![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
That article is absolute crap from one end to another. No sources, DOB, badly written and full (and I mean full!) of factual errors. Consider re-doing or removing it completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.212.224.79 ( talk) 16:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
As the sources name real people and accuse them of illegal activity, and the article itself talks about material being "obtained under false pretenses", I'd like some opinions as to whether this material, sourced from one organisation/person, should be in the article. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 17:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Apparently, the FIP copyrights weres on the later edition (not the Urtext or Criswell) - the original copyright did not disappear - it just did not apply to the later, substantially altered, editions (now copyright by FACIM). The lawsuit was settled in 2003 it seems. The defendants had asserted that the word of God can not be copyright in the US. [1] This claim was not upheld anywhere. Only the very first version ("Criswell") is now asserted to be "public domain" (and may not be public domain under international law in any case (the issue of whether just over a hundred copies, of which two were sent to the Copyright Office) qualifies as "public release" was never determined by a court). Way too much stuff to read to be cogent without gross oversimplification, to be sure! Interesting sidelight: Science and Health was granted perpetual copyright in the US, and the King James Bible has perpetual copyright in the UK. Collect ( talk) 19:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
The Avett Brothers ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article reads like a puff piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmansfieldiv ( talk • contribs) 23:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Not sourced at all.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Donaldson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Gris ( talk • contribs) 02:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that the overall choice of what material to cover, etc., on Seattle mayor Michael McGinn ghttp://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&action=edit§ion=36ets into the range of possible BLP problems. Someone with more time on their hands than I might want to have a look. - Jmabel | Talk 07:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
It might be a good idea to point out the paragraphs which concern you. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 12:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Not much.
I could go on, but, again, I think this is best worked on by someone who is neutral on the topic, not by someone (like me) who probably has an equal and opposite bias. - Jmabel | Talk 20:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
This article created by a SPA who probably has a COI would seem to qualify as a G10. I'd CSD nominate or try to get to NPOV status, but since I've spoken out on the issue, someone might suggest I have a COI. If you decide to rewrite the article from scratch instead of G10'ing it, here are some sources for balance: [2] [3] THF ( talk) 22:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
The article seems to be mainly an essay, and relies extensively on OR and SYNTH to boot. The term is found not in the NYT archives at all, on Googlebooks in a handful after 1940 (clearly the older references are not to this article at all), and news archives result in such stuff as [4] which does not appear to show any relevance here at all. Googlenews archives found a total of one use in fifty-two years appearing to be on point - which scarcely makes it a common or notable term at all. Collect ( talk) 00:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
To the unidentified user who cited WP:BLPPRIMARY: The statement you are citing is "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." This means transcripts of actual witness testimony and documents such as complaints, which of course contain unevaluated assertions made by lawyers or witnesses. The court's decision, which is what is being cited here, is the judge's definitive evaluation of the assertions before him, and is really more of a secondary than a primary source. I do not believe WP:BLPPRIMARY requires us to disregard a judge's own words in favor of a newspaper report on those words. By analogy, WP:Reliable_source_examples#Law says: "When discussing legal texts, it is more reliable to quote from the text, appropriately qualified jurists or textbooks than from newspaper reporting." Moreover, the judges' decisions are being cited here not for absolute objective truth but to indicate the opinion of certain judges before which these lawyers appear. From a WP:RS standpoint, I can't imagine a more reliable source for a judge's opinion than a volume in a recognized decision reporting series. I also vastly disagree with the speed with which you deleted this material. I think giving people a chance to source it better (if not doing it yourself) is a courtesy. On the whole, I think a gross NPOV violation may be taking place--we are protecting lawyers (I am one myself by the way) against public criticism of their very public actions. I agree the article needs some rewriting to satisfy NPOV (any of you is free of course to add some favorable material to the article to address any WEIGHT problems). Oh, and THF, it is obviously not an attack page that "serves no other purpose." Speaking as an attorney, I found it interesting and informative about an area of litigation with which I was not familiar. It definitely does not deserve deletion. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 02:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
A number of extravagant claims are made on Michel Fattouche ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), based on primary sources, that appear to be asserted primarily in support of legal action being pursued by the subject and an associate, Hatim Zaghloul ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), aka Zhatim ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is the author of both articles (so I have userfied the obvious autobiography). Fattouche probably is notable but this article requires careful monitoring as it was started in pursuit of an external agenda and it is very likely that the individual(s) concerned will continue to pursue this agenda. Guy ( Help!) 11:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Has achieved a huge increase in size courtesy of a SPA, it appears. I had once depuffed it, but it is likely that other eyes and delete buttons should be present there. Thanks. Collect ( talk) 12:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Topher Grace ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Another editor removed various information from the article because it wasn't sourced (whether the editor should have put in citation needed tags instead is another matter). I focused on two of the removals, one that Grace won an award from the National Board of Review, and the other that he hosted SNL in 2005. I restored the material carefully linking (although not citing it as a source) to the Wikipedia articles that list the NBR awards and the SNL hosts. The editor reverted my change insisting that an outside source be cited.
Now, I'm well aware that Wikipedia articles are not citable as sources, but what I did was common practice in entertainmnent articles. I'm also aware that just because something is common practice doesn't necessarily make it right, but, in this instance, if you carry the other editor's position to its logical extreme, the amount of work and the number of sources required would skyrocket. For example, I couldn't say that Grace starred in That '70s Show and link to the article; instead, I'd have to find something on the web that supports it. Every role every actor has played would have to be sourced similarly.
The Grace issue has been resolved because rather than fight with the editor (and I'm not accusing him of being "wrong"), I found a source for both propositions and inserted it in the article, but the bigger issue remains. How should this sort of issue/dispute be handled? Wikipedians love to cite policy, but the truth of the matter is, except in egregious cases, policy is open to interpretation and, equally important, we are supposed to exercise some editorial judgment - we're not automatons.
Comments?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 16:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
This article has been edited to remove the co-founder/ songwriter/ vocalist Anka Wolbert, the result being that Ronny Moorings now appears as the sole founder. Removing Anka's work over the period of something like 10 years certainly violates her biography, as her fan base will know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muso88 ( talk • contribs) 17:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Here is the url for the diff http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Clan_of_Xymox&diff=369171196&oldid=369029946
Muso88 ( talk) 23:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Both the supports and opponents of the subject are violating wikipedia's policies. A visit to the Edit History page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Atiku_Abubakar&action=history) will make this clear —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.190.2.43 ( talk) 00:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
For those who don't know, articles related to Sarah Palin are under community probation.
Not long after Sarah Palin became a national public figure in 2008, some porn company produced a film called Who's Nailin' Paylin. Since everything related to Palin seems to generate news, there was a flurry of coverage at the time, but little since. Many public figures have been parodied in porn films, but we don't typically include that fact in their biographies. Since the film's release, mention of it periodically crops up when various editors want to include the film in Wikipedia's biography of Palin, either in the main article or in Public image of Sarah Palin. The current iteration of the discussion can be found here, only a little while after the last time the subject was hashed over. I'm hoping to get some consensus on this issue, and have the decision added to Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation so we can stop endlessly rehashing it, and least for the time being. Kelly hi! 07:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
there are a few issues being brought up here that need to be solved before this issue can be put to rest.
4*-In my opinion, there is a place for this information, Public image of Sarah Palin. Personally I dont see how much of this information should be allowed but a film parody not be, a poster is hardly newsworthy. Sephiroth storm ( talk) 08:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
The only real issues are: does inclusion of a porn film improve the article as a BLP. AFAICT, it does not. Is it actually relevant to the living person? Only in that it seeks to make fun of her. Period. Collect ( talk) 13:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Appending: BLP applies to all "subarticles" on a living person." The porn film has nothing of value to do with Palin at all, and to add it to any article is an insult to WP standards entirely. Collect ( talk) 19:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
No, this shouldn't be included. It's undue weight to focus on such a minor and embarrassing trifle when the subject is so well-known. WP:UNDUE applies here Them From Space 13:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
In the Alexandra Powers article I created I found a website that says she is in Scientology. Here's the website: http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/by-name/a/alexandra-powers.html Should this be used as a reference in the article? Please let me know. Neptunekh2 ( talk) 15:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
This article seems notable, but it really, really needs sourcing, because it's full of contentious unsourced statements. Thanks, CordeliaNaismith ( talk) 13:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
An edit war is about to start on Rebecca Wilson as a user is contesting my removal of inadaquately sourced information. The publisher might be reliable but the article itself is a blatant attack peice by the author. -- Pontificalibus ( talk) 16:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I have concerns about the inclusion in this article of MSNBC's typographical error in which Niger Innis was captioned ""Nigger Innis". It has nothing to do with the subject of this BLP; it seems to be that to include it is giving undue weight to a trivial incident (for which the subject of the article is not responsible), and that the effect of its inclusion is to denigrate the subject of the article. It's puerile/childish/laddish/sniggering/immature/immaterial etc. none of which should be what Wikipedia aspires to. I'd be glad for additional input on the talk page. - Nunh-huh 17:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Don Piper is the author of the book, 90 Minutes in Heaven (Revell 2004). His book details his collision with an 18-wheeler, his experience in Heaven, and his recovery. The story is told against the backdrop of his Christian faith.Several revisions were made to correct material based of faith rather than fact. I take no issue with this. Recently, another author (Rene Jorgensen) published a book refuting the validity of Don's experience. The book is titled Behind 90 Minutes in Heaven. It appears someone associated with his book has posted revisions to the article to promote Behind 90 Minutes in Heaven. In addition, rather than an objective article about Don Piper, the article now appears as pitting Mr. Jorgensen's opinion against Don's interpretation of his own experience. I have no desire to create a contentious situation, but would it not be better to relocate information about Mr. Jorgensen to a separate article? I would ask you to look at the article and make changes as you deem necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariverrunsthroughit81 ( talk • contribs) 19:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
The talk page for this article is being used as an attack page, with defamatory and needlessly offensive remarks about the subject. Grubstreet ( talk) 23:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Article contains very few sources and many subjective views. I am going to clean it up. This biography should be closely watched for vandalism or repeated subjectivism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philharefan ( talk • contribs) 03:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Abdelaziz Kareem Salim al-Noofayee
and dozens more......
A question at RSN [11] led to to this AFD discussion [12] and ultimately the article itself. [13]. A large portion of the article consisted of a table of various Guantanamo detainees, with text sourced to transcripts, court documents and similar documents. This clearly violates WP:BLPPRIMARY, and hence I removed it. diff The problem is that there are apparantly dozens of BLP's similarly sourced to such documents, in some cases exclusively sourced to such documents. The three-dozen persons named in the table that I deleted prior version would appear to be the tip of the iceberg. I have neither the time nor energy to track all these instances down and correct them to conform to WP:BLPPRIMARY, but I suspect that some of the folks who frequent this page just might have the time and inclination to do so. Fladrif ( talk) 21:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
There is a lot of edit warring going on at the Marcus Lamb ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. I have no idea who is or is not correct, or if any of the sources is or is not correct, and in fact I know nothing about the guy, but the edit warring seems to be rather BLP-violating. Corvus cornix talk 22:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Would an admin please delete File:Adrian Lameo.png (modified by above user to vandalize above article). Article may need a couple of watchers. Johnuniq ( talk) 09:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the article contains information that is unverified and libellious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.21.101 ( talk) 14:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Someone has vandalised this page on the paragraph regarding his appearance on Celebrity Mastermind. The comments are bitchy and untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.157.99 ( talk)
Non famous person, vanity article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.239.5 ( talk) 22:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Dick Clark was not born in 1889. He maybe getting old but not that old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.35.148 ( talk) 05:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I would fix this myself but a telephone the size of a slightly ambitious matchbox has its limitations. To summarize, this article contains rather more personal detail than it should. David Linder has launched an unsuccessful legal complaint about it, but that shouldn't prevent us from fixing the article so it doesn't unnecessarily dispense gossip about his role in the affair.
To cut a long story short, we shouldn't be turning a section on clinical side-effects of a drug into a lubricious bit of gossip. Tasty monster (= TS ) 02:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted as unsourced and actually irrelevant, since the incident, even if true, has to do with a different death and possibly a different chemical. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 03:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
In the ===Personal Life=== of lieutenant Governor of Guam Ray Tenorio, there is a biased point of view on his childhood, his last name controversy, and children. Under ===Lt. Governor of Guam=== there seems to be a partisan bias. I believe the entire article to be a defamation of Ray Tenorio. I am new to Wikipedia, but I am not new to Encyclopedias. The article is filled with heavily researched political and domestic mistakes that everyone goes through. It has been an edit war with USER: Scanlan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrgates ( talk • contribs) 05:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I apologize. I deleted that particular portion to keep neutrality between controversy and verifiable fact based information. I believe it to be neutral and balanced now. I hope you all agree.Mrgates 06:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I restored the deleted text and citations. They seemed to be arbitrarily changed several times from third-party sources, such as newspapers and television news, to sources that solely cited the web sites of the political campaign and political transition team. Entire biographic sections (including third party sources) were removed. I kept some of Mrgates' good faith addititions, such as the inclusion of Tenorio's legistaltive accomplishments, which is a great addition to the article. I would support the removal of the custody material as a compromise (which, however, was an issue in the election campaign), but other career and biographical information should remain, so long as its cited with third-party sources. Have a good day! Scanlan ( talk) 13:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Scanlan, I am glad we have come to a consensus. Happy new year. Mrgates 05:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrgates ( talk • contribs)
The Glenn Beck article is highly problematic. I added a section under notable controversies regarding Beck's statement that he believes the number of muslims who are terrorists is closer to 10% than 1%. While other editors objects, most of these objections came from people who also said racist things about muslims in their objection or expressed support for Glenn Beck. In my estimation no valid objection was raised, though valid support was. I therefore included the entry in the article and have since been involved in an Edit conflict with one of the editors. My impression is the page is being protected by an over vigilant user who is missapplying guidelines like consensus. Deliciousgrapefruit ( talk) 01:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what forum shopping is. But I am not well acquainted with Wikipedia and trying to find the proper channel for my complaints. Please stop hounding me thank you. Deliciousgrapefruit ( talk) 01:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Whatever Cptnoono. Thanks for reporting me for something I didn't do. Deliciousgrapefruit ( talk) 13:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
While I do think the article suffers from POV and consensus blocking (from people who either support or hate him), I would say that in the US, Beck is a major pundit. He is up there with a handful of people that deeply impact the political discourse. His program is highly rated, as is his radio show, and he has legions of fans who hang on what he says. The significance of the 10% statement, is that to this point, no prominent pundit or personality has said the number might be that high. Until recently there was a line in the US people didn't cross when it came to muslims, and he appears to be one of a handful leading the charge to question assumptions about the number of terrorists out there (in the past everyone used the caveat that the terrorists in the Muslim community are a small minority below 1%, even if they were being critical). I study terrorism for a living. I assure you, this is a big deal what he said. Deliciousgrapefruit ( talk) 13:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Please review a situation on the "Mel Odom (artist)" page and advise.
A user, Muotinukke, is insistent that a reference that is in my opinion poorly sourced and unverifiable, contradicts a reference from The New York Times. Muotinukke not only continually reverts my edits regarding this, but has begun what I feel is harrassment on my User Talk page by issuing warning citations against me, when all I'm doing is reverting my edits to reflect The New York Times citation.
Please help. Mary Cross ( talk) 14:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
"His band Vrijeme i Zemlja was formed while he was in college and had two Number 1 albums in Europe ("Vrijeme i Zemlja I" in 1980 and "Takvu te neću" in 1983)."
Does anybody ever heard about "European top chart"?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.131.199 ( talk) 19:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Vandalism 1: You can see his posts, calling O'Neall "fat" (among other things, the others of which have been deleted) on the discussion page (under the post "The Caption for the Free Throw Pic".) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shaquille_O%27Neal
Vandalism 2 (changing other peoples discussion-page posts): He also changed one of my (discussion-page) posts (in the "Military Brat" post on the same page, (See revisions to see where he changes what I wrote in my own discussion-post). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shaquille_O%27Neal
(I don't know if he also vandalized the main page).
Here is his IP address (Wiki-auto-signed with this): 68.222.172.18
Telemachus.forward ( talk) 20:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I recently proposed the following articles for deletion because they are completely unsourced lists of British people by ethnicity/national origin. My rationale was that "This unsourced list is in violation of WP:BLP. I would remove all unsourced entries, but that would simply leave an empty list. I think that deletion is the best option until someone has the time to rewrite a properly sourced list".
- Done
Off2riorob (
talk)
22:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
The proposals were declined on the basis that many of the subjects in the lists have sources for their ethnicity in their individual articles (see comments here). I just wanted to get a BLP perspective on this. I'm not convinced that every item on each of the lists is sourced (it would take a long time to check), but to me there should be sources for the list articles even if they already exist in the individual articles. Cordless Larry ( talk) 10:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Brandi Hawbaker ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article about a deceased poker player has had some additions and deletions recently from two accounts, BrandiRose's Mom ( talk · contribs) and Brandon gerson ( talk · contribs), who claim to be the subject's mom and boyfriend, respectively. Although there's an obvious [[WP:COI|conflict of interest}} here, I'm just bringing it to this board for more attention because some of the edits deal with still-living people. More eyes would be welcomed there, as there's currently a dispute as to whether to include a quote from the boyfriend about the subject's mental state. [14] Dayewalker ( talk) 00:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Christopher Jefferies has been arrested for the Murder of Joanna Yeates but not charged with any crime. Should Christopher Jefferies redirect to the murder article or to Chris Jefferies (an unrelated basketball player). Should there be a hatnote on Chris Jefferies linking to the Murder of Joanna Yeates article? This has been discussed briefly at Talk:Chris Jefferies and Talk:Murder_of_Joanna_Yeates#Chris Jefferies but I'd like further input. -- Pontificalibus ( talk) 14:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Article: Sheila Voser Von Engelberg. Person is in reality a teacher. Article has no true information whatsoever. It's only bullying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.52.24 ( talk) 16:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Has Sue Monroe been imprisoned for murder? I can find no evidence online to support this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.115.169 ( talk) 00:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
What is regarded as best practice when a contentious BLP has no English-language sources? The above is sourced entirely to Portuguese-language newspapers and websites. I can't tell how notable they are. Some of the claims seem to be correct (the man was charged with some form of organized crime), but others are convoluted and involve other members of his family, some of whom have complained, including during an AfD last year— these posts, for example, are from someone who says he's the subject's grandson.
My preference would be to stub it down and request English sources, but having looked on Google there don't appear to be any, so it would probably remain a stub. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 19:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
This is a perennial problem. Foreign language sources are (all other things being equal) no less reliable than English language sources. However, the only quality control wikipedia has (and thus the only protection as subject has from libels) is the ability of one editor to check the accuracy of what another has submitted. That doesn't always happen anyway, but where the source is less-accessible either because it is foreign language or offline or hard to get, the chances of anyone being able and willing to do that are significantly reduced. It can be done, but mostly it won't. Personally, I think we should insist on reliable english on-line sources for all negative BLP material, but that's going to be a hard fight to win.-- Scott Mac 23:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
It raises the questions: "best sources" for what purpose? I agree that the best sources for writing articles are not necessarily English language, and not necessarily easily accessible to the reader. I'd agree that the best sources for pointing the reader to may well be specialist, particularly if the article implies a specialist knowledge. However, there is also the question of Quality Control. In a print encyclopedia this is given by the author who is named and responsible. The reader is invited to trust the author - who has put his professional reputation behind all facts asserted. Wikipedia has anonymous and (largely) unaccountable authors, so the only Quality control we have is "crowd sourced fact-checking". That's hit and miss as it is. But if the source can only be checked by the small minority of Wikipedians fluent that language, knowledgeable in the reliability of sources in that language, and having access to those sources, then our Quality control is almost non-existent. I don't think anyone wishes to disallow foreign language sources, however is isn't unreasonable to say that if we are making negative claims about a living person, we need to have sources that can reasonably be checked by the limited quality control we have. I doubt that an application of this would exclude much that's not of marginal notability anyway.-- Scott Mac 23:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I object to the unilateral decision by SlimVirgen to stubbify the article about Antonio Petrus Kalil. The deletion of most of the article is made by someone who, by her own admission, does not even speak Portuguese. As such she is not qualified to judge the article. I think the decision should not have been taken before a Portuguese speaking editor could have had a look at it and assess if the article reflect the sources. I fail to understand the sudden rush. I request a re-assessment of the decision by neutral admins. - DonCalo ( talk) 19:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
It would be nice if someone who does not belong to the inner circle of SlimVirgin would look at the case with a neutral point of view. - DonCalo ( talk) 20:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, so I now commit to the growing consensus that the article has to be rebuild, I start rebuilding – adding as much English language sources as possible and adding Portuguese quotes and translations of those quotes, as well as summaries of articles by another editor (see this edit) – and SlimVirgin protects the page from editing, arguing that it first needs be done in a draft version hidden from the general audience. I completely disagree. The rebuilding is better done in the open than in some backward page nobody can find. I request unprotection of the article. - DonCalo ( talk) 17:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Rebuilding the article in the draft would make it very difficult for other editors to be engaged. It is impossible to reach consensus with somebody who wants me blocked editing this page, who thinks that a judge is an unreliable source and thinks academic studies are biased and should be removed. In the new version everything is even more referenced than in the old one. You don't understand the subject, you cannot read Portuguese and you make it impossible to edit this article. You seem to have quite a reputation to uphold in harrassing editors you don't like. I am wasting my time here. - DonCalo ( talk) 17:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Many of the facts on her info box are unsourced, such as weight and measurements.
Considering she was underage when these films were made and considers herself a victim of child sexual exploitation, it would seem that the use of the 'adult film star' biographical template violates this 'conservative' principle. It also violates the 'POV' and 'no original research', since claiming that she is an 'adult film star' is a bit of a stretch.
Decora ( talk) 16:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm tempted to take this straight to AFD, but thought some discussion here first might be helpful. The article seems to me just an excuse to record tabloid tittle-tattle and a, whole lot of "it has been reported" stuff. Read through it. Should this exist?
Thoughts. -- Scott Mac 22:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
AfD2 is the place for this. The previous one was in 2008, and I think our standards for material such as this have become more properly discriminating. It's useless to speculate whether thiswould be kept, when we can find out directly. DGG ( talk ) 16:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
There have been a dozen attempts so far today to edit and re-edit this article, especially the "Controversies" section in what seems to be a clear case of POV pushing. It seems like there is a concerted attempt today to put across a certain POV showing the individual in a favorable light. This goes against the grain of neutrality of POV.
The controversies section is supposed to highlight the controversies surrounding the individual without trying to apportion credit or excuses for them.
The ENTIRE introduction has been rewritten by User:Amitchandra123 which now provides a justification for EVERY allegation made against Pradip Baijal. Repeatedly going in and editing the article by removing the negative references (including links to media articles) and replacing them with flowery phrases justifying the controversy is clear POV pushing and vandalism.
The original line read: """His tenure as TRAI chairman coincided with multiple policy changes that are alleged to have directly benefited telecom companies like Reliance Telecom and Tata Teleservices."""
it was changed to: """His tenure as TRAI chairman coincided with multiple policy changes (people call them flip-flops, but were normal and expected for any emerging sector) that are alleged to have directly benefited telecom companies like Reliance Telecom and Tata Teleservices."""
the original line: "sold to Tata Teleservices" was changed to "sold by a transparent auction process to Tata Teleservices". Transparent according to whom?
One of the lines used was "Guess many of the controversies listed below are part of the stick which is seen in other geographies as well. " - I really dont know what to say after that! it is clear that the user(s) in question have some kind of agenda with the individual Pradip Baijal and interested in keeping the news of controversies out of wiki records.
Recommend immediate blocking of his account to put an end to this nonsense.
What is surprising is that at first the user called ArjunNagra was making repeated edits on a similar line to this article. And now it is Amitchandra. Are they the same individual? -- Ashlonerider ( talk) 11:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Mark Clemmit ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Date of birth was definitely 1962/1963- school records "Stokesley Comprehensive School". This has been repeatedly changed to 1966 or 1967 without justification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.148.119.3 ( talk) 12:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Pradip Baijal ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User:Ashlonerider is on a witch hunt and charater assasination of one of the most respected officers in the Indian Administrative Service. He has repeatedly added opinion pieces and non-factual inferences to push his agenda. He has made over 100 changes on Pradip Baijal's page, with only one agenda - to link him to the scam, and not give any benefit of doubt. All individuals who have worked with the officer talk about his impeccable integrity.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitchandra123 ( talk • contribs) 13:08, January 3, 2011
Walter Nowick ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The statements in the seventh paragraph of the article, with the exception of the last sentence, are all hotly contested by all persons who were in the community, and are all unproven. There were absolutely contradictory opinions held by members of the community, and none of the statements made are provable, or uncontested by the people involved. This paragraph should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scaccerus ( talk • contribs) 16:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I've mentioned the article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism in case anyone from there can help in improving it. Scaccerus, you may also be interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Buddhism if that's where your interests lie. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 17:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
G'day all, I haven't been participating in the wikileaks debate here, but I've come across one quite perjorative statement sourced indirectly to a wikileaks cable: [17] It appears problematic to me that we would report such serious allegations made in wikileaks cables. The allegation is of course reported in a reliable source but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be more discerning. I thought I'd bring this here for views before reverting on BLP grounds. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 18:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
The part about Ms.Bertin mother sound libelous and do not offer any source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slilith ( talk • contribs) 19:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
The page has a lot of wrong information about Mohamed Salim AL Awa, Al Awa spend his life fighting for the minority rights, Christians, Baha'is,.... the post cut some of his speech from the middle and miss you use, plus Al Awa was always against terrorist activities all his books, speech , interviews shows that. http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF_%D8%B3%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%85_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%88%D8%A7 http://www.el-awa.com/new/PlayVideo.php?VideoID=142 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mglil7 ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
There is a dispute at the Freeman article again. The dispute arrises about whether he actually tested positive for seroid use or merely allegedly did. I cannot really say. He posted a document on the matter, and did not explicitly deny the allegations. This, to me at least, is rather strong evidence that the allegations are true. But of course I cannot use my own reasoning to argue for well, my own reasoning.
However, unless there is some source where the allegations are challenged, I don't see the reason we should call them allegations. If everything written in a newspaper is mere allegation, then the article should be re-written "Toney Freeman was allegedly arrested, while allegedly being in Sweeden, and allegedly he was released without charges, and allegedly he tested positve...." Which, well, you get my point...
And if you still don't see where I'm going with this, look at the log of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/AresXV with whom I'm disputing this. Tim.thelion ( talk) 23:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
"Allegations" is the appropriate term for what is under discussion here. When police arrest/take someone in for questioning, criminal and civil law state that they have to declare a charge within 6-12 hours. [1] In Freeman's case, this did not occur. The Swedish police did not have a prima facie case against Freeman, who had arrived in Sweden a few hours before. This is to say, there was no objective evidence on hand with which the local police could candidly charge Freeman for abusing drugs within their jurisdiction. Here is a paper written on the Swedish government's treatment of the war of drugs [2]
They took him in because he was a bodybuilder and hoped to build a case against him either under questioning or via testing. Such practise is "profiling" and has been proven to achieve very little in law enforcement terms as " driving while black" and abuse of stop and search practises show. It is also prejudicial and therefore an infringement of civil rights. Added to this, the police did not permit him to have an attorney, a US representative, or make contact with his family. They also forced a urine sample without justifiable cause. All of these are human rights infringements (Violations of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966 Article 7, Article 9 parts 1-5, Article 14, 19, 20- this list need not be exhaustive) ). [3] All of this made fellow competitor Jay Cutler cancel his visit to Sweden [4]
Back to the allegations. Freeman was not charged and was released the same day. He committed no offences under Swedish law. Had he been (a) in possession of illegal drugs (b) tested positive for consumption of illegal (c) been therefore found guilty of the charges raised- suspicion of drug abuse, he would have been detained, brought before the courts and sentenced. The sentence would be determined by the seriousness of the drug abuse. If the police had confidence in their case, they would have detained Freeman under a charge and remanded him. This never happened.
Freeman is reported to have cooperated. He answered all questions and actually gave a urine sample to assist with enquiries. He also offered to have his physician consult with the police if they wished. They did not. Seeing that they had no case, the Sundsvall police turned to character assassination. They ran pictures on the news, biased reports and an aggressive statement effectively saying "BODYBUILDERS STAY AWAY FROM SWEDEN" [5]
Finally, there is the "reasonable man's test". What has this matter got to do with the price of fish? How does violating the human rights of a US professional bodybuilder aid the Swedish government in their fight against steroids and drug abuse? Freeman, was not required to answer anything other than the charge put to him, so Tim.thelion's dalliance with academic notions of denial and admission being the same thing are out of the scope of this forum, and further evidence that the focus is more personal than on objective fact. Again, Tim, your notions are in clear violation of Article 14, part 2 and 3g.
God forbid the day when we are justifying actions like this against a group of people we don't identify with. AresXV ( talk) 02:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC) AresXV
Information with no source keep getting added back. Article also claims he is a Rabbi with no reliable 3rd party sources; did not graduate from seminary; the 3 people with supposedly gave him ordination, no one knows who there are or if they exist. -- SevaSevaSeva ( talk) 14:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
NYT [18] [19] [20] inter alia (many) identifies him as "Rabbi" and that should be sufficient. The "issue" about the title is referred to in a television review [21] states "Michael Lerner, the editor of Tikkun magazine, is not a rabbi." but without any supplemental information. WP, last I checked, is not in a position to define who is, or is not, entitled to be called "Rabbi" or "Reverend" etc. at all, all we do is use what reliable sources call the person. Collect ( talk) 17:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Also, there was lots of non-sourced (not disputed sources, just no sources at all) information in there that I took out, that was the main point of listing here, the "rabbi" issue was secondary. -- SevaSevaSeva ( talk) 17:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
-- SevaSevaSeva ( talk) 20:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
From a non-conservative local SF paper: Some local rabbis disagree with his credentials. The president of the Northern California Board of Rabbis and JTS graduate Rabbi Alan Lew states "That is arrogant nonsense" "I spent six years in extremely rigorous, round-the-clock study in the classic texts of our tradition. Authentic Jewish spirituality is in the texts, not in some fancy New Age ideas or watered-down kabbalah [Jewish mysticism]" [6]
-- SevaSevaSeva ( talk) 21:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
There are right wing sources as well, I feel that they should be included with the left wing sources.
"He calls himself “Rabbi,” although he never graduated from any rabbinic seminary and has no rabbinic ordination recognized by any branch of Judiasm. " http://frontpagemag.com/2010/05/07/poor-michael-lerner%E2%80%99s-petunias/
-- SevaSevaSeva ( talk) 22:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
So this is a good source, but a conservative one is unacceptable here. So the rule on sources is: liberal is good, conservative is bad. -- SevaSevaSeva ( talk) 22:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/, SevaSevaSeva blocked as a sock puppet. Dougweller ( talk) 15:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Victoria Silvstedt ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An editor using two different ips is challenging a specific assertion that this Playboy Playmate was a competitive skiier that had placed fourth at a youth championship in the giant slalom in Sweden in 1989. The winner of that event was future Olympic skiier, Pernilla Wiberg. This assertion was reported by the two largest newspapers in Sweden as part of Silvestedt's history. He wishes to remove the mention of this race because he could not find it any skiing records and conjectures that this repeated story is a self-fabricated lie that originated in some interview that was not fact-checked by the newspapers. This discussion is happening in the talk page of the article.
My question is what evidence does the editor have to provide to remove the assertion? I would also like third parties to participate in this discussion. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 15:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
see the army carrier section
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A user is using Talk:Mao: The Unknown Story to promote a theory that Mobo Gao, [22] Professor of Chinese Studies at the University of Adelaide is involved in some kind of Communist plot to promote Chinese commie propaganda. Needless to say, the user sees this as a Bad Thing. -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 05:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
User:Rjanag has closed this thread on the premise that "the accusations being made aren't in article space". I do not think this is a relevant argument. WP:BLP is increasingly being used to "censor" talk page discussions. Besides, Rjanag should not be closing anything here, he seems to be heavily involved. I will be removing the crap from the talk page. -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 20:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
This article about the Scottish footballer mentions a mysterious dance off at the end of the biography without citing any sources. I suggest that video evidence is submitted, or that the information is removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.176.86.84 ( talk) 14:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
How much weight should be given to the Wikileaks leaks on the articles of Chinese politicians? Zhou Yongkang and Li Changchun both have a dedicated paragraph respectively on comments from the cable leaks connecting them to cyber attacks on Google, yet the sources themselves has been disputed, noting that "Even author of the State Department cable is careful to say that the U.S. government cannot confirm the report".-- PCPP ( talk) 14:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
somebody is messing about with this record suggesting arca now plays for man city — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterb200 ( talk • contribs) 15:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Richard Adeney died on 16th December 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.151.38 ( talk) 16:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Dr. Antonio Damasio's name should not have any accent marks. Adding accent marks denotes improper pronunciation. The accents in the title of the article need to be removed, as to references to the name throughout. Dr. Damasio has never used accents on his name, as evidenced by all of his published works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damasiowiki ( talk • contribs) 18:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Why is this article not referred to in the wikileaks page on Boris de Rachewiltz?
Is it incorrect?
Check: http://boards.ancestry.co.uk/thread.aspx?mv=flat&m=46&p=topics.royalty.russiann — Preceding unsigned comment added by PyramidCat ( talk • contribs) 18:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I've refactored [29] some of the comments by 96.231.142.178 ( talk · contribs) at Talk:Quackwatch per WP:BLP. Attacks against Barrett rarely occur in isolation, so I thought it best to bring to the attention of others right away. -- Ronz ( talk) 23:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
His wikipedia page is libel, referring to him as a traitor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.10.145 ( talk) 02:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
There used to be a page for the American (direct to video) actress and model, but that got deleted. She's confused often enough with the British actress so may I recreate the page?
I kid you not on the Juggy Dancer: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0640871/ Hcobb ( talk) 03:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The article text of List of Hispanic and Latino Americans includes the slightly strange paragraph:
Note: Only people who have biographies at Wikipedia should be included on this list. Reliable sources are optional (for now) when including people belonging to any of the above-listed groups, but are required for others. Thus, for an American who has Spanish ancestry, but was born (for example) in Germany or the Philippines, it should be shown that he or she self-identifies as a Hispanic or Latino American. No flags should accompany the names—the flags currently in the article are in process of removal. This list may be incomplete.
Presumably this note should be hidden from view so that it's only visible when editing the list, but it seems to be openly encouraging the flouting of BLP policy. Unsurprisingly, the list itself is pretty much unsourced. Any views on what should be done here? Cordless Larry ( talk) 10:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Moved as was done here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#British_ethnicity_lists. John lilburne ( talk) 20:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Propaganda328 has been adding some troublesome material in the Tony Frangieh article, that I view as a violation of WP:BLP ( Samir Geagea is a living person). I've had problems with this editor before, who has a clear bias against certain political and religious groups in Lebanon (in a previous AN/I brought case against them, Propaganda328 described Lebanon's assassinated former Prime Minister as "an executed criminal, a criminal who robbed a country dry, out of every last 2irish, to make his tens or hundreds of billions, and is the very definition of corruption and immorality," which pretty much reflected the POV they were attempting to push in that article). In this case though, the target of their edits is a living person, which is why I'm here. The edit in question is this one, which I reverted as a BLP violation. The editor then re-added it, this time citing a YouTube video and some non-English web forum as sources. I've reverted the addition again, but given the past actions of this editor, I suspect they will keep pushing the point while failing to provide reliable sources. Would appreciate some intervention. ← George talk 01:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
RFC now raised. January (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Peter Munk ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I've reverted content copied from the blog of a campaign group, Peter Munk OUT of UofT, and attempts to add the blog as an external link several times over the past few days. The user making these additions has just identified herself on talk page as the co-founder of http://protestbarrick.net (Munk is chairman of Barrick Gold) and one of the organisers of Peter Munk OUT of UofT. January (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, this is Sakura Saunders, the person who added the factual additions to Peter Munk's wikipedia page. I don't understand why my association with protestbarrick.net and Munk OUT of UofT would bar me from adding factual additions about Peter Munk. I source the Toronto Star and Embassy Mag, both major news sources in Canada and a pdf of the actual contract between Munk's foundation and the University. The only time I reference my websites is to reference that organizations do exist that are critical of Mr. Munk and his company Barrick Gold. ProtestBarrick contains over 670 articles, the majority of which are from mainstream news sources, about Munk's company.
As a past financial contributor to wikipedia, I am very upset and disappointed that this space where the corporations are supposed to have an equal say as citizen activists is shutting out the voices of those activists (like you, I am a volunteer). I am primarily a media activist and have been involved with Indymedia and other indy outlets throughout the year. If I continue to be censored by Wikipedia, believe me that there will be an article about it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherryblossom1979 ( talk • contribs) 23:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Laura Prepon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The biographical section of this article needs to be gone over by someone with a better grasp of the line between fandom and fact for actresses. The majority of sources for her bio seem to me to fail RS, and some material is likely unsourced. As an example, she was listed as being married to someone else other than who the article claimed she was living with, but most of her personal info is sourced to Yahoo and fansites. MSJapan ( talk) 09:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The possible deletion of List of HIV-positive people, a featured list, is being discussed at AfD. Much of the discussion is about BLP-related aspects. Cs32en Talk to me 19:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The biography is NOT from a Neutral Point Of View but looks more like something his publicist has written. Also Scientology is spread throughout the whole article and is not limited to the category about his religion. The page even has a link to the general scientology portal. This violates the policy on biographies of living persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rportti ( talk • contribs) 19:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
That article is absolute crap from one end to another. No sources, DOB, badly written and full (and I mean full!) of factual errors. Consider re-doing or removing it completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.212.224.79 ( talk) 16:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
As the sources name real people and accuse them of illegal activity, and the article itself talks about material being "obtained under false pretenses", I'd like some opinions as to whether this material, sourced from one organisation/person, should be in the article. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 17:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Apparently, the FIP copyrights weres on the later edition (not the Urtext or Criswell) - the original copyright did not disappear - it just did not apply to the later, substantially altered, editions (now copyright by FACIM). The lawsuit was settled in 2003 it seems. The defendants had asserted that the word of God can not be copyright in the US. [1] This claim was not upheld anywhere. Only the very first version ("Criswell") is now asserted to be "public domain" (and may not be public domain under international law in any case (the issue of whether just over a hundred copies, of which two were sent to the Copyright Office) qualifies as "public release" was never determined by a court). Way too much stuff to read to be cogent without gross oversimplification, to be sure! Interesting sidelight: Science and Health was granted perpetual copyright in the US, and the King James Bible has perpetual copyright in the UK. Collect ( talk) 19:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
The Avett Brothers ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article reads like a puff piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmansfieldiv ( talk • contribs) 23:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Not sourced at all.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Donaldson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Gris ( talk • contribs) 02:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that the overall choice of what material to cover, etc., on Seattle mayor Michael McGinn ghttp://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&action=edit§ion=36ets into the range of possible BLP problems. Someone with more time on their hands than I might want to have a look. - Jmabel | Talk 07:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
It might be a good idea to point out the paragraphs which concern you. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 12:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Not much.
I could go on, but, again, I think this is best worked on by someone who is neutral on the topic, not by someone (like me) who probably has an equal and opposite bias. - Jmabel | Talk 20:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
This article created by a SPA who probably has a COI would seem to qualify as a G10. I'd CSD nominate or try to get to NPOV status, but since I've spoken out on the issue, someone might suggest I have a COI. If you decide to rewrite the article from scratch instead of G10'ing it, here are some sources for balance: [2] [3] THF ( talk) 22:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
The article seems to be mainly an essay, and relies extensively on OR and SYNTH to boot. The term is found not in the NYT archives at all, on Googlebooks in a handful after 1940 (clearly the older references are not to this article at all), and news archives result in such stuff as [4] which does not appear to show any relevance here at all. Googlenews archives found a total of one use in fifty-two years appearing to be on point - which scarcely makes it a common or notable term at all. Collect ( talk) 00:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
To the unidentified user who cited WP:BLPPRIMARY: The statement you are citing is "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." This means transcripts of actual witness testimony and documents such as complaints, which of course contain unevaluated assertions made by lawyers or witnesses. The court's decision, which is what is being cited here, is the judge's definitive evaluation of the assertions before him, and is really more of a secondary than a primary source. I do not believe WP:BLPPRIMARY requires us to disregard a judge's own words in favor of a newspaper report on those words. By analogy, WP:Reliable_source_examples#Law says: "When discussing legal texts, it is more reliable to quote from the text, appropriately qualified jurists or textbooks than from newspaper reporting." Moreover, the judges' decisions are being cited here not for absolute objective truth but to indicate the opinion of certain judges before which these lawyers appear. From a WP:RS standpoint, I can't imagine a more reliable source for a judge's opinion than a volume in a recognized decision reporting series. I also vastly disagree with the speed with which you deleted this material. I think giving people a chance to source it better (if not doing it yourself) is a courtesy. On the whole, I think a gross NPOV violation may be taking place--we are protecting lawyers (I am one myself by the way) against public criticism of their very public actions. I agree the article needs some rewriting to satisfy NPOV (any of you is free of course to add some favorable material to the article to address any WEIGHT problems). Oh, and THF, it is obviously not an attack page that "serves no other purpose." Speaking as an attorney, I found it interesting and informative about an area of litigation with which I was not familiar. It definitely does not deserve deletion. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 02:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
A number of extravagant claims are made on Michel Fattouche ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), based on primary sources, that appear to be asserted primarily in support of legal action being pursued by the subject and an associate, Hatim Zaghloul ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), aka Zhatim ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is the author of both articles (so I have userfied the obvious autobiography). Fattouche probably is notable but this article requires careful monitoring as it was started in pursuit of an external agenda and it is very likely that the individual(s) concerned will continue to pursue this agenda. Guy ( Help!) 11:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Has achieved a huge increase in size courtesy of a SPA, it appears. I had once depuffed it, but it is likely that other eyes and delete buttons should be present there. Thanks. Collect ( talk) 12:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Topher Grace ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Another editor removed various information from the article because it wasn't sourced (whether the editor should have put in citation needed tags instead is another matter). I focused on two of the removals, one that Grace won an award from the National Board of Review, and the other that he hosted SNL in 2005. I restored the material carefully linking (although not citing it as a source) to the Wikipedia articles that list the NBR awards and the SNL hosts. The editor reverted my change insisting that an outside source be cited.
Now, I'm well aware that Wikipedia articles are not citable as sources, but what I did was common practice in entertainmnent articles. I'm also aware that just because something is common practice doesn't necessarily make it right, but, in this instance, if you carry the other editor's position to its logical extreme, the amount of work and the number of sources required would skyrocket. For example, I couldn't say that Grace starred in That '70s Show and link to the article; instead, I'd have to find something on the web that supports it. Every role every actor has played would have to be sourced similarly.
The Grace issue has been resolved because rather than fight with the editor (and I'm not accusing him of being "wrong"), I found a source for both propositions and inserted it in the article, but the bigger issue remains. How should this sort of issue/dispute be handled? Wikipedians love to cite policy, but the truth of the matter is, except in egregious cases, policy is open to interpretation and, equally important, we are supposed to exercise some editorial judgment - we're not automatons.
Comments?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 16:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
This article has been edited to remove the co-founder/ songwriter/ vocalist Anka Wolbert, the result being that Ronny Moorings now appears as the sole founder. Removing Anka's work over the period of something like 10 years certainly violates her biography, as her fan base will know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muso88 ( talk • contribs) 17:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Here is the url for the diff http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Clan_of_Xymox&diff=369171196&oldid=369029946
Muso88 ( talk) 23:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Both the supports and opponents of the subject are violating wikipedia's policies. A visit to the Edit History page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Atiku_Abubakar&action=history) will make this clear —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.190.2.43 ( talk) 00:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
For those who don't know, articles related to Sarah Palin are under community probation.
Not long after Sarah Palin became a national public figure in 2008, some porn company produced a film called Who's Nailin' Paylin. Since everything related to Palin seems to generate news, there was a flurry of coverage at the time, but little since. Many public figures have been parodied in porn films, but we don't typically include that fact in their biographies. Since the film's release, mention of it periodically crops up when various editors want to include the film in Wikipedia's biography of Palin, either in the main article or in Public image of Sarah Palin. The current iteration of the discussion can be found here, only a little while after the last time the subject was hashed over. I'm hoping to get some consensus on this issue, and have the decision added to Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation so we can stop endlessly rehashing it, and least for the time being. Kelly hi! 07:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
there are a few issues being brought up here that need to be solved before this issue can be put to rest.
4*-In my opinion, there is a place for this information, Public image of Sarah Palin. Personally I dont see how much of this information should be allowed but a film parody not be, a poster is hardly newsworthy. Sephiroth storm ( talk) 08:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
The only real issues are: does inclusion of a porn film improve the article as a BLP. AFAICT, it does not. Is it actually relevant to the living person? Only in that it seeks to make fun of her. Period. Collect ( talk) 13:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Appending: BLP applies to all "subarticles" on a living person." The porn film has nothing of value to do with Palin at all, and to add it to any article is an insult to WP standards entirely. Collect ( talk) 19:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
No, this shouldn't be included. It's undue weight to focus on such a minor and embarrassing trifle when the subject is so well-known. WP:UNDUE applies here Them From Space 13:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
In the Alexandra Powers article I created I found a website that says she is in Scientology. Here's the website: http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/by-name/a/alexandra-powers.html Should this be used as a reference in the article? Please let me know. Neptunekh2 ( talk) 15:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
This article seems notable, but it really, really needs sourcing, because it's full of contentious unsourced statements. Thanks, CordeliaNaismith ( talk) 13:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
An edit war is about to start on Rebecca Wilson as a user is contesting my removal of inadaquately sourced information. The publisher might be reliable but the article itself is a blatant attack peice by the author. -- Pontificalibus ( talk) 16:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I have concerns about the inclusion in this article of MSNBC's typographical error in which Niger Innis was captioned ""Nigger Innis". It has nothing to do with the subject of this BLP; it seems to be that to include it is giving undue weight to a trivial incident (for which the subject of the article is not responsible), and that the effect of its inclusion is to denigrate the subject of the article. It's puerile/childish/laddish/sniggering/immature/immaterial etc. none of which should be what Wikipedia aspires to. I'd be glad for additional input on the talk page. - Nunh-huh 17:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Don Piper is the author of the book, 90 Minutes in Heaven (Revell 2004). His book details his collision with an 18-wheeler, his experience in Heaven, and his recovery. The story is told against the backdrop of his Christian faith.Several revisions were made to correct material based of faith rather than fact. I take no issue with this. Recently, another author (Rene Jorgensen) published a book refuting the validity of Don's experience. The book is titled Behind 90 Minutes in Heaven. It appears someone associated with his book has posted revisions to the article to promote Behind 90 Minutes in Heaven. In addition, rather than an objective article about Don Piper, the article now appears as pitting Mr. Jorgensen's opinion against Don's interpretation of his own experience. I have no desire to create a contentious situation, but would it not be better to relocate information about Mr. Jorgensen to a separate article? I would ask you to look at the article and make changes as you deem necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariverrunsthroughit81 ( talk • contribs) 19:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
The talk page for this article is being used as an attack page, with defamatory and needlessly offensive remarks about the subject. Grubstreet ( talk) 23:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Article contains very few sources and many subjective views. I am going to clean it up. This biography should be closely watched for vandalism or repeated subjectivism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philharefan ( talk • contribs) 03:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Abdelaziz Kareem Salim al-Noofayee
and dozens more......
A question at RSN [11] led to to this AFD discussion [12] and ultimately the article itself. [13]. A large portion of the article consisted of a table of various Guantanamo detainees, with text sourced to transcripts, court documents and similar documents. This clearly violates WP:BLPPRIMARY, and hence I removed it. diff The problem is that there are apparantly dozens of BLP's similarly sourced to such documents, in some cases exclusively sourced to such documents. The three-dozen persons named in the table that I deleted prior version would appear to be the tip of the iceberg. I have neither the time nor energy to track all these instances down and correct them to conform to WP:BLPPRIMARY, but I suspect that some of the folks who frequent this page just might have the time and inclination to do so. Fladrif ( talk) 21:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
There is a lot of edit warring going on at the Marcus Lamb ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. I have no idea who is or is not correct, or if any of the sources is or is not correct, and in fact I know nothing about the guy, but the edit warring seems to be rather BLP-violating. Corvus cornix talk 22:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Would an admin please delete File:Adrian Lameo.png (modified by above user to vandalize above article). Article may need a couple of watchers. Johnuniq ( talk) 09:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the article contains information that is unverified and libellious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.21.101 ( talk) 14:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Someone has vandalised this page on the paragraph regarding his appearance on Celebrity Mastermind. The comments are bitchy and untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.157.99 ( talk)
Non famous person, vanity article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.239.5 ( talk) 22:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Dick Clark was not born in 1889. He maybe getting old but not that old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.35.148 ( talk) 05:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I would fix this myself but a telephone the size of a slightly ambitious matchbox has its limitations. To summarize, this article contains rather more personal detail than it should. David Linder has launched an unsuccessful legal complaint about it, but that shouldn't prevent us from fixing the article so it doesn't unnecessarily dispense gossip about his role in the affair.
To cut a long story short, we shouldn't be turning a section on clinical side-effects of a drug into a lubricious bit of gossip. Tasty monster (= TS ) 02:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted as unsourced and actually irrelevant, since the incident, even if true, has to do with a different death and possibly a different chemical. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 03:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
In the ===Personal Life=== of lieutenant Governor of Guam Ray Tenorio, there is a biased point of view on his childhood, his last name controversy, and children. Under ===Lt. Governor of Guam=== there seems to be a partisan bias. I believe the entire article to be a defamation of Ray Tenorio. I am new to Wikipedia, but I am not new to Encyclopedias. The article is filled with heavily researched political and domestic mistakes that everyone goes through. It has been an edit war with USER: Scanlan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrgates ( talk • contribs) 05:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I apologize. I deleted that particular portion to keep neutrality between controversy and verifiable fact based information. I believe it to be neutral and balanced now. I hope you all agree.Mrgates 06:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I restored the deleted text and citations. They seemed to be arbitrarily changed several times from third-party sources, such as newspapers and television news, to sources that solely cited the web sites of the political campaign and political transition team. Entire biographic sections (including third party sources) were removed. I kept some of Mrgates' good faith addititions, such as the inclusion of Tenorio's legistaltive accomplishments, which is a great addition to the article. I would support the removal of the custody material as a compromise (which, however, was an issue in the election campaign), but other career and biographical information should remain, so long as its cited with third-party sources. Have a good day! Scanlan ( talk) 13:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Scanlan, I am glad we have come to a consensus. Happy new year. Mrgates 05:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrgates ( talk • contribs)
The Glenn Beck article is highly problematic. I added a section under notable controversies regarding Beck's statement that he believes the number of muslims who are terrorists is closer to 10% than 1%. While other editors objects, most of these objections came from people who also said racist things about muslims in their objection or expressed support for Glenn Beck. In my estimation no valid objection was raised, though valid support was. I therefore included the entry in the article and have since been involved in an Edit conflict with one of the editors. My impression is the page is being protected by an over vigilant user who is missapplying guidelines like consensus. Deliciousgrapefruit ( talk) 01:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what forum shopping is. But I am not well acquainted with Wikipedia and trying to find the proper channel for my complaints. Please stop hounding me thank you. Deliciousgrapefruit ( talk) 01:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Whatever Cptnoono. Thanks for reporting me for something I didn't do. Deliciousgrapefruit ( talk) 13:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
While I do think the article suffers from POV and consensus blocking (from people who either support or hate him), I would say that in the US, Beck is a major pundit. He is up there with a handful of people that deeply impact the political discourse. His program is highly rated, as is his radio show, and he has legions of fans who hang on what he says. The significance of the 10% statement, is that to this point, no prominent pundit or personality has said the number might be that high. Until recently there was a line in the US people didn't cross when it came to muslims, and he appears to be one of a handful leading the charge to question assumptions about the number of terrorists out there (in the past everyone used the caveat that the terrorists in the Muslim community are a small minority below 1%, even if they were being critical). I study terrorism for a living. I assure you, this is a big deal what he said. Deliciousgrapefruit ( talk) 13:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Please review a situation on the "Mel Odom (artist)" page and advise.
A user, Muotinukke, is insistent that a reference that is in my opinion poorly sourced and unverifiable, contradicts a reference from The New York Times. Muotinukke not only continually reverts my edits regarding this, but has begun what I feel is harrassment on my User Talk page by issuing warning citations against me, when all I'm doing is reverting my edits to reflect The New York Times citation.
Please help. Mary Cross ( talk) 14:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
"His band Vrijeme i Zemlja was formed while he was in college and had two Number 1 albums in Europe ("Vrijeme i Zemlja I" in 1980 and "Takvu te neću" in 1983)."
Does anybody ever heard about "European top chart"?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.131.199 ( talk) 19:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Vandalism 1: You can see his posts, calling O'Neall "fat" (among other things, the others of which have been deleted) on the discussion page (under the post "The Caption for the Free Throw Pic".) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shaquille_O%27Neal
Vandalism 2 (changing other peoples discussion-page posts): He also changed one of my (discussion-page) posts (in the "Military Brat" post on the same page, (See revisions to see where he changes what I wrote in my own discussion-post). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shaquille_O%27Neal
(I don't know if he also vandalized the main page).
Here is his IP address (Wiki-auto-signed with this): 68.222.172.18
Telemachus.forward ( talk) 20:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I recently proposed the following articles for deletion because they are completely unsourced lists of British people by ethnicity/national origin. My rationale was that "This unsourced list is in violation of WP:BLP. I would remove all unsourced entries, but that would simply leave an empty list. I think that deletion is the best option until someone has the time to rewrite a properly sourced list".
- Done
Off2riorob (
talk)
22:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
The proposals were declined on the basis that many of the subjects in the lists have sources for their ethnicity in their individual articles (see comments here). I just wanted to get a BLP perspective on this. I'm not convinced that every item on each of the lists is sourced (it would take a long time to check), but to me there should be sources for the list articles even if they already exist in the individual articles. Cordless Larry ( talk) 10:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Brandi Hawbaker ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article about a deceased poker player has had some additions and deletions recently from two accounts, BrandiRose's Mom ( talk · contribs) and Brandon gerson ( talk · contribs), who claim to be the subject's mom and boyfriend, respectively. Although there's an obvious [[WP:COI|conflict of interest}} here, I'm just bringing it to this board for more attention because some of the edits deal with still-living people. More eyes would be welcomed there, as there's currently a dispute as to whether to include a quote from the boyfriend about the subject's mental state. [14] Dayewalker ( talk) 00:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Christopher Jefferies has been arrested for the Murder of Joanna Yeates but not charged with any crime. Should Christopher Jefferies redirect to the murder article or to Chris Jefferies (an unrelated basketball player). Should there be a hatnote on Chris Jefferies linking to the Murder of Joanna Yeates article? This has been discussed briefly at Talk:Chris Jefferies and Talk:Murder_of_Joanna_Yeates#Chris Jefferies but I'd like further input. -- Pontificalibus ( talk) 14:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Article: Sheila Voser Von Engelberg. Person is in reality a teacher. Article has no true information whatsoever. It's only bullying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.52.24 ( talk) 16:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Has Sue Monroe been imprisoned for murder? I can find no evidence online to support this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.115.169 ( talk) 00:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
What is regarded as best practice when a contentious BLP has no English-language sources? The above is sourced entirely to Portuguese-language newspapers and websites. I can't tell how notable they are. Some of the claims seem to be correct (the man was charged with some form of organized crime), but others are convoluted and involve other members of his family, some of whom have complained, including during an AfD last year— these posts, for example, are from someone who says he's the subject's grandson.
My preference would be to stub it down and request English sources, but having looked on Google there don't appear to be any, so it would probably remain a stub. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 19:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
This is a perennial problem. Foreign language sources are (all other things being equal) no less reliable than English language sources. However, the only quality control wikipedia has (and thus the only protection as subject has from libels) is the ability of one editor to check the accuracy of what another has submitted. That doesn't always happen anyway, but where the source is less-accessible either because it is foreign language or offline or hard to get, the chances of anyone being able and willing to do that are significantly reduced. It can be done, but mostly it won't. Personally, I think we should insist on reliable english on-line sources for all negative BLP material, but that's going to be a hard fight to win.-- Scott Mac 23:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
It raises the questions: "best sources" for what purpose? I agree that the best sources for writing articles are not necessarily English language, and not necessarily easily accessible to the reader. I'd agree that the best sources for pointing the reader to may well be specialist, particularly if the article implies a specialist knowledge. However, there is also the question of Quality Control. In a print encyclopedia this is given by the author who is named and responsible. The reader is invited to trust the author - who has put his professional reputation behind all facts asserted. Wikipedia has anonymous and (largely) unaccountable authors, so the only Quality control we have is "crowd sourced fact-checking". That's hit and miss as it is. But if the source can only be checked by the small minority of Wikipedians fluent that language, knowledgeable in the reliability of sources in that language, and having access to those sources, then our Quality control is almost non-existent. I don't think anyone wishes to disallow foreign language sources, however is isn't unreasonable to say that if we are making negative claims about a living person, we need to have sources that can reasonably be checked by the limited quality control we have. I doubt that an application of this would exclude much that's not of marginal notability anyway.-- Scott Mac 23:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I object to the unilateral decision by SlimVirgen to stubbify the article about Antonio Petrus Kalil. The deletion of most of the article is made by someone who, by her own admission, does not even speak Portuguese. As such she is not qualified to judge the article. I think the decision should not have been taken before a Portuguese speaking editor could have had a look at it and assess if the article reflect the sources. I fail to understand the sudden rush. I request a re-assessment of the decision by neutral admins. - DonCalo ( talk) 19:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
It would be nice if someone who does not belong to the inner circle of SlimVirgin would look at the case with a neutral point of view. - DonCalo ( talk) 20:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, so I now commit to the growing consensus that the article has to be rebuild, I start rebuilding – adding as much English language sources as possible and adding Portuguese quotes and translations of those quotes, as well as summaries of articles by another editor (see this edit) – and SlimVirgin protects the page from editing, arguing that it first needs be done in a draft version hidden from the general audience. I completely disagree. The rebuilding is better done in the open than in some backward page nobody can find. I request unprotection of the article. - DonCalo ( talk) 17:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Rebuilding the article in the draft would make it very difficult for other editors to be engaged. It is impossible to reach consensus with somebody who wants me blocked editing this page, who thinks that a judge is an unreliable source and thinks academic studies are biased and should be removed. In the new version everything is even more referenced than in the old one. You don't understand the subject, you cannot read Portuguese and you make it impossible to edit this article. You seem to have quite a reputation to uphold in harrassing editors you don't like. I am wasting my time here. - DonCalo ( talk) 17:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Many of the facts on her info box are unsourced, such as weight and measurements.
Considering she was underage when these films were made and considers herself a victim of child sexual exploitation, it would seem that the use of the 'adult film star' biographical template violates this 'conservative' principle. It also violates the 'POV' and 'no original research', since claiming that she is an 'adult film star' is a bit of a stretch.
Decora ( talk) 16:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm tempted to take this straight to AFD, but thought some discussion here first might be helpful. The article seems to me just an excuse to record tabloid tittle-tattle and a, whole lot of "it has been reported" stuff. Read through it. Should this exist?
Thoughts. -- Scott Mac 22:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
AfD2 is the place for this. The previous one was in 2008, and I think our standards for material such as this have become more properly discriminating. It's useless to speculate whether thiswould be kept, when we can find out directly. DGG ( talk ) 16:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
There have been a dozen attempts so far today to edit and re-edit this article, especially the "Controversies" section in what seems to be a clear case of POV pushing. It seems like there is a concerted attempt today to put across a certain POV showing the individual in a favorable light. This goes against the grain of neutrality of POV.
The controversies section is supposed to highlight the controversies surrounding the individual without trying to apportion credit or excuses for them.
The ENTIRE introduction has been rewritten by User:Amitchandra123 which now provides a justification for EVERY allegation made against Pradip Baijal. Repeatedly going in and editing the article by removing the negative references (including links to media articles) and replacing them with flowery phrases justifying the controversy is clear POV pushing and vandalism.
The original line read: """His tenure as TRAI chairman coincided with multiple policy changes that are alleged to have directly benefited telecom companies like Reliance Telecom and Tata Teleservices."""
it was changed to: """His tenure as TRAI chairman coincided with multiple policy changes (people call them flip-flops, but were normal and expected for any emerging sector) that are alleged to have directly benefited telecom companies like Reliance Telecom and Tata Teleservices."""
the original line: "sold to Tata Teleservices" was changed to "sold by a transparent auction process to Tata Teleservices". Transparent according to whom?
One of the lines used was "Guess many of the controversies listed below are part of the stick which is seen in other geographies as well. " - I really dont know what to say after that! it is clear that the user(s) in question have some kind of agenda with the individual Pradip Baijal and interested in keeping the news of controversies out of wiki records.
Recommend immediate blocking of his account to put an end to this nonsense.
What is surprising is that at first the user called ArjunNagra was making repeated edits on a similar line to this article. And now it is Amitchandra. Are they the same individual? -- Ashlonerider ( talk) 11:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Mark Clemmit ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Date of birth was definitely 1962/1963- school records "Stokesley Comprehensive School". This has been repeatedly changed to 1966 or 1967 without justification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.148.119.3 ( talk) 12:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Pradip Baijal ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User:Ashlonerider is on a witch hunt and charater assasination of one of the most respected officers in the Indian Administrative Service. He has repeatedly added opinion pieces and non-factual inferences to push his agenda. He has made over 100 changes on Pradip Baijal's page, with only one agenda - to link him to the scam, and not give any benefit of doubt. All individuals who have worked with the officer talk about his impeccable integrity.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitchandra123 ( talk • contribs) 13:08, January 3, 2011
Walter Nowick ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The statements in the seventh paragraph of the article, with the exception of the last sentence, are all hotly contested by all persons who were in the community, and are all unproven. There were absolutely contradictory opinions held by members of the community, and none of the statements made are provable, or uncontested by the people involved. This paragraph should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scaccerus ( talk • contribs) 16:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I've mentioned the article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism in case anyone from there can help in improving it. Scaccerus, you may also be interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Buddhism if that's where your interests lie. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 17:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
G'day all, I haven't been participating in the wikileaks debate here, but I've come across one quite perjorative statement sourced indirectly to a wikileaks cable: [17] It appears problematic to me that we would report such serious allegations made in wikileaks cables. The allegation is of course reported in a reliable source but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be more discerning. I thought I'd bring this here for views before reverting on BLP grounds. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 18:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
The part about Ms.Bertin mother sound libelous and do not offer any source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slilith ( talk • contribs) 19:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
The page has a lot of wrong information about Mohamed Salim AL Awa, Al Awa spend his life fighting for the minority rights, Christians, Baha'is,.... the post cut some of his speech from the middle and miss you use, plus Al Awa was always against terrorist activities all his books, speech , interviews shows that. http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF_%D8%B3%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%85_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%88%D8%A7 http://www.el-awa.com/new/PlayVideo.php?VideoID=142 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mglil7 ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
There is a dispute at the Freeman article again. The dispute arrises about whether he actually tested positive for seroid use or merely allegedly did. I cannot really say. He posted a document on the matter, and did not explicitly deny the allegations. This, to me at least, is rather strong evidence that the allegations are true. But of course I cannot use my own reasoning to argue for well, my own reasoning.
However, unless there is some source where the allegations are challenged, I don't see the reason we should call them allegations. If everything written in a newspaper is mere allegation, then the article should be re-written "Toney Freeman was allegedly arrested, while allegedly being in Sweeden, and allegedly he was released without charges, and allegedly he tested positve...." Which, well, you get my point...
And if you still don't see where I'm going with this, look at the log of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/AresXV with whom I'm disputing this. Tim.thelion ( talk) 23:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
"Allegations" is the appropriate term for what is under discussion here. When police arrest/take someone in for questioning, criminal and civil law state that they have to declare a charge within 6-12 hours. [1] In Freeman's case, this did not occur. The Swedish police did not have a prima facie case against Freeman, who had arrived in Sweden a few hours before. This is to say, there was no objective evidence on hand with which the local police could candidly charge Freeman for abusing drugs within their jurisdiction. Here is a paper written on the Swedish government's treatment of the war of drugs [2]
They took him in because he was a bodybuilder and hoped to build a case against him either under questioning or via testing. Such practise is "profiling" and has been proven to achieve very little in law enforcement terms as " driving while black" and abuse of stop and search practises show. It is also prejudicial and therefore an infringement of civil rights. Added to this, the police did not permit him to have an attorney, a US representative, or make contact with his family. They also forced a urine sample without justifiable cause. All of these are human rights infringements (Violations of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966 Article 7, Article 9 parts 1-5, Article 14, 19, 20- this list need not be exhaustive) ). [3] All of this made fellow competitor Jay Cutler cancel his visit to Sweden [4]
Back to the allegations. Freeman was not charged and was released the same day. He committed no offences under Swedish law. Had he been (a) in possession of illegal drugs (b) tested positive for consumption of illegal (c) been therefore found guilty of the charges raised- suspicion of drug abuse, he would have been detained, brought before the courts and sentenced. The sentence would be determined by the seriousness of the drug abuse. If the police had confidence in their case, they would have detained Freeman under a charge and remanded him. This never happened.
Freeman is reported to have cooperated. He answered all questions and actually gave a urine sample to assist with enquiries. He also offered to have his physician consult with the police if they wished. They did not. Seeing that they had no case, the Sundsvall police turned to character assassination. They ran pictures on the news, biased reports and an aggressive statement effectively saying "BODYBUILDERS STAY AWAY FROM SWEDEN" [5]
Finally, there is the "reasonable man's test". What has this matter got to do with the price of fish? How does violating the human rights of a US professional bodybuilder aid the Swedish government in their fight against steroids and drug abuse? Freeman, was not required to answer anything other than the charge put to him, so Tim.thelion's dalliance with academic notions of denial and admission being the same thing are out of the scope of this forum, and further evidence that the focus is more personal than on objective fact. Again, Tim, your notions are in clear violation of Article 14, part 2 and 3g.
God forbid the day when we are justifying actions like this against a group of people we don't identify with. AresXV ( talk) 02:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC) AresXV
Information with no source keep getting added back. Article also claims he is a Rabbi with no reliable 3rd party sources; did not graduate from seminary; the 3 people with supposedly gave him ordination, no one knows who there are or if they exist. -- SevaSevaSeva ( talk) 14:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
NYT [18] [19] [20] inter alia (many) identifies him as "Rabbi" and that should be sufficient. The "issue" about the title is referred to in a television review [21] states "Michael Lerner, the editor of Tikkun magazine, is not a rabbi." but without any supplemental information. WP, last I checked, is not in a position to define who is, or is not, entitled to be called "Rabbi" or "Reverend" etc. at all, all we do is use what reliable sources call the person. Collect ( talk) 17:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Also, there was lots of non-sourced (not disputed sources, just no sources at all) information in there that I took out, that was the main point of listing here, the "rabbi" issue was secondary. -- SevaSevaSeva ( talk) 17:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
-- SevaSevaSeva ( talk) 20:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
From a non-conservative local SF paper: Some local rabbis disagree with his credentials. The president of the Northern California Board of Rabbis and JTS graduate Rabbi Alan Lew states "That is arrogant nonsense" "I spent six years in extremely rigorous, round-the-clock study in the classic texts of our tradition. Authentic Jewish spirituality is in the texts, not in some fancy New Age ideas or watered-down kabbalah [Jewish mysticism]" [6]
-- SevaSevaSeva ( talk) 21:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
There are right wing sources as well, I feel that they should be included with the left wing sources.
"He calls himself “Rabbi,” although he never graduated from any rabbinic seminary and has no rabbinic ordination recognized by any branch of Judiasm. " http://frontpagemag.com/2010/05/07/poor-michael-lerner%E2%80%99s-petunias/
-- SevaSevaSeva ( talk) 22:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
So this is a good source, but a conservative one is unacceptable here. So the rule on sources is: liberal is good, conservative is bad. -- SevaSevaSeva ( talk) 22:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/, SevaSevaSeva blocked as a sock puppet. Dougweller ( talk) 15:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Victoria Silvstedt ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An editor using two different ips is challenging a specific assertion that this Playboy Playmate was a competitive skiier that had placed fourth at a youth championship in the giant slalom in Sweden in 1989. The winner of that event was future Olympic skiier, Pernilla Wiberg. This assertion was reported by the two largest newspapers in Sweden as part of Silvestedt's history. He wishes to remove the mention of this race because he could not find it any skiing records and conjectures that this repeated story is a self-fabricated lie that originated in some interview that was not fact-checked by the newspapers. This discussion is happening in the talk page of the article.
My question is what evidence does the editor have to provide to remove the assertion? I would also like third parties to participate in this discussion. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 15:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
see the army carrier section
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A user is using Talk:Mao: The Unknown Story to promote a theory that Mobo Gao, [22] Professor of Chinese Studies at the University of Adelaide is involved in some kind of Communist plot to promote Chinese commie propaganda. Needless to say, the user sees this as a Bad Thing. -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 05:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
User:Rjanag has closed this thread on the premise that "the accusations being made aren't in article space". I do not think this is a relevant argument. WP:BLP is increasingly being used to "censor" talk page discussions. Besides, Rjanag should not be closing anything here, he seems to be heavily involved. I will be removing the crap from the talk page. -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 20:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
This article about the Scottish footballer mentions a mysterious dance off at the end of the biography without citing any sources. I suggest that video evidence is submitted, or that the information is removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.176.86.84 ( talk) 14:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
How much weight should be given to the Wikileaks leaks on the articles of Chinese politicians? Zhou Yongkang and Li Changchun both have a dedicated paragraph respectively on comments from the cable leaks connecting them to cyber attacks on Google, yet the sources themselves has been disputed, noting that "Even author of the State Department cable is careful to say that the U.S. government cannot confirm the report".-- PCPP ( talk) 14:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
somebody is messing about with this record suggesting arca now plays for man city — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterb200 ( talk • contribs) 15:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Richard Adeney died on 16th December 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.151.38 ( talk) 16:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Dr. Antonio Damasio's name should not have any accent marks. Adding accent marks denotes improper pronunciation. The accents in the title of the article need to be removed, as to references to the name throughout. Dr. Damasio has never used accents on his name, as evidenced by all of his published works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damasiowiki ( talk • contribs) 18:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Why is this article not referred to in the wikileaks page on Boris de Rachewiltz?
Is it incorrect?
Check: http://boards.ancestry.co.uk/thread.aspx?mv=flat&m=46&p=topics.royalty.russiann — Preceding unsigned comment added by PyramidCat ( talk • contribs) 18:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I've refactored [29] some of the comments by 96.231.142.178 ( talk · contribs) at Talk:Quackwatch per WP:BLP. Attacks against Barrett rarely occur in isolation, so I thought it best to bring to the attention of others right away. -- Ronz ( talk) 23:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
His wikipedia page is libel, referring to him as a traitor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.10.145 ( talk) 02:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
There used to be a page for the American (direct to video) actress and model, but that got deleted. She's confused often enough with the British actress so may I recreate the page?
I kid you not on the Juggy Dancer: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0640871/ Hcobb ( talk) 03:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The article text of List of Hispanic and Latino Americans includes the slightly strange paragraph:
Note: Only people who have biographies at Wikipedia should be included on this list. Reliable sources are optional (for now) when including people belonging to any of the above-listed groups, but are required for others. Thus, for an American who has Spanish ancestry, but was born (for example) in Germany or the Philippines, it should be shown that he or she self-identifies as a Hispanic or Latino American. No flags should accompany the names—the flags currently in the article are in process of removal. This list may be incomplete.
Presumably this note should be hidden from view so that it's only visible when editing the list, but it seems to be openly encouraging the flouting of BLP policy. Unsurprisingly, the list itself is pretty much unsourced. Any views on what should be done here? Cordless Larry ( talk) 10:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Moved as was done here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#British_ethnicity_lists. John lilburne ( talk) 20:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Propaganda328 has been adding some troublesome material in the Tony Frangieh article, that I view as a violation of WP:BLP ( Samir Geagea is a living person). I've had problems with this editor before, who has a clear bias against certain political and religious groups in Lebanon (in a previous AN/I brought case against them, Propaganda328 described Lebanon's assassinated former Prime Minister as "an executed criminal, a criminal who robbed a country dry, out of every last 2irish, to make his tens or hundreds of billions, and is the very definition of corruption and immorality," which pretty much reflected the POV they were attempting to push in that article). In this case though, the target of their edits is a living person, which is why I'm here. The edit in question is this one, which I reverted as a BLP violation. The editor then re-added it, this time citing a YouTube video and some non-English web forum as sources. I've reverted the addition again, but given the past actions of this editor, I suspect they will keep pushing the point while failing to provide reliable sources. Would appreciate some intervention. ← George talk 01:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
RFC now raised. January (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Peter Munk ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I've reverted content copied from the blog of a campaign group, Peter Munk OUT of UofT, and attempts to add the blog as an external link several times over the past few days. The user making these additions has just identified herself on talk page as the co-founder of http://protestbarrick.net (Munk is chairman of Barrick Gold) and one of the organisers of Peter Munk OUT of UofT. January (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, this is Sakura Saunders, the person who added the factual additions to Peter Munk's wikipedia page. I don't understand why my association with protestbarrick.net and Munk OUT of UofT would bar me from adding factual additions about Peter Munk. I source the Toronto Star and Embassy Mag, both major news sources in Canada and a pdf of the actual contract between Munk's foundation and the University. The only time I reference my websites is to reference that organizations do exist that are critical of Mr. Munk and his company Barrick Gold. ProtestBarrick contains over 670 articles, the majority of which are from mainstream news sources, about Munk's company.
As a past financial contributor to wikipedia, I am very upset and disappointed that this space where the corporations are supposed to have an equal say as citizen activists is shutting out the voices of those activists (like you, I am a volunteer). I am primarily a media activist and have been involved with Indymedia and other indy outlets throughout the year. If I continue to be censored by Wikipedia, believe me that there will be an article about it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherryblossom1979 ( talk • contribs) 23:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Laura Prepon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The biographical section of this article needs to be gone over by someone with a better grasp of the line between fandom and fact for actresses. The majority of sources for her bio seem to me to fail RS, and some material is likely unsourced. As an example, she was listed as being married to someone else other than who the article claimed she was living with, but most of her personal info is sourced to Yahoo and fansites. MSJapan ( talk) 09:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The possible deletion of List of HIV-positive people, a featured list, is being discussed at AfD. Much of the discussion is about BLP-related aspects. Cs32en Talk to me 19:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The biography is NOT from a Neutral Point Of View but looks more like something his publicist has written. Also Scientology is spread throughout the whole article and is not limited to the category about his religion. The page even has a link to the general scientology portal. This violates the policy on biographies of living persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rportti ( talk • contribs) 19:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)