![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
There is someone named MatthewVanitas (talk | contribs) who is vandalizing with the Shaikh's Article. He is deleting major portion of the Article arbitrarily without consultations. I provided following references
References 1. ^ American Management Association, International, Europe Chapter 2. ^ British Institute of Management, London 3. ^ Instt.of Chartered Sec.& Administrators, London 4. ^ Association of Business Executives, London 5. ^ CIF FOUNDATION 6. ^ Ahmad Deedat letter page 1 7. ^ Ahmad Deedat letter page 2 8. ^ Qassim Deedat letter 9. ^ Ahmad Deedat letter thanking Shaikh Quadri 10. ^ Tafsee-e-Quran in English by Shaikh Mir Asedullah Quadri
External Links • Correct Islamic Faith International Association • Correctislamicfaith.com • CIFIAGLOBAL
Administrators please help and restrict this vandal.
Guide99 (
talk) 04:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)--
Guide99 (
talk)
04:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Shaikh Mir Asedullah Quadri is a world known figure and respected Shaikh (Head) of Correct Islamic Faith International Association (CIFIA)whose membership of Islamic Institutions is over 330. The Associates of CIFIA are very very well known Muslim scholars of the world. Their biographies are available on Wikipedia and on Association's website.
He is the Head of an NGO "CIF Foundation" registered at Hyderabad, India and there are many Institutions run by this NGO. Details are available on this location of his Website.
http://www.correctislamicfaith.com/cifnetworkinstitutions.htm.
There are 22 books published by Shaikh Mir Asedullah Quadri available in the market, these books are listed on his Wikipedia page and on various sites on Internet.
Therefore, kindly remove the tag you have put on top of his page. Thanks-- Guide99 ( talk) 18:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
There is someone named MatthewVanitas (talk | contribs) who is vandalizing with the Shaikh's Article. He is deleting major portion of the Article arbitrarily without consultations. He can put the tag, but deleting arbitrarily and repeatedly is crude type of vandalism.
I provided following references
References 1. ^ American Management Association, International, Europe Chapter 2. ^ British Institute of Management, London 3. ^ Instt.of Chartered Sec.& Administrators, London 4. ^ Association of Business Executives, London 5. ^ CIF FOUNDATION 6. ^ Ahmad Deedat letter page 1 7. ^ Ahmad Deedat letter page 2 8. ^ Qassim Deedat letter 9. ^ Ahmad Deedat letter thanking Shaikh Quadri 10. ^ Tafsee-e-Quran in English by Shaikh Mir Asedullah Quadri
External Links • Correct Islamic Faith International Association • Correctislamicfaith.com • CIFIAGLOBAL
The above references are more than sufficient. More references will be added to the Article as a routine, as is done in other people's cases. Please, restrict this vandal from this arbitrary deletion.
Guide99 ( talk) 04:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)-- Guide99 ( talk) 04:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Jon Baker (producer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Biog of living person Jon Baker (producer) not verifiable, not a neutral point of view, is a person who is relatively unknown and is mainly self aggrandizing and not factual with research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiapas1966 ( talk • contribs) 15:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I believe this article to be an exercise in promotion or self-promotion. Four references are cited, but none of them are actually about David A. Solomon; they are about an associate, Alex Ionescu. No statements about Mr. Solomon himself are substantiated by references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.156.57.222 ( talk) 15:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Paul West requests that the header to his BLP be changed to Paul West (novelist), instead of Paul West (poet) which is inaccurate.
Paul wrote very little poetry, most of it 50 years ago. He's been a career novelist, publishing 24 novels. I've been able to make corrections to his main entry, but not to the header. Can this please be fixed? Thank you for your work.
-Liz, Paul's assistant — Preceding unsigned comment added by LizWombat ( talk • contribs) 21:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Bradley Manning ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I believe this page is heavily biased. It could use more sources that provide more sources outside of "[expletive deleted] outsider gone mad"
---Unsigned comment of 76.78.33.95 signed by Anythingyouwant ( talk) 05:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
(restart indents) We would have a lot more public figures if you became one by having an "ambition to do something that would get attention." I think WP:NPF should apply to this bio. betsythedevine ( talk) 00:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Goodiepal ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi,
I hope someone can offer me suggestion for how to best handle this situation,
In the section "2001-2003: Narc Beacon", towards the end an incident is described including the company "Koblo". I was one of the founders of the company and have a very different view of what happened.
What's the best way to proceed?
If I start editing the section I feel this could get very contentions. Is it better to just delete the paragraphs?
Thanks in advance,
Emil Tin — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Emiltin (
talk •
contribs)
20:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I've been advised to keep things simple here, so will try; for a somewhat fuller exegesis of the problem please see here and also a similar section on Talk:Christy Clark. There are news stories and facts being broken, by legitimate sources such as court documents etc, which the major media in this province, and nationally, are avoiding covering, or only covering once the heat from blogspace gets to the point it can't be ignored. I am arguing for exceptions, or rule interpretations, concerning blogs which are known and credited as verifiable/reliable and respected sources, in teh absence of reliable/NPOV coverage from the mainstream media, who are allied to the governing party (also as a known fact). Is the People's Daily the only "verifiable source" for events in China? Of course not. So why should the Vancouver Sun and the Globe and Mail be considered more verifiable/reliable when it's known - as a demonstrable fact - that they're not? If the major media avoid a story, does that make it "not a story", even if it's widely reported in "independent media" and "citizen reporters", which in BC have become the mainstay of real information, rather than heavily-laundered/distorted information?? I'm looking for some clarification here; these are not hobby blogs I'm talking about, they're factual-news blogs filling a void that the mainstream media have refused to acknowledge and have in fact sought to discredit, even though they're also forced to cite them on various occasions. That's about as brief as I can keep it without explaining the full political context in greater detail; I'm wary of seeing Wikipedia's rules enforced in such a way as to keep out the facts that the major media won't report.....the Big Media here are far more POV, and often unsubstantiated, than the couple of dozen bloggers who've been seeking to keep facts in front of the public, instead of swept under the rug.... Skookum1 ( talk) 20:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Here is a good example of a puff piece masquerading as news, from today's Vancouver Sun, who are pushing Ms Clark; no mention in this or other articles of her connections (manifold) to the BC Rail case or the disposal of the Fast Ferries to a company for whom her brother was a consultant, no mention that her campaign managers are the same as for Campbell (all candidates are trying to distance themselves from Campbell), no mention of her name surfacing in the unsealed warrants etc etc etc - and you won't find them in the other articles pushing her, either, ditto her very pronounced federal-Liberal connections (which in BC can be political anathema). The poll for this article was commissioned by the same people who own the paper, and who own/are allied to the radio station she's been a host on since her political retirement, and this paper is one of the main contributors to her campaign, and to the party. So when is an advertorial poll a "reliable source" when blogs covering the news stories Big Media won't touch are "unreliable"? Skookum1 ( talk) 21:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Neal King ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article was created by user AntiochLA (currently blocked), a promotional account for the university that employs Neal King. It's like Neal King started the article himself—an article about Neal King. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.57.24 ( talk) 00:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Hafizabad District ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Not sure what's going on with this one, but I removed two pieces of obvious smear. Someone more familiar with the area should review this for more subtle BLP problems. Gigs ( talk) 04:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Could some editors more familiar with BLPs comment at Talk:Julian_Assange#Too much detail in sex crime reports? Up until now, it has been uncertain what he was accused of but now there are sources explaining. I'm not sure whether they should be included or not. (Any advice/help with the article in general is more than welcome). Thanks SmartSE ( talk) 20:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
<Undent>I don't mind being compared to Sherlock Holmes, thanks. :-) Assange is in jail in Britain, and his British lawyer says "the substance of the allegations [was] revealed to the press through unauthorized disclosures...." So there was leaking, and publishing all the leaked details would be more like something WikiLinks would do than we would do. Anyway, the section on this in the article is now very bloated, contrary to WP:Recentism if not WP:Tabloid. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
The Julian Assange article and its talk page are serious violations of WP:BLP in my humble opinion. From everything I've read the charges against him are regarding condom use and that everything else was consensual according to the victim's lawyer. The article mentions the "R" word repeatedly and the talk page comments go even farther (which I won't repeat here).
I don't feel qualified to walk the fine line of WP:BLP on this article in order to fix it, but I do think somebody — preferably a BLP expert — should look in to this. - Hydroxonium ( talk) 09:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
RESOLVED - My issue with the article is resolved as it has been rewritten from a more nuetral point of view. Thanks very much for fixing the issues. I appreciate everybody's efforts. - Hydroxonium ( talk) 02:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Assange sex charges and trial ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This has just been created from the BLP, suggestions, does it, should it warrant its own article? Seems a bit excessive imo. Off2riorob ( talk) 16:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
The section has become very large on the Assange page. There has been significant discussion as to whether the backgrounds of the two women should be discussed. Two points around that issue have been, confidentiality of "victims" and "relevance." The second issue is resolved by having a stand alone page for the trials. It also seems reasonable from the stand point of formatting to have two pages. The issue sexual charges are only becoming more relevant as their own stand alone topic. If and when Assange is transferred to Sweden will add a significant amount of information to the subject. Possible future sections for a page devoted to the charges and trial would be:
Background of Mrs. A and W.
Possible political motives. Political backgrounds of the prosecutors.
Controversy regarding the definition of rape in Sweden.
These issues are quite significant and cannot be fully addressed within the article on Assange. Tim.thelion ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC).
Can I call WP:IGNORE for a little bit here? I have a good reason to want a separate article on the subject. I think that there is enough notable information to make that subheading take up 70 or 80% of the Assange page. Obviously that notable information cannot be added until the case has it’s own page to contain the extra formatting required.
I have a possible compromise for now. We leave the Assange page as it is, and edit in parallel a page on sex related charges against Julian Assange?
One more note. To get any issues of NPOV out of the way. I do NOT have NPOV with regards to wikileaks. I am a strong supporter of the project. HOWEVER, I DO have NPOV with regards to Assange. He is just a person. Wikileaks is an ideology. I am not trying to do this to remove sexual allegations from the Assange page... Tim.thelion ( talk) 22:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I think this atleast furthers my own case for the "parallel editing." I believe that after a week of parallel editing the sexual accusations page would grow SIGNIFICANTLY, and it would then be clear to you all that it should have it's own page. Tim.thelion ( talk) 23:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Please see my Wikipedia:Splitting resolution idea for resolving this issue. Tim.thelion ( talk) 21:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Ouch! Someone delete it as "attack" page under BLP concerns. THis presupposes charges and a trial... neither of which has happened yet! -- Errant ( chat!)
[1] A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 22:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Hashim Thaçi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
More eyes need to help sort out multiple, credible (though as yet untried) allegations of criminal activity currently stated as straightforward fact of criminality.-- Misarxist 10:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Bob Etheridge ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This statement seems rather flimsily supported for my tastes. The article source asserts this happened in an aside but provides no verifiable details such as names or dates. Given the scarcity of details, I also have concerns about
WP:UNDUE.
User:Cresix is willing to edit war over it so I figured it's worth getting a second opinion. Is the sourcing adequate or should we look for something better to support this (contentious?) allegation. Thanks.
Ronnotel (
talk)
18:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Nassim Nicholas Taleb ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Over at Nassim Nicholas Taleb, a self-identified relative of Taleb, IbnAmioun ( talk · contribs) has been editing the article extensively. The overall effect is to glorify Taleb.
Taleb is an author and hedge-fund manager. His track record as a hedge fund manager isn't that great (see Empirica Capital), and this has been established from reliable sources. His supporters try to play down and obfuscate his actual financial results. The article could use a few more neutral editors. A knowledge of finance helps here. -- John Nagle ( talk) 17:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
<Undent>There's now a discussion at ANI. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Shaikh Mir Asedullah Quadri ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
More than 90% of the Article related to Shaikh Mir Asedullah Quadri was deleted without any notice. The persons who deleted asked for outside references, other than Shaikh's Websites.
I provided 4 scan copies of letters Shaikh Deedat ( a very reputable Islamic Scholar) wrote about the works of Shaikh, praising and appreciating his books and works.
In addition, I provided about 19 references from various sources of Registered Islamic Institutions and their Websites.
I provided authentic information that the Shaikh is the Head of "Correct Islamic Faith International Association" (CIFIA) a joint effort of 330 Islamic Institutions and literally all Sunni Scholars of the world.
They are demanding that I should provide newspaper publications or third party books.
In the presence of the above references, their demands are unreasonable. Therefore, I request your intervention to restore Shaikh's Article as soon as possible. Thank you for your assistance.
115.184.12.173 ( talk) 15:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)-- 115.184.12.173 ( talk) 15:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Guide99 is currently indef blocked, so the excitement is likely to be over. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 09:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Claus Zundel ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Article name: Claus Zundel. This violates because the content was copied word for word from the website http://www.worldlingo.com/ma/enwiki/en/Claus_Zundel. This is unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex jazz butterworth ( talk • contribs) 00:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
An editor has recently expressed a concern that the article is unduly negative on the article talk page. After having a look at the article, I share this concern. From reading the article, I come away with the impression that Cooper is most likely guilty of the crime for which he was convicted. From reading about the case in the news (for example: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/opinion/09kristof.html?_r=3&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1291892411-wk/pMPw4PqQwTi5hQGOOxw), it seems that there is a strong chance Cooper is innocent. It would be much appreciated if someone could take a look at this article with a view to making it neutral and compliant with the BLP policy. Thanks, CordeliaNaismith ( talk) 06:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
At the moment everything against Cooper is well-sourced; the pro-innocence stuff less so. I don't see a current NPOV problem, but am open to additional changes. Given the existence of courts repeatedly finding against Cooper, all we can do is tell both sides of the story. THF ( talk) 15:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Jean Ziegler ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Israel, Palestine and the United Nations ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is this biography unbalanced in its inclusion of long critical sections sourced mainly to UN Watch? What about the mention of Ziegler, referenced to the same source, in Israel, Palestine and the United Nations? Itsmejudith ( talk) 16:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Kati Marton's biography lists her year of birth as 1956, yet goes on to say "she started as a production assistant 1971 in her 20s...". If 1956 is the accurate year of Kati Marton's birth, by my math she was 15 years old in 1971, NOT in her 20's, as the biography claims! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebookchick ( talk • contribs) 00:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Another editor added the birthdate of April 3, 1948 (that's a new wrinkle). They cited to "date & year of birth according to LCNAF CIP data". What exactly does that mean? I reverted it asking the editor to go to the Talk page and explain, but perhaps someone here knows more about CIP data than I do (which ain't much). From reading the Wikipedia article, an author's birth date doesn't look like the kind of data that would be below the copyright info of a book, and even if it were, who would have put it here? I certainly wouldn't trust Marton at this point to give her accurate birth date. And how did the editor access the information?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 01:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Let's look for Kati Marton's "Authorized Heading":
Her A death in Jerusalem, 1994 b CIP t.p. (Kati Marton) data sheet (b. 4/3/48)
Alas, I disagree Bbb23. But I'm going to let it go. It's not my call. That's why I like wikipedia so much. But I don't (outwardly) have a problem: let's leave this information out of the article for now and see what happens.
But privately, I've got a problem with not including some information about this birth-date inconsistency (and it's not the only inconsistency re; Marton's biography) in the Wikipedia article.
Now this is just my opinion (of course) but a responsible article on Marton would at the very least mention the continuing (the ongoing & attendant) confusion and questions that accompany a discussion of Marton's biography (not her life; it's her life: I'm talking about her biography---the public record of her life). And that biography should (tacitly) be shaped and formed by this consideration: the public and civic trust.
Why?
Marton was a public servant and there are mimimum standards we demand of our public servants and officials. More so regarding Marton: both as a journalist (a profession that should demand from us a mimimal standard of credibility) and the partner of a civil servant ( a government official, Holbooke, who just recently died) who is entrusted with our constitutional authority and law on foreign soil. Both of these facets of her biography demand nothing less than this from the public: integrity, truthfulness, and straightforwardness.
But questions remained then and remain now.
For example: a journalist and the partner of a high ranking public official/diplomat (again, now recently passed) is not forthcoming about the year she was born? There are other inconsistencies to her biography as well. There has to be a reason. Yes, she has written and spoken powerfully, movingly, and in-depth about her journalist parents and their terrifying plight in Hungary with the authorities. But as the poets reminds us, what reveals is really (or is also) what conceals. Christian Roess ( talk) 10:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Girls' Generation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I have reverted two edits by a new user how has made biased and unsourced that violates the policy on BLP. The page name is Girls' Generation. I am allowed to make a third revert according to 3RR, but I shall consider informing the correct group of people. The statements are unsourced and falsely accuse (in an indirect way) the group of being awarded the prizes they shouldn't have received (in the editor's opinion). Please help. Farjad0322( talk| sign| contribs) 12:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Joe Sioufi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Written by Starlight Photography, which is him. Also has no relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstrofbass ( talk • contribs) 01:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Peter T. King ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article seemed to go way overboard on criticism, in several cases completely unsourced criticsm or that wilfully misrepresented sources. I've raised the main issues here, however based on edits such as this the IP editor responsible for a large amount of the problems doesn't seem to understand how we write about living people and will edit war to maintain their edits, so more eyes on this article would be welcome. Thanks. 2 lines of K 303 11:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Possibly defamatory/libellous content added here has already been reverted by another IP but may need actually removing - could someone please have a look? Also, I have not warned the user who added it as I'm not sure which warning/level combination is appropriate for this kind of spite: can you please either do so, or advise here? Thanks in advance, best wishes, DBaK ( talk) 17:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Somebody is very motivated to add 2 minor incidents to this bio, describing them to make them sound bad for the subject -- now the third sock in a row is at work on it .. socks reported at SPI but as fast as one gets blocked a new one pops up to editwar. Protect the bio? betsythedevine ( talk) 23:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
The "do no harm" principle does not justify the removal of relevant negative information about a living person. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Thus, they must represent fairly and without bias all significant views and information (that have been published by reliable sources). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoiding_harm
A few months ago I looked at the redirects to Gordon Brown and found several slightly offensive redirects. eg "Great ditherer" redirected to Brown's page. When I reported it, this was quickly fixed by somebody deleting the offensive pages. Recently, I checked the redirects to David Cameron and found that "Bumsex" was a redirect to that page. Again this has been fixed (by re-redirecting "Bumsex" to a more appropriate target page). However, the fact that I have found this kind of vandalism twice, suggests it is a more general problem and thought I should bring it to the attention of the community. Bluewave ( talk) 10:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I've found Couch jumping and One Take Watson?-- Scott Mac 21:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Beau Tatchell is a piece of juvenilia which is marked for speedy but has been tagged with a hang-on tag which has presumably delayed its deletion. However, it is clear the article is about a 17year old school boy from Abbs Cross School. As this is about a minor I believe it should be deleted with all possible haste. Thanks Velella Velella Talk 14:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
The Tom Corbett "whistleblower" is back. I've been fighting this one for a while, they are very persistent.
This appears to be a vanity article for a figure of limited notability -subject has never won a public election or featured significantly in his field.
Problems with NPOV - style and content indicate promotional publicity and some claims lack Verifiability.
Probable COI arising from self-editorship given trivial nature of some clauses - look at edits for MaddoxFordNabokov27. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeppelin75 ( talk • contribs) 20:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
There used to be a wikipedia article for Dewey Bunnell. But no more. It's now a redirect page. Dewey Bunnell is an original member of the iconic music group America, who both wrote and sang the lead on such Number #1 (Billboard magazine) hits as A Horse With No Name or top 5 hits such as Ventura Highway. He's still with the group. The other two original members of the group have a Wikipedia article. But not Bunnell.
Playing games with policies and guidelines in order to avoid the spirit of communal consensus, or thwart the intent and spirit of policy, is strictly forbidden.
Touché--- Christian Roess ( talk) 22:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so.
Can editors with some grasp of WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP please keep an eye on Philip Green so it doesn't get taken over by UK Uncut activists? The current lead in particular is a joke. Fences& Windows 21:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Artel Jarod Walker ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is a repeated problem. Person depicted in this photo is not Artel Jarod Walker. Please remove this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drgreative ( talk • contribs) 12:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure what is going on with this article but it is a repeat problem and we appear to be unable to do anything to protect the living person and he seems to be of little note anyways as per the request I support deletion. I am not even sure iits a real person..anyone got any ideas about this person and article..? Off2riorob ( talk) 13:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
OK. We've got "Artel Jarod Walker" "Artel Great" and "Artel Kayàru" being identified here. Are they the same person? Can we reliably source this?
Thoughts? I'm thinking we might cut the knot and take it to AFD as all being unverifiable - no sources available for anything. I'm still looking though.-- Scott Mac 13:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Artel Great = ARTEL Kayaru
http://w11.mocovideo.jp/movie_detail.php?KEY=gpKSjAGky0s, the african person in this clip - and not the person in the pic we have . This is the twitter pic
http://twitter.com/#!/artelgreat - the imbd pic look like a fake to me
Off2riorob (
talk) 13:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
He was in this movie
Dahmer_(film) - the credits appear to be under Artel Kayeru, I think that is the name the article should be under.
Off2riorob (
talk)
13:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I've prodded the article. Someone should probably alert imdb.-- Scott Mac 13:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I am unsure as to note and the prod, he has been in a few things and there are links back to him, I think the current name is perhaps uncitable but under Artel Kayaru also known as Artel Great ... he might have note, and left under pending protection as is now.. Off2riorob ( talk) 14:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
!Commons admin please read thread and review File:Ajw2.JPG.-- Scott Mac 14:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Fake sources; filled with personal info. Please remove contents asap! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.173.53 ( talk) 05:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Elizabeth Ann Roads, MVO (born 1951) is Snawdoun Herald of Arms in Ordinary and Lyon Clerk and Keeper of the Records for the Court of the Lord Lyon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.195 ( talk) 09:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Dear Admin,
I have noticed a correction in the biography of Y.S.Jaganmohan Reddy.
Political Life Jagan started his political career by campaigning for Congress party leaders in 2004 elections in Y.S.R. District. In 2009, he was elected to the Parliament from Kadapa District constituency.
The correction is that there is no Y.S.R District in Andhra Pradesh. Please change that. It is only Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy and his associates who call the Kadapa district as Y.S.R. District. Please make the necessary changes.
Changes would be appreciated.
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.137.17 ( talk) 12:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
The article is not sourced nor does it contain sufficient evidence to suggest why this page should exsist. Fryertuk ( talk) 15:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I've just removed large BLP violations from this French industrialist. It needs some attention, preferably from someone who reads French. Does the source support the remaining material?-- Scott Mac 19:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
This article contained promotional and poorly sourced material. I cleaned up citations and removed sentences that were not relevant to a public biography. Should meet quality standards now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.161.72.89 ( talk) 01:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Even if the man might be marginally notable ( [20] and [21] arguably count as independent, in-depth coverage), his article is far more infomercial than neutral presentation. If someone could excise and reformulate large parts of this material, I'm sure that would mark an improvement. - Biruitorul Talk 01:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Charles Rackoff ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The biography of Charles Rackoff, a living computer scientist, contravenes WP:BLP. Rackoff, a low-profile individual, is notable for his decorated career as a researcher in cryptography and computational complexity. Yet a substantial part of his biography is devoted to comments (allegedly made by email) of his Montreal Massacre Remembrances at U of T. This event is not notable and its inclusion in the biography is indiscriminate and unfairly skews the article away from Rackoff's notability. Further, the quality of the reference for this event (a CBC `news' article) should be questioned as it gives no author.
Edit wars consistently rage about this article; assistance is requested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emil post ( talk • contribs) 15:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
(Resetting indents, hope that is OK.) Charles Rackoff's comments in question were sent in his campus email to faculty and staff of the university. They were covered on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation web site as already mentioned. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2000/12/07/massacre_email001207.html Also in The Globe and Mail (165 year old Canadian newspaper with circulation of 307,330 national edition) Colin Freeze, "Klan Furor Mars Massacre Vigil", December 7, 2000. Rackoff was quoted by one of the legislators in a session of the Ontario Legislative Assembly, http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/house-proceedings/house_detail.do;jsessionid=c72d607830d85bc305417ae040bfb3efc4adab5c5f0f.e3eQbNaNa3eRe3aOaNyNaN0Pay1ynknvrkLOlQzNp65In0?locale=en&Parl=37&Sess=2&Date=2001-12-06 His remarks also received extensive coverage and commentary in student newspapers at Canadian universities, http://www.library.ubc.ca/archives/pdfs/ubyssey/UBYSSEY_2001_01_23.pdf, http://mediumonline.ca/backissues/Archives/January8/default.html http://www.themanitoban.com/system/manit/issues/000/004/083/2Dec2009_final_screen_quality.pdf?1259651997 According to one of these accounts, the president of Rackoff's university issued a statement calling his words "repugnant" but defending his academic freedom (similar comments of university spokesperson quoted in CBC piece). Rackoff's statement was discussed in a law review article, "Civil Disobedience and Academic Freedom", by Leslie Green in the Osgood Hall Law Journal http://www.arts.yorku.ca/politics/ncanefe/docs/civil%20disobeidience%20and%20academic%20freedom%20by%20L_%20Green.pdf Ironically, Rackoff's email is quoted in the Wikipedia article on the Montreal Massacre, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_Polytechnique_massacre (must we now delete that too?) To sum up, Rackoff used his position as a professor to express an opinion in a widely disseminated email sent from his university account, defended his views in an interview with the Canadian Broadcast Corporation, and was criticized by his own employer. But its not a PUBLIC matter and should not appear in his neatly groomed Wikipedia biography. A radically wrong result, people. Yours in distress Jonathanwallace ( talk) 01:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
JonathanWallace,
If the proposal of removal of the CBC article were an attempt to white-wash the blemished career of an academic, then I agree fully that the suppression of these articles and this discussion would be wrong. It is now clear to me that the main reason this article (and event) deserves suppression from Rackoff's biography is that none of these sources, despite their appearance in prominent Canadian news outlets, are a balanced account, nor do they even contain enough facts to draw any conclusions.
Here are the only facts I can see. We have a quote from Rackoff in an email, the fact that this quote was distributed to the U of T campus, and that Rackoff did not retreat from his position in an interview.
All context of this email is missing. Did Rackoff really write to entire campus? Or did he communicate this statement to an individual by email, and this was eventually copied to the rest of the campus? Did Rackoff really have nothing to communicate in the interview other than a refusal to retreat from his position? Or was what he had to say so reasonable and airtight that any quote could only provoke sympathy for the professor?
The poverty of facts admits almost any explanation (and I feel the current suggestions are attempts to find controversy at the expense of a decorated academic). To call such accounts journalism is what is truly repugnant. Perpetuating this sensationalism does a disservice not only to Rackoff, but to free speech and, ultimately, democracy.
If Rackoff, completely unprovoked, spammed the campus with an email saying little more than `Feminism is the Klan!', this certainly would be an abuse of his position as professor and the University would be unconstrained by freedom of speech concerns in seeking his removal. Instead, we have some condemnations but little else (which to me suggests there was much internal turmoil over this event, further suggesting there is much more to the story than we are hearing).
The ultimate absurdity to me is that Rackoff's quote is expressing real sympathy for the victims, and frustration at the idea that these people are being forgotten when we are use this event as a political platform. Sure, this is expressed in a bombastic way, but that sentiment should be evident, especially in the context of the memorial. Other readings - such as Leslie Green's - are facile at best, and deliberate misinterpretations at worst.
In closing, all accounts of this very brief snapshot of Rackoff's life are very sketchy and to entertain them in a biography as short as Rackoff's cannot be considered fair or balanced by any stretch. This remains only a topic of discussion due to wikipedia, not because of continued notability. Removal of them from the biography is the right action and one that has now been taken. I hope we can consider this matter closed. -- Emil post ( talk) 22:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
The "do no harm" principle does not justify the removal of relevant negative information about a living person. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Thus, they must represent fairly and without bias all significant views and information (that have been published by reliable sources).
I agree. I think the deletion of the Rackoff information was very wrong and a violation of NPOV. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 22:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Dear madam/sir,
I am Gerşom Qiprisçi, and my biography in Enlgish and Russian is sistematically vandalised by Mr. Libor Valko from Czech republic. He claims to know things about me which any prove cannot be provided by him. He was already warned by Wikipedia editors.
I do not have a problem of anyone who wishes to write things about me, but it should be based on some documents, not on hatred.
Here is the text of warning sent by administrator of Czech Wikipedia to Mr. Libor Valko to stop his activities violating rules of Wikipedia in Czech.
Káhirská geniza MOŽNÉ PORUŠENÍ AUTORSKÝCH PRÁV Oceňujeme Váš příspěvek, ale bohužel nemůžeme přijmout text či obrázky chráněné autorským právem převzaté bez dovolení z jiných webových stránek či odjinud. Podívejte se, prosíme, na stránku Káhirská geniza, a pokud jste autorem původního díla nebo máte od autora svolení k dalšímu šíření podle licence GFDL, pošlete o tom e-mail do OTRS. Užitečné rady o přispívání do Wikipedie a o některých základních pravidlech najdete na stránkách Wikipedie:Průvodce a Wikipedie:Váš první článek. Díky za pochopení. [editovat]Vážený kolego, Předpokládám, že to Vy jste onen Libor Valko, o kterém jsem se doslechl i já (a to je co říci, normálně se zabývám tím, co mě baví, nikoli zkazkami typu "jedna paní povídala..."). Každopádně, pokud chcete přispěvovat, prosím bez invektiv, urážek a nepodložených tvrzení (viz. článek Salmon ben Jeruham). Vidím, že nejsem první, kdo Vás o to žádá, vezměte si to prosím k srdci. Toto je encyklopedie, kterou používají i normální lidé, kteří se chtějí něco dovědět, ne propaganda k šíření nenávisti. Chováte-li vůči někomu či něčemu soukromou zášť, můžete si ji vylévat na soukromém fóru. Děkuji, hezký den --Thomazzo 00:29, 19. 11. 2007 (UTC)
http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskuse_s_wikipedistou:194.228.88.134 — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Gerşom Qiprisçi (
talk •
contribs)
16:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
The article is well written, and in a neutral tone. However, after some biographical facts, and some recounting of this person's accomplishments, there are one or two statements pertaining to some legal issues reported in the press [22]. This person's legal status has not been deteremined by a court of law. In other words, there is no final judgement from a court of law. Finally, the number of references concerning this one set of legal issues signifigantly outnumbers references related to other facts. Hence, I have to at least be concerned that the focus of this article, is this person's legal situation, and not his biography. In addition, I am removing the material pending the outcome of this discussion. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 04:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Per my 14:00 remark, I've cited to one San Francisco Chronicle story with bare-bones facts, and double-checked its accuracy by checking dockets to confirm that the charges are still pending. The article was created just this week, so I've PROD'd it per BLP1E, and will nominate for AFD if the PROD is rejected. THF ( talk) 14:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I've gone over all of the "references" for the rest of the article, and only one was an actual reference. The rest were just gratuitous external links to the websites of organizations mentioned. Yworo ( talk) 21:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I just found an interesting essay here entitled "Avoiding Harm", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoiding_harm It states that "Do no harm" was considered, and rejected as a BLP standard.
"This principle was ultimately rejected: while avoiding harm remains an important consideration within our living persons policy, doing no harm has been found to be incompatible with our obligation to maintain a neutral point of view when writing about all subjects, including living people.
It is interesting to note that several recent outcomes on this noticeboard, including this one and Charles Rackoff, very clearly utilize a "do no harm" standard as if it had been adopted by consensus. The essay has a good analysis of the deletion issue, discussing whether a person is notable if only known for one event. Assuming that the person otherwise passes the notability standard:
In circumstances where a person has been charged with a crime, it is acceptable for Wikipedia to give details of the ongoing investigation and/or trial, but speculation must be avoided.
The ssayist says the following about NPOV:
The "do no harm" principle does not justify the removal of relevant negative information about a living person. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Thus, they must represent fairly and without bias all significant views and information (that have been published by reliable sources).
I have no problem with the deletion of Kyle's bio. If the bio remains here, the information about his arrest should absolutely be included, in a carefully phrased sentence at the bottom, linking to a source such as ABC News. To maintain the bio of a living individual reviewing academic accomplishments, while avoiding any mention of an arrest and pending criminal charges, is a clear NPOV violation. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 22:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Jonathanwallace ( talk) 22:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Jonathanwallace, and suggest he raise this at WT:BLP. A consensus on clarifying language is important. It's especially important because the policy is regularly being interpreted inconsistently: in biographies of right-wing figures, NPOV usually trumps BLP (and partisan attacks on the subject and partisan sources are included in the article), but the reverse is often true in biographies of left-wing figures (where negative information on the subject is to be excluded). See, for example, J. Michael Farren, a minor Bush administration official whose arrest has been treated differently than the left-wing Kyle's (though, admittedly, Farren's article existed before his arrest, which is not true of Kyle's). While it may be a sound reading of BLP to delete the Kyle article in toto, it is not a sound reading of BLP to require deletion of incontrovertibly true, verifiable, reliably sourced and notable facts. (For the record, I think the arrest should be included in the Farren article, but I don't see any argument for distinguishing the Farren arrest from the Kyle arrest: they both received national press coverage, and are both incontrovertibly true/verifiable and well-sourced.) THF ( talk) 05:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Is a BLP. One source [23] is quite clearly an opinion piece (it is labeled "commentary" in the source). Ought this fact, that it is an opinion piece, be at least noted when using it as a source in a BLP? In addition, the opinion piece links Plimer to another living person - Gina Rinehart. Does WP:BLP require stronger sourcing than an opinion coluumn for such a linkage (which ascribes ownership of a group to that person)? See [24] Collect ( talk) 15:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
This article contains much false, defamatory and libelous material that violates the biographies of living persons policy. It was likely written by a supporter(s) of a political opponent of the subject politician. It is not neutral in tone and highlights the political opponent's defeat of the subject in an attempt to "rub it in" and embarrass the subject. Much of the information is not verifiable and is original. Clear evidence that the article was politically motivated and defamatory is the charge that the subject is under an ethics violation, which was a false rumour spread against the subject in a recent campaign. The article's only reference is the Maryland Manual, the official encyclopedia of Maryland government officials, yet much of the article is not derived from that source. The Maryland Manual does contain truthful and factual information about the subject. An objective and verifiable article about the subject, entirely based on the Maryland Manual ( http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/05sen/html/msa14609.html), is as follows, which should be substituted for the current violative article:
Michael G. Lenett is a member of the Maryland Senate, serving State Legislative District 19 in Montgomery County, Maryland, since January, 2007. His term ends in January, 2010. Lenett currently serves in the following positions in the Maryland Senate:
Assistant Deputy Majority Whip, 2008- Member, Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee, 2007- Member, Environment Subcommittee, 2007- Member, Ethics & Election Law Subcommittee, 2007- Member, Health subcommittee, 2008- Chair, Special Committee on Renewables & Clean Energy, 2007- Member, Joint Committee on Federal Relations, 2007- Member, Joint Committee on Health Care Delivery and Financing, 2007- Member, Joint Subcommittee on Program Open Space and Agricultural Land Preservation, 2007- Member, Joint Committee on the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays Critical Area, 2009- Member, Task Force to Implement Holocaust, Genocide, Human Rights and Tolerance Education, 2007-08
Lenett serves or has served as a member of the following Maryland state organizations:
Statewide Empowerment Zones for Seniors Commission, 2007-09 State Advisory Council on Quality Care at the End of Life, 2007- Maryland School-Based Health Care Policy Advisory Council, 2007- Strategic Energy Investment Advisory Board, 2008- Commission on Environmental Justice and Sustainable Communities, 2008- Maryland Youth Advisory Council, 2008- (Co-Chair) Task Force to Study Financial Matters Relating to Long-Term Care Facilities, 2008- (Co-Chair) Maryland Communities for a Lifetime Commission, 2010-
As a Maryland Senator, Lenett earned the following awards:
Legislator of the Year Award, Maryland Works, 2008 Environmental Champion Award, Environment Maryland, 2009 Maryland Legislative Champion Award, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, 2009
Prior to serving in the Maryland Senate, Lenett held the following positions:
Special Counsel, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 1993 (Staff Attorney, 1990-92) Counsel, United States Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Monopolies and Business Rights, 1993-95 Counsel, United States Senate Judiciary Committee, 1995-96 Senior Counsel, Of Counsel, Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, 1996- Member, Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee, 2002-06 (Chair, Issues Committee; Chair, Strategic Direction Committee; Co-Chair, Democratic Forum) Member, Mid-County Citizens Advisory Board, Montgomery County, 1998-2002 (Chair, Public Awareness Committee). Adjunct Professor, The National Law Center, George Washington University, 1992-93 President, District 19 Democratic Club, 1998-2002 Member, Board of Directors, Family Learning Solutions, 2000-02 Member, Advisory Council, Trash-Free Potomac Watershed Initiative, 2007- Member, Board of Trustees, Community Services for Autistic Adults and Children, 2010- Member, Board of Directors, B'Nai B'rith Homecrest House
Lenett was born in New York, New York, on February 24, 1962. His education is as follows: Brandeis University, B.A., magna cum laude, 1984; Georgetown University, M.A. (American Government), 1988; Georgetown University Law Center, J.D., 1988; LL.M. (Securities Law), with distinction, 1992; Senior Articles & Notes Editor, American Criminal Law Review, 1988.
Lenett is admitted to the Maryland Bar (1989), District of Columbia Bar (1990), and Bar Association of Montgomery County, and is admitted to practice in the United States Supreme Court and numerous federal appellate and trial courts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlenett ( talk • contribs) 22:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
This article is more like a political brochure than a biography. Given that Ted Lieu is currently running for office, this is an inappropriate use of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.254.80.216 ( talk) 04:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
There is a comment on this page that says Kathyrn Crosby should "rot in hell" - these comments should be taken out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.71.8.26 ( talk) 04:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Don't see it so I gather someone already did. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 15:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I have personal knowledge regarding this article having been a family member of one of three individuals involved in Datapoints creation. My father Gerad B. Martin was also involved in the computer and left in 1972. I have also had personal contact with the late Gus Roach and Phil Ray. SLast year I corrected this my putting my fathers name in the article and it was deleted. I find this very insulting that his name is or not included in the article. I am challenging this article to have my fathers name include. Not only that but demanding that my father get credit for the work he has done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.21.96.245 ( talk) 16:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
My attempts at reverting problems with this article have been reverted by IP's a couple of times.
1. Subject of article has dubious notability. 2. IP's have added/replaced PERSONDATA template with info for another person. (as of the moment, PERSONDATA template is correct) 3. IP's have added sources unrelated to the subject of the article. 4. IP's have added potentially troublesome BLP statements, that are totally unsupported. 5. IP's have removed maintenance and BLP PROD templates without correcting the underlying problems.
I could do one more revert without violating 3RR, but it seems pointless, so I will just let you folks handle it, thanks. Safiel ( talk) 17:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Richard Littlejohn ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There is an ongoing dispute on this article. A user keeps trying to insert a 'Criminal Record' section. However the information is not properly sourced but they keep reverting it. The 'source' they are trying to use is a Book Review, a very opinionated review also which does not support the claims they are making in the article. I have tried explaining this but they insist the 'source' is reliable. I would be grateful for your intervention. Christian1985 ( talk) 17:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
The article is really ugly, but probably that can't be helped considering how controversial the person is. Wolfview ( talk) 21:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
A new problem has cropped up in this article. One editor wants to add a section called "Praise from Nick Griffin" with the following sentence: "Littlejohn was described by Nick Griffin, the leader of the British National Party, as his favourite journalist." Other editors think the section and the sentence don't belong in the article for different reasons. My reason for opposing it is that it's trivial and doesn't belong at all, let alone in its own section. I would say that the majority of editors who have commented agree it doesn't belong, but you can read the Talk page and decide that one for yourselves.
Several of us have tried to keep it out, but it's become too close to an edit war for my comfort. In the latest "reversion", an editor (EelJuice) who has not even contributed to the discussion put the section back in. I'm not sure what he's up to, but his history alone is weird as he hasn't been oon Wikipedia in years, and the first thing he does upon his return is to revert another editor's removal of the material with the following truly bizarre edit summary: "In philosophy, you have to reckon with the implicit level of an accumulated reserve, and thus with a very great number of relays, with the shared responsibility. Clothes off, face down, ass up, c'mon". I reverted EelJice and pointed him to the Talk page and to WP:EDSUM. He then reverted my reversion labeling it vandalism. And that's where it stands at present.
Some help would be appreciated.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 01:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
In fact, Littlejohn's criminal record has (a) been reported as fact in the Observer, and (b) been admitted by Littlejohn on national television. There are links to both in the discussion. Given we have video of Littlejohn himself admitting it, and the broadcast date etc, on BBC TV, it seems bizarre to me to suggest that we can't prove it to be true. The fact Christian1985 accuses anybody who tries to insert any information he doesn't like of being "left-wing" and "biased" is frustrating: the facts are pretty well established and easily meet BLP and NOTE criteria. This is a public figure who frequently comments on law and order issues, who himself has a criminal record. David r from meth productions ( talk) 23:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
A highly skewed account that presents the "official" version of the man's life and leaves out swathes of embarrassing stuff, both from the early life and, more worryingly still, from his time as self-appointed ruler of the Ghanaian people. Not to mention his career since stepping down as a serial destabiliser of political and military life in Ghana. The list of "Achievements" at the tail end is particularly ludicrous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.184.222 ( talk) 18:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm starting a project to review all our Scientology related articles. Some of the BLPs have already given concern. Uninvolved BLP savy people would be very welcome.-- Scott Mac 21:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The relocation to Baltimore section in this article reeks. It's completely unsourced, and essentially a Cleveland fan's apology on why Art Modell is a bad person. Now this is a very very notable event in the man's life (and sport's history in the US), so I feel blanking it is a bad idea. Can anyone take a look into it and improve it? Or at least source the negative statements? Magog the Ogre ( talk) 06:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
The section "Detainment and Doping Charge" is libellous and extremely defamatory. Mr Freeman was not detained at all by police or charged with drug abuse, nor was he asked to "not come back" to Sweden. Not even the newspaper article says this. It was originally in Swedish.
The police at Sundsvall routinely test bodybuilders because they have had issues with local bodybuilders abusing drugs. Mr Freeman at no point was accussed of such and there is no evidence of such. Drug abusers do not get questioned and left alone. This article is unfair to Mr Freeman. If Wikipedia continues to host it, it may be subject to a libel charge. Figaro90210 ( talk) 01:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)Figaro90210
I have edited Yorvit’s “Personal Life” category to include his son Julian Xavier Houston. I have legal documentation obtained from the California Department of Child Support Enforcement stating that Yorvit Torrealba is the father. I also have DNA papers from the laboratory stating the same. How can I send in legal proof that can be referenced on your website? This is very frustrating and very upsetting to a 10 year old boy that doesn’t understand why this is being done to him. I have 2 wikipedia users delete my edit and challenge the information.
The information is wrong, the title refers to Abel Ramírez and the content is about Christian Armas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.214.253.124 ( talk) 20:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Muhammad al-Yaqoubi (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
This article is proving troublesome. A couple of weeks ago it was a puffy, mostly unsourced steaming pile. Then a new editor called
Sacredknowledge (
talk ·
contribs) made changes that deleted the only source that had been on the page, and I reverted and stubbified. Sacredknowledge is persisting in removal of the source -- and, it seems, for good reason: the source (
here) is merely a copy of the earlier Wikipedia version. Sacredknowledge says "Up-to-date biography to be uploaded shortly" -- which implies to me that we'll be offered something that won't exactly be suitable. One to keep an eye on.
Nomoskedasticity (
talk)
22:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
The article as written is fiction. Does everyone who spreads lies on the internet merit a Wikipedia page? If anyone wants to write me, [redacted] - I welcome vigorous discussion on Moret and the other con artists who make their living travelling around the world lying about themselves and depleted uranium. Wikipedia should not allow itself to be used to advertise them
I have attempted to edit this article before but Moret's disciples will not permit the edits.
The article begins as follows:
Leuren Moret is a former scientific laboratory employee known for her study of the adverse health and environmental effects of depleted uranium. Moret worked for two periods at two U.S. nuclear weapons laboratories, including Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. She has claimed the status of a whistleblower in connection with her work at Lawrence Livermore.
Moret briefly worked as a Senior Scientific Technologist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory from 1989 to 1990. Moret is not "known for her study" - she has no peer reviewed articles pertaining to the subject and her research is confined to the internet. She has done no independent field or laboratory research and probably is not academically capable of doing so. Moret has self-publicized that she is a scientific expert. Moret does claim to be a whistleblower. There is no record that Moret ever made a claim with the Department of Labor under the Whistleblower Protection Act.
Background
Moret earned her Bachelor of Science in Geology at University of California, Davis in 1968, and her Master of Arts in Near Eastern Studies from University of California, Berkeley in 1978.
the above education is correct - the only completely true entry in this entire biography
After working 5 years at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Moret was a Geology graduate student at Lawrence Berkeley. Moret was not classified as an employee but as a student. She may have studied for five years, but probably did not. She left the UC Davis doctoral program that she had been studying under Professor Ian Carmichael after assisting with research for the doctoral thesis of now distinguished Professor Dr Jonothan Stebbins of Stanford University.
and two years at the Livermore nuclear weapons lab,
Moret worked 11 months at Livermore.
she left Livermore and now studies and publicizes the health effects of radiation exposure.
Livermore probably terminated Moret's employment. They will not reveal that fact, but given the level of investigation required to be cleared to work at Livermore, it is highly likely that Moret never obtained the required high level security clearance. Moret claims to have left due to her being a whistleblower. There is no record of Moret's having been a whistleblower or of having provided any meaningful information to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The NRCs's ADAMS files show three documents from Moret, one is a post card from an anti-nuclear campaign that Moret sent in. The other two are records of Moret's signing petitions.
She has worked extensively on the impact of radiation on public health from nuclear power plants and atmospheric testing and how radiation moves through the environment.
Moret speaks extensively (if someone pays her to come - they had a benefit concert in the Kootenay Moutain community of Nelson, British Columbia to finance bringing Moret to their town)about uranium and DU. Moret has never worked, let alone extensively on this subject. Moret's videos include false claims about depleted uranium in Hawaii, atmospheric testing causing autism and reduced SAT scores and the hands of Nobel Laureate Dr Glenn T Seaborg turning to claws. Moret now rails about the University of Alaska HAARP research program falsely claiming that it has caused hurricanes and earthquakes.
I am more than willing to discuss this at some length with anyone. I have documents to support every word that I say. Thank you.
Roger- [redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.101.83.227 ( talk • contribs) 04:51, 21 December 2010
No sources and probably insufficient notability. Should probably be deleted. Also, it's probably true that she's, ah, incorrect in the things she promulgates. This is the dead link from the article. BE——Critical__ Talk 05:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Dear Wiki Editors:
You guys removed my comment about Kelly Ayotte re: "Free Press"
It was short, factual and unbiased and verified by a substantial New England newspaper.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_PQbVMfpHJBg/TRDd36LG-8I/AAAAAAAAEFc/BT5ZKNXS53I/s1600/Picture+97.jpg
Why did you do this, I demand an explanation because you routinely publish the fact that lawsuits are pending against people. This removal smells like fear, or perhaps someone bought you out?
Prove otherwise.
Christopher King, J.D. http://KingCast.net -- Reel News for Real People. 617.543.8085m —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.89.115 ( talk) 23:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
That's a lie. Here is a direct quote: Among the legal questions the suit could potentially raise is whether a private gathering that vigorously seeks media coverage can bar or expel some reporters but not others. It also raises the question of whether the author of an opinionated blog should be afforded the same protections as a mainstream newspaper, television or radio reporter.
So how exactly does that not support what I said? It is a secondary source and it clearly says that Ayotte believes she can expel some reporters but not others, which is exactly what I said, i.e. "does not believe all media are entitled....."
Okay Andy, this is all straight from the story:
Ayotte, the Nashua and New Hampshire GOP and Nashua Police were sued in the fall of 2009 by an online journalist Christopher King, J.D. who has experience at traditional newspapers. Video clips on KingCast show King with a camera attempting to question Ayotte at the Arpaio fund-raiser. Republican officials approached Nashua police, who asked King to leave. Among the legal questions the suit could potentially raise is whether a private gathering that vigorously seeks media coverage can bar or expel some reporters but not others. It also raises the question of whether the author of an opinionated blog should be afforded the same protections as a mainstream newspaper, television or radio reporter. The lawsuit is ongoing in New Hampshire Federal District Court, 2010-CV-501. http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/887281-196/blogger-sues-ayotte-others-over-access.html
I'll be waiting.
Hello, having one true and accurate post about a pending Federal lawsuit that involves access to alternative media in the electronic age hardly makes this entry a "coat rack" for the lawsuit. I was on NH Capital Access TV for two half-hour segments discussing this matter, so it is a matter of interest to reasonable people. http://nhcaptv.com/episode/142 And lest you forget where you come from, you are indeed "alternative media in the electronic age" so my efforts are indirectly benefitting you. Lastly, I'm not saying you have been bought out in general, but you are acting like it in this specific instance, and I do not apologize for my opinion, others are watching and agree with me. Your turn. What do I need, a letter from the Pope? Sure there is a Conflict issue but that pales in comparison to the magnitude of the issue here. Imagine if major (or minor) U.S. Politicos can start threatening arrest against whatever reports they don't like? Are one of you next? And whether some of you like it or not I have substantial journalist experience before and after I served as an Assistant Attorney General, and the Court ruled that I am "an African-American journalist," so don't even go there.
PS: Are one or any of you the person with a NH ip address who visited my online journal 15 times between 09:32:24 and 11:50:27? If so, you can probably watch the Capitol Access show on your TV as well as the Internet, session one is already posted of course, and session two should be airing this weekend and next. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Free Press KingCast ( talk • contribs) 18:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
There is no sockpuppet at all, all of these comments are mine. And I'm not "publicizing a website" I am notifying about a lawsuit. What is your problem with that? You don't think it's newsworthy that the GOP thinks it can pick and choose what reporters to allow at publicly-advertised functions held on commercial property and subject to City and State Permitting? Well you better read NAACP v. Thompson 648 F.Supp. 195 D.Md.,1986 my friend. http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=1986843648FSupp195_1812.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006
So the Nashua Telegraph isn't good enough for you? I will notify their staff immediately. But you said in another post that the Littleton Courier was good enough and the Telegraph dwarfs the Courier. And you expect the Union Leader and WMUR to run stories about this lawsuit? Please. Nor have they run any coverage of Liko Kenney's lawsuit. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan's staff is following my Tweets, unsolicited. But of course that means nothing to you either. DId the Mayor of Nashua ask what major press was covering my efforts before he and the Aldermanic Chamber presented me with a Mayoral Commendation, the closest thing Nashua has to a key to the City? Hell no. http://i45.tinypic.com/11qnzfs.jpg
So in the end, there you are waiting for the mainstream press to legitimize a story about alternative press being denied equal access. Wow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Free Press KingCast ( talk • contribs) 18:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
It is newsworthy because it is the position of Kelly Ayotte, as Friends of Kelly Ayotte is a named Defendant, DUH. Wiki is here to note her positions on major issues, and the Free Press is a major issue the last time I checked, or are you telling me otherwise my friend? Stop the nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Free Press KingCast ( talk • contribs) 19:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
It appears that you have made Free Press in America a low level concern and shoved this over to the talk pages? By the way there is footage from the Telegraph reporting staff right here at 1:00 - 1:40: http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/871416-196/mccain-campaigns-with-ayotte-at-vfw.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by FourthEsate ( talk • contribs) 11:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Mr. King is making some sage points and he quoted directly from the State's second-largest newspaper. He followed all of your rules, and your argument that Attorney Ayotte did not know about the litigation or that it is not her position is ludicrous. Indeed it is as ludicrous as her position that she did not know about the FRM Ponzi scam: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Ayotte#Financial_Resources_Mortgage_fraud
I can appreciate what he wrote yesterday, at one of his blog sites, again using Wiki information:
http://kellyayottewiki.blogspot.com/2010/12/kingcast-open-letter-to-daniel-pearl.html SATURDAY, DECEMBER 25, 2010
KingCast open letter to Daniel Pearl Freedom of Press Act author Adam Shiff and President Barack Obama regarding Senator Kelly Ayotte Free Press lawsuit; Wikipedia coverup & censorship.
Dear Honorable Statesman Shiff and President Obama:
I am honored to write you and pleased that you share the same commitment to Free Press as I do. The Daniel Pearl Freedom of Press Act is a crucial development on the International landscape, yet it is somewhat ironic that we take basic Free Press principles for granted here in the U.S.. The Democrats have been quite reasonable when it comes to me, as noted in my press picture at the Obama/Deval Patrick rally and at an earlier Deval Patrick rally (watch the video) but there are problems coming from the Republicans and Tea Party people:
Here is an entry I filed on Wikipedia today after some people on Wikipedia seemed unsure as to why it is important that all reporters are granted access to publicly-advertised political rallies that are held on commercial property subject to substantial State and Local licensing and regulation. GOP and Tea Party racists and haters of Free Press cannot selectively deny media access on viewpoint and race-based criteria pursuant to NAACP v. Thompson, 648 F.Supp. 195 D.Md.,(1986), as I noted on this Statewide Public Access television program Capitol Access TV Episode 142. Meanwhile, Wikipedia removed this post in an act of outright censorship:
The Nashua Telegraph is the State's second-largest newspaper according to Wikipedia. The newspaper noted that Christopher King "KingCast.net" was escorted out by the police at a GOP/Joe Arpaio rally after he attempted to interview Kelly Ayotte at a publicly-advertised political rally. Mr. King has sued Friends of Kelly Ayotte, New Hampshire and Nashua GOP and Nashua Police Department for being refused admittance to that event and two other GOP events. The case is before the New Hampshire Federal District Court. Among the legal questions the suit could potentially raise is whether a private gathering that vigorously seeks media coverage can bar or expel some reporters but not others. http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/887281-196/blogger-sues-ayotte-others-over-access.html ........[snip]
I must concur at this point with the folks at mywikibiz who wrote: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Top_10_Reasons_Not_to_Donate_to_Wikipedia#Wikipedia_is_more_a_roleplaying_game_than_an_encyclopedia. Wikipedia is more a roleplaying game than an encyclopedia.
While Wikipedia is disguised as an encyclopedia, it is actually nothing more than a fluid forum where ultimate editorial control belongs to a corps of administrators, most of whom act without real-world accountability because they don't reveal their real names, locations, and potential conflicts of interest -- even though they will not hesitate, through "complex investigations", to "out" the real names, locations, and perceived conflicts of interest of other, non-administrative editors. Why give your real-world dollars to a virtual-world multi-player forum? Have you made your donation to Second Life, too?
In the end you may not like the fact that Mr. King is a journalist but he is and the Federal Court said that he is. The Defendants don't even appear to argue otherwise. Therefore he is owed all of the protections that any other journalist is owed, and even if he were not a journalist he is permitted to post to your board that the Ayotte and her campaign have a position that they are allowed to discriminate amongst journalists at these publicly-advertised events as noted in the Nashua Telegraph, yet you don't seem to want to see that, which makes you the jerks -- not him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FourthEsate ( talk • contribs) 11:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
There is someone named MatthewVanitas (talk | contribs) who is vandalizing with the Shaikh's Article. He is deleting major portion of the Article arbitrarily without consultations. I provided following references
References 1. ^ American Management Association, International, Europe Chapter 2. ^ British Institute of Management, London 3. ^ Instt.of Chartered Sec.& Administrators, London 4. ^ Association of Business Executives, London 5. ^ CIF FOUNDATION 6. ^ Ahmad Deedat letter page 1 7. ^ Ahmad Deedat letter page 2 8. ^ Qassim Deedat letter 9. ^ Ahmad Deedat letter thanking Shaikh Quadri 10. ^ Tafsee-e-Quran in English by Shaikh Mir Asedullah Quadri
External Links • Correct Islamic Faith International Association • Correctislamicfaith.com • CIFIAGLOBAL
Administrators please help and restrict this vandal.
Guide99 (
talk) 04:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)--
Guide99 (
talk)
04:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Shaikh Mir Asedullah Quadri is a world known figure and respected Shaikh (Head) of Correct Islamic Faith International Association (CIFIA)whose membership of Islamic Institutions is over 330. The Associates of CIFIA are very very well known Muslim scholars of the world. Their biographies are available on Wikipedia and on Association's website.
He is the Head of an NGO "CIF Foundation" registered at Hyderabad, India and there are many Institutions run by this NGO. Details are available on this location of his Website.
http://www.correctislamicfaith.com/cifnetworkinstitutions.htm.
There are 22 books published by Shaikh Mir Asedullah Quadri available in the market, these books are listed on his Wikipedia page and on various sites on Internet.
Therefore, kindly remove the tag you have put on top of his page. Thanks-- Guide99 ( talk) 18:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
There is someone named MatthewVanitas (talk | contribs) who is vandalizing with the Shaikh's Article. He is deleting major portion of the Article arbitrarily without consultations. He can put the tag, but deleting arbitrarily and repeatedly is crude type of vandalism.
I provided following references
References 1. ^ American Management Association, International, Europe Chapter 2. ^ British Institute of Management, London 3. ^ Instt.of Chartered Sec.& Administrators, London 4. ^ Association of Business Executives, London 5. ^ CIF FOUNDATION 6. ^ Ahmad Deedat letter page 1 7. ^ Ahmad Deedat letter page 2 8. ^ Qassim Deedat letter 9. ^ Ahmad Deedat letter thanking Shaikh Quadri 10. ^ Tafsee-e-Quran in English by Shaikh Mir Asedullah Quadri
External Links • Correct Islamic Faith International Association • Correctislamicfaith.com • CIFIAGLOBAL
The above references are more than sufficient. More references will be added to the Article as a routine, as is done in other people's cases. Please, restrict this vandal from this arbitrary deletion.
Guide99 ( talk) 04:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)-- Guide99 ( talk) 04:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Jon Baker (producer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Biog of living person Jon Baker (producer) not verifiable, not a neutral point of view, is a person who is relatively unknown and is mainly self aggrandizing and not factual with research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiapas1966 ( talk • contribs) 15:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I believe this article to be an exercise in promotion or self-promotion. Four references are cited, but none of them are actually about David A. Solomon; they are about an associate, Alex Ionescu. No statements about Mr. Solomon himself are substantiated by references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.156.57.222 ( talk) 15:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Paul West requests that the header to his BLP be changed to Paul West (novelist), instead of Paul West (poet) which is inaccurate.
Paul wrote very little poetry, most of it 50 years ago. He's been a career novelist, publishing 24 novels. I've been able to make corrections to his main entry, but not to the header. Can this please be fixed? Thank you for your work.
-Liz, Paul's assistant — Preceding unsigned comment added by LizWombat ( talk • contribs) 21:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Bradley Manning ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I believe this page is heavily biased. It could use more sources that provide more sources outside of "[expletive deleted] outsider gone mad"
---Unsigned comment of 76.78.33.95 signed by Anythingyouwant ( talk) 05:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
(restart indents) We would have a lot more public figures if you became one by having an "ambition to do something that would get attention." I think WP:NPF should apply to this bio. betsythedevine ( talk) 00:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Goodiepal ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi,
I hope someone can offer me suggestion for how to best handle this situation,
In the section "2001-2003: Narc Beacon", towards the end an incident is described including the company "Koblo". I was one of the founders of the company and have a very different view of what happened.
What's the best way to proceed?
If I start editing the section I feel this could get very contentions. Is it better to just delete the paragraphs?
Thanks in advance,
Emil Tin — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Emiltin (
talk •
contribs)
20:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I've been advised to keep things simple here, so will try; for a somewhat fuller exegesis of the problem please see here and also a similar section on Talk:Christy Clark. There are news stories and facts being broken, by legitimate sources such as court documents etc, which the major media in this province, and nationally, are avoiding covering, or only covering once the heat from blogspace gets to the point it can't be ignored. I am arguing for exceptions, or rule interpretations, concerning blogs which are known and credited as verifiable/reliable and respected sources, in teh absence of reliable/NPOV coverage from the mainstream media, who are allied to the governing party (also as a known fact). Is the People's Daily the only "verifiable source" for events in China? Of course not. So why should the Vancouver Sun and the Globe and Mail be considered more verifiable/reliable when it's known - as a demonstrable fact - that they're not? If the major media avoid a story, does that make it "not a story", even if it's widely reported in "independent media" and "citizen reporters", which in BC have become the mainstay of real information, rather than heavily-laundered/distorted information?? I'm looking for some clarification here; these are not hobby blogs I'm talking about, they're factual-news blogs filling a void that the mainstream media have refused to acknowledge and have in fact sought to discredit, even though they're also forced to cite them on various occasions. That's about as brief as I can keep it without explaining the full political context in greater detail; I'm wary of seeing Wikipedia's rules enforced in such a way as to keep out the facts that the major media won't report.....the Big Media here are far more POV, and often unsubstantiated, than the couple of dozen bloggers who've been seeking to keep facts in front of the public, instead of swept under the rug.... Skookum1 ( talk) 20:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Here is a good example of a puff piece masquerading as news, from today's Vancouver Sun, who are pushing Ms Clark; no mention in this or other articles of her connections (manifold) to the BC Rail case or the disposal of the Fast Ferries to a company for whom her brother was a consultant, no mention that her campaign managers are the same as for Campbell (all candidates are trying to distance themselves from Campbell), no mention of her name surfacing in the unsealed warrants etc etc etc - and you won't find them in the other articles pushing her, either, ditto her very pronounced federal-Liberal connections (which in BC can be political anathema). The poll for this article was commissioned by the same people who own the paper, and who own/are allied to the radio station she's been a host on since her political retirement, and this paper is one of the main contributors to her campaign, and to the party. So when is an advertorial poll a "reliable source" when blogs covering the news stories Big Media won't touch are "unreliable"? Skookum1 ( talk) 21:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Neal King ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article was created by user AntiochLA (currently blocked), a promotional account for the university that employs Neal King. It's like Neal King started the article himself—an article about Neal King. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.57.24 ( talk) 00:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Hafizabad District ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Not sure what's going on with this one, but I removed two pieces of obvious smear. Someone more familiar with the area should review this for more subtle BLP problems. Gigs ( talk) 04:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Could some editors more familiar with BLPs comment at Talk:Julian_Assange#Too much detail in sex crime reports? Up until now, it has been uncertain what he was accused of but now there are sources explaining. I'm not sure whether they should be included or not. (Any advice/help with the article in general is more than welcome). Thanks SmartSE ( talk) 20:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
<Undent>I don't mind being compared to Sherlock Holmes, thanks. :-) Assange is in jail in Britain, and his British lawyer says "the substance of the allegations [was] revealed to the press through unauthorized disclosures...." So there was leaking, and publishing all the leaked details would be more like something WikiLinks would do than we would do. Anyway, the section on this in the article is now very bloated, contrary to WP:Recentism if not WP:Tabloid. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
The Julian Assange article and its talk page are serious violations of WP:BLP in my humble opinion. From everything I've read the charges against him are regarding condom use and that everything else was consensual according to the victim's lawyer. The article mentions the "R" word repeatedly and the talk page comments go even farther (which I won't repeat here).
I don't feel qualified to walk the fine line of WP:BLP on this article in order to fix it, but I do think somebody — preferably a BLP expert — should look in to this. - Hydroxonium ( talk) 09:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
RESOLVED - My issue with the article is resolved as it has been rewritten from a more nuetral point of view. Thanks very much for fixing the issues. I appreciate everybody's efforts. - Hydroxonium ( talk) 02:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Assange sex charges and trial ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This has just been created from the BLP, suggestions, does it, should it warrant its own article? Seems a bit excessive imo. Off2riorob ( talk) 16:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
The section has become very large on the Assange page. There has been significant discussion as to whether the backgrounds of the two women should be discussed. Two points around that issue have been, confidentiality of "victims" and "relevance." The second issue is resolved by having a stand alone page for the trials. It also seems reasonable from the stand point of formatting to have two pages. The issue sexual charges are only becoming more relevant as their own stand alone topic. If and when Assange is transferred to Sweden will add a significant amount of information to the subject. Possible future sections for a page devoted to the charges and trial would be:
Background of Mrs. A and W.
Possible political motives. Political backgrounds of the prosecutors.
Controversy regarding the definition of rape in Sweden.
These issues are quite significant and cannot be fully addressed within the article on Assange. Tim.thelion ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC).
Can I call WP:IGNORE for a little bit here? I have a good reason to want a separate article on the subject. I think that there is enough notable information to make that subheading take up 70 or 80% of the Assange page. Obviously that notable information cannot be added until the case has it’s own page to contain the extra formatting required.
I have a possible compromise for now. We leave the Assange page as it is, and edit in parallel a page on sex related charges against Julian Assange?
One more note. To get any issues of NPOV out of the way. I do NOT have NPOV with regards to wikileaks. I am a strong supporter of the project. HOWEVER, I DO have NPOV with regards to Assange. He is just a person. Wikileaks is an ideology. I am not trying to do this to remove sexual allegations from the Assange page... Tim.thelion ( talk) 22:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I think this atleast furthers my own case for the "parallel editing." I believe that after a week of parallel editing the sexual accusations page would grow SIGNIFICANTLY, and it would then be clear to you all that it should have it's own page. Tim.thelion ( talk) 23:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Please see my Wikipedia:Splitting resolution idea for resolving this issue. Tim.thelion ( talk) 21:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Ouch! Someone delete it as "attack" page under BLP concerns. THis presupposes charges and a trial... neither of which has happened yet! -- Errant ( chat!)
[1] A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 22:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Hashim Thaçi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
More eyes need to help sort out multiple, credible (though as yet untried) allegations of criminal activity currently stated as straightforward fact of criminality.-- Misarxist 10:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Bob Etheridge ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This statement seems rather flimsily supported for my tastes. The article source asserts this happened in an aside but provides no verifiable details such as names or dates. Given the scarcity of details, I also have concerns about
WP:UNDUE.
User:Cresix is willing to edit war over it so I figured it's worth getting a second opinion. Is the sourcing adequate or should we look for something better to support this (contentious?) allegation. Thanks.
Ronnotel (
talk)
18:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Nassim Nicholas Taleb ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Over at Nassim Nicholas Taleb, a self-identified relative of Taleb, IbnAmioun ( talk · contribs) has been editing the article extensively. The overall effect is to glorify Taleb.
Taleb is an author and hedge-fund manager. His track record as a hedge fund manager isn't that great (see Empirica Capital), and this has been established from reliable sources. His supporters try to play down and obfuscate his actual financial results. The article could use a few more neutral editors. A knowledge of finance helps here. -- John Nagle ( talk) 17:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
<Undent>There's now a discussion at ANI. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Shaikh Mir Asedullah Quadri ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
More than 90% of the Article related to Shaikh Mir Asedullah Quadri was deleted without any notice. The persons who deleted asked for outside references, other than Shaikh's Websites.
I provided 4 scan copies of letters Shaikh Deedat ( a very reputable Islamic Scholar) wrote about the works of Shaikh, praising and appreciating his books and works.
In addition, I provided about 19 references from various sources of Registered Islamic Institutions and their Websites.
I provided authentic information that the Shaikh is the Head of "Correct Islamic Faith International Association" (CIFIA) a joint effort of 330 Islamic Institutions and literally all Sunni Scholars of the world.
They are demanding that I should provide newspaper publications or third party books.
In the presence of the above references, their demands are unreasonable. Therefore, I request your intervention to restore Shaikh's Article as soon as possible. Thank you for your assistance.
115.184.12.173 ( talk) 15:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)-- 115.184.12.173 ( talk) 15:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Guide99 is currently indef blocked, so the excitement is likely to be over. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 09:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Claus Zundel ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Article name: Claus Zundel. This violates because the content was copied word for word from the website http://www.worldlingo.com/ma/enwiki/en/Claus_Zundel. This is unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex jazz butterworth ( talk • contribs) 00:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
An editor has recently expressed a concern that the article is unduly negative on the article talk page. After having a look at the article, I share this concern. From reading the article, I come away with the impression that Cooper is most likely guilty of the crime for which he was convicted. From reading about the case in the news (for example: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/opinion/09kristof.html?_r=3&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1291892411-wk/pMPw4PqQwTi5hQGOOxw), it seems that there is a strong chance Cooper is innocent. It would be much appreciated if someone could take a look at this article with a view to making it neutral and compliant with the BLP policy. Thanks, CordeliaNaismith ( talk) 06:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
At the moment everything against Cooper is well-sourced; the pro-innocence stuff less so. I don't see a current NPOV problem, but am open to additional changes. Given the existence of courts repeatedly finding against Cooper, all we can do is tell both sides of the story. THF ( talk) 15:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Jean Ziegler ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Israel, Palestine and the United Nations ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is this biography unbalanced in its inclusion of long critical sections sourced mainly to UN Watch? What about the mention of Ziegler, referenced to the same source, in Israel, Palestine and the United Nations? Itsmejudith ( talk) 16:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Kati Marton's biography lists her year of birth as 1956, yet goes on to say "she started as a production assistant 1971 in her 20s...". If 1956 is the accurate year of Kati Marton's birth, by my math she was 15 years old in 1971, NOT in her 20's, as the biography claims! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebookchick ( talk • contribs) 00:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Another editor added the birthdate of April 3, 1948 (that's a new wrinkle). They cited to "date & year of birth according to LCNAF CIP data". What exactly does that mean? I reverted it asking the editor to go to the Talk page and explain, but perhaps someone here knows more about CIP data than I do (which ain't much). From reading the Wikipedia article, an author's birth date doesn't look like the kind of data that would be below the copyright info of a book, and even if it were, who would have put it here? I certainly wouldn't trust Marton at this point to give her accurate birth date. And how did the editor access the information?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 01:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Let's look for Kati Marton's "Authorized Heading":
Her A death in Jerusalem, 1994 b CIP t.p. (Kati Marton) data sheet (b. 4/3/48)
Alas, I disagree Bbb23. But I'm going to let it go. It's not my call. That's why I like wikipedia so much. But I don't (outwardly) have a problem: let's leave this information out of the article for now and see what happens.
But privately, I've got a problem with not including some information about this birth-date inconsistency (and it's not the only inconsistency re; Marton's biography) in the Wikipedia article.
Now this is just my opinion (of course) but a responsible article on Marton would at the very least mention the continuing (the ongoing & attendant) confusion and questions that accompany a discussion of Marton's biography (not her life; it's her life: I'm talking about her biography---the public record of her life). And that biography should (tacitly) be shaped and formed by this consideration: the public and civic trust.
Why?
Marton was a public servant and there are mimimum standards we demand of our public servants and officials. More so regarding Marton: both as a journalist (a profession that should demand from us a mimimal standard of credibility) and the partner of a civil servant ( a government official, Holbooke, who just recently died) who is entrusted with our constitutional authority and law on foreign soil. Both of these facets of her biography demand nothing less than this from the public: integrity, truthfulness, and straightforwardness.
But questions remained then and remain now.
For example: a journalist and the partner of a high ranking public official/diplomat (again, now recently passed) is not forthcoming about the year she was born? There are other inconsistencies to her biography as well. There has to be a reason. Yes, she has written and spoken powerfully, movingly, and in-depth about her journalist parents and their terrifying plight in Hungary with the authorities. But as the poets reminds us, what reveals is really (or is also) what conceals. Christian Roess ( talk) 10:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Girls' Generation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I have reverted two edits by a new user how has made biased and unsourced that violates the policy on BLP. The page name is Girls' Generation. I am allowed to make a third revert according to 3RR, but I shall consider informing the correct group of people. The statements are unsourced and falsely accuse (in an indirect way) the group of being awarded the prizes they shouldn't have received (in the editor's opinion). Please help. Farjad0322( talk| sign| contribs) 12:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Joe Sioufi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Written by Starlight Photography, which is him. Also has no relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstrofbass ( talk • contribs) 01:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Peter T. King ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article seemed to go way overboard on criticism, in several cases completely unsourced criticsm or that wilfully misrepresented sources. I've raised the main issues here, however based on edits such as this the IP editor responsible for a large amount of the problems doesn't seem to understand how we write about living people and will edit war to maintain their edits, so more eyes on this article would be welcome. Thanks. 2 lines of K 303 11:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Possibly defamatory/libellous content added here has already been reverted by another IP but may need actually removing - could someone please have a look? Also, I have not warned the user who added it as I'm not sure which warning/level combination is appropriate for this kind of spite: can you please either do so, or advise here? Thanks in advance, best wishes, DBaK ( talk) 17:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Somebody is very motivated to add 2 minor incidents to this bio, describing them to make them sound bad for the subject -- now the third sock in a row is at work on it .. socks reported at SPI but as fast as one gets blocked a new one pops up to editwar. Protect the bio? betsythedevine ( talk) 23:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
The "do no harm" principle does not justify the removal of relevant negative information about a living person. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Thus, they must represent fairly and without bias all significant views and information (that have been published by reliable sources). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoiding_harm
A few months ago I looked at the redirects to Gordon Brown and found several slightly offensive redirects. eg "Great ditherer" redirected to Brown's page. When I reported it, this was quickly fixed by somebody deleting the offensive pages. Recently, I checked the redirects to David Cameron and found that "Bumsex" was a redirect to that page. Again this has been fixed (by re-redirecting "Bumsex" to a more appropriate target page). However, the fact that I have found this kind of vandalism twice, suggests it is a more general problem and thought I should bring it to the attention of the community. Bluewave ( talk) 10:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I've found Couch jumping and One Take Watson?-- Scott Mac 21:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Beau Tatchell is a piece of juvenilia which is marked for speedy but has been tagged with a hang-on tag which has presumably delayed its deletion. However, it is clear the article is about a 17year old school boy from Abbs Cross School. As this is about a minor I believe it should be deleted with all possible haste. Thanks Velella Velella Talk 14:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
The Tom Corbett "whistleblower" is back. I've been fighting this one for a while, they are very persistent.
This appears to be a vanity article for a figure of limited notability -subject has never won a public election or featured significantly in his field.
Problems with NPOV - style and content indicate promotional publicity and some claims lack Verifiability.
Probable COI arising from self-editorship given trivial nature of some clauses - look at edits for MaddoxFordNabokov27. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeppelin75 ( talk • contribs) 20:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
There used to be a wikipedia article for Dewey Bunnell. But no more. It's now a redirect page. Dewey Bunnell is an original member of the iconic music group America, who both wrote and sang the lead on such Number #1 (Billboard magazine) hits as A Horse With No Name or top 5 hits such as Ventura Highway. He's still with the group. The other two original members of the group have a Wikipedia article. But not Bunnell.
Playing games with policies and guidelines in order to avoid the spirit of communal consensus, or thwart the intent and spirit of policy, is strictly forbidden.
Touché--- Christian Roess ( talk) 22:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so.
Can editors with some grasp of WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP please keep an eye on Philip Green so it doesn't get taken over by UK Uncut activists? The current lead in particular is a joke. Fences& Windows 21:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Artel Jarod Walker ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is a repeated problem. Person depicted in this photo is not Artel Jarod Walker. Please remove this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drgreative ( talk • contribs) 12:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure what is going on with this article but it is a repeat problem and we appear to be unable to do anything to protect the living person and he seems to be of little note anyways as per the request I support deletion. I am not even sure iits a real person..anyone got any ideas about this person and article..? Off2riorob ( talk) 13:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
OK. We've got "Artel Jarod Walker" "Artel Great" and "Artel Kayàru" being identified here. Are they the same person? Can we reliably source this?
Thoughts? I'm thinking we might cut the knot and take it to AFD as all being unverifiable - no sources available for anything. I'm still looking though.-- Scott Mac 13:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Artel Great = ARTEL Kayaru
http://w11.mocovideo.jp/movie_detail.php?KEY=gpKSjAGky0s, the african person in this clip - and not the person in the pic we have . This is the twitter pic
http://twitter.com/#!/artelgreat - the imbd pic look like a fake to me
Off2riorob (
talk) 13:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
He was in this movie
Dahmer_(film) - the credits appear to be under Artel Kayeru, I think that is the name the article should be under.
Off2riorob (
talk)
13:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I've prodded the article. Someone should probably alert imdb.-- Scott Mac 13:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I am unsure as to note and the prod, he has been in a few things and there are links back to him, I think the current name is perhaps uncitable but under Artel Kayaru also known as Artel Great ... he might have note, and left under pending protection as is now.. Off2riorob ( talk) 14:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
!Commons admin please read thread and review File:Ajw2.JPG.-- Scott Mac 14:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Fake sources; filled with personal info. Please remove contents asap! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.173.53 ( talk) 05:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Elizabeth Ann Roads, MVO (born 1951) is Snawdoun Herald of Arms in Ordinary and Lyon Clerk and Keeper of the Records for the Court of the Lord Lyon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.195 ( talk) 09:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Dear Admin,
I have noticed a correction in the biography of Y.S.Jaganmohan Reddy.
Political Life Jagan started his political career by campaigning for Congress party leaders in 2004 elections in Y.S.R. District. In 2009, he was elected to the Parliament from Kadapa District constituency.
The correction is that there is no Y.S.R District in Andhra Pradesh. Please change that. It is only Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy and his associates who call the Kadapa district as Y.S.R. District. Please make the necessary changes.
Changes would be appreciated.
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.137.17 ( talk) 12:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
The article is not sourced nor does it contain sufficient evidence to suggest why this page should exsist. Fryertuk ( talk) 15:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I've just removed large BLP violations from this French industrialist. It needs some attention, preferably from someone who reads French. Does the source support the remaining material?-- Scott Mac 19:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
This article contained promotional and poorly sourced material. I cleaned up citations and removed sentences that were not relevant to a public biography. Should meet quality standards now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.161.72.89 ( talk) 01:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Even if the man might be marginally notable ( [20] and [21] arguably count as independent, in-depth coverage), his article is far more infomercial than neutral presentation. If someone could excise and reformulate large parts of this material, I'm sure that would mark an improvement. - Biruitorul Talk 01:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Charles Rackoff ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The biography of Charles Rackoff, a living computer scientist, contravenes WP:BLP. Rackoff, a low-profile individual, is notable for his decorated career as a researcher in cryptography and computational complexity. Yet a substantial part of his biography is devoted to comments (allegedly made by email) of his Montreal Massacre Remembrances at U of T. This event is not notable and its inclusion in the biography is indiscriminate and unfairly skews the article away from Rackoff's notability. Further, the quality of the reference for this event (a CBC `news' article) should be questioned as it gives no author.
Edit wars consistently rage about this article; assistance is requested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emil post ( talk • contribs) 15:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
(Resetting indents, hope that is OK.) Charles Rackoff's comments in question were sent in his campus email to faculty and staff of the university. They were covered on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation web site as already mentioned. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2000/12/07/massacre_email001207.html Also in The Globe and Mail (165 year old Canadian newspaper with circulation of 307,330 national edition) Colin Freeze, "Klan Furor Mars Massacre Vigil", December 7, 2000. Rackoff was quoted by one of the legislators in a session of the Ontario Legislative Assembly, http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/house-proceedings/house_detail.do;jsessionid=c72d607830d85bc305417ae040bfb3efc4adab5c5f0f.e3eQbNaNa3eRe3aOaNyNaN0Pay1ynknvrkLOlQzNp65In0?locale=en&Parl=37&Sess=2&Date=2001-12-06 His remarks also received extensive coverage and commentary in student newspapers at Canadian universities, http://www.library.ubc.ca/archives/pdfs/ubyssey/UBYSSEY_2001_01_23.pdf, http://mediumonline.ca/backissues/Archives/January8/default.html http://www.themanitoban.com/system/manit/issues/000/004/083/2Dec2009_final_screen_quality.pdf?1259651997 According to one of these accounts, the president of Rackoff's university issued a statement calling his words "repugnant" but defending his academic freedom (similar comments of university spokesperson quoted in CBC piece). Rackoff's statement was discussed in a law review article, "Civil Disobedience and Academic Freedom", by Leslie Green in the Osgood Hall Law Journal http://www.arts.yorku.ca/politics/ncanefe/docs/civil%20disobeidience%20and%20academic%20freedom%20by%20L_%20Green.pdf Ironically, Rackoff's email is quoted in the Wikipedia article on the Montreal Massacre, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_Polytechnique_massacre (must we now delete that too?) To sum up, Rackoff used his position as a professor to express an opinion in a widely disseminated email sent from his university account, defended his views in an interview with the Canadian Broadcast Corporation, and was criticized by his own employer. But its not a PUBLIC matter and should not appear in his neatly groomed Wikipedia biography. A radically wrong result, people. Yours in distress Jonathanwallace ( talk) 01:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
JonathanWallace,
If the proposal of removal of the CBC article were an attempt to white-wash the blemished career of an academic, then I agree fully that the suppression of these articles and this discussion would be wrong. It is now clear to me that the main reason this article (and event) deserves suppression from Rackoff's biography is that none of these sources, despite their appearance in prominent Canadian news outlets, are a balanced account, nor do they even contain enough facts to draw any conclusions.
Here are the only facts I can see. We have a quote from Rackoff in an email, the fact that this quote was distributed to the U of T campus, and that Rackoff did not retreat from his position in an interview.
All context of this email is missing. Did Rackoff really write to entire campus? Or did he communicate this statement to an individual by email, and this was eventually copied to the rest of the campus? Did Rackoff really have nothing to communicate in the interview other than a refusal to retreat from his position? Or was what he had to say so reasonable and airtight that any quote could only provoke sympathy for the professor?
The poverty of facts admits almost any explanation (and I feel the current suggestions are attempts to find controversy at the expense of a decorated academic). To call such accounts journalism is what is truly repugnant. Perpetuating this sensationalism does a disservice not only to Rackoff, but to free speech and, ultimately, democracy.
If Rackoff, completely unprovoked, spammed the campus with an email saying little more than `Feminism is the Klan!', this certainly would be an abuse of his position as professor and the University would be unconstrained by freedom of speech concerns in seeking his removal. Instead, we have some condemnations but little else (which to me suggests there was much internal turmoil over this event, further suggesting there is much more to the story than we are hearing).
The ultimate absurdity to me is that Rackoff's quote is expressing real sympathy for the victims, and frustration at the idea that these people are being forgotten when we are use this event as a political platform. Sure, this is expressed in a bombastic way, but that sentiment should be evident, especially in the context of the memorial. Other readings - such as Leslie Green's - are facile at best, and deliberate misinterpretations at worst.
In closing, all accounts of this very brief snapshot of Rackoff's life are very sketchy and to entertain them in a biography as short as Rackoff's cannot be considered fair or balanced by any stretch. This remains only a topic of discussion due to wikipedia, not because of continued notability. Removal of them from the biography is the right action and one that has now been taken. I hope we can consider this matter closed. -- Emil post ( talk) 22:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
The "do no harm" principle does not justify the removal of relevant negative information about a living person. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Thus, they must represent fairly and without bias all significant views and information (that have been published by reliable sources).
I agree. I think the deletion of the Rackoff information was very wrong and a violation of NPOV. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 22:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Dear madam/sir,
I am Gerşom Qiprisçi, and my biography in Enlgish and Russian is sistematically vandalised by Mr. Libor Valko from Czech republic. He claims to know things about me which any prove cannot be provided by him. He was already warned by Wikipedia editors.
I do not have a problem of anyone who wishes to write things about me, but it should be based on some documents, not on hatred.
Here is the text of warning sent by administrator of Czech Wikipedia to Mr. Libor Valko to stop his activities violating rules of Wikipedia in Czech.
Káhirská geniza MOŽNÉ PORUŠENÍ AUTORSKÝCH PRÁV Oceňujeme Váš příspěvek, ale bohužel nemůžeme přijmout text či obrázky chráněné autorským právem převzaté bez dovolení z jiných webových stránek či odjinud. Podívejte se, prosíme, na stránku Káhirská geniza, a pokud jste autorem původního díla nebo máte od autora svolení k dalšímu šíření podle licence GFDL, pošlete o tom e-mail do OTRS. Užitečné rady o přispívání do Wikipedie a o některých základních pravidlech najdete na stránkách Wikipedie:Průvodce a Wikipedie:Váš první článek. Díky za pochopení. [editovat]Vážený kolego, Předpokládám, že to Vy jste onen Libor Valko, o kterém jsem se doslechl i já (a to je co říci, normálně se zabývám tím, co mě baví, nikoli zkazkami typu "jedna paní povídala..."). Každopádně, pokud chcete přispěvovat, prosím bez invektiv, urážek a nepodložených tvrzení (viz. článek Salmon ben Jeruham). Vidím, že nejsem první, kdo Vás o to žádá, vezměte si to prosím k srdci. Toto je encyklopedie, kterou používají i normální lidé, kteří se chtějí něco dovědět, ne propaganda k šíření nenávisti. Chováte-li vůči někomu či něčemu soukromou zášť, můžete si ji vylévat na soukromém fóru. Děkuji, hezký den --Thomazzo 00:29, 19. 11. 2007 (UTC)
http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskuse_s_wikipedistou:194.228.88.134 — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Gerşom Qiprisçi (
talk •
contribs)
16:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
The article is well written, and in a neutral tone. However, after some biographical facts, and some recounting of this person's accomplishments, there are one or two statements pertaining to some legal issues reported in the press [22]. This person's legal status has not been deteremined by a court of law. In other words, there is no final judgement from a court of law. Finally, the number of references concerning this one set of legal issues signifigantly outnumbers references related to other facts. Hence, I have to at least be concerned that the focus of this article, is this person's legal situation, and not his biography. In addition, I am removing the material pending the outcome of this discussion. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 04:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Per my 14:00 remark, I've cited to one San Francisco Chronicle story with bare-bones facts, and double-checked its accuracy by checking dockets to confirm that the charges are still pending. The article was created just this week, so I've PROD'd it per BLP1E, and will nominate for AFD if the PROD is rejected. THF ( talk) 14:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I've gone over all of the "references" for the rest of the article, and only one was an actual reference. The rest were just gratuitous external links to the websites of organizations mentioned. Yworo ( talk) 21:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I just found an interesting essay here entitled "Avoiding Harm", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoiding_harm It states that "Do no harm" was considered, and rejected as a BLP standard.
"This principle was ultimately rejected: while avoiding harm remains an important consideration within our living persons policy, doing no harm has been found to be incompatible with our obligation to maintain a neutral point of view when writing about all subjects, including living people.
It is interesting to note that several recent outcomes on this noticeboard, including this one and Charles Rackoff, very clearly utilize a "do no harm" standard as if it had been adopted by consensus. The essay has a good analysis of the deletion issue, discussing whether a person is notable if only known for one event. Assuming that the person otherwise passes the notability standard:
In circumstances where a person has been charged with a crime, it is acceptable for Wikipedia to give details of the ongoing investigation and/or trial, but speculation must be avoided.
The ssayist says the following about NPOV:
The "do no harm" principle does not justify the removal of relevant negative information about a living person. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Thus, they must represent fairly and without bias all significant views and information (that have been published by reliable sources).
I have no problem with the deletion of Kyle's bio. If the bio remains here, the information about his arrest should absolutely be included, in a carefully phrased sentence at the bottom, linking to a source such as ABC News. To maintain the bio of a living individual reviewing academic accomplishments, while avoiding any mention of an arrest and pending criminal charges, is a clear NPOV violation. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 22:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Jonathanwallace ( talk) 22:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Jonathanwallace, and suggest he raise this at WT:BLP. A consensus on clarifying language is important. It's especially important because the policy is regularly being interpreted inconsistently: in biographies of right-wing figures, NPOV usually trumps BLP (and partisan attacks on the subject and partisan sources are included in the article), but the reverse is often true in biographies of left-wing figures (where negative information on the subject is to be excluded). See, for example, J. Michael Farren, a minor Bush administration official whose arrest has been treated differently than the left-wing Kyle's (though, admittedly, Farren's article existed before his arrest, which is not true of Kyle's). While it may be a sound reading of BLP to delete the Kyle article in toto, it is not a sound reading of BLP to require deletion of incontrovertibly true, verifiable, reliably sourced and notable facts. (For the record, I think the arrest should be included in the Farren article, but I don't see any argument for distinguishing the Farren arrest from the Kyle arrest: they both received national press coverage, and are both incontrovertibly true/verifiable and well-sourced.) THF ( talk) 05:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Is a BLP. One source [23] is quite clearly an opinion piece (it is labeled "commentary" in the source). Ought this fact, that it is an opinion piece, be at least noted when using it as a source in a BLP? In addition, the opinion piece links Plimer to another living person - Gina Rinehart. Does WP:BLP require stronger sourcing than an opinion coluumn for such a linkage (which ascribes ownership of a group to that person)? See [24] Collect ( talk) 15:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
This article contains much false, defamatory and libelous material that violates the biographies of living persons policy. It was likely written by a supporter(s) of a political opponent of the subject politician. It is not neutral in tone and highlights the political opponent's defeat of the subject in an attempt to "rub it in" and embarrass the subject. Much of the information is not verifiable and is original. Clear evidence that the article was politically motivated and defamatory is the charge that the subject is under an ethics violation, which was a false rumour spread against the subject in a recent campaign. The article's only reference is the Maryland Manual, the official encyclopedia of Maryland government officials, yet much of the article is not derived from that source. The Maryland Manual does contain truthful and factual information about the subject. An objective and verifiable article about the subject, entirely based on the Maryland Manual ( http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/05sen/html/msa14609.html), is as follows, which should be substituted for the current violative article:
Michael G. Lenett is a member of the Maryland Senate, serving State Legislative District 19 in Montgomery County, Maryland, since January, 2007. His term ends in January, 2010. Lenett currently serves in the following positions in the Maryland Senate:
Assistant Deputy Majority Whip, 2008- Member, Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee, 2007- Member, Environment Subcommittee, 2007- Member, Ethics & Election Law Subcommittee, 2007- Member, Health subcommittee, 2008- Chair, Special Committee on Renewables & Clean Energy, 2007- Member, Joint Committee on Federal Relations, 2007- Member, Joint Committee on Health Care Delivery and Financing, 2007- Member, Joint Subcommittee on Program Open Space and Agricultural Land Preservation, 2007- Member, Joint Committee on the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays Critical Area, 2009- Member, Task Force to Implement Holocaust, Genocide, Human Rights and Tolerance Education, 2007-08
Lenett serves or has served as a member of the following Maryland state organizations:
Statewide Empowerment Zones for Seniors Commission, 2007-09 State Advisory Council on Quality Care at the End of Life, 2007- Maryland School-Based Health Care Policy Advisory Council, 2007- Strategic Energy Investment Advisory Board, 2008- Commission on Environmental Justice and Sustainable Communities, 2008- Maryland Youth Advisory Council, 2008- (Co-Chair) Task Force to Study Financial Matters Relating to Long-Term Care Facilities, 2008- (Co-Chair) Maryland Communities for a Lifetime Commission, 2010-
As a Maryland Senator, Lenett earned the following awards:
Legislator of the Year Award, Maryland Works, 2008 Environmental Champion Award, Environment Maryland, 2009 Maryland Legislative Champion Award, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, 2009
Prior to serving in the Maryland Senate, Lenett held the following positions:
Special Counsel, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 1993 (Staff Attorney, 1990-92) Counsel, United States Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Monopolies and Business Rights, 1993-95 Counsel, United States Senate Judiciary Committee, 1995-96 Senior Counsel, Of Counsel, Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, 1996- Member, Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee, 2002-06 (Chair, Issues Committee; Chair, Strategic Direction Committee; Co-Chair, Democratic Forum) Member, Mid-County Citizens Advisory Board, Montgomery County, 1998-2002 (Chair, Public Awareness Committee). Adjunct Professor, The National Law Center, George Washington University, 1992-93 President, District 19 Democratic Club, 1998-2002 Member, Board of Directors, Family Learning Solutions, 2000-02 Member, Advisory Council, Trash-Free Potomac Watershed Initiative, 2007- Member, Board of Trustees, Community Services for Autistic Adults and Children, 2010- Member, Board of Directors, B'Nai B'rith Homecrest House
Lenett was born in New York, New York, on February 24, 1962. His education is as follows: Brandeis University, B.A., magna cum laude, 1984; Georgetown University, M.A. (American Government), 1988; Georgetown University Law Center, J.D., 1988; LL.M. (Securities Law), with distinction, 1992; Senior Articles & Notes Editor, American Criminal Law Review, 1988.
Lenett is admitted to the Maryland Bar (1989), District of Columbia Bar (1990), and Bar Association of Montgomery County, and is admitted to practice in the United States Supreme Court and numerous federal appellate and trial courts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlenett ( talk • contribs) 22:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
This article is more like a political brochure than a biography. Given that Ted Lieu is currently running for office, this is an inappropriate use of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.254.80.216 ( talk) 04:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
There is a comment on this page that says Kathyrn Crosby should "rot in hell" - these comments should be taken out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.71.8.26 ( talk) 04:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Don't see it so I gather someone already did. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 15:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I have personal knowledge regarding this article having been a family member of one of three individuals involved in Datapoints creation. My father Gerad B. Martin was also involved in the computer and left in 1972. I have also had personal contact with the late Gus Roach and Phil Ray. SLast year I corrected this my putting my fathers name in the article and it was deleted. I find this very insulting that his name is or not included in the article. I am challenging this article to have my fathers name include. Not only that but demanding that my father get credit for the work he has done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.21.96.245 ( talk) 16:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
My attempts at reverting problems with this article have been reverted by IP's a couple of times.
1. Subject of article has dubious notability. 2. IP's have added/replaced PERSONDATA template with info for another person. (as of the moment, PERSONDATA template is correct) 3. IP's have added sources unrelated to the subject of the article. 4. IP's have added potentially troublesome BLP statements, that are totally unsupported. 5. IP's have removed maintenance and BLP PROD templates without correcting the underlying problems.
I could do one more revert without violating 3RR, but it seems pointless, so I will just let you folks handle it, thanks. Safiel ( talk) 17:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Richard Littlejohn ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There is an ongoing dispute on this article. A user keeps trying to insert a 'Criminal Record' section. However the information is not properly sourced but they keep reverting it. The 'source' they are trying to use is a Book Review, a very opinionated review also which does not support the claims they are making in the article. I have tried explaining this but they insist the 'source' is reliable. I would be grateful for your intervention. Christian1985 ( talk) 17:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
The article is really ugly, but probably that can't be helped considering how controversial the person is. Wolfview ( talk) 21:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
A new problem has cropped up in this article. One editor wants to add a section called "Praise from Nick Griffin" with the following sentence: "Littlejohn was described by Nick Griffin, the leader of the British National Party, as his favourite journalist." Other editors think the section and the sentence don't belong in the article for different reasons. My reason for opposing it is that it's trivial and doesn't belong at all, let alone in its own section. I would say that the majority of editors who have commented agree it doesn't belong, but you can read the Talk page and decide that one for yourselves.
Several of us have tried to keep it out, but it's become too close to an edit war for my comfort. In the latest "reversion", an editor (EelJuice) who has not even contributed to the discussion put the section back in. I'm not sure what he's up to, but his history alone is weird as he hasn't been oon Wikipedia in years, and the first thing he does upon his return is to revert another editor's removal of the material with the following truly bizarre edit summary: "In philosophy, you have to reckon with the implicit level of an accumulated reserve, and thus with a very great number of relays, with the shared responsibility. Clothes off, face down, ass up, c'mon". I reverted EelJice and pointed him to the Talk page and to WP:EDSUM. He then reverted my reversion labeling it vandalism. And that's where it stands at present.
Some help would be appreciated.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 01:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
In fact, Littlejohn's criminal record has (a) been reported as fact in the Observer, and (b) been admitted by Littlejohn on national television. There are links to both in the discussion. Given we have video of Littlejohn himself admitting it, and the broadcast date etc, on BBC TV, it seems bizarre to me to suggest that we can't prove it to be true. The fact Christian1985 accuses anybody who tries to insert any information he doesn't like of being "left-wing" and "biased" is frustrating: the facts are pretty well established and easily meet BLP and NOTE criteria. This is a public figure who frequently comments on law and order issues, who himself has a criminal record. David r from meth productions ( talk) 23:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
A highly skewed account that presents the "official" version of the man's life and leaves out swathes of embarrassing stuff, both from the early life and, more worryingly still, from his time as self-appointed ruler of the Ghanaian people. Not to mention his career since stepping down as a serial destabiliser of political and military life in Ghana. The list of "Achievements" at the tail end is particularly ludicrous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.184.222 ( talk) 18:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm starting a project to review all our Scientology related articles. Some of the BLPs have already given concern. Uninvolved BLP savy people would be very welcome.-- Scott Mac 21:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The relocation to Baltimore section in this article reeks. It's completely unsourced, and essentially a Cleveland fan's apology on why Art Modell is a bad person. Now this is a very very notable event in the man's life (and sport's history in the US), so I feel blanking it is a bad idea. Can anyone take a look into it and improve it? Or at least source the negative statements? Magog the Ogre ( talk) 06:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
The section "Detainment and Doping Charge" is libellous and extremely defamatory. Mr Freeman was not detained at all by police or charged with drug abuse, nor was he asked to "not come back" to Sweden. Not even the newspaper article says this. It was originally in Swedish.
The police at Sundsvall routinely test bodybuilders because they have had issues with local bodybuilders abusing drugs. Mr Freeman at no point was accussed of such and there is no evidence of such. Drug abusers do not get questioned and left alone. This article is unfair to Mr Freeman. If Wikipedia continues to host it, it may be subject to a libel charge. Figaro90210 ( talk) 01:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)Figaro90210
I have edited Yorvit’s “Personal Life” category to include his son Julian Xavier Houston. I have legal documentation obtained from the California Department of Child Support Enforcement stating that Yorvit Torrealba is the father. I also have DNA papers from the laboratory stating the same. How can I send in legal proof that can be referenced on your website? This is very frustrating and very upsetting to a 10 year old boy that doesn’t understand why this is being done to him. I have 2 wikipedia users delete my edit and challenge the information.
The information is wrong, the title refers to Abel Ramírez and the content is about Christian Armas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.214.253.124 ( talk) 20:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Muhammad al-Yaqoubi (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
This article is proving troublesome. A couple of weeks ago it was a puffy, mostly unsourced steaming pile. Then a new editor called
Sacredknowledge (
talk ·
contribs) made changes that deleted the only source that had been on the page, and I reverted and stubbified. Sacredknowledge is persisting in removal of the source -- and, it seems, for good reason: the source (
here) is merely a copy of the earlier Wikipedia version. Sacredknowledge says "Up-to-date biography to be uploaded shortly" -- which implies to me that we'll be offered something that won't exactly be suitable. One to keep an eye on.
Nomoskedasticity (
talk)
22:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
The article as written is fiction. Does everyone who spreads lies on the internet merit a Wikipedia page? If anyone wants to write me, [redacted] - I welcome vigorous discussion on Moret and the other con artists who make their living travelling around the world lying about themselves and depleted uranium. Wikipedia should not allow itself to be used to advertise them
I have attempted to edit this article before but Moret's disciples will not permit the edits.
The article begins as follows:
Leuren Moret is a former scientific laboratory employee known for her study of the adverse health and environmental effects of depleted uranium. Moret worked for two periods at two U.S. nuclear weapons laboratories, including Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. She has claimed the status of a whistleblower in connection with her work at Lawrence Livermore.
Moret briefly worked as a Senior Scientific Technologist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory from 1989 to 1990. Moret is not "known for her study" - she has no peer reviewed articles pertaining to the subject and her research is confined to the internet. She has done no independent field or laboratory research and probably is not academically capable of doing so. Moret has self-publicized that she is a scientific expert. Moret does claim to be a whistleblower. There is no record that Moret ever made a claim with the Department of Labor under the Whistleblower Protection Act.
Background
Moret earned her Bachelor of Science in Geology at University of California, Davis in 1968, and her Master of Arts in Near Eastern Studies from University of California, Berkeley in 1978.
the above education is correct - the only completely true entry in this entire biography
After working 5 years at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Moret was a Geology graduate student at Lawrence Berkeley. Moret was not classified as an employee but as a student. She may have studied for five years, but probably did not. She left the UC Davis doctoral program that she had been studying under Professor Ian Carmichael after assisting with research for the doctoral thesis of now distinguished Professor Dr Jonothan Stebbins of Stanford University.
and two years at the Livermore nuclear weapons lab,
Moret worked 11 months at Livermore.
she left Livermore and now studies and publicizes the health effects of radiation exposure.
Livermore probably terminated Moret's employment. They will not reveal that fact, but given the level of investigation required to be cleared to work at Livermore, it is highly likely that Moret never obtained the required high level security clearance. Moret claims to have left due to her being a whistleblower. There is no record of Moret's having been a whistleblower or of having provided any meaningful information to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The NRCs's ADAMS files show three documents from Moret, one is a post card from an anti-nuclear campaign that Moret sent in. The other two are records of Moret's signing petitions.
She has worked extensively on the impact of radiation on public health from nuclear power plants and atmospheric testing and how radiation moves through the environment.
Moret speaks extensively (if someone pays her to come - they had a benefit concert in the Kootenay Moutain community of Nelson, British Columbia to finance bringing Moret to their town)about uranium and DU. Moret has never worked, let alone extensively on this subject. Moret's videos include false claims about depleted uranium in Hawaii, atmospheric testing causing autism and reduced SAT scores and the hands of Nobel Laureate Dr Glenn T Seaborg turning to claws. Moret now rails about the University of Alaska HAARP research program falsely claiming that it has caused hurricanes and earthquakes.
I am more than willing to discuss this at some length with anyone. I have documents to support every word that I say. Thank you.
Roger- [redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.101.83.227 ( talk • contribs) 04:51, 21 December 2010
No sources and probably insufficient notability. Should probably be deleted. Also, it's probably true that she's, ah, incorrect in the things she promulgates. This is the dead link from the article. BE——Critical__ Talk 05:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Dear Wiki Editors:
You guys removed my comment about Kelly Ayotte re: "Free Press"
It was short, factual and unbiased and verified by a substantial New England newspaper.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_PQbVMfpHJBg/TRDd36LG-8I/AAAAAAAAEFc/BT5ZKNXS53I/s1600/Picture+97.jpg
Why did you do this, I demand an explanation because you routinely publish the fact that lawsuits are pending against people. This removal smells like fear, or perhaps someone bought you out?
Prove otherwise.
Christopher King, J.D. http://KingCast.net -- Reel News for Real People. 617.543.8085m —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.89.115 ( talk) 23:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
That's a lie. Here is a direct quote: Among the legal questions the suit could potentially raise is whether a private gathering that vigorously seeks media coverage can bar or expel some reporters but not others. It also raises the question of whether the author of an opinionated blog should be afforded the same protections as a mainstream newspaper, television or radio reporter.
So how exactly does that not support what I said? It is a secondary source and it clearly says that Ayotte believes she can expel some reporters but not others, which is exactly what I said, i.e. "does not believe all media are entitled....."
Okay Andy, this is all straight from the story:
Ayotte, the Nashua and New Hampshire GOP and Nashua Police were sued in the fall of 2009 by an online journalist Christopher King, J.D. who has experience at traditional newspapers. Video clips on KingCast show King with a camera attempting to question Ayotte at the Arpaio fund-raiser. Republican officials approached Nashua police, who asked King to leave. Among the legal questions the suit could potentially raise is whether a private gathering that vigorously seeks media coverage can bar or expel some reporters but not others. It also raises the question of whether the author of an opinionated blog should be afforded the same protections as a mainstream newspaper, television or radio reporter. The lawsuit is ongoing in New Hampshire Federal District Court, 2010-CV-501. http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/887281-196/blogger-sues-ayotte-others-over-access.html
I'll be waiting.
Hello, having one true and accurate post about a pending Federal lawsuit that involves access to alternative media in the electronic age hardly makes this entry a "coat rack" for the lawsuit. I was on NH Capital Access TV for two half-hour segments discussing this matter, so it is a matter of interest to reasonable people. http://nhcaptv.com/episode/142 And lest you forget where you come from, you are indeed "alternative media in the electronic age" so my efforts are indirectly benefitting you. Lastly, I'm not saying you have been bought out in general, but you are acting like it in this specific instance, and I do not apologize for my opinion, others are watching and agree with me. Your turn. What do I need, a letter from the Pope? Sure there is a Conflict issue but that pales in comparison to the magnitude of the issue here. Imagine if major (or minor) U.S. Politicos can start threatening arrest against whatever reports they don't like? Are one of you next? And whether some of you like it or not I have substantial journalist experience before and after I served as an Assistant Attorney General, and the Court ruled that I am "an African-American journalist," so don't even go there.
PS: Are one or any of you the person with a NH ip address who visited my online journal 15 times between 09:32:24 and 11:50:27? If so, you can probably watch the Capitol Access show on your TV as well as the Internet, session one is already posted of course, and session two should be airing this weekend and next. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Free Press KingCast ( talk • contribs) 18:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
There is no sockpuppet at all, all of these comments are mine. And I'm not "publicizing a website" I am notifying about a lawsuit. What is your problem with that? You don't think it's newsworthy that the GOP thinks it can pick and choose what reporters to allow at publicly-advertised functions held on commercial property and subject to City and State Permitting? Well you better read NAACP v. Thompson 648 F.Supp. 195 D.Md.,1986 my friend. http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=1986843648FSupp195_1812.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006
So the Nashua Telegraph isn't good enough for you? I will notify their staff immediately. But you said in another post that the Littleton Courier was good enough and the Telegraph dwarfs the Courier. And you expect the Union Leader and WMUR to run stories about this lawsuit? Please. Nor have they run any coverage of Liko Kenney's lawsuit. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan's staff is following my Tweets, unsolicited. But of course that means nothing to you either. DId the Mayor of Nashua ask what major press was covering my efforts before he and the Aldermanic Chamber presented me with a Mayoral Commendation, the closest thing Nashua has to a key to the City? Hell no. http://i45.tinypic.com/11qnzfs.jpg
So in the end, there you are waiting for the mainstream press to legitimize a story about alternative press being denied equal access. Wow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Free Press KingCast ( talk • contribs) 18:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
It is newsworthy because it is the position of Kelly Ayotte, as Friends of Kelly Ayotte is a named Defendant, DUH. Wiki is here to note her positions on major issues, and the Free Press is a major issue the last time I checked, or are you telling me otherwise my friend? Stop the nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Free Press KingCast ( talk • contribs) 19:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
It appears that you have made Free Press in America a low level concern and shoved this over to the talk pages? By the way there is footage from the Telegraph reporting staff right here at 1:00 - 1:40: http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/871416-196/mccain-campaigns-with-ayotte-at-vfw.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by FourthEsate ( talk • contribs) 11:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Mr. King is making some sage points and he quoted directly from the State's second-largest newspaper. He followed all of your rules, and your argument that Attorney Ayotte did not know about the litigation or that it is not her position is ludicrous. Indeed it is as ludicrous as her position that she did not know about the FRM Ponzi scam: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Ayotte#Financial_Resources_Mortgage_fraud
I can appreciate what he wrote yesterday, at one of his blog sites, again using Wiki information:
http://kellyayottewiki.blogspot.com/2010/12/kingcast-open-letter-to-daniel-pearl.html SATURDAY, DECEMBER 25, 2010
KingCast open letter to Daniel Pearl Freedom of Press Act author Adam Shiff and President Barack Obama regarding Senator Kelly Ayotte Free Press lawsuit; Wikipedia coverup & censorship.
Dear Honorable Statesman Shiff and President Obama:
I am honored to write you and pleased that you share the same commitment to Free Press as I do. The Daniel Pearl Freedom of Press Act is a crucial development on the International landscape, yet it is somewhat ironic that we take basic Free Press principles for granted here in the U.S.. The Democrats have been quite reasonable when it comes to me, as noted in my press picture at the Obama/Deval Patrick rally and at an earlier Deval Patrick rally (watch the video) but there are problems coming from the Republicans and Tea Party people:
Here is an entry I filed on Wikipedia today after some people on Wikipedia seemed unsure as to why it is important that all reporters are granted access to publicly-advertised political rallies that are held on commercial property subject to substantial State and Local licensing and regulation. GOP and Tea Party racists and haters of Free Press cannot selectively deny media access on viewpoint and race-based criteria pursuant to NAACP v. Thompson, 648 F.Supp. 195 D.Md.,(1986), as I noted on this Statewide Public Access television program Capitol Access TV Episode 142. Meanwhile, Wikipedia removed this post in an act of outright censorship:
The Nashua Telegraph is the State's second-largest newspaper according to Wikipedia. The newspaper noted that Christopher King "KingCast.net" was escorted out by the police at a GOP/Joe Arpaio rally after he attempted to interview Kelly Ayotte at a publicly-advertised political rally. Mr. King has sued Friends of Kelly Ayotte, New Hampshire and Nashua GOP and Nashua Police Department for being refused admittance to that event and two other GOP events. The case is before the New Hampshire Federal District Court. Among the legal questions the suit could potentially raise is whether a private gathering that vigorously seeks media coverage can bar or expel some reporters but not others. http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/887281-196/blogger-sues-ayotte-others-over-access.html ........[snip]
I must concur at this point with the folks at mywikibiz who wrote: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Top_10_Reasons_Not_to_Donate_to_Wikipedia#Wikipedia_is_more_a_roleplaying_game_than_an_encyclopedia. Wikipedia is more a roleplaying game than an encyclopedia.
While Wikipedia is disguised as an encyclopedia, it is actually nothing more than a fluid forum where ultimate editorial control belongs to a corps of administrators, most of whom act without real-world accountability because they don't reveal their real names, locations, and potential conflicts of interest -- even though they will not hesitate, through "complex investigations", to "out" the real names, locations, and perceived conflicts of interest of other, non-administrative editors. Why give your real-world dollars to a virtual-world multi-player forum? Have you made your donation to Second Life, too?
In the end you may not like the fact that Mr. King is a journalist but he is and the Federal Court said that he is. The Defendants don't even appear to argue otherwise. Therefore he is owed all of the protections that any other journalist is owed, and even if he were not a journalist he is permitted to post to your board that the Ayotte and her campaign have a position that they are allowed to discriminate amongst journalists at these publicly-advertised events as noted in the Nashua Telegraph, yet you don't seem to want to see that, which makes you the jerks -- not him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FourthEsate ( talk • contribs) 11:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)