![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Peggy Adler ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bxzooo ( talk · contribs), self-declared as the subject of Peggy Adler, has repeatedly inserted a statement that she is a victim of domestic violence, linking the statement to her ex-husband, without providing any WP:reliable sources. She has stated that she has forwarded copies of the police blotter and the judge's protection order to User:Killiondude, but that doesn't seem to me to be sufficient to state in Wikipedia's voice that he is an abuser.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind me contacting you, I got your name from the Editors Assistance list. I conducted a GA Review of the article Robert Abbott (game designer) which you can read here: Talk:Robert Abbott (game designer)/GA1. One of the issues that I identified was that quite a bit relied on emails received by Hi878. I checked WP:Primary, and understand that primary sources can be used if necessary, although with caution on BLP pages, however nothing is mentioned about emails - merely self-published Websites. Do you know of any process, perhaps through OTRS that we can arrange for the emails to be acceptable references?
Thanks in advance for your help, Deadly∀ssassin 07:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Boris Berezovsky (businessman) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Editors are removing reliably sourced information from the Boris Berezovsky article, and on the talk page seem to indicate that it is a WP:BLP violation. Can uninvolved editors take a look at Talk:Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)#Use_of_libel_tourism.2Fterrorism and opine over there. There appears to be gaming going on to keep relevant information out of an article. Appreciate any input on the talk page. Thanks, Russavia Let's dialogue 20:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Bill Young ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Article about a Republican congressman from Florida which could use some attention for OR and POV concerns. Early in the article there is a paragraph about a committee Young served on and this paragraph makes some sweeping accusations without a source: "This committee was created by the Florida Legislature in 1956 to investigate and intimidate civil-rights groups such as the NAACP, and went on to conduct a witch hunt against gays and lesbians in public schools, state universities, and state employment." There is a lengthy controversies section which repeatedly implies that Young did something wrong without using a source to say that it was wrong. For instance, the section on the Walter Reed scandal reads: "As chairman of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee during 2005 and 2006, Young did not call hearings or otherwise engage in active oversight on the matter." This really should be stated as: "Commentators such as x, criticized Young for not using his oversight power as chairman of ... even though he claimed to have known of the situation at the time" or something to that effect. I'm also concerned that the ratio of information about controversies to information about his record is quite high.
FWIW I am not a Republican. GabrielF ( talk) 22:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Shannon Wheeler ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I would like to ask for two points of information to be removed from this article: - "Shannon Wheeler grew up in the 1960s in Berkeley, California.[1]" This is not correct. Wheeler was born in 1966 and for the rest of that decade, lived in Texas, until moving back to Berkeley at the age of four. - "As of March 2010, Wheeler lived in Portland, Oregon, and had twin sons then 12 years old.[1]" We would like to avoid direct references to the children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamdao22 ( talk • contribs) 10:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
David Axelrod ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Before I break 3RR even more, can I ask another editor to take a look at the unreferenced edits that 67.86.0.20 has repeatedly inserted here [1], here [2], here [3], here [4] and here [5]. There has been no discussion on the talk page, and no response to queries in edit summaries or on their talk page. -- Deadly∀ssassin 02:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Quan (rapper) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
To whom this may concern my name is Clifford Peacock, better known as the rapper/singer QUAN aka DONFERQUAN I'm honored to be apart of your historic site, and I'm thankful someone has taken the time to attempt to keep up with my career. There are some corrections that must be made . and I would like to prove my identity so that we can make those changes. (Redacted)
i go by Quan ...thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifford peacock ( talk • contribs) 15:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Étienne Tshisekedi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article is not neutral. The information is highly biased, especially as one reads on in the article. I noticed that it recently underwent a lot of heavy editing, and this is likely why. Given that this person is a political figure and running for a coming election, this bias is not surprising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarewen ( talk • contribs) 08:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Dear Sirs,
Further to our 2 emails we sent to "info-en-q@wikimedia.org" complaining about the validity and neutrality of the content published on your website regarding the biography of Etienne Tshisekedi, we were very disappointed for not receiving any response to our request.
As we wanted to follow all procedures as stated in your terms and conditions in regards to changes which are not minor and failure of response as mentioned here above, we decided to correct these damaging affirmations on the biography of Mr Etienne Tshekedi.
Our concern, except cables from wikileak, is that the content published by Mattgirling ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mattgirling), one of your Administrator on the person of Etienne Tshisekedi contain defamatory information and its sources are biased and not legally reliable; for instance the quote used about the assassination of the First Prime Minister of the Democratic Republic of Congo Mr Patrice Emery Lumumba.
The delibarate choice of the Editor not to mention the political and life struggle of Etienne Tshisekedi.
We will indeed be happy to see readers not being misled as it is the main aim of Wikipedia to provide non biased and also trustworthy information.
We sent our reaction to the editor notifying him about the character of his changes.
We hope and trust that you response to this dispute will help really readers to have correct information from your website.
Kind regards
Alain Kabuika — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorUd ( talk • contribs) 19:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
The bit about him being involved in the Lumuumba killing was iffy (cite did not appear to support wording) so I went to the New York Times for what appears to be a reliably sourced claim. Collect ( talk) 20:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
(Undent) The article has now been overhauled. Thanks to User:Collect and User:Mattgirling for the help. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 05:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Journal of Cosmology ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is the usage of the blog Pharyngula ok to source this statement? "it isn't a real science journal at all, but is the ginned-up website of a small group of crank academics" I believe this is an attack on a BLP although no names are mentioned. So is the blog OK to use to call the editors of a journal "Cranks" Darkness Shines ( talk) 20:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I removed the section on Gohmert's comments on Obama policies towards the Middle East. As far as I've research this only has been referenced to on Talking Points Memo which is a web-based political journalism organization created and run by Josh Marshall, journalist and historian covering issues from a "politically left perspective," The other references in Google are also all from left-wing blogs. http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=louie+gohmert+islamic+caliphate&pbx=1&oq=louie+gohmert+islamic+caliphate&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=570l6454l0l6744l29l21l1l4l4l0l314l2410l5.9.2.1l21l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=ff4e2b09f4e053ae&biw=1152&bih=584 From what I have seen all the referrals to this quote are attributed to left wing sources promoting a point of view. The source who put this cited CSPAN directly, not what should be cited if this was truly a controversy. In the mainstream media for instance it doesn't look like this actually caused much controversy. The other two incidents are more cited in the news media. For instance, the Terror Babies incident should indeed be kept in because it was widely covered in the news. The college of fine arts director incident was also not covered widely outside of one story on CNN and again on the website Talking Points Memo so I am not sure if it should be included because it also did not cause controversy. I have read the guidelines for reliable sources and the context of the, and the guidelines on controversy and I am not sure if these fit the context to be included. Just opening up the discussion. --Andy0093 (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Controversial_articles I forgot to add. I don't know if these comments belong here and were controversial just because they enflamed one side of the political aisle. Article related to other figures like Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, Eric Cantor and Steny Hoyer do not have a controversies section even though I am sure one side could carve one out with the hundreds of floor speeches these people have given. --Andy0093 (talk) 22:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore the article has continuously been stopped from being edited by a ip user. He has been using three IP address 99.168.72.86, 75.60.185.120, 75.60.186.187 and two user names Jdblack326 and Johnnyb.3261. The IP addresses all trace back to Columbus, Ohio and have the edits are all revert attempts to edit and a section in the article entitled "Implication Obama is complicit in creating a Islamic Caliphate." He seems to have now made an account Johnnyb.3261 after being warned about being blocked. He has refused to engage in the talkpage rather. He has reverted any attempt to modify this section or put in perspective changing the article back a total of at least 11 times with the edit summary (These statements, accurately reflected in the heading, attracted national attention and are historically significant as example of the type of inflammatory rhetoric that has been employed in the 112th Congress along with hate speech against the Presi)
-- Andy0093 ( talk) 00:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
For two weeks, Kumkwat ( talk · contribs) has constantly removing information about Collins and Tyler dating despite multiple warnings not to do so ( [10]). With the situation continuing, I am taking this discussion here to see if others can voice their opinions on this matter. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 02:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Darlton Newton Kenton. Chef and author of three published books. Was raised and educated in, Jamaica. He has been writing poetry since the age of nineteen. Kenton trained at the Culinary Institute of America. He is also the owner of DNK Catering Services LLC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darltonk ( talk • contribs) 03:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
This page currently includes the following line in the section titled 'Life After Boxing': "Currently Frequents Vic's place and enjoys the drink." This seems slightly cruel and libelous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wlkrryan ( talk • contribs) 06:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Herbert Mataré ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
According to User:Wikinaut ( talk) Herbert Mataré died on September 2. I did not find any reference yet, but he has send a copy of the death card to OTRS: "Dem Support-Team liegt unter Ticket:2011092210019198 ein Scan der Todesanzeige vor". Can somebody check this OTRS ticket and confirm that this enough to allow the update of his article, till the official reference is available? -- SchreyP ( messages) 18:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Eron Falbo ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article does not meet any criteria for notability, it does not use any reliable sources (according to Wikipedia's definition) and it sounds like advertising. It sounds very much like the person himself, or someone very close to the subject, has written it. This article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.15.133 ( talk) 16:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Marko Attila Hoare ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I don't know if this is the right place to report it, but I'm concerned about this academic's biography because the negatively worded lead is entirely sourced from a rather obscure web site. Have mörser, will travel ( talk) 22:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I hardly have any expertise in the subject matter, so it may be appropriate to describe him like that, but the source seems rather questionable. Have mörser, will travel ( talk) 22:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Done -- —
Keithbob •
Talk •
15:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Louie Gohmert ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Now that the page has been locked. Can the community offer their opinions as well. I've made my views on the section known but will put it again below. This is the history behind the dispute.
I removed the section on Gohmert's comments on Obama policies towards the Middle East. As far as I've research this only has been referenced to on Talking Points Memo which is a web-based political journalism organization created and run by Josh Marshall, journalist and historian covering issues from a "politically left perspective," The other references in Google are also all from left-wing blogs. http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=louie+gohmert+islamic+caliphate&pbx=1&oq=louie+gohmert+islamic+caliphate&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=570l6454l0l6744l29l21l1l4l4l0l314l2410l5.9.2.1l21l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=ff4e2b09f4e053ae&biw=1152&bih=584 From what I have seen all the referrals to this quote are attributed to left wing sources promoting a point of view. The source who put this cited CSPAN directly, not what should be cited if this was truly a controversy. In the mainstream media for instance it doesn't look like this actually caused much controversy. The other two incidents are more cited in the news media. For instance, the Terror Babies incident should indeed be kept in because it was widely covered in the news. The college of fine arts director incident was also not covered widely outside of one story on CNN and again on the website Talking Points Memo so I am not sure if it should be included because it also did not cause controversy. I have read the guidelines for reliable sources and the context of the, and the guidelines on controversy and I am not sure if these fit the context to be included. Just opening up the discussion. --Andy0093 (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Controversial_articles I forgot to add. I don't know if these comments belong here and were controversial just because they enflamed one side of the political aisle. Article related to other figures like Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, Eric Cantor and Steny Hoyer do not have a controversies section even though I am sure one side could carve one out with the hundreds of floor speeches these people have given. --Andy0093 (talk) 22:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Furthermore the article has continuously been stopped from being edited by a ip user. He has been using three IP address 99.168.72.86, 75.60.185.120, 75.60.186.187 and two user names Jdblack326 and Johnnyb.3261. The IP addresses all trace back to Columbus, Ohio and have the edits are all revert attempts to edit and a section in the article entitled "Implication Obama is complicit in creating a Islamic Caliphate." He seems to have now made an account Johnnyb.3261 after being warned about being blocked. He has refused to engage in the talkpage rather. He has reverted any attempt to modify this section or put in perspective changing the article back a total of at least 11 times with the edit summary (These statements, accurately reflected in the heading, attracted national attention and are historically significant as example of the type of inflammatory rhetoric that has been employed in the 112th Congress along with hate speech against the Presi) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy0093 ( talk • contribs) 01:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
José Eduardo dos Santos ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article is an important key to understanding contemporary Angola. Unfortunately few Wikipedians with a solid knowledge of the subject matter have until now been contributing. A more intense particpation would be all the more important as again and again partisan edits are made, bent on either preventing critical information from appearing in the text, or on the contrary on introducing polemical texts and/or references. It would thus be helpful if more people took part in the constant attention called for. -- Aflis ( talk) 12:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Laurence Tribe ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Serious BLP issues are raised by the subject of the article in an RfC on the talk page. Input by experienced editors would be useful. ScottyBerg ( talk) 16:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Pinball Clemons ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
For the correct record...Michael Clemons nickname "Pinball" came from guest Running Back coach Tom Cudney, NOT, Bob O'Billovich!!! Here's exactly how it originated...
In 1989 at the Toronto Argonauts training camp @ the University of Guelph after every practice, all the coaches would gather in a room to review and discuss the most recent practice and player performance. Each coach was asked by Bob O'Billovich, "What players looked good and who stood out"?! I (Tom Cudney) said, "...Michael Clemons is like a little 'Pinball'! He hits, spins and bounces. He's very difficult to tackle". That evening a sports reporter from a Toronto TV network (City TV-?)interviewed, then Head Coach Bob O'Billovich. During that interview, Bob was asked who looks good in camp, part of his response was that "...Michael Clemons is like a "Pinball" out there. The rest maybe history and yes, Michael "Pinball" Clemons earned his own merit and acclaim, but for the true record...Bob O'Billovich did not orignate the nickname "Pinball" for Michael Clemons, ...Tom Cudney did!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.59.229.122 ( talk) 17:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Scott Ritter ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Currently, the lead at Scott Ritter is 50% devoted to discussing sexual misconduct. The article's body is more around 15% devoted to sexual misconduct. The sexual stuff is not related to his notability. I can see having a sentence in the lead, but I guess an argument could be made it doesn't belong at all. Should the lead mention the sexual stuff? Jesanj ( talk) 21:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Lacey Sturm ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User:Lauren3333 repeatedly adding material from the subject's website, http://laceymosley.com/. Some is paraphrased, some is just directly copied. Have left several messages on editor's page. I'm at my WP:3RR limit and require some additional support in explaining the problem of copyright violations to the editor. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 23:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
[11] has been strenuously objected to as an edit on that BLP. In point of fact, however, I think more eyes would benefit this article where even tepid criticism of the person seems to run afoul of WP:BLP as a matter of course. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 17:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Nicolas Berggruen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Reviewing the talk page shows that Bioplus ( talk · contribs) clearly has an axe to grind against Nicolas Berggruen. Bioplus insists on using his own extrapolation to describe the subject pejoratively as a party animal, without any sources supporting his claim, and now 86.173.211.194 ( talk · contribs) is adding the same material, which absolutely quacks WP:DUCK to me. WilliamH ( talk) 18:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
This article is about Charles Kushner. Two editors concerned with Wilda Diaz, a peripheral character in the article, are editwarring. I've tried to fix BLP probs about Kushner, but their "bleed-over" editwarring on Kushner is getting worse. 3RR doesn't apply to BLPs, but editwarring does. So I'm looking for a BLP admin to look over the article, talk page and, most especially, edit history and counsel all three of us. I think I'm within poicy but it's starting to feel like I'm becoming an inadvertant party to an editwar from another page, so admonish me, too, If I'm wrong. David in DC ( talk) 11:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Done Collect went in and cleand-up the vandalism, still worth keeping an eye on, but in current status its ok.---
Balloonman
Poppa Balloon 18:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
In the 1st paragraph of this article she is referred to as an "old hag". It appears that the article has been edited to not be neutral about "liberal" thought, and seems negative against liberals instead of being neutral as should be. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Turner200 (
talk •
contribs)
14:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Done Collect already went into this article and cleaned up the POV.---
Balloonman
Poppa Balloon
18:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Makes disparaging comments about Diane Rehm, including calling her an "old hag":
Under the heading "Personal Life," the writer says "She espouses liberal viewpoints, which allows her to continue to broadcast on NPR despite the availability of better broadcasters. NPR has a liberal tilt that is so bad that they continue to let this old hag broadcast."
This is definitely violates your biographies of living persons policy and needs to be deleted immediately.
Lisa Dunn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.9.134.38 ( talk) 14:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Larry M. Walker (b.1935) is an American artist living and working in Georgia, USA. A 1952 graduate of the High School of Music and Art in Manhattan.
The baseball player Larry Walker is incorrectly cited as a fine arts graduate of the Fiorello H. LaGaurdia High School of Music, Art and the Performing arts. [1]
Larry Walker is a recipient of numerous awards and recognitions and was Director of the Georgia State University School of Art and design from 1983-1993 [2]. [3]
There is not at present a Wikipedia biography for the artist, however there is for his daughter, the American artist Kara Walker
[4]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kara_Walker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.249.217 ( talk • contribs)
Christopher Stasheff ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An admin advised me that I might want to bring up this subject here, for my own education at least. It's a BLP of an author with, as far as I can tell, no known sources which meet Notability for Creative professionals. I'm interested in the general principle of voting "keep" on deletion discussions based on the intuition that RS establishing notability ought to exist, but with no such sources actually known. Maybe we ought to have a principle in policy that if no RS are found during a deletion discussion, the article shouldn't be kept? Be——Critical__ Talk 20:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Independent sources added. -- Jezebel'sPonyo bons mots 21:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
He's the author of 44 novels [12] published by the likes of Random House [13] and Macmillan Publishers [14]. That ain't hay. -- GRuban ( talk) 21:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Nancy Dell'Olio ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Not that I don't appreciate the often sarcastic and acerbic tone of this article--I'd be lying if I said I didn't--but I'm pretty sure this is not the way a Wikipedia biographical article should read. I almost don't want to see it go, I wish there was a section for more opinionated columns or something, but I appreciate what Wikipedia has offered me over the years too much and I'd hate to see this type of material coverage become a norm. I come to Wikipedia to get a good base of understanding from which to form my own opinions, not have them made for me. This is why I'm reporting this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NGH2 ( talk • contribs) 00:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Leon Bright ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
You have Leon listed as a Running Back with the CFL BC Lions. Leon was actually a Wide Receiver. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcsportsfan ( talk • contribs) 00:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Subject was brought into the priesthood by the Legion of Christ organization, and appears to have held a position of some authority within it. A defender of the subject keeps removing that information from the article, since the association with the now-discredited Marcial Maciel does not reflect well upon Morris. I tried to find a good NPOV way of putting the information in, but was reverted by the defender/ "owner". -- Orange Mike | Talk 13:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Rachel Blanchard ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article is persistently altered by a stalker who claims that she is married with two children, when this is not the case in any way. The most recent alteration can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Rachel_Blanchard&action=historysubmit&diff=452371471&oldid=447935989 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.85.84 ( talk) 04:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Angus & Julia Stone ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject, rather than references from independent authors and third-party publications. Please add citations from reliable sources. (June 2008)
Hi there, I've been trying to "clean up" the citations and sources for this article since last week. I do not think the comment tagged at the top of the article is still current or relevant to the case. So far all the sources I've reviewed seem reliable and it would help if you could please give examples of specific sources you do not think are credible. I'm a big fan of Angus & Julia Stone and would love to have an accurate account of their life/biography, but also recognise the fact that a banner such as this reflects upon the article in a negative light.
Thanks very much for any help/advice, Su-Yin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suyinchan ( talk • contribs) 10:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the names of individuals stated in this article, which are unreferenced - and without appropriate verification - in terms of "presumption in favor of privacy", the NPF policy and other aspects of BLP. However, it is only a list of names - I'm not saying that there is anything that might adversely affect a person's reputation. In such cases, when individuals are named on an article with no supporting references - should they be removed pending a reference? Or, would that be too heavy-handed? Chzz ► 20:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Animal_X_(band) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Article 'animal x (band) is about a music band from the country of romania. Please consider it is not a living person. It got me confused expression wikipedia:biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.. should it not tagg articles for living characters in the band?
Gudrun Schyman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm Swedish, and thus have a lot more sources availible than the average wikipedian with regards to the subject. Still, this was (is) a mess of such proportions that I don't think I can fix it. Maybe crowdsourcing it here can make it less headache-inducing. Good grief.
Kent Desormeaux ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I changed the subject's last name to reflect spelling according to his own website, but the user Materialscientist is claiming - in contradiction to Wikipedia's own rules - that this is not considered a reliable source.
cur | prev) 23:45, 23 September 2011 Materialscientist (talk | contribs) (10,586 bytes) (rvt: see your talk page; (i) keep reference names; (ii) provide reliable sources (his webpage is not) - all other sources don't capitalize O) (undo) (cur | prev) 23:28, 23 September 2011 72.179.5.17 (talk) (10,586 bytes) (I have capitalized the "O" in DesOrmeaux's last name to accurately reflect the French spelling as it is used on Kent's own website: http://www.kentdesormeaux.com/) (undo) (Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism) (cur | prev) 08:55, 23 September 2011 Materialscientist (talk | contribs) m (10,586 bytes) (Filling in 3 references using Reflinks | fixed dashes using a script) (undo) (cur | prev) 08:49, 23 September 2011 Materialscientist (talk | contribs) m (10,270 bytes) (Reverted edits by 72.179.5.17 (talk) to last version by 69.204.185.42) (undo) (cur | prev) 08:09, 23 September 2011 72.179.5.17 (talk) (10,270 bytes) (undo) (Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism) (cur | prev) 08:00, 23 September 2011 72.179.5.17 (talk) (10,270 bytes) (→Brief biography) (undo)
Unfortunately, such cases are not that easy. Even if your changes were 100% correct, the references must keep the name of the sources, that is mass substitution is not a solution We go by reliable sources, and do not consider the subject (Kent DesOrmeaux himself and his website) as such, and this is the real problem. In other words, we do not support the idea that anyone can suddenly decide how he/she wants to be called - we look at how most of the (English-speaking, as this is English wiki) world calls him/her. Countering a mistake, which was propagated by multiple reliable sources, is a difficult task. Surely, providing government sources can do that. Otherwise, we can say that he is called both DesOrmeaux and Desormeaux (without saying what is "correct"), but we need reliable sources for DesOrmeaux. Materialscientist (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Are you asserting that wikipedia is a reliable source from which to learn how "DesOrmeaux" is properly punctuated, but asking an individual with that surname how it is punctuated is NOT a reliable source? Kent DesOrmeaux did not suddenly decide how he wants to be called. If the individual's website is not reliable, then what might be considered reliable so that I can prove to you that the correct spelling of this man's name is "DesOrmeaux" and help to improve the accuracy of wikipedia and diminish this website's reputation for propagating false information. Would a phone book be a reliable source? I could also provide a birth certificate; most people consider birth certificates to be valid. I hope you will deem it as valid as wikipedia! If not, then it is disappointing, to say the least, that a wikipedia patroller will accept the propagation of false information acceptable because overcoming the "red tape" that you describe makes presenting accurate information a "difficult task."
Please try to understand the problem. I didn't say it is easy. We trust reliable sources, that they checked the spelling before publishing it. There is no easy way around (to sort out rumors/hype/etc., which is what we mostly get from such situations). We are not supposed to analyze the sources, but sometimes (in such cases, for example) we get into it. We need alternative reliable sources to start doing that (at least to present alternative spellings). We can't analyze ID, birth certificates, and such - a third party can, and they can publish information based on such sources, which we can use then. Note, that generally, what a person says about himself/herself is not a reliable source, unless verified by reliable third parties - there could be dozens of reasons for tweaking personal bio details, obvious and non-obvious. Materialscientist (talk) 03:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
You are quite plainly asserting that an individual does not determine his or her name, but that journalists are the entities responsible for naming an individual. This is ludicrous to anyone who cares about the accuracy of knowledge, and this is exactly why Wikipedia is never trusted as a reliable source for any level of scholarly paper, from the college freshmen level and beyond. If consistency to the source is of primary importance, then why is the “O” not capitalized in the link to Kent’s own website? “Note, that generally, what a person says about himself/herself is not a reliable source, unless verified by reliable third parties.” What is your own reliable source for this statement? I made changes to reflect biographical accuracy in accordance with an individual’s website, and then you changed my corrections based solely on your own opinion that this is “unreliable.” Can you site the peer-reviewed journal article that proved that what people say about themselves is unreliable? Wikipedia approves Kent DesOrmeaux's website as a reliable source of information about him: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). This is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.5.17 ( talk) 19:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Many people with the surname "DesOrmeaux" capitalize the "O." This is nothing like adding an exclamation point in one's name. The reason the "O" is capitalized is because these are two different French words combined into one surname. ("des" means "from" - "orme" means "elm") There are other French surnames used in the United States that capitalize letters in the center of the name. A few example are LeBlanc, LeFleur, and LeDoux. Here are a few reliable sources which demonstrate that many individuals with this surname capitalize the "O," including Kent DesOrmeaux, according to his own website. ESPN: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/columns/story?columnist=hays_graham&id=4433796 Louisiana State University: http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-04112007-094810/ The DesOrmeaux Foundation: http://desormeauxfoundation.com/ The Roman Catholic Church: http://www.stmarymagdalenparish.org/parish-staff And though I don't consider wikipedia reliable, perhaps in this case it will consider itself reliable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wade_DesArmo (It seems to me Wade probably got pretty exhausted with explaining his name to people.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.5.17 ( talk) 02:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Some of you describe this as overreacting. I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall to try to convince you that the "O" is capitalized even though a quick google search does not confirm what I'm trying to teach you. I'm sure Kent also became exhausted with correcting people, which perhaps began the propagation of spelling his name "Desormeaux" in the mass media. 72.179.5.17 ( talk) 02:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
There is an unresolved problem with the article for Mem Fox. Mem Fox is an Australian children's author whose husband has been convicted this year for underage homosexual sex with one of his school students. This case has had notoriety and has been followed closely on Australian television and in national papers. Mem is a very well known children's author who published her last book in April 2011. She is most notable for writing Possum Magic. She is also a public persona - a few years ago she was all across the Australian media for equating child care for young children with child abuse.
The article in question is well established and includes plenty of other biographical detail. I feel there is no bias in including the fact of her husband's conviction. However there has been a small number of editors who feel it should not be referred too at all. Their argument, as I understand it, is that 1) Mem played no direct role in his crime, and therefore it is not relevant to her biography 2) if it were to be included on Wikipedia it should be on a Malcolm Fox page (ie husband’s own page – though clearly he is not notable for anything other than his being married to Mem and the above crime).
The issue is her husband is convicted and it is a notable feature of her personal life. Mem has stood by her husband, with many photos and TV footage published of her attending his court appointments. Unsavoury, yes, but it is worth a line in her biography. I think it is Wikipedia should not be about “tasteful” censorship, or exclusion of public, third party reported information.
I'd be grateful for wise heads to consider the discussion above and give some guidance. The editors involved have fairly fixed positions and I think we agree resolution is unlikely despite polite talk-page discussion for some weeks.ROxBo 10:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Can no one add an independent comment?ROxBo 10:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Dennis Ross. This article could use some looking at. A lot of it goes on and on about negotiations that he took part in, so that that material overwhelms any personal information about the man himself. BigJim707 ( talk) 20:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
This person is only notable for one thing. As of today, this person is likely to remain a low-profile individual. According to rule BLP1E, this person does not qualify for a Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.136.193.214 ( talk) 05:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Paula Poundstone ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Re: Talk:Paula_Poundstone#Arrest, as I have stated on the page's talk page, I reverted a part of this section because I believe it to be libellous to the subject of this article - mud sticks, and I believe that accusations of paedophilia should not be included in a BLP article unless there is some proof that the person is indeed a paedophile. The brief CNN article used as a reference in this article was about a charge which was not upheld and about which there is no specific information in the article. I am bringing this matter here so that it can be resolved properly, so I would like to hear from others on this matter. Additionally, I dare not do another undo as it appears that thos is starting to turn into an edit war, so I very regrettably leave what I strongly believe to be (at the very least potentially) libellous material in place, but I believe it should rightly be removed now, until this matter is resolved officially. -- Violet Fae ( talk) 05:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
(Untabbed for ease of reading here)Thank you, Demiurge1000, Off2riorob and Will Beback for your contributions. As 50.56.119.215 has no history on Wikipedia before now he/she certainly appears to be the same user (surely there must be a way to check this?), but the whole sock puppet issue isn't the real issue here, so I don't want to get bogged down in that.
The real issue is the BLP violation and the quite frankly uncivil and abusive tone, trying to win an argument by accusing me of covering up paedophilia (sexual acts with children - someone "younger than 14", as the user himself/herself says. As I have stated, it appears that this user is axe=grinding against this celebrity due to her sexual orientation, which for some inexplicable reason the user has a problem with, as well as with asexuality as a whole/doesn't believe they even exist, as per his/her offensive suggestion that I am "trying to cover up the fact that Poundstone possibly performed a lewd act on someone under the age of 14, in order to help preserve Poundstone's asexual identity, and the validity of an asexual identity as a whole. Because what Poundstone was charged with reinforces negative stereotypes about asexuals, such as claims that some asexuals are truly closeted homosexuals who cannot face being open about their sexual identity and/or are sexually repressed" (personally, I haven't even hear this before, and it seems rather ridiculous IMHO).
Getting back the the real issue here, I shall restate the Wikipedia BLP policy again:
"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion (this is what I did)... Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy (this is what CutOffTies/ 50.56.119.215 did)may be blocked from editing"
... "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material"
... "To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first, and wherever possible disputed deletions should be discussed first with the administrator who deleted the article". Violet Fae ( talk) 09:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
First, I'm just an editor here like you. Second, I don't revert other editors very often, certainly not for something like this. Third, my last comment on this section was to ask you to please update the talk page of the article with the current status of the BLP dispute. I ask again that you do that. Jarhed ( talk)
Paul Krugman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
As I understand the policy on avoiding self-published sources this should be removed from the article on Paul Krugman because it is based on personal self-published blog. However, one administrator reverted me twice claiming that blog post "is acceptable as a source of the expert's professional opinions regarding the issue" [20] even though WP:SELFPUBLISH explicitly says that we should "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert". Can somebody please clarify this issue? -- Vision Thing -- 20:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
content:- However, economic historian Brad Delong defended Krugman as intellectually honest, and stated that Crook failed to understand the economic argument that Krugman was making.
Basically I agree with Off2riorob here - though it should be clearly noted that there's several BLP issues here, not just regarding Paul Krugman; both Clive Crook and Brad DeLong are alive and well AFAICT. Anyway. This is what you get for opening the can of worms which is using an opinion piece (by Crook) in the first place. If that is acceptable then so are DeLong's comment on it. Of course, you could just not include Crook and there'd be no need to include DeLong (my preferred option).
Also, DeLong isn't just an "economic historian", he's an "economist" who's done some work in economic history. But his work has been far broader than just EH. Let's at least get that part right. Volunteer Marek 22:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree with O2RR. Vision Thing appears to be denigrating a living person by removing reliable sources that support that living person and overstating the case against that person. This is highly problematic behavior, and Vision Thing needs to knock it off, post-haste. Hipocrite ( talk) 17:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
David Colquhoun ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I've added more details of my scientific career myself. Please check, and, if satisfied, remove the warning that has appeared at the top of page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Colquhoun ( talk • contribs) 23:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Can we please try to avoid alienating this person. He does excellent work -- his own scientific research, and his contribution to public debates about scientific issues. The COI concerns are fine, but it would be nice if these can be dealt with without alienating him. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 06:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Anthony Bologna ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Was merged into the "pepper spray article" mentioned above - and now repeatedly re-created as a stand-alone article. Opinions thereon are solicited. Most of the worst source violations are gone, but it appears to me that this article is not proper in any case. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 12:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
update - Its been sent to AFD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Bologna ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Ina Garten ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Several editors (including myself) are attempting to include information from a recent news story about Ina Garten, where she repeatedly declined requests from the Make-A-Wish Foundation before ultimately being rejected after she reached out to the family in question. This content dispute has been active since March 2011, but recently resurfaced due to an appaearance on the Crackle.com home page. The story has been reported by the following sources: ABC News, Business Insider, Salon, TMZ, Mediaite, Slate, AOL, The Los Angeles Times, The Daily Mail, Yahoo!, E!, Huffington Post, and OK! Magaine.
Citing previous consensus, several editors have repeatedly reverted any mention of this controversy in the Ina Garten article. The reasoning behind the reverts have been violations of WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, and WP:UNDUE. The editors have questioned the reliability of the sources, and pointed out that the incident is a minor event that is not relevant to Ms. Garten's biography or career.
Arguments for inclusion cite the uncontested verifiability of the claims, as well as the reliability of the sources (LA Times, ABC News, Slate, Salon) and the well-documented coverage of the issue (including both secondary and primary sources, from Make-A-Wish and Garten's PR team). The subject of the article is well known, meaning that if the write-up of the incident is modest, and written in a disinterested tone, it would not contravene WP:BLP or WP:UNDUE.
Note: a prior posting to the BLP Noticeboard went "unresolved" here: [22], and talk page discussions have not been productive. ColorOfSuffering ( talk) 23:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Garten works extensively for a variety of causes, including battered women, cancer patients, AIDS awareness and animal rights. She supports them both financially as well as in person. Garten gets about an hundred new charity requests each month. Like most people in her position she has had to hire a PR person(s) to sort through her correspondence, field press questions, and respond to those requests. There are a lot of worthy requests she has to decline and those requests are filtered through that person(s). [5]. One of the charities she supported was the Make-A-Wish foundation:
The Make-A-Wish Foundation has a very strong working relationship with Ina Garten, a celebrity wish granter who has generously made herself available to grant a wish in the past. Ina is a good friend of the Foundation and we are grateful to her for her support of our mission.[Our charity] regards the planning of wishes as a private process among the parties involved.” From time to time, planning for wishes doesn't turn out as originally envisioned, despite people’s best intentions and efforts. In such cases, the Foundation is committed to working with the wish child and family to grant another wish.
Each wish we grant requires extensive support from many people, and we respect that no individual has an unlimited capacity to grant children’s wishes on demand.
We regard the planning of wishes as a private process among the parties involved.
— Make-A-Wish
Additionally, she is not a one-man-band. To fulfill a wish and reproduce what she does on TV, she needs to coordinate with the others that work behind the scenes.
A seriously ill 6-year old boy enjoyed watching Garten’s show with his Mom and asked to have her cook a meal for him. Garten's PR representative declined the request for the second time. The little boy, once he understood he did not need to know how to swim, decided to swim with the dolphins instead. According to the mom he was thrilled with his new choice. She saw Garten as snubbing the family rather than her having work commitments and being asked 1200 times a year asking for her involvement making it impossible to fulfill all the demands. The gossip site TMZ then posted their story The reaction to that event was described in CBS’s Chow website, under the title “The High-Tech Smearing of Ina Garten” as an online lynching. TMZ did not report
All these distortions would have made anyone look bad.
At the start of the weekend, an LA Times gossip blog entry echoed the TMZ story but warned readers there was another side to the story still to be told. Sure enough, she did respond on Monday. On March 29th, that same gossip blog issued a more balanced entry, titled “Barefoot Contessa Ina Garten was unaware of request, but will now host her young fan”. It reported that Ina Garten had finally heard of the request that her PR person had turned down. By that time, the mother had published on her blog an entry titled “PLEASE STOP THE MADNESS” (the title was in all-caps). The parents were still angry at Garten.
You need to ask yourself why this cyber-lynching was beneath Fox News, CNN, network news such as NBC, CBS, Fox, ABC. It was beneath the New York Times, Wall Street Journal --even People Magazine. It was covered by a mostly-unseen ABC property called “ABC News Now “ for 36 seconds. In my highly-populated area, Comcast doesn’t carry it in my area. Time-Warner in NYC doesn’t show it. Has any editor seen “The Buzz” before a Google search uncovered it. It is the equivalent of the minor leagues in baseball. It recycles ABC broadcasts already seen on TV and some additional 36 second hamburger-helper to fill a 24-hour news hole. Not worth a second of time even though the morning shows need to fill 3,000 hours on the 4 morning shows alone.
Here is Ms. Marikar's article from http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/barefoot-contessa-turns-make-kid/story?id=13238578
SHEILA MARIKAR (@SheilaYM) March 28, 2011 “ABC News Now” “The Buzz”
The "Barefoot Contessa" has time to star in her Food Network show, pen cookbooks, and cook at charity luncheons for her well-to-do fans. But apparently, her schedule was too packed to meet a 6-year-old boy stricken with leukemia who requested a cooking session with her through the Make-A-Wish Foundation. She turned him down, twice.
Just In this introduction, she is actually giving reasons why Garten really is so busy and twists them into reasons she should have plenty of time. Even a charity event that raised money to preserve America’s early history(including a farm dating from 1640) becomes framed as a way to hang out with richy-rich friends. She downplays her making time for a stricken kid before so she did make time to meet with a stricken child. She neglects to mention her other charitable activities. If “ABC World News” is the major leagues (New York Yankees) and the middle-of-the-night “World News Now” is the minor league , “ABC News Now” is in whatever league goes beneath that one. “ABC News Now” is not the same as “World News Now” (which is broadcast). How many editors have seen “The Buzz” on “ABC News Now” before it being brought to your attention by an editor here? How did he discover it?
In my years on the net, this is the first time I have ever seen a comment from a journalist appear after an article: Ms. Marikar, the highly-biased angle you took in this article made it hard for me to read as a fellow journalist. It's completely understandable that a celebrity chef of Garten's magnitude would not be able to grant every appearance and favor asked of her. Now—of course she's dealing with a PR crisis, but only because it was created for her by journalists like you who are looking for the next juicy celebrity scoop. “Charmingsnob”, March 28th It is a manufactured event. Why do you prefer her judgment over the rest of ABC News that did not publish the gossip? Re: Salon link you provided, they said
Hey, what do facts matter when there's an opportunity for a good old-fashioned character thrashing? Who cares, even, if it's at the expense of the alleged victim? Haven't been angry enough yet today, Internet? Take it out on Ina, let the facts and Enzo's family's feelings be damned.
I guess they agree with me.
Other blogs also see this as a cyber-lynching: http://www.etiquettehell.com/smf/index.php?PHPSESSID=4717276e164989b9a47f4f4479f6580b&topic=92605.0
Why do you prefer OK magazine over People? And OK magazine publishes lies on its front cover such as OK Rob Pattinson marries Kristen Stewart. Never saw People do that.
-- Javaweb ( talk) 00:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)Javaweb
I agree, this edit is incredibly unweighty. I would propose a more modest, balanced approach to including the content. ColorOfSuffering ( talk) 22:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
John Fleming (U.S. politician) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Requesting eyes on this article. It appears to be devolving into some ugliness. Thank you. - Philippe 13:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
How does this statement merit any citation on Fleming's bio? "Fleming's comments were widely reported and criticized, including by bloggers who portrayed him as out of touch with the difficulties of lower-income Americans." Is it noteworthy how bloggers portrayed Fleming? They could have portrayed Fleming to be a bunny rabbit, but that would not make him one. Fleming's comments were in the context of the impact of higher taxes on jobs produced by his companies, not a complaint that he would not have money to feed his family as portrayed by bloggers. Again, there is no reason for this rubbish to be posted as fact. Politics555 ( talk) 04:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Pepper spraying of the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article is about a New York City police deputy inspector who has gained notoriety for pepper-spraying demonstrators. Does this meet the criteria for attack page? I lean in that direction. Experienced BLP hands should take a look at this one. It is proposed for merger, but I wonder if deletion is warranted. ScottyBerg ( talk) 17:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Bologna ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
No matter how you look at it, the article is a mess, using videos and obvious non-RS sources to make attacks on a police officer, who is not even named in some of the sources. A good broom would reduce the article to under a hndred words max. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 22:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I am edit warring with a single A single purpose account User:PromiseOfNY - about this - I am in danger of getting blocked. I am not going to edit it again in the nest couple of days. Off2riorob ( talk) 22:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we now have an editor (and not an IP or single purpose account) adding unacceptable original research and WP:SYNTHESIS to the article, despite a discussion on the Talk page pointing that out. After being pushed for a reliable source in support of calling a New York Police Department spokesperson a liar, he is now citing to this, hardly what I would use as a reliable source for such an assertion. It's all based on various organizations analyzing the videos and coming to various conclusions. And the source that the editor cites in turn cites to a blog. The whole thing is unacceptable for Wikipedia. The editor is even putting the word "lie" in his edit summary. I will revert one more time and then I will stop because of edit-warring issues.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, everyone. No notice of this secret discussion was posted to the article itself or mentioned on the article's talk page, where the overwhelming consensus was not to delete or redirect the article. Accordingly, this unilateral redirection of the web page, and the deletion of the majority of the biographical data about its subject, a high-ranking government official who has been widely noted in the media for his participation in multiple events, would appear to have been done in willful disregard of the established consensus of people who participated in discussions that were actually linked to on the page for that page's readers and editors to actually see and have a reasonable likelihood of participating in. Accordingly, I respectfully request that we agree to restore the page, and to post notice of this discussion on the talk page before moving it in violation of the consensus that was established in the multiple discussions that were actually linked to by that page. Obviously, if, subsequent to that, a consensus emerges that the subject is not worthy of his own Wikipedia page, a redirect would, of course, be appropriate. PromiseOfNY ( talk) 00:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't disagree with the proposition that this article should be deleted, and this was the inevitable result of the decision to change the article about Officer Bologna into an article focused solely on his involvement in the pepper spraying incident, which willfully ignored the consensus on the discussion pages of both the Anthony Bologna article and the Occupy Wall Street article. The deletion of that article, it seems to me, ought, ultimately, to be read as a rejection of the decision to remove the original Anthony Bologna article and redirect it to this one.
Look, I know that I come off as having strong feelings about this, but that isn't the same thing as having a bias, unless you want to say that I have bias against nonviolent protesters being maced without provocation. And, while I'd never put a statement that blunt in an article, I have seen these videos, and I do have an opinion about what they show, and that's what I think they show, and that's what a lot of people, all over the world, think those videos show, including some major news publications. The UK Guardian published this description beneath a still from the video "A still frame from video posted online shows Anthony Bologna, a New York police officer, firing pepper spray at retreating protesters on Saturday" ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/sep/28/occupy-wall-street-anthony-bologna?newsfeed=true). The New York Times describes the events pictured in the video this way, "In one video, Inspector Bologna walks up to a group of women standing on the sidewalk behind some orange netting, squirts pepper spray at them and walks away. In interviews, two of those women said that they had received no warning before being sprayed and that its use was unprovoked." ( http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/28/police-department-to-examine-pepper-spray-incident/) The Atlantic Monthly published this description of the video: "He walks up; unprovoked he shoots Mace or pepper spray straight into the eyes of women held inside a police enclosure; he turns and walks away quickly (as they scream, wail, and fall to the ground clawing at their eyes) in a way familiar from hitmen in crime movies; and he discreetly reholsters his spray can." ( http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/09/an-important-video-to-watch-pepper-spray-by-a-cruel-and-cowardly-nyc-cop/245629/). I have yet to hear any kind of credible explanation to the contrary. Can anyone of you look at these videos and suggest a contrary interpretation of what the videos show?
I'd think it was a pretty big deal if it happened in China or Pakistan or Iran or Cuba. The fact that it happened in the United States, in New York City (where I happen to live), is, quite frankly, astonishing, and, to make an understatement, it is newsworthy and historically significant. And, as it turns out, Bologna was an extremely high-ranking official, who was frequently in the news prior to this event, and had been repeatedly profiled in the local media even before this event, and was previously absent from Wikipedia only because of Wikipedia's institutional bias to focus on entertainment and academic figures, while neglecting local political officials, even in places like New York City.
Is this an unacceptable bias of mine, that I think that it's a bad thing for the police to pepper spray young women in the face when they are demonstrating peacefully on a public sidewalk? Did the article not give enough space to the point of view of people who think that it's a good thing for police to do that, and that police officers should be able to pepper spray whoever they want to without being held accountable? Is that what this debate is, between Wikipedia editors who think nonviolent protesters shouldn't be sprayed in the eyes with pepper spray, and others who think they should be?
I, and virtually all of the other editors to work on the piece bent over backwards to be more than fair to Bologna, including the justifications offered by the police (no matter how absurd they might have seemed to me), praise for Bologna unrelated to this incident, and a thorough recounting of his government service. I don't know how anyone can call this a hit job. In light of the press attention lately given to his role in allegedly committing civil rights violations during the 2004 Republican National Convention, in addition to the positive profiles he has previously received in the local press, it is simply not plausible to say that he is famous only for his participation in a single event.
I don't want to accuse any editor here of anything. But given my experience in dealing with the many arbitrary edits I have seen to this article, there is a real bias out there in favor of NOT holding public officials accountable for their actions and trying to prevent the public from learning truthful, significant, and newsworthy information about high-ranking public officials. I don't know any other way to look at the situation. Rules that were put in place to prevent libel and to prevent people from being attacked unfairly are, in my opinion, being misused, and turned upside-down to cover up truthful reporting and protect public officials from public scrutiny. I see objectors skittering from one excuse to another to prevent people from learning more about this very famous man, claiming (in discussions that were held in places actually announced on the article, where people might actually see them) that Bologna was famous for only one event, that he wasn't famous enough, and that the page was an attack piece. Claims were made that the article had duplicative sources, and those sources were removed; then claims followed that the article was unreliable because it didn't have enough credible sources. And when each one of these claims, one after the next, was rebutted and almost unanimously rejected, one editor comes along and ignores those discussions entirely, and unilaterally deletes the page, creating a mockery of it that is so obviously not a proper subject for a Wikipedia page that it is naturally doomed to be destroyed.
Something is very wrong with the way this was done. And I hope the irony is not lost on all of you that the protesters this man pepper-sprayed were marching to bring attention to the fact that those in power are not held accountable.
Since the present discussion is about the new page that this editor created, and not about the Anthony Bologna bio page, and since no one here has objected to my recreating the Anthony Bologna page, I'm going to go ahead and recreate the Anthony Bologna page in a way that I'm sure you will all find acceptable, which won't mention this incident, except to link to another Wikipedia page discussing it. If you have any objections to this, kindly either post them on the discussion page, or post a notice to where your discussion is being held on the main article page.
PromiseOfNY ( talk) 18:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
That is simply an absurd position to take, in light of the nearly 40,000 web pages that discuss Anthony Bologna, and the more than 1.6 million that include the phrases "occupy wall street" and "pepper spray" (in quotes), with of the top google results for both searches all coming from major media outlets. Regardless, it is in willful violation of the clear consensus on the only talk pages that readers and editors of that page were actually notified about. If you do object, then kindly take your objections to that page. Your position--correct me if I'm wrong--seems to be that there should be no Anthony Bologna page, and there should also be no discussion of whether that page should exist with notice of that discussion posted on the page itself, and that you will willfully ignore the consensus established in discussions that readers and editors have actually posted on the talk page and other forums actually linked-to from the article, because you're entitled to make these decisions unilaterally. Is that a correct summary of your position? I hope not, because, if so, your position is in violation of Wikipedia's policies. PromiseOfNY ( talk) 21:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Jean-Philippe de Lespinay ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
We have French opponents very agressive. Each day, or almost, they are vandalizing our page and attack us. They are French computer scientists and the Jean-Philippe de Lespinay invention is a technique that allows to program without computer scientists... That's why they want to remove the article. They are well placed to know that this invention is real and indisputable, with sources real and indisputable, so they never criticize them. They do not propose improvement of the text, they act to achieve the suppression. They use a method that succeeded with WP fr (for now, because we will request arbitration): denigration by a group of boyfriends. As we are only four contributors, fight is unequal. We are accused of bad faith, bias and forbidden to defend ourselves.
These people are fully aware of the inner workings of Wikipedia, not us. They install various kinds of banners, without explaination, restoring them when we delete. They remove half of a section of our article and seven references. They attack members who defend us : "The [Sockpuppet investigation] could now be completed with User:Pat Grenier (why Pat Grenier AND Pat grenier ?), User:90.54.117.217 and User:Chris project --Rigoureux (talk) 10:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)". They continually refuse constructive discussion, never expose ONE argument against the contents of our article and never explain why our work is assumed not to obey the WP rules. In WP fr, they asked for "a few" references proving Lespinay's notoriety. We provided a list of 80 references, most were photocopies of newspaper articles, the others were links to independent websites. Then they are lying in the discussion page of our WP eng article: "39 "page cannot be found", 3 other access errors, 11 written by Lespinay, 6, including an ad, have a passing mention of either Lespinay or his business, 12 have one to three sentences about Lespinay and/or his business, but were not considered convincing for some reason, 2 press articles mention maïeutique, in its common sense but not as a formal method, in the context of Lespinay and his business". It is a risky approach because it is enough that we give you this list and you'll realize they are trying to mislead the reader WP.
Between 1986 and 2010, there were several hundreds of newspaper articles and Tv or Radio emissions referring to JP de Lespinay, his inventions and his reasoning expert systems installations in big companies. It is easy to check. The 80 references list is only what JP de Lespinay found himself and saved.
In conclusion, Pgr94, the "Administrator specialist of intervention against vandalism", doesn't intervene against vandalism of our article. And we suffer... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pat grenier ( talk • contribs) 00:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
long list of related references for investigation
|
---|
|
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Peggy Adler ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bxzooo ( talk · contribs), self-declared as the subject of Peggy Adler, has repeatedly inserted a statement that she is a victim of domestic violence, linking the statement to her ex-husband, without providing any WP:reliable sources. She has stated that she has forwarded copies of the police blotter and the judge's protection order to User:Killiondude, but that doesn't seem to me to be sufficient to state in Wikipedia's voice that he is an abuser.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind me contacting you, I got your name from the Editors Assistance list. I conducted a GA Review of the article Robert Abbott (game designer) which you can read here: Talk:Robert Abbott (game designer)/GA1. One of the issues that I identified was that quite a bit relied on emails received by Hi878. I checked WP:Primary, and understand that primary sources can be used if necessary, although with caution on BLP pages, however nothing is mentioned about emails - merely self-published Websites. Do you know of any process, perhaps through OTRS that we can arrange for the emails to be acceptable references?
Thanks in advance for your help, Deadly∀ssassin 07:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Boris Berezovsky (businessman) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Editors are removing reliably sourced information from the Boris Berezovsky article, and on the talk page seem to indicate that it is a WP:BLP violation. Can uninvolved editors take a look at Talk:Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)#Use_of_libel_tourism.2Fterrorism and opine over there. There appears to be gaming going on to keep relevant information out of an article. Appreciate any input on the talk page. Thanks, Russavia Let's dialogue 20:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Bill Young ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Article about a Republican congressman from Florida which could use some attention for OR and POV concerns. Early in the article there is a paragraph about a committee Young served on and this paragraph makes some sweeping accusations without a source: "This committee was created by the Florida Legislature in 1956 to investigate and intimidate civil-rights groups such as the NAACP, and went on to conduct a witch hunt against gays and lesbians in public schools, state universities, and state employment." There is a lengthy controversies section which repeatedly implies that Young did something wrong without using a source to say that it was wrong. For instance, the section on the Walter Reed scandal reads: "As chairman of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee during 2005 and 2006, Young did not call hearings or otherwise engage in active oversight on the matter." This really should be stated as: "Commentators such as x, criticized Young for not using his oversight power as chairman of ... even though he claimed to have known of the situation at the time" or something to that effect. I'm also concerned that the ratio of information about controversies to information about his record is quite high.
FWIW I am not a Republican. GabrielF ( talk) 22:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Shannon Wheeler ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I would like to ask for two points of information to be removed from this article: - "Shannon Wheeler grew up in the 1960s in Berkeley, California.[1]" This is not correct. Wheeler was born in 1966 and for the rest of that decade, lived in Texas, until moving back to Berkeley at the age of four. - "As of March 2010, Wheeler lived in Portland, Oregon, and had twin sons then 12 years old.[1]" We would like to avoid direct references to the children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamdao22 ( talk • contribs) 10:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
David Axelrod ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Before I break 3RR even more, can I ask another editor to take a look at the unreferenced edits that 67.86.0.20 has repeatedly inserted here [1], here [2], here [3], here [4] and here [5]. There has been no discussion on the talk page, and no response to queries in edit summaries or on their talk page. -- Deadly∀ssassin 02:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Quan (rapper) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
To whom this may concern my name is Clifford Peacock, better known as the rapper/singer QUAN aka DONFERQUAN I'm honored to be apart of your historic site, and I'm thankful someone has taken the time to attempt to keep up with my career. There are some corrections that must be made . and I would like to prove my identity so that we can make those changes. (Redacted)
i go by Quan ...thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifford peacock ( talk • contribs) 15:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Étienne Tshisekedi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article is not neutral. The information is highly biased, especially as one reads on in the article. I noticed that it recently underwent a lot of heavy editing, and this is likely why. Given that this person is a political figure and running for a coming election, this bias is not surprising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarewen ( talk • contribs) 08:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Dear Sirs,
Further to our 2 emails we sent to "info-en-q@wikimedia.org" complaining about the validity and neutrality of the content published on your website regarding the biography of Etienne Tshisekedi, we were very disappointed for not receiving any response to our request.
As we wanted to follow all procedures as stated in your terms and conditions in regards to changes which are not minor and failure of response as mentioned here above, we decided to correct these damaging affirmations on the biography of Mr Etienne Tshekedi.
Our concern, except cables from wikileak, is that the content published by Mattgirling ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mattgirling), one of your Administrator on the person of Etienne Tshisekedi contain defamatory information and its sources are biased and not legally reliable; for instance the quote used about the assassination of the First Prime Minister of the Democratic Republic of Congo Mr Patrice Emery Lumumba.
The delibarate choice of the Editor not to mention the political and life struggle of Etienne Tshisekedi.
We will indeed be happy to see readers not being misled as it is the main aim of Wikipedia to provide non biased and also trustworthy information.
We sent our reaction to the editor notifying him about the character of his changes.
We hope and trust that you response to this dispute will help really readers to have correct information from your website.
Kind regards
Alain Kabuika — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorUd ( talk • contribs) 19:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
The bit about him being involved in the Lumuumba killing was iffy (cite did not appear to support wording) so I went to the New York Times for what appears to be a reliably sourced claim. Collect ( talk) 20:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
(Undent) The article has now been overhauled. Thanks to User:Collect and User:Mattgirling for the help. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 05:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Journal of Cosmology ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is the usage of the blog Pharyngula ok to source this statement? "it isn't a real science journal at all, but is the ginned-up website of a small group of crank academics" I believe this is an attack on a BLP although no names are mentioned. So is the blog OK to use to call the editors of a journal "Cranks" Darkness Shines ( talk) 20:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I removed the section on Gohmert's comments on Obama policies towards the Middle East. As far as I've research this only has been referenced to on Talking Points Memo which is a web-based political journalism organization created and run by Josh Marshall, journalist and historian covering issues from a "politically left perspective," The other references in Google are also all from left-wing blogs. http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=louie+gohmert+islamic+caliphate&pbx=1&oq=louie+gohmert+islamic+caliphate&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=570l6454l0l6744l29l21l1l4l4l0l314l2410l5.9.2.1l21l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=ff4e2b09f4e053ae&biw=1152&bih=584 From what I have seen all the referrals to this quote are attributed to left wing sources promoting a point of view. The source who put this cited CSPAN directly, not what should be cited if this was truly a controversy. In the mainstream media for instance it doesn't look like this actually caused much controversy. The other two incidents are more cited in the news media. For instance, the Terror Babies incident should indeed be kept in because it was widely covered in the news. The college of fine arts director incident was also not covered widely outside of one story on CNN and again on the website Talking Points Memo so I am not sure if it should be included because it also did not cause controversy. I have read the guidelines for reliable sources and the context of the, and the guidelines on controversy and I am not sure if these fit the context to be included. Just opening up the discussion. --Andy0093 (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Controversial_articles I forgot to add. I don't know if these comments belong here and were controversial just because they enflamed one side of the political aisle. Article related to other figures like Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, Eric Cantor and Steny Hoyer do not have a controversies section even though I am sure one side could carve one out with the hundreds of floor speeches these people have given. --Andy0093 (talk) 22:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore the article has continuously been stopped from being edited by a ip user. He has been using three IP address 99.168.72.86, 75.60.185.120, 75.60.186.187 and two user names Jdblack326 and Johnnyb.3261. The IP addresses all trace back to Columbus, Ohio and have the edits are all revert attempts to edit and a section in the article entitled "Implication Obama is complicit in creating a Islamic Caliphate." He seems to have now made an account Johnnyb.3261 after being warned about being blocked. He has refused to engage in the talkpage rather. He has reverted any attempt to modify this section or put in perspective changing the article back a total of at least 11 times with the edit summary (These statements, accurately reflected in the heading, attracted national attention and are historically significant as example of the type of inflammatory rhetoric that has been employed in the 112th Congress along with hate speech against the Presi)
-- Andy0093 ( talk) 00:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
For two weeks, Kumkwat ( talk · contribs) has constantly removing information about Collins and Tyler dating despite multiple warnings not to do so ( [10]). With the situation continuing, I am taking this discussion here to see if others can voice their opinions on this matter. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 02:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Darlton Newton Kenton. Chef and author of three published books. Was raised and educated in, Jamaica. He has been writing poetry since the age of nineteen. Kenton trained at the Culinary Institute of America. He is also the owner of DNK Catering Services LLC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darltonk ( talk • contribs) 03:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
This page currently includes the following line in the section titled 'Life After Boxing': "Currently Frequents Vic's place and enjoys the drink." This seems slightly cruel and libelous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wlkrryan ( talk • contribs) 06:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Herbert Mataré ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
According to User:Wikinaut ( talk) Herbert Mataré died on September 2. I did not find any reference yet, but he has send a copy of the death card to OTRS: "Dem Support-Team liegt unter Ticket:2011092210019198 ein Scan der Todesanzeige vor". Can somebody check this OTRS ticket and confirm that this enough to allow the update of his article, till the official reference is available? -- SchreyP ( messages) 18:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Eron Falbo ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article does not meet any criteria for notability, it does not use any reliable sources (according to Wikipedia's definition) and it sounds like advertising. It sounds very much like the person himself, or someone very close to the subject, has written it. This article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.15.133 ( talk) 16:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Marko Attila Hoare ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I don't know if this is the right place to report it, but I'm concerned about this academic's biography because the negatively worded lead is entirely sourced from a rather obscure web site. Have mörser, will travel ( talk) 22:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I hardly have any expertise in the subject matter, so it may be appropriate to describe him like that, but the source seems rather questionable. Have mörser, will travel ( talk) 22:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Done -- —
Keithbob •
Talk •
15:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Louie Gohmert ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Now that the page has been locked. Can the community offer their opinions as well. I've made my views on the section known but will put it again below. This is the history behind the dispute.
I removed the section on Gohmert's comments on Obama policies towards the Middle East. As far as I've research this only has been referenced to on Talking Points Memo which is a web-based political journalism organization created and run by Josh Marshall, journalist and historian covering issues from a "politically left perspective," The other references in Google are also all from left-wing blogs. http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=louie+gohmert+islamic+caliphate&pbx=1&oq=louie+gohmert+islamic+caliphate&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=570l6454l0l6744l29l21l1l4l4l0l314l2410l5.9.2.1l21l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=ff4e2b09f4e053ae&biw=1152&bih=584 From what I have seen all the referrals to this quote are attributed to left wing sources promoting a point of view. The source who put this cited CSPAN directly, not what should be cited if this was truly a controversy. In the mainstream media for instance it doesn't look like this actually caused much controversy. The other two incidents are more cited in the news media. For instance, the Terror Babies incident should indeed be kept in because it was widely covered in the news. The college of fine arts director incident was also not covered widely outside of one story on CNN and again on the website Talking Points Memo so I am not sure if it should be included because it also did not cause controversy. I have read the guidelines for reliable sources and the context of the, and the guidelines on controversy and I am not sure if these fit the context to be included. Just opening up the discussion. --Andy0093 (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Controversial_articles I forgot to add. I don't know if these comments belong here and were controversial just because they enflamed one side of the political aisle. Article related to other figures like Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, Eric Cantor and Steny Hoyer do not have a controversies section even though I am sure one side could carve one out with the hundreds of floor speeches these people have given. --Andy0093 (talk) 22:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Furthermore the article has continuously been stopped from being edited by a ip user. He has been using three IP address 99.168.72.86, 75.60.185.120, 75.60.186.187 and two user names Jdblack326 and Johnnyb.3261. The IP addresses all trace back to Columbus, Ohio and have the edits are all revert attempts to edit and a section in the article entitled "Implication Obama is complicit in creating a Islamic Caliphate." He seems to have now made an account Johnnyb.3261 after being warned about being blocked. He has refused to engage in the talkpage rather. He has reverted any attempt to modify this section or put in perspective changing the article back a total of at least 11 times with the edit summary (These statements, accurately reflected in the heading, attracted national attention and are historically significant as example of the type of inflammatory rhetoric that has been employed in the 112th Congress along with hate speech against the Presi) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy0093 ( talk • contribs) 01:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
José Eduardo dos Santos ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article is an important key to understanding contemporary Angola. Unfortunately few Wikipedians with a solid knowledge of the subject matter have until now been contributing. A more intense particpation would be all the more important as again and again partisan edits are made, bent on either preventing critical information from appearing in the text, or on the contrary on introducing polemical texts and/or references. It would thus be helpful if more people took part in the constant attention called for. -- Aflis ( talk) 12:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Laurence Tribe ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Serious BLP issues are raised by the subject of the article in an RfC on the talk page. Input by experienced editors would be useful. ScottyBerg ( talk) 16:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Pinball Clemons ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
For the correct record...Michael Clemons nickname "Pinball" came from guest Running Back coach Tom Cudney, NOT, Bob O'Billovich!!! Here's exactly how it originated...
In 1989 at the Toronto Argonauts training camp @ the University of Guelph after every practice, all the coaches would gather in a room to review and discuss the most recent practice and player performance. Each coach was asked by Bob O'Billovich, "What players looked good and who stood out"?! I (Tom Cudney) said, "...Michael Clemons is like a little 'Pinball'! He hits, spins and bounces. He's very difficult to tackle". That evening a sports reporter from a Toronto TV network (City TV-?)interviewed, then Head Coach Bob O'Billovich. During that interview, Bob was asked who looks good in camp, part of his response was that "...Michael Clemons is like a "Pinball" out there. The rest maybe history and yes, Michael "Pinball" Clemons earned his own merit and acclaim, but for the true record...Bob O'Billovich did not orignate the nickname "Pinball" for Michael Clemons, ...Tom Cudney did!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.59.229.122 ( talk) 17:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Scott Ritter ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Currently, the lead at Scott Ritter is 50% devoted to discussing sexual misconduct. The article's body is more around 15% devoted to sexual misconduct. The sexual stuff is not related to his notability. I can see having a sentence in the lead, but I guess an argument could be made it doesn't belong at all. Should the lead mention the sexual stuff? Jesanj ( talk) 21:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Lacey Sturm ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User:Lauren3333 repeatedly adding material from the subject's website, http://laceymosley.com/. Some is paraphrased, some is just directly copied. Have left several messages on editor's page. I'm at my WP:3RR limit and require some additional support in explaining the problem of copyright violations to the editor. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 23:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
[11] has been strenuously objected to as an edit on that BLP. In point of fact, however, I think more eyes would benefit this article where even tepid criticism of the person seems to run afoul of WP:BLP as a matter of course. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 17:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Nicolas Berggruen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Reviewing the talk page shows that Bioplus ( talk · contribs) clearly has an axe to grind against Nicolas Berggruen. Bioplus insists on using his own extrapolation to describe the subject pejoratively as a party animal, without any sources supporting his claim, and now 86.173.211.194 ( talk · contribs) is adding the same material, which absolutely quacks WP:DUCK to me. WilliamH ( talk) 18:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
This article is about Charles Kushner. Two editors concerned with Wilda Diaz, a peripheral character in the article, are editwarring. I've tried to fix BLP probs about Kushner, but their "bleed-over" editwarring on Kushner is getting worse. 3RR doesn't apply to BLPs, but editwarring does. So I'm looking for a BLP admin to look over the article, talk page and, most especially, edit history and counsel all three of us. I think I'm within poicy but it's starting to feel like I'm becoming an inadvertant party to an editwar from another page, so admonish me, too, If I'm wrong. David in DC ( talk) 11:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Done Collect went in and cleand-up the vandalism, still worth keeping an eye on, but in current status its ok.---
Balloonman
Poppa Balloon 18:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
In the 1st paragraph of this article she is referred to as an "old hag". It appears that the article has been edited to not be neutral about "liberal" thought, and seems negative against liberals instead of being neutral as should be. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Turner200 (
talk •
contribs)
14:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Done Collect already went into this article and cleaned up the POV.---
Balloonman
Poppa Balloon
18:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Makes disparaging comments about Diane Rehm, including calling her an "old hag":
Under the heading "Personal Life," the writer says "She espouses liberal viewpoints, which allows her to continue to broadcast on NPR despite the availability of better broadcasters. NPR has a liberal tilt that is so bad that they continue to let this old hag broadcast."
This is definitely violates your biographies of living persons policy and needs to be deleted immediately.
Lisa Dunn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.9.134.38 ( talk) 14:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Larry M. Walker (b.1935) is an American artist living and working in Georgia, USA. A 1952 graduate of the High School of Music and Art in Manhattan.
The baseball player Larry Walker is incorrectly cited as a fine arts graduate of the Fiorello H. LaGaurdia High School of Music, Art and the Performing arts. [1]
Larry Walker is a recipient of numerous awards and recognitions and was Director of the Georgia State University School of Art and design from 1983-1993 [2]. [3]
There is not at present a Wikipedia biography for the artist, however there is for his daughter, the American artist Kara Walker
[4]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kara_Walker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.249.217 ( talk • contribs)
Christopher Stasheff ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An admin advised me that I might want to bring up this subject here, for my own education at least. It's a BLP of an author with, as far as I can tell, no known sources which meet Notability for Creative professionals. I'm interested in the general principle of voting "keep" on deletion discussions based on the intuition that RS establishing notability ought to exist, but with no such sources actually known. Maybe we ought to have a principle in policy that if no RS are found during a deletion discussion, the article shouldn't be kept? Be——Critical__ Talk 20:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Independent sources added. -- Jezebel'sPonyo bons mots 21:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
He's the author of 44 novels [12] published by the likes of Random House [13] and Macmillan Publishers [14]. That ain't hay. -- GRuban ( talk) 21:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Nancy Dell'Olio ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Not that I don't appreciate the often sarcastic and acerbic tone of this article--I'd be lying if I said I didn't--but I'm pretty sure this is not the way a Wikipedia biographical article should read. I almost don't want to see it go, I wish there was a section for more opinionated columns or something, but I appreciate what Wikipedia has offered me over the years too much and I'd hate to see this type of material coverage become a norm. I come to Wikipedia to get a good base of understanding from which to form my own opinions, not have them made for me. This is why I'm reporting this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NGH2 ( talk • contribs) 00:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Leon Bright ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
You have Leon listed as a Running Back with the CFL BC Lions. Leon was actually a Wide Receiver. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcsportsfan ( talk • contribs) 00:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Subject was brought into the priesthood by the Legion of Christ organization, and appears to have held a position of some authority within it. A defender of the subject keeps removing that information from the article, since the association with the now-discredited Marcial Maciel does not reflect well upon Morris. I tried to find a good NPOV way of putting the information in, but was reverted by the defender/ "owner". -- Orange Mike | Talk 13:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Rachel Blanchard ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article is persistently altered by a stalker who claims that she is married with two children, when this is not the case in any way. The most recent alteration can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Rachel_Blanchard&action=historysubmit&diff=452371471&oldid=447935989 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.85.84 ( talk) 04:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Angus & Julia Stone ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject, rather than references from independent authors and third-party publications. Please add citations from reliable sources. (June 2008)
Hi there, I've been trying to "clean up" the citations and sources for this article since last week. I do not think the comment tagged at the top of the article is still current or relevant to the case. So far all the sources I've reviewed seem reliable and it would help if you could please give examples of specific sources you do not think are credible. I'm a big fan of Angus & Julia Stone and would love to have an accurate account of their life/biography, but also recognise the fact that a banner such as this reflects upon the article in a negative light.
Thanks very much for any help/advice, Su-Yin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suyinchan ( talk • contribs) 10:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the names of individuals stated in this article, which are unreferenced - and without appropriate verification - in terms of "presumption in favor of privacy", the NPF policy and other aspects of BLP. However, it is only a list of names - I'm not saying that there is anything that might adversely affect a person's reputation. In such cases, when individuals are named on an article with no supporting references - should they be removed pending a reference? Or, would that be too heavy-handed? Chzz ► 20:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Animal_X_(band) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Article 'animal x (band) is about a music band from the country of romania. Please consider it is not a living person. It got me confused expression wikipedia:biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.. should it not tagg articles for living characters in the band?
Gudrun Schyman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm Swedish, and thus have a lot more sources availible than the average wikipedian with regards to the subject. Still, this was (is) a mess of such proportions that I don't think I can fix it. Maybe crowdsourcing it here can make it less headache-inducing. Good grief.
Kent Desormeaux ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I changed the subject's last name to reflect spelling according to his own website, but the user Materialscientist is claiming - in contradiction to Wikipedia's own rules - that this is not considered a reliable source.
cur | prev) 23:45, 23 September 2011 Materialscientist (talk | contribs) (10,586 bytes) (rvt: see your talk page; (i) keep reference names; (ii) provide reliable sources (his webpage is not) - all other sources don't capitalize O) (undo) (cur | prev) 23:28, 23 September 2011 72.179.5.17 (talk) (10,586 bytes) (I have capitalized the "O" in DesOrmeaux's last name to accurately reflect the French spelling as it is used on Kent's own website: http://www.kentdesormeaux.com/) (undo) (Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism) (cur | prev) 08:55, 23 September 2011 Materialscientist (talk | contribs) m (10,586 bytes) (Filling in 3 references using Reflinks | fixed dashes using a script) (undo) (cur | prev) 08:49, 23 September 2011 Materialscientist (talk | contribs) m (10,270 bytes) (Reverted edits by 72.179.5.17 (talk) to last version by 69.204.185.42) (undo) (cur | prev) 08:09, 23 September 2011 72.179.5.17 (talk) (10,270 bytes) (undo) (Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism) (cur | prev) 08:00, 23 September 2011 72.179.5.17 (talk) (10,270 bytes) (→Brief biography) (undo)
Unfortunately, such cases are not that easy. Even if your changes were 100% correct, the references must keep the name of the sources, that is mass substitution is not a solution We go by reliable sources, and do not consider the subject (Kent DesOrmeaux himself and his website) as such, and this is the real problem. In other words, we do not support the idea that anyone can suddenly decide how he/she wants to be called - we look at how most of the (English-speaking, as this is English wiki) world calls him/her. Countering a mistake, which was propagated by multiple reliable sources, is a difficult task. Surely, providing government sources can do that. Otherwise, we can say that he is called both DesOrmeaux and Desormeaux (without saying what is "correct"), but we need reliable sources for DesOrmeaux. Materialscientist (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Are you asserting that wikipedia is a reliable source from which to learn how "DesOrmeaux" is properly punctuated, but asking an individual with that surname how it is punctuated is NOT a reliable source? Kent DesOrmeaux did not suddenly decide how he wants to be called. If the individual's website is not reliable, then what might be considered reliable so that I can prove to you that the correct spelling of this man's name is "DesOrmeaux" and help to improve the accuracy of wikipedia and diminish this website's reputation for propagating false information. Would a phone book be a reliable source? I could also provide a birth certificate; most people consider birth certificates to be valid. I hope you will deem it as valid as wikipedia! If not, then it is disappointing, to say the least, that a wikipedia patroller will accept the propagation of false information acceptable because overcoming the "red tape" that you describe makes presenting accurate information a "difficult task."
Please try to understand the problem. I didn't say it is easy. We trust reliable sources, that they checked the spelling before publishing it. There is no easy way around (to sort out rumors/hype/etc., which is what we mostly get from such situations). We are not supposed to analyze the sources, but sometimes (in such cases, for example) we get into it. We need alternative reliable sources to start doing that (at least to present alternative spellings). We can't analyze ID, birth certificates, and such - a third party can, and they can publish information based on such sources, which we can use then. Note, that generally, what a person says about himself/herself is not a reliable source, unless verified by reliable third parties - there could be dozens of reasons for tweaking personal bio details, obvious and non-obvious. Materialscientist (talk) 03:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
You are quite plainly asserting that an individual does not determine his or her name, but that journalists are the entities responsible for naming an individual. This is ludicrous to anyone who cares about the accuracy of knowledge, and this is exactly why Wikipedia is never trusted as a reliable source for any level of scholarly paper, from the college freshmen level and beyond. If consistency to the source is of primary importance, then why is the “O” not capitalized in the link to Kent’s own website? “Note, that generally, what a person says about himself/herself is not a reliable source, unless verified by reliable third parties.” What is your own reliable source for this statement? I made changes to reflect biographical accuracy in accordance with an individual’s website, and then you changed my corrections based solely on your own opinion that this is “unreliable.” Can you site the peer-reviewed journal article that proved that what people say about themselves is unreliable? Wikipedia approves Kent DesOrmeaux's website as a reliable source of information about him: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). This is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.5.17 ( talk) 19:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Many people with the surname "DesOrmeaux" capitalize the "O." This is nothing like adding an exclamation point in one's name. The reason the "O" is capitalized is because these are two different French words combined into one surname. ("des" means "from" - "orme" means "elm") There are other French surnames used in the United States that capitalize letters in the center of the name. A few example are LeBlanc, LeFleur, and LeDoux. Here are a few reliable sources which demonstrate that many individuals with this surname capitalize the "O," including Kent DesOrmeaux, according to his own website. ESPN: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/columns/story?columnist=hays_graham&id=4433796 Louisiana State University: http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-04112007-094810/ The DesOrmeaux Foundation: http://desormeauxfoundation.com/ The Roman Catholic Church: http://www.stmarymagdalenparish.org/parish-staff And though I don't consider wikipedia reliable, perhaps in this case it will consider itself reliable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wade_DesArmo (It seems to me Wade probably got pretty exhausted with explaining his name to people.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.5.17 ( talk) 02:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Some of you describe this as overreacting. I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall to try to convince you that the "O" is capitalized even though a quick google search does not confirm what I'm trying to teach you. I'm sure Kent also became exhausted with correcting people, which perhaps began the propagation of spelling his name "Desormeaux" in the mass media. 72.179.5.17 ( talk) 02:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
There is an unresolved problem with the article for Mem Fox. Mem Fox is an Australian children's author whose husband has been convicted this year for underage homosexual sex with one of his school students. This case has had notoriety and has been followed closely on Australian television and in national papers. Mem is a very well known children's author who published her last book in April 2011. She is most notable for writing Possum Magic. She is also a public persona - a few years ago she was all across the Australian media for equating child care for young children with child abuse.
The article in question is well established and includes plenty of other biographical detail. I feel there is no bias in including the fact of her husband's conviction. However there has been a small number of editors who feel it should not be referred too at all. Their argument, as I understand it, is that 1) Mem played no direct role in his crime, and therefore it is not relevant to her biography 2) if it were to be included on Wikipedia it should be on a Malcolm Fox page (ie husband’s own page – though clearly he is not notable for anything other than his being married to Mem and the above crime).
The issue is her husband is convicted and it is a notable feature of her personal life. Mem has stood by her husband, with many photos and TV footage published of her attending his court appointments. Unsavoury, yes, but it is worth a line in her biography. I think it is Wikipedia should not be about “tasteful” censorship, or exclusion of public, third party reported information.
I'd be grateful for wise heads to consider the discussion above and give some guidance. The editors involved have fairly fixed positions and I think we agree resolution is unlikely despite polite talk-page discussion for some weeks.ROxBo 10:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Can no one add an independent comment?ROxBo 10:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Dennis Ross. This article could use some looking at. A lot of it goes on and on about negotiations that he took part in, so that that material overwhelms any personal information about the man himself. BigJim707 ( talk) 20:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
This person is only notable for one thing. As of today, this person is likely to remain a low-profile individual. According to rule BLP1E, this person does not qualify for a Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.136.193.214 ( talk) 05:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Paula Poundstone ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Re: Talk:Paula_Poundstone#Arrest, as I have stated on the page's talk page, I reverted a part of this section because I believe it to be libellous to the subject of this article - mud sticks, and I believe that accusations of paedophilia should not be included in a BLP article unless there is some proof that the person is indeed a paedophile. The brief CNN article used as a reference in this article was about a charge which was not upheld and about which there is no specific information in the article. I am bringing this matter here so that it can be resolved properly, so I would like to hear from others on this matter. Additionally, I dare not do another undo as it appears that thos is starting to turn into an edit war, so I very regrettably leave what I strongly believe to be (at the very least potentially) libellous material in place, but I believe it should rightly be removed now, until this matter is resolved officially. -- Violet Fae ( talk) 05:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
(Untabbed for ease of reading here)Thank you, Demiurge1000, Off2riorob and Will Beback for your contributions. As 50.56.119.215 has no history on Wikipedia before now he/she certainly appears to be the same user (surely there must be a way to check this?), but the whole sock puppet issue isn't the real issue here, so I don't want to get bogged down in that.
The real issue is the BLP violation and the quite frankly uncivil and abusive tone, trying to win an argument by accusing me of covering up paedophilia (sexual acts with children - someone "younger than 14", as the user himself/herself says. As I have stated, it appears that this user is axe=grinding against this celebrity due to her sexual orientation, which for some inexplicable reason the user has a problem with, as well as with asexuality as a whole/doesn't believe they even exist, as per his/her offensive suggestion that I am "trying to cover up the fact that Poundstone possibly performed a lewd act on someone under the age of 14, in order to help preserve Poundstone's asexual identity, and the validity of an asexual identity as a whole. Because what Poundstone was charged with reinforces negative stereotypes about asexuals, such as claims that some asexuals are truly closeted homosexuals who cannot face being open about their sexual identity and/or are sexually repressed" (personally, I haven't even hear this before, and it seems rather ridiculous IMHO).
Getting back the the real issue here, I shall restate the Wikipedia BLP policy again:
"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion (this is what I did)... Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy (this is what CutOffTies/ 50.56.119.215 did)may be blocked from editing"
... "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material"
... "To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first, and wherever possible disputed deletions should be discussed first with the administrator who deleted the article". Violet Fae ( talk) 09:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
First, I'm just an editor here like you. Second, I don't revert other editors very often, certainly not for something like this. Third, my last comment on this section was to ask you to please update the talk page of the article with the current status of the BLP dispute. I ask again that you do that. Jarhed ( talk)
Paul Krugman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
As I understand the policy on avoiding self-published sources this should be removed from the article on Paul Krugman because it is based on personal self-published blog. However, one administrator reverted me twice claiming that blog post "is acceptable as a source of the expert's professional opinions regarding the issue" [20] even though WP:SELFPUBLISH explicitly says that we should "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert". Can somebody please clarify this issue? -- Vision Thing -- 20:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
content:- However, economic historian Brad Delong defended Krugman as intellectually honest, and stated that Crook failed to understand the economic argument that Krugman was making.
Basically I agree with Off2riorob here - though it should be clearly noted that there's several BLP issues here, not just regarding Paul Krugman; both Clive Crook and Brad DeLong are alive and well AFAICT. Anyway. This is what you get for opening the can of worms which is using an opinion piece (by Crook) in the first place. If that is acceptable then so are DeLong's comment on it. Of course, you could just not include Crook and there'd be no need to include DeLong (my preferred option).
Also, DeLong isn't just an "economic historian", he's an "economist" who's done some work in economic history. But his work has been far broader than just EH. Let's at least get that part right. Volunteer Marek 22:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree with O2RR. Vision Thing appears to be denigrating a living person by removing reliable sources that support that living person and overstating the case against that person. This is highly problematic behavior, and Vision Thing needs to knock it off, post-haste. Hipocrite ( talk) 17:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
David Colquhoun ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I've added more details of my scientific career myself. Please check, and, if satisfied, remove the warning that has appeared at the top of page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Colquhoun ( talk • contribs) 23:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Can we please try to avoid alienating this person. He does excellent work -- his own scientific research, and his contribution to public debates about scientific issues. The COI concerns are fine, but it would be nice if these can be dealt with without alienating him. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 06:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Anthony Bologna ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Was merged into the "pepper spray article" mentioned above - and now repeatedly re-created as a stand-alone article. Opinions thereon are solicited. Most of the worst source violations are gone, but it appears to me that this article is not proper in any case. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 12:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
update - Its been sent to AFD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Bologna ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Ina Garten ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Several editors (including myself) are attempting to include information from a recent news story about Ina Garten, where she repeatedly declined requests from the Make-A-Wish Foundation before ultimately being rejected after she reached out to the family in question. This content dispute has been active since March 2011, but recently resurfaced due to an appaearance on the Crackle.com home page. The story has been reported by the following sources: ABC News, Business Insider, Salon, TMZ, Mediaite, Slate, AOL, The Los Angeles Times, The Daily Mail, Yahoo!, E!, Huffington Post, and OK! Magaine.
Citing previous consensus, several editors have repeatedly reverted any mention of this controversy in the Ina Garten article. The reasoning behind the reverts have been violations of WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, and WP:UNDUE. The editors have questioned the reliability of the sources, and pointed out that the incident is a minor event that is not relevant to Ms. Garten's biography or career.
Arguments for inclusion cite the uncontested verifiability of the claims, as well as the reliability of the sources (LA Times, ABC News, Slate, Salon) and the well-documented coverage of the issue (including both secondary and primary sources, from Make-A-Wish and Garten's PR team). The subject of the article is well known, meaning that if the write-up of the incident is modest, and written in a disinterested tone, it would not contravene WP:BLP or WP:UNDUE.
Note: a prior posting to the BLP Noticeboard went "unresolved" here: [22], and talk page discussions have not been productive. ColorOfSuffering ( talk) 23:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Garten works extensively for a variety of causes, including battered women, cancer patients, AIDS awareness and animal rights. She supports them both financially as well as in person. Garten gets about an hundred new charity requests each month. Like most people in her position she has had to hire a PR person(s) to sort through her correspondence, field press questions, and respond to those requests. There are a lot of worthy requests she has to decline and those requests are filtered through that person(s). [5]. One of the charities she supported was the Make-A-Wish foundation:
The Make-A-Wish Foundation has a very strong working relationship with Ina Garten, a celebrity wish granter who has generously made herself available to grant a wish in the past. Ina is a good friend of the Foundation and we are grateful to her for her support of our mission.[Our charity] regards the planning of wishes as a private process among the parties involved.” From time to time, planning for wishes doesn't turn out as originally envisioned, despite people’s best intentions and efforts. In such cases, the Foundation is committed to working with the wish child and family to grant another wish.
Each wish we grant requires extensive support from many people, and we respect that no individual has an unlimited capacity to grant children’s wishes on demand.
We regard the planning of wishes as a private process among the parties involved.
— Make-A-Wish
Additionally, she is not a one-man-band. To fulfill a wish and reproduce what she does on TV, she needs to coordinate with the others that work behind the scenes.
A seriously ill 6-year old boy enjoyed watching Garten’s show with his Mom and asked to have her cook a meal for him. Garten's PR representative declined the request for the second time. The little boy, once he understood he did not need to know how to swim, decided to swim with the dolphins instead. According to the mom he was thrilled with his new choice. She saw Garten as snubbing the family rather than her having work commitments and being asked 1200 times a year asking for her involvement making it impossible to fulfill all the demands. The gossip site TMZ then posted their story The reaction to that event was described in CBS’s Chow website, under the title “The High-Tech Smearing of Ina Garten” as an online lynching. TMZ did not report
All these distortions would have made anyone look bad.
At the start of the weekend, an LA Times gossip blog entry echoed the TMZ story but warned readers there was another side to the story still to be told. Sure enough, she did respond on Monday. On March 29th, that same gossip blog issued a more balanced entry, titled “Barefoot Contessa Ina Garten was unaware of request, but will now host her young fan”. It reported that Ina Garten had finally heard of the request that her PR person had turned down. By that time, the mother had published on her blog an entry titled “PLEASE STOP THE MADNESS” (the title was in all-caps). The parents were still angry at Garten.
You need to ask yourself why this cyber-lynching was beneath Fox News, CNN, network news such as NBC, CBS, Fox, ABC. It was beneath the New York Times, Wall Street Journal --even People Magazine. It was covered by a mostly-unseen ABC property called “ABC News Now “ for 36 seconds. In my highly-populated area, Comcast doesn’t carry it in my area. Time-Warner in NYC doesn’t show it. Has any editor seen “The Buzz” before a Google search uncovered it. It is the equivalent of the minor leagues in baseball. It recycles ABC broadcasts already seen on TV and some additional 36 second hamburger-helper to fill a 24-hour news hole. Not worth a second of time even though the morning shows need to fill 3,000 hours on the 4 morning shows alone.
Here is Ms. Marikar's article from http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/barefoot-contessa-turns-make-kid/story?id=13238578
SHEILA MARIKAR (@SheilaYM) March 28, 2011 “ABC News Now” “The Buzz”
The "Barefoot Contessa" has time to star in her Food Network show, pen cookbooks, and cook at charity luncheons for her well-to-do fans. But apparently, her schedule was too packed to meet a 6-year-old boy stricken with leukemia who requested a cooking session with her through the Make-A-Wish Foundation. She turned him down, twice.
Just In this introduction, she is actually giving reasons why Garten really is so busy and twists them into reasons she should have plenty of time. Even a charity event that raised money to preserve America’s early history(including a farm dating from 1640) becomes framed as a way to hang out with richy-rich friends. She downplays her making time for a stricken kid before so she did make time to meet with a stricken child. She neglects to mention her other charitable activities. If “ABC World News” is the major leagues (New York Yankees) and the middle-of-the-night “World News Now” is the minor league , “ABC News Now” is in whatever league goes beneath that one. “ABC News Now” is not the same as “World News Now” (which is broadcast). How many editors have seen “The Buzz” on “ABC News Now” before it being brought to your attention by an editor here? How did he discover it?
In my years on the net, this is the first time I have ever seen a comment from a journalist appear after an article: Ms. Marikar, the highly-biased angle you took in this article made it hard for me to read as a fellow journalist. It's completely understandable that a celebrity chef of Garten's magnitude would not be able to grant every appearance and favor asked of her. Now—of course she's dealing with a PR crisis, but only because it was created for her by journalists like you who are looking for the next juicy celebrity scoop. “Charmingsnob”, March 28th It is a manufactured event. Why do you prefer her judgment over the rest of ABC News that did not publish the gossip? Re: Salon link you provided, they said
Hey, what do facts matter when there's an opportunity for a good old-fashioned character thrashing? Who cares, even, if it's at the expense of the alleged victim? Haven't been angry enough yet today, Internet? Take it out on Ina, let the facts and Enzo's family's feelings be damned.
I guess they agree with me.
Other blogs also see this as a cyber-lynching: http://www.etiquettehell.com/smf/index.php?PHPSESSID=4717276e164989b9a47f4f4479f6580b&topic=92605.0
Why do you prefer OK magazine over People? And OK magazine publishes lies on its front cover such as OK Rob Pattinson marries Kristen Stewart. Never saw People do that.
-- Javaweb ( talk) 00:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)Javaweb
I agree, this edit is incredibly unweighty. I would propose a more modest, balanced approach to including the content. ColorOfSuffering ( talk) 22:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
John Fleming (U.S. politician) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Requesting eyes on this article. It appears to be devolving into some ugliness. Thank you. - Philippe 13:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
How does this statement merit any citation on Fleming's bio? "Fleming's comments were widely reported and criticized, including by bloggers who portrayed him as out of touch with the difficulties of lower-income Americans." Is it noteworthy how bloggers portrayed Fleming? They could have portrayed Fleming to be a bunny rabbit, but that would not make him one. Fleming's comments were in the context of the impact of higher taxes on jobs produced by his companies, not a complaint that he would not have money to feed his family as portrayed by bloggers. Again, there is no reason for this rubbish to be posted as fact. Politics555 ( talk) 04:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Pepper spraying of the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article is about a New York City police deputy inspector who has gained notoriety for pepper-spraying demonstrators. Does this meet the criteria for attack page? I lean in that direction. Experienced BLP hands should take a look at this one. It is proposed for merger, but I wonder if deletion is warranted. ScottyBerg ( talk) 17:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Bologna ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
No matter how you look at it, the article is a mess, using videos and obvious non-RS sources to make attacks on a police officer, who is not even named in some of the sources. A good broom would reduce the article to under a hndred words max. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 22:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I am edit warring with a single A single purpose account User:PromiseOfNY - about this - I am in danger of getting blocked. I am not going to edit it again in the nest couple of days. Off2riorob ( talk) 22:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we now have an editor (and not an IP or single purpose account) adding unacceptable original research and WP:SYNTHESIS to the article, despite a discussion on the Talk page pointing that out. After being pushed for a reliable source in support of calling a New York Police Department spokesperson a liar, he is now citing to this, hardly what I would use as a reliable source for such an assertion. It's all based on various organizations analyzing the videos and coming to various conclusions. And the source that the editor cites in turn cites to a blog. The whole thing is unacceptable for Wikipedia. The editor is even putting the word "lie" in his edit summary. I will revert one more time and then I will stop because of edit-warring issues.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, everyone. No notice of this secret discussion was posted to the article itself or mentioned on the article's talk page, where the overwhelming consensus was not to delete or redirect the article. Accordingly, this unilateral redirection of the web page, and the deletion of the majority of the biographical data about its subject, a high-ranking government official who has been widely noted in the media for his participation in multiple events, would appear to have been done in willful disregard of the established consensus of people who participated in discussions that were actually linked to on the page for that page's readers and editors to actually see and have a reasonable likelihood of participating in. Accordingly, I respectfully request that we agree to restore the page, and to post notice of this discussion on the talk page before moving it in violation of the consensus that was established in the multiple discussions that were actually linked to by that page. Obviously, if, subsequent to that, a consensus emerges that the subject is not worthy of his own Wikipedia page, a redirect would, of course, be appropriate. PromiseOfNY ( talk) 00:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't disagree with the proposition that this article should be deleted, and this was the inevitable result of the decision to change the article about Officer Bologna into an article focused solely on his involvement in the pepper spraying incident, which willfully ignored the consensus on the discussion pages of both the Anthony Bologna article and the Occupy Wall Street article. The deletion of that article, it seems to me, ought, ultimately, to be read as a rejection of the decision to remove the original Anthony Bologna article and redirect it to this one.
Look, I know that I come off as having strong feelings about this, but that isn't the same thing as having a bias, unless you want to say that I have bias against nonviolent protesters being maced without provocation. And, while I'd never put a statement that blunt in an article, I have seen these videos, and I do have an opinion about what they show, and that's what I think they show, and that's what a lot of people, all over the world, think those videos show, including some major news publications. The UK Guardian published this description beneath a still from the video "A still frame from video posted online shows Anthony Bologna, a New York police officer, firing pepper spray at retreating protesters on Saturday" ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/sep/28/occupy-wall-street-anthony-bologna?newsfeed=true). The New York Times describes the events pictured in the video this way, "In one video, Inspector Bologna walks up to a group of women standing on the sidewalk behind some orange netting, squirts pepper spray at them and walks away. In interviews, two of those women said that they had received no warning before being sprayed and that its use was unprovoked." ( http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/28/police-department-to-examine-pepper-spray-incident/) The Atlantic Monthly published this description of the video: "He walks up; unprovoked he shoots Mace or pepper spray straight into the eyes of women held inside a police enclosure; he turns and walks away quickly (as they scream, wail, and fall to the ground clawing at their eyes) in a way familiar from hitmen in crime movies; and he discreetly reholsters his spray can." ( http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/09/an-important-video-to-watch-pepper-spray-by-a-cruel-and-cowardly-nyc-cop/245629/). I have yet to hear any kind of credible explanation to the contrary. Can anyone of you look at these videos and suggest a contrary interpretation of what the videos show?
I'd think it was a pretty big deal if it happened in China or Pakistan or Iran or Cuba. The fact that it happened in the United States, in New York City (where I happen to live), is, quite frankly, astonishing, and, to make an understatement, it is newsworthy and historically significant. And, as it turns out, Bologna was an extremely high-ranking official, who was frequently in the news prior to this event, and had been repeatedly profiled in the local media even before this event, and was previously absent from Wikipedia only because of Wikipedia's institutional bias to focus on entertainment and academic figures, while neglecting local political officials, even in places like New York City.
Is this an unacceptable bias of mine, that I think that it's a bad thing for the police to pepper spray young women in the face when they are demonstrating peacefully on a public sidewalk? Did the article not give enough space to the point of view of people who think that it's a good thing for police to do that, and that police officers should be able to pepper spray whoever they want to without being held accountable? Is that what this debate is, between Wikipedia editors who think nonviolent protesters shouldn't be sprayed in the eyes with pepper spray, and others who think they should be?
I, and virtually all of the other editors to work on the piece bent over backwards to be more than fair to Bologna, including the justifications offered by the police (no matter how absurd they might have seemed to me), praise for Bologna unrelated to this incident, and a thorough recounting of his government service. I don't know how anyone can call this a hit job. In light of the press attention lately given to his role in allegedly committing civil rights violations during the 2004 Republican National Convention, in addition to the positive profiles he has previously received in the local press, it is simply not plausible to say that he is famous only for his participation in a single event.
I don't want to accuse any editor here of anything. But given my experience in dealing with the many arbitrary edits I have seen to this article, there is a real bias out there in favor of NOT holding public officials accountable for their actions and trying to prevent the public from learning truthful, significant, and newsworthy information about high-ranking public officials. I don't know any other way to look at the situation. Rules that were put in place to prevent libel and to prevent people from being attacked unfairly are, in my opinion, being misused, and turned upside-down to cover up truthful reporting and protect public officials from public scrutiny. I see objectors skittering from one excuse to another to prevent people from learning more about this very famous man, claiming (in discussions that were held in places actually announced on the article, where people might actually see them) that Bologna was famous for only one event, that he wasn't famous enough, and that the page was an attack piece. Claims were made that the article had duplicative sources, and those sources were removed; then claims followed that the article was unreliable because it didn't have enough credible sources. And when each one of these claims, one after the next, was rebutted and almost unanimously rejected, one editor comes along and ignores those discussions entirely, and unilaterally deletes the page, creating a mockery of it that is so obviously not a proper subject for a Wikipedia page that it is naturally doomed to be destroyed.
Something is very wrong with the way this was done. And I hope the irony is not lost on all of you that the protesters this man pepper-sprayed were marching to bring attention to the fact that those in power are not held accountable.
Since the present discussion is about the new page that this editor created, and not about the Anthony Bologna bio page, and since no one here has objected to my recreating the Anthony Bologna page, I'm going to go ahead and recreate the Anthony Bologna page in a way that I'm sure you will all find acceptable, which won't mention this incident, except to link to another Wikipedia page discussing it. If you have any objections to this, kindly either post them on the discussion page, or post a notice to where your discussion is being held on the main article page.
PromiseOfNY ( talk) 18:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
That is simply an absurd position to take, in light of the nearly 40,000 web pages that discuss Anthony Bologna, and the more than 1.6 million that include the phrases "occupy wall street" and "pepper spray" (in quotes), with of the top google results for both searches all coming from major media outlets. Regardless, it is in willful violation of the clear consensus on the only talk pages that readers and editors of that page were actually notified about. If you do object, then kindly take your objections to that page. Your position--correct me if I'm wrong--seems to be that there should be no Anthony Bologna page, and there should also be no discussion of whether that page should exist with notice of that discussion posted on the page itself, and that you will willfully ignore the consensus established in discussions that readers and editors have actually posted on the talk page and other forums actually linked-to from the article, because you're entitled to make these decisions unilaterally. Is that a correct summary of your position? I hope not, because, if so, your position is in violation of Wikipedia's policies. PromiseOfNY ( talk) 21:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Jean-Philippe de Lespinay ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
We have French opponents very agressive. Each day, or almost, they are vandalizing our page and attack us. They are French computer scientists and the Jean-Philippe de Lespinay invention is a technique that allows to program without computer scientists... That's why they want to remove the article. They are well placed to know that this invention is real and indisputable, with sources real and indisputable, so they never criticize them. They do not propose improvement of the text, they act to achieve the suppression. They use a method that succeeded with WP fr (for now, because we will request arbitration): denigration by a group of boyfriends. As we are only four contributors, fight is unequal. We are accused of bad faith, bias and forbidden to defend ourselves.
These people are fully aware of the inner workings of Wikipedia, not us. They install various kinds of banners, without explaination, restoring them when we delete. They remove half of a section of our article and seven references. They attack members who defend us : "The [Sockpuppet investigation] could now be completed with User:Pat Grenier (why Pat Grenier AND Pat grenier ?), User:90.54.117.217 and User:Chris project --Rigoureux (talk) 10:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)". They continually refuse constructive discussion, never expose ONE argument against the contents of our article and never explain why our work is assumed not to obey the WP rules. In WP fr, they asked for "a few" references proving Lespinay's notoriety. We provided a list of 80 references, most were photocopies of newspaper articles, the others were links to independent websites. Then they are lying in the discussion page of our WP eng article: "39 "page cannot be found", 3 other access errors, 11 written by Lespinay, 6, including an ad, have a passing mention of either Lespinay or his business, 12 have one to three sentences about Lespinay and/or his business, but were not considered convincing for some reason, 2 press articles mention maïeutique, in its common sense but not as a formal method, in the context of Lespinay and his business". It is a risky approach because it is enough that we give you this list and you'll realize they are trying to mislead the reader WP.
Between 1986 and 2010, there were several hundreds of newspaper articles and Tv or Radio emissions referring to JP de Lespinay, his inventions and his reasoning expert systems installations in big companies. It is easy to check. The 80 references list is only what JP de Lespinay found himself and saved.
In conclusion, Pgr94, the "Administrator specialist of intervention against vandalism", doesn't intervene against vandalism of our article. And we suffer... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pat grenier ( talk • contribs) 00:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
long list of related references for investigation
|
---|
|
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)