This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

If an article subject who goes by a changed name supposedly does not wish his birth name to be included in the article, are we bound to remove it even when it has been published in a good number of reliable sources? The (cited) birth name was removed by an editor who mentioned private correspondence from the subject and cited WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPNAME, but I don't see that either of those policies apply here - BLPNAME because the person in question is the article subject, not (to use an example from another article) the victim of a recent high-coverage sex crime by the article subject, BLPPRIVACY because the policy does not suggest that names should be expunged and because the name has been published in reliable sources. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 05:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I would tend to err on the side of caution and not include the birth name. Basket of Puppies 13:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The article on Donald Segretti states that he forged the so-called "Canuck Letter". I believe this to be incorrect and possibly libellous. I posted a query about it on the discussion page, but there hasn't been a lot of activity on that article for couple of years, so I thought maybe a post here would prompt a response. 121.214.47.47 ( talk) 05:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources seem to indicate that it was Ken Clawson, so I'll head over and remove that. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. The article has pretty much no references, so I wouldn't be surprised if there were other issues. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 05:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I found a source that mentions he was involved in its creation, though Clawson appears to have been the one actually to have written it. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 05:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest and the information. I've also thanked you on the article's discussion page. Great getting such a quick response. Cheers. 121.214.47.47 ( talk) 09:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murat_Karay%C4%B1lan

A pro-Republic of Turkey "Activist Account" named "Randam" keeps trying to label the PKK rebel Murat Karayilan as a "narcotics trafficker". A longstanding accusation, (and probably true, the PKK definitely shakes down Kurdish drug dealers in Europe), but nevertheless a gross violation of WP:BLP. 69.167.171.39 ( talk) 07:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a very out of context quote in the "Post-2007 World Cup" section from Coach Greg Ryan that has been added after I have removed it multiple times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.44.184 ( talk) 07:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone keeps removing the information relating to the investigation into Lady Meyer's charity being investigated in relation to its finances. This information has been reported in the "Daily Telegraph" and "Independent on Sunday". It is public information and relevant to the pieces on Catherine Meyer (Lady Meyer) and her charity Parents & Abducted Children Together. Wikipedia should not be abused by Lady Meyer to publicize herself in only a positive light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.158.186 ( talk) 12:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion page for Rience Priebus reads like a blog with little factual information.

"Some Democrats have noted that, if you remove all the vowels, his name is "RNC PR BS". Thus, one theory is that his parents, foreseeing his election, selected those consonants and then just filled in vowels around them. In the unlikely event that we find a reliable source for this theory, we can add it. JamesMLane t c 15:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

His name is a homophone for Rinse Prepuce. It is clearly a description of him being a stinky dick and needing a good rinse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.47.85 (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC"

It is offensive to someone who is trying to gather information on the man, and, it is certainly defamatory and an unwarranted and vulgar attack. The children are not playing nice in the sandbox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.39.203.221 ( talk) 14:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

That discussion and commentary has already been deleted by User:OrangeMike wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Reince_Priebus&diff=434123389&oldid=433241051. While some of the other comments are a bit borderline e.g. "I agree it seems like this guy did nothing and out of thin air was chosen to led the teabaggers" most of it appears to be attempts to find sources to flesh out the article (or at least moved in that direction if it wasn't the original reason for the discussion). Nil Einne ( talk) 22:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

Under James Suckling's biography, there is the blatantly incorrect line that "In 1992 Suckling suggested to Wine Spectator publisher Marvin R. Shanken to create Cigar Aficionado,[3] a magazine dedicated to Cuban culture, specifically Cuban cigars." This statement is patently false. Mr. Suckling never suggested to Shanken that the latter create the magazine. Rather, Mr. Suckling himself has personally admitted that the idea of the magazine was entirely that of Mr. Shanken's.

During the past couple of months, I've routinely taken this passage down, but it is always continually reasserted. I've tried to find the original source material that is footnoted but it is nowhere to be found. Thus, I strongly request that the above deceptive lie be taken down to maintain the entire biography's credibility.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agnagara ( talk • contribs) 19:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You can't have searched too hard, in less than a minute of googling I found the full text online: Stappare Un’emozione (in Italian); the source is used appropriately (i.e. the information attributed to that source is indeed in it), so there's no reason to remove that sentence as unsourced. -- Six words ( talk) 19:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

However, if you can provide another reliable source that contradicts this source (like a magazine quoting James Suckling as saying the idea wasn't his) then that can be included as well. If you can't find a quote in a reliable source that says that the idea wasn't Suckling, than the info should stay in the article - even if you believe it's wrong. Ultimately, our articles can only be as accurate as the reliable sources they are based off of. The threshold for inclusion on wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Kevin ( talk) 19:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

(just an addition needed)

The Discography of Steve Mann CDs reissued in the early 21st century by Bella Roma Music should read as follows, (in order of reissue:)

BRM-110 Steve Mann;Alive and Pickin'

BRM-111 Steve Mann Live at the Ash Grove

BRM-112 Steve Mann Straight Life — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.5.46 ( talk) 21:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Patricia Casey (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A "letter to the editor" [1] is being used to support derogatory content. I removed it. Another editor restored it. Need another pair of eyes to check this out. Lionel ( talk) 02:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't look like 'derogatory content' to me, though I can't access the Irish Times myself (it seems to be subscription-only). Are there other sources on this dispute? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 02:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I have database access to the Irish Times. The first letter is Casey herself, referring to the Swedish study (cited to the claim that Casey refers to the Swedish study). It would be better to find an article or a paper of hers in which she cites the study, rather than a letter, but ultimately, she's a reliable source for her own opinions, so no problem there. The second source is an op-ed, so it isn't admissible in a BLP, but it's being cited only insofar as it reproduces RS quotes, which we can cite directly to the RS in question. Shall I replace the second source with the comments from Uppsala and UNICEF, cited to those entities? Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 02:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking, these claims are quite accusatory and weakly cited. "Casey has been faulted for repeatedly misrepresenting research data". - who says this? and where is it cited to? Can you please email me the contents of the letter or just the relevent part of it. Regarding - the comments from Uppsala and UNICEF, cited to those entities - can you please post those here, thanks. Off2riorob ( talk) 13:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Roscelese, that seems a sensible solution. If Casey is a reliable source for her own opinions, I'm sure Uppsala and UNICEF are for theirs. Still, as Rob says, it might be best to see what they all have to say first. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 13:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure. I'll post excerpts to avoid the possibility of copyvio.

• Casey: "...peer-reviewed studies which show that children, in general, do best when raised by their married biological parents...It must be borne in mind that Unicef, which accepts the veracity of these studies...cannot be accused of having a conservative bias. Nor can the University of Uppsala in Sweden which based its finding that fathers are very important for a child's development on 22,000 separate pieces of data." (She also refers to the Uppsala study and to Unicef in a separate letter, which is not currently cited.)
• Anna Sarkadi, Department of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Sweden: "It has come to our attention that Prof Patricia Casey has referred to our article in supporting her views on traditional marriage between biological parents being the best environment for a child to be raised in (March 5th). Prof Casey's conclusion that the article is one of the 'compelling reasons to continue giving marriage between a man and a woman the special support of the State' is not valid based on our findings...Please note that no comparisons were made with gay or lesbian family constellations in the studies included in the review. Therefore, there is nothing whatsoever in our review that would justify the conclusion that same-sex parents cannot raise healthy children who do well."
• Melanie Verwoerd, Executive Director, Unicef Ireland: "Prof Patricia Casey refers to Unicef to support her view that 'children do best when raised by their biological mothers and fathers in a long-term relationship'. Unicef does not make any judgments on the well being of children growing up with same-sex parents...Prof Casey's reference to Unicef, with regard to the current debate on same-sex marriage and parenting, is incorrect and unacceptable."

Let me know if there is more I should post, or if you agree this is sufficient to replace the currently cited op-ed. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 03:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've added these. There also appear to be more pieces from Casey making the claims, at least re: Unicef, if two are not enough; there are also obviously loads of letters from scientists and doctors criticizing her, but these seem less directly relevant than the responses from those whose data or positions she is misrepresenting. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 16:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Peter Smedley (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could someone please check this article.

A person called Peter Smedley died, via "assisted suicide", at Dignitas (euthanasia group). [2]

His story has been recently covered on BBC television in a documentary entitled Choosing to Die, featuring Terry Pratchett. [3] -Thus a great many people are likely to look at the article for background. (The documentary is being broadcast now, as I type this message).

The only indication he has died, in the article mentioned above, is this edit. But is the article even about the same individual?

I'm sorry I am unable to fix this issue myself at this time, and so post here in the hope others will sort it out.  Chzz   ►  20:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• It seems to me these are two different people. -- KFP ( contact | edits) 20:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I've added a hatnote to disambiguate. Lots of page views yesterday, though: http://stats.grok.se/en/201106/Peter%20Smedley and probably more today. -- KFP ( contact | edits) 06:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Walt Winston (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Living person approached me with a vague complaint involving his public image. Requesting an editor to review the content and relevance of the page to Wikipedia and delete any non-factual and non-relevant claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daninater ( talk • contribs) 06:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking for input to settle a disagreement on Talk:Chris Kelly (British politician). Kelly is a British Conservative MP, and Private Eye is a left-leaning satirical magazine with a penchant for anti-establishment exposes. (It repeatedly gets sued for libel).

This is the edit in question. My problem with it is a) the source isn't neutral - it is a source that looks for information and uses it to make people look bad. b) the phrase "in addition to his salary as a member of parliament" while factual, is loaded. It invites the reader to conclude (with Private Eye) that there's something wrong with this.-- Scott Mac 12:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, a source doesn't need to be "neutral" - it needs to be 'reliable', which is something entirely different. Secondly, to suggest that Private Eye is "left leaning" is at least questionable. Thirdly, you seem to be suggesting that it is reporting a fact anyway. So what is the problem? You clearly don't like the wording, but that is a content issue, and best discussed on the article talk page - as to whether "there's something wrong with this", I'd say that is for our readers to decide for themselves. We don't omit facts from BLPs of politicians purely because the subject might find them embarrassing. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 13:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is a content issue. However, in a short BLP selective telling of "facts" can betray bias. Innuendo is the danger here. PE researches facts in order to invite the conclusion of corruption, if we repeat those facts out of context, we simply follow that. That he receives a remuneration for a directorship is a simple fact. That such a remuneration is "in addition to his salary as an MP" is true, but leading. We might as well say after it "like many other MPS do" which is also true, but we're now well into the realm of editorialising.-- Scott Mac 13:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I see that the article has now been revised, and no longer cites Private Eye over this, while still stating that Kelly receives remuneration from the company. Case closed? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 13:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with Scott MacDonald per BLP rules concerning use of tabloid journalism. ScottyBerg ( talk) 13:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Alledged murder of a BLP that was recently found without any sources. Some sources have recently been added but seem low quality, include pictures without info and a blog. Article may require gutting,removing or sourcing. Regards, SunCreator ^{( talk)} 13:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a machine translation and thus probably copyvio of a web page. I see that WP:Translation says "Wikipedia consensus is that an unedited machine translation, left as a Wikipedia article, is worse than nothing. " The username of its creator, Scheherazade magic ( talk · contribs) may not meet our username policy, but that's not really for here. This person may well be notable but the article as it stands needs fixing if it is to remain. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 15:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent article states that he has signed a two year deal with Dundee Football Club, Scotland. This is totally incorrect and potentially damaging. Please remove. Confirmation can be received from Dundee Football Club.

Gilber123 ( talk) 16:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The unsourced information regarding Dundee has been removed from the article by John of Reading. -- Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 16:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Julian Gough (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are two Julian Gough's of roughly equal importance (with respect to Wikipedia): Julian Gough a UK scientist and the Julian Gough the Irish novelist currently described in the article. In all likelihood neither are of significant enough repute to warrant a page. Approximately a year ago this page was a disambiguation between the two, linking to Julian Gough (novelist) and Julian Gough (scientist). At some point the Julian Gough (novelist) page was removed due to lack of sources. Now the disambiguation has been removed and the Julian Gough (novelist) article was moved to the Julian Gough page. The current page was most likely written by Julian Gough the novelist (or his agent), under the pseudonym of Selby de Brien ... De Selby is a fictitious character by the Irish author O'Brien, who Julian Gough the novelist mentions in his blog. My objection to the article is that it is self-promoting and that the disambiguation has been deliberately removed stealthily and by degrees; for some reason the history says the page was created on the 10th of April 2011, but it has been around much longer. The author must have first deleted the page, then re-created it without the disambiguation to deliberately hide the fact. If anything, Julian Gough the scientist is more widely published and read than the (part time) novelist, but neither are yet well-known outside their specific domain.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.174.57.4 ( talk) 19:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I have no idea of whether the history you describe is accurate - nor do I care much. The Gough article was somewhat self-promoting, but, in my view, it was more oddly written than anything else. I've made a few edits to the article to make it more encyclopedic. If you believe the article has problems, you should tag it accordingly (for example, a COI or notability issue). If you believe it's clearly not notable (which I tend to doubt at first glance but haven't really looked into it), you could nominate it for deletion.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 19:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

An editor is insisting that this category include not only actual residents of Israeli settlements, but also "those closely affiliated" with them. This appears to be a WP:BLP minefield; "closely affiliated" is incredibly subjective, and, even if it could be clearly defined, it would still leave a label on a living person's article that wasn't accurate. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Another good reason to get rid of categories... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 03:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Bob Snyder no longer lives in Marco Island, FL, nor does he perform at the Deck Restaurant. He currently resides in Graceville, FL and has since 2005. I have no proof of Bob Snyder no longer working with Holmes County band, but I know it because I am friends with Bob myself. He does indeed perform with the Baptist College of Florida (BCF) Jazz Band, as well as the Orchestra there.

This BCF article has proof of him being a local resident of Graceville (BCF is located in Graceville, FL) as of November 2010. http://www.baptistcollege.edu/news_events/press/2010/donate_instrument.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.130.174.76 ( talk) 04:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Our client WV Grant Ministries has contacted us to clarify and submit a updated revision of his biography do to the fact as there is only negativity and does not contain facts, but a lot of allegations and that do not Pertain to his biography We would like this matter to be addressed as a earliest convenience to resolve this issue. Thank You Edward Avendano AE Media Group — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aemedia ( talk • contribs) 06:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Wells Tower (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The criticism section is strongly biased, and in need of substantial revision. The article cited is not, in fact, serious literary criticism. The article contains malicious ad hominem attacks against the author, and has not been subject to adequate fact checking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foolzgold ( talk • contribs) 21:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the criticism from the article, although it appears that you have been edit-warring with another editor over its inclusion - not a good thing to do. First, I don't think one criticism of an author belongs in an article about the author unless you're going to do more in-depth review of the author's works, including good and bad reviews (there is an awards section but it doesn't get into details). Second, the quote is misleading. The critic did not directly say that Tower was such-and-such, he said that Tower is a wonderful magazine writer, and that magazine writers do such-and-such. Quite different. As worded, then, the article's assertion was wrong.

I've also removed the neutrality tag because I believe that was the only reason it was there. Another word of advice, though. A neutrality tag like the one you put in goes at the top of the article, not in the section. You need to modify the tag to have it apply to a single section. More important, you shouldn't add comments on the article page as if it's a Talk page. That's inappropriate.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 21:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

<merged content from new section - I didn't realize this had been brought up previously> There has been concern raised via OTRS ( VRTS ticket #  2011061310014849) that the alleged criticism in the article is WP:UNDUE. My inclination is to agree as the individual giving the criticism is not necessarily know as an expert on the subject, and the criticism is sourced to the dissenter's own work. I suppose my question is, should a single individual's criticism be included in an article if it is not particularly relevant? If independent reliable sources also reported on the criticism it would be relevant, however as it stands it simply appears to one individual expressing their personal opinion and sourcing it, well, to their opinion. -- Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 21:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Bump. As there is an OTRS ticket pending on this I would like to gather some additional input prior to responding if possible. -- Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 13:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Valid removal. One random person's self-published thoughts are not enough to justify an entire criticism section- it had to go, per UNDUE. Courcelles 23:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

There's some distortion of the history and the current status. Initially, another editor added a separate section for the criticism. He also quoted the article in a misleading fashion. I removed the section. Subsequently, I changed the existing section header to what it is now: "Awards and critical reception". I then reinserted the criticism, very carefully, to make sure it reflected the critic's points. After that, another editor (newly registered), objected on the Talk page, and that editor and I had a discussion. No one else has contributed to that discussion.

So, it's unfair to say that the criticism is in its own section. Indeed, almost the entire section that the criticism is in consists of nothing but praise. All that said, if everyone agrees that this critic is insufficiently noteworthy to include, that's a different issue. However, I should note that The Brooklyn Rail is a notable publication (hence an article here on Wikipedia) and don't see why it should be treated as some sort of self-published source.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Bbb23, your efforts in cleaning up and clarifying the criticism is certainly appreciated, however I've removed the information as it remains contentious under BLP policy, specifically "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all" (bolding mine). The source included is not being used as an example of a body of common criticisms, it is a single opinion piece, that does not reflect even a small minority of published criticism. As it does not meet the requirement for inclusion with regard to criticism, and there has been a valid complaint raised via OTRS on the issue, it has been removed. In order for the information to be restored, consensus needs to be reached on the article talk page that Paul Maliszewski's opinion is relevant enough, and representative of a wider scope of criticism, to be included. -- Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 13:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jezebel'sPonyo comment that Paul Maliszewski, the author of the essay, is merely "one individual expressing their personal opinion." I would only ask that we all consider the larger question raised by Jezebel'sPonyo's assessment: what literary criticism is not, in effect, based on personal opinion? Michiko Kakutani's? Edmund White's? Are their judgments based in some empirical form of literary criticism? Of course not. What separates their opinions from those of the casual blogger is that they make well-crafted and sound arguments to support their opinions. And to that end, so does Maliszewski. He is a published author with two books to his credit, and the Brooklyn Rail is not his personal web page. It is a serious literary journal. I would argue that the very occasion of this disagreement is reason enough to include mention of Maliszewski's essay in the "Awards and critical reception." After all, is that not what Wikipedia is all about? Encouraging divergent input from the widest possible range of verifiable sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockfeather ( talk • contribs) 01:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

That last bit was written by me, Rockfeather, the original "editor" of the disputed material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockfeather ( talk • contribs) 01:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if it means anything, but why are there so many newly registered editors whose only interest appears to be in the Tower article?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 02:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I wonder the same thing. Rockfeather ( talk) 03:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I object to Jezebel'sPonyo's erasure of the disputed material. It is inconsistent with other BLP articles. For instance, look at Malcolm Gladwell's page. It has a long section about the critical reception of his work, which includes many direct quotes from many individual critics with divergent opinions. This paragraph stood out, which I will quote here:

"Maureen Tkacik and Steven Pinker < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Pinker> [21] < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Gladwell#cite_note-nyblog-20> [35] < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Gladwell#cite_note-34> have challenged the integrity of Gladwell's approach. Even while praising Gladwell's attractive writing style and content, Pinker sums up his take on Gladwell as, "a minor genius who unwittingly demonstrates the hazards of statistical reasoning", while accusing Gladwell of "cherry-picked < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking> anecdotes < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence> , post-hoc sophistry < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-hoc_analysis> and false dichotomies < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy> " in his book Outliers. Referencing a Gladwell reporting mistake, Pinker criticizes his lack of expertise:[21] < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Gladwell#cite_note-nyblog-20> "I will call this the Igon Value Problem: when a writer’s education on a topic consists in interviewing an expert, he is apt to offer generalizations that are banal, obtuse or flat wrong."

Malcom Gladwell is a popular, best-selling writer with a broad following among critics and readers. There can be no doubt that those critical of his work represent the viewpoint of "a tiny minority." Would his Wikipedia page then be improved by removing the above paragraph, according to the "undue weight" rule Jezebel'sPonyo cites? No. Removing it would in fact diminish the relevance of Gladwell's Wiki page by turning it into a promotional vehicle for Gladwell's work. And this is precisely where the Tower article is heading.-- Rockfeather ( talk) 15:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I disclosed my conflict of interest and proposed revisions to the discussion page for response. When I received no response and an editor suggested that I directly edit the page, I did. A few weeks later, LongLiveReagan reverted each of my edits indicating that they were "yet another attempt at blanking/whitewashing from the usual suspect(s)." [4]

I believe that all of my edits were factual and well-sourced, but I would like feedback. Thanks. 180north ( talk) 16:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Your edits were the latest chapter of Marshall Sylver, a convicted counterfeiter and indicted fraudster, trying to turn his page into an advertisement. He, or his reps, have been doing this for years. -- LongLiveReagan ( talk) 19:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This article is almost entirely about a controversy the person was involved in. It gives a misleading picture of the, seemingly otherwise not very notable, person. In my opinion we should not have an article on the person at all. The controversy itself maybe could have one, although "not news" could come into play. Steve Dufour ( talk) 17:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I've done some preliminary editing of the article, which is poorly written. I agree that the article is not really about Edwards but about the controversy. Edwards was just a major player and is probably not notable in his own right. However, even if he is, an article about him would need to be more, uh, about him. Whether the events themselves (the controversy) deserve an article, I dunno. It doesn't strike me as obvious either way. At a minimum, though, the article should probably be renamed.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I just nominated it for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Edwards (civil engineering professor). The article on the controversy is already AfDed. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lead contamination in Washington, D.C. drinking water Steve Dufour ( talk) 01:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I adopted the article and rescued it; the consensus at AfD was Snow Keep before Steve withdrew his request. Edwards is a professor with a named chair and a MacArthur Fellow; he got that because he almost single-handedly exposed a massive health threat from obscenely high levels of lead in Washington DC's water supply. In the process, he spurred a Congressional investigation that resulted in the CDC admitting to absurdly sloppy research work—the House committee called the CDC report on DC's water "scientifically indefensible", and the next day the CDC issued a public apology. He even paid his research students out of his own pocket so they could keep working on the case after the water authority and the EPA pulled his funding when he refused to drop it. This was fun to work on. I'd never heard of the fellow before, but now I think he's one of my heroes!

Would an admin type mind closing out the withdrawn AfD? // ⌘macwhiz ( talk) 02:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The article does not cite sources for its departure from an expected neutral dispassionate tone. It reads more like an introductory speech where she would be guest of honour. A few instances:

"..Indu has since infused new energy into the growth of India's largest media house"

"The Times Foundation, which she founded and carefully guides.."

"A humanist to the core, under her direction.." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonardozhi ( talk • contribs) 07:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This person is a single academic is a small community university in Canada. He needs, at most a two sentence bio and leave it at that. This bio is obviously self-produced. It should also be noted that this person is now know for being a leading 9/11 conspiracist, rather than his previous contributions... Can we either remove him or shorten the entry and clean it up a little? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadaman1 ( talk • contribs) 08:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've stubbified it. If anyone wants to write a proper biography of this guy, they can start from scratch (and previous revisions as appropriate), using proper secondary sources. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 08:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Subrata Roy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This person seems easily notable in their own right, however there has been a challenge (and some blanking by IPs) over the section Subrata Roy#2G Spectrum Scam and Contempt of Court. I have already removed about a third of it because the source cited for that part doesn't mention Roy at all. However the other section is cited to sources that seem reliable, and sounds as if it is a widely covered controversy. The argument is that the section is WP:UNDUE, perhaps recentism, perhaps news content rather than encyclopedic content, and anyway only covers allegations and legal sabre-rattling rather than anything even coming close to a conviction. Should it be in this BLP in this form? Comments requested. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 08:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the following (twice now) from the article: "British author Peter Evans has stated in his book Nemesis that he also had a long affair with New York photo journalist Helene Gaillet which later ended but left her emotionally drained." with the following indirect reference.

• 2004:"Nemesis: The True Story : -Regan Books - ISBN  9780060580537 [0-06-058053-4].

The book only mentions Rohatyn once in passing and is a bit of a gossip-scandal mongering tract. Mostly however, I think it's basically irrelevant, a rich powerful man has a mistress - so what. It doesn't seem to have affected anything that he is known for.

Smallbones ( talk) 12:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this article about Pipim needs some help from veteran wikipedians:

Samuel Koranteng-Pipim has recently had to resign from his church leadership because of a "moral failure". This is a sensitive matter. Some of the material added to the Resignation section is poorly sourced and has been reverted several times, back and forth. Perhaps the beginning of an edit war. I am asking that the section be looked over by a few veteran editors. My concerns:

• 1. There is a wording of the edits which attempt to open the door to the idea that Pipim's moral failure may have been with another male. This is done by adding, "Spectrum reported on its website that Pipim had resigned his employment with the Michigan Conference of Seventh-day Adventists and his ministerial credentials following a "moral failure" with either a man or woman while traveling overseas.[49][50] The resignation letter and statement did not name the gender of the other individual involved." This, IMO, attempts to create a tone which has no support.

• 2. The sources cited are blogs and facebook citations. Considering the need to be cautious, these sites are not appropriate sources, again IMO.

• 3. I have reverted the information once, and now it is back. Thus, I am requesting some help.

The section under dispute:

The resignation letter and statement did not name the gender of the other individual involved. ^{[1] [2]} Matthew Gamble, a popular Adventist speaker and writer, took issue with his statement that "others who have always opposed what we stand for will have an additional reason to rejoice." ^[3]

also:

On May 31, 2011, Spectrum reported on its website that Pipim had resigned his employment with the Michigan Conference of Seventh-day Adventists and his ministerial credentials following a "moral failure" with either a man or woman while traveling overseas.[49][50] The resignation letter and statement did not name the gender of the other individual involved.[51][52] Matthew Gamble, a popular Adventist speaker and writer, took issue with his statement that "others who have always opposed what we stand for will have an additional reason to rejoice."[53]

There has been so much activity on Pipim's site, it is hard to find who has reverted what. I suggest that the section Resignation be reverted back to the basic information and then the section should be put on hold, or whatever the wikipedia term is, for a month or two until this things settle down. DonaldRichardSands ( talk) 20:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree there's no purpose to including the disputed sections. I've removed them again, and replaced them with a more neutral wording. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 20:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Demiurge1000, the edit needs to be reverted further. (I just checked the wording after reading your note.) The Pipim article needs help from the veterans here at wikipedia. I think that the Pipim article, at least the Resignation section, needs to be protected from edits for a while, after the section is reverted back to its basic, verifiable, properly cited text. The blog and facebook sources need to be removed. I have reverted them but they have returned. DonaldRichardSands ( talk) 20:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

( edit conflict) There seems to be a number of editors edit-warring over this affair, so I have locked down the article for now and restored the last clean version before the edit-warring started. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to check this myself now (since it's late in my timezone) but if someone here is able to sort this out, I (and I think all of us) will be grateful for the assistance. Just request unprotection/semi-protection at WP:RFPP if you have figured it out and if you can, leave me a note, so I can shower you in thanks =) Regards So Why 20:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks SoWhy. Your work is much appreciated. Sorry for my ridiculous amounts of reverts.-- Fountainviewkid ( talk) 21:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Martin Hosking is an Australian businessman who is the CEO of a website (RedBubble) that sells user-created tshirts, analogous to how CafePress runs. There has been some recent brouhaha because the web comic Hipster Hitler had a store on RB, that sold tshirts that could be interpreted as supporting hitler. The article has previously been the target of a bunch of SPA's who were adding stuff about the controversy that was not reliably sourced. Previous additions of material about it to Hosking's page were pretty much personal attacks, calling him personally an antisemite etc without any proper sourcing. The issue has now made it in to the media, so there are now reliable sources talking about it, and info about it was added by a new editor again earlier today. I have the feeling that the article is about to attract a bunch of BLP violations again, and also will possibly present WP:UNDUE issues (but I'm not too familiar with that policy. I'd appreciate it if some other people could take a look at the article with an eye towards WP:UNDUE and also watchlist it to keep an eye out for general BLP problems with future edits to it. Kevin ( talk) 00:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I was already watching the article before the latest edits by a newly registered user. As Kevin knows from my comments on the Hosking Talk page, I severely reduced the material added to give it the appropriate weight and remove some of the inflammatory language. It looks reasonable now, and hopefully Kevin, I, and any other editors who care to pitch in can keep it that way.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 03:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I've just noticed that the article on Aja includes an interwiki link to a non-English WP, where the link itself includes a "real name" that isn't even referenced (no less be reliably sourced) in the non-English article. I've therefore changed the interwiki link to point to the subject's stage name (which then redirects to the "real name" article); still, I'm still a bit uncomfortable with justifying the interwiki link as acceptable under BLP -- but even more uncomfortable about removing it completely. Thoughts? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 22:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If in doubt whip it out. Off2riorob ( talk) 22:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The article also links to the IMDB, which includes her (purported) real name. While Wikipedia shouldn't go out of its way to identify the names of performers who try to keep them secret, at the same time it isn't required to go to extraordinary lengths to hide something that is already widely known.

That said, I agree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's solution in this case: IW linking to a redirect on the German site instead of the other name. If anyone write German well enough they might propose on DE.WP that they consider a policy on porn star names similar to EN.WP's.   Will Beback  talk  22:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

We need to nobot the page as well then, because an iw-bot just "fixed" the redirect back to the real name :) I'm not sure how to do that -- Errant ^{( chat!)} 09:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Can we not just remove that interwiki link until the issue is resolved? {{nobots}} might be the template but I don't think it is a good idea or usual practice to nobot an article page. Off2riorob ( talk) 09:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Lay Phyu has two children with ex-wife Khin Nwe Nwe Than; Sound Lay Phyu and Tain Lay Phyu. He married Nwe Kyaw Soe in 2004 and has one daughter named Let Ya Lay Phyu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkyawsoe ( talk • contribs) 08:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You have changed the article [5] but no source was provided either by you or for the original claim so the info could be completely deleted particularly as it involves claims of non notable living people. Nil Einne ( talk) 09:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Currently working on some BLP articles which contain phrases along the lines of "X supported the invasion of Iraq". I view this as unnecessarily pejorative, but I'm not sure that the alternative that's been suggested to me, of using the official US government description ( Operation Iraqi Freedom) is any better. Has anyone got any thoughts or examples of how cases like this have been handled previously? Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 10:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC).

That is how the position is described so it is neutral. TFD ( talk) 20:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I recommend finding a modern university level text book and use whatever terminology that they do. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 20:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You can easily find either phrase in one. Kevin ( talk) 21:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

George Demos (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ongoing edit war initiated by two accounts and an IP or two, who believe a controversy section is potentially libellous, based on poor sources etc. An SPI into the two accounts has been opened, and there is also a lengthy discussion on the talk page. More eyes and insightful comments needed. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 21:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Niki Yang (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Just created a stub article about her. Please join at Talk:Niki Yang. JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 03:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

NEUTRAILITY ISSUE (as posted on Moonriddengirl's page)

Each time I address the neutrality of this article, it gets deleted by the person controlling that page... and I mean controlling and that person is CanadianLinuxUser.

The article on "Jesper Olsen (runner)" is bias and the person who edits this article the most (and aggressively monitors it) appears to control it, believe they own it and clearly has a vested interest in promoting it.

Wikipedia is not about owning a page and promoting your friends or creating a page about unknowns like Jesper Olsen, who has not achieved anything. (No world records ratified and using only his own web site or friend's blogs as references).

This article is far too promotional and needs *complete neutrality*, something it sorely lacks. (someone other than CanadianLinuxUser).

I believe it should get deleted, but at present its promo fluff. At very best it needs a thorough "cleanup" as well as "npov"

Many thanks. (Unsigned edit from 135.196.122.103 )

Once again, these are the edits of banned user: User:Dromeaz. All I do is revert the edit as I cannot fully implement WP:BRI CanadianLinuxUser ( talk) 01:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This incident report has been created: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_Evasion_User:Dromeaz CanadianLinuxUser ( talk) 12:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

2003 Abbeville, South Carolina right-of-way standoff (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Stumbled across this article. Would appreciate someone giving it a BLP-related clean-up. Thanks. :) - Atmoz ( talk) 21:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a very dense article with tons of "facts" but only two inline sources. It had four external links that might have supported the article, but three were dead (I removed them), and the only remaining link doesn't provide support for anything. There oughta be a law against such articles. I guess I'll tag it and see what happens. Maybe some braver editor will do something more.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

psst, Bbb23, about 65%+ of the articles on this project are of this poor quality, but don't repeat this since folks might get pissed....-- Threeafterthree ( talk) 02:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I was able to repair the deadlinks, for the most part, and they do support the article pretty well. It might be better to go through and cite everything, but I don't see any particular BLP vios. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Tim Chapman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unsourced but detailed information about other living persons including relatives whose only seeming claim to notability is being related to article's subject. Also large sections of this BLP are virtually unreferenced. Shearonink ( talk) 14:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't look too bad until you read closely. This is completely outrageous. There is more work to do here... -- causa sui ( talk) 18:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, sometimes a blunt instrument is required. I've deleted most of the article content since the biographical information was full of defamation of living persons, the subject and his relatives, and also totally unsourced. With that done, all that was left with references was the over-detailed accounts of his alleged criminal activity, so that had to go too. As it stands, with all of that taken out, the article is a couple sentences and possibly AFD worthy, but I will not nominate it. -- causa sui ( talk) 18:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Rick Ross (consultant) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

IP claiming to be the subject raising complaints at WP:Help desk#Rick Ross consultant entry (I note that there is a SPA editing his article now). Dougweller ( talk) 15:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I've noted on the Help page that Ross's complaints should have been posted here. I just started looking at the article and I'm trying to sort through the legal stuff. Much of it is messy. I've made a few edits but more needs to be done. I've also responded on the Talk page to the SPA's desire to create a separate criminal section, which I've objected to for several reasons.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Jason Scott case will need review also. -- causa sui ( talk) 16:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Deirdre Breakenridge (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is self-promotion at best, totally lacking in references, and lives on an island (only 2 wikilinks). I'm not exactly sure where to start rewriting this one. I only came across it because it was linked to Rowan University. Any input would be hugely appreciated.  RasputinAXP  15:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks borderline G11 speediable to me. –  ukexpat ( talk) 15:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

So I have tagged it as such. –  ukexpat ( talk) 16:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. -- causa sui ( talk) 16:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I am Robert L. Nadeau, the historian of science whose work is the subject of this article. The comment made in the first sentence about my article in Scientific American and about the magazine itself is libelous. The article published by Scientific American was thoroughly vetted by scholars, including those with backgrounds in the discipline of economics, and was derived from two books published by very reputable academic presses--Columbia University Press and Rutgers University Press.

Sincerely,

Robert L. Nadeau, PhD Professor George Mason University — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.214.170 ( talk • contribs)

Hello Robert. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I'll take a look into this and so will other editors. For others: Robert_Nadeau_(science_historian). -- causa sui ( talk) 17:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, that was easy. [6]. Looks like this was added a couple months back by an IP 68.14.90.133 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) here. I placed a BLP warning template on the anon's talk page, but there haven't been any more edits from that IP since. -- causa sui ( talk) 17:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I feel the following quote is in error 2 ways, First because the source (15) is not peer reviewed. It is a city wide magazine owned by a single person. Secondly because of the following which I and others contest. “Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.”

Quote: "many Usenet posts authored by Betty Martini was possibly slightly altered (but still largely identical with originals) and then widely circulated under the pen name "Nancy Markle", creating the basis for a misleading and unverifiable hoax chain letter that was spread through the Internet.[9] "Ultimately the e-mail was traced back to Betty Martini."[15] Martini claims that an unknown person stood behind the "Markle" email.[16]"

Am I wrong? I understand if you can only rule on the second charge. Arydberg ( talk) 18:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The content doesn't look problematic prima facie, but some review of the sourcing may be in order. -- causa sui ( talk) 18:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The article on the LP Wayne Schoenfeld has a rather curious editing history and makes some claims that seem extraordinary. (I say "seem" because they are not entirely clear.) No, there's nothing potentially libelous or remotely similar; but a few additional, disinterested eyeballs would be welcome. -- Hoary ( talk) 02:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

On second thoughts, this looks like a straightforward COI matter. (Yes, it's a BLP, but this is by the way.) So I've brought it up here on the COI noticeboard. It's better discussed there than here. -- Hoary ( talk) 07:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The photo in this person's biography is incorrect. It is a picture of Lucas Glover, not Chris DiMarco. I don't know the process of correcting this, could someone help out? Aviator569 ( talk) 14:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Mitch Bainwol (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Obvious puff piece, needs to be tagged for neutrality.

The article is poorly written and poorly sourced. I've removed one entire section about the RIAA (because it's not about Bainwol or even connects him to the comments about the RIAA). I've also removed the so-called "public reputation" section as mostly original research without good sources (one doesn't seem to work at all). That leaves little left (I did some tidies of remaining) except a kind of resume. There's nothing really to establish his notability other than his position at the RIAA.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 16:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Alexander Ghindin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Very subjective, using wikipedia as an advertisment. Two of many quotes: "is one of the most inspiring pianists of this generation" "Ghindin is a tremendous talent whose honors at major competitions span"

One editor removed some of the puffery. I reformatted and copy-edited it, removed some material, and tagged it as not having any sources and reading like a resume. Assuming he's notable, I wouldn't say that it's using Wikipedia as an advertisement, though. It needs more work.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I would like my biography to revert to 14 March 2011 version. Someone has made changes that are incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick Cassidy ( talk • contribs)

Could you be more specific about what you feel is incorrect? (Also, please sign your posts by placing 4 tildes at the end, like this: ~~~~). -- Jrtayloriv ( talk) 00:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, Patrick, feel free to remove anything that does not cite a reliable source. Biographies of living persons should not have a bunch of unsourced information in them, and you are under no obligation to leave the information in there if you feel it is incorrect.. -- Jrtayloriv ( talk) 00:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed most of the unsourced information (any of it that is correct can be re-added if reliable sources are included along with it). Please feel free to suggest any other changes, or reliable sources that you feel might be useful for expanding the article. -- Jrtayloriv ( talk) 01:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Patrick, the difficulty here is that Wikipedia does not allow the subjects of biographical articles to choose an "approved" version of their article and then keep that in place; articles are generally open to editing by anyone. In fact, we generally discourage people from editing the article about themselves, unless there is a serious concern about unsourced negative statements. Much of what you have removed from the article (on several occasions) appeared to be well referenced material. It might be better, rather than wholesale deleting and re-writing of the content, if you indicated the incorrect facts on the talk page for the article (or here if you prefer) so that other editors can fix them. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 06:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI - Born under The Act of Congress dated February 10, 1855, "persons heretofore born, or hereafter to be born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or shall be at the time of their birth citizens of the United States, shall be deemed and considered and are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided, however, that the rights of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States." "That any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under the existing laws, married, or who shall be married to a citizen of the United States shall be deemed and taken to be a citizen"

Also may have affected

Sen. Barry Goldwater was born on January 2, 1909, in US Territory (Arizona) that was won in the war with Mexico, as defined by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo signed February 2, 1848. He was born under the Act of Congress of February 10, 1855 (Repealed in 1922).

See video: Act of Congress 1855 Derivative Naturalization http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdF_O_R17kY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.95.233 ( talk) 13:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

George W. Romney died in 1995, so this isn't a matter appropriate for the Biography of living persons noticeboard. Cullen328 ( talk) 07:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

This new article contains a lot of information about a pair of alleged spies - apparently one is still living. Only one reference is cited, and it certainly doesn't look independent or reliable. As a new article this one was not patrolled. I have just reviewed it and removed the "New unreviewed article" banner. Dolphin ( t) 13:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• It sat there seven months without being reviewed, and without a talkpage being created, that is a system failure. It was a copyright violation from a wordpress location and the external that was there was a webblog and also not reliable - I have ragged it to within an inch of its life. Perhaps someone will improve it and include some reliable externals, if not it needs deleting in the foreseeable. Off2riorob ( talk) 08:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Rob. I will keep an eye on it and nominate it at AfD if no progress is made after a suitable time. Dolphin ( t) 11:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Do we really need this redirect to Niger Innis? Previous RfD discussion here. -- J N 466 03:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

No - the section in question is no longer in the article and the redirect now has no context and can be speedied as an inappropiate redirect. Exxolon ( talk) 04:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Tagged for a speedy delete. Off2riorob ( talk) 08:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. SlimVirgin ^{TALK| CONTRIBS} 08:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. -- J N 466 15:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Ina Garten (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Javaweb refusal to include factual information, i.e. Garten's refusal to meet with Make A Wish child is based solely on personal opinion and not on the regulations of wikipedia (see discussion page); therefore, the page should be edited to include the stories widely reported re: Make A Wish. This is NOT a fan page and should not be regulated by someone who clearly has a personal interest in presenting only flattering or what they perceive as "neutral facts" about this person — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.78.155 ( talk) 04:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

My advise would be to reword your paragraph to minimize any inadvertent editorializing. Wikipedia should report that people have criticized Garten, but it itself should not criticize her, even in the tone of how it reports events. Gamaliel ( talk) 06:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Concensus on the talk page seems to be not to include it at all - it seems to be very much a manufactured gossip-rag type of "controversy", rather than an event that reputable sources see as significant to Garten's career or notability. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 07:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not encyclopedic or noteworthy that a person doesn't do something. Every person doesn't do countless things. There are only 24 hours in a day and a limited number of years in a person's life. I see no need to mention this whipped-up controversy in our bio of Ina Garten Cullen328 ( talk) 08:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

If that is the case, then I would also advise the IP editor to discuss the matter there. I was only attempting to assist what appears to be a new editor with issues of BLP compliance, not take sides in a content dispute. Those here who wish to discuss the matter of inclusion should also join the talk page discussion. Gamaliel ( talk) 08:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The following editors with actual user names and edits outside of just Ina Garten are part of this consensus:

• User:Freshacconci
• User:Zenswashbuckler
• User:Ale_jrb
• User:Aecamadi
• User:Demiurge1000
• User:Javaweb

You can see their edits/discussions on the article page or talk page. I am not a fan of Ina Garten. I am a fan of reliable sources that do not manipulate their reporting to make a mundane incident into a story. You can see the discussion here and here. Anonymous IP 76.205.78.155, I do not see even one word from you on the discussion page. The discussion page is the first place to discuss, not here. If you have answers to our concerns, please provide them there.
She is a 63 year-old lady with a show and books to produce and, according to your reference, gets about 100 requests/month. She helped out Make-a-wish before. It is physically impossible for anyone on a TV network available to tens of millions on basic cable to fulfill every request made of them. To berate them for, in the words of Make-a-Wish, not doing the impossible and not fulfilling all worthwhile charities's every request, is an unrealistic expectation. It is not notable because that is true of practically everyone in Wikipedia whose name does not begin with "Saint". -- Javaweb ( talk) 09:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Anna Nalick (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Reference photograph was removed by a user, Californiagrl, who claims to be an official representative of the subject (I cannot verify this). She states that the subject did not like the photo. She offered to provide an official photo but has yet to do so. Californiagrl appears to be a new user at Wikipedia. user:Uncle Milty has done great work keeping this in check, but for now the photograph remains removed without replacement.

For reference, the photo that was removed was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AnnaWiki23Feb11.jpg, which was my work, and to the best of my knowledge, does not meet criteria for removal (not of the subject, compromising/embarrassing, defamatory, etc.). If the reason is that the subject merely did not like the photo, it is not grounds for removal, though it is something I can work with if requested in the Discussions section. RachGreen ( talk) 08:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Isn't there a page somewhere that shows publicity folks how to donate photos to Wikipedia? Someone should direct User:Californiagrl to that. We can leave the photo off the article for right now and restore it later if they don't come through with the photo. Gamaliel ( talk) 08:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I think user:Uncle Milty has already done so. Additionally, the French and Italian versions of the article have a different reference photo - the English article used to use that other photo, also my work, until I decided the smiling photo (that was just removed) looked better. Another Wikipedia editor, user:Dcoetzee, had even corrected colors to make it look even better. RachGreen ( talk) 08:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I have replaced it, the picture is fully policy and MOS compliant and there is no excuse to remove it. If the user wants to provide an alternative one thats great, but until they do the picture stays, if its removed, replace and warn and report if necessary. The user should be assisted if requested to upload their commons compatible picture. Off2riorob ( talk) 09:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope the removal was really about the user being new to Wikipedia and not understanding its rules. RachGreen ( talk) 09:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries - I will keep an eye on the user in question and if they return I will try and assist them. Off2riorob ( talk) 09:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Marina Tsvigun (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Read the first sentence of said article. It's an obvious WP:COI. Please refer to this case -- important!! It turns out that after this person's user page got deleted, they transferred the information to the Marina Tsvigun article, which also seems to have her allegedly new and shiny name.

If you want more info read this short-lived sockpuppet case. This chick is clever. -- Motherfrakker ( talk) 15:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• I reverted back, what can I say I had a look at some of the externals and I am speechless, very out of this universe stuff. Off2riorob ( talk) 16:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Bristol palin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'd like some help sorting out Palin's page. There needs to be some consensus or clean up and neutral POV. I feel some backstory from her own memoir to her sexual encounter is worth noting because she knowN for being a compensated spokesperson for the subject. Her surgery completely altered her appearance as now she no longer looks the photo in the bio, I feel it is worth at least a small notation. Other info like her house purchase and the price she paid may not be worth noting; other notations may not be worthwhile. I'll walk away from edits until things get sorted out. Thanks all. -- Cohen2011 ( talk) 21:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems a bit undue to be reporting how she lost her virginity in detail just because it can be found in a book doesn't make it the kind of addition that complies with the BLP request to write conservatively about living people. At first look there seems to me to be coatracking of her mothers issues on that BLP. Her mother campaigners allegedly wanted a wedding, that is so wrong, I would remove that. Off2riorob ( talk) 21:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I have also removed "material" about her bum jaw. I would remove the details of her first sexual encounter, but thats just me :). Cheers,ps, and no, I am not a "hyperprude" as I saw the word used during the santorum debacle :) ...-- Threeafterthree ( talk) 00:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Carolyn Martin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The controversy section regarding her role in the creation of a UW Health Clinic that performs late term abortions keeps getting removed despite the fact that this was front page news (February 2009) in the student newspapers, The Badger Herald ( http://badgerherald.com/news/2010/12/13/uw_to_stop_efforts_o.php), for weeks as well as Wisconsin's leading newspapers, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel and the Wisconsin State Journal. ( http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/39245702.html) It was also reported in the national news. ( http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/secret_university_of_wisconsin_plans_for_midterm_abortion_clinic_revealed/) Also, her departure as chancellor was also related to a controversial decision she made to attempt to make the UW-Madison campus autonomous from the UW System. This is documented also in all of the major newspapers including the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (6/19/11.) A few people keep deleting the controversial sections from her biography by calling them "trivial."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.25.71 ( talk • contribs)

Regarding the abortion clinic - The three citations you provided - in two of them Martin is not mentioned at all and in the third, the badger one she is mentioned only once and to say that she was one of eleven people that voted in support of this situation, so looking at that it doesn't assert she played a major part in the issue. The addition you have added seems undue to me, mentions baby killing and the comments are not even in the citation you have provided here. IMO you are soapboxing pro life POV. I trimmed the soapboxing and added the online support as well - this is the quote that I have removed as unduly attacking - the board and Martin’s vote put UW’s “good name on murder.” “Biddy Martin … will be forever remembered as the woman who caused the university to do something that no other clinic in central Wisconsin would do … and that is kill a baby five months [after] conception,” - I also removed the journalistic speculation from the lede. If it is to be returned then it should be added to the body of the article and cited to one of those major newspapers and attributed as whoever opinion it is, although I doubt if I would support its inclusion. Here is the uncited comment I removed from the lede - According to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, " When Carolyn "Biddy" Martin abruptly announced last week that she was leaving the top post to become president of Amherst College, it was clear her relationship with the Board of Regents and UW System President Kevin Reilly had soured over a battle for campus autonomy, hatched behind her bosses' backs." Off2riorob ( talk) 01:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Why this BLP is not neutral or fair to Palazzolo.

5 examples of the present author's mistakes or one-sided view.

From the BLP: :Italian and US intelligence officers estimate that Palazzolo helped to launder more than US$1.5 billion in drug money through Switzerland. Actuality:

The figure was $6m which, under threat of his life, he returned to the men who, from October 1982, he knew were in the Mafia. Before then he was blameless. Excerpt from the Lugano sentence 26th September 1985:

"The transfer of 3 million dollars taken from the Acacias’ account and converted into 200 kg of gold for Rotolo and Tognoli, and the transfer of the remaining 3 million dollars from the USA through the Frigerio channel, do however constitute conduct that is punishable according to article 19 number 1 para.7 of the Federal narcotics law." ^[4]-- Fircks ( talk) 13:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

From the BLP:

State witness Antonino Giuffrè claimed that the Sicilian Mafia's interests in the drug trade in Venezuela, Brazil, Mexico, Canada and the Far East were managed by Palazzolo.

Actuality:

Guiffre admitted in court that he never met Palazzolo and his "evidence", as evinced by a letter from the Attorney General in Palermo in March of 2005, produced nothing. He was totally discredited.

"With this background, Giuffrè specified that he had never met Palazzolo personally, but that he had heard a lot said about him directly from Provenzano, and this in talks they had taken place quite recently before his arrest (2002)." ^[5]

From a letter written 23rd March 2005 from the Attorney General in Palermo to the deputy AG, Domenico Gozzo:

"With regard to the request made under Note dated 16 March 2005, which is attached herewith, we hereby advise that the search conducted in the informative memo drawn up by the state witness Antonino GIUFFRE’ in relation to the accused Vito Roberto PALAZZOLO, has produced negative results. Palermo, 23 March 2005." ^[6]-- Fircks ( talk) 13:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

From the BLP:

Investigations into Palazzolo restarted in 1995 when police in the Cape received inquiries from Italian police, who were after Mariano Tullio Troia, a Sicilian mafioso wanted for the murder of Salvatore Lima, an associate of former Italian prime minister Giulio Andreotti.

Actuality:

One Dr Morettino, a resident of South Africa and a cousin of Troia’s, was being investigated for money laundering. In order to divert attention from Morettino, who was related to a right-wing parliamentarian who was part of the Anti Mafia Commission, they put the spotlight on Palazzolo. Needless to say, when Troia was arrested in Palermo they found a baby born of the woman who had hosted him since becoming a fugitive. It was unlikely that he had the time or the opportunity to have slipped away into hiding, meanwhile, in South Africa. When the police raided a house in South Africa they found not Troia but a law abiding, ordinary South African citizen, who reported them to the Police! The Italian Police were ordered by a highly embarrassed Attorney General in Palermo to fly back to Italy immediately.-- Fircks ( talk) 13:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

From the BLP:

On the strength of a new passport in this name, he obtained resident status in South Africa – but all files relating to the application are missing.

Actuality:

Peets de Pontes was convicted and fined R35,000 because, amongst many other things (including attempted theft from Palazzolo), he got rid of the files.-- Fircks ( talk) 13:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

From the BLP:

He hired a public relations adviser, Aldo Sarullo, a former actor, playwright and director, who advised Palermo's Antimafia mayor, Leoluca Orlando, and later Silvio Berlusconi's party Forza Italia, to change his image as Mafia boss.

Actuality:

Sarullo travelled to South Africa to meet Palazzolo and was prepared to pay to secure his authorised biography. Palazzolo turned it down. That was it. -- Fircks ( talk) 13:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

These are a few of the many errors and allusions that DonCalo makes about a man convicted of nothing except negligence. I propose a BLP, therefore, centred round his actual court convictions and acquittals, all of which were considered and judged by qualified magistrates using all the facts. This will give an equal hearing to the defence as well as the prosecution. So as not to impugn a man who has not, after 29 years, been irrevocably sentenced for the crimes of which he is continuously accused.

Before reading my proposed BLP, from wiki guidelines please consider three things:

Harmful and sensationalist: From Wikipedia on Primary Sources, etc

"Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material."

The present BLP flies in the face of everything written above. -- Fircks ( talk) 13:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Exceptional Claims: From Wikipedia Verifiability

When proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them (as Palazzolo has claimed for many years) they are exceptional claims that require exceptional, high-quality sources. In other words his case contradicts the prevailing, mainstream view, which has been created by a conspiracy against him. "... claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them. (This comes under "Exceptional claims" that require exceptional, high-quality sources. They need Red flags)"

Palazzolo's case is Exceptional and requires better, more even handed judgement than we witness in the present BLP, which relies for it's sources on newspapers.-- Fircks ( talk) 13:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Specialised Claims: From Wikipedia Reliability

Palazzolo, after 29 years and 5 countries courts with an equal number of allegations, sentences and acquittals, is a very specialized subject. "Where wikipedia breaks down is in very specialised subjects, where you have only a handful of experts and much of the common wisdom on the subject is wrong."

Palazzolo's case is highly specialized. Banks of lawyers have been poring over the minutiae of it for 29 years. The present author is not an expert, evidently. -- Fircks ( talk) 13:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Vito Roberto Palazzolo (born July 31, 1947) is an Italian businessman living in South Africa and Namibia. Born in Terrasini, Sicily, he moved to South Africa in the mid 1980s. He also goes by the name Robert von Palace Kolbatschenko. Caught up in a drug money-laundering scam for the Mafia in Switzerland and the USA in the early 1980’s, which became famous as the "Pizza Connection", he was tried in Lugano in 1985 and sentenced for having acted in “dolus eventualis”. ^[7] Which means, loosely, for being negligent. But since then, emanating from Palermo in Sicily, a storm of allegations have been levelled against him. Mostly for money-laundering and Mafia association. All of which he denies, claiming to be the victim of a conspiracy.

The narrative of which can be viewed in court documents in 5 different countries, starting in 1984.

His first trials took place in Switzerland, on 3 different judicial levels, over 10 years. During that time, there were multiple charges and appeals, including the following:

In March 1985 he was given a “Nulle Prosequi” (no prosecution), but in September of that year he was sentenced to 3 years in prison for having acted in “dolus eventualis”, which is a legal interpretation “pitched somewhere between intent and negligence”. In April 1986 his sentence was increased to 5 years and 6 months for additional transfers of US$ 1,5 million and US$ 28 million respectively. In August 1989 when he was acquitted in respect of the $1.5m and his sentence was reduced to 5 years. Likewise, in January 1992, he was acquitted on the charge of having transferred the US$ 28 million. In November 1993 the 1992 acquittal was upheld by the Court of Cassation and Criminal Review, and his penalty was reduced to 3 years and 9 months imprisonment. This last sentence was declared to be final in the Federal Court (the highest court) in May 1994.

The Italian judicial saga began on the 16th April 1984 with a warrant of arrest from Rome. The narrative in Sicily began when, also in 1984, the most prolific Mafia informant in history, Tommaso Buscetta, gave the legendary prosecuting magistrate, Dr Giovanni Falcone, enough evidence to prosecute 350 Mafiosi in the Maxi Trial (which resumed in 1986). Palazzolo was never mentioned by Buscetta but 11 months later, on the 11th June 1985, Falcone issued a warrant for his arrest too. This was based on the testmony given by Paul Waridel to the Attorney General of Lugano in Switzerland (where Palazzolo was being tried). It was for the same evidence under consideration in Switzerland, therefore, that Falcone motivated his warrant of arrest. Since then there have been multiple Italian warrants and court cases concerning Palazzolo, generated in Palermo in Sicily, including 6 warrants issued to South Africa, where he lives.-- Fircks ( talk) 13:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Of note, however: On 26th March 1992 the High Court in Rome convicted Palazzolo for the crime of “association with the purpose of financing for narcotics trafficking” and sentenced to 2 years prison. But he was acquitted on the charge of Mafia association because the facts to prove such association, the judge said, “do not exist”. ^[8] This conviction was suspended, however, on the 31st January 1993, because Palazzolo had already served 3 years in prison in Switzerland, for the same facts. -- Fircks ( talk) 13:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC) In December 1994, the Court in Palermo (under Judge Scaduti) reopened their account by issuing precautionary measures against Palazzolo, stating that, “Palazzolo had been involved in the trafficking of narcotics…” and, “…actually belonged to the structure of the Mafia organisation”. In February 1997 they upped the ante with another warrant of arrest, the motivation for which was generated by a report written by South African Police officers (Smith & Lincoln), identifying Palazzolo as a well-known criminal affiliated to the Mafia, and a dangerous fugitive from justice.

In respect of which on 25th March 1998 Interpol (Pretoria, SA) told the S.C.O. (Central coordinating unit of the Italian State Police) to return the documentation from the Smith Report that had been acquired illegally by Smith & Lincoln, against whom criminal proceedings were pending for crimes committed in South Africa. ^[9]

On 12th October 2000 Palazzolo was convicted by the Court in Palermo, in absentia, to 12 years in prison, again, for narcotics trading and Mafia membership. In March 2002 Palazzolo received more precautionary custody measures from Palermo, this time (using intelligence gleaned from the South African police) for aiding and abetting Giovanni Bonomi and Giuseppe Gelardi (who had visited Palazzolo's farm), as fugitives, in South Africa.

It became evident, however, that they only became “fugitives” (issued with warrants of arrest by the Court in Palermo), on the 29th May 2006, eight days after they left South Africa, where they were staying with Palazzolo.

In July of 2003 the Court of Appeal in Palermo annulled Palazzolo’s October 2000 conviction. And a month later they set aside Falcone’s warrant of arrest, (issued June 1985).

Back to Rome: On 9th January 2004 Supreme Court of Appeal in Rome revoked the February 1997 Review Court Palermo judgement with the words: “…the judgement being contested is annulled, since it is flawed and it contravenes the law, and is lacking in motivation.” As a result the Review Court in Palermo, on the 6th April 2004, were forced to revoke their warrant of arrest of February 1997 and the precautionary custody measures of March of 2002. ^[10]

On the 5th June 2006 the court in Palermo, changing tactics, handed down a sentence of 9 years for "external complicity" (to committing a crime in a Mafia type association). "Mafia association" therefore had been changed to "external complicity". This was confirmed on the 5th July 2006 by Judge Puleo in Palermo ^[11] and on 11th July 2007 Judge Salvatore Scaduti of the Court of Appeal in Palermo, overuling the acquittal judgement in Rome (1992), confirmed the sentence but reformulated it in peius (made it worse) so that his crime was now for “full association”. ^[12] The motivation for this new charge was based apparently on the evidence of Antonino Giuffre, a Mafia informant, who stated that, “Palazzolo belonged to the Mafia association called the Cosa Nostra round about the eighties, and remained therein permanently after this date.”

It transpired that Giuffre had never met Palazzolo, however, and neither had he mentioned him in his first informative memo, which he was bound to do, by law 45/2001, within 180 days. For 6 months then, having decided to spill the beans, he never mentioned Palazzolo. Added to which none of his evidence found any corresponding proof in the proceedings. ^[13]

In Rome on 13th March 2009 the Italian Supreme Court confirmed the sentences given against Palazzolo, in Palermo, sentencing him to nine years imprisonment for full blown Mafia association. ^[14]

Which is where his case hangs, at present, except for an outstanding application by Palazzolo to the European Court of Human Rights (submitted on 18th November 2009) to hear his case and consider the fact that, subsequent to his trials and sentences both in Switzerland and Italy, no new substantiated evidence has yet emerged to reconvict him. ^[15] and in October 2011, in an effort to overturn the above judgement, Palazzolo’s case will be heard by the Appeal Court in Caltanissetta in Italy. ^[16]

-- Fircks ( talk) 16:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

---

From an outside viewpoint, the above proposal (or some synthesis of it) doesn't seem unreasonable. I became aware of the disagreements when I stepped in as a reviewer, but could not get a couple of the parties to agree to a compromise.

Regarding the allegations that Fircks ( talk) outlines above, they seem (to me) most vulnerable in reverse order. For example, the hiring of a public relations director should be public record, and if it isn't, it shouldn't be included. A missing passport application could but both ways and is probably little more than a curious footnote in Zuma's corruption-prone administration.

If the parties can be brought together regarding this, I support the effort.

-- UnicornTapestry ( talk) 19:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This proposal is ridiculous. First of all, the sources are only from Palazzolo's own website in a text that has been written by a self-confessed friend of Palazzolo. We have a serious conflict of interest here. We might as well copy Palazzolo's own website into Wikipedia if this is allowed. I do not have the time at the moment to go into detail of all the misrepresentations, but as it stands this is not acceptable. While I do not oppose certain modifications in the existing BLP, we cannot simply ignore all the other reliable sources that have completely disappeared in Mr. Fircks version, just because Mr. Fircks does not like them or does not understand them. He only uses primary sources which have to be used in Wikipedia with extreme caution: I quote "articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed ... to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully." The current BLP is based on secondary sources and should be considered as the basic text. The above proposal of Mr. Fircks is against the most basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines. - DonCalo ( talk) 23:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I certainly wish to deal with this matter in a civilized fashion which, as Unicorn Tapestry suggests, means "coming together". I hope we can do this.

• I have just picked a few holes in examples taken from your BLP, pointing out that some of the offensive allegations you make are unproven and unfounded, and you respond by saying that my proposal is "ridiculous".

All my so-called "offensive allegations" are properly referenced by reliable sources. - DonCalo ( talk) 21:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Your "reliable sources" are newspapers reporting allegations that never stood up in court. Take any example, take Giuffre: having turned State Witness (Pentiti) he never mentioned Palazzolo in 6 months of discussion about the Mafia. When he was being questioned about the D'Anna case, the Prosecutor, Dr. Paci, asked him if he knew Vito Robert Palazzolo, to which he answered, "Yes indeed, he is from Cinisi and is the brother in Law of Provenzano." Another Palazzolo, a different Palazzolo, and Dr. Paci knew exactly who Giuffre was referring to. So it's not complicated. Without substantiated evidence you are implying and suggesting that a man who was only ever substantially convicted of acting in "dolus eventualis", is guilty of multiple other charges.

• OK, lets move on. Let me say again - I don't know if he's guilty and neither do you. He certainly hasn't been found guilty in court. But what you have printed, whether or not it comes from Newspapers, is untrue and never stood up in court.

Not been found guilty in Court? Even Palazzolo website admits that he has been convicted. He was convicted twice, in Switzerland (for money laundering with the Mafia) and Italy (for collusion with the Mafia), while going to the highest courts. Three times judges looked at his case in two countries. In other words in six trials he was convicted. - DonCalo ( talk) 21:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Palazzolo was convicted in Switzerland, yes, when he was caught up in the Pizza Connection a year after he met Della Torre and Rossini (who were already money laundering), but he was convicted of having acted in "Dolus Eventualis", which is a "crime" pitched somewhere between intent and negligence. It was the best they could do, and that was because, under threat from Tognoli and Rotolo (Mafia), he returned to them $6m. That was his single, substantiated "crime". As to Mafia membership, from the judgement they noted that, The same examining Magistrate did not consider that Palazzolo was associated with a Mafia organisation, -- Fircks ( talk) 13:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

A conviction is a conviction, especially when the sentence is confirmed in appeal twice, whether he acted in "dolus eventualis" or not. - DonCalo ( talk) 21:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

A conviction is a conviction, you say. Sure it is. But a conviction for money laundering and Maffia association is one thing, whereas a conviction for acting in "dolus eventualis", is something else. You seem to think that he has been sentenced, irrevocably, for money laundering and Mafia assoc, but he has not. -- Fircks ( talk) 14:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

In Rome in 1992 he was convicted for the crime of “association with the purpose of financing for narcotics trafficking” and sentenced to 2 years prison. This conviction was suspended, however, on the 31st January 1993, because Palazzolo had already served 3 years in prison in Switzerland, for the same facts. (See Dolus Eventualis, etc) But he was acquitted on the charge of Mafia association because the facts to prove such association, the judge said, “do not exist”. ^[1]-- Fircks ( talk) 13:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

So you observe his convictions. Why not list his acquittals too? Then you (and the BLP reader) will get the full story, not just selected incriminating itmes from newspapers. The legal reel is still rolling. -- Fircks ( talk) 13:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean the BLP does not mention his acquittals, I quote from the article:

• In 1992, a court in Rome had found him not guilty of being a member of the Mafia. "I was acquitted of Mafia charges, but I am always the 'alleged Mafia don' and it is disturbing to be portrayed that way to family and friends," Palazzolo maintains.
• In March 2003, he was acquitted of contravening South African law when applying for citizenship in 1994.
• In June 2010, the High Court of South Africa blocked the extradition of Palazzolo due to lack of double criminality requirement as South Africa does not recognize the crime of Mafia association as conceived in Italy. Moreover, the Court also found double jeopardy as Palazzolo had already been acquitted of Mafia association in 1992 by a court in Rome.

But you cherry pick. You have to mention the full story, in order to get the neutral view. You have left out most of the story.

• Why not mention his Nulle Prosequi (no prosecution for lack of evidence) in March 1985?
• Or his acquittal in August 1989, in respect of the $1.5m conviction?
• Or his acquittal of January 1992 for the charge of having transferred the US$ 28 million?
• Or that Tommaso Buscetta, the most prolific Mafia informant in history, in 1984, mentioned every Mafiosi in existence, but not Palazzolo?
• Or that Palermo's warrant of arerest in February 1997 came about using the informaton of 2 South African police officers, one of whom was consigned to a loony bin, afterwards, and the other got a 9 year prison sentence for crimes in South Africa?
• Or that Interpol had to intervene to tell the Sicilian police that they were acting illegaly?
• Or that the precautionary custody measure he received from Palermo in March 2002 were for aiding and abbetting 2 "fugitives" who only became "fugitives" (got warrants of arrest) after they visited his farm in SA?
• Or that in July of 2003 the Court of Appeal in Palermo annulled Palazzolo’s October 2000 conviction? And a month later they set aside Falcone’s warrant of arrest, (issued June 1985)?
• Or that on 9th January 2004 Supreme Court of Appeal in Rome revoked the February 1997 Review Court of Palermo judgement with the words: “…the judgement being contested is annulled, since it is flawed and it contravenes the law, and is lacking in motivation.” (Kind of strong).
• Or that the 11th July 2007 judgement from Judge Salvatore Scaduti of the Court of Appeal in Palermo, was founded on the evidence of a man (Antonino Giuffre) who never met Palazzolo and never mentioned him in his first memo (which by law is final, after 6 months); but who did refer to another Palazzolo?-- Fircks ( talk) 14:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

This stuff, which sentences a man in the Press (where you get your information) is too serious not to be done properly. You have singularly failed to give the full story. -- Fircks ( talk) 14:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• I use these primary sources, to quote you, "carefully" ("though primary sources are permitted if used carefully".) Which is my single, abiding point and please excuse me for repeating myself: In court he was never convicted of those things (I gave a few examples. There are many more).

Press reports of mainstream media with a record of fact checking are considered reliable sources in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Verifiability. You quote only from your primary sources when it suits you. This kind of cherry picking is in contravention of WP:NPOV. - DonCalo ( talk) 21:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Quoting ALL the cases, for and against Palazzolo, in their entirety, is not cherry picking. There are many allegations made from many sources, and they're all there. But I won't just print the allegations without the acquittals, when they exist. -- Fircks ( talk) 13:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• You use newspaper allegations and I debunk them, where I can, with court documentation used carefully. In other words I don't "interpret" them, but deliver them for anyone and everyone to read. Let the people decide!

You debunk nothing, you do "interpret" everything in such a way as to minimize serious criminal activity that has been confirmed in Court. In the current BLP, the opinion and denials of Palazzolo have been given ample space. - DonCalo ( talk) 21:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Minimise criminal activity? What criminal activity? The ones written in the Mail & Guardian? Criminal activity, by definition, comes from a court of law.

Don't make sweeping, unsubstantiated claims. Look at each point, in turn.

I have debunked the figure you say Palazzolo laundered; Giuffe as a witness; Troia's connection with Palazzolo; Peete de Pontes and the missing files; and the public relations adviser rumour. With time and space EVERY SINGLE ALLEGATION will be answered. -- Fircks ( talk) 13:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know for certain if it's true that Palazzolo is the victim of a conspiracy, but I do know for certain that what you write about him is unsubstantated and probably untrue.

I hope we can resolve this.

-- Fircks ( talk) 13:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we can resolve this unless you start recognizing the basic facts that he was convicted for money laundering in favour of the Mafia and has been convicted for Mafia association. What the future will bring, we will see. - DonCalo ( talk) 21:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

He was convicted of that, and then he was acquitted. The he was convicted, then acquitted. Etc, etc. Why not mention both, and be neutral? -- Fircks ( talk) 14:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Gentlemen, you may be 80% right, you may be 100% right, but participants promulgating a hostile environment gives those of us trying to resolve the issues a headache. A few months ago when I proposed on the talk page trying to find a reasonable synthesis, the door was pretty much slammed in my face.

I understand not everyone is a great communicator and I further understand emotions can rise when someone's frustrated while certain they're right. Kindly tone down the invective to reduce the toxic cloud of dust.

I'm involved in casework right now and can't help negotiate even if I were so brave. You two (and others) know the history far better than I, and it's troubling to see parties so far apart.

May I suggest laying out points you are firm about and those that are negotiable. For example, I believe an appeal is looming. If so, the article should either state that or leave the conviction/acquittal issue pending until it is resolved.

To be clear, my stance is that I don't want to see a good man trashed nor a bad man whitewashed. I don't know which Mr. Palazzolo is (or even both), but I would error on the conservative side of caution about any questionable points.

Best of reason to you both, -- UnicornTapestry ( talk) 06:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reasoned intervention. Just to know that someone has seen this elaborate story is heartening. An Appeal is looming (Italy and the ECHR), but what do you mean by leave the conviction/acqittal thing? As it stands it is one sided. Shouldn't it be balanced, Appeal or not, with acquittals as well as convictions?

I know that you can't "intervene" but with a BLP like this, which is a Special Claim and an Exceptional Claim requiring specialist and exceptional knowledge, and yet written from newspaper articles. But it's like being caught between a rock and a hard place. No one can intervene or, frankly, has the time to really check out this arcane stuff. I won't bore you with more narrative except to say that I am with you entirely when you say you don't know if Palazzolo is good or bad, but there is nothing I wouldn't do to allow a man or woman to be given a NEUTRAL BLP. Thanks and regards. -- Fircks ( talk) 14:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan Wright (physician) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A series of IPs and SPAs have edited this article recently, some claiming an association with the subject. Their edits have been somewhat problematic as they've replaced some sourced text with something of an unsourced whitewash. While I think some of the content added may be properly source-able, I don't have much time at present to devote to sifting through everything. Any help in improving this BLP is welcome... — Scien tizzle 10:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Especially Special:Contributions/AndreaEstar - they have been warned by me and others several times about COI editing. How should one next proceed? Mato ( talk) 20:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

More eyes at Chuckle Brothers (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) would be appreciated, especially when the semi expires in a month. The issues are relatively infrequent, but when they do pop up, some of them are quite nasty libel. Thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Abdel Latif El Menawy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This biography was created a few days ago, probably by a conflict of interest account, and continues to be a site of edit warring. I'm attempting to retain sourced content regarding the gentleman's amply-covered dismissal from Egypt News, while other parties continuously remove it. I'd prefer to have other objective parties look at this--if it's deemed that he doesn't satisfy notability guidelines then perhaps a deletion proposal is in order, which would make this academic. If the article stays, I'd appreciate a hand in overseeing this, with page protection if necessary. Thanks, 76.248.147.81 ( talk) 23:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case‎ (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

What's the policy on putting in sourced information about the victim's (just assume it's alleged every time I say it) name? I reverted an editor who added the victim's name and other identifying information to the article based on a French source. I didn't check the source, but assuming it's reliable, was I right to revert? I also posted something on the editor's Talk page. I don't believe that American media are publishing the victim's name based on the rape shield law, but we live in a world where countries, uh, disagree, and I don't feel very sure of my ground here as to Wikipedia's policy, if there is one, on this issue.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 17:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

On general principles, wikipedia would not be bound by any specific nation's restrictions, leaving us free to consider identification in terms of BLP. I think that at this stage of the legal process, there would have to be strong reasons as well as strong sources for the naming of the complainant, and since in this case WP:1E would apply, I think you were right to remove it. Martinlc ( talk) 17:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely agree -- this is a person with no public profile. If she starts selling her story, then fine (and more power to her -- something good for her should come from this), but until then there's no enclopedic interest in using her name. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 18:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd be very surprised if French law doesn't have a similar victim shield. However, it probably doesn't extend to those cases in foreign jurisdictions. John lilburne ( talk) 14:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

clearly doesn't violate anything Wran ( talk) 14:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

In such cases with a victim we always err on the side of caution - in such situations I suggest we follow the BBC - one of the most respected and responsible sources - if the BBC names her then we can look at it again. Off2riorob ( talk) 14:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

If it is reported in the French media, then it should be reported. Wikipedia coverage of the event and accusations are incompletely because they do not reflect the information available. There is no legal reason not to mention her name and bibliographic details and it is noteworthy and therefore is clearly an "enclopedic interest" to include this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.229.2 ( talk) 14:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

What is US law on reporting the name of an alleged rape victim, and where are the WP servers located? John lilburne ( talk) 14:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't researched the issue, but I don't believe there is any law in the United States prohibiting the publication of a rape victim's identity. Or any law that is still on the books has been declared unconstitutional when challenged. The U.S. media do not generally publish the victim's name as a matter of practice, not as an obligation. Also, to whatever extent there are such laws in the U.S., they would probably be state-by-state rather than a federal law. Finally, where WP's servers are located (I believe they are in Florida and in the Netherlands, but that's based on a recollection of something someone told me), may not have any bearing on any legal liability WP has for "publishing" such information. The whole thing, like most legal issues, is rather complicated, and I don't think I'd hang my hat on the proposition that Wikipedia is legally prohibited from reporting the identity of a rape victim. Just my view.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 14:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems more of a BLP issue than a legal one at this point. WP:BLPNAME recommends caution in identifying individuals in relation to a single event and specifies that appearance in news media does not necessarily mean inclusion here ("when deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media ... should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories.") January ( talk) 14:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you both there BBb23 and January, as I understand it is not illegal in the server location or the US in general - as I remember a couple of the quality responsible publishers in the US follow the same kind of victim protection procedures as the BBC and Wikipedia. Its more of an editorial decision based in a desire to report responsibility and is in general supported in policy. Off2riorob ( talk)

I also believe there are some commonsense relevancy issues here. This is an article about an American prosecution of a person charged with attempted rape. The victim's name and her background are hardly relevant to anything in the article. Prior to trial, if her lawyers or responsible American media begin talking about it, then, if it's otherwise relevant, we can report on it. But at this point, regardless of the BLP issues, which, of course, are important, it doesn't make sense to include it. Also, a small quibble with Rob - I'd rather not go on record now as supporting inclusion of the victim's identity just because at some future date the BBC reports on it. Just something in me that rebels against (a) deciding an issue before it happens and (b) giving that much power to one news organization.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

We are safe with the BBC, from my experience they will never report it unless she gives interviews etc, they have never let me down yet. I understand and appreciate your comments though. Off2riorob ( talk) 16:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

To say that more weight should be given to one type of source is not say that weight is not given to others, nor does it address the issue of how widespread the info is; also only certain types of material are likely to interest academics, and the time lag for academic publication is considerable. Her background is clearly relevant as it may well become the leading issue in the trial, as may her appearance to some degree; also her name is very widely available in the european press, and by the time the trial starts , if not much sooner, it will be in the USA too: so there's really no issue of protection Wran ( talk) 13:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Just tallying up (for posterity), right that's 6 editors (7 if you include myself) to Wran's 1 (discounting the ill-informed ip's opinion) of the opinion that this information should not be included. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

In all fairness, there's also a discussion about revealing the victim's name on the DSK Talk page. I know Wran believes the count there is in his favor, but it's a bit harder to assess than here because the discussion is less focused and has devolved into shouting matches, accusations, and complaints to ANI. One of the problems with this issue is it's not just a consensus issue, it's really an intersection of policy and consensus. The threshold question is whether policy prohibits revealing the victim's name at this point. If so, consensus doesn't matter. However, if someone challenges the interpretation of the policies involved, you can't really move forward unless editors agree on the applicabilty of the policies in the first instance. Personally, in complex issues such as these, I prefer to fall back on common sense. At this point, the victim's name is not necessary to the article. Some (like me) could argue that it's not sufficiently relevant. Others might disagree. But because it's not necessary, in the exercise of editorial discretion based on the possible applicability of Wikipedia policy, it should not be included. I also think that if we wait, the whole issue will become moot because the victim and/or her lawyers will publicly reveal who she is to the American media.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying, and I agree that consensus to misapply policy is not a valid argument to include stuff in an article, and one editor correctly applying policy trumps ill-informed consensus (especially in the case of BLPs, BLPNAME, BLP1E and so on). This post was basically about trying to tie up loose ends as some editors do not accept tp consensus and then post the same stuff all over the place to gain more sympathy from uninvolved editors who do not have a good grasp of what's going on, keeping track of this becomes extremely time-consuming, as I'm sure you well know.

Whether it be her name or that she was brought up in a mud hut is totally irrelevant to the case (and thus the article) for the moment. One day it might be, for example if her background is heavily evoked during the trial to prove what a humble person of good charcter she is but I'm for the "exercising editorial discretion" option too. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 20:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand that we are discussing the name, but the name is related to other characterizations of the person. I think this is a well-titled section-heading: Talk:Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case#Should we characterize the accuser? It includes discussion of the inclusion/exclusion of the name. Several of the other aspects of characterization are discussed in that section in addition to the name.

Rather than me repeat all the factors reported by reliable sources—just read the section of that Talk page. These are characterizations of the person. The sources are prominent. I am not convinced that the name should be omitted; but I am even less convinced that the other factors should be omitted.

The question has been asked: what is the relevance of these facts? We are not the sole arbiters of relevance. Reliable sources are also exercising discipline. They too have to decide what to include and what to omit. Inclusion by reliable sources of these facts is reason for us to believe that these facts are relevant. I think our only obligation is to approximate in our article the degree of the free flow of information as prevails in the general world. This is not an all-or-nothing situation. If her name is not widely disseminated we can leave it out for now. If the many other factors are fairly commonly made available to the public by very prominent sources then I think it represents a contrivance for us to be omitting those factors.

Interestingly—none of the factors under discussion are glaringly defamatory. I'm slightly puzzled by the impetus to omit extremely common and unextraordinary attributes of identity. Reliable sources probably evaluate information for its potential to do harm in an instance such as this. I think we should be taking our cue from the precedent set by reliable sources. Bus stop ( talk) 15:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

What do the BBC say about the womans details? Off2riorob ( talk) 15:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Please tell me. What do you have in mind? What does the BBC say in this regard? Bus stop ( talk) 15:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13519035 - from the external for discussion - "His accuser, an immigrant from the West African state of Guinea," ... as per our policies and guidelines and the standards of reporting of the BBC, I would have no objection at all to us repeating this simple detail about her. Off2riorob ( talk) 15:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. Why would we follow the bbc and not the new york times or cbs news or the sf guardian or msnbc or reuters? Bus stop ( talk) 15:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I know that the standards of victim consideration in reporting details is of the highest quality at the BBC , the BBC is also not interested at all in selling papers or anything at all for that matter.(apart from themselves perhaps - as such are a similar entity to wikipedia) as I said, as per my (high standards) of interpretation of BLP policy and such situations regarding one event living victims, I would support adding this detail, you might have a different opinion and feel free to discuss your position, mine is clearly stated here. I have boldly added the content and the BBC citation to the article. Off2riorob ( talk) 15:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you are both missing the point here. Article content isn't determined by 'reliable sources' but by Wikipedia policy, and by talk-page consensus. A reliable source is necessary for inclusion, but it is never sufficient in itself. Neither this article, nor the 'assault' one are about the alleged victim, and what details (if any) about her are to be included should be decided according to Wikipedia standards and requirements, not those of the NYT or the BBC (neither or which is compiling an encyclopaedia AFAIK). AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

If our standards were held project wide as high as the BBC we would be doing extremely well. Its a widely reported simple fact about the housekeeper that she is an immigrant from Guinea. We report all and sundry about the accused and we need to remember he is innocent until proven guilty. Simple well known details without naming or exposing her seem to be informative detail that to exclude is verging on censorship.note - I boldly added it and I can see there is no consensus on the talkpage and Andy has objected here already and I have no objection to it being removed, if requested I will remove it myself to allow for more discussion. Off2riorob ( talk) 15:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Eamon Zayed (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi some vandalism occurred on the page of Éamon Zayed/Eamon Zayed, Derry City FC footballer in the wake of a racism allegation row in the irish media. I undid the vandalism to revert to the previous edit(i wasnt logged in for those corrections) however it seems that my corrections only applied to the page found under the search term >Éamon Zayed< (with the accent on the E), upon accessing his page by searching for his name without the accent >Eamon Zayed< ie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eamon_Zayed, I found that the vandalism is still evident on that page. I am not as savvy with the wikipedia system as others may be and am unable to fix this page, could someone please correct this?

Repeat: Vandalism removed from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Éamon_Zayed but still evident on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eamon_Zayed— Preceding unsigned comment added by Craft24 ( talk • contribs)

• It looks ok to me, it likely was a cache problem, you were likely viewing a previous version. Wikipedia:Bypass your cache I am not seeing any remaining content from the issue. Off2riorob ( talk) 19:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• Same here, it was likely a cache issue. I don't see any of this content so it is likely you saw a previous revision as stated above.  JoeGazz   ▲  20:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Rob Todd (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article contains false and libelous information about an alleged extra-marital affair by Todd. The sources which Macwhiz has used as authority are not credible for the following reasons: (1) both articles which he is using as authority are columns....not actual news stories. Those columns do come out of publications which have hard news stories which can be credible, but which also have columns which may not be credible. The columns which Macwhiz uses contain no supporting facts of any sourt. They simply repeat a libelous rumor. The use of a unsubstantiated column as a fact source violates your editorial standards if that opinion contains no witnesses or other supporting facts (2) Neither source contains an interview with Todd, his ex-wife, Keller or his ex-wife, or any other witness. There are no emails, or other documents cited as authority. There are no photographs or any other documents provided. A thorough web search will show that neither Todd or Keller or their ex-wives were ever interviewed about the rumors. Furthermore, a thorough web search will reveal that there are no interviews with any third party witness to any events that would tend to support the allegations (3) The particular articles were written by colummists for the publications, not reporters. A column is only credible if it contains supporting facts. There are none here. These articles were prompted by rumor and gossip only. Furthermore, If you do a thorough web search, you will find that about the time that the articles Macwhiz is relying on were published, the Houston Chroncile accidentally released an internal memo in which it detailed a plan to discredit Todd and other opponents of Rail by attacking their personal lives(summary of this athttp://www.bloghouston.net/item/7). The articles which Macwhiz is using as authority were published as part of that plan (4) A thorough web search will reveal that the particular columist who wrote the Houston Press article Macwhiz has cited was subsequently terminated from the Houston Press for violating their editorial standards and for repeatedly representing facts to be true without any supporting facts of any sort. His article is generally thought to have what started the gossip chain. (5) The writer of the Chronicle column was not working for the Chronicle or living in Houston at the time of the alleged affair. His column also contains no supporting facts and he was likely relying on the veracity of the Houston Press column. As with the other source Macwhiz has cited, that column contains no supporting facts, interviews, etc.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkgurugal ( talk • contribs)

Pinkgurugal, a single-purpose account that has no edits other than attempting to blank Rob Todd and, when that was reverted by another editor, remove all mention of this incident in Todd's life, is asking editors to believe that the paper of record for the Houston area—the Houston Chronicle—was engaged in a conspiracy with the local alternative newsweekly, the Houston Press, to discredit Todd. As evidence, she cites an archived copy of a memo posted at The Houston Review, a defunct blog that described itself as "A conservative student monthly serving the Houston area". This alleged conspiracy involved both papers making supposedly libelous statements about Todd. Oddly, in the many years since, Todd—an attorney—has apparently neglected to file any lawsuits against either publication for this alleged conspiracy.

The section in question was recently discussed on the article's talk page and Jimbo's talk page. Jimbo had some concerns about it; I worked with him to create the version that Pinkgurugal wants blanked. I highly recommend that concerned editors read those discussions before commenting.

A number of SPAs have made this objection recently: Politicianfriend ( talk · contribs · count), Deaftruth ( talk · contribs · count), and Democratsunited ( talk · contribs · count) have all made pretty much the same edits. Interestingly, very similar—in some cases, identical—edits with curiously similar edit comments were made by Robertpercytodd ( talk · contribs · count), the self-admitted subject of the article, earlier in the year. I intend to open a sockpuppet investigation on this.

The material in question is sourced, and per WP:WELLKNOWN, belongs in the article, even if the politician in question doesn't like it. // ⌘macwhiz ( talk) 14:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• I have trimmed it back, its clearly disputable, we don't know what was going on or why he was phoning her, it just seems to be trivia designed to attack and demean. Readers can click on the externals if they want the titillating dubious claims of phone record speculation. Off2riorob ( talk) 14:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Rob, I disagree. It's sourced; the statement you removed is backed by official records and therefore highly verifiable; and Jimbo approved of the edit]. Removing the information leads the reader to make an incorrect assumption. Plus, WP:WELLKNOWN applies. Does an SPA with an obvious POV make something published by two newspapers with very different editorial agendas "disputable" now? // ⌘macwhiz ( talk) 14:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

What is the incorrect assumption? What users think such speculative trivia is even worthy of a mention is beyond me, this stuff is press excitement for real life campaigns not the kind of long term biographical notable content. As fro the single purpose accounts - if you write a decent balanced article I find such accounts don't come reverting and complaining. Off2riorob ( talk) 14:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

For starters, there's the assumption that Keller's wife was "estranged" at the time of the relationship. The evidence suggests that the relationship started well before Keller moved out of the house. What makes this notable is that Todd campaigned heavily on being a supporter of family values, and fervently so; for a politician taking such a stance, it's politically notable if they then start calling someone else's wife dozens of times a day, daily, for months... using their taxpayer-funded cellphone... at a time when the most charitable thing a reasonable person could say would be "that can't be doing good things for Keller's marriage". The statement you removed is not speculative; it is backed by a reliable source (and yes, I checked, there's precedent at WP:RS for calling the Press reliable), and that source is reporting on an objective document obtained from a government agency that can be readily verified by anyone wishing to make a FOIA request. // ⌘macwhiz ( talk) 14:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The speculation that as he had called her previously to the separation is a record of fact - after that it is pure journalist speculation. - (I got the estranged detail from the citation) - Off2riorob ( talk) 15:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I have opened a sockpuppet investigation here: [7] // ⌘macwhiz ( talk) 14:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't affect my position if they are all the same person. Off2riorob ( talk) 15:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

By request, I took another look at this. My feeling is that the Houston Chronicle editorial about "our inferior sex scandals" expresses belief in the affair, but because it's both an editorial and written somewhat flippantly, I'm not entirely sure it's being "presented as true", i.e. that the paper is staking its reputation on the accuracy of the story. Unless there are other good sources out there about this which haven't been added, it's probably a thumbnail summary of the Tim Fleck stories in the Houston Press. Maybe it's usable as a source to say it wasn't viewed by the Houston Chronicle as a very serious scandal. I'm not saying to take it out, but I wouldn't want to lean on it for support.

Now Tim Fleck's stories are another kettle of fish. It's easy for people to equate "scandal" with "gossip", but especially [8] is a pretty serious investigation with FOIA requests and redactions and lawyers and dollars and cents. In combination with the more poetic [9], it might be "salacious", but it is pretty convincing. Personality factors do have a role in politics - especially when the "other man" works in the same office - and it is relevant and important for the biography of this well known individual.

I'm not that comfortable with saying Todd "admitted" to having an affair based on this source, however. The story says that Keller said Todd admitted to having the affair, which I think is distinct. Either we should say exactly that, or just say the story said he had an affair. I also think that because of the narrowness of the media coverage, it's best to name the author and paper and describe their methods of investigation. Wnt ( talk) 17:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

An additional source for consideration: Mason, Julie. "Local politicians provided us plenty of entertainment in 2000". Houston Chronicle, 31 Dec 2000, p. A32. [10] "At City Hall, where politics is most like making sausage, Councilman Rob Todd's theatrical divorce and subsequent romance with Councilman Bert Keller's estranged wife, Susan, may yet prove his own undoing. ¶ Todd, a family-values conservative who has fought such affronts to decency as the distribution of condoms by city health officials, plans to run in the 2002 Republican primary race for commissioner of Harris County Precinct 2."

This one isn't tagged as an editorial. // ⌘macwhiz ( talk) 19:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I could care less about Todd; I don't know the man, I don't live anywhere near him, he's just another BLP subject that need a copy-edit. I found additional information about him while fact-checking the article, and I felt that a complete and true picture of the man would not be told unless the information was included per WP:WELLKNOWN.

It seems to me that, when you have a politician in the deeply conservative American southwest who makes a name for himself as a... let's be kind and say staunch instead of militant... family-values conservative, it's inherently a notable event in their political life if there's media coverage of them doing something contrary to family-values conservative ideals. While Fleck at the Press definitely isn't making any attempt at being neutral, he does seem to have done his research: It looks like it was a review of Todd's phone bills to the city [11] that started the ball rolling. He claims Todd spent $3,929 of city money talking on his cell for 21,353 minutes between January and October 2000, but only reimbursed the city $52.54 in that time. The later article established that the bulk of those calls were to Keller's wife. Fleck's narrative is that Todd rang up huge cell bills that dwarfed those of his colleagues, claimed they were all legitimate reimbursable calls, but was actually spending that taxpayer money calling Keller's wife, with whom Fleck claims Todd later admitted he was having a relationship with. The records indicate that the relationship, if not "the affair", started before Keller moved out and while Keller and his wife were still married. (It's not clear to me whether the Kellers actually divorced; his wife literally stood by him when he was subsequently charged with DUI, and was mentioned when Keller later got charged for violating probation on that DUI.) As the Chronicle story I just mentioned points out, this is not something that would play well with Texas voters. That's why I am concerned that we don't whitewash it... especially when the "complaints" are coming from a run of suspiciously-similar SPAs that started with edits apparently by Todd himself. I think Wnt makes good points, though. // ⌘macwhiz ( talk) 19:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is any dispute at all that they had a relationship. As I read - all parties admit that. The only dispute is that there are press speculations that they were having a sexual relationship while with their partners.From that citation Rob Todd's theatrical divorce and subsequent romance with Councilman Bert Keller's estranged wife, Susan, - Off2riorob ( talk) 19:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Rob, I do have to ask where you're getting "sexual" out of the sentence "Although Keller was estranged from his wife at the time Todd admitted to the relationship in September, the Houston Press asserted it began before Keller moved out of the couple's home in May: The Press obtained the call records for Todd's city-issued cell phone, which showed calls to Keller's wife Susan starting in February"; I'm not seeing it, but I did write it... // ⌘macwhiz ( talk) 19:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

( edit conflict) - add content I was adding to the previous post - Yes, I think we clearly have the basic details in the article now without need for the speculation as to exactly when it started, researched to the fact that he had telephoned her. The issue is from eleven years ago and the fine details of it are celebrity magazine style titillation. As for the where am I getting sexual from - that is what the addition is to assert, isn't it? As such showing him in an additional negative light because he stuck up for family values. Personally I would remove it completely, having an affair unless you resign over it is just unencyclopedic personal intrusion anyway. Off2riorob ( talk) 20:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to say I find that to be a leap that may say more about the reader than the text. As phrased, it doesn't say they had a sexual relationship. However, it does say that the Press believes they had some kind of relationship based on objective evidence; if and when it became sexual isn't established by them or us. However, for one who believes in family values, spending hundreds of government dollars a month ringing up your colleague's wife at their marital home, often in the middle of the night—even if it's just to be a friend and supportive—is unlikely to help your colleague's faltering marriage. I would like to meet the minister that would endorse blowing $900/month worth of taxpayer-paid airtime in that fashion as a way to help. One not need bring sex into it to see a pattern that speaks to a pattern of saying one thing while doing another. // ⌘macwhiz ( talk) 20:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we should leave the speculation and assertions as to his hypocrisy and bigotry and involvement and responsibility in a divorce to the op eds and the journs - the press believed some kind of relationship was going on because he had telephoned the woman - I can see this is important to you, I can't for the life of me understand why, its dated (eleven years ago) titillation and speculation alleged to assert negative implication, its not for me. As such the speculation and its value to the reader is also unworthy of all this discussion. Although I can live with it as it currently is without the speculation, as I said, having an affair unless you resign over it is just unencyclopedic personal intrusion, if you have no objections I would prefer to remove it completely. Off2riorob ( talk) 20:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

No, there you're going the wrong way. Like I said, it's of biographical relevance. I think it's more than morbid curiosity to ask: what do people in that situation do, when they work together in public service? How does it get resolved? This is somewhat important as a sociological examination of our society. I mean, we all know that two centuries ago Aaron Burr ended up in a duel over the sort of ordinary innuendo and namecalling that is routine politics today - though at the same time we expect better ethics from reputable journalists. We know that centuries, even several decades ago a sexual issue like this would have been very likely to lead to bloodshed even if not publicized. It says something about the maturity and civility of society when things like this are no longer catastrophic. I think history will care about things like this, and how they changed, and when they changed. There's no point saying it's too old - if it were recent people would be saying it's recentism! The time doesn't matter. Only what happened matters. Wnt ( talk) 07:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you are looking for the sociological examination of our society article, or the interpersonal relations in twenty first century public service workers article - anyway as I said, I can live with it without the speculated additions. Off2riorob ( talk) 07:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Good grief skip. This isn't an article about the sociology of people working together, its a BLP. Also it isn't about some 200 year old duel either. Its about some city councillor, who happens to have tupped a colleagues missus. One big fucking *yawn* mate. John lilburne ( talk) 08:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Sooooo anyway, the question of Rob's edit and my objection now being resolved at least so far as I'm concerned... this article has seen rather a spate of SPAs coming in lately to "sanitize" the article, often blanking sections or calling for its outright deletion. Would an admin consider making the article semiprotected, to discourage the creation of new SPA accounts to continue the campaign? // ⌘macwhiz ( talk) 16:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps after the recent edits any objections the user/users had have been resolved. Without current disruption I don't see a need to semi protect, lets leave the article unprotected to see if there is an ongoing need to raise the level of protection. Off2riorob ( talk) 18:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• FWIW, I agree with Off2riorob ( talk · contribs). We don't publish all the gossip that is fit to print just because someone printed it. -- causa sui ( talk) 16:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I've just hacked personal life on this back 90% - nearly all sourced to Daily Mail and The London Paper. I've already had to revert a blind re-addition once and no-one is posting on talk apart from me. More eyes needed. Exxolon ( talk) 14:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I would be glad to assist with keeping an eye on this article for you. I do agree that having such a large amount of content written and based on one single source is not right. Especially with BLPs, we should see the same content released in multiple places to verify it is true and not just "modified" and "created" by the one source. We all know newspapers are capable of doing such, so I agree with the removal but also support the restoration of this content should more than just this source be found. I am not against listing this as a source again for the content, just that the content needs to be sourced with another source as well.  JoeGazz   ▲  17:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Catherine Meyer (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is continually edited by individuals who wish to hide the controversy, exposed in the Daily Telegraph and Independent on Sunday, surrounding Catherine Meyer and her assistant being paid some 50% of the income of charity in pay and considerably more in expenses. Whether Lady Meyer likes this or not, this is information that has been covered by newspapers for a long period and is relevant to any biography of her. The expose of this information is not, as those around her suggest, a vendetta. It is purely information that journalists have found via Lady Meyer's charity's accounts being published by the Charity Commission.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.158.186 ( talk • contribs)

I just removed the "material" since I haven't seen how really notable or encyclopedic it is or if it constitutes original research, ect. I know folks are in a rush to add "material" but will this really be notable a year or 5 from now? I commented on the talk page as well. Maybe the folks on the right side of the pond will have better input :) Cheers! -- Threeafterthree ( talk) 17:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

And I reverted you. You clearly do not understand policy if you justify removing material sourced by the daily Telegraph and the Independent because it is "not notable". Notability doesn't even have anything nothing to do with article content. Also, your comment about it maybe being original research can only be interpreted as that you did not bother to read the source before making your misguided removal. Yoenit ( talk) 22:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Notability is often a shorthand for saying that information isn't sufficiently relevant to include, and relevancy is a standard for inclusion or exclusion of content. Here, the article says: "In May 2011 the finances of Parents & Abducted Children Together were called into question." (It also has some gibberish after that, which makes no sense.) The first thing that struck me was who called it into question as the assertion doesn't say and is written in the passive voice. I got a quick response when reading the Telegraph article. It was the Telegraph itself that accused her of impropriety based apparently on their review of public records. The Independent article, of course, is redundant as it's simply reporting that the Telegraph reported it. An allegation of this kind does not belong in the article. If it turns out there is some confirmed irregularity by Meyer, then we can report on it. In my view, this material violates BLP guidelines, or at least borders on doing so.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes Bbb23, that is what I meant to say/mean regarding "notability". I have removed the accusation again and would hope that others will chime in and consensus can form either way. Thank you, -- Threeafterthree ( talk) 00:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree keep it out until such time there is a substantiated investigation by the Charity Commission. John lilburne ( talk) 00:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems consensus is swinging against me, so be it. I assume nobody objects if I otherwise gut the article to remove promotional crap? Yoenit ( talk) 07:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't know if we have to gut it per say, but yes, any non notable promotional "material" should be reduced. Maybe use the talk page. Also, I have no idea if you are a fan or detracter of the subject, but if so, I would try to get an editor who has zippo interest in the subject to do the weed wacking, ect. Anyways, -- Threeafterthree ( talk) 20:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I have in fact zippo interest in the subject and never heard of her or her organization before. (it must have had it on my watchlist though, although I have no idea why) Yoenit ( talk) 20:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

ok, not that that would preclude you from editing ect, but you seemed "passionate" about including the accusation material. Anyways, hopefully you or others can improve the article by reducing any non notable/relevant material ect. -- Threeafterthree ( talk) 20:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

To give this a tail: This little controversy is still mentioned in Parents and Abducted Children Together and as only the organization is referred to and no individual persons the BLP policy is not a valid excuse to remove it there. wp:UNDUE might, but that is a separate discussion. Does anybody disagree with that? Yoenit ( talk) 09:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I really don't care either way. -- Threeafterthree ( talk) 04:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Michael Lombardi (businessman) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Saw some discussion about edit warring on this article at a help desk and am bringing it here - I've removed quite a bit of extraneous information about the company and the ranking of the university he attended, but I'm not sure about some of the material about the company that I've left in the article. Dougweller ( talk) 13:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Now at...

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Lombardi (businessman) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Trimmed/copy edited some more. Not really left with much. -- Threeafterthree ( talk) 04:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

the article talk about the leader of an islamic party an I found the following expression mispalced : << Nadia does not represent Muslim women nor Islam, see how much make up she is wearing which contradicts with the modeste image of a muslim woman >>. the comment on her father are defamatory.

This has been fixed, thanks for bringing it to our attention. Exxolon ( talk) 19:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Maajid Nawaz has been fully protected for a week due to an edit war primarily between User:Ksmith009 and User:K8_fan. I would suggest that the page be returned to the 12:19, 7 June 2011 version before recent edits by either party. Could third parties look at this and evaluate the various edits for bias? Thank you. K8 fan ( talk) 18:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Rupert Jeffcoat (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unproven hearsay and potentially defamatory/libelous material added [12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Yesberg ( talk • contribs) 09:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Re-written to be slightly less contentious. The source used does seem to be sound, but the former contents of the article seemed to misrepresent it somewhat. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 12:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Cohn-Bendit (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The English version of this article in Wikipedia is completely libelous, accussing Daniel Cohn-Bendit of being a pedophile without proving it. I can't even understand how such an important website like is Wikipedia can allow an article which doesn't give any actual information and which is defamatory and partial. Please, erase this article as soon as possible. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.216.93.89 ( talk) 10:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I've made some changes, but this article definitely needs more attention. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 12:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, well done Demiurge1000 for the improvements. It still needs a lot of improvement. Lots of uncited. I considered moving three quarters of it to the talkpage for citing and replacing ... a nice project to improve for anyone interested in French German political issues. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Rich Hill (baseball) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a mistake in Rich Hill's biography. My name is Larry Hill, Rich's older brother. I played baseball at Boston College and graduated in 1985. I did not play for the Pirates. Please correct this error. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.70.22.220 ( talk) 11:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed the sentence as unsourced.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

David Hahn (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article David Hahn needs attention from an expert, at the moment it appears that someone attempted to add some sort of clarification to the article and I have no idea what to do about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.9.141.11 ( talk) 12:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Uncited commentary removed. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

James Arthur Ray (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This guy accidentally killed three people and sickened dozens after a botched sweat lodge ceremony. Half his BLP is spent discussing the incident itself and what everybody and their brother thought of it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 22:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It's one of those articles where subsequent events are arguably more notable than the subject. The question becomes whether those events are sufficiently notable to justify their own article. If not, then although they still may be relevant to the subject, the level of detail is not. Instead, it should be summarized.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Its one of those that could go either way. The subject was marginally notable prior to the event and now is notable mostly because of the event. The event itself seems scrape WP:EVENT but just barely. Seems either one might get deleted on its own but the combined two create enough material. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 23:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't think that kind of synthesis is (should be?) acceptable. And if that's the way it's going to go, I would still argue that there's way too much detail about the events in an article about the person, not the events.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

No I more than agree. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 23:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Alternatives include splitting out the material on the sweat lodge incident or the "Spiritual Warriors" organization, or deciding that the subject isn't notable and moving the entire article to some other title and deleting the biographical info. But just deleting well-sourced material on a widely covered incident that resulted in multiple deaths would not be a good solution.   Will Beback  talk  01:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I've made a proposal to split out the material on the sweat lodge deaths.   Will Beback  talk  23:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Absent new BLP issues, I think the discussion of what to do with the article can continue on the article's Talk page.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Carma Rose De Jong Anderson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

title is a WP:Redirect - http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Carma_Rose_De_Jong_Anderson&redirect=no - to ...

Richard Lloyd Anderson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Carma Rose de Jong Anderson was born in Provo, Utah Mar.6, 1930 [therefore today is age 81}. I am that person. The report on me says I was born in 1932--that date is a fiction. I lived in Provo all my growing up years,and attended the BYU K-6, then Jr and Senior High Schooland then had three years of college classes before marriage. I lost my mother to a car accident when I was in the middleof fourth grade.I was born to sweet Rosabelle Winegar de Jong who was married in the Salt Lake Temple to Gerrit de Jong, Jr. by Pres. Joseph F. Smith.Gerrit had come from Amsterdam, Holland with his parents and younger sister, Katherine. Rosabelle was born in Salt Lake City to Rosa Eliza Shaw who was married to William Winegar. Rosa had brown eyes and dark brown-red hair. The Shaws came from Stafforshire, England, and the Winegars were Germanic who arrived in America in 1710, slowly colonizing westward. They were converted ny early missionaries in 1833.Carma de Jong Anderson loves her ancestors very much for they worked very hardto build up the Church they dearly believed in. Carma's English grandmother,Rosa,was born in Salt Lake City in 1855, just a few years after the Shaws had arrived in America.Carma's Dutch grandmother was Lida Mariana Kuiper from near Apeldoorn, Holland. She met her husband Gerrit [III] in Amsterdam where both were working. They have a very interesting story of how thay came to America and why they joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints after they had arrived in Salt Lake City! The Shaws have a dramatic story of tremendous sacrifice for the same Church and did not reach Salt Lake Valley until 1852. Eliza Wilding and Osmond Broad Shaw joined the Church sparately and did not dare tell each other that they were "Mormons" until just a week before they were to marry in an ancestral cathedral. Osmond's father, Simeon Shaw, a linguist and great historian of the English Potteries and was educated in the cenistry of glazing the houshold potteries, and Spode and Wedgewood gorgeous dishes. He was a aschoolmaster so his son Osmond was very well taught and Simeon saw his philosophical bent, and wanted him to be a minister of the Anglican faith. The early Mormon Apostles came to England in 1837 and two different groups of themconverted Osmond and Elizaa Wilding,who was a corset-maker with her expert hand sewing.Carma deJong was the only daughter in the family to have red dhair, but her Great Grandfather Osmond Shaw had red hair, and his son, Lewis C. Shaw had bright red hair. He was a fine carpenter who had worked on the Mac Cune Mansion in Salt Lake City. Carma demanded to be taught to sew when four years old,and learnedmuch by hand sewing. The last half of her life she has researched and designed and cut all the historic clothing and household textiles for the LDS historic sites, with the knowledge she continued to gain, until she finished a PhD in 1992. After marriage she continued to attend formal credit classes everywhere Richard Lloyd Anderson and she lived afrer their marriage on May 22, 1951. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.169.143.159 ( talk) 01:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I have amended Carma's year of birth from 1932 to 1930 as requested above. Diff. Dolphin ( t) 02:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I notice she is in the 1930 births category on the redirect page. Off2riorob ( talk) 12:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Karl Denninger (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"Trades4beer" is continually adding edits to the above page that are false, slanted and defamatory. I removed them and added requested cites yesterday and they were added back this morning once again. I am the person referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tickerguy ( talk • contribs) 14:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I've left a little note for User:Trades4beer, and I'm also going to request some temporary semi-protection for the article, since this seems to be a recurring problem. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 14:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I also left User:Trades4beer a note letting him know about this report and requesting him to discuss here and not to replace the content, seems to be cited to chat forums and other not reliable externals. Off2riorob ( talk) 14:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Loredana Brigandì (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article was edited today to include, "(redacted)" The addition isn't linked to any supporting information. I found the edit and the entry on Wikipedia because of a weird posting to Yahoo. I comments on Yahoo have gotten very contentious/weird in the last several years, but this was kinda especially wacky. On an article on how to calm a colicky baby someone under the name Loredana Brigandì posted this today: (redacted)Her username was Loredana Brigandì so I looked up the user and the account was created today. I don't know the person but this seems hinky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuziGenerous ( talk • contribs) 15:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the entirety of the unsourced "Personal life" section from the article, and blanked some of your comment here. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 15:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The article could use a bit of help, its uncited since 2006. I found a copy of it on a website claiming copyright from Jan 4 2007, anyone good at working out which way this was first created? I think we either need to cite the article, perhaps stubbing it back to remove the fluff or AFD it. The possible place it was cut and copied from is here... thoughts? Off2riorob ( talk) 17:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• http://web.archive.org/web/20070104112834/http://www.musicacademyonline.com/performers/brigandi.php

• update - Now under discussion at....

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loredana Brigandì ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A major American modern artist/choreographer/dancer. A San Francisco native, performed with the Ann Halprin-Welland Lathrop Dance Company and presented her first dances in the Bay Area. In New York, she studied with Martha Graham, Andre Bernard and Erick Hawkins and joined the Hawkins Company, performing as a leading dancer through 1969. In 1970, she established her school & company. The company has performed in New York since 1971, as well as appearances at the New York Festival at the Delacorte Theater, the American Dance Festival where she also taught for six summers, and performances and workshops in the United States & Canada. In 1988, she presented a solo concert at the International Spirit of Design Forum in Asahikawa, Japan. Since the inception of the company, Ms. Meehan has collaborated extensively with Anthony Candido, and from 1973 with Eleanor Hovda. She has also worked with many other contemporary composers, always using live music. She received a Guggenheim Fellowship for choreography, a CAPS fellowship, NEA Fellowships, grants from the New York State Council on the Arts, and the Mary Flagler Cary Charitable Trust. She resides in Manhattan. The company's 40th season took place in New York May 20th & 21st. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig zarah ( talk • contribs) 01:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but why do you bring her up here? (Do you propose to write an article about her?) -- Hoary ( talk) 02:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• - Bulgarian wiki (translated via Google translate)

bg.wikipedia.org is being blatantly politicized and used to tag people via their biography pages, based on lists published by the country's political apparatus. Furthermore this tagging is being performed by Wikipedia Administrator(s) and Editor(s), which aggravates the situation further by tarnishing and discrediting Wikipedia's image.

The Bulgarian government recently published a list of prominent academics who were both members of the national committee that awards doctoral and other advanced academic degrees and also had files with the Bulgarian department of homeland security dating back to the Cold War period. The implication of this list is that these committee members were collaborating with the communist establishment to steer the decisions of the committee along political instead of or in addition to strictly academic lines. As you can imagine, this comes as no surprise. During that period Bulgaria was a totalitarian state and the political apparatus controlled every aspect of public life. I don't necessarily object to the publication of this list, but I do object to the fact that no details were published as to what these people actually did that comprises collaboration with the apparatus violating academic principles. As it stands, it is a list of "the accused" of having files with the apparatus but no substantiation of what exactly each of them did that was in violation of academic or moral principles. As such, the list is mere propaganda on part of the current political apparatus with the most likely purpose of discrediting prominent folks who probably disagree with the apparatus' politics.

The same day that this list was published (June 16) the Wikipedia biography pages of the folks on the list (who had such pages) were edited most inappropriately to reflect their membership in this list. In most cases the sentence/paragraph indicating the membership on the list was placed at the very top of the biography page immediately following their date of birth, as if this was by far the most important aspect of these folk's lives and careers. Even more disturbingly, it turns out that all these edits were in fact performed by a Wikipedia Administrator.

Yet more disturbingly a Wikipedia category "homeland security agents" was created on May 23 (note 3 weeks before the official publication of the list) and the people form the yet unpublished list were added to the category by a Wikipedia Editor who clearly advertises his political opinions and affiliation on his Wikipedia page.

These Wikipedia publications are extremely disturbing to the targeted people and damaging to the image of Wikipedia by turning it into an instrument for retribution and political propaganda. I really don't know what the best way to handle this situation would be, but I would recommend disallowing BLP pages, as well as categories and lists consisting of living people, in highly politicized locales such as Bulgaria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atswim ( talk • contribs) 20:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

If what you suggest is indeed occurring, it is disturbing. There is nothing that can be done about it here, however, as en.Wikipedia has no control over bg.Wikipedia. I think you will have to debate this there. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 21:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, primary complaint to the local wikipedia and if serious issues are unresolved you may feel a report to the wikipedia foundation may be required. wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Contact us - Off2riorob ( talk) 00:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice! I spent quite a bit of time discussing the issue with a couple of the editors there. Although initially receptive to the discussion, it appears to have touched on some sort of sensitive spot(s), provoking an unjustifyable harsh reaction on their part. At present the discussion has been unilaterally terminated on their part, so it looks like I will have to seek external help.-- Atswim —Preceding undated comment added 19:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC).

Kathleen Cody (actor) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) My name is Kathleen Cody and I am an American actress. I have numerous professional credits in film, broadway, and Television, the most notable at this time being an original cast member of the 1960's cult classic soap opera "Dark Shadows". Wikipedia has a page for the show "Dark Shadows" and you will see that as a cast member I played the roles of "Hallie Stokes" and "Carrie Stokes". My problem is twofold.

First, I can not create a separate wikipedia page for myself (as many of my other cast members), because there is already a "Kathleen Cody" page on Wikipedia belonging to an Irish athlete. An attempt was made to create a Wikipedia page using a slightly different name entry of "Kathleen Cody (Actor)" depicting my biography but was "promptly removed" for the cited reason of "copyright infringement". The biography of my acting career was written by me and only states the facts of my career. Therefore, I would like to know how I can have a Wikipedia page created depicting the facts of my career and linked to the "Dark Shadows" Wikipedia page, since I am already there listed in the original cast?

Second, since Wikipedia does already have a page created for the irish athlete "Kathleen Cody", it is her page that is not only linked to the Wikipedia "Dark Shadows" page, but it her Wikipedia page is now also link through the "Dark Shadows" Facebook page which lists the cast members and links their Wikipedia pages to Facebook. I have many fans from "Dark Shadows" that I am in contact with on Facebook. I am one of the cast members that will be attending the "Dark Shadows 45th Anniversary Festival" inb New York, Brooklyn Marriott this coming August. The confusion Wikipedia is causing my Fans by not differentiating between me, Kathleen Cody the American actor, and Kathleen Cody the irish athlete, and linking the Irish athlete to the "Dark Shadows" pages on Wikipedia and Facebook is considerable.

Please advise me as to what action can be taken as soon as possible to correct this error. Kathleen Cody (Actor) ^{details removed} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmcody001 ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I've sorted the link from the series article out so that it's now a red link pointing to Kathleen Cody (actor). That will deal with that problem anyway. Looking at IMdB it seems reasonable that there's an article on the subject - I'm not really the best person to write that, but if you could, perhaps, find a couple of articles which make reasonably in depth reference to you then that'd help someone - it's much better to do that rather than to import a biography from elsewhere as it's much more likely to result in an encyclopedic article. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 21:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not well versed in naming guidelines but wouldn't it be Kathleen Cody (American actress) - Off2riorob ( talk) 22:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I think not, for two reasons. First, WP tends to prefer "actor" to "actress". Secondly, because WP avoids unnecessary disambiguation -- so yes, "Kathleen Cody (American actor)" IFF necessary to avoid confusion with some "Kathleen Cody (Australian actor)". -- Hoary ( talk) 01:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

No, not "Kathleen Cody (Actor)" but instead "Kathleen Cody (actor)" (lowercase "actor"). -- Hoary ( talk) 01:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed - all changed. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 07:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Common sense says that you, Kathleen Cody, are the person best qualified to write about Kathleen Cody. As happens so often, here common sense and Wikipedia disagree. Please read " WP:COI" carefully. (I do note that you clearly announce that you are Kathleen Cody, which is a good start.) -- Hoary ( talk) 01:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I've stubbed it, disambig'd the names and left the user a note on her Talk page.  RasputinAXP  12:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I would disagree it's common sense a subject is the best person to write an encylopaedic article on themselves, particularly if that person is known for their controversial views (which may not apply here but still relevent to the discussion). I could be wrong but I suspect even most of the better newspapers don't generally get journalists to write any articles that are on themselves, even puff pieces. Nil Einne ( talk) 20:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Levi Bellfield (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Content and exlink alleging subject (a convicted serial killer) may also be guilty of two other murders. Only source is exlink to self-published website; no RS. I've removed once citing BLP, but exlink restored without explanation. Ordinarily I'd revert, but I've made other (mostly non-editorial) edits to article, so am somewhat involved. Strictly exlink implies and suggests subject guilty of these crimes, but to my mind content and particularly source flatly fail strict standard of WP:BLP#EL. I'm disengaging, would welcome uninvolved actions as appropriate. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 21:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

imo the external fails Wikipedia:ELNO#Links_normally_to_be_avoided NO 11. The link is currently out of the article and User:Finley McWalter has notified the user that replaced it of this thread so they can make a case for inclusion here or not as the case may be. Off2riorob ( talk) 22:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The inappropriate link has been restored -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 17:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Shaarei Tefillah is an article about a synagogue, but it consists mostly of a massive unsourced list of living people based on the claim that these people are members of the congregation. Over half the list are people who don't even have entries on Wikipedia. Only two of the 30+ names on the list have sources. Is this a BLP problem? Thanks. Griswaldo ( talk) 12:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's only reasonable to ask for a citation for each person on the list to verify that it is true. Beyond that, it may be reasonable to ask for a source for each person that their membership in the congregation is a significant enough fact to note. - Wikidemon ( talk) 13:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Wikidemon. I wonder also if redlinked entries should be there at all, sources or not. Griswaldo ( talk) 13:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Silver RavenWolf (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

She was not born Jenine E. Trayer. Trayer is her surname from her second marriage to Earvin McCormick Trayer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dizzyg1970 ( talk • contribs) 14:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that? –  ukexpat ( talk) 14:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Marsha M. Linehan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article in question states that Marsha Linehan was "diagnostized" with Borderline Personality Disorder in 1961. In fact, she was hospitalized for, in her own words, "extreme social withdrawal" http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/23/health/23lives.html?pagewanted=1 (This citation is in the article)

Also, BPD was not even a term in 1961, and was only considered in 1968. http://www.bpddemystified.com/index.asp?id=16

Thank you

Sue Newman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazalama ( talk • contribs) 16:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I have rephrased the article a little, based on the NYT piece. Does this work better?-- Kateshortforbob _talk 19:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

now he is worm food has been inserted into the summary, in bad taste i think — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.167.151 ( talk) 18:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It's since been reverted. January ( talk) 18:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Oleg Seriy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Amazon source added http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&search-alias=digital-text&field-author=Oleg%20Seriy

Hope it would be enough -- Natuzzi mandus ( talk) 08:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• I added a few ref tags - needs some kind of editing, content supported by Russian wikipedia external links - in Russian! - might need proding or AFD or improving if anyone is Russian and thinks there is enough WP:RS coverage ... Off2riorob ( talk) 10:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Just found as as someone is adding this guy to various fringe articles. Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oleg Seriy - self-published book, sources another Wikipedia and random google searches, etc. Dougweller ( talk) 15:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Steven Rattner (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It appears that the edits of Alexfro are intended to remove references to the Attorney General investigation of Steven Rattner. The neutrality of Alexfro is in question due to the use of phrases from http://stevenrattner.com/bio/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.18.45 ( talk) 01:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Have your tried talking to the user on the article talkpage or his userpage and asking him why they are making the edits and explaining why you object to them instead of reverting and reporting. As a side note it seems some of this disputed content was added by User:Freakshownerd in Nov last year. Off2riorob ( talk) 12:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I sent some messages, and will await a response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.18.45 ( talk) 14:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Daisaku Ikeda (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ikeda heads Sōka Gakkai, a Buddhist sect. He is a man of many and remarkable accomplishments, or anyway he is according to sources close to Ikeda, Sōka Gakkai, and its organization SGI. Many of the claims for these accomplishments have had "citation needed" for some time, until they very recently got citations aplenty -- citations to Ikeda's own website or to this or that website of SGI. Please see the article's recent history, and this thread at the foot of the talk page. -- Hoary ( talk) 00:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Lots of promo self published. It is a difficult thing to rework such a promotional article that is watched by supporters of the person/organization adding self published content, the more they add the more difficult it seems to be to remove. IMO it needs someone that is interested enough in the person to completely rewrite it and then it would need indefinite semi protection to stop the IP addresses from simply re-placing the promotion/devotional additions. imo the existence of such articles make a mockery of our policy and guidelines. I removed a large mostly uncited list of his claimed honorary doctorates - there is a link to his org website where the list is visible for anyone to view if they click on the external. I trimmed a bit of the wood, a good job to see what is actually going on would be to go through all the references and format them to expose them so it is easily seen which of them are primary/self published. Off2riorob ( talk) 09:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Or better, just pull out any note that "sources" an accomplishment via a page in the website of this man, his religious organization, or any of the numerous ancillary organizations under its control. Or anyway this is my interpretation of WP:V. As for pulling out the table of his honorary degrees, I certainly appreciate your reasoning, but I nevertheless disagree; please see this thread in the talk page. And as for the fervor for the subject of the article, yes, see for example the reader comments here: admiration! love!! exclamation points!!! -- Hoary ( talk) 10:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

As per your comment on the talkpage. I put it all back for you, good luck with your efforts to improve the article. Off2riorob ( talk) 10:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. My edits are only intermittent, as I'm not even Buddhist, let alone worked up either way about this variety of the religion. Meanwhile, your comments and others' comments would be welcome on the talk page, in order to help set straight what is desirable and what is permissible. -- Hoary ( talk) 11:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Update: The IP has just reintroduced all this sourcing of Ikeda's accomplishments to Ikeda's own site and (to a lesser extent) the sites of organizations he heads. I thereupon removed it (and more). Oops -- perhaps this makes me an edit warrior and I should have waited for somebody else to remove it. However, I did explain (citing explicit Wikipedia policy) here on its talk page. I'd be grateful if some level-headed people reading this would go there and comment on it, whether (A) to say I'm right or (B) to say that no, I'm wrong, Wikipedia can indeed source great claims to the websites of those living people about whom the claims are made. -- Hoary ( talk) 03:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Ben Sherwood (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

We received an OTRS ticket in relation to BLP issues on Ben Sherwood. The article has been plagued by edit warring by SPAs and sockpuppets. I semi'd the article and blocked the recent set of sockpuppets. Could somebody have a look though the article and clean up any BLP issues? Brandon ( talk) 01:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I did a lot of copy editing of the article. I added a cite for his appointment as president of ABC News. Unfortunately, in so doing, I realized that a lot of the material in the WP article was copied from the ABC News release. I haven't fixed that yet. It'll take a little more time to eliminate the possible copyright issues. There don't seem to be any BLP violations, though.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Billy Bob Thornton about the inclusion or removal of certain information. The disagreement seems to involve conflicting interpretations of whether inclusion or removal of the information would comply with or violate the policies on BLPs and undue weight. Additional comments and perspectives from uninvolved editors would be welcome. BashBrannigan ( talk) 06:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Under what circumstances can we strongly implicate someone as guilty of a murder when they were were never questioned, arrested, charged, or convicted?

This concerns accusations made in articles about the two recently deceased ( 1997 and 1998 ) men named in this currently-proposed DYK hook:

I'm not familiar with this topic area, but editor Jeanne Boleyn who wrote the two biographical articles about Kerr and Jackson that are wikilinked from the hook appears to be. The two articles seem well written overall; these two men do appear therein as pretty awful human beings.

But unless I missed something, the murder accusation is based only on an affidavit ( not even court testimony, note ) by one of the two other men who were actually convicted of the murder, viz. police officer John Weir. Jeanne points out that his affidavit was apparently viewed as credible by one prosecutor and one (or perhaps two) very prominent Irish judicial authorities, however.

Still, Kerr and Jackson were never questioned, arrested, charged, or convicted; two other men were in fact convicted of the crime. Jeanne's articles about Kerr and Jackson present the police and the British security forces of the time as having protected them from any official action. That may very well have been why no action was taken against them; I haven't been able to come to a conclusion about that myself. I notice, though, that at least one possible contrary opinion is included in The Barron Report, on pages 257 and 258:

This issue may be a bit difficult to review for editors who, like myself, are not already very familiar with the multiplicity of groups that were involved in The Troubles. But because I think opinions from people who don't contribute to a controversial topic area can be especially valuable, I'm working on a concise summary as I learn more about this myself. If I end up feeling satisfied with what I'm able to put together that way I'll post that here subsequently. Thanks,  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 10:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think we should be putting anyone allegedly did anything on our front page. I strongly oppose this DYK. Off2riorob ( talk) 11:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• Cite 1 for Kerr states unequivocally :Credible but hearsay testimony by former RUC officer John Weir alleges that the murder was committed by alleged RUC Special Branch agent Robin Jackson, RUC officer William McCaughey, and R.J. Kerr and also Weir also recounts how he, together with McConnell, Jackson, RUC officer William McCaughey and Loyalist paramilitary R.J. Kerr, participated in the operation to murder Catholic shopkeeper William Strathearn (murdered April 19, 1977).165

The charge is found in a reliable source (Notre Dame Law School). And properly identified as to source and person making the claim, can be used in a BLP, although exceedingly carefully. Collect ( talk) 12:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I have sourced every allegation I have made in the articles, and not once have I stated that these two persons were guilty of murder. I have used the word alleged throughout as these are allegations. I should point out that both the Notre Dame Law School and Mr. Justice Barron in his report stated that John Weir's evidence was "overall credible". The Irish police force also found him to have been credible. Another thing both Jackson and Kerr are dead.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 15:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

They are both dead? In that case include all the allegations and accusations and DYK hooks about them killing people and delivering chickens and whathaveyou, excellent work, another feather in the projects cap</sarcasim>....-- Threeafterthree ( talk) 15:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Threeafterthree, I must say your erudite and profoundly witty comments have added much pith to the debate at hand. It is you who should be receiving my congratulations.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 15:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

erudite? I was scolded on my talk page, so I apologize for my sarcasm. Being a minimalist/deletionist, I am not a fan of any material about allegations and accusations and heresay/rumors/urbanlegend unless it rises to a super huge, really bid deal, we have to include it all costs type deals, and even then I am not a fan :). Anyways, cheers, -- Threeafterthree ( talk) 21:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)