![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
False accusation of rape ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Five different times in less than eleven (11) hours Roscelese has removed the same material placed by two different editors. She is claiming the WP:BLP exception -- but even after being asked on the talk page she won't explain how she thinks BLP is being violated. Or what language has been "spun".
Another editor (not me), placed an edit warring message on her talk page -- but she just deleted it.
Now I'm not attached to the disputed material remaining in the article. I just want everyone to WP:AGF and have a WP:CIVIL discussion on the talk page on what would best serve the article. But her posting to the discussion page she titled Lame attempts to make false accusations look more prevalent than they are and then went on to say that my attempts to spin these stories also stands out as particularly shameful. But she doesn't at all say how BLP is being violated.
As I've said on the talk page, I have no intention of spinning anything -- I'm trying to do my best to improve the article and an important part of that is doing my best to follow WP:BLP and WP:NPOV.
NOTE: I'm extremely open to have my edits changed or removed -- but she is doing it without explaining why and instead just waves around WP:BLP. But (as you'll see below) many of her reverts cannot possible fall under WP:BLP
Here are the diffs of her reverts (I've included the date/time and her comment -- as well as a summary of what was changed):
SUMMARY: Five different times in less than eleven (11) hours Roscelese has removed the same material placed by two different editors. She is claiming the WP:BLP exception -- but even after being asked on the talk page she won't explain how she thinks BLP is being violated. ALSO: Five different times she removed the following links under See Also: False accusations, List of miscarriage of justice cases, Day care sex abuse hysteria, Hungry for Monsters -- How can the placement of these links under See Also possibly be a WP:BLP violation?
REQUEST: I would like advice (and help) on how to handle this situation (both now and in the future) and I'd like more eyes on the article. These eyes certainly don't have to agree with me -- I'd actually welcome having explained to me how and why they see a better way. If there are BLP violations I'd love to have them pointed out and explained to me. I just find it hard to believe that *everything* she has reverted 5 times is a BLP violation. Thanks. Hoping To Help ( talk) 23:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
If the article is to exist, it should certainly not be listing cases that fall into the huge middle ground where neither side manages to prove the truth of their claims, so the defendant gets off with the benefit of the doubt. It might be appropriate to include cases where the accusations have been proven false in some fashion - e.g. the accuser has been convicted of perjury, but I don't know if that leaves enough material to justify an article. -- GenericBob ( talk) 01:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Clearly there needs some discussion about such a contentious article and adding any living peoples names to it as claimed examples. I would suggest it will need extreme care to comply with BLP. I myself would start with the suggestion that no person should be included unless they have been legally charged with false accusations. Please keep the disputed content out of the article until there is agreement as to what to include, thanks. Off2riorob ( talk) 01:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
For many months Hugo Chávez has been tagged as having BLP problems. It is still this way and very few Wikipedians have been involved in the discussion. It is time to bring the larger community into it. See Talk:Hugo_Chávez#Transparent WhisperToMe ( talk) 23:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi all,
The Wikimedia Foundation has received a letter related to the article
Frank Fahey suggesting that a good review is needed for BLP concerns, especially in the section
Frank Fahey#Lost at sea scheme. Could some of you take a look at it to make sure that the content complies with your BLP policy, especially in terms of weight and quality of sourcing? Thanks.
Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (
talk)
20:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I've only looked at the "Lost at Sea" section. Nothing in there look juicy or undue. It all seems factually correct. There are dead links and one source is biased (a rival political party), but these could be replaced with reliable sources.
The article omits to mention some seemingly important facts. Fahey was criticised in an ombudsman's report. This is mentioned, but the fact that the report was later rejected by a parliamentary committee is not mentioned. At the same time, it is clear that this was a controversial decision for many, including members of Fahey's own party, and it would be wrong (IMO) for our article to give the impression that it wipes the slate clean. The article should also mention that Fahey denies the allegations against him and has had support from civil servants in this regard.
There's an allegation of assault, which I'm not sure about. It is verifiable that the allegation was made. On the other hand, it was made by a rival politician and there are no details (AFAICT) as to what the assault entailed. I think this should go.
I think dealing with this section needs some care, so it would be good if other editors would join in. -- FormerIP ( talk) 22:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
The article now meets WP:BLP in that all potentially contentious material is reliably sourced and no self-published or partisan sources are used. Sources also now link to live web pages so they can be easily checked. I've done a general tidy of the contents as well.
I've removed three allegations from the article that I felt were WP:UNDUE. Firstly an allegation of assault that seemed unclear and unproven. Secondly, a paragraph under "controversies" about Fahey advising young people to buy houses. It is verifiable that he did this, but it is not clear that it has been widely regarded as controversial. Thirdly, criticism that he put pressure on a planning body that was sourced to the website of a rival political party and seemed like routine knockabout rather than serious controversy. I've retained a section titled "Investments and property" which seems okay to me. But it is possible that an editor with more knowledge of Irish politics might find that this also fails WP:UNDUE.
Lost at Sea appears to be a scheme that caused significant controversy and it is right, IMO, that it should be covered in the article.
I do not know enough about Irish politics to be sure that the article as a whole satisfies WP:NPOV. It seems to focus a lot on controversies related to the subject. But I'm not able to say whether or not that is inappropriate. Maybe other material could be added so that the article is more balanced, but I don't know what this material might be. -- FormerIP ( talk) 16:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be an effort to add a disparaging "controversy" section to this politician's biography. Here is an example of what keeps getting added. As you can see, there's a number of problems with this, the biggest of which is that the entire thing is sourced to a single opinion piece. Even if it were properly sourced, the tone is clearly not neutral and it's basically relying on a form of WP:SYNTH to try to tie two completely unrelated events in her career together to give the appearance of hypocrisy. It doesn't matter if the synthesis came from someone's editorial opinion, it's still synthesis. Take a look, it would be great to get some more opinions on the matter. -- Loonymonkey ( talk) 22:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
"Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion." This Judy Chu mention doesn't seem to run afoul. Here's another example: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." I suggest we go to arbitration again or wait for an administrator to weigh in.
Mark Williams (radio host) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
goethan insists on reposting libelous, false stories about a supposedly racist letter written by me, and relying on a forger in Florida as a source. I have corrected, notified, asked and threatened but it continues. This false allegation turned up in a job interview. My next step is to launch a libel action against this joke of a website and track down that vandal for personal service— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.38.92 ( talk) 00:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I think I'm watching this after seeing a report now in archive90. A new issue has arisen at the article: the "Personal life" section has been expanded to Personal life & Related Problems (the original text was "In 1986, Toobin married Amy McIntosh and together they have two children.") I have discussed the addition here and here. Probably some mention of the new topic (a love child) is appropriate, but the current wording is not. Thoughts? Johnuniq ( talk) 08:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
IP users keep adding unsourced claims to this article about an auto accident the subject was supposedly engaged in. He's a pro wrestler, which means the article is already an unhappy mix of fact and fiction, and without citing a legit news source that says it's an actual, significant event (as opposed to a rumor or a scripted plotline) it shouldn't be in the article. Those of us who try and keep articles BLP-compliant shouldn't have to sort through the mostly unreliable sources on the field to prove or disprove uncited claims. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 13:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Julian Assange ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An editor inserted the following reported quote from Assange in the article: "Well, they're informants, so if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it." I reverted for various reasons. Another editor opened a discussion on the Talk page. All three of us have contributed to the discussion. I have now bowed out, at least in terms of interacting with the first editor, because of comments he made. At this point, I'm not saying the material belongs or doesn't, but it would be helpful if others would take a look at the issues involved given the nature of the quote.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 17:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Wendy Neuss ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello, the dob is incorrect. The year of her graduation from Penn is correct. If the date of birth was correct, she would have graduated college from upenn when she was 18! Her younger brother was born in 1957 and he was younger than she. I do not know her exact birth year, but it definitely is not 1958. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iristiberius ( talk • contribs) 01:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Mike Piazza ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
piazza never tested positive steroids, nor did he ever admit to doing so to the new york times — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.91.197.138 ( talk) 03:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
In light of Aaron Wall, I've been poking around on the issues surrounding search engine optimization and I'm finding a lot of spam on the issue. A publication within their industry acknowledges Wiki as a potential spamming target. http://www.searchenginejournal.com/how-to-link-spam-wikipedia/3240/ This list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Search_engine_optimization_consultants looks like a phone book of not so Wiki worthy notable WP:N rather than a category. Just about every one of them appears to be NOT notable. Cantaloupe2 ( talk) 02:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Satoshi Kanazawa ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A controversial scientist, who has upset a lot of social justice types, probably rightfully so. However they have come to Wikipedia and filled up his article with negative quotes from various blogs and slight to major misrepresentations of the issues (two thirds of the article are in sections devoted to criticism and accusations of racism/sexism). I do not have the time immediately to do a through review and it was egregiously bad so I took the drastic action of removing two sections dedicated to criticism of him (including things like a quote from a blog calling him 'the biggest idiot in science'). I have since been reverted by one of the users responsible in part for the negative WP:COATRACK, so I have brought it here for outside scrutiny. jorgenev 07:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
(undent) I had a look at the article and cleaned up what's there. Happy to review your draft Jorgenev. -- BweeB ( talk) 20:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Boris Berezovsky (businessman) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User:Deepdish7, who has a history of sockpuppetry and edit-warring at this article, has today made major changes to this BLP ( diff of all changes made), including some that appear to run afoul of WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. It would be useful for someone with more knowledge of the subject to analyse these. On the talkpage he has claimed that the article has been "whitened" by someone with a COI on the subject. One thing he is definitely wrong about - he claims The Guardian is a tabloid paper, which it certainly is not - it is a clearly reliable source. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Wait a second guys, you do not have a right to roll back all my changes without a proper explanation. Let's discuss point by point, just rolling back everything is not appropriate Deepdish7 ( talk) 18:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Consensus was NOT reached because I was blocked when everything was done on the page. I did changes incrementally in around 50 posts. If you don't like something - then revert particular post instead of reverting everything — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepdish7 ( talk • contribs) 18:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Glen Campbell ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is another one of those if something is a fact it must be included, as opposed to whether it's a fact that's relevant to the article. An IP has put in a sentence about Campbell being a republican. For the purpose of this discussion, I will accept that it's accurate and reliably sourced, but, as I said on the article Talk page, what relevance does it have to Campbell? There's no context for it, e.g., he contributes to republican causes. It's just thrown in. I reverted and opened a topic on the Talk page, but once one other editor appears to have agreed with the IP, the IP put it back. I'm not going to war over this, and it may not grab people here (it's hardly as sensationalistic as some of the stuff in this forum), but I'd like other views on the issue.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 16:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
The saga continues. Will someone drop in on that page and explain that reliably sourced (as in genuine reliable sources like major newspapers) non-contentious material requires a consensus for removal? Right now the argument is "well he also imitated Donald Duck, so this should not be in the BLP" sort of issue <g>. I find it a tad tiring. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 22:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Sallah Sultan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article on Salah Soltan contains, as nearly its entire content, a selection of quotes translated by MEMRI. There is also the page Sallah Sultan on the same individual also containing the same quotes, added by the same Wikipedia user. There are now two BLPs on one person in which one user has filled with quotes without any secondary sources discussing the person in either of these supposed biographies of this person. Should either of these articles be allowed to continue to serve as a repository of MEMRI translations? nableezy - 16:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sallah Sultan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Andy Kindler ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Andy's middle name is David NOT FRancis. I am his older sister Janette Kindler. Can this be corrected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.68.196 ( talk) 18:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Agnivesh took part in the anti-corruption protests in India in August 2011. Later, he voluntarily stepped out of the protests, claiming that other protesters humiliated him. A couple of days later, a video showing Agnivesh speaking to a purported minister of Govt. of India was circulated in the Indian media and the internet. Agnivesh claimed innocence, saying that the video was doctored.
This information is being deliberately witheld by the author of the post who has kept the article in "protected" status, thereby not allowing others to modify the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kartks ( talk • contribs) 09:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Anjulie ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The libellous statement "Anjulie is a self-described drug addict and has been growing and selling her own marijuana since she was a toddler." is unreferenced and contradicts the statement in her myspace page "i...don't drink or do drugs" ( http://www.myspace.com/anjulie) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.231.45 ( talk) 10:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Fu'ad Aït Aattou ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article states that this actor has a spouse and lists the spouse's name as Kaejauny Tutfs. The information should be verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.22.244.149 ( talk) 20:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
During a discussion of whether or not the XRentDVD site could be considered a reliable source here, the Naomi (pornographic actress) was brought up as a practical example. I think it is fair to say that in regard to the source, it is questionable, since that site doesn't seem to have a reputation for fact checking or an editorial staff, but the material used as a source from that site is an interview. I took a look at the article, and I'm unsure as to whether or not the interview should be used to source the statement that the subject is jewish--on the one hand, I don't like the reliability of the site, but it's an interview with her, and that is an issue of self-identification. I am also uncomfortable with the interview being used to source the statement that her father was a rabbi, as I am assuming there is a good chance that her father is still alive, and that statement seems (to me anyway) not relevant in an article about her, and I don't think she's a reliable source for information about her father. I removed that bit, was reverted, tried again, was reverted, and as other editors disagree with me (see the Talk:Naomi_(pornographic_actress)#She_is_not_jewish talk page section, it seems best to bring it up here. All comments welcome, -- Nuujinn ( talk) 00:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps I should phrase this a different way--am I to assume from the response I have gotten to my questions thus far that it is ok to use statements from the subject of an article in an interview as a source for assertions, regardless of the reliability of the source, about personal details such as ethnicity, occupation, religion or sexual preferences of their relatives, so long as those statements are attributed to the subject of the article? -- Nuujinn ( talk) 11:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Yuri Dojc ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Can I get some more eyes on this article - edits such as this one are problematical. I know nothing about the chap but it's an article that has ended up on my watch list. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 14:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I have suppressed the material as libellous. If the SPA returns in the same vein, I'll indef block. -- Dweller ( talk) 12:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Rick Perry ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Please see question here raised regarding calculating of Rick Perry's GPA, based on a transcript posted on Huffington Post. These calculations were done in good faith, but I would like a take on it from the WP:BLP perspective as well as the WP:OR perspective. Thanks - discussion is at Talk: Rick Perry#Rick Perry's G.P.A.. Tvoz/ talk 19:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Valerie Sinason ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The sentence about satanic ritual abuse being a moral panic should be deleted. Overall the article needs balance. As it stands it is simply an attack on the reality of satanic rituals being used to torture children. It is possible that the article should be deleted in its entirety.
Sinason is only one of many clinicians who have treated survivors. See, Epstein, Orit Badouk; Schwartz, Joseph; & Schwartz, Rachel Wingfield (2011). Ritual Abuse and Mind Control;The Manipulation of Attachment Needs. London:Karnac.
In addition there is a history of convictions of perpetrators of this form of paedophile torture on children. The latest is the case from Wales: "A man has been found guilty of leading a "satanic" sex cult from his home in a small Welsh town" GUardian 9 March 2011. There have been at least 7 other convictions over the last 25 years with one sentence of 15 years (1989), three sentences of 14 years(1982), one sentence of 12 years (1992) and 6 other sentences ranging from 10 years to 2 years. The lack of inclusion of this material evidence amounts to censorship. Only one view is allowed: satanic ritual abuse is a moral panic. THis is a fundamental violation of Wikipedia's values. Dirac137 ( talk) 11:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Coincidentally, before I read the above discussion, I've just tagged South Ronaldsay child abuse scandal as BLP and removed one glaringly unsourced paragraph. AfD crossed my mind, but I thought I'd better mention it here first.-- Northernhenge ( talk) 20:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
What evidence supports the sentence: "Satanic abuse IS considered a moral panic by the majority of recognised experts"? This is not NPOV. The claim that SRA is a fringe view is based on ignoring or dismissing the legal convictions that involve SRA and ignores or dismisses clinical articles in referreed journals and books from reputable publishers. It is not an NPOV but an unsupported assumption based on selective evidence. Labelling SRA as a fringe view assumes the very result it is trying to prove. A neutral point of view must include the clinical experience of numerous clinicians who describe their treatment of people who report experiences of SRA used to torture and terrorise them by pedophile rings when they were children. To deny this voice is not an NPOV. The denial is similar to the deniers of childhood sexual abuse full stop who argue that reports of childhood sexual abuse is false memory syndrome.
The article on Sinason as it stands is a vehicle to argue against SRA instead of having a NPOV about Sinasons's life and contributions. For example Sinason IS known for her treatment of individuals who report experiences of sexual abuse involving SRA. But she is much better known professionally for what, I would call, her pioneering work with people who suffer mental disability, for her treatment of survivors of sexual abuse and for her use of psychodynamic methods in the treatment of psychosis and MPD. In the larger culture Sinason is much better known because of her monthly GUardian columns, a fact that is not even mentioned in the BLP as written. It's just not right. In previous exchanges with MathewTStone I argued that the Sinason bio should be pulled if all it is is a way to label her and her career as being on fringe.
How can we move forward here? Could we simply say Sinason has treated people who report childhood experience of SRA wit a link to the Wiki article? I appeal to you. The article does not have an NPOV but is really a hatchet job. Yes? 109.156.16.175 ( talk) 07:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I've been slow to realise that the issue that bothers me is not whether SRA is fringe or not. I'm bothered by my feeling that the article on Sinason doesn't have a NPOV. The writer wants to make sure the reader knows that SRA is fringe and that consequently Sinason is a crank. For example how can it be shown that Sinason is best known for her treatment of people who report SRA? Why isn't she best known for her monthly Guardian columns on psychotherapy that ran for 6 years? The article doesn't include the fact that Sinason is chair of the Clinic for Dissociative Studies totally funded by the NHS for the treatment of dissociative identity disorder 80% of which report surviving ritualised abuse. The NHS supports Sinason's work. This is mainstream. The article as written portrays SInason as a crank. This is not a NPOV. Dirac137 ( talk) 07:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Tucker Smith ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am Tucker Smith the actor. I am alive, straight, have no sibligs or children. I am living in Costa Mesa, Ca. Please help straighten my biography out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fugettelaine ( talk • contribs) 01:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
We have obits for Equity member "Tucker Smith" dying in 1988. Note, however, this SAG article from 2008:
[8] Cate Smit, Ashton Smith, Brooke Smith, Hillary B Smith, Phyllis Smith, Sheldon Smith, Peter James Smith, Tucker Smith, Bill Smitrovich, Rena Sofer, Marla Sokoloff, Matthew Solari are listed as SAG members who signed a 2008 petition. Just for what it's worth, you understand. The current SAG "Tucker Smith" does not appear to meet Wikipedia notability standards. Cheers.
Collect (
talk)
14:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I am the one who started Tucker Smith's article and I now just happened to stumbled upon how this character whatshisname is hijacking it by claiming Smith is alive and well. I have personally been in contact via email with Smith's nephew, including actress Sylvia Lewis and actor Darteo Sommese. Just check out all the references I have cited in this article and there is no doubt that Tucker Smith passed away in 1988. This is not a case of mistaken identity but a deliberate and vicious attempt to hijack an entry with false information. I do not doubt there is more than one Tucker Smiths out there: in fact, there is a painter named Tucker Smith if you google the name. But no way would anyone with any common sense would confuse Tucker Smith the actor with Tucker Smith the painter. Incidentally, Darteo Sommese have told me that a while back, he received a phone call from some anonymous nutcase who claimed that Tucker Smith is not dead and is alive and is living somewhere in the midwest. In any case, I extend my thanks to all of you who put a stop to this nonsense and nipped it in the bud. Madonnarama ( talk) 03:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Catherine Senitt ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
My name, Glenn Harbison, is mentioned in this article. I want this removed ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.71.9.18 ( talk) 21:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Chris Hansen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This BLP has a section entitled "Louis Conradt, Jr. controversy" that belongs more appropriately on the To Catch a Predator article. Also, Louis Conradt has an article as well. Malke 2010 ( talk) 23:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Antonio Toro Castro ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Only one source included in the article even mentions this person's name, and that article says he was acquitted. I'm thinking this is a serious BLP violation. The Mark of the Beast ( talk) 23:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure of my reading of WP:NPF, so I thought it best to bring the issue here. As an executive summary:
The question is whether or not this should go in the article about Mem Fox.
The main reasons given for including it are: as a children's author, the actions of her husband reflect on her career choice; issues relating to family members are sometimes included in articles; and this event would have an impact on Mem Fox's life. The main arguments against are that it would be wrong to draw a connection between Mem Fox and her husband's actions, as there was none; there would be weight issues given the current state of the article; and that as a non-public figure, policy seems to suggest only including details relevant to her notability (I don't see this as relevant to Mem Fox's notability, but relevant to Malcolm Fox).
I can't see us coming to an agreement as things stand, so other opinions (either way) would help find some consensus. - Bilby ( talk) 02:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Sayyid Ahmed Amiruddin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Much of the information in this article is poorly sourced. He was mentioned in the news once or twice but is largely an unknown and low-profile individual. I do not believe that he is notable enough to justify having a wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.0.249 ( talk) 05:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Category:Politicians involved in gay sex scandals was created yesterday and mentioned on a prominent external blog. It has since been nominated for deletion and also tagged for speedy deletion with many users expressing BLP concerns. Can someone from here take a look at the situation before it spirals? Timrollpickering ( talk) 12:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Ruslan Salei ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
States at the bottom of the first page he died in a plane crash, but he may be alive. He doesn't fly, so he might not be dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wincetuttle ( talk • contribs) 15:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Bradley Heithold ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This biographical article of Gen. Heithold is out of date. He was recently promoted from Major General to Lieutenant General. He is now Vice Commander of the US Special Operations Command and is no longer commander of the Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaisance Agency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.67.7 ( talk) 16:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Abu Khalid Abdul-Latif ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
BLP black-belts could be helpful at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abu Khalid Abdul-Latif. The question is whether or not an article can be written about a suspect in a criminal case, when there has not yet been a trial or conviction. I seem to recall that there was never an article on Casey Anthony (which redirects to Death of Caylee Anthony) because of BLP issues. -- Noleander ( talk) 18:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Cesare Casella ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello,
My name is Allison McCann and I work as Cesare Casella's personal assistant. I have been trying to update, as well as provide sources for, his Wikipedia page. However, every time I make edits they are revoked. I have not been trying to promote Cesare Casella, simply to make his wikipedia page more to-date and correct. I can send you a copy of his latest biography if someone from the Wikipedia staff would prefer to update the page.
I am just working to remove the "multiple issues" flag that is at the top of his page in whatever way possible. Please advise.
Thank you, Allison McCann Chef Casella Office — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.243.108 ( talk) 19:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Rebecca Watson ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The editing of Watson's profile is in violation of NPOV, as some editor has decided that white female privilege does not apply--to a discussion where she called Richard Dawkin's a white privileged male.
Here is the deleted text with citations "the several months long debate also included Watson and her friends attacking Dawkin's along the lines of privilege, [1] but also had some asking the question "do white females have more privilege to speak about these issues?" Some maintained that White Female Privilege was at the center of the debate [2], and many, if not all white females objected to their privilege being called by name."
diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Rebecca_Watson&diff=446897521&oldid=443874460 — Preceding unsigned comment added by OhLawwd ( talk • contribs) 23:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
R.C. Slocum ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Poorly written, unprofessional biography citing events and anecdotes with few references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Power Forward ( talk • contribs) 23:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Ken Boyd (politician) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There has been an edit war going on for the past few days over this article. I have protected the page to prevent further edit warring. Lots of words have been written on the talk page, but consensus does not appear to be forming any time soon. Can somebody interested in local Virginia politics please stop by the talk page and see if the issue can be worked out? Thanks. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 06:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Paul Burton ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This entry is about me. It was posted by former employers against my will, and is a continual source of embarrassment. Please delete immediately. Many thanks. Pivpavpov ( talk) 15:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
John Michael Botean ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The reference for Bishop Botean's letter on the Iraq War leads to a dead page. Here is a current (for the moment) link:
http://www.jonahhouse.org/boteanRCbishop.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.37.31.60 ( talk) 11:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Ray O'Connor ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ray is still alive , though unwell at teh moment, comments re him being jailed and possibly guilty are incorrect as I am aware. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.145.31.94 ( talk) 16:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Could I get another set of eyes on Mehmet Emin Hazret? I think the article is about someone who is both a screenwriter and a terrorist, but I want to be sure I'm not mixing up the biographies of two people with the same name. (The linked source does note that the terrorist at one point did some screenwriting.) First, the article was about a terrorist. Then an IP added the second mini-article about a screenwriter within this revision. And then later another user (their only contribution) removed the original biography focused on terrorism. I put it back (seeing as the zh.wiki article and the reliable sources I found were mostly about terrorism) and integrated the two biographies. So it's kind of an odd case, and I want a sanity check. (Articles about terrorists are obviously tricky generally.) Thanks! Calliopejen1 ( talk) 21:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I bring this topic to BLPN because I think it deserves the attention of a wider audience. The issue at hand here is the inclusion of the Wikileaks allegations against Mayawati in the Mayawati BLP article. The section is located at Mayawati#Wikileaks_allegations. There are also relevant sections on the talkpage of the article. The allegations about shoes, egomania etc. against Mayawati, attributed to unnamed diplomats, in my opinion, are not fit to be in the article per WP:BLP. I ask that the offending section be deleted in its entirety. My views are summarised in this permalink at the Mayawati article talkpage. I bring this matter here as a matter of principle and I will abide by the local consensus. Thank you. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 04:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Maybe the presentation above was insufficient to attract attention. So I add an excerpt from the Wikileaks section in Mayawati's article to try to elicit some type of response from the BLPN experts/regulars:
Leaked diplomatic cables stated that she ran all governmental decisions through her small group of advisors to maintain a "vice-like grip on all levels of power." [3] In confidential US diplomatic cables dated 23 October 2008 and leaked by the Wikileaks website in September 2011, it was alleged that Mayawati sent an empty private jet to Mumbai to retrieve some sandals. The cables allege that, fearing assassination, she is paranoid about her security, and employs food tasters to guard against poisoning. One of the releases described her as being "obsessed with becoming Prime Minister". [4]
The question arises: Are the Wikileaks cables expert and reliable enough to call Mayawati "paranoid"? Also, are allegations about "food tasters" and jet-setting sandals important enough and reliable enough to remain in the article without corroboration from third-party sources? What part of the Wikileaks allegations, if any, should remain in Mayawati's article? Dr.K. λogos πraxis 12:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I've now seen Soulja Boy's rant on my facebook friends accounts about 3 times in the past hour. Apparently his anti-military rant is growing wings (for which he has apologized.) I've removed some hate comments from his talk page and surprisingly his article page has not been vandalized. But we might want to keep an extra eye on this page over the next couple of days. The timing of his release, prior to 9/11 has attracted special mention in most articles.--- Balloonman Poppa Balloon 20:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Milan Vujičić (Serbian: Милан Вујичић; born April 17, 1982 in Belgrade, Serbia) is a Serbian-American basketball coach. In 2004, he became a FIBA licensed basketball coach.
He is currently the head assistant coach at the NCAA school Centenary College — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treneri ( talk • contribs) 03:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Michael Lewis ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There are a number of problems with this bio:
1. It is highly promotional; 2. It seems to list every article ever written by the author which IMO is not part of a biography; 3. As noted before, the external links are also promotional material and should be removed; 4. There is a separate heading "Works of Michael Lewis" which is redundant and appears to be promotional too; 5. Suspect input from author/promoter and possible socket puppetry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imyoung ( talk • contribs) 12:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Mike Share ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
All of the information written about Mike Share is by Mike Share. Having researched him, I know that he has not played for many of the clubs he says he has. He has not been appointed a manager; he starts the clubs! The websites the information comes from - he writes these.
I am happy to provide more information on him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genericgenie ( talk • contribs) 08:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I think it's bbcsport who is Share. He is known to try to be authentic by quoting such illustrious sources as that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genericgenie ( talk • contribs) 22:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
You seem to be intimating that I have a conflict of interest here. I don't. I assumed Wikipedia wanted balanced, accurate articles. All of the Mike Share-related articles quote references from the websites he runs himself. Every time I have tried to edit them with my own, verified research (sources including Spanish FA, Exeter City, Gillingham FC, players who have played with him, NPSL, etc), 'he' has changed things back, sometimes adding more. If you care to look at the changes 'he' has made, you will find they only concern articles about himself or his vested interests. [5] is a starting point for you, I hope. Genericgenie ( talk) 14:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Tom Zakrajsek ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sourced material repeated removed, large paragraph of unsourced and irrelevant information added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.157.194 ( talk) 17:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Kellen Moore ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kellen is listed as a player in the western athletic conference. He plays for Boise State, which is now in the Mountain West Conference. Kellen is also listed as being a "communications" major. Boise State has no such major. He is a Communication major. There is no s in the word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.102.186 ( talk) 20:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Henry Winkler ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Henry Winkler OBE ? When was he given an OBE ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.208.126 ( talk) 19:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Ben T. Elliott ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This biographical article looks like it was written completely by one of the subject's children. The relationship between the subject and the author (tom elliott) is documented in this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/25/magazine/25REPUBLICANS.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.207.22.236 ( talk) 23:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I would like to add two items to the authored books category:
Instigations: Ezra Pound and Remy de Gourmont (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976) Poids et mesures/Weights and Measures (Dijon: Ulysse Fin de Siècle, 1988)
Richard Sieburth — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.141.185.144 (
talk)
03:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
htpp://lenutaa_mirceaa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.119.229.230 ( talk) 06:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Tim Cook ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Tim Cook article currently states that "In 2011, Cook, who is protective of his private life, was named to the top spot on Out magazine's fifth annual "Power 50" list of LGBT people. 10 However, he has never publicly declared any details about his sexuality." (The article also included him in a couple LGBT cats for a while, which I removed per WP:BLPCAT.)
Gawker first "outed" him earlier this year, but they are clearly not a WP:RS. Out magazine is (a bit) less sensationalist; with his new role as Apple CEO, this topic is getting much more attention from the likes of The Atlantic, Australia's Herald Sun, and a Reuters blog, as well as thousands of other lesser Google hits.
Note that, as several of these sources point out, the subject has not disclosed his orientation.
The question is whether any of these, or the sum of these, are reliable enough to allow the topic be included in the BLP. (I'm pretty conservative with respect to the BLP policies, so as you can guess, I'm leaning against - and yet Anderson Cooper has likewise not been public about his orientation, but his article has a whole paragraph about it...)
Thanks, AV3000 ( talk) 05:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I can not believe any editor would say "rumors started to spread that he was gay." is remotely near a reliable source for such a claim in a BLP. Further that it is insufficient to list a person on a list of gays on the basis of such rumours (yes Will, such a list is precisely what I mean at the ArbCom discussion - I suggest that adding a person to such a list is and should be verboten on Wikipedia without extremely strong factual sources). Cheers.
Collect (
talk)
11:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Version reworded slightly by Will Beback
Suggestion: Claims about sexual, political or religious orientation of any lving person can not be based on speculation, but must be reliably sourced as actual statements of fact. Indirect claims can not be based on opinions of any person or organization. Short.
Collect (
talk)
08:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Claiming someone is heterosexual is a claim about their sexual orientation
And claiming includes implying, assuming, presuming, writing as though it was obvious, etc. This proposal is drawn up to oppose the assumed evil of statements implying homosexuality on the part of BLP subjects who do not publicly discuss their sexual orientation. If implemented, then statements implying heterosexuality on the part of BLP subjects who do not publicly discuss their sexual orientation will be treated in exactly the same way. The statement that a man is romantically linked to a woman is one which implies heterosexuality; the policy requires this implication to be stated directly as fact but the New York Times does not do so. It does not say "Michael Bloomberg, who is openly heterosexual". My suggestion is that policy at the moment is fine and mentioning that Tim Cook was on a list of powerful LGBT people but does not discuss his sexual orientation is also fine. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 08:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
At Off2riorob's request, here is a suggestion for some text for the article.
That sticks to the known facts, relies on a highly reliable source, and avoids any speculation. Will Beback talk 04:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I can not believe any editor would say "rumors started to spread that he was gay." is remotely near a reliable source for such a claim in a BLP. Further that it is insufficient to list a person on a list of gays on the basis of such rumours (yes Will, such a list is precisely what I mean at the ArbCom discussion - I suggest that adding a person to such a list is and should be verboten on Wikipedia without extremely strong factual sources). In short: Support O2RRs position. Oppose strongly Will's wording above. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 11:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
In Germany Tim Cook is mentioned in LGBT media as a gay person.
===Media on Apple CEO Tim Cook's Sexuality: 'Come Out, Come Out...'===
I read about him now being "the most powerful gay man in the world" in The Week which in turn was reporting on Reuters.com article about the media's hypocrisy of not reporting it as if a gay man running the "largest and most important company n the world" should have his being gay as part of his profile because the stigma of gayness is so last year. So here is the media discussing why and how his being gay is portrayed or not by media outlets. It seems very strange that wikipedia would choose to suppress this information only because he hasn't announced it from the mountaintop. It seems a sentence about his sexuality, and the media double-standard of the mainstream press avoiding the subject, merits inclusion.
Somestudy (
talk) 07:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC) - Article here:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/25/idUS422760388920110825 — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Somestudy (
talk •
contribs) 07:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
-
WP:BANNED LGBT focused sockmaster
User:Benjiboi -
Off2riorob (
talk)
03:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
* I looked to see which other main media outlets have discussed this and found these, with the articles' title; Forbes (business magazine) - "Tim Cook's Sexuality Has No Relevance As He Takes The Apple Reins", The Guardian - "Apple's Tim Cook isn't the only gay person in the IT village," ZDNet - "The sexuality of CEOs is a dull subject however...", DailyTech.com - "Meet Apple's New CEO, Tim Cook", The Atlantic - "To Be the Most Powerful Gay Man in Tech, Cook Needs to Come Out", "Reuters" - "Why I'm talking about Tim Cook's sexuality", BNet (CBS) - "Why Apple CEO Tim Cook’s Sexual Identity Isn’t — or Shouldn’t Be — News", Washington Blade (Gay news) - "Apple CEO Urged To Come Out As Gay", International Business Times - "Is New Apple CEO Tim Cook Gay?", Columbia Journalism Review - "Why Apple CEO Tim Cook’s Sexuality Is News". Reuters - "Tim Cook Is Now The Most Powerful Gay Man In The World", Wall Street Journal - "‘It Gets Better’: Tech Firms Step Up for Gay Teens", New York Observer - "Tim Cook Is A New Power Gay," "OutsideTheBeltway.com" - "It Is News That Apple’s New CEO Is Gay?"
Somestudy (
talk) 22:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
-
WP:BANNED LGBT focused sockmaster
User:Benjiboi -
Off2riorob (
talk)
03:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
False accusation of rape ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Five different times in less than eleven (11) hours Roscelese has removed the same material placed by two different editors. She is claiming the WP:BLP exception -- but even after being asked on the talk page she won't explain how she thinks BLP is being violated. Or what language has been "spun".
Another editor (not me), placed an edit warring message on her talk page -- but she just deleted it.
Now I'm not attached to the disputed material remaining in the article. I just want everyone to WP:AGF and have a WP:CIVIL discussion on the talk page on what would best serve the article. But her posting to the discussion page she titled Lame attempts to make false accusations look more prevalent than they are and then went on to say that my attempts to spin these stories also stands out as particularly shameful. But she doesn't at all say how BLP is being violated.
As I've said on the talk page, I have no intention of spinning anything -- I'm trying to do my best to improve the article and an important part of that is doing my best to follow WP:BLP and WP:NPOV.
NOTE: I'm extremely open to have my edits changed or removed -- but she is doing it without explaining why and instead just waves around WP:BLP. But (as you'll see below) many of her reverts cannot possible fall under WP:BLP
Here are the diffs of her reverts (I've included the date/time and her comment -- as well as a summary of what was changed):
SUMMARY: Five different times in less than eleven (11) hours Roscelese has removed the same material placed by two different editors. She is claiming the WP:BLP exception -- but even after being asked on the talk page she won't explain how she thinks BLP is being violated. ALSO: Five different times she removed the following links under See Also: False accusations, List of miscarriage of justice cases, Day care sex abuse hysteria, Hungry for Monsters -- How can the placement of these links under See Also possibly be a WP:BLP violation?
REQUEST: I would like advice (and help) on how to handle this situation (both now and in the future) and I'd like more eyes on the article. These eyes certainly don't have to agree with me -- I'd actually welcome having explained to me how and why they see a better way. If there are BLP violations I'd love to have them pointed out and explained to me. I just find it hard to believe that *everything* she has reverted 5 times is a BLP violation. Thanks. Hoping To Help ( talk) 23:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
If the article is to exist, it should certainly not be listing cases that fall into the huge middle ground where neither side manages to prove the truth of their claims, so the defendant gets off with the benefit of the doubt. It might be appropriate to include cases where the accusations have been proven false in some fashion - e.g. the accuser has been convicted of perjury, but I don't know if that leaves enough material to justify an article. -- GenericBob ( talk) 01:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Clearly there needs some discussion about such a contentious article and adding any living peoples names to it as claimed examples. I would suggest it will need extreme care to comply with BLP. I myself would start with the suggestion that no person should be included unless they have been legally charged with false accusations. Please keep the disputed content out of the article until there is agreement as to what to include, thanks. Off2riorob ( talk) 01:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
For many months Hugo Chávez has been tagged as having BLP problems. It is still this way and very few Wikipedians have been involved in the discussion. It is time to bring the larger community into it. See Talk:Hugo_Chávez#Transparent WhisperToMe ( talk) 23:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi all,
The Wikimedia Foundation has received a letter related to the article
Frank Fahey suggesting that a good review is needed for BLP concerns, especially in the section
Frank Fahey#Lost at sea scheme. Could some of you take a look at it to make sure that the content complies with your BLP policy, especially in terms of weight and quality of sourcing? Thanks.
Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (
talk)
20:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I've only looked at the "Lost at Sea" section. Nothing in there look juicy or undue. It all seems factually correct. There are dead links and one source is biased (a rival political party), but these could be replaced with reliable sources.
The article omits to mention some seemingly important facts. Fahey was criticised in an ombudsman's report. This is mentioned, but the fact that the report was later rejected by a parliamentary committee is not mentioned. At the same time, it is clear that this was a controversial decision for many, including members of Fahey's own party, and it would be wrong (IMO) for our article to give the impression that it wipes the slate clean. The article should also mention that Fahey denies the allegations against him and has had support from civil servants in this regard.
There's an allegation of assault, which I'm not sure about. It is verifiable that the allegation was made. On the other hand, it was made by a rival politician and there are no details (AFAICT) as to what the assault entailed. I think this should go.
I think dealing with this section needs some care, so it would be good if other editors would join in. -- FormerIP ( talk) 22:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
The article now meets WP:BLP in that all potentially contentious material is reliably sourced and no self-published or partisan sources are used. Sources also now link to live web pages so they can be easily checked. I've done a general tidy of the contents as well.
I've removed three allegations from the article that I felt were WP:UNDUE. Firstly an allegation of assault that seemed unclear and unproven. Secondly, a paragraph under "controversies" about Fahey advising young people to buy houses. It is verifiable that he did this, but it is not clear that it has been widely regarded as controversial. Thirdly, criticism that he put pressure on a planning body that was sourced to the website of a rival political party and seemed like routine knockabout rather than serious controversy. I've retained a section titled "Investments and property" which seems okay to me. But it is possible that an editor with more knowledge of Irish politics might find that this also fails WP:UNDUE.
Lost at Sea appears to be a scheme that caused significant controversy and it is right, IMO, that it should be covered in the article.
I do not know enough about Irish politics to be sure that the article as a whole satisfies WP:NPOV. It seems to focus a lot on controversies related to the subject. But I'm not able to say whether or not that is inappropriate. Maybe other material could be added so that the article is more balanced, but I don't know what this material might be. -- FormerIP ( talk) 16:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be an effort to add a disparaging "controversy" section to this politician's biography. Here is an example of what keeps getting added. As you can see, there's a number of problems with this, the biggest of which is that the entire thing is sourced to a single opinion piece. Even if it were properly sourced, the tone is clearly not neutral and it's basically relying on a form of WP:SYNTH to try to tie two completely unrelated events in her career together to give the appearance of hypocrisy. It doesn't matter if the synthesis came from someone's editorial opinion, it's still synthesis. Take a look, it would be great to get some more opinions on the matter. -- Loonymonkey ( talk) 22:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
"Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion." This Judy Chu mention doesn't seem to run afoul. Here's another example: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." I suggest we go to arbitration again or wait for an administrator to weigh in.
Mark Williams (radio host) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
goethan insists on reposting libelous, false stories about a supposedly racist letter written by me, and relying on a forger in Florida as a source. I have corrected, notified, asked and threatened but it continues. This false allegation turned up in a job interview. My next step is to launch a libel action against this joke of a website and track down that vandal for personal service— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.38.92 ( talk) 00:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I think I'm watching this after seeing a report now in archive90. A new issue has arisen at the article: the "Personal life" section has been expanded to Personal life & Related Problems (the original text was "In 1986, Toobin married Amy McIntosh and together they have two children.") I have discussed the addition here and here. Probably some mention of the new topic (a love child) is appropriate, but the current wording is not. Thoughts? Johnuniq ( talk) 08:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
IP users keep adding unsourced claims to this article about an auto accident the subject was supposedly engaged in. He's a pro wrestler, which means the article is already an unhappy mix of fact and fiction, and without citing a legit news source that says it's an actual, significant event (as opposed to a rumor or a scripted plotline) it shouldn't be in the article. Those of us who try and keep articles BLP-compliant shouldn't have to sort through the mostly unreliable sources on the field to prove or disprove uncited claims. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 13:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Julian Assange ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An editor inserted the following reported quote from Assange in the article: "Well, they're informants, so if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it." I reverted for various reasons. Another editor opened a discussion on the Talk page. All three of us have contributed to the discussion. I have now bowed out, at least in terms of interacting with the first editor, because of comments he made. At this point, I'm not saying the material belongs or doesn't, but it would be helpful if others would take a look at the issues involved given the nature of the quote.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 17:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Wendy Neuss ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello, the dob is incorrect. The year of her graduation from Penn is correct. If the date of birth was correct, she would have graduated college from upenn when she was 18! Her younger brother was born in 1957 and he was younger than she. I do not know her exact birth year, but it definitely is not 1958. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iristiberius ( talk • contribs) 01:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Mike Piazza ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
piazza never tested positive steroids, nor did he ever admit to doing so to the new york times — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.91.197.138 ( talk) 03:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
In light of Aaron Wall, I've been poking around on the issues surrounding search engine optimization and I'm finding a lot of spam on the issue. A publication within their industry acknowledges Wiki as a potential spamming target. http://www.searchenginejournal.com/how-to-link-spam-wikipedia/3240/ This list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Search_engine_optimization_consultants looks like a phone book of not so Wiki worthy notable WP:N rather than a category. Just about every one of them appears to be NOT notable. Cantaloupe2 ( talk) 02:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Satoshi Kanazawa ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A controversial scientist, who has upset a lot of social justice types, probably rightfully so. However they have come to Wikipedia and filled up his article with negative quotes from various blogs and slight to major misrepresentations of the issues (two thirds of the article are in sections devoted to criticism and accusations of racism/sexism). I do not have the time immediately to do a through review and it was egregiously bad so I took the drastic action of removing two sections dedicated to criticism of him (including things like a quote from a blog calling him 'the biggest idiot in science'). I have since been reverted by one of the users responsible in part for the negative WP:COATRACK, so I have brought it here for outside scrutiny. jorgenev 07:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
(undent) I had a look at the article and cleaned up what's there. Happy to review your draft Jorgenev. -- BweeB ( talk) 20:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Boris Berezovsky (businessman) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User:Deepdish7, who has a history of sockpuppetry and edit-warring at this article, has today made major changes to this BLP ( diff of all changes made), including some that appear to run afoul of WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. It would be useful for someone with more knowledge of the subject to analyse these. On the talkpage he has claimed that the article has been "whitened" by someone with a COI on the subject. One thing he is definitely wrong about - he claims The Guardian is a tabloid paper, which it certainly is not - it is a clearly reliable source. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Wait a second guys, you do not have a right to roll back all my changes without a proper explanation. Let's discuss point by point, just rolling back everything is not appropriate Deepdish7 ( talk) 18:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Consensus was NOT reached because I was blocked when everything was done on the page. I did changes incrementally in around 50 posts. If you don't like something - then revert particular post instead of reverting everything — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepdish7 ( talk • contribs) 18:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Glen Campbell ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is another one of those if something is a fact it must be included, as opposed to whether it's a fact that's relevant to the article. An IP has put in a sentence about Campbell being a republican. For the purpose of this discussion, I will accept that it's accurate and reliably sourced, but, as I said on the article Talk page, what relevance does it have to Campbell? There's no context for it, e.g., he contributes to republican causes. It's just thrown in. I reverted and opened a topic on the Talk page, but once one other editor appears to have agreed with the IP, the IP put it back. I'm not going to war over this, and it may not grab people here (it's hardly as sensationalistic as some of the stuff in this forum), but I'd like other views on the issue.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 16:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
The saga continues. Will someone drop in on that page and explain that reliably sourced (as in genuine reliable sources like major newspapers) non-contentious material requires a consensus for removal? Right now the argument is "well he also imitated Donald Duck, so this should not be in the BLP" sort of issue <g>. I find it a tad tiring. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 22:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Sallah Sultan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article on Salah Soltan contains, as nearly its entire content, a selection of quotes translated by MEMRI. There is also the page Sallah Sultan on the same individual also containing the same quotes, added by the same Wikipedia user. There are now two BLPs on one person in which one user has filled with quotes without any secondary sources discussing the person in either of these supposed biographies of this person. Should either of these articles be allowed to continue to serve as a repository of MEMRI translations? nableezy - 16:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sallah Sultan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Andy Kindler ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Andy's middle name is David NOT FRancis. I am his older sister Janette Kindler. Can this be corrected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.68.196 ( talk) 18:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Agnivesh took part in the anti-corruption protests in India in August 2011. Later, he voluntarily stepped out of the protests, claiming that other protesters humiliated him. A couple of days later, a video showing Agnivesh speaking to a purported minister of Govt. of India was circulated in the Indian media and the internet. Agnivesh claimed innocence, saying that the video was doctored.
This information is being deliberately witheld by the author of the post who has kept the article in "protected" status, thereby not allowing others to modify the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kartks ( talk • contribs) 09:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Anjulie ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The libellous statement "Anjulie is a self-described drug addict and has been growing and selling her own marijuana since she was a toddler." is unreferenced and contradicts the statement in her myspace page "i...don't drink or do drugs" ( http://www.myspace.com/anjulie) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.231.45 ( talk) 10:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Fu'ad Aït Aattou ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article states that this actor has a spouse and lists the spouse's name as Kaejauny Tutfs. The information should be verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.22.244.149 ( talk) 20:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
During a discussion of whether or not the XRentDVD site could be considered a reliable source here, the Naomi (pornographic actress) was brought up as a practical example. I think it is fair to say that in regard to the source, it is questionable, since that site doesn't seem to have a reputation for fact checking or an editorial staff, but the material used as a source from that site is an interview. I took a look at the article, and I'm unsure as to whether or not the interview should be used to source the statement that the subject is jewish--on the one hand, I don't like the reliability of the site, but it's an interview with her, and that is an issue of self-identification. I am also uncomfortable with the interview being used to source the statement that her father was a rabbi, as I am assuming there is a good chance that her father is still alive, and that statement seems (to me anyway) not relevant in an article about her, and I don't think she's a reliable source for information about her father. I removed that bit, was reverted, tried again, was reverted, and as other editors disagree with me (see the Talk:Naomi_(pornographic_actress)#She_is_not_jewish talk page section, it seems best to bring it up here. All comments welcome, -- Nuujinn ( talk) 00:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps I should phrase this a different way--am I to assume from the response I have gotten to my questions thus far that it is ok to use statements from the subject of an article in an interview as a source for assertions, regardless of the reliability of the source, about personal details such as ethnicity, occupation, religion or sexual preferences of their relatives, so long as those statements are attributed to the subject of the article? -- Nuujinn ( talk) 11:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Yuri Dojc ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Can I get some more eyes on this article - edits such as this one are problematical. I know nothing about the chap but it's an article that has ended up on my watch list. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 14:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I have suppressed the material as libellous. If the SPA returns in the same vein, I'll indef block. -- Dweller ( talk) 12:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Rick Perry ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Please see question here raised regarding calculating of Rick Perry's GPA, based on a transcript posted on Huffington Post. These calculations were done in good faith, but I would like a take on it from the WP:BLP perspective as well as the WP:OR perspective. Thanks - discussion is at Talk: Rick Perry#Rick Perry's G.P.A.. Tvoz/ talk 19:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Valerie Sinason ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The sentence about satanic ritual abuse being a moral panic should be deleted. Overall the article needs balance. As it stands it is simply an attack on the reality of satanic rituals being used to torture children. It is possible that the article should be deleted in its entirety.
Sinason is only one of many clinicians who have treated survivors. See, Epstein, Orit Badouk; Schwartz, Joseph; & Schwartz, Rachel Wingfield (2011). Ritual Abuse and Mind Control;The Manipulation of Attachment Needs. London:Karnac.
In addition there is a history of convictions of perpetrators of this form of paedophile torture on children. The latest is the case from Wales: "A man has been found guilty of leading a "satanic" sex cult from his home in a small Welsh town" GUardian 9 March 2011. There have been at least 7 other convictions over the last 25 years with one sentence of 15 years (1989), three sentences of 14 years(1982), one sentence of 12 years (1992) and 6 other sentences ranging from 10 years to 2 years. The lack of inclusion of this material evidence amounts to censorship. Only one view is allowed: satanic ritual abuse is a moral panic. THis is a fundamental violation of Wikipedia's values. Dirac137 ( talk) 11:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Coincidentally, before I read the above discussion, I've just tagged South Ronaldsay child abuse scandal as BLP and removed one glaringly unsourced paragraph. AfD crossed my mind, but I thought I'd better mention it here first.-- Northernhenge ( talk) 20:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
What evidence supports the sentence: "Satanic abuse IS considered a moral panic by the majority of recognised experts"? This is not NPOV. The claim that SRA is a fringe view is based on ignoring or dismissing the legal convictions that involve SRA and ignores or dismisses clinical articles in referreed journals and books from reputable publishers. It is not an NPOV but an unsupported assumption based on selective evidence. Labelling SRA as a fringe view assumes the very result it is trying to prove. A neutral point of view must include the clinical experience of numerous clinicians who describe their treatment of people who report experiences of SRA used to torture and terrorise them by pedophile rings when they were children. To deny this voice is not an NPOV. The denial is similar to the deniers of childhood sexual abuse full stop who argue that reports of childhood sexual abuse is false memory syndrome.
The article on Sinason as it stands is a vehicle to argue against SRA instead of having a NPOV about Sinasons's life and contributions. For example Sinason IS known for her treatment of individuals who report experiences of sexual abuse involving SRA. But she is much better known professionally for what, I would call, her pioneering work with people who suffer mental disability, for her treatment of survivors of sexual abuse and for her use of psychodynamic methods in the treatment of psychosis and MPD. In the larger culture Sinason is much better known because of her monthly GUardian columns, a fact that is not even mentioned in the BLP as written. It's just not right. In previous exchanges with MathewTStone I argued that the Sinason bio should be pulled if all it is is a way to label her and her career as being on fringe.
How can we move forward here? Could we simply say Sinason has treated people who report childhood experience of SRA wit a link to the Wiki article? I appeal to you. The article does not have an NPOV but is really a hatchet job. Yes? 109.156.16.175 ( talk) 07:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I've been slow to realise that the issue that bothers me is not whether SRA is fringe or not. I'm bothered by my feeling that the article on Sinason doesn't have a NPOV. The writer wants to make sure the reader knows that SRA is fringe and that consequently Sinason is a crank. For example how can it be shown that Sinason is best known for her treatment of people who report SRA? Why isn't she best known for her monthly Guardian columns on psychotherapy that ran for 6 years? The article doesn't include the fact that Sinason is chair of the Clinic for Dissociative Studies totally funded by the NHS for the treatment of dissociative identity disorder 80% of which report surviving ritualised abuse. The NHS supports Sinason's work. This is mainstream. The article as written portrays SInason as a crank. This is not a NPOV. Dirac137 ( talk) 07:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Tucker Smith ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am Tucker Smith the actor. I am alive, straight, have no sibligs or children. I am living in Costa Mesa, Ca. Please help straighten my biography out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fugettelaine ( talk • contribs) 01:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
We have obits for Equity member "Tucker Smith" dying in 1988. Note, however, this SAG article from 2008:
[8] Cate Smit, Ashton Smith, Brooke Smith, Hillary B Smith, Phyllis Smith, Sheldon Smith, Peter James Smith, Tucker Smith, Bill Smitrovich, Rena Sofer, Marla Sokoloff, Matthew Solari are listed as SAG members who signed a 2008 petition. Just for what it's worth, you understand. The current SAG "Tucker Smith" does not appear to meet Wikipedia notability standards. Cheers.
Collect (
talk)
14:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I am the one who started Tucker Smith's article and I now just happened to stumbled upon how this character whatshisname is hijacking it by claiming Smith is alive and well. I have personally been in contact via email with Smith's nephew, including actress Sylvia Lewis and actor Darteo Sommese. Just check out all the references I have cited in this article and there is no doubt that Tucker Smith passed away in 1988. This is not a case of mistaken identity but a deliberate and vicious attempt to hijack an entry with false information. I do not doubt there is more than one Tucker Smiths out there: in fact, there is a painter named Tucker Smith if you google the name. But no way would anyone with any common sense would confuse Tucker Smith the actor with Tucker Smith the painter. Incidentally, Darteo Sommese have told me that a while back, he received a phone call from some anonymous nutcase who claimed that Tucker Smith is not dead and is alive and is living somewhere in the midwest. In any case, I extend my thanks to all of you who put a stop to this nonsense and nipped it in the bud. Madonnarama ( talk) 03:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Catherine Senitt ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
My name, Glenn Harbison, is mentioned in this article. I want this removed ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.71.9.18 ( talk) 21:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Chris Hansen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This BLP has a section entitled "Louis Conradt, Jr. controversy" that belongs more appropriately on the To Catch a Predator article. Also, Louis Conradt has an article as well. Malke 2010 ( talk) 23:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Antonio Toro Castro ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Only one source included in the article even mentions this person's name, and that article says he was acquitted. I'm thinking this is a serious BLP violation. The Mark of the Beast ( talk) 23:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure of my reading of WP:NPF, so I thought it best to bring the issue here. As an executive summary:
The question is whether or not this should go in the article about Mem Fox.
The main reasons given for including it are: as a children's author, the actions of her husband reflect on her career choice; issues relating to family members are sometimes included in articles; and this event would have an impact on Mem Fox's life. The main arguments against are that it would be wrong to draw a connection between Mem Fox and her husband's actions, as there was none; there would be weight issues given the current state of the article; and that as a non-public figure, policy seems to suggest only including details relevant to her notability (I don't see this as relevant to Mem Fox's notability, but relevant to Malcolm Fox).
I can't see us coming to an agreement as things stand, so other opinions (either way) would help find some consensus. - Bilby ( talk) 02:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Sayyid Ahmed Amiruddin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Much of the information in this article is poorly sourced. He was mentioned in the news once or twice but is largely an unknown and low-profile individual. I do not believe that he is notable enough to justify having a wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.0.249 ( talk) 05:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Category:Politicians involved in gay sex scandals was created yesterday and mentioned on a prominent external blog. It has since been nominated for deletion and also tagged for speedy deletion with many users expressing BLP concerns. Can someone from here take a look at the situation before it spirals? Timrollpickering ( talk) 12:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Ruslan Salei ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
States at the bottom of the first page he died in a plane crash, but he may be alive. He doesn't fly, so he might not be dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wincetuttle ( talk • contribs) 15:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Bradley Heithold ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This biographical article of Gen. Heithold is out of date. He was recently promoted from Major General to Lieutenant General. He is now Vice Commander of the US Special Operations Command and is no longer commander of the Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaisance Agency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.67.7 ( talk) 16:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Abu Khalid Abdul-Latif ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
BLP black-belts could be helpful at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abu Khalid Abdul-Latif. The question is whether or not an article can be written about a suspect in a criminal case, when there has not yet been a trial or conviction. I seem to recall that there was never an article on Casey Anthony (which redirects to Death of Caylee Anthony) because of BLP issues. -- Noleander ( talk) 18:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Cesare Casella ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello,
My name is Allison McCann and I work as Cesare Casella's personal assistant. I have been trying to update, as well as provide sources for, his Wikipedia page. However, every time I make edits they are revoked. I have not been trying to promote Cesare Casella, simply to make his wikipedia page more to-date and correct. I can send you a copy of his latest biography if someone from the Wikipedia staff would prefer to update the page.
I am just working to remove the "multiple issues" flag that is at the top of his page in whatever way possible. Please advise.
Thank you, Allison McCann Chef Casella Office — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.243.108 ( talk) 19:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Rebecca Watson ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The editing of Watson's profile is in violation of NPOV, as some editor has decided that white female privilege does not apply--to a discussion where she called Richard Dawkin's a white privileged male.
Here is the deleted text with citations "the several months long debate also included Watson and her friends attacking Dawkin's along the lines of privilege, [1] but also had some asking the question "do white females have more privilege to speak about these issues?" Some maintained that White Female Privilege was at the center of the debate [2], and many, if not all white females objected to their privilege being called by name."
diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Rebecca_Watson&diff=446897521&oldid=443874460 — Preceding unsigned comment added by OhLawwd ( talk • contribs) 23:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
R.C. Slocum ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Poorly written, unprofessional biography citing events and anecdotes with few references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Power Forward ( talk • contribs) 23:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Ken Boyd (politician) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There has been an edit war going on for the past few days over this article. I have protected the page to prevent further edit warring. Lots of words have been written on the talk page, but consensus does not appear to be forming any time soon. Can somebody interested in local Virginia politics please stop by the talk page and see if the issue can be worked out? Thanks. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 06:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Paul Burton ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This entry is about me. It was posted by former employers against my will, and is a continual source of embarrassment. Please delete immediately. Many thanks. Pivpavpov ( talk) 15:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
John Michael Botean ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The reference for Bishop Botean's letter on the Iraq War leads to a dead page. Here is a current (for the moment) link:
http://www.jonahhouse.org/boteanRCbishop.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.37.31.60 ( talk) 11:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Ray O'Connor ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ray is still alive , though unwell at teh moment, comments re him being jailed and possibly guilty are incorrect as I am aware. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.145.31.94 ( talk) 16:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Could I get another set of eyes on Mehmet Emin Hazret? I think the article is about someone who is both a screenwriter and a terrorist, but I want to be sure I'm not mixing up the biographies of two people with the same name. (The linked source does note that the terrorist at one point did some screenwriting.) First, the article was about a terrorist. Then an IP added the second mini-article about a screenwriter within this revision. And then later another user (their only contribution) removed the original biography focused on terrorism. I put it back (seeing as the zh.wiki article and the reliable sources I found were mostly about terrorism) and integrated the two biographies. So it's kind of an odd case, and I want a sanity check. (Articles about terrorists are obviously tricky generally.) Thanks! Calliopejen1 ( talk) 21:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I bring this topic to BLPN because I think it deserves the attention of a wider audience. The issue at hand here is the inclusion of the Wikileaks allegations against Mayawati in the Mayawati BLP article. The section is located at Mayawati#Wikileaks_allegations. There are also relevant sections on the talkpage of the article. The allegations about shoes, egomania etc. against Mayawati, attributed to unnamed diplomats, in my opinion, are not fit to be in the article per WP:BLP. I ask that the offending section be deleted in its entirety. My views are summarised in this permalink at the Mayawati article talkpage. I bring this matter here as a matter of principle and I will abide by the local consensus. Thank you. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 04:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Maybe the presentation above was insufficient to attract attention. So I add an excerpt from the Wikileaks section in Mayawati's article to try to elicit some type of response from the BLPN experts/regulars:
Leaked diplomatic cables stated that she ran all governmental decisions through her small group of advisors to maintain a "vice-like grip on all levels of power." [3] In confidential US diplomatic cables dated 23 October 2008 and leaked by the Wikileaks website in September 2011, it was alleged that Mayawati sent an empty private jet to Mumbai to retrieve some sandals. The cables allege that, fearing assassination, she is paranoid about her security, and employs food tasters to guard against poisoning. One of the releases described her as being "obsessed with becoming Prime Minister". [4]
The question arises: Are the Wikileaks cables expert and reliable enough to call Mayawati "paranoid"? Also, are allegations about "food tasters" and jet-setting sandals important enough and reliable enough to remain in the article without corroboration from third-party sources? What part of the Wikileaks allegations, if any, should remain in Mayawati's article? Dr.K. λogos πraxis 12:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I've now seen Soulja Boy's rant on my facebook friends accounts about 3 times in the past hour. Apparently his anti-military rant is growing wings (for which he has apologized.) I've removed some hate comments from his talk page and surprisingly his article page has not been vandalized. But we might want to keep an extra eye on this page over the next couple of days. The timing of his release, prior to 9/11 has attracted special mention in most articles.--- Balloonman Poppa Balloon 20:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Milan Vujičić (Serbian: Милан Вујичић; born April 17, 1982 in Belgrade, Serbia) is a Serbian-American basketball coach. In 2004, he became a FIBA licensed basketball coach.
He is currently the head assistant coach at the NCAA school Centenary College — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treneri ( talk • contribs) 03:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Michael Lewis ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There are a number of problems with this bio:
1. It is highly promotional; 2. It seems to list every article ever written by the author which IMO is not part of a biography; 3. As noted before, the external links are also promotional material and should be removed; 4. There is a separate heading "Works of Michael Lewis" which is redundant and appears to be promotional too; 5. Suspect input from author/promoter and possible socket puppetry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imyoung ( talk • contribs) 12:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Mike Share ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
All of the information written about Mike Share is by Mike Share. Having researched him, I know that he has not played for many of the clubs he says he has. He has not been appointed a manager; he starts the clubs! The websites the information comes from - he writes these.
I am happy to provide more information on him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genericgenie ( talk • contribs) 08:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I think it's bbcsport who is Share. He is known to try to be authentic by quoting such illustrious sources as that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genericgenie ( talk • contribs) 22:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
You seem to be intimating that I have a conflict of interest here. I don't. I assumed Wikipedia wanted balanced, accurate articles. All of the Mike Share-related articles quote references from the websites he runs himself. Every time I have tried to edit them with my own, verified research (sources including Spanish FA, Exeter City, Gillingham FC, players who have played with him, NPSL, etc), 'he' has changed things back, sometimes adding more. If you care to look at the changes 'he' has made, you will find they only concern articles about himself or his vested interests. [5] is a starting point for you, I hope. Genericgenie ( talk) 14:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Tom Zakrajsek ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sourced material repeated removed, large paragraph of unsourced and irrelevant information added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.157.194 ( talk) 17:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Kellen Moore ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kellen is listed as a player in the western athletic conference. He plays for Boise State, which is now in the Mountain West Conference. Kellen is also listed as being a "communications" major. Boise State has no such major. He is a Communication major. There is no s in the word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.102.186 ( talk) 20:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Henry Winkler ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Henry Winkler OBE ? When was he given an OBE ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.208.126 ( talk) 19:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Ben T. Elliott ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This biographical article looks like it was written completely by one of the subject's children. The relationship between the subject and the author (tom elliott) is documented in this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/25/magazine/25REPUBLICANS.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.207.22.236 ( talk) 23:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I would like to add two items to the authored books category:
Instigations: Ezra Pound and Remy de Gourmont (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976) Poids et mesures/Weights and Measures (Dijon: Ulysse Fin de Siècle, 1988)
Richard Sieburth — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.141.185.144 (
talk)
03:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
htpp://lenutaa_mirceaa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.119.229.230 ( talk) 06:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Tim Cook ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Tim Cook article currently states that "In 2011, Cook, who is protective of his private life, was named to the top spot on Out magazine's fifth annual "Power 50" list of LGBT people. 10 However, he has never publicly declared any details about his sexuality." (The article also included him in a couple LGBT cats for a while, which I removed per WP:BLPCAT.)
Gawker first "outed" him earlier this year, but they are clearly not a WP:RS. Out magazine is (a bit) less sensationalist; with his new role as Apple CEO, this topic is getting much more attention from the likes of The Atlantic, Australia's Herald Sun, and a Reuters blog, as well as thousands of other lesser Google hits.
Note that, as several of these sources point out, the subject has not disclosed his orientation.
The question is whether any of these, or the sum of these, are reliable enough to allow the topic be included in the BLP. (I'm pretty conservative with respect to the BLP policies, so as you can guess, I'm leaning against - and yet Anderson Cooper has likewise not been public about his orientation, but his article has a whole paragraph about it...)
Thanks, AV3000 ( talk) 05:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I can not believe any editor would say "rumors started to spread that he was gay." is remotely near a reliable source for such a claim in a BLP. Further that it is insufficient to list a person on a list of gays on the basis of such rumours (yes Will, such a list is precisely what I mean at the ArbCom discussion - I suggest that adding a person to such a list is and should be verboten on Wikipedia without extremely strong factual sources). Cheers.
Collect (
talk)
11:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Version reworded slightly by Will Beback
Suggestion: Claims about sexual, political or religious orientation of any lving person can not be based on speculation, but must be reliably sourced as actual statements of fact. Indirect claims can not be based on opinions of any person or organization. Short.
Collect (
talk)
08:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Claiming someone is heterosexual is a claim about their sexual orientation
And claiming includes implying, assuming, presuming, writing as though it was obvious, etc. This proposal is drawn up to oppose the assumed evil of statements implying homosexuality on the part of BLP subjects who do not publicly discuss their sexual orientation. If implemented, then statements implying heterosexuality on the part of BLP subjects who do not publicly discuss their sexual orientation will be treated in exactly the same way. The statement that a man is romantically linked to a woman is one which implies heterosexuality; the policy requires this implication to be stated directly as fact but the New York Times does not do so. It does not say "Michael Bloomberg, who is openly heterosexual". My suggestion is that policy at the moment is fine and mentioning that Tim Cook was on a list of powerful LGBT people but does not discuss his sexual orientation is also fine. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 08:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
At Off2riorob's request, here is a suggestion for some text for the article.
That sticks to the known facts, relies on a highly reliable source, and avoids any speculation. Will Beback talk 04:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I can not believe any editor would say "rumors started to spread that he was gay." is remotely near a reliable source for such a claim in a BLP. Further that it is insufficient to list a person on a list of gays on the basis of such rumours (yes Will, such a list is precisely what I mean at the ArbCom discussion - I suggest that adding a person to such a list is and should be verboten on Wikipedia without extremely strong factual sources). In short: Support O2RRs position. Oppose strongly Will's wording above. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 11:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
In Germany Tim Cook is mentioned in LGBT media as a gay person.
===Media on Apple CEO Tim Cook's Sexuality: 'Come Out, Come Out...'===
I read about him now being "the most powerful gay man in the world" in The Week which in turn was reporting on Reuters.com article about the media's hypocrisy of not reporting it as if a gay man running the "largest and most important company n the world" should have his being gay as part of his profile because the stigma of gayness is so last year. So here is the media discussing why and how his being gay is portrayed or not by media outlets. It seems very strange that wikipedia would choose to suppress this information only because he hasn't announced it from the mountaintop. It seems a sentence about his sexuality, and the media double-standard of the mainstream press avoiding the subject, merits inclusion.
Somestudy (
talk) 07:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC) - Article here:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/25/idUS422760388920110825 — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Somestudy (
talk •
contribs) 07:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
-
WP:BANNED LGBT focused sockmaster
User:Benjiboi -
Off2riorob (
talk)
03:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
* I looked to see which other main media outlets have discussed this and found these, with the articles' title; Forbes (business magazine) - "Tim Cook's Sexuality Has No Relevance As He Takes The Apple Reins", The Guardian - "Apple's Tim Cook isn't the only gay person in the IT village," ZDNet - "The sexuality of CEOs is a dull subject however...", DailyTech.com - "Meet Apple's New CEO, Tim Cook", The Atlantic - "To Be the Most Powerful Gay Man in Tech, Cook Needs to Come Out", "Reuters" - "Why I'm talking about Tim Cook's sexuality", BNet (CBS) - "Why Apple CEO Tim Cook’s Sexual Identity Isn’t — or Shouldn’t Be — News", Washington Blade (Gay news) - "Apple CEO Urged To Come Out As Gay", International Business Times - "Is New Apple CEO Tim Cook Gay?", Columbia Journalism Review - "Why Apple CEO Tim Cook’s Sexuality Is News". Reuters - "Tim Cook Is Now The Most Powerful Gay Man In The World", Wall Street Journal - "‘It Gets Better’: Tech Firms Step Up for Gay Teens", New York Observer - "Tim Cook Is A New Power Gay," "OutsideTheBeltway.com" - "It Is News That Apple’s New CEO Is Gay?"
Somestudy (
talk) 22:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
-
WP:BANNED LGBT focused sockmaster
User:Benjiboi -
Off2riorob (
talk)
03:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)