether this assertion (currently unreferenced) should be kept in the article. Voceditenore (talk) 08:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. His source doesn't back that up, and he needs a block per WP:NLT KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ... 17:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page / Selected Anniversaries

Left a note at Talk:Main Page, but received no response as of yet, so hoping this noticeboard is more responsive. The current "On this day…" day section contains a blurb that unequivocally states that a person was "severely beaten by Royal Canadian Mounted Police constables". The article itself says that no charges were ever laid, and that two inquiries rejected police brutality. Assuming any of the constables involved are still alive, which would seem likely, that would seem to seem to be a quite serious potentially defamatory statement, violating the BLP guidelines. As the Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/November 28 is locked, I'm wondering if an admin could remove this particular blurb and/or edit the blurb to insert "allegedly". IgnorantArmies – 11:14, Wednesday November 28, 2012 (UTC)

Absurd. Just because the inquiries were a whitewash, it doesn't mean the person wasn't beaten. There's no BLP problem here as long as the individual cops aren't named -- and indeed they're not. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The blurb's wording is pretty explicit, and both constables involved are named in the article. Would not "severely beaten by Royal Canadian Mounted Police constables" + "RCMP constables Daryl Bakewell and Peter Eakins responded" = "severely beaten by Daryl Bakewell and Peter Eakins" in the reader's mind? Probably less likely now the article's lead has been changed, but still, the blurb is still misleading, considering the RCMP received no legal blame for the incident. IgnorantArmies – 12:17, Wednesday November 28, 2012 (UTC)

The question is, does the article need changing. If yes, then it should be fixed. Getting it deleted from the main page is not the point, particularly when the entry itself did not contain a BLP violation. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

– Sure, fine—I probably should have just left this at Talk:Main Page, considering my lack of experience with the specifics of the BLP policy. I'm done here, marking as resolved. IgnorantArmies – 12:40, Wednesday November 28, 2012 (UTC)

Bruce Reyes-Chow

Rolphaquino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has added a paragraph to this article repeatedly, initially without references and then adding two references which simply do not support the claims he is asserting. Basically, he's saying "X is controversial" and then linking to the blogs of the two people he is accusing of being controversial. I've reverted his changes a few times but I don't want to get into 3RR. This is a visible BLP since it made some news outlets [4]. I recommend blocking this account, or protecting the BLP. §FreeRangeFrog 19:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've also got my eye on this one. Yworo (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I was worried this might get 'notable' again, so to speak. Here's a diff for reference since I forgot to add it initially. §FreeRangeFrog 19:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Trudeau

Justin Trudeau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I apologize in advance for the tl;dr issue here, but I'm raising this issue here and taking pains to explain myself as it involves a wp:blp and a revert I just completed per that policy of an (involved) administrator's undo.

The article in question, Justin Trudeau, had some fairly biased and significantly undue coverage of a media story that apparently had a few days of traction last week in the midst of an election in Canada. The tone of the content was inappropriate and not even remotely "disinterested." For example, using "revealed" when it should have just been "reported" and some blatant original research describing the comments as "negative and discriminatory" and labeling some of the commentary as "denounc[ing]" without any of that terminology actually appearing in the sourcing. (The bias of whatever editor wrote the content was pretty obvious by their title for the sourcing, "Outrageous comments by Trudeau." The word "outrageous," for example, did not appear anywhere in the source.) There was then some coatracking to try to tie it to a separate story and, to top it off, about three times as many words as the actual biographical facts devoted to commentary from apparently every political commentator in Canada. (I exaggerate on that last point, but only slightly.)

I boiled the content down to the facts, improved the sourcing, and removed the commentary (which just isn't appropriate for a single, passing event in an encyclopædic biography). User:CharlieEchoTango (an administrator who actually has done some significant damage to the neutrality of the content of the article in a few of his earlier edits: [5], [6]) undid my attempt to bring it inline with wp:npov and wp:undue and left an edit summary calling my edit a "whitewash." I left a note on his talk page and per wp:blp have reverted.

If someone desperately wants more coverage of the political kerfuffle than I managed to simplify it down to, I think that should be considered on the talk page for the article (or here). But I think it's inappropriate for an administrator (folks who should be intimately familiar with the requirements of wp:blp and the requirement to get it right now, rather than later for biographies) to be adding non-neutral and undue content and, even worse, reverting to protect their opinions and original research. jæs (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The administrator involved just acknowledged some of the issues I mentioned above, admitted socking to try to cover his bias, and has resigned the tools. jæs (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

North Preston's Finest

I'm not sure how to handle this article, but I certainly don't want to wade into editing it. It uses mostly sources that are several years old, including tabloid newspapers, which makes me wonder what became of all of these "charges". We see repeated instances of years-old serious charges and claims, including the names of the alleged perps, but no indication in most cases of whether they were convicted or acquitted. With sources that old, surely that kind of information is available, so it looks like this article is damning an entire group without giving us updated information about what resulted from any of these charges. Although it is cited, I'm also unclear why it is important to mention ethnicity in an infobox. I see a concern has been lodged on article talk, but if this article needs BLP cleanup, it will be quite a task. This is a new article, so why are we dealing with four-year-old unresolved charges? There is something very awkward about this article, that smells POV-ish. I don't know, but hope someone more experienced in similar will have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pulling out just a handful of names, like you, I can't find anything indicating that there were ever resolutions to any of the legal cases? I'm particularly worried that Wikipedia and a bunch of mirrors are the primary hits for a number of these living people (regardless of the horrible things they're accused of), since we're not Wikinews and there's no guarantee our article would ever be updated to indicate the outcomes of the cases. The article is about the gang itself. My feeling is the names of its living or recently deceased members, unless they're convicted of activities related to the gang, aren't appropriate for an encyclopædia. Is that a reasonable theory? jæs (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I see. An additional concern is that Wikipedia's finest already featured this on our mainpage. And to correct this article, I felt I'd have to go do a lot of research to determine if anyone was convicted. Or just blank most of it-- I didn't/don't know how to proceed, hope someone will. Google news turns up one-- and only one-- source, that could be used to write an article about the gang, without going into individual names. [7] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there likely to be any further feedback or action here? The text stands ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its well sourced for almost all controversial/negative statements about the gang members. Bad people do bad things. If you want to 'correct' the article by doing a lot of research and adding more info go ahead. Otherwise try taking it to an AFD. Because all those named look to be sourced correctly. Pulling gang members from an article on their gang is asking for someone to create a direct BLP. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BLPCRIME; perhaps your talents would be more useful on another noticeboard. At any rate, I see another editor has begun removing the BLP vios. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps your talents would have been more useful in doing it yourself rather than making snarky comments on noticeboards and in edit summaries. But if you want to be a policy-lawyer WP:BLPCRIME says "editors must give serious consideration to not including material". This is not the same as "Editors must never include material absent a conviction." As you know perfectly well. When you request more feedback, dont be rude to people who respond because you dont like the response. It generally puts them off attempting to do anything for you in the future. As someone else has taken it on themselves to do the work required, any further discussion can be dropped at my talk page where I will give your views the "serious consideration" they deserve. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the deal, OID ... "attempting to do anything for you in the future" ... it's not for me, it's for the article, the project, and the (potential) victims of BLP vios. That is why this board exists. I have no vested interest here. The editor who brings something to a noticeboard's attention may or may not have the time and the sources to fix it (I don't)-- that doesn't mean the board should disregard discussing how to best handle it, brushing editors off with "go do it yourself". Anyway, I went out on my own and found someone who would/could. So now, you've been rude to me, and I've been rude to you. Even Steven. Truce? Peace out, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I had intended to try to address some of the issues with the article last night but simply ran out of daylight. It looks like you were able to recruit some other folks to take a closer look, the article is vastly improved today after the recent edits. I only wish this noticeboard was more of a catalyst in bringing necessary attention to biographies with issues (obviously the intended purpose)... jæs (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks , Jaes. Yes, Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) is an experienced admin in addition to being a competent editor, and she pointed us to BLPCRIME, and began work, and the original DYK editor is in there now looking at sources. In a few days, you should be able to mark this resolved ... work underway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bozhidar Dimitrov

Further to this report, the matter has yet to be settled and the associated template still remains on the talk page despite the report being closed without notification. --WavesSaid (talk) 02:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Trio The Punch

The user repeatedly adds [8] [9] [10] [11] unsourced speculation about the pope's sexual orientation to Talk:Pope Benedict XVI, after it has been pointed out that it is a BLP violation, after the user has been warned[12].

He also edit wars to include a POV tag to the article in question without reasonable justification and without any support, based on his personal POV that "The article currently portrays the pope as a defender of the children, which is not NPOV, because there are quite a few reliable sources saying the opposite" (the section in question has been stable for years, I have worked on this article for several years). We don't add POV tags to high profile articles like Barack Obama or Pope Benedict just because a new user with a strong POV comes along and dislikes a stable article. Jeannedeba (talk) 10:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a new user, and never claimed to be one. Jeannedeba thinks she can remove anything she dislikes. She does not seem to understand WP:TPO and WP:BLP. She is a POV warrior who used to try to get the word "rape" in a section header in the article Julian_Assange. Check her talkpage User_talk:Jeannedeba#Julian_Assange. She has repeatedly vandalised both the article and the talkpage for her POV. The rules are simple. Someone tags and article and explains why. The tag contains the text: "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved". The dispute has not been resolved. Jeannedeba is not allowed to remove the stuff she repeatedly removed, see both WP:TPO and WP:BLP, I warned her more than once, but she continues. Trio The Punch (talk) 10:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are a disruptive user who adds BLP violations to the talk page after being told to stop. No, you cannot tag spam a high profile article. There is no dispute going on, only a new user with a strong POV who seems incapable of contributing productively to our encyclopedia and who thinks an article must have a POV tag because it doesn't portray the subject as an enemy of children or something silly, POVish, unencyclopedic. Jeannedeba (talk) 10:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your ad hominems won't help you. You are a religious povwarrior. Your interpretation of both WP:BLP and WP:TPO are very personal. Trio The Punch (talk) 11:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the POV tag, but I'd trout smack both of you for edit warning. On a contentious and popular article, the fact that one person questions its neutrality is not significant to indicate a dispute by tag. Trio, when the tag was removed you should have let it be and simply noted on the talk page you thought it should be tagged - if there was a significant dispute someone else would have replaced the tag. Jeannedeba, once you had removed the tag and it was replaced, you should have left it alone. If others agree there's no significant dispute, someone else would have removed it (as I just did). On a heavily watched article, a 1RR is generally to be preferred - then go to the talk page. If you are in line with consensus, someone else will also revert.--Scott Mac 14:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cresencio S. Arcos, Jr.

Cresencio S. Arcos, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This person is not notable. The entire entry is written like a personal bio/resume and I cannot ascertain any accomplishments or unique aspects of his career that would warrant a Wikipedia entry. The sources provided do not mention the person or otherwise substantiate the claims in the biography. The number of editors is very limited and repetitive, which may indicate a close-knit group maintaining this entry. This entry should be deleted. Nixfix99 (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nixfix99 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely some problems here. It was created by a SPA in 2008 who has never returned. Some copy vio content added by an IP in 2011. It has no citations and is not formatted properly. I've hit it with BLP Sources and CopyVio tags but it could use some serious clean up.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Nash

In the end of this article, it says that the parents destroyed the other embryos created in their search for the correct embryo to help Molly. That is not true because in later years, the parents actually used one of those fertilized embryos to have a third, unaffected child. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.161.188 (talk) 15:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited that sentence to attribute and quote the source. If you have a reliable source for the claim that they save the embryos we can add that for balance. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Rawat

Recently this content was added with out discussion to the Prem Rawat article."Rawat has been termed a cult leader in popular press reports,[2][3]and in anti-cult writings[4][5]" I added contextual content, and an other view from a RS to add balance.[13] The balancing view was removed describing it as peacock and gush worthy praise. In fact the source uses these words, "an extraordinary man whose one pointed dedication to spreading the message of peace remains unadulterated and full of promise" so the addition I made, "as well as a man with a desire for spreading peace" is a more neutral version of the source itself. This content is representative of the positive aspects of Rawat which adds balance in a BLP to the pejorative, creating NPOV content. I refuse to edit war with these editors, so outside eyes will be appreciated.

the sentence before the addition:

Rawat has been termed a cult leader in popular press reports,^[1]^[2]and in anti-cult writings^[3]^[4]

and with the addition:

Rawat has been termed a cult leader in popular press reports,^[5]^[2]and in anti-cult writings^[3]^[4]as well as a man with a desire for spreading peace.

the source: Cagan, Andrea. Peace is Possible. Mighty River Press, 2007.(author forward)

The author:

Cagan has written, edited, and collaborated on a variety of biographies. She has brought seven books to the best seller lists including to NY Times and LA Times best seller lists. Per Cagan's own comments and description of the research process, its unlikely she was paid to write this book since there is no sense that Rawat assisted her to make the process easy as would happen in a paid for biography.

(olive (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Uninvolved editor comments

Andrea Cagan isnt 'popular press'. Or any sort of 'press'. She is a celebrity biographer. Your addition is sourced to a biography on Prem Rawat for which she was undoubtedly paid, she describes them as her 'clients' after all. This doesnt mean info cant be sourced to it, but as written you are using a paid-for-biography to say that there is a 'balancing view' that he isnt a cult leader, and in fact he is a pretty nice guy. Well of course his own biography would say that... Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have never edited the Prem Rawat article but I have participated in a few of its noticeboard discussions and RfC's. So just for kicks I did search just now for Prem Rawat to see what popped up. Here is how he was described in the first seven sources that came up in my High Beam search:

“He founded The Prem Rawat Foundation, which promotes his message of peace and spearheads significant humanitarian initiatives around the world.” --Prem Rawat Tours North America With a Message of Peace., China Weekly News, October 13, 2009

He was the keynote speaker at and international conference: “Ambassador of Peace Prem Rawat spoke from the heart and without notes”…..”The Foundation promotes Prem Rawat's message of peace and his vision of addressing fundamental human needs so that people everywhere can live with dignity, peace and prosperity.”-- European Parliament Welcomes Back Ambassador of Peace Prem Rawat., Journal of India, December 13, 2011

“Prem Rawat was invited to be the keynote speaker at an event called "Notes on Peace," held at Moscow's nationally Library of Foreign Literature “….”Rawat spoke in simple terms, making the point that people look to world leaders to bring peace, but in reality it already exists within each person”---Prem Rawat Keynotes at Synergy University in Moscow, Manufacturing Close-Up, July 25, 2012

“Prem Rawat received the award at a forum called "7 Billion Reasons for Peace" held in conjunction with a United Nations International Day of Peace 2012 observance in Petaling Jaya, Malaysia. He became only the fifth individual to be given the award, which recognizes individuals for their work to positively impact the lives of people around the globe. Previous recipients are former South Africa President Nelson Mandela; U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; Mahathir bin Mohamad, Prime Minister of Malaysia from 1981-2003; and Heinz Fischer, President of Austria.” -- Prem Rawat Accepts Lifetime Achievement Award for Peace Efforts, China Weekly News, October 16, 2012

“Prem Rawat's focus is on helping individuals find peace and fulfillment within.”-- Pursuing peace means knowing where to begin--Virgin Islands Daily News, February 5, 2003 | George Miller

“The Prem Rawat Foundation executes its mission in a fiscally responsible way and outperforms most other charities in America." -- The Prem Rawat Foundation Has Been Awarded the Highest Rating by America's Premier Charity Evaluator., Science Letter, August 11, 2009

None of the sources above characterize him as a cult leader (though I'm sure some sources do) and surprisingly none of these positive characterizations from these news sources (above) from all over the world are represented in the lead. Instead, as of this writing, [14] we have this lead:

Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत; born 10 December 1957), also known as Maharaji and formerly known as Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar, teaches a meditation practice he calls Knowledge[1] and leads a movement known as the Divine Light Mission (DLM) (Divya Sandesh Parishad). DLM has been described as a new religious movement, a cult, a charismatic religious sect, and as an alternative religion. Rawat has been termed a cult leader in popular press reports[2][3] and in anti-cult writings.[4][5]

It would seem that some editor(s) are in a rush to include off topic info about him (DLM) and to paint him with a dirty brush. Its clear that Prem Rawat is widely known as an ambassador of peace and so the removal of sourced content to that effect gives the appearance of POV pushing. I'm sure that was not DeCausa's intention when he/she removed the content but he/she could certainly rectify that error now, by re-adding the content they deleted, restructuring the sentence, and including all the sourced information.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Random "nice things" about him that have nothing to do with the sentence they are attached are fairly obviously not relevant IMHO. I haven't substantively added anything: I moved Little Olive Oil's new paragraph from the end of the lead into the opening paragraph but deleted the bit about "he wants world peace", or whatever it was. DeCausa (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Involved editor comments

Thanks. This is my first exposure to Cagan and I have until recently been uninvolved in this article.The issue is in fact not the source as the reverting editors have stated. There are multiple sources that describe Rawat in a positive light probably equal to those that don't. The issue is that the both must be added. The wording from this source is so neutral as to be almost non existent yet it is being deleted. This article is under arbitration and I am starting to see why. I can easily find and have seen other sources that are positive to balance that cult allegation, but I have no hopes they will not be deleted as well. I'll let others comment . I have no interest one way or the other in this article but I hate to see a BLP treated this way. (olive (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I'd add that if sources are part of the issue we need to look more closely at some of the the sources describing Rawat as a cult leader. There may be better ones than what we have.(olive (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I deleted the phrase you are concerned about because it was simply a random bit of praise that was unconnected with what went before. The relevant paragraph in full is:

"Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत; born 10 December 1957), also known as Maharaji and formerly known as Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar, teaches a meditation practice he calls Knowledge[1] and leads a movement known as the Divine Light Mission (DLM) (Divya Sandesh Parishad). DLM has been described as a new religious movement, a cult, a charismatic religious sect, and as an alternative religion. Rawat has been termed a cult leader in popular press reports[2][3] and in anti-cult writings.[4][5]"

Saying (in terms) "he wants world peace" after talking about whether he's a cult leader or whether DLM is a charismatic religious sect, new religious movement etc is just a non-sequitur. You'd have a point if your addition (reliably sourced) was something like "while others see him as a charismatic leader and insightful thinker" or something like that. As it is you've just thrown down a random "nice thing" about him. That's a misunderstanding of balance. DeCausa (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"You've thrown down a random [sourced] nice thing about him".. hmmm.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i have watched the development of the article over the years and all i can say is that the former neutral editors involved in he article were much more informed and engaged than making just a few google hits. Prem Rawat has a huge public relations machine going on to present him as a leader for peace, this has been discussed before and is buried in the archives that no one wants to dig in anymore so it seems. The most ridicoulos part was him renting a hall at th UN building and promote him as speaking in front of the UN. But i have to admit that one day his efforts(money) will reach the goal and gullible people will fall for that. Surdas (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that 'a random "nice thing"' sums it up nicely. I'm sure that positive things have been said about Rawat, even by people not paid to write biographies about him, but this one appears to have nothing to do with the start of the sentence. If you think that the reference to the term 'cult leader' is badly sourced, say so. If you think the article lacks neutrality say so - but don't try to fix it by tacking on irrelevances to the end of the negative bits. I'm not sure that 'a desire for spreading peace' is a particularly useful thing to say about him anyway. You'd be hard put to find anyone who wouldn't at least play lip-service to the 'desire'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Our job isn't to go around trying to find positive (or negative, for that fact) things to "balance" reliably sourced, relevant, and proportionate material. If he's been called a "cult leader" repeatedly in reputable and reliable sources, and if that description is significant to his biography, then we don't need to seek out and cherry pick a "positive" fact or quote from a dubious source to try to make the "cult leader" description sound nicer. (For the record, I don't know anything personally about the guy, so I'm just going by the sources listed above and at his article.) jæs (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per weight and the extensive sources which view Rawat in a positive light both must be included. Cult leader is only part of the story on how the sources portray him. Content was added in the article body with the opening sentence that states both cult and any other comment that describe the man are examples. The lead simply summarized that. This was brought to this NB because as is, the lead is not balanced per the sources and is a NPOV violation in a BLP. Nothing was cherry picked nor was there an effort to add positive to the pejorative. There was an effort to represent the considerable sources that represent Rawat as more than a cult leader which is how the lead reads now. If the community thinks this is appropriate per the sources and the standards of a BLP, that's fine. I think its not only mistaken per Wikipedia but morally wrong to allow pejorative content to stand unopposed without the content and context that would represent a major part of the mainstream sources, in so doing slant the BlP and harming another human being. We must be fair and neutral and that means representing the scope of the mainstream. (olive (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Then find appropriate material, discuss (here or on the article talk page) whether it actually merits inclusion per WP:WEIGHT, and propose a new sentence for the lede to include it. 'Neutrality' applies to articles, not sentences... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Neutrality refers to articles nor did I say anything else. While I agree that the sentence removed could have been better, I used it to summarize multiple sources that describe Rawat in this way. I reduced it to the most neutral language rendering it almost meaningless to avoid contention, but still the content was removed because it was described as "peacock" and "glowing". This is a mess, pure and simple and I can't see that anything else I add which will have to be, of necessity, to represent the mainstream sources, even more "glowing", have any different outcome. Although I have concerns about this article, I'll leave it to others do deal with. I don't have the stomach for this. Thanks to all who took the trouble to comment.(olive (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

(edit conflict)"There was an effort to represent the considerable sources that represent Rawat as more than a cult leader which is how the lead reads now." That's a gross misrepresentation. The references to "cult" are in two sentences in the lead. But the lead then goes on with three paragraphs about him with plenty (argaubly more than plenty) of "positive" stuff: "In 2001 he established "The Prem Rawat Foundation" to fund his work and humanitarian efforts. His message is now distributed in more than 88 countries. The TV series "Words of Peace" is transmitted via satellite and cable in six continents." "The core of Prem Rawat's teaching is that the individual’s need for fulfillment can be satisfied by turning within to contact a constant source of peace and joy. Rather than a body of dogma, he emphasizes a direct experience of transcendence that he says is accessible through the meditation techniques he teaches." etc etc etc DeCausa (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A major problem with the Rawat series of articles has been that the pro-Rawat editors (devotees, a/k/a premies, adherents, or followers) have spent the last eight years attempting to erase the history of Prem Rawat's life, making this biography essentially a hagiography or puff piece. Former followers (sometimes called ex-premies) have tried to keep this article balanced. The incivility in the past and some in the present has stemmed from the attempt by adherents to take the article over, hence, claiming ownership and making the other side as it were, persona non grata. They've ignored us and made edits without concensus and they've done this with impunity.

Another very major problem is that Prem Rawat is virtually an unknown person since the 1970s when he first came to the western countries from India at age 13 and received tons of negative press and the production of studies, papers, and books by scholars. The actual fact of the matter is that Prem Rawat is not notable by today's standards of notable people, nor by Wiki standards, imo. There aren't many recent or current reliable sources from scholars and the press except those that have been contrived and invented outside of Wikipedia by adherents, including the Cagan vanity book Peace is Possible, and paid-for articles or "interviews" with self-promoting, paid-for magazines articles like "Leaders." But, there are so many issues with the construction of this article, that unless one has been involved in editing the article since 2004, it's nearly impossible to catch up unless one spends all of one's time on this article alone. The contentiousness between editors (adherents, former followers, and uninvolved editors alike) has been so constant throughout the life of the article. During the past several months I came to throw my arms up in the air when the now-banned devotees started to gut this very well-sourced article in order to return it to a puff piece. New editors like OliveOil have come in cold, not having the full context of all the previous discussions (and still not nearly up to speed), intimate knowledge of article content, and the already established reliable sources, which took years to resolve and reach concensus about. Another fact is that Rawat adherents have learned how to game the system here very well (those editors are now banned) by being excessively polite to newcomer editors, when in fact, those new editors have been snowballed. Oliveoil is one such editor who has bought into contrived civility when the only goal of those editors was to whitewash. It's a travesty that those adherent editors have been allowed to go on for so many years on Wikipedia. Honestly, I don't see how any uninvolved editor can possibly make a decision or comment on this article without having an in depth knowledge of this subject, and the general subject of NRMs/cults.

The background of the terms "cult" versus "NRM" in the academic world of religous studies, is that certain religious scholars have quite successfully attempted to erase "cult" from the English lexicon as a viable word to use to describe certain "NRMs," and their leaders. Their attempts caused an enormous rift between those certain scholars in academia (some considered "cult apologists") and so-called "anti-cult" scholars ("anti-cult" is a complete misnomer). Those scholars against the term "cult" also made up the term "anti-cult" to label their rival experts/scholars, in order to discredit them and their academic work. As such, editors of all the NRMs/cults here have used that rift to their advantage in order to reinvent their leaders and the groups to which they belong and to purge the word "cult" from Wikipedia. This is a true story and fact. I know how "cult" became termed "perjorative" on Wikipedia. It is a perjorative, btw, and for good reason. I understand the issues about biographies of living persons here, however, people must also consider that if something is true, factual, and reliably sourced, it's not libel, nor negative. It's simply a fact that needs no balance. Neutrality does not mean "positive." True is true, and false is false, after all. If the truth is negative, it's negative. I've dismayed at what's going on now by watching the edits being made in the past months and weeks and days. I know this subject inside and out. What's gone on in the past months with Momento, et al, purging the article, gaming the system, Wiki-lawyering, incivility, personal attacks, and much more, has been going on for years unchecked. This article sat untouched for two years until banned editors came back to take it over once again, ignoring other editors by using pretzel logic and refusal to have cogent discussions, in order to wear us down. Look at the talk page archives -- all of them. This particular "cult" issue, along with countless other issues, have been long-ago resolved through consensus, use of reliable sources that have already been reviewed by noticeboards like this, and the discussions have felt like Sisyphean tasks most of the time because of the behavior of adherent editors. Please don't destroy years of work because Wikipedia allows for it. Not unless editors learn the subject well. I think this article should be reverted to the version before Momento, et al, edited started gutting it earlier this year. It also ought to be locked until uninvolved editors get educated and up to speed. After all, one wouldn't edit an article on say, science or math, unless one had some expertise or education and knowledge of the subjects. It's no different for biographies like this one. I don't have the time nor stomach to revisit this article again but I do keep track of what's going on. This notice board subject is ridiculous. This has been resolved over and over again. Best wishes. Sylviecyn (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By its placement and unopposed by contextual material, placing the cult leader content into the lead with out discussion labels Rawat as nothing but a cult leader. This is inappropriate in a BLP and per NPOV in any article. When I brought this issue to this NB, the reasons for deletion of content that acted to summarize other views (however poor that content might seem) were that it was peacocky and too glowing. The source was not then, but now has now become the talking point. I am reminded that consensus changes, and that the cult leader content as is, did not have consensus in the past and that it was added with out consensus now, that incivility and abusive language is not acceptable, that dealing with editors in a civil way does not mean I have been duped by the so-called "devious" Rawat editors, or am too naive or too stupid to see or understand what goes on on such an article. Further, I do not condone abuse for myself or for any other editors for any reason, and there has been lots of that too.(olive (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I don't like your uncivil tone. Please don't put words in my mouth Littleoliveoil -- that's not fair. I did not use the words "devious," "duped," nor did I say that you were naive or stupid. I also didn't say incivility or abuse are acceptable. Where did you get that from my post? It's not a rhetorical question. What I meant and should have said is that those editors have been trying to manipulate the situation here for years and have been successful, and you've been favoring them over the less patient of the other side because of your perception of their tone of voice. One has to remember that when posting online not to read too much into tone (matter of perception and one's own projection) and take what someone writes at face value because one doesn't have benefit of eye contact and tone of voice. PatW, for instance is an English gentleman and his recent posts were surprising because of that, yet I know his frustration well. But, I have to say I don't like the changes you've been attempting to make, which are evidence of your lack of knowledge of this subject matter, especially concerning the terms "cult" and "NRM." There's nothing wrong with the use of the word "cult" if it's properly sourced. It's just a word. And it's a legal fact in the U.S. (where this website originates) that something isn't libel if it's true. That's a flaw of Wikipedia, especially when it comes to biographies and I attempted to explain the origin of "NRM" over "cult" which is true if you read the literature about such scholars. I don't know why you're editing this article, frankly. You're not helping at all and making errors as a result of your lack of knowledge, which btw, does not mean stupidity. It means you're not educated about certain things and that takes time. All the best and have a good weekend. Sheesh... Sylviecyn (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My tone is not uncivil, its strong. And my points were not directed at you they were general points to this whole messy situation. Still you are saying things that are not true and while I could walk away, miscarachterizing me has been an unfortunate by product of all of this. Cult is not only seen generally as a pejorative term it is also per scholars like Chryssides a general term that fails to have specific meaning. But this isn't the whole issue. The issue is that the term is unopposed. If what had been added was that Rawat was god's gift to man I would oppose that too and ask for context. I won't discuss Pat's behaviour here but to say I'm sorry he had a bad time. I haven't been favouring anyone I've been favouring discussion about edits and not editors, and I favour civility over personal attacks. Not condemning a group of editors outright is what should happen on an article. But what has been made clear to me is that if I treat editors outside a certain group with respect, I am naive as to their intentions. Civility is a way of treating human beings, and is not dependent on whether I like or agree with them. I made one change, not "changes", an attempted change which was reverted. Content was in place with out consensus. I realized that adding content for context with a word like cult would not fly with some editors but for the sake of neutrality I did it anyway. Can you not see how this article is controlled so that the whole thing explodes when one outside editor dares to place a contentious term in context of other terms. I have no grudge against anyone. But coming into this article I have been attacked because I dared to question the status quo of a group of editors. That's ownership and its not a good thing. Best wishes to you. (olive (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

And if you felt my tone was uncivil I do apologize, it wasn't meant to be that way... but it was meant to be strong.(olive (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I'm the only editor on the Rawat article who has declared a conflict of interest and as such have limited my editing to the talk page only for years now, so accusing me of ownership is very unfair. Once again, the word "cult" means something. If that meaning is negative, it's not proper to attempt to balance that term with something positive. Neutrality and weight don't mean creating a contrivance such as that. It's not the fault of Wikipedia that Prem Rawat has virtually stayed away from any public scrutiny since the 1970s, thereby greatly limiting current information from reliable sources. The Cagan book was contracted by close followers and paid for by The Prem Rawat Foundation. She interviewed people from Prem Rawat's closest inner circle and she was given material by them to review. I agree that it's strange that Cagan admits she never once spoke to her subject and that fact lessens the reliablity of the book as a source. I strongly object to using her book as a source for anything contentious. It's okay, I suppose, to use it for dates (some of the dates in the book are incorrect, btw), people's names, places, etc. but it should never be used for contentious material. Best wishes. Sylviecyn (talk) 14:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once again my comments are clearly general and refer to the the treatment I received on the talk page and on a user talk page.They do not specifically refer to any one editor.
PatW has apparently declared a COI and only posts on the talk page
As I said what cult means is general per Chryssides, for example, rather than specific, I didn't say it didn't mean anything. Further, cult, because of its tendency to mean different things to different people cannot be used in a context free manner. The word has emotional "meaning". I made two edits (sorry I did say one above.)
The first edit added context to the way DLM has been characterized that included cult. Then defining Rawat as a cult leader is somewhat redundant, and adds weight to that characterization. If left in the article, and I did not suggest removing it, the characterization cult leader needs content that characterizes Rawat in other ways as well.
Cagan's book describes the process she took to write about Rawat. There is no sense that she was paid in fact the opposite is true. However, she may well have been. No one has confirmed that with a source. Still I have no problem, as I've said several times with using other sources as suggested here by uninvolved editors and per a past consensus should I decide to go back to the page. Or perhaps another editor would like to add the context. (olive (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I am suggesting 'context'. That is why I added the paragraph which summarized

Peter Thomson (diplomat)

Peter Thomson (diplomat) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dear Wikipedia Help desk

I am writing on behalf of Ambassador Thomson who would like some editing/corrections made to his entry in Wikipedia. He, as the author of his own entry on Wikipedia, can verify that his requested changes are authentic and factual relating to his biography.

Collapsing draft

Peter Thomson (diplomat) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Photo to be inserted (unable to attach-please advise)

Peter Thomson, born in Suva in 1948, is a Fijian diplomat of Scottish descent, and Fiji's current Permanent Representative to the United Nations.

Contents 1.Biography 2.Civil Service 3. Varied Experience 4. Citizenship 5. United Nations 6. Bibliography 7. External links 8. References

Photograph inserted

Biography

Family

Thomson, a fifth generation Fijian, was born to a prominent public servant, Sir Ian Thomson and his wife Lady Nancy Thomson. His father was born in Scotland and was posted to Fiji in 1941 as an administrative officer in the British Colonial Service. Sir Ian served the bulk of his career in Fiji, including terms as Acting Governor-General of Fiji in the 1980s.

Peter Thomson married his wife, Marijcke (née Rolls), in Suva in 1973. They have a son, James,

resident in New Zealand, and a daughter, Nicola, resident in Fiji.

Education

Educated at Suva Grammar School and Natabua High School, in 1966-67 he attended the

International Centre at Sevenoaks School, Kent, UK. He later obtained a B.A. in political studies

at Auckland University and a postgraduate diploma in development studies at Cambridge University.

Civil service

Duties

Thomson began work as a Fiji civil servant in 1972, working in rural development as District Officer in Navua, Macuata and Taveuni. In 1978 he was posted to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He was seconded in 1979 to the Forum Secretariat, before being posted by the Government of Fiji to Japan in 1980 entrusted with the task of establishing Fiji's embassy in Tokyo. He served in Tokyo until 1984, when he was appointed Fiji Consul-General in Sydney, Australia. Returning to Fiji in 1986, he served as Permanent Secretary of Information, and was a member of the boards of the Fiji Visitors Bureau, Fiji TV and Fiji Broadcasting Commission. He also co-founded the executive committees of the Australia-Fiji Business Council and the New-Zealand-Fiji Business Council. He was elected to honorary membership of the New Zealand-Fiji Business Council in 2007.

In 1987, he served at Government House in Fiji as Permanent Secretary to Governor-General, Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau. During this time between the two coups of 1987, the Governor-General was the sole executive authority of Fiji.

Gaoling

After the 1987 coup, he "found himself a target as the high-profile white permanent secretary to Fiji's governor-general, embroiled in a constitutional crisis and with indigenous supremacists demanding his head." He was gaoled by the Fiji Army for four days, and was placed under house arrest thereafter. He resigned from the Fiji Civil Service at the end of 1987 and moved to New Zealand, then Australia.

Varied experience

From 1988 onwards, he worked as an investment and management consultant on Pacific Island affairs for various government agencies, regional organisations, universities and investment corporations. In 1990, the East-West Center published his diagnostic study "Trade and Investment in the Pacific Islands." During this time he was founding director and shareholder of Tabua Investments Ltd, one of the prime developers of Fiji's premier tourism resort, Denarau Island Resort. (http://www.denarau.com/history)

Citizenship

Having lost his Fiji citizenship by taking on New Zealand and Australian citizenship after the 1987 coups, he regained his original citizenship in 2009, following a Fiji Government decree authorising dual citizenship.

United Nations

He resumed diplomatic duties for Fiji in 2010, when he was appointed Fiji's Permanent Representative to the United Nations. He took up the post in a context where Fiji's long standing tradition of providing peace-keeping forces to the United Nations was facing opposition from New Zealand and Australia due to the 2006 military coup in Fiji. A few months before his appointment, Thomson had publicly criticised what he described as Australia's "ongoing campaign in New York to choke off Fiji's role as an international peacekeeper." In 2011, the United Nations requested Fiji to increase its deployment of peacekeepers in Iraq.

As Fiji's Representative to the United Nations, he has worked to establish diplomatic relations with new countries, and consolidate Fiji's existing relations with a variety of countries. He has been described as "spearheading vital elements of Fiji's Look North Policy, pursuing closer ties with China, India and the Arab world - among others - as a means of breaking free of its dependence on Australia and New Zealand." Graham Davies writes that Thomson has "forged a new network of international relationships for Fiji outside the (Australia/New Zealand) orbit, including membership of the Non- Aligned Movement", and that he has been a "a prime influence behind the formation of a formal independent Pacific voting bloc at the UN".

In August 2011, he was elected as one of twenty-one vice presidents for the 66th session of the United Nations General Assembly, under President Nassir Al-Nasser of Qatar. During this time, on several occasions Ambassador Thomson was appointed Acting President of the UN General Assembly. (http://youtube.com/watchv=6Hjebk4kw)

In July 2011, Peter Thomson was elected as President of the Assembly of the International Seabed Authority's 17th Session, at its Kingston headquarters in Jamaica.

He has supported Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama's government declaring in 2010, "An immediate return to democracy would mean a return to the Fiji of old, where politicians were elected on the basis of racial rolls, ethno-nationalism was rampant, corruption was rife, and coup-culture was ingrained." In July 2010 he told The Australian's Graham Davis: "I'm a passionate advocate of multi-racial, multicultural Fiji so I fully support Prime Minister Bainimarama's programme. Race-based constitutions and political parties have been very divisive for the nation. We're now working towards a future in which citizens will vote without regard for race for the first time."

He spearheaded the 2012 election of Fiji to the Chairmanship of G77 and China, the organisation of 132 developing countries of the United Nations. Fiji's Chairmanship will run from January to December 2012. (http://www.fijitimes.com/story.aspx?id=213225)

Bibliography

Thomson is the author of Kava in the Blood, his account of the 1987 Fiji coup. The book was the winner of New Zealand's' E.H. McCormick Prize for non-fiction in 2000. He is the editor and publisher of the pictorial/historical book Fiji in the Forties and Fifties, written by his father, with photographs by Rob Wright, published in 1994.

External links

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.75.195.170 (talk) 16:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We will need reliable sources, the subject's say-so is insufficient. If you can provide reliable sources, the matter can be addressed.--ukexpat (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Hassink

Jacqueline Hassink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jacobien kyoto (talk · contribs)

Hello there,

My name is Jacqueline Hassink and I edited my text today (14:53, 29 November 2012) on wikipedia since it was outdated and incorrect. My user name is Jacobien Kyoto. After usign several hours edting it I see that you did not accept it and returned it to the old text. All information is true and I would really appreciate it if you bring it back to my latest edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Jacqueline_Hassink&oldid=525543031 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobien kyoto (talk • contribs) 23:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bot reverted addition of text from blog (wordpress). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note on her talk page offering assistance if she needs it. All these policies and rules can be confusing and discouraging to new users.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Snyder of the U.S.A.

This mans advocates deter me from saying anything positive about operation "Barbarossa". They consciously distort the truth and keep people, at least me, from coming up with a meaningful discussion.

Jaakkola, Helsinki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.17.197.24 (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everything has been deleted as I supposed it would be. Snyder remains king, and you are his soldier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.17.197.24 (talk) 04:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are being 'deterred' from adding gibberish like this [15] and this [16] to our article on Timothy D. Snyder, the 'advocates' (most likely ordinary Wikipedia contributors) are getting it right. Article content is based on published reliable sources, and not on the opinions of random individuals who appear to know little about history, but consider themselves qualified to make negative aspersions regarding those who do. Actually though, you have raised this at the relevant noticeboard - Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policies applies to all statements regarding living persons, including those made by you. If you persist in posting such nonsense, you are liable to be blocked from editing. I suggest you instead find reliable sources to back up your proposed edits (if any exist, which seems unlikely) and then discuss them on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Gibberish" is too kind a word. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Laud

Derek Laud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The subject of article is threatening me with legal action on twitter via direct messages. Myself and another editor, User:Rangoon11 added reliable citations to the article around the beginning of November. The subject subsequently contacted me on twitter disputing the information from the reliable sources, which I removed. [17] This was then reverted by Rangoon11 and taken to talk [18] [19]. Shall I copy the direct messages here? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think you should stop adding tedious tabloid twaddle to the article about him, and then perhaps he'll find something better to do with his time than direct messaging you on Twitter. Single-sourcing controversial information about living people to the Daily Mail isn't the best of ideas.

(I do also vaguely wonder why you've made it possible for him to interact with you on Twitter about your Wikipedia edits.)

I've also repeatedly blanked some potentially defamatory material from the talk page of that article; it'd be useful for a few extra people to keep an eye on it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see a problem with the two pieces regarding his membership of the conservative 'club' and his driving conviction. Both are properly sourced, but beyond that, both are directly related to his political career. The driving conviction very much so. Or at least, it has been reported by reliable sources to be. I dont think it needs that much detail however. The SA apartheid stuff is tenuous at best though. RE the defamatory stuff, totally agree that needed to be nuked, have put on watch for now. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider the Daily Mail, nor indeed the New York Daily News, as reliable sources for controversial information about living persons, certainly not when one of them is used as a single source to support an assertion that "it has been reported by reliable sources to be directly related to his political career". If there are multiple reliable sources that say so, why not cite them? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Mail piece references the driving incident, as does the Telegraph, I suspect the Independant one does as well given the citing in the article but their website appears not to be processing search queries at the moment to check. Whoever did the citations only used one for each sentence/claim, rather than citing them to all the articles that can confirm it. It looks like any news item mention of him ends up with 'And he pulled out due to being convicted yadda yadda' as that is the most interesting thing about him. If you disregard his Big Brother claim to fame. Looks like there are multiple sources beyond the Daily Mail, and some are used elsewhere in the article for other claims. I agree for the most part about the Daily Mail btw as a reliable source, however that should probably be run by RSN. It doesnt help he actually writes/wrote for the Mail on Sunday. His membership of the conservative club in itself doesnt seem controversial at all, he has talked about it openly (and his reasons for leaving). The pulling out of the election due to his driving conviction might qualify as controversial. He only said 'business reasons', its the press that blame it on the driving. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He has disputed with me factual elements of the articles cited. Should this not be an issue between the subject and the publications cited? This article experienced some very high traffic at the start of November, and will continue to do so. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean by that "is the mere fact that the subject has disputed the content enough of a reason to remove it?" then, no it isn't. Say what you like about the Daily Mail but an article in it written by Derek Laud which says Derek Laud was a member of the Monday club is a reliable source, regardless that he has since denied it on Twitter. (i.e. The issue appears to be between him and himself and need not involve us). I also found this for corroboration. Formerip (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am puzzled about Laud's denials of being a member of the Monday Club, since he wrote an article for the Daily Mail discussing it. And the Daily Mail is a national midmarket newspaper and a perfectly reliable source.

I also query why an editor has been discussing the article with the subject in this way on Twitter. This seems inappropriate, even if not a stict breach of WP rules.

It is worth noting that there have been repeated additions of unsourced attack content about other issues, so the article will benefit from more people watching it.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the attack content (unrelated to the Monday Club membersship or driving conviction) I've asked for semi-protection. JASpencer (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following a request on WP:RFPP, I've just semi-protected the article for a week and activated pending changes for after the semi-protection expires. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joao Carlos Pereira

Dear Sirs,

First, I appreciate the work done to inform people and I would like to thank Magioladitis, Always Learning, Yobot, Mr.Z-bot, Sir Sputnik, amoung others.

I am the responsible for the comunication of Mr. Joao Carlos Pereira, a football coach, and I state that the changes on the information I put is totally correct!!! I decided to change the information given by you before, because it was either not totally correct or some of the information had perspectives that I consider not clear and honest, due to the purpose of Wikipedia:

a) The person in question started coaching at the age of 32 (1997) and not at 33.

b) Let`s call things by its name. The league 2nd B exists (in Portugal there is 1st league, 2nd league, 2nd league b, third league and then regionals).

c) Do not forget you are informing people about a living person and this person has to be shown in an unpartial way. Not as the best of the world, but also not showing a negative side.

d)I inform you that in the end of the season at Ermis Aradippou, he was not "released at the end of the season". He was invited to continue and he decided to leave!

e)Why are you putting the information about another coach in his page? Why making a managerial statistics comparison between them if the contexts are completely diferent? Mr. Joao Carlos Pereira worked at Servette in a moment of crises, no money and no board of administration, bankrupcy... I think that is not correct to make comparisons and mention another person in his page, right? Wikipedia is not supposed to be an opinionmaker, right? Anyway the Europa League was acomplished in the end and with his contribution, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.155.150.224 (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IP, you are asking Wikipedia to place information in a bio of a living person (BLP) that is authenticated only by it being typed here by an anonymous person. Fortunately for the subject of the article, Wikipedia has policies and guidelines which prohibit such actions. Instead this encyclopedia requires citations to reliable sources for the information in it's articles and especially its BLP's. So if you can refer us to news articles, books etc (personal web sites don't qualify) that give reliable information then changes can be made to the article on that basis. Also, your requests and sources would be best served if they were posted on the talk page of the article so editors that are active there can respond to them. Please read WP:V to under stand futher our policy and if you need assistance, feel free to contact me. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Whealy

Someone is once again trying to harm Kent Whealy via Wikipedia. They are insisting that the dollar amount of his donation to the yes on 37 campaign be posted here. Donations should be public information and this is recorded in the appropriate places. As I have said repeatedly, a posting here amplifies the public awareness of this gift exponentially,and exponentially increases his and his families exposure to the opportunists who frequent these pages. This was a one time gift, a news item whose time has passed. Mr Whealy's enduring contribution to our world is his work with Seed Savers Exchange, not his political contributions. Mr Whealy's family views this as a thoroughly unnecessary intrusion into their privacy and safety. Can you help?Treastor (talk) 14:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your first step is to open a discussion at the article talk page - which you haven't yet done. The information, as far as I can see, is public domain, published in a reliable source and you don't appear to challenge its accuracy, so I'm not sure if there is a ground on which it should be removed. But you should take it up on the article talk page. DeCausa (talk) 14:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've offered this new user assistance, if they need it, by leaving them a note on their talk page. Best,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a news agency. We record all important impact that is verifiable in reliable third party sources about the subject. And as an encyclopedic and historical overview of Whealy, his participation as the largest contributor to an important political campaign is and will be continually important for readers in understanding who Whealy is and what impacts he has had and made - and is not stale news that should be whitewashed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should go a bit easier on this user. They clearly don't know much about how WP works and what it's all about. The user got a barrage on his/her Talk page, but not even a {{welcomeg}} (which I've now done). DeCausa (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does receiving a MacArthur Fellowship award automatically derive notability? Because, if not, I'm tempted to AFD this article for lack of sufficient notability. Ditch ∝ 23:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Treastor continues to remove the amount of the donation, saying that he is acting at the family's request. Xhe says this is for privacy and safety reasons and says I am aiding and abetting unethical people attacking the family. Dougweller (talk) 12:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone except Treastor seems to understand that political donations of this sort aren't private information, especially when reliably reported in news. Treastor's characterization of the entire issue is hyperbolic, and there are no privacy or safety issues at hand; at least none have actually been spelled out. Perhaps superpacs would be a better choice for donors wishing to remain anonymous. At any rate, it's a clear conflict of interest and Treastor's editing there, outside the talk page, should cease. As to notability, I think Ditch's concerns are quite valid. This individual appears to have no separate basis for notability. Even his donation is apparently significant because of his company (note each donation in that news report is paired with a corporation). JFHJr (㊟) 13:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Burton (businessman)

I really do not see why this page has been allowed to be created and published on Wikipedia. It is clearly the ego-propelled product of someone who is pursuing self-aggrandisement and self-promotion rather than enlightening the reader on the life of someone significant or interesting. Who is Chris Burton (businessman)? Seemingly a polymath whose achievements are legion. A veritable Leonardo da Vinci for the modern age. Please can someone investigate and then remove this non-entity? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodseats44 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, now at Afd - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Burton (businessman).--ukexpat (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marcia Falkender, Baroness Falkender

Marcia Falkender, Baroness Falkender (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a continuing attempt to misrepresent the claims of the 1976 Resignation Honours List as having involved the sale of honours. There is absolutely NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER for this claim. None. The Sale of honours is a CRIMINAL OFFENCE. Because it is a criminal offence had there been any suggestion that such activity taken place in 1976 there would have been a police investigation and a full inquiry, neither took place or were even suggested.

Because the sale of honours is a criminal offence, knowingly claiming that a living individual has committed a crime when you are aware that they did not is itself a criminal offence. And reprinting false accusations or misrepresenting forged documents as authentic, such as a counterfeit diary, is also a criminal offence.

There is no doubt or ambiguity over the truthfulness of the historical record only about the role of MI5 in British democracy. If a thirty year old smear campaign is being repeated in plain sight then there is a problem. If people continue to violate the law, as they are on this subject, presumably because they think they are above the law, then there is a problem. The solution is not to reprint false accusations from the 1970s but to consult reputable academic textbooks, not ONE of which substantiates anything that some contributors are saying on this subject.

Again: As the subject of this is still alive, false accusations of criminal activity may be subject to criminal prosecution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.205.34 (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Walking a fine line on WP:NLT. I'm curious: was it a crime to sell honours in the 1970s? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it was a crime to sell honours in the 1970s. It is also, by the way, illegal to buy honours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.205.34 (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in any event, there is nothing in the article about selling honours; not even the passage you were trying to delete says that. That passage is well rooted in the source provided. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it's been a criminal offence since 1925 following the Lloyd George honours scandal. But as Nomoskedacity says the article doesn't claim that she was involved in sale of honours. However, I would say (a) there's a large chunk on the resignation honours list that is generally about the incident and isn't really anything to do with her. I would think that should be shortened, and (b) the article as a whole contains a lot of claims/allegations which, as the article properly points out, are unsubstantiated or proved to be wrong. Individually, that's fine. But bundled together it looks like innuendo and the article's objective is just to be scurrilous. The difficulty is that the subject's notoriety revolves around the fact that there were a series of sensational allegations which, on the whole, were never proved or were disproved. Absent those allegations the subject's notability might be questionable. DeCausa (talk) 08:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair warning: You're going to get a lot of responses from the U.K. Wikipedians if you assert that someone who is in at least two other encyclopaedias, books on 1960s British politics, and numerous biographies of a past British Prime Minister, and who was a member of the Kitchen Cabinet, is not a suitable subject for an encyclopaedia. ☺ That is, however, one messy and top-heavy biographical article. A quick skim of the books indicates that there's a lot more to write about this person than just the single subject of an honours list that people have concentrated upon for the past two years. To put it another way: The sources seem to exist for a full biography, but Wikipedia editors, on both sides of this dispute, only seem to want to write about one small part of it. Uncle G (talk) 11:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A. I only said "might". B. I'm a UK Wikipedian, and one that's old enough to have been around for the 1976 kerfuffle. I'd be interested to see the addition of material that supports the contention than that there's more to say than "the list" - I don't mean that facetiously. DeCausa (talk) 11:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct: it has been illegal since Lloyd George. Also correct about the overall effect which is certainly part of the problem since smearing is cumulative as well as qualitative. This, by the way, is exactly the technique used by the newspapers (or MI5) for thirty years to keep this going. There is also the repeated attempt by some contributors to take from one source - Joe Haines. Joe Haines has a long long record of criminality and dishonesty and is not a credible source, when there are literally dozens of reputable books about Wilson and Falkender out there none of which are ever cited and all of which contradict his claims. Nor can you discard the main accusation from Haines but retain other smears from the same source, since the source itself is obviously tainted. And no-one who was trying to portray the subject honestly would do that. The question therefore boils down to whether Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (which will apply standards to sources used) or a low rent smear sheet or bulletin board. The encyclopedia Britannica would not use Joe Haines as the sole source for anything I think, certainly not after a defamation suit. Regardless, more circumspection and restraint is required for living individuals because of the law on this subject (civil and criminal). The same goes for associated articles on the "Lavender List" and Wilson both of which I have also had to edit. The entry I deleted is defamatory (untrue) and implies criminality, it is given an exaggerated significance by putting it in the article when it is in no way representative of her character or life - it is also dishonest to pretend that this is a neutral environment where such entries will be judged solus and not against the background of defamation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.205.34 (talk) 11:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there are other sources that contradict something currently on the page, please feel free to add material drawing on them. No one here wants a false portrayal. But I strongly suggest you stop with the accusations of criminality and defamation: if you prefer to address this issue via legal means, you will end having only that path open to you, you will not be able also to edit the article(s). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The claims which are violative of the letter and spirit of WP:BLP are now removed. And the court libel suits make it clear that such claims were viewed as libel by British courts as a statement of fact. Collect (talk) 13:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Savage

I removed the exact DOB of his children since they are non notable and this really doesn't add anything significant to the understanding of this individual. Can anybody point me to a MOS or policy or anything that covers DOBs of non notable individuals, especially minors? TIA --Malerooster (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If not explicitly, it is certainly covered in spirit in Wikipedia:BLPPRIVACY#Privacy_of_personal_information_and_using_primary_sources. "that the subject has made available" - non-notable minors cannot have made their personal information widely available particularly in conjunction with WP:NPF "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, " and just plain common sense.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would also think in this example that the actual names are not really needed either, they are not notable or public figures. MilborneOne (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The names I am not that concerned with and can go either way. Certain celebrities, like Tom Cruise, the name/s are going to be mentioned because they are so widely covered. Thank you TRPoD, that was the policy I was looking for. I also linked to WP:IINFO as well. --Malerooster (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dewald v. Dewald and Dewald v. Wrigglesworth

Two articles on court cases. I declined A7 CSD on them, as court case are outside the limited scope of A7. But they definitely appear to likely be not notable. Both are sourced only to primary sources. Both involve negative decisions against the same person. So, despite being ineligible for A7, I got a BLP issue thought nagging in my brain, and figured I should bring them here. They *are* sourced, but again to primary sources, most court records it appears. I doubt that they would survive AFD, but are there enough BLP issues here that something needs to be done sooner than AFD would take? - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RPoD took a hatchet to one of the articles, and then submitted it for PROD deletion. I've followed his lead and done about the same with the other one. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And for future reference, there are two other case articles involving the same subject. Dewald v. Clinton and Dewald v. United States. Neither of these look like BLP issues like the first two, but neither of them look particularly notable either. Both have already been submitted to PROD by RPoD. There's a fifth case article, Friends of Phil Gramm v Americans for Phil Gramm in '84, created by the same account as the first four in the same timeframe. This one does not have such an obvious connection to the living person from the first four, but similarly shows no sign of notability. I've submitted it to PROD myself. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

carrot top

Carrot Top (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A number of ridiculous edits from the beginning such as:

s mother Wendy Wu found out about that shiz & raised hell with Jacklyn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.139.254 (talk) 06:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Next time, please revert vandalism yourself. It would have taken you the same number of edits — one — as writing on this noticeboard, but taken less typing (as you'd only had to have written an edit summary) and saved time and effort all around. Be bold! Uncle G (talk) 10:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Uncle G. Thank you for fixing this problem. However, please don't talk to our BLPN newcomers like that, as they are only complaining about what they see, and in fact we usually advise them not to edit articles on which they might have a conflict of interest. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't be daft, and go and read Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Be bold if you really believe that for this situation and aren't just being silly on a noticeboard for kicks. Uncle G (talk) 10:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'll take that to indicate that you've read my comment, regardless of whether you understood it or not. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uncle G, the above responses to both the OP and Demiurge are out of line. Show don't tell. Ditch ∝ 04:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - You don't be daft, too. Demiurge1000 is not a newcomer by any stretch of the definition. Like Demiurge1000, you too haven't looked at what's in front of you before leaping in saying something silly. And make no mistake, what Demiurge1000 said above is downright silly, and is not what we say to people about reverting ordinary vandalism. I pointed Demiurge1000 to what we actually do say, although xe clearly (as you can see above) wants to keep on being silly on a noticeboard rather than familiarize xyrself with what we tell people to do with vandalism when they see it. You should go and read it too. Uncle G (talk) 09:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ankit Fadia

Please could another editor take a look at the material added in this edit, I'm not sure that the sources cited support the claims, other than attrition.org which sounds self-published according to the linked article. I've been removing various versions of it over the last few months but it keeps being readded. January (talk) 10:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

elizabeth_chan

Elizabeth Chan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
69.204.251.91 (talk · contribs)
RosePetalCrush (talk · contribs)
Special:FeedbackDashboard/61351

Article of Elizabeth_chan has been edited and deleted by Rosepetalcrush. Need to revert to previous versions if possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.251.91 (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which you have already done. Why did you post to this noticeboard? Was it to draw attention to the on-wiki threat of police involvement that you placed on User talk:RosePetalCrush? I strongly recommend that you take such things entirely off-wiki. RosePetalCrush is incapable of deleting articles, by the way, and the only content deleted there was a prior article from 2007 about a different Elizabeth Chan. Uncle G (talk) 01:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There do appear to be BLP problems with the article, though not the ones the complainant is speaking of. A WP:SPA, 69.204.251.91 (talk · contribs), keeps re-adding WP:COPYVIO material and unsourced material, appears to want to WP:EDITWAR over it, and has refused to discuss proposed changes on the article talk page. There might also be WP:AUTO or WP:COI issues here, though that hasn't been absolutely determined yet. Certainly WP:OWN is an issue. With all of this going on, the article could sure use a lot more eyes. Qworty (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The name of mr. Beji caid essensi in arabic letters is incorrect. The current transliteration is libelous, defamatory and injurious toward this great politician. Please correct. This basic factual information. Best regards

Please verify and correct the arabic spelling of mr. Caid essebsi's nameThe existing one has nothing to do with his name and is an arabic insult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.198.161.160 (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Vandalism reverted and vandal warned. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amiram Goldblum

Amiram Goldblum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

the original page for this person was deleted mostly because of lack of information, and barely being notable. i asked the deleting editor if i can try again, and he said sure. so i did. i posted it a few days ago, and it has been ransacked from A to Z, mostly by an editor who appears to be the subject himself. (if you look at the previous edits of this editor - Rastiniak - you will see he admits that this is he, but now he doesn't. in any case, please look at the article history to see my original article - http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Amiram_Goldblum&oldid=525509548. and then look at the talk page and the main article history page to understand his style of editing and "discussion". in an ideal world, he should learn the rules of wiki, and follow them. but since i don't think that this is likely, based on his track record, i think he needs to be sanctioned if it continues. help, please..... Soosim (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amiram Goldblum has been engaging in disurptive editing in the ikipedia article about himself. Using the editing pen name Rastiniak, he just violate dthe 3RR rule, once again. He has also repeatedly posted slanderous statements on Wikipedia about other people. He has violated every rule in the editing book and must be blocked from further editing. The 132.64.165.121 IL, which is his own personal IP at the Hebrew University and has also been used for dirsruptive editing, should also be blocked indefinitely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.3.193.217 (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on -- are you the one who has been inserting unsourced crap in the article? It's not Rastiniak who needs to be blocked, I think. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This IP editor, almost certainly a sock of the Runtshit vandal, is edit-warring to introduce clearly defamatory material into the article. It was because of Runtshit's behaviour that an earlier article on Goldblum was deleted. RolandR (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soosim, the Steinberg source is rather definitively inappropriate as a source for the material you are attempting to add -- it is quite clearly an opinion piece. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been put on "pending changes" (thanks Mifter). Soosim, I suggest being quite careful about accepting any changes that would have even a whiff of inappropriateness about them. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a good source from academic print house that could be used [20]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A good source for what, Shrike? Soosim's agenda has to do with an episode that took place a couple of months ago; the book you are citing was published in 2010. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A good source for the article of course.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a) unsourced crap is indeed unsourced crap. let's remove it, tag it, or something. b) while my agenda might be obvious, let me state it: here is a well known professor, holding a named chair at a major university, highly involved in the public eye in israeli politics, is involved in some nice things, and is involved in some controversial things (which is not a surprise since israeli politics is full of controversy). the orginal article i wrote and posted a few days ago showed 90% postive or neutral things, and 10% controversial. i accept the issue that the steinberg remarks might not be appropriate here. i have re-edited the page without them. please review the current version, and let's move on to a positive and constructive edit. (and as to the rastiniak/goldblum comments below, i have no clue what he is talking about. i have no rivalry with the professor, not politically not legally - well, i do seem to be having a wiki editing rivalry, yes? - in any case, this editor needs to be watched as he is violating many wiki rules. he is not a new editor, but is clearly a single-subject editor - his page only. that's fine, but the rules, while bendable, shouldn't be carelessly broken.) thanks, Soosim (talk) 06:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soosim's role

The Soosim claim is not true: there was no problem of information, but the information was not considered to be important, except for the right wing rivals of Goldblum who started that page in order to smear his name. The deleting editor of the article in August 2012 is requested to study in depth the current page and to analyze the reasons for re-starting this article. At the time, it was deleted because it was clearly introduced for political and legal smearing, a fact that was validated subsequently by the submission to the court of the smearing (and already obsolete) wikipedia page by Steven Plaut who was charged for libel by Goldblum, together with others. All are extreme right wing sites or organizations, and it is suspected that the current initiator of this article is associated with that group. It is also quite revealing that except for mentioning the murderer of Emil Grunzweig the Goldblum article does not attempt to smear anyone. It was also concluded then that there is no reason to keep the Goldblum article for greatness in Chemistry or in Political activity - Goldblum is not an Israeli politician, but a political activist who resurges once in a few years with an article or a speech (probably not more than once a year on the average since he left Peace Now in 2000....). Goldblum is not even mentioned on the Hebrew Wikipedia....Therefore the Soosim claim for the importance of this page is probably due to his political or legal rivalry with Goldblum. Rastiniak (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)rastiniak[reply]

Ole Nydahl

There has been a long-running attempt (since around February 2010) to include defamatory material in this article by an IP editor, based on a opinion piece in the LaCrosse Tribune. The piece being used as a source is clearly an opinion piece, not a news article, refers to a defamatory claim without reporting on who made the claim or giving any indication whatsover as to where the claim could be substantiated or verified, asks a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" type question, and then tries to make something of the subject's non-denial response. The unsubstantiated defamatory claim has been placed and replaced in the article multiple times by the IP, worded as if true (e.g. [21]).

After thoroughly analysing the situation, I have entirely removed the section based on this material per WP:BLPGOSSIP. I'd like it if someone could review this action and let me know if it was an appropriate response, and if it was indeed appropriate, to assist in convincing the IP editor that they are in error in their opinion that the material should be included. If the IP editor cannot be convinced that they are in error, I think that either the article will need protection or the IPs used by the editor should be blocked.

Thanks. Yworo (talk) 07:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: this is way too gossipy. If this continues, protection is the next best thing; please report to WP:RFP with a link to this discussion. Drmies (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from article talk page) Hi Yworo, why should it matter where the claim originally came from? In his phone-conversation with the Lacrosse columnist, Nydahl not only didn't deny having sexual relations with his students, but also provided a clear rationale - “There’s no teacher-student relationship involved in that,” he said by phone. “They’re Diamond Way Buddhists, but they’re not my students in that moment. They’re equal partners.” The article is still around, unlike many defamatory pieces that unfairly decry Nydahl. This implies that the phone conversation indeed took place that way. I would be glad to discuss that on WP:BLP, but I am not very active. How do I do so? Also, your analysis was very one-sided (you didn't provide a link to Orso's text), and exactly one other poster agreed. I don't think that this is sufficient for taking out the entire piece. Sceptic Watcher (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It matters because we cannot propagate unfounded gossip in a gossip loop. This is specifically prohibited in WP:BLP. In particular, the claim is not sourced, it is anonymous gossip being repeated. Second, the source is not a news source, it's a biased opinion piece in which Orso makes clear his negative personal feelings about this unsourced gossip. Such sources, in and of themselves, are not considered reliable sources when it comes to BLPs. Third, Nydahl does not affirm or admit the gossip. Diamond Way, like many other Buddhist organizations, has multiple centers and local teachers. It may very well be that even if he, as he suggests might have happened, had a relationship with a member of Diamond Way, he may not have been the student's direct teacher. It also leaves open the possibility that the relationship occurred before the individual became a Diamond Way Buddhist and simply continued after she decided to join. The "answer" is ambiguous and does not give us enough information to reliably report it. It's not an admission of anything in particular: there is no accuser, there are no actual news reports based on any accusations or lawsuits. Given the fact that we have no reliable information about the gossip, we cannot be the source for further repetition of unfounded gossip. Now, if sources can be provided detailing an accusation or accusations by someone who considers herself to have been victimized in any way, then we'd have a basis for including it in the article. However, even if we found more reports of the gossip, we could not include it, specifically because it is gossip. This is, essentially, an accusation, for which we require the name of an accuser, whether it be a victim, a prosecutor, or the original source of the gossip (unlikely). For all we know, the "source" from which Orso got this gossip was a phone call from the IP who keeps trying to insert the material into the article. We simply have to know more that that. Hope this answers your question. Yworo (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ole Nydahl has had a relationship with at least one very prominent female student of his: In this article Cathy Hartung describes how she came to be his lover. Interestingly, unlike him, she doesn't distinguish between herself as a lover and herself as a student as strongly as Nydahl does, she just states that she sometimes tries to distinguish those two roles so it doesn't become difficult. The article is in German, unfortunately, but even a translation with Google Translate is sufficient to understand the meaning and the main content - that Cathy Hartung first became a student and then, later, a lover of Ole Nydahl. In this article by Scherer, she is also mentioned as his girlfriend, as she is mentioned in this one. I think in this context, the quotes from Orso's opinion piece make sense and can be used. Nydahl has never denied that she hasn't been his only partner among his students. If I remember correctly, he even names other women that were both partners and students in his biography. In this interview, Ole himself says that he had many women on his travels who learned meditating (from the context it is clear that he taught them). Sceptic Watcher (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, no actual complaints have been raised by anyone. How is a subject's uncontroversial sex life of any interest to our readers? That clearly falls under WP:BLPGOSSIP: "even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject?" Our IP wants to make an "issue" of it. But unless it's been reported as an "issue" or "controversy" in the mainstream press, it's of no interest to our readers and we have a general obligation to maintain the privacy of the living people involved, which includes people other than the subject who are not public figures and whose privacy we should not further violate, even if their involvement with the subject has been reported elsewhere. If and when there is an actual "controversy" that makes the papers rather than just Buddhist-oriented materials, then we can reconsider. Yworo (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The repeating of information here- on a page much more highly visible than the article in question- is not helping the BLP concerns. I've had a look, and agree that the source in question is an opinion piece, and that the info is probably not warranted to be included in the article. If anyone agrees, I'd support removing the info from the article, and hatting the above discussion. Ditch ∝ 03:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get why you think the information isn't important. Nydahl was critizised for this behavior by the German Buddhist Union, and in general, it is noteworthy if a teacher of any kind has sexual relationships with students. For example, in the UK, school teachers are often prohibited by their schools to have relationships with their students even if the students have reached age of consent. It is a piece of information that helps the reader to understand Nydahl's approach to teaching and life better. To compare with another person of interest, the article on Gene Simmons includes information about his sexual relationships. The controversies are similar in nature, if not in scale. In general, it is information that is freely available in primary sources. A compromise might be to quote those sources and ditch the piece by Orso - Hartung basically gives the same rationale in her interview. Sceptic Watcher (talk) 10:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a whole lot experienced with Wikipedia but I would also add that if you add up the journalistic sources, there is more than enough to show a controversy (and might I say, more is coming). There is also a piece in Morgenbladet.no, which has been originally referenced in the article on Nydahl but since removed, where _another_ journalist is critical of a possible compromization of the teacher-student relationship as Nydahl sleeps with his students to a wide degree. Likewise, Danish academic Jørn Borup says that Nydahl is "certainly fond of women", just like there has been internal controversy with the Danish AND German AND Norwegian Buddhist communities over just this. (Google 'Nydahl' and 'Tiltogaard')

Furthermore I not would like to ask readers in general why regulars like Yworo can use threats and attitudes towards me like "now get lost" and "you will be blocked", even though I am merely arguing my point of view, and not even editing any articles? I not do claim that I have acted perfectly, but I offered some real arguments, which were edited away without response. I also inserted quotes which were dismissed because they were non-English, even thought he article containing the quotes was already featured in the article. When I pointed this out, I then get a different explanation. In fact, what consistently seems to happen is that people get brushed off with no arguments or faulty arguments and when they then point out the lacklustre nature of those arguments, they get some better arguments and some aggressiveness / dismissiveness like "get lost." Should Wikipedia function the way that people should restrain their aggressiveness / dismissiveness until they have actually offered good arguments? In any case, it seems there are some regulars who can take all kinds of liberties in editing and insulting that others apparently can't. 89.150.118.208 (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Hoffman

BLP has only one 'source': musician's own website. looks non-notable band-spam. lately seeing anon IPs trying to spread it to other articles ('notable' people section of the charlottesville virginia article for example). Cramyourspam (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hideki Matsui

In the article it states Matsui told a story on an edition of Yes Network's CenterStage about being a right handed hitter as a child. To the best of my knowledge and all research, Matsui has never appeared on CenterStage.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.68.19 (talk • contribs)

Lenore Skenazy

Violation of WP:NPF This relatively unknown person's entry is merely self-promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.61.118 (talk) 15:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems somewhat promotional in tone, but she is certainly WP:Notable after a quick glance. She is a nationally syndicated columnist. Her bio has plenty of references to independent major media coverage. Probably needs some more in-line citations. Is there anything in the article that you consider to be false or defamatory? Sperril (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^ Callinan, Rory. "Cult Leader Jets In to Recruit New Believers: Millionaire cult leader Maharaj Ji is holding a secret session west of Brisbane this weekend" in Brisbane Courier-Mail. 20 September 1997
^ ^a ^b Mendick, Robert. "Cult leader gives cash to Lord Mayor appeal" in Evening Standard. London, 2007-05-31, p. 4. At HighBeam Research
^ ^a ^b Larson, Bob (1982). Larson's book of cults. Wheaton, Ill: Tyndale House Publishers. p. 205. ISBN 0-8423-2104-7. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link)
^ ^a ^b Rhodes, Ron The Challenge of the Cults and New Religions: The Essential Guide to Their History, Their Doctrine, and Our Response, Ch. 1: Defining Cults. Zondervan, 2001, ISBN 0-310-23217-1, p. 32.
^ Callinan, Rory. "Cult Leader Jets In to Recruit New Believers: Millionaire cult leader Maharaj Ji is holding a secret session west of Brisbane this weekend" in Brisbane Courier-Mail. 20 September 1997

[1] Callinan, Rory. "Cult Leader Jets In to Recruit New Believers: Millionaire cult leader Maharaj Ji is holding a secret session west of Brisbane this weekend" in Brisbane Courier-Mail. 20 September 1997

[ES2007-05-31-2] Mendick, Robert. "Cult leader gives cash to Lord Mayor appeal" in Evening Standard. London, 2007-05-31, p. 4. At HighBeam Research

[Larson1982-3] Larson, Bob (1982). Larson's book of cults. Wheaton, Ill: Tyndale House Publishers. p. 205. ISBN 0-8423-2104-7. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link)

[Rhodes2001-4] Rhodes, Ron The Challenge of the Cults and New Religions: The Essential Guide to Their History, Their Doctrine, and Our Response, Ch. 1: Defining Cults. Zondervan, 2001, ISBN 0-310-23217-1, p. 32.

[5] Callinan, Rory. "Cult Leader Jets In to Recruit New Believers: Millionaire cult leader Maharaj Ji is holding a secret session west of Brisbane this weekend" in Brisbane Courier-Mail. 20 September 1997

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

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, 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