![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Yves Béhar ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I have added many citations to the article after receiving word that it was deemed unreliable. How do I have it re-checked so the notice at the top of the page can be removed? Are the citations I used in line with what Wikipedia needs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurenb700 ( talk • contribs) 22:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
What do you think? Do they pass WP:V and WP:RS? I wouldn't add the content about arrest back into article, unless people approve. I might add sources into "Further reading". -- George Ho ( talk) 00:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Mike Gordon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In the section "Arrested and Charges Cleared," the following is written:
<offending material redacted> The entire last bit about 2011 is not true, or at least not able to be backed up by anything. This section needs to be heavily revised and corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.36.235.4 ( talk) 14:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Final line in Tom Sizemore article claims he has been sentenced to life in prison [redacted]. I can't seem to find anything on the internet to corroborate this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.78.19 ( talk) 20:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Cory Burnell ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Controversial information exists regarding Cory Burnell's involvement with the Texas League of the South. The articles cited provide no confirmation from known officials at the Texas League of the South that Burnell ever held an official position in the organization, nor are any records cited. The coordination between Christian Exodus and the Texas League was mistaken for Burnell holding an official position and that misinformation was then reported in future news reports. It's not the case and the reference to Burnell having an association with the Texas League in any capacity other than through Christian Exodus should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turner17 ( talk • contribs) 00:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Paul Krugman (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Vision Thing keeps on adding these controversial materials to the
Paul Krugman page even when many people on the talk page have objected to them.
[1] At the same time, he edits the Friedrich Hayek page to do this.
[2] It looks to me like Vision Thing's motivation is to edit right-wing BLPs to puff them up, and edit left-wing BLPs to blacken their names. He gives flimsy reasons for his edits. When I looked at his history, and it looks like he comes to Wikipedia to push a political point of view. I feel that this is wrong and that there should be some rule against doing this.
FurrySings (
talk)
12:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I've twice removed the disputed material, and it has been twice re-added by User:TheFreeloader. I'd have thought that it should stay out until there is consensus for inclusion, but I'm done reverting it myself -- if others agree then they'll have to pursue it. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 21:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
My name is Sandra Davis and I am a former ATF agent who started fighting the corruption within ATF back in 1986. I am now working with some of the current whistleblowers who exposed Operation Fast and Furious (F&F). Wikipedia did an excellent article on this topic but left out the name of the first whistleblower to go to the media when John Dodson, the first agent to protest the operation, was ignored by ATF and his congressman. There is a list of all the F&F whistleblowers in the article except for Special Agent Renee Jaquez. Please contact me so that I can give you the information and documentation you need to correct this. This Agent has been the most retaliated of all the F&F whistleblowers. Please direct me in how to help correct this as soon as possible. This man is truly a hero and to have his name left off the list would be a devastating blow to him and all the agents who are grateful to him for his sacrifice. Thanking you in advance I am sincerely yours, Sandy Davis
I can be contacted through my inbox at CleanUpATF.org. My user name is Sandy Davis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipergrey93 ( talk • contribs) 20:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
The section is very messy and not enough care has been - or is being - taken with edits to the section. These are major allegations, and they need to be approached carefully.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Marc Edelman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Your attention to this article for a moment--I've reverted more often than I should. A registered user and an IP keep adding a Facebook group and some silly puffery to the article. I've started an SPI, but I want to make sure that this is indeed a BLP violation. If you agree that it is, consider reverting. Ditto with the Facebook addition at Sanford H. Calhoun High School. Thank you. Drmies ( talk) 21:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Virgil Miller Newton ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article is libellious. This article is deliberately presenting information that is drastically out of context, if not completely untrue, and is simply designed to make Dr Newton look very, very bad. He has himself attempted to correct the libel in the article and to adjust the context and content to make it accurately reflective of his life and work. However, it appears that whoever has posted this is also monitoring the article and replacing any attempts to correct it with the original libellious information. Such behaviour is nothing more than slander of Dr Newton, and as such is harassing in nature. I would submit that the article be removed. If it cannot be removed, it would appear that the person or persons who keeps putting libellious information should be barred from replacing our attempts to correct the work with his or her content. Their content is malicious in nature, and is defamatory to Dr Newton in every possible way.
I am a close personal friend of Dr Newton's and I was a patient in his KIDS rehab programs and can testify as an eyewitness to my own experience, and give accurate context for many of the issues placed in this article, which are misrepresented in terms of how they are reported. As I was by no means a model patient - I went through the KIDS program four complete times - I believe no one would be better qualified to back him up. His treatment program was a lifesaver - it saved my life, and I still use the lessons learned from the treatment process now, more than 13 years after the dissolution of KIDS. I would even suggest that the true story of the KIDS program, and Dr Newton himself, as well as RuthAnn, and many other people involved in this work, is nothing short of extraodinary in its goodness. It is truly saddening and tragic to see this good man maligned in this way. I personally would really like this to stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seraphim1967 ( talk • contribs) 21:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Ripoff Report is a website that primarily comprised of user-submitted "reports" detailing grievances with companies, individuals and organisations. Anyone can submit a report, reports receive no vetting for accuracy and the website has a policy of never removing reports. Obviously, links and references to reports on this website are completely unsuitable for any Wikipedia article except the article on the website itself. Usage of the site to reference BLP articles and statements concerning BLPs in other articles is clearly completely out of the question. Nonetheless, this website is being used as a reference in multiple articles (including many BLPs) for contentious assertions. It has additionally been used to support statements in multiple discussions.
I intend to start going through the list in the next day or so, but I don't have the time to cover the 200+ uses myself and would appreciate any assistance. CIreland ( talk) 22:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Genealogical claims have repeatedly been made which are unsupported by the cites given utterly. One cite does say he is related to Huntsman through a common ancestor (which sort of claim has been made about almost any two candidates in the past, including Bush and Kerry, and have not been found of significant weight in the past), but the other cites do not support any of the claims made. Please watch this article for "genealogy" which, IIRC, has generally been found to be of minimal weight in any candidate BLP, and especially of little weight when it is a comment at most en passant in an article not based on genealogy. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Pratt–Romney family ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is not a term found in any books, nor in news articles. It is pure SYN and OR, AFAICT with WP:BLP implications. It is not properly sourced, and is based on genealogy which is not properly sourced (in many places totally unsourced, or sourced to non-RS sources). I think it may even be deletable as a matter of fact, as it is such a mish-mash of unsourced and unsourceable claims entirely. Collect ( talk) 14:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Frederick Forsyth ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The present Wikipedia article states:
The son of a furrier, Forsyth was born in Ashford, Kent. He was educated at Tonbridge School and later attended the University of Granada in Spain. [1] He became one of the youngest pilots in the Royal Air Force at the age of 19, where he served on National Service from 1956 to 1958. Becoming a journalist, he joined Reuters in 1961 and later the BBC in 1965, where he served as an assistant diplomatic correspondent. From July to September 1967, he served as a correspondent covering the Nigerian Civil War between the region of Biafra and Nigeria. He left the BBC in 1968 after controversy arose over his alleged bias towards the Biafran cause and accusations that he falsified segments of his reports. Returning to Biafra as a freelance reporter, Forsyth wrote his first book, The Biafra Story in 1969. [1]
Observation from former Flt Lt John Chambers (Service number 4054415) (forjohnc@batsford-bear.com)
Without any validation nor intended condemnatory criticism, I am, nevertheless, 'surprised' by the statement: "He became one of the youngest pilots in the Royal Air Force at the age of 19, where he served on National Service from 1956 to 1958."
I was an RAF flying instructor from 1952 to 1958, during which time (to the best of my knowledge) no one (repeat) no one was entered into pilot training for just the two years of National Service ... unless, of course, Mr Forsyth had signed-on for a longer engagement (as many recent young graduates did) but was suspended from flying training early on (as some trainees were), when he would have been transferred to ground employment to serve-out his National Service time. In which case he never would have been regarded as "a pilot", only ... at best ... as a "pilot trainee" for as long or short a time as he was a pilot trainee.
To the best of my knowledge, to complete "pilot training" in the 1950s took three years; at the end of which time the Air Council required a minimum commitment from recent graduates of a further year of service as a pilot with an operational squadron to consolidate a new pilot's useful skills. My unit regularly had at least a few student-pilots whose National Service had been deferred until they had 'come down' from University with their degree ... but all of them were serving on at least an obligatory Short Service commission of four or eight years in order to qualify for entry into pilot training.
The RAF Air Council ought to be able to provide a definitive view on this if anyone wants to bother — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.235.128.170 ( talk) 18:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Virgil Miller Newton ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
SPA devoted to whitewashing the article. Perhaps there can be a discussion if there are any BLP violations, but at a glance what's there appears well sourced. 99.149.85.114 ( talk) 18:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
If you will check out my changes you will see that I do not sugar coat the fact that I was affiliated with the company that the people who perpetrated the original biography note. I just corrected there misinformation.
Please help me help myself by taking down there misinformation.
Best regards,
Father Newton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foucauld1 ( talk • contribs) 20:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Can you please assist on this. It is not well reference, and unfortunately I do not have the knowledge this group has to edit it to your liking. A little assistance here would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foucauld1 ( talk • contribs) 20:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
As I said I am illiterate when it comes to this and am doing the best I can with a little assistance.
Here is what I put on the other board.
Citation 1 is in direct violation of propaganda rules a b Fager, Wes (2000). "Reverend Doctor Virgil Miller Newton at Straight, Inc. and at KIDS of North Jersey / KIDS of Bergen County". Retrieved 2009-08-03. It is a site that is not reputable site that was created solely to defame me.
Citation 2 ^ "Newton settles with Corter". Retrieved 2009-08-03. again goes to this same site.
Citation 3 is a falsification of information. I corrected that information in my edit and did not deny that there were suits filed while I was involved and listed them.
Citation 4 - 7 can not be sourced
Citation 8 and 9 as well as 13, 19, 21, 25, 26 are 404 can not be found pages
Citation 17 - again goes to the straights as referenced in citation 1
Citation 22 - does not validate the claim
Citation 23 - is another site created just to defame me.
And lastly 4 and 28 are from POKOV a self proclaimed watchdog of the Orthodox Church that publishes half truths.
Hopefully this will help in getting this matter cleared up.
Thank you, Foucauld1 ( talk) 21:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Again Citation 2 and 17 also go to the same blog site
What else can I do to clear this up?
Foucauld1 ( talk) 21:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Obviously this is a standard message. I have tried several times to correct the information, even went line by line earlier today with an assistant to change it, not removing all references and it was reverted before I could blink. As I have stated the references are not valid, they majority of the article is created just to defame me.
Foucauld1 ( talk) 21:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
The amount of information that is incorrect is way too large to post here. If you go back to the history of my biography you will see where I made changes, but after spending 2 hrs the first time and it being dumped I just copied and pasted from then on. I have given you the unreliable sources, If you want I will gladly post the changes I made here and you can review them. But not today, this is not resolved but I have other more pressing things to attend to right now.
Foucauld1 ( talk) 21:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I removed an obvious commercial site and an obviously non-RS cite - but a lot of the "newspaper articles" are not findable with diligent search in the newspaper archives, to say the least. I assume good faith, but the chances that some of this was "gemacht" can not be totally ignored. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 14:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
(od) Please read WP:RS to see what sorts of sources are acceptable in articles in general, and WP:BLP to see the further strictures on sources in biographies of living persons. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 02:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
(od) I have posted on the article talk page - for some odd reason when a source says absolutely nothing to support claims made using it as a cite, the claims are "not supported." Unsupported contentious claims must be removed from a BLP. The NYTimesmag cite I go into in depth on the article talk page,and I daresay no one here will give credence to the assertion that the cite supported the claims made for it. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 15:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Jack Harte (Irish writer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
It's no fun watching this article, but there's been a new (for me anyway) wrinkle, a spat between two editors, one of whom claims the other is actually Jack Harte. Even that I could deal with, but I'm having trouble dealing with cites to a subscription-only website for some of the cited articles. So, I have no idea whether the material is supported by the cite(s). Anyone who feels like helping would be welcome.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 02:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Reading the Jack Harte talk page makes it clear that Viticulturist99 has a grudge against Harte, and seems unable to edit this article from the neutral point of view. His insistence that a user-submitted website is a reliable source for contentious information added to a BLP is problematic. I should have added this article to my watch list two weeks ago: I have done so now. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I have now checked more sources via Nexis and removed the bit about Harte being "at all times" on the board of the IWC (seemingly intended to blame him for the centre's difficulties). We have more instances of difficult-to-access sources offered to support claims that aren't actually in the sources. Any further evidence of misuse of sources here in service of the obvious vendetta Viticulturist99 has against Harte will need to be taken to ANI. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 19:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Mikuláš Dzurinda ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Biography of M.Dz. is hiding the bad side of him and presents him in a very controversial manner. He is the most corrupted and most doubtful politican in Slovakia. In the article he is portraid only with one color. The article is not serious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modra-gorila ( talk • contribs) 15:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
In your article about Asil Nadir you make reference to me - Michael Mates. What is written there is entirely untrue and grossly libellous. i require you to remove it forthwith and confirm to me that you will not allow it to be repeated. For the record, I never received any monety at any time from Mr Nadir, nor did I evber put down any questions in the House of Commons. What you allege, if true, would have involved censure by the House at the very least, and probably dismissal for corruption. I weas never criticised by tthe House itself or any of its authorities for any raseon at any time during my 36 years in Parliament.
Please confirm to me that you have taken the appropriate action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.54.33 ( talk) 17:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Vinay Kumar ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Reporting a BLP dispute from a biography article on an Indian cricketer. User:Mkativerata included an "insult" by a journalist writing for the Australian ( link), which was subsequently removed by me citing WP:BLP ( link). User:Mkativerata reinserted the edit ( link) and has further refused to remove it ( link). I have reproduced a short discussion from Talk:Vinay Kumar below:
<reproduction of discussion>
</reproduction of discussion>
I would appreciate third party opinion on this, and removal of the edit from the biography page until the dispute is resolved. Telco ( talk) 20:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Seán Sherlock ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article has been the subject of, in my opinion, POV pushing, since I decided to rewrite a paragraph on this minister's plans for an apparently SOPAesque copyright law. My edit to a paragraph which previously only had a link to an organisation opposing the law as a reference added reliable references to the paragraph, removed some of the previous content for which I could find no verification, and added some content I felt was relevant. 176.61.61.99 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) took umbrage at this, and reverted my changes. There followed an edit war involving me, the IP, and an other user. The end result was that after an unproductive discussion on Talk:Seán Sherlock, the IP user unilaterally "merged" the two competing version, and add some POV content. The current version is highly unsatisfactory for reasons that will be obvious to anyone reading the page (adjectives like underhanded referring to the Government, and popular referring to the objectors makes it pretty clear in what direction the POV is). There is no attempt to give a neutral treatment to the issues. I am unsure whether the BLP exemption to 3RR allows me to revert the changes (I am currently at 3 reverts), because the content could be read as non-biographical, so I would like input from this board on how to deal with this issue. Quasi human | Talk 23:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I do not believe the above to be honest or transparent. The orginal edit was made to remove an important aspect of fact - the initial method of the intoduction of the statute. The initial edit also sougt to remove an entirely pertinent link. Furthermore the edits made have refered to petition sigature numers and consistently sought to reduce the real total by refering to dates in the past when there were fewer signatures. Language such as 'reform' were introduced in editsin place of statute, legislation or law. Above all the edits have been driven to remove established fact. This includes removal of citations requested (i.e removing the journal.ie and the irish times link). The reference to the use of the word underhand is in fact mild compared to the description which was printed in one of Irleland leading broadsheet newspapers ( a citation that when provided was removed). Having asked that any edits be amended to the very short initail contribution rather than erasing it, persistent re-editing utilised in place of undos was used to obscure the original facts and link (dispite the fact one of the edits included petition numbers available via a link that was removed! However in an attempt to compromise I will remove the word underhanded but believe it is entirely right to leave the link to the Irish Times article which highlights the attempt to intoduce the statute without debate. The attempt to utilise a technique of repeated editing over as opposed to transparent undos, utilise well intentioned wikipedia rules such as the 3RR to censor. Utilising words such as reform, mistating petition numbers from several days prior and indeed challenging the very evident use of the term 'SOPA Ireland' are indicative of extraordinary bias seeking to create a unilaterally pro goverment article. This is a matter of puiblic issue, indeed, there are ample citations, links and references to establish that the article covers the issue well, is well referenced and is entirely appropriate to the Sean Sherlock article. Since it is speciffically raised, the world underhand will be removed by me now, however I hope that the above disputing party will be restained from making further borad edits, particularly to valid references such as the irish times, the register, the website of a TD who debated the matter in the Dail with Sean Sherlock etc. No where in the article is a position stated on the staute other than it facilitates the bocking of websites for Irish internet users, this is enterly true and factual. No moral poosition is taken in relation to this.
A better question for readers of this dispute is why someone would wish to censor out the publicly acknowledged and known facts regarding the attempted method of introduction of the statute, wish to misrepresent petition numbers, delete links that cite debate between Sean Sherlock and another TD in the Dail and remove any reference to the public opposition to the proposed statute. The contesting party above infact uses the phrase SOPAesque, yet dispite numerous sources a citation was requested on the phrase 'SOPA Ireland'. No conclusion is made on the article on wether the proposed stature is good or bad, merely to the public and media events that have surrounded it. The taking down of government websites bt Anonynous is one consequence, entirely related to the statute ebing introduced by Sean Sherlock. The disputing party appears to be entirely motivated to obscure fact band references and citations. The theme from the contesting party is biased.
It is noteworthy that wikipedia itself choose to protest against the SOPA legislation and its' potentially damaging effects. It would be a bizzare irony if wikipedias rules where utilised to obsure direct and pertinent facts and information in relation to a statute in Ireland with similar inclination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.61.61.99 ( talk) 00:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Jeffrey Hartinger ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Article about a young gay activist - seems to rely mainly on blogs, some by him, may be written by him. I'm not sure if he's notable, can't find anything myself other than these blogs, etc. Dougweller ( talk) 16:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Ian McDiarmid ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ian Mcdiarmid is now dead — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.142.55.114 ( talk) 04:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
John Prescott ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article quotes Lord Prescott speaking in the House of Lords thusly: " I get a full page in the Telegraph but what worried me about that they used evidence of all personal factors and when I went on to them, where did they get that information because they are lies, they said they got it from Wikipedia. Well they didn't even ask you the question they just pumped it out. Why? Because it was a political action to in a way attack somebody from another political party for decision they have made."
He also tweeted about it about an hour ago.
I hope we can fact check this quickly and make sure there are no lies, repeated in the Telegraph, in the Wikipedia article.
I have posted to the talk page of the article and also to WP:PEER to make sure we have plenty of minds on this.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 09:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Chris Duckworth ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The IP editor who has an apparent personal interest in the subject has come back: there was previous action taken after a reference here earlier this month, which is archived at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive142. Johnlp ( talk) 19:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
We have a situation at the biography of Nenad Puhovski, a notable Croatian film director, one that involves the person themselves, and it's been going on for a while now, so I wanted to bring it up here.
Nenad Puhovski seems to have registered User:Npuhovs1 and wrote their biography article themselves in 2005, and also edited it later. Then,
I fully recognize the value of accurately reporting various factoids in biographies, and it is verifiable that the person in question has Jewish ancestry and that fact is made somewhat notable by the fact it has been mentioned in reliable sources. I also recognize that NP and IB have not acted in a proper manner by failing to explain their edits early, which made them look for a long time like pure advocacy, conflict-of-interest censorship and/or vandalism.
But, the way the story has unfolded clearly makes it look like Wikipedia is making a point to point out and exaggerate this factoid to levels that are clearly offending the living person who is the subject of this biography. Now this looks like exactly the kind of abuse that the WP:BLP policy was meant to prevent.
User:Eversman seems to have made a point to emphasize this person's Jewish ancestry. This is a a practice he employed in other Wikipedia biographies too, and I had noticed it much earlier, but didn't complain because it seemed to be harmless. However, I think they have completely failed to understand the distinction between BLPs and other biographies, and how it relates to sourcing. They have continued to stubbornly insist that the article includes a bit of information that misrepresents the living person's position. This kind of advocacy is most unhelpful and we could also fairly reasonably extend the restrictions of WP:ARBMAC to it. But I'm steering clear of that because they might still reasonably claim to have acted in good faith. I would appreciate it if another administrator reviewed this situation.
As for the article, I think that at a minimum we need to move to a more neutral phrasing, like the one I tried to do with this edit, and definitely try to establish some sort of consensus that doesn't exacerbate the whole WP:BLP violation. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 09:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I resent and find it very offensive that some users are exploiting this question to encourage a story of Croatian nationalism, when in fact one does not exist regarding this issue. I am not a nationalist, I am a Croatian Patriot of Jewish descent. So don't talk about nationalism where there is none. My only sin is that in all my edits, about Croatian Jews and Croatian people of Jewish descent, I have and I am trying to stress the magnitude and significance of the Jewish merits in the Croatian past and present. Fact is, Mr. Puhovski declared himself as a Jew and later a person of Jewish descent, on several occasions. If Mr. Puhovski is ashamed or afraid of his ancestry, then why would he make them public? So what is the problem here? The problem is that Croatian journalist who lives in Italy, Mr. Besker, denies these statements and calls them racist statements. WTF? Mr. Besker is trying to portray today's Croatia as anti-Semitic country, where people are forced to hide their ancestry while they live in fear for their lives. This is utter nonsense and a lie, work of a malicious person. As a half Jew(from my mother side, which by Jewish law makes me 100% Jewish) I have never experienced a fear for my life because of my ancestry. In every country there is Antisemitism, but on this issue today's Croatia is no worse than UK or United States. That is a fact. I would also like to know how emphasizing someone ancestry violates BLP policy? If that was the truth, then you could start reediting 99% biographies of living persons on the Wikipedia. P.s. And if Mr. Besker would like to know my real name, he can contact me since he stressed that he doesn't act hidden by the nickname. Well Mr. Besker I also have nothing to hide.-- Eversman ( talk) 13:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Patrick Flanagan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There have been IP attempts to insert obvious BLP violations into this article, some of which have needed rev/deleting. The latest still in the article is about a lawsuit and uses a primary source. I'd like some opinions on whether this should stand. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 12:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
User:Johnalexwood, who self-identifies as a Scientologist, has added Nicky Hopkins to Category:English Scientologists in violation of WP:BLPCAT. Additionally, they have changed a direct link on John Sweeney (journalist) to point to a copy of a video on their own YouTube account. The section in which the video appears could probably use some clean-up. Would someone mind taking a look at this? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 19:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
An unregistered editor is trying to add a link to a petition calling for the resignation of the current U.S. Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan. This is a clear violation of BLP. He or she has been warned many times and blocked. Now that the block has expired, he or she is back at it. I've asked for him or her to be blocked again but I think my request has gone unnoticed. Can an admin who monitors this noticeboard please block this editor (or otherwise convince him or her to stop)? Thanks! ElKevbo ( talk) 14:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Ulla Hansen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The current article is a gemisch of factoids concerning at least two (possibly four or more) distinct individuals with the same name. Without knowing which Ulla Hansen the author intend to profile, it is impossible to edit the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.164.44 ( talk) 17:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
disputed material removed, article protected |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
[22] Please check this edit war going on, on the pretext of BLP violation where the content is properly sourced with complete information about the citations.. just because some of the content is not available online (or is not currently available online due to deadlinks) user Darkness Shines is removing the content completely disregarding WP:SOURCEACCESS and rather being uncivil in editsummaries to another editor. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 17:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm talking about the sourced part. You do not need to blank the section for one unsourced line. --
lTopGunl (
talk)
18:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Folks, I'm really not seeing a BLP element in this dispute. You can continue this discussion on the article talk, or on the the neutrality noticeboard. There isn't much we can do for you. The Interior (Talk) 17:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
|
I have removed a rather large section of text here from Nick Cohen's article. I'm not convinced that the sourcing is accurate enough for a BLP article - it relies heavily on blogs and looks like it's been 'coatracked'. Could someone give me a second opinion? The Cavalry ( Message me) 14:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Is it a BLP violation to have the following unsourced in an article? In an interview with a Russian daily Israel's Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman rendered Pakistan as " Evil empire" This got confused in the original thread and the other user is still claiming this is not a BLP vio. Darkness Shines ( talk) 17:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Omar Khadr ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There is a dispute at this article about the first sentence. One editor repeatedly labels him "war criminal". What i think is problematic under WP:LABEL, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. The legitimacy of the Guantanamo military commissions is controversial not only in a world wide view but also in the US. There is an easy way to solve the problem.
1) problematic version: "Omar Ahmed Khadr... is a Canadian war criminal and former child soldier."
2) more neutral version: "Omar Ahmed Khadr... is a Canadian child soldier convicted of five war crime charges under the United States Military Commissions Act of 2009"
While some might think that is no big deal i think that is a case where WP:LABEL, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP tells us to prefer version 2). What do you think? Blotime ( talk) 00:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
John Coleman (news weathercaster) has a section "Views on global warming" that details Coleman's "global warming is a scam" opinion. That section ends with the paragraph:
Coleman has no education in the field of climate change. Coleman sees himself as an expert on weather (albeit a journalism degree in 1957 from the University of Illinois), not on climate or climate change. 1 2 3 4 5
In my opinion, this sentence is clear WP:OR and in violation of WP:BLP because (quote from article talk page):
One reference went to a Wikipedia mirror, and one to a political blog that can in no way be considered a reliable source. The remaining references may support the basic facts from that paragraph, however putting them together in that way to reduce his credibility with regards to his views on climate change is clear original research.
If there is a reliable source making that exact point, that he has no education/expertise in the field of climate change and for that reason his opinion is not useful then we can add it. But we mustn't attempt to draw this conclusion ourselves.
Sentence was added back repeatedly, requesting opinions and, if appropriate, intervention.
Amalthea
14:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
The biography against Tony Oliver is completely incorrect.I am the referee Tony Oliver and I was born in Chelmsford ENGLAND not Alfonso Olivier born in Porto Rico - in fact was the first Chelmsford man to be appointed to the League List Reference Handbook of the Football League 1968 - 1974. Please delete this man'sutobiography. I can supply all correct details for the Tony Oliver 1968-74 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrapoliver ( talk • contribs) 17:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Could I please get some BLP experienced eyes on this article? An editor claiming to be the subject has had problems with the article for a while now. Today they tried to G7 delete it. I declined this deletion, but would like someone more versed in such matters to see if there is any substance to the user's issues. Are things well enough sourced? And the has had a notability tag for quite a while. Maybe it should be sent to AFD for deletion? - TexasAndroid ( talk) 22:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Paul-Philippe Hohenzollern ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This individual does not appreciate being called "Paul Lambrino" — we know that for a fact from here, as he complained about it to OTRS in 2007. An IP has also removed the name three times in the last day: [26], [27], [28]. However, at least three respectable Romanian newspapers have used the name in their reporting on the subject, as I have now cited. I think the name is widely enough known that the article should mention it. However, if someone reading this believes the name should stay out, then I will not press the matter further, and will refrain from re-adding "Paul Lambrino". Please advise. - Biruitorul Talk 22:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Prince Paul of Romania not only DOES NOT appreciate to be called "Paul Lambrino" but he has sued and won against prominent people for using that name (i.e., Frédéric Mitterand and Stéphane Bern).
http://www.liberation.fr/medias/0101515141-stephane-bern-inaugure-la-webdiffamation
In accordance to Wikipedia's "defamatory" or "libellous" information ought to be removed summarily! The name "Paul Lambrino" has been found to be both defamatory and libellous in France. I can send you the copies of the court decisions upon request per e-mail.
According to Wikipedia's guidelines you ought to prioritise reliable English language sources which you are NOT doing! No major or legitimate English language sources refers to him as "Paul Lambrino".
http://www.nineoclock.ro/hrh-prince-paul-is-honored-in-china-then-meets-president-carter/
http://www.hellomagazine.com/celebrities-news-in-pics/15-01-2010/52986/
http://www.nineoclock.ro/prince-paul-filed-suit-to-be-acknowledged-as-royal-house-member/
http://issuu.com/revistadiplomacia/docs/diplo_68_web
http://svenskdam.se/2010/01/prinsessan-lia-fodde-tronfoljare-%E2%80%93-vid-60/
The subject was born under the name "Paul-Philippe DE HOHENZOLLERN"; he has never been a Lambrino unlike his father, so why do you insist upon using that defamatory name?
The Romanian articles to which you refer as "reliable" are sensationalistic, virulent against the subject, and furthermore they DO refer to him as "Paul de Romania", "Printul Paul" or "Paul-Philippe Hohenzollern". They are therefore incoherent, inconsistent in his way to address him and therefore cannot be viewed as reliable sources.
Furthermore, the article's actual title ought to be "Prince Paul of Romania"; the only name under which he is known in English for quite a long time. Also in Romania he is recognized as "Printul Paul al Romaniei". The Government of Romania and foreign royal houses title him "Prince Paul of Romania". Upon request some sample envelopes from foreign royal houses can be sent to a private e-mail. He is ONLY known by the serious media outlets as "Prince Paul of Romania". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.116.225.193 ( talk) 15:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Please, the reference to "Paul Lambrino" must be removed!!! He was born in Paris under the name "Paul-Philippe DE HOHENZOLLERN". The article lacks the predicate preceding his FORMER surname, but that is a matter which he is going to take up by contacting directly the Wikimedia Foundation.
He does not use the name "Philippe" at all, so why are you so persistent in adding it in the title? With other subjects only the calling name is used; even in sources which refer to him as "Paul Lambrino", the "Philippe" is not used.
In regards to the name "Paul Lambrino"; the articles which are being utilised as reference are articles which are rather virulent towards Prince Paul of Romania, hence, unacceptable as references for Wikipedia.
Additionally, how come a few article outweigh the fact that Prince Paul is known under his actual name and title by major and reliable newspapers in Romania and elsewhere. According to Wikipedia emphasis ought to be given to English language sources when available; this is the case with Prince Paul who is known as Prince Paul of Romania in major newspapers. Examples:
http://www.nineoclock.ro/hrh-prince-paul-is-honored-in-china-then-meets-president-carter/
http://www.hellomagazine.com/celebrities-news-in-pics/15-01-2010/52986/
http://www.nineoclock.ro/prince-paul-filed-suit-to-be-acknowledged-as-royal-house-member/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1281403/The-tangled-love-life-school-s-boss.html
Non-English language press (examples):
http://svenskdam.se/2010/01/prinsessan-lia-fodde-tronfoljare-%E2%80%93-vid-60/
http://www.side2.no/underholdning/article3322454.ece
http://issuu.com/revistadiplomacia/docs/diplo_68_web
Furthermore, I can offer copies of articles published in reputable British magazines wherein Prince Paul is referred to as "Prince Paul of Romania". In addition, over 80 FRONT PAGE articles in Romanian national papers going back to year 2000 wherein Prince Paul is known as "Printul Paul al Romaniei".
Please also notice that in the past, HRH Prince Paul has been named "Paul Lambrino" even by prominent journalists who later had to retract themselves because they lost cases in courts of law. In 2000 he won a lawsuit against incumbent French Minister of Culture, Frédéric Mitterand, in 2002/2003 against Stéphane Bern. The later is BY NO MEANS a threat against Wikipedia or any of its administrators, but simply facts. Unlike his father, he has never borne the surname "Lambrino". That name is used by people who dispute his claim to the Royal House of Romania, but that is not clear from this article. The copies of the court decision shall be forwaded to Wikimedia Foundation so the name issue is settled for good.
The fact the article states "also known as Prince Paul of Romania and Paul Lambrino" implies he is known by about the same degree by either name!!! That is rather problematic because it simply is not true. The Government of Romania, foreign royal houses, his friends and family as well as the SERIOUS media outlets address him as Prince Paul of Romania. The appellation "Paul Lambrino" should not have a place in the lead. You only need to google him in several languages, and you shall find a plethora of articles about him with that name (i.e., Prince Paul of Romania, Printul Paul al Romaniei, Prince Paul de Roumanie, Príncipe Paul de Rumania, Paul Romania herceg, Prins Paul av Rumänien, etc.).
You can insist upon mentioning the fact that he is also known as "Paul Lambrino" but in that case, and for the sake of neutrality and fairness one ought to clarify that name is exclusively used by people who dispute his claims to the Royal House of Romania. Moreover, that in the past, HRH Prince Paul has taken legal actions against such individuals and won (once again, it is not a threat, simply a fact which needs to be added if you insist in mentioning the legally non-existent name "Paul Lambrino"). The later appellation also has no place in a sentence "also known as Prince Paul of Romania or..." because it misleads people to believe he is equally and acceptably known by both names.
Also heed the fact that some editors are personally biased against Prince Paul:
"This is hardly an act of aggression against Lambrino -- just another source (indeed quite a good one, in terms of WP:RS), that supports use of Lambrino here. Nomoskedasticity " (under headline "Whether to include Lambrino". Why does he refer to Prince Paul as "Lambrino" goes for bias as it is beyond doubt that is not his name or a name for which he is known by anyone of seriosity. Furthermore, in his resolution to the matter he/she stated "We are not here to facilitate someone's claim to royalty. Nomoskedasticity(talk) 19:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)". The editor intends to claim Prince Paul is not royalty, but if he isn't then he should bring his concerns to the British Government which has issued him a passport as "HRH Prince Paul of Romania".
To summarize:
a) The appellation "Paul Lambrino" ought to be remove
b) Following Wikipedia's own guidelines the article's name ought to be "Prince Paul of Romania"
c)The subjects name is not "Paul-Philippe Hohenzollen", neither has it ever been so. On the contrary, he was legally "Paul-Philippe DE HOHENZOLLERN", just like his royal cousins born in exile. However, the surname Hohenzollern was always used in conjuction with the suffixes "de Roumanie" or "of Romania" to distinguish himself from the German Hohenzollern. -- 145.116.225.193 ( talk) 03:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
There is currently one English language article being cited as legitimate to mention that Prince Paul is also known as "Paul Lambrino": http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/19/international/europe/19BUCH.html
I have read thoroughly NYT's article which is being cited, but it contains several mistakes. One further guidelines for reliable sources is not only that they are published in reputable places (such as NYT) but likewise one ought to analyse the content and take into account the author.
The article claims Prince Paul brought forward a lawsuit at the European Court of Human Rights to advance his royal claims. The lawsuit was in fact filed by his father as you can see in the English summary of the decision I have posted before in the Talk forum.
He claims Prince Carol Mircea "persuaded" courts in Portugal and France to back up his "rival" claims. I wondered which rival claims, for the cases were mostly about inheritance (and Prince Carol Mircea won in all cases). Furthermore, courts of law in Portugal, France or the UK are not "persuaded" (contentious wording).
He claims the courts decisions in the countries named above were meaningless because they have not been ratified in Romania. However, Prince Carol Mircea did share the estate of his father with his half-brother, so not meaningless at all.
There are further mistakes in the text about historical facts. He claims the Romanian monarchy was imported from Germany. There was a monarchy before Carol I ascended the throne! Only a German prince was imported but not the royal institution.-- 145.116.225.193 ( talk) 03:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
The same IP is trying to change the main name to Prince Paul (in the lead). More eyes are again needed on the article.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 02:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Jewish Defense League ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Someone again posted a photo of graffiti saying "Gas the Arabs" in this article. There is no evidence that JDL members (many of whom are living) did it. Nor does the article claim that "gassing the Arabs" is a policy advocated by them. BigJim707 ( talk) 17:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Mario Luna ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The content of this article is libellous.
Please supress it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.202.205.41 ( talk) 10:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Jamie Comstock (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
For three months, there has been an unseemly edit-war on this article between two SPAs,
Sanchopanchez (
talk ·
contribs) inserting critical material and
Jmugge (
talk ·
contribs) removing it. Comstock is Provost of
Butler University, Indianapolis; Jmugge is
Multimedia Coordinator on her staff, so has a clear
COI. It is arguable that Sanchopanchez' preferred version gives
WP:UNDUE weight to problems.
Yesterday Jmugge placed a db-g7 template saying "Author and Sanchopanchez are both unwilling to compromise on disputed language, and author feels that deletion is the only recourse", but G7 speedy deletion was correctly declined as there is no single author, and in any case squabbles about content are not a reason to delete an article.
Thereupon a third, newly-created SPA, Eveinparadise ( talk · contribs) popped up and replaced the whole article with a blatant attack version. This is getting ridiculous. I have reverted, no doubt to The Wrong Version, and protected for a week. Experienced users are invited to comment on the talk page and broker an attempt to reach an agreed wording. Any admin who believes that the situation is resolved may unprotect without consulting me. JohnCD ( talk) 17:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I closed the above CfD after it had been open almost a month. And it would seem from the discussion that a fair amount of WP:OR was going on.
I would like to ask if someone with more interest/understanding of the subject please check over the rest of the subcats of Category:People of Black African descent (for references in their articles, for one thing).
If it turns out that the categories are untenable due to rampant WP:OR, drop me a note and I'll see about getting the whole batch nominated at CfD. (Though speedying for WP:BLP violations wouldn't necessarily be out of the question either.)
Thanks for looking into this. - jc37 19:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Nominated at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_4#Category:Fictional_characters_of_Black_African_descent - jc37 20:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Several weeks ago, an article was created about Seamus, a dog owned by US Presidential candidate Mitt Romney. The dog was part of a controversial 1983 road trip, and has been in the news extensively. The article on Seamus (dog) was proposed for deletion. There was a long and contentious discussion at the Afd for Seamus. The AfD was closed with a decision to merge the Seamus article into the Mitt Romney article, which an editor did. Some of the frequent editors of the Mitt Romney article have deleted the information about Seamus, citing undue weight -- "Uh, no. Doesn't matter what they decided at AfD, we're not pulling all that into here. Would be massive WP:Undue weight" This has led to an edit war between those who want to merge the Seamus article into to Mitt Romney article as decided by AfD, and those who don't want to change the Mitt Romney article. Debbie W. 06:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Anecdotes make for bad biographies. Collect ( talk) 03:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Carwyn Williams ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The first three paragraphs on this page need to be deleted, the last three I have updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.4.0 ( talk) 15:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
The biography page of Vaiko has been written in a biased manner. There are numerous instances, where the article has not confirmed to wikipedia standards.
I have removed File:Bushduck.PNG from the following pages:
This image is particularly disparaging towards the subject and in contravention to WP:MUG. The use of the captions indicates that the intent behind the addition was to show the subject in a poor light. I have gone ahead and removed the above instances. The image is still in use on the biography article of the journalist who threw the shoes. Inviting comments on (i) the above actions and (ii) whether the image should be used on the biography article of the journalist. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Horsefeathers - using an image to disparage any person is as much a BLP violation as any other disparagement. Collect ( talk) 14:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Feel the picture could be used in the Muntadhar al-Zaidi and Shoeing articles, not the Bush article. The shoeing of George W. by Muntadhar al-Zaidi is a major highlight in that journalist's life and warrants a mention and picture in his BLP. As another editor mentions above, the shoeing of George W. brought the concept to the mass media and therefore the photo should also appear in the Shoeing article. -- BwB ( talk) 15:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
User:Darkness Shines and User:Nomoskedasticity have reinserted the image on the Shoeing article while the discussion is ongoing on WP:BLPN. ( [30], [31]) These are inappropriate reversions and should be reverted back until this discussion has concluded in a conclusive manner. There is no harm in waiting for a few more hours to invite more opinion from other users watching this page. The onus of proof is on the users who insert the material. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
As an uninvolved person maybe I can help understand the concerns being raised with a few questions. First, is it the concern of Nick and Collect that we not include any images of any living person having shoes thrown at them, or reacting to having shoes thrown at them, because that would be disparaging toward that living person? Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 18:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I really don't see this as a big deal. That someone chose to throw a shoe at George W. Bush isn't a negative statement about him: some people see it as a negative thing (because of the motivations that led the man who threw the shoe to do so), but in terms of BLP, this seems like it ought to be in the same category as politicians or other public figures who throw water on each other when debate gets heated. Like this. Or perhaps people fighting inside legislatures. The person doing it is childish, it is possibly of dubious notability (not in Bush's case, I don't think), but it sure ain't a BLP violation. — Tom Morris ( talk) 19:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Adding my additional opinion to the discussion, I think there are appropriate places for the images use, that do not violate the spirit of WP:MUG in regards to former POTUS George W. Bush. That is that the use of the image on the Shoeing article appears to be appropriate, in a limited context of describing the act. If per WP:EVENT the attempted shoeing of George W. Bush is found to be notable, then it would be useful there as well. Additionally, the use of the image in the article regarding the assailant would be appropriate as well. Other uses of the image I think should be discouraged under the spirit of MUG.
Additionally, not regarding BLP, I am of the opinion that the section U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement#December 14th, 2008 press conference incident should be abbreviated per WP:SUMMARY, as it is a small part of the overall scope of that article. Same can be said about the length which it is emphasized in the section Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration#Iraq. Both sections should include a brief mention, with a link to Muntadhar al Zaidi#Shoe incident which itself can be spun off into its own article. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 03:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
On this article the following has been attributed to Barrack Obama However such claims where later rejected by U.S. President Barack Obama who said it was more complicated and a question of Pakistan could do more [2] What Obama actually said was
The president said Mullen's statement "expressed frustration" over the insurgent safe havens in Pakistan. But Obama said "the intelligence is not as clear as we might like in terms of what exactly that relationship is." Obama added that whether Pakistan's ties with the Haqqani network are active or passive, Pakistan has to deal with it. [3] [4]
I feel this is a gross misrepresentation of the source, is it a BLP violation to attribute this to Obama as it is written? Or is it better practice to use the full quote? Darkness Shines ( talk) 16:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Latif Yahia ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Please see WP:ANI#Latif Yahia where it appears the subject himself has been blocked after a legal threat. To quote myself, "We have a 15 day old untouched OTRS ticket 2012012010008591 which is a complaint from a representative of his about his page. I can't comment to the rights or wrongs of the situation, but editor Perrynio ( talk · contribs)'s edit summaries are part of the complaint, and see this edit. We need to sort out the BLP issues (if they exist). Toodst1, the Foundation will deal with any legal action if it comes to that, but that's all. Responding to the complaint and sorting out the article if it needs sorting is up to us. And sooner than later as it would be nice to be able to respond to the OTRS ticket." He's been told to write to the Foundation, but he's already done that so that advice will just annoy him. Dougweller ( talk) 16:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Please compare the article Keith Raniere with its references and the collection of WP:RSes on its talk page, TALK:Keith Raniere. Please have the article accurately report the important information in the citations and available WP:RSes. Thank you for your kind attention to this important matter. Chrisrus ( talk) 17:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Fareed Zakaria ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is mild compared to most here, but the Fareed Zakaria article seems to be a frequent target of new editors wanting to add a singular quote or opinion attributed to Zakaria just to make him look especially good or especially bad. The latest already has me at 3 reverts, and I'm not going to edit war over it, but it has to do with an WP:UNDUE quote by Zakaria that has now been shown to be falsely attributed to him. See the discussion at Talk:Fareed_Zakaria#Fareed_Zakaria.27s_own_statements_regarding_his_candidacy_for_Secretary_of_State. It wouldn't hurt for a few others to watchlist this article, even if I'm proven wrong on this one. First Light ( talk) 01:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Sarah Miles ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The whole entry is crass. It ignores her actual acting career - the highlights of her theatre and film career are ignored - and reduces her personal life to a caricature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachelastor ( talk • contribs) 00:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if this article is well-sourced. Should unsourced statements be removed? -- George Ho ( talk) 06:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Rinat Akhmetov (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
I would appreciate third party opinion on edits done to the article by user
Львівське. This user has been constantly adding statements on the alleged ties of the person with the criminal world, using references to unreliable sources, emotive negative statements and unproven allegations and rumors presented as fact. There was a conflict between me and
Львівське, temporarily resolved by administrator
ddima, and the article contained only facts, backed by reliable sources. Recently,
Львівське reverted everything to his version and in response to my edits recoursed to a whole number of accusations and insults from being the sockpuppet to following me - he just has suggested a number of my articles for deletion. --
Orekhova (
talk)
10:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Here, some editors keep readding badly sourced and POV info about opposition activities - suggesting they are working for foreign governments - a highly provocative gesture in Russia given the amount of activists who are imprisoned/assassinated there. They link to a Youtube video with no provenance (on the Talk page user Greyhood mentions possible sources, but can't say for sure) - and the video is called Receiving instructions in the Embassy of the United States. This title suggests that these activists are working for or influenced by the US, when, as far as is known, they just went for a polite discussion with the man who had been nominated as Ambassador but wouldn't become so for another month. No information from the activists is given regarding their visit, other than what they said when accosted by a reporter in the street. That's hardly a fair chance to give their version. For these reasons, I think that the section gives a highly skewed and biased view of their actions, which harms their reputations and could lead to other problems for them. A secondary issue is that the section is Undue Weight - it is unlikely to have changed any of the protests against Putin's regime, but is a good way of tarring the reputations of the anti-Putin protesters.
The issue is getting close to an edit war, so some thoughts from other users would be appreciated. Malick78 ( talk) 18:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Laura León ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Unsourced material is continually added to the article Laura León by User:Nefty ( here, here and here, and here), containing allegations of a somewhat provocative nature. I requested that Nefty not re-add this material without referencing a verifiable source, but s/he repeatedly does so. Cleduc ( talk) 21:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
The first part of the biography is not open to editing, but there is an error, which has evidently been copied from a typing error on the Ohio DRC website. Romell Broom does not have four counts of kidnap against a male child: there is one kidnap charge and three attempted kidnap charges against female minors, all associated with the one crime against Tryna Middleton and the two girls with her. Therefore, the statement about kidnap of male children is libellous and should be removed or amended. Check with Ohio DRC directly if official confirmation is needed, but the case - and the person - are known to me personally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruthfulness ( talk • contribs) 15:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
To Whom it May Concern:
I am the subject of the article in question. The stub about me has been tampered with by someone with a wry sense of humor; it suggests that I (a violinist) play vuvuzuela and trumpet and it has as well a sentence following that one which makes no sense.
Below is a real bio of me, accurate in all respects. Thank you for your attention:
Paul Rosenthal was born in 1942 and began playing the violin at the age of three. He studied with Dorothy DeLay and Ivan Galamian at the Juilliard School and with Jascha Heifetz at the University of Southern California.
Rosenthal has made his home in Alaska since 1969 and continues to enjoy performing innumerable concerts in every corner of the vast state. In 1972, Rosenthal founded the Sitka Summer Music Festival which continues to attract musicians and audiences from many countries and is recognized as one of the outstanding chamber music festivals in the United States. He also directs the festival's affiliated Autumn Classics and Winter Classics series in Anchorage.
He continues to tour world-wide and can also be heard in recordings on the RCA, Vox, Fidelio, Arabesque, Vanguard and Biddulph labels. His recordings include collaborations from the famous "Heifetz-Piatigorsky Concerts" and premiere recordings of major works by Arensky, Taneyev, Vieuxtemps, as well as his own Variations on "Alaska's Flag."
Paul Rosenthal holds honorary degrees as Doctor of Humane Letters from the University of Alaska and Doctor of Music from Alaska Pacific University.
He performs on a violin made by Joseph Guarnerius in Cremona in 1706. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.65.181 ( talk) 17:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
-- BwB ( talk) 20:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
There is some offensive text at the top of your Andy Murray page just after the initial introductory text. Please remove this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.7.170 ( talk) 19:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Jackson Pollock ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I live on eastern Long Island, NY. Today (Sunday, Feb 5, 2012) I read the local newspaper, which included an interview and photo of Jackson Pollack on his 100th birthday in late Jan'12. Common knowledge has it that he died in a car accident in 1956. He jokes about this misperception in the story.
I created a Wiki user account, put the facts from the newspaper on the TALK section of the Jackson Pollack entry, and asked that a more experienced editor confirm and edit. A few hours later I looked, and my entry was DELETED. I think the appropriate response should have been to REFUTE rather than simply delete. The fact is that the man is alive. He has led quite a full life since 1956, which the story provides details of. He goes by the name PJ Pollack.
Dan's Papers - Volume LII, Number 44, dated February 3, 2012. The story was written by the paper's founder, Dan Rattiner. Should be easy to confirm.
Dcestaro ( talk) 01:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
For anyone who wants to read it, here's the Rattiner article.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 01:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Donald Wildmon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The beginning of the entry is "...is a piece of shit, hatemonger...."
This may be true; but is probably not appropriate. Maybe if they cited examples. Just found it unusual for Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.169.247 ( talk • contribs)
Shahina Siddiqui ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I recently stumbled upon a blatant copyvio in this BLP and removed it. Then I took another look at the rest of the article and thought it could use input from BLP regulars. The article currently focuses on two unsuccessful legal complaints by the subject. I'm not sure if any of it meets BLP standards. And though they've gained some regional coverage, I'm not convinced either event is noteworthy. Any opinions?
JFHJr (
㊟)
05:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
DJ Wrongtom ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sorry, can't deal with this, just funny, spurious nonsense about this DJ remixer that has been on-wiki since 2007. Please can some sensible heads decide if the guy meets GNG, he's recently remixed a whole
Roots Manuva album
[33].
Does he pass musicbio, or is it BLP1E and you're out? Too involved and still laughing, at least stub it to something reasonable, or has Wikipedia merged with Uncyclopaedia?
CaptainScreebo
Parley!
21:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Prem Rawat ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An editor has inserted seven links to four self published websites on the talk page that attack Prem Rawat and contain contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced. [34] I have removed it once but it was reinserted. I would appreciate an impartial editor to enforce BLP. Momento ( talk) 01:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The following need verifiable citation or must be deleted:
"Sheila handed her gold medal to her twin brother after becoming the olympics champion, and he dropped it to the floor and some parts of it are rotten." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.129.88 ( talk) 06:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, I am a Wikipedia novice, but this article ("Dregen") appears to have had a press release/promotional biography copied and pasted into its body. It reads like an advertisement and lacks citation. N.B. the section headed "Biography". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.29.148.141 ( talk) 12:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Nancy Brinker ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Some very contentious statements in this article. 132.170.89.68 ( talk) 18:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)yankhadenuf
See Talk:Callista_Gingrich#.22Third_wife.22 - please all folks with in interest in BLPs come help discuss whether she should be "third wife" or "married" to Newt in the lead. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 19:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Bill Schuette ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Was filled with biased information, and comments like gets a kick out of hurting sick people. Was edited today by myself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigjohnsteak ( talk • contribs) 00:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Ali Paya ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(The information in the last para of Ali Paya is inaccurate and appears to have been written by someone who has a grudge against Mr Paya.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.53.2 ( talk) 12:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
biblio
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Yves Béhar ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I have added many citations to the article after receiving word that it was deemed unreliable. How do I have it re-checked so the notice at the top of the page can be removed? Are the citations I used in line with what Wikipedia needs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurenb700 ( talk • contribs) 22:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
What do you think? Do they pass WP:V and WP:RS? I wouldn't add the content about arrest back into article, unless people approve. I might add sources into "Further reading". -- George Ho ( talk) 00:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Mike Gordon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In the section "Arrested and Charges Cleared," the following is written:
<offending material redacted> The entire last bit about 2011 is not true, or at least not able to be backed up by anything. This section needs to be heavily revised and corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.36.235.4 ( talk) 14:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Final line in Tom Sizemore article claims he has been sentenced to life in prison [redacted]. I can't seem to find anything on the internet to corroborate this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.78.19 ( talk) 20:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Cory Burnell ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Controversial information exists regarding Cory Burnell's involvement with the Texas League of the South. The articles cited provide no confirmation from known officials at the Texas League of the South that Burnell ever held an official position in the organization, nor are any records cited. The coordination between Christian Exodus and the Texas League was mistaken for Burnell holding an official position and that misinformation was then reported in future news reports. It's not the case and the reference to Burnell having an association with the Texas League in any capacity other than through Christian Exodus should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turner17 ( talk • contribs) 00:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Paul Krugman (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Vision Thing keeps on adding these controversial materials to the
Paul Krugman page even when many people on the talk page have objected to them.
[1] At the same time, he edits the Friedrich Hayek page to do this.
[2] It looks to me like Vision Thing's motivation is to edit right-wing BLPs to puff them up, and edit left-wing BLPs to blacken their names. He gives flimsy reasons for his edits. When I looked at his history, and it looks like he comes to Wikipedia to push a political point of view. I feel that this is wrong and that there should be some rule against doing this.
FurrySings (
talk)
12:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I've twice removed the disputed material, and it has been twice re-added by User:TheFreeloader. I'd have thought that it should stay out until there is consensus for inclusion, but I'm done reverting it myself -- if others agree then they'll have to pursue it. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 21:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
My name is Sandra Davis and I am a former ATF agent who started fighting the corruption within ATF back in 1986. I am now working with some of the current whistleblowers who exposed Operation Fast and Furious (F&F). Wikipedia did an excellent article on this topic but left out the name of the first whistleblower to go to the media when John Dodson, the first agent to protest the operation, was ignored by ATF and his congressman. There is a list of all the F&F whistleblowers in the article except for Special Agent Renee Jaquez. Please contact me so that I can give you the information and documentation you need to correct this. This Agent has been the most retaliated of all the F&F whistleblowers. Please direct me in how to help correct this as soon as possible. This man is truly a hero and to have his name left off the list would be a devastating blow to him and all the agents who are grateful to him for his sacrifice. Thanking you in advance I am sincerely yours, Sandy Davis
I can be contacted through my inbox at CleanUpATF.org. My user name is Sandy Davis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipergrey93 ( talk • contribs) 20:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
The section is very messy and not enough care has been - or is being - taken with edits to the section. These are major allegations, and they need to be approached carefully.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Marc Edelman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Your attention to this article for a moment--I've reverted more often than I should. A registered user and an IP keep adding a Facebook group and some silly puffery to the article. I've started an SPI, but I want to make sure that this is indeed a BLP violation. If you agree that it is, consider reverting. Ditto with the Facebook addition at Sanford H. Calhoun High School. Thank you. Drmies ( talk) 21:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Virgil Miller Newton ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article is libellious. This article is deliberately presenting information that is drastically out of context, if not completely untrue, and is simply designed to make Dr Newton look very, very bad. He has himself attempted to correct the libel in the article and to adjust the context and content to make it accurately reflective of his life and work. However, it appears that whoever has posted this is also monitoring the article and replacing any attempts to correct it with the original libellious information. Such behaviour is nothing more than slander of Dr Newton, and as such is harassing in nature. I would submit that the article be removed. If it cannot be removed, it would appear that the person or persons who keeps putting libellious information should be barred from replacing our attempts to correct the work with his or her content. Their content is malicious in nature, and is defamatory to Dr Newton in every possible way.
I am a close personal friend of Dr Newton's and I was a patient in his KIDS rehab programs and can testify as an eyewitness to my own experience, and give accurate context for many of the issues placed in this article, which are misrepresented in terms of how they are reported. As I was by no means a model patient - I went through the KIDS program four complete times - I believe no one would be better qualified to back him up. His treatment program was a lifesaver - it saved my life, and I still use the lessons learned from the treatment process now, more than 13 years after the dissolution of KIDS. I would even suggest that the true story of the KIDS program, and Dr Newton himself, as well as RuthAnn, and many other people involved in this work, is nothing short of extraodinary in its goodness. It is truly saddening and tragic to see this good man maligned in this way. I personally would really like this to stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seraphim1967 ( talk • contribs) 21:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Ripoff Report is a website that primarily comprised of user-submitted "reports" detailing grievances with companies, individuals and organisations. Anyone can submit a report, reports receive no vetting for accuracy and the website has a policy of never removing reports. Obviously, links and references to reports on this website are completely unsuitable for any Wikipedia article except the article on the website itself. Usage of the site to reference BLP articles and statements concerning BLPs in other articles is clearly completely out of the question. Nonetheless, this website is being used as a reference in multiple articles (including many BLPs) for contentious assertions. It has additionally been used to support statements in multiple discussions.
I intend to start going through the list in the next day or so, but I don't have the time to cover the 200+ uses myself and would appreciate any assistance. CIreland ( talk) 22:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Genealogical claims have repeatedly been made which are unsupported by the cites given utterly. One cite does say he is related to Huntsman through a common ancestor (which sort of claim has been made about almost any two candidates in the past, including Bush and Kerry, and have not been found of significant weight in the past), but the other cites do not support any of the claims made. Please watch this article for "genealogy" which, IIRC, has generally been found to be of minimal weight in any candidate BLP, and especially of little weight when it is a comment at most en passant in an article not based on genealogy. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Pratt–Romney family ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is not a term found in any books, nor in news articles. It is pure SYN and OR, AFAICT with WP:BLP implications. It is not properly sourced, and is based on genealogy which is not properly sourced (in many places totally unsourced, or sourced to non-RS sources). I think it may even be deletable as a matter of fact, as it is such a mish-mash of unsourced and unsourceable claims entirely. Collect ( talk) 14:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Frederick Forsyth ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The present Wikipedia article states:
The son of a furrier, Forsyth was born in Ashford, Kent. He was educated at Tonbridge School and later attended the University of Granada in Spain. [1] He became one of the youngest pilots in the Royal Air Force at the age of 19, where he served on National Service from 1956 to 1958. Becoming a journalist, he joined Reuters in 1961 and later the BBC in 1965, where he served as an assistant diplomatic correspondent. From July to September 1967, he served as a correspondent covering the Nigerian Civil War between the region of Biafra and Nigeria. He left the BBC in 1968 after controversy arose over his alleged bias towards the Biafran cause and accusations that he falsified segments of his reports. Returning to Biafra as a freelance reporter, Forsyth wrote his first book, The Biafra Story in 1969. [1]
Observation from former Flt Lt John Chambers (Service number 4054415) (forjohnc@batsford-bear.com)
Without any validation nor intended condemnatory criticism, I am, nevertheless, 'surprised' by the statement: "He became one of the youngest pilots in the Royal Air Force at the age of 19, where he served on National Service from 1956 to 1958."
I was an RAF flying instructor from 1952 to 1958, during which time (to the best of my knowledge) no one (repeat) no one was entered into pilot training for just the two years of National Service ... unless, of course, Mr Forsyth had signed-on for a longer engagement (as many recent young graduates did) but was suspended from flying training early on (as some trainees were), when he would have been transferred to ground employment to serve-out his National Service time. In which case he never would have been regarded as "a pilot", only ... at best ... as a "pilot trainee" for as long or short a time as he was a pilot trainee.
To the best of my knowledge, to complete "pilot training" in the 1950s took three years; at the end of which time the Air Council required a minimum commitment from recent graduates of a further year of service as a pilot with an operational squadron to consolidate a new pilot's useful skills. My unit regularly had at least a few student-pilots whose National Service had been deferred until they had 'come down' from University with their degree ... but all of them were serving on at least an obligatory Short Service commission of four or eight years in order to qualify for entry into pilot training.
The RAF Air Council ought to be able to provide a definitive view on this if anyone wants to bother — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.235.128.170 ( talk) 18:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Virgil Miller Newton ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
SPA devoted to whitewashing the article. Perhaps there can be a discussion if there are any BLP violations, but at a glance what's there appears well sourced. 99.149.85.114 ( talk) 18:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
If you will check out my changes you will see that I do not sugar coat the fact that I was affiliated with the company that the people who perpetrated the original biography note. I just corrected there misinformation.
Please help me help myself by taking down there misinformation.
Best regards,
Father Newton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foucauld1 ( talk • contribs) 20:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Can you please assist on this. It is not well reference, and unfortunately I do not have the knowledge this group has to edit it to your liking. A little assistance here would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foucauld1 ( talk • contribs) 20:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
As I said I am illiterate when it comes to this and am doing the best I can with a little assistance.
Here is what I put on the other board.
Citation 1 is in direct violation of propaganda rules a b Fager, Wes (2000). "Reverend Doctor Virgil Miller Newton at Straight, Inc. and at KIDS of North Jersey / KIDS of Bergen County". Retrieved 2009-08-03. It is a site that is not reputable site that was created solely to defame me.
Citation 2 ^ "Newton settles with Corter". Retrieved 2009-08-03. again goes to this same site.
Citation 3 is a falsification of information. I corrected that information in my edit and did not deny that there were suits filed while I was involved and listed them.
Citation 4 - 7 can not be sourced
Citation 8 and 9 as well as 13, 19, 21, 25, 26 are 404 can not be found pages
Citation 17 - again goes to the straights as referenced in citation 1
Citation 22 - does not validate the claim
Citation 23 - is another site created just to defame me.
And lastly 4 and 28 are from POKOV a self proclaimed watchdog of the Orthodox Church that publishes half truths.
Hopefully this will help in getting this matter cleared up.
Thank you, Foucauld1 ( talk) 21:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Again Citation 2 and 17 also go to the same blog site
What else can I do to clear this up?
Foucauld1 ( talk) 21:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Obviously this is a standard message. I have tried several times to correct the information, even went line by line earlier today with an assistant to change it, not removing all references and it was reverted before I could blink. As I have stated the references are not valid, they majority of the article is created just to defame me.
Foucauld1 ( talk) 21:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
The amount of information that is incorrect is way too large to post here. If you go back to the history of my biography you will see where I made changes, but after spending 2 hrs the first time and it being dumped I just copied and pasted from then on. I have given you the unreliable sources, If you want I will gladly post the changes I made here and you can review them. But not today, this is not resolved but I have other more pressing things to attend to right now.
Foucauld1 ( talk) 21:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I removed an obvious commercial site and an obviously non-RS cite - but a lot of the "newspaper articles" are not findable with diligent search in the newspaper archives, to say the least. I assume good faith, but the chances that some of this was "gemacht" can not be totally ignored. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 14:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
(od) Please read WP:RS to see what sorts of sources are acceptable in articles in general, and WP:BLP to see the further strictures on sources in biographies of living persons. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 02:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
(od) I have posted on the article talk page - for some odd reason when a source says absolutely nothing to support claims made using it as a cite, the claims are "not supported." Unsupported contentious claims must be removed from a BLP. The NYTimesmag cite I go into in depth on the article talk page,and I daresay no one here will give credence to the assertion that the cite supported the claims made for it. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 15:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Jack Harte (Irish writer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
It's no fun watching this article, but there's been a new (for me anyway) wrinkle, a spat between two editors, one of whom claims the other is actually Jack Harte. Even that I could deal with, but I'm having trouble dealing with cites to a subscription-only website for some of the cited articles. So, I have no idea whether the material is supported by the cite(s). Anyone who feels like helping would be welcome.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 02:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Reading the Jack Harte talk page makes it clear that Viticulturist99 has a grudge against Harte, and seems unable to edit this article from the neutral point of view. His insistence that a user-submitted website is a reliable source for contentious information added to a BLP is problematic. I should have added this article to my watch list two weeks ago: I have done so now. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I have now checked more sources via Nexis and removed the bit about Harte being "at all times" on the board of the IWC (seemingly intended to blame him for the centre's difficulties). We have more instances of difficult-to-access sources offered to support claims that aren't actually in the sources. Any further evidence of misuse of sources here in service of the obvious vendetta Viticulturist99 has against Harte will need to be taken to ANI. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 19:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Mikuláš Dzurinda ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Biography of M.Dz. is hiding the bad side of him and presents him in a very controversial manner. He is the most corrupted and most doubtful politican in Slovakia. In the article he is portraid only with one color. The article is not serious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modra-gorila ( talk • contribs) 15:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
In your article about Asil Nadir you make reference to me - Michael Mates. What is written there is entirely untrue and grossly libellous. i require you to remove it forthwith and confirm to me that you will not allow it to be repeated. For the record, I never received any monety at any time from Mr Nadir, nor did I evber put down any questions in the House of Commons. What you allege, if true, would have involved censure by the House at the very least, and probably dismissal for corruption. I weas never criticised by tthe House itself or any of its authorities for any raseon at any time during my 36 years in Parliament.
Please confirm to me that you have taken the appropriate action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.54.33 ( talk) 17:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Vinay Kumar ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Reporting a BLP dispute from a biography article on an Indian cricketer. User:Mkativerata included an "insult" by a journalist writing for the Australian ( link), which was subsequently removed by me citing WP:BLP ( link). User:Mkativerata reinserted the edit ( link) and has further refused to remove it ( link). I have reproduced a short discussion from Talk:Vinay Kumar below:
<reproduction of discussion>
</reproduction of discussion>
I would appreciate third party opinion on this, and removal of the edit from the biography page until the dispute is resolved. Telco ( talk) 20:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Seán Sherlock ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article has been the subject of, in my opinion, POV pushing, since I decided to rewrite a paragraph on this minister's plans for an apparently SOPAesque copyright law. My edit to a paragraph which previously only had a link to an organisation opposing the law as a reference added reliable references to the paragraph, removed some of the previous content for which I could find no verification, and added some content I felt was relevant. 176.61.61.99 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) took umbrage at this, and reverted my changes. There followed an edit war involving me, the IP, and an other user. The end result was that after an unproductive discussion on Talk:Seán Sherlock, the IP user unilaterally "merged" the two competing version, and add some POV content. The current version is highly unsatisfactory for reasons that will be obvious to anyone reading the page (adjectives like underhanded referring to the Government, and popular referring to the objectors makes it pretty clear in what direction the POV is). There is no attempt to give a neutral treatment to the issues. I am unsure whether the BLP exemption to 3RR allows me to revert the changes (I am currently at 3 reverts), because the content could be read as non-biographical, so I would like input from this board on how to deal with this issue. Quasi human | Talk 23:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I do not believe the above to be honest or transparent. The orginal edit was made to remove an important aspect of fact - the initial method of the intoduction of the statute. The initial edit also sougt to remove an entirely pertinent link. Furthermore the edits made have refered to petition sigature numers and consistently sought to reduce the real total by refering to dates in the past when there were fewer signatures. Language such as 'reform' were introduced in editsin place of statute, legislation or law. Above all the edits have been driven to remove established fact. This includes removal of citations requested (i.e removing the journal.ie and the irish times link). The reference to the use of the word underhand is in fact mild compared to the description which was printed in one of Irleland leading broadsheet newspapers ( a citation that when provided was removed). Having asked that any edits be amended to the very short initail contribution rather than erasing it, persistent re-editing utilised in place of undos was used to obscure the original facts and link (dispite the fact one of the edits included petition numbers available via a link that was removed! However in an attempt to compromise I will remove the word underhanded but believe it is entirely right to leave the link to the Irish Times article which highlights the attempt to intoduce the statute without debate. The attempt to utilise a technique of repeated editing over as opposed to transparent undos, utilise well intentioned wikipedia rules such as the 3RR to censor. Utilising words such as reform, mistating petition numbers from several days prior and indeed challenging the very evident use of the term 'SOPA Ireland' are indicative of extraordinary bias seeking to create a unilaterally pro goverment article. This is a matter of puiblic issue, indeed, there are ample citations, links and references to establish that the article covers the issue well, is well referenced and is entirely appropriate to the Sean Sherlock article. Since it is speciffically raised, the world underhand will be removed by me now, however I hope that the above disputing party will be restained from making further borad edits, particularly to valid references such as the irish times, the register, the website of a TD who debated the matter in the Dail with Sean Sherlock etc. No where in the article is a position stated on the staute other than it facilitates the bocking of websites for Irish internet users, this is enterly true and factual. No moral poosition is taken in relation to this.
A better question for readers of this dispute is why someone would wish to censor out the publicly acknowledged and known facts regarding the attempted method of introduction of the statute, wish to misrepresent petition numbers, delete links that cite debate between Sean Sherlock and another TD in the Dail and remove any reference to the public opposition to the proposed statute. The contesting party above infact uses the phrase SOPAesque, yet dispite numerous sources a citation was requested on the phrase 'SOPA Ireland'. No conclusion is made on the article on wether the proposed stature is good or bad, merely to the public and media events that have surrounded it. The taking down of government websites bt Anonynous is one consequence, entirely related to the statute ebing introduced by Sean Sherlock. The disputing party appears to be entirely motivated to obscure fact band references and citations. The theme from the contesting party is biased.
It is noteworthy that wikipedia itself choose to protest against the SOPA legislation and its' potentially damaging effects. It would be a bizzare irony if wikipedias rules where utilised to obsure direct and pertinent facts and information in relation to a statute in Ireland with similar inclination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.61.61.99 ( talk) 00:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Jeffrey Hartinger ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Article about a young gay activist - seems to rely mainly on blogs, some by him, may be written by him. I'm not sure if he's notable, can't find anything myself other than these blogs, etc. Dougweller ( talk) 16:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Ian McDiarmid ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ian Mcdiarmid is now dead — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.142.55.114 ( talk) 04:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
John Prescott ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article quotes Lord Prescott speaking in the House of Lords thusly: " I get a full page in the Telegraph but what worried me about that they used evidence of all personal factors and when I went on to them, where did they get that information because they are lies, they said they got it from Wikipedia. Well they didn't even ask you the question they just pumped it out. Why? Because it was a political action to in a way attack somebody from another political party for decision they have made."
He also tweeted about it about an hour ago.
I hope we can fact check this quickly and make sure there are no lies, repeated in the Telegraph, in the Wikipedia article.
I have posted to the talk page of the article and also to WP:PEER to make sure we have plenty of minds on this.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 09:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Chris Duckworth ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The IP editor who has an apparent personal interest in the subject has come back: there was previous action taken after a reference here earlier this month, which is archived at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive142. Johnlp ( talk) 19:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
We have a situation at the biography of Nenad Puhovski, a notable Croatian film director, one that involves the person themselves, and it's been going on for a while now, so I wanted to bring it up here.
Nenad Puhovski seems to have registered User:Npuhovs1 and wrote their biography article themselves in 2005, and also edited it later. Then,
I fully recognize the value of accurately reporting various factoids in biographies, and it is verifiable that the person in question has Jewish ancestry and that fact is made somewhat notable by the fact it has been mentioned in reliable sources. I also recognize that NP and IB have not acted in a proper manner by failing to explain their edits early, which made them look for a long time like pure advocacy, conflict-of-interest censorship and/or vandalism.
But, the way the story has unfolded clearly makes it look like Wikipedia is making a point to point out and exaggerate this factoid to levels that are clearly offending the living person who is the subject of this biography. Now this looks like exactly the kind of abuse that the WP:BLP policy was meant to prevent.
User:Eversman seems to have made a point to emphasize this person's Jewish ancestry. This is a a practice he employed in other Wikipedia biographies too, and I had noticed it much earlier, but didn't complain because it seemed to be harmless. However, I think they have completely failed to understand the distinction between BLPs and other biographies, and how it relates to sourcing. They have continued to stubbornly insist that the article includes a bit of information that misrepresents the living person's position. This kind of advocacy is most unhelpful and we could also fairly reasonably extend the restrictions of WP:ARBMAC to it. But I'm steering clear of that because they might still reasonably claim to have acted in good faith. I would appreciate it if another administrator reviewed this situation.
As for the article, I think that at a minimum we need to move to a more neutral phrasing, like the one I tried to do with this edit, and definitely try to establish some sort of consensus that doesn't exacerbate the whole WP:BLP violation. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 09:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I resent and find it very offensive that some users are exploiting this question to encourage a story of Croatian nationalism, when in fact one does not exist regarding this issue. I am not a nationalist, I am a Croatian Patriot of Jewish descent. So don't talk about nationalism where there is none. My only sin is that in all my edits, about Croatian Jews and Croatian people of Jewish descent, I have and I am trying to stress the magnitude and significance of the Jewish merits in the Croatian past and present. Fact is, Mr. Puhovski declared himself as a Jew and later a person of Jewish descent, on several occasions. If Mr. Puhovski is ashamed or afraid of his ancestry, then why would he make them public? So what is the problem here? The problem is that Croatian journalist who lives in Italy, Mr. Besker, denies these statements and calls them racist statements. WTF? Mr. Besker is trying to portray today's Croatia as anti-Semitic country, where people are forced to hide their ancestry while they live in fear for their lives. This is utter nonsense and a lie, work of a malicious person. As a half Jew(from my mother side, which by Jewish law makes me 100% Jewish) I have never experienced a fear for my life because of my ancestry. In every country there is Antisemitism, but on this issue today's Croatia is no worse than UK or United States. That is a fact. I would also like to know how emphasizing someone ancestry violates BLP policy? If that was the truth, then you could start reediting 99% biographies of living persons on the Wikipedia. P.s. And if Mr. Besker would like to know my real name, he can contact me since he stressed that he doesn't act hidden by the nickname. Well Mr. Besker I also have nothing to hide.-- Eversman ( talk) 13:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Patrick Flanagan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There have been IP attempts to insert obvious BLP violations into this article, some of which have needed rev/deleting. The latest still in the article is about a lawsuit and uses a primary source. I'd like some opinions on whether this should stand. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 12:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
User:Johnalexwood, who self-identifies as a Scientologist, has added Nicky Hopkins to Category:English Scientologists in violation of WP:BLPCAT. Additionally, they have changed a direct link on John Sweeney (journalist) to point to a copy of a video on their own YouTube account. The section in which the video appears could probably use some clean-up. Would someone mind taking a look at this? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 19:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
An unregistered editor is trying to add a link to a petition calling for the resignation of the current U.S. Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan. This is a clear violation of BLP. He or she has been warned many times and blocked. Now that the block has expired, he or she is back at it. I've asked for him or her to be blocked again but I think my request has gone unnoticed. Can an admin who monitors this noticeboard please block this editor (or otherwise convince him or her to stop)? Thanks! ElKevbo ( talk) 14:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Ulla Hansen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The current article is a gemisch of factoids concerning at least two (possibly four or more) distinct individuals with the same name. Without knowing which Ulla Hansen the author intend to profile, it is impossible to edit the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.164.44 ( talk) 17:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
disputed material removed, article protected |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
[22] Please check this edit war going on, on the pretext of BLP violation where the content is properly sourced with complete information about the citations.. just because some of the content is not available online (or is not currently available online due to deadlinks) user Darkness Shines is removing the content completely disregarding WP:SOURCEACCESS and rather being uncivil in editsummaries to another editor. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 17:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm talking about the sourced part. You do not need to blank the section for one unsourced line. --
lTopGunl (
talk)
18:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Folks, I'm really not seeing a BLP element in this dispute. You can continue this discussion on the article talk, or on the the neutrality noticeboard. There isn't much we can do for you. The Interior (Talk) 17:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
|
I have removed a rather large section of text here from Nick Cohen's article. I'm not convinced that the sourcing is accurate enough for a BLP article - it relies heavily on blogs and looks like it's been 'coatracked'. Could someone give me a second opinion? The Cavalry ( Message me) 14:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Is it a BLP violation to have the following unsourced in an article? In an interview with a Russian daily Israel's Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman rendered Pakistan as " Evil empire" This got confused in the original thread and the other user is still claiming this is not a BLP vio. Darkness Shines ( talk) 17:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Omar Khadr ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There is a dispute at this article about the first sentence. One editor repeatedly labels him "war criminal". What i think is problematic under WP:LABEL, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. The legitimacy of the Guantanamo military commissions is controversial not only in a world wide view but also in the US. There is an easy way to solve the problem.
1) problematic version: "Omar Ahmed Khadr... is a Canadian war criminal and former child soldier."
2) more neutral version: "Omar Ahmed Khadr... is a Canadian child soldier convicted of five war crime charges under the United States Military Commissions Act of 2009"
While some might think that is no big deal i think that is a case where WP:LABEL, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP tells us to prefer version 2). What do you think? Blotime ( talk) 00:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
John Coleman (news weathercaster) has a section "Views on global warming" that details Coleman's "global warming is a scam" opinion. That section ends with the paragraph:
Coleman has no education in the field of climate change. Coleman sees himself as an expert on weather (albeit a journalism degree in 1957 from the University of Illinois), not on climate or climate change. 1 2 3 4 5
In my opinion, this sentence is clear WP:OR and in violation of WP:BLP because (quote from article talk page):
One reference went to a Wikipedia mirror, and one to a political blog that can in no way be considered a reliable source. The remaining references may support the basic facts from that paragraph, however putting them together in that way to reduce his credibility with regards to his views on climate change is clear original research.
If there is a reliable source making that exact point, that he has no education/expertise in the field of climate change and for that reason his opinion is not useful then we can add it. But we mustn't attempt to draw this conclusion ourselves.
Sentence was added back repeatedly, requesting opinions and, if appropriate, intervention.
Amalthea
14:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
The biography against Tony Oliver is completely incorrect.I am the referee Tony Oliver and I was born in Chelmsford ENGLAND not Alfonso Olivier born in Porto Rico - in fact was the first Chelmsford man to be appointed to the League List Reference Handbook of the Football League 1968 - 1974. Please delete this man'sutobiography. I can supply all correct details for the Tony Oliver 1968-74 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrapoliver ( talk • contribs) 17:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Could I please get some BLP experienced eyes on this article? An editor claiming to be the subject has had problems with the article for a while now. Today they tried to G7 delete it. I declined this deletion, but would like someone more versed in such matters to see if there is any substance to the user's issues. Are things well enough sourced? And the has had a notability tag for quite a while. Maybe it should be sent to AFD for deletion? - TexasAndroid ( talk) 22:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Paul-Philippe Hohenzollern ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This individual does not appreciate being called "Paul Lambrino" — we know that for a fact from here, as he complained about it to OTRS in 2007. An IP has also removed the name three times in the last day: [26], [27], [28]. However, at least three respectable Romanian newspapers have used the name in their reporting on the subject, as I have now cited. I think the name is widely enough known that the article should mention it. However, if someone reading this believes the name should stay out, then I will not press the matter further, and will refrain from re-adding "Paul Lambrino". Please advise. - Biruitorul Talk 22:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Prince Paul of Romania not only DOES NOT appreciate to be called "Paul Lambrino" but he has sued and won against prominent people for using that name (i.e., Frédéric Mitterand and Stéphane Bern).
http://www.liberation.fr/medias/0101515141-stephane-bern-inaugure-la-webdiffamation
In accordance to Wikipedia's "defamatory" or "libellous" information ought to be removed summarily! The name "Paul Lambrino" has been found to be both defamatory and libellous in France. I can send you the copies of the court decisions upon request per e-mail.
According to Wikipedia's guidelines you ought to prioritise reliable English language sources which you are NOT doing! No major or legitimate English language sources refers to him as "Paul Lambrino".
http://www.nineoclock.ro/hrh-prince-paul-is-honored-in-china-then-meets-president-carter/
http://www.hellomagazine.com/celebrities-news-in-pics/15-01-2010/52986/
http://www.nineoclock.ro/prince-paul-filed-suit-to-be-acknowledged-as-royal-house-member/
http://issuu.com/revistadiplomacia/docs/diplo_68_web
http://svenskdam.se/2010/01/prinsessan-lia-fodde-tronfoljare-%E2%80%93-vid-60/
The subject was born under the name "Paul-Philippe DE HOHENZOLLERN"; he has never been a Lambrino unlike his father, so why do you insist upon using that defamatory name?
The Romanian articles to which you refer as "reliable" are sensationalistic, virulent against the subject, and furthermore they DO refer to him as "Paul de Romania", "Printul Paul" or "Paul-Philippe Hohenzollern". They are therefore incoherent, inconsistent in his way to address him and therefore cannot be viewed as reliable sources.
Furthermore, the article's actual title ought to be "Prince Paul of Romania"; the only name under which he is known in English for quite a long time. Also in Romania he is recognized as "Printul Paul al Romaniei". The Government of Romania and foreign royal houses title him "Prince Paul of Romania". Upon request some sample envelopes from foreign royal houses can be sent to a private e-mail. He is ONLY known by the serious media outlets as "Prince Paul of Romania". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.116.225.193 ( talk) 15:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Please, the reference to "Paul Lambrino" must be removed!!! He was born in Paris under the name "Paul-Philippe DE HOHENZOLLERN". The article lacks the predicate preceding his FORMER surname, but that is a matter which he is going to take up by contacting directly the Wikimedia Foundation.
He does not use the name "Philippe" at all, so why are you so persistent in adding it in the title? With other subjects only the calling name is used; even in sources which refer to him as "Paul Lambrino", the "Philippe" is not used.
In regards to the name "Paul Lambrino"; the articles which are being utilised as reference are articles which are rather virulent towards Prince Paul of Romania, hence, unacceptable as references for Wikipedia.
Additionally, how come a few article outweigh the fact that Prince Paul is known under his actual name and title by major and reliable newspapers in Romania and elsewhere. According to Wikipedia emphasis ought to be given to English language sources when available; this is the case with Prince Paul who is known as Prince Paul of Romania in major newspapers. Examples:
http://www.nineoclock.ro/hrh-prince-paul-is-honored-in-china-then-meets-president-carter/
http://www.hellomagazine.com/celebrities-news-in-pics/15-01-2010/52986/
http://www.nineoclock.ro/prince-paul-filed-suit-to-be-acknowledged-as-royal-house-member/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1281403/The-tangled-love-life-school-s-boss.html
Non-English language press (examples):
http://svenskdam.se/2010/01/prinsessan-lia-fodde-tronfoljare-%E2%80%93-vid-60/
http://www.side2.no/underholdning/article3322454.ece
http://issuu.com/revistadiplomacia/docs/diplo_68_web
Furthermore, I can offer copies of articles published in reputable British magazines wherein Prince Paul is referred to as "Prince Paul of Romania". In addition, over 80 FRONT PAGE articles in Romanian national papers going back to year 2000 wherein Prince Paul is known as "Printul Paul al Romaniei".
Please also notice that in the past, HRH Prince Paul has been named "Paul Lambrino" even by prominent journalists who later had to retract themselves because they lost cases in courts of law. In 2000 he won a lawsuit against incumbent French Minister of Culture, Frédéric Mitterand, in 2002/2003 against Stéphane Bern. The later is BY NO MEANS a threat against Wikipedia or any of its administrators, but simply facts. Unlike his father, he has never borne the surname "Lambrino". That name is used by people who dispute his claim to the Royal House of Romania, but that is not clear from this article. The copies of the court decision shall be forwaded to Wikimedia Foundation so the name issue is settled for good.
The fact the article states "also known as Prince Paul of Romania and Paul Lambrino" implies he is known by about the same degree by either name!!! That is rather problematic because it simply is not true. The Government of Romania, foreign royal houses, his friends and family as well as the SERIOUS media outlets address him as Prince Paul of Romania. The appellation "Paul Lambrino" should not have a place in the lead. You only need to google him in several languages, and you shall find a plethora of articles about him with that name (i.e., Prince Paul of Romania, Printul Paul al Romaniei, Prince Paul de Roumanie, Príncipe Paul de Rumania, Paul Romania herceg, Prins Paul av Rumänien, etc.).
You can insist upon mentioning the fact that he is also known as "Paul Lambrino" but in that case, and for the sake of neutrality and fairness one ought to clarify that name is exclusively used by people who dispute his claims to the Royal House of Romania. Moreover, that in the past, HRH Prince Paul has taken legal actions against such individuals and won (once again, it is not a threat, simply a fact which needs to be added if you insist in mentioning the legally non-existent name "Paul Lambrino"). The later appellation also has no place in a sentence "also known as Prince Paul of Romania or..." because it misleads people to believe he is equally and acceptably known by both names.
Also heed the fact that some editors are personally biased against Prince Paul:
"This is hardly an act of aggression against Lambrino -- just another source (indeed quite a good one, in terms of WP:RS), that supports use of Lambrino here. Nomoskedasticity " (under headline "Whether to include Lambrino". Why does he refer to Prince Paul as "Lambrino" goes for bias as it is beyond doubt that is not his name or a name for which he is known by anyone of seriosity. Furthermore, in his resolution to the matter he/she stated "We are not here to facilitate someone's claim to royalty. Nomoskedasticity(talk) 19:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)". The editor intends to claim Prince Paul is not royalty, but if he isn't then he should bring his concerns to the British Government which has issued him a passport as "HRH Prince Paul of Romania".
To summarize:
a) The appellation "Paul Lambrino" ought to be remove
b) Following Wikipedia's own guidelines the article's name ought to be "Prince Paul of Romania"
c)The subjects name is not "Paul-Philippe Hohenzollen", neither has it ever been so. On the contrary, he was legally "Paul-Philippe DE HOHENZOLLERN", just like his royal cousins born in exile. However, the surname Hohenzollern was always used in conjuction with the suffixes "de Roumanie" or "of Romania" to distinguish himself from the German Hohenzollern. -- 145.116.225.193 ( talk) 03:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
There is currently one English language article being cited as legitimate to mention that Prince Paul is also known as "Paul Lambrino": http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/19/international/europe/19BUCH.html
I have read thoroughly NYT's article which is being cited, but it contains several mistakes. One further guidelines for reliable sources is not only that they are published in reputable places (such as NYT) but likewise one ought to analyse the content and take into account the author.
The article claims Prince Paul brought forward a lawsuit at the European Court of Human Rights to advance his royal claims. The lawsuit was in fact filed by his father as you can see in the English summary of the decision I have posted before in the Talk forum.
He claims Prince Carol Mircea "persuaded" courts in Portugal and France to back up his "rival" claims. I wondered which rival claims, for the cases were mostly about inheritance (and Prince Carol Mircea won in all cases). Furthermore, courts of law in Portugal, France or the UK are not "persuaded" (contentious wording).
He claims the courts decisions in the countries named above were meaningless because they have not been ratified in Romania. However, Prince Carol Mircea did share the estate of his father with his half-brother, so not meaningless at all.
There are further mistakes in the text about historical facts. He claims the Romanian monarchy was imported from Germany. There was a monarchy before Carol I ascended the throne! Only a German prince was imported but not the royal institution.-- 145.116.225.193 ( talk) 03:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
The same IP is trying to change the main name to Prince Paul (in the lead). More eyes are again needed on the article.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 02:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Jewish Defense League ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Someone again posted a photo of graffiti saying "Gas the Arabs" in this article. There is no evidence that JDL members (many of whom are living) did it. Nor does the article claim that "gassing the Arabs" is a policy advocated by them. BigJim707 ( talk) 17:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Mario Luna ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The content of this article is libellous.
Please supress it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.202.205.41 ( talk) 10:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Jamie Comstock (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
For three months, there has been an unseemly edit-war on this article between two SPAs,
Sanchopanchez (
talk ·
contribs) inserting critical material and
Jmugge (
talk ·
contribs) removing it. Comstock is Provost of
Butler University, Indianapolis; Jmugge is
Multimedia Coordinator on her staff, so has a clear
COI. It is arguable that Sanchopanchez' preferred version gives
WP:UNDUE weight to problems.
Yesterday Jmugge placed a db-g7 template saying "Author and Sanchopanchez are both unwilling to compromise on disputed language, and author feels that deletion is the only recourse", but G7 speedy deletion was correctly declined as there is no single author, and in any case squabbles about content are not a reason to delete an article.
Thereupon a third, newly-created SPA, Eveinparadise ( talk · contribs) popped up and replaced the whole article with a blatant attack version. This is getting ridiculous. I have reverted, no doubt to The Wrong Version, and protected for a week. Experienced users are invited to comment on the talk page and broker an attempt to reach an agreed wording. Any admin who believes that the situation is resolved may unprotect without consulting me. JohnCD ( talk) 17:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I closed the above CfD after it had been open almost a month. And it would seem from the discussion that a fair amount of WP:OR was going on.
I would like to ask if someone with more interest/understanding of the subject please check over the rest of the subcats of Category:People of Black African descent (for references in their articles, for one thing).
If it turns out that the categories are untenable due to rampant WP:OR, drop me a note and I'll see about getting the whole batch nominated at CfD. (Though speedying for WP:BLP violations wouldn't necessarily be out of the question either.)
Thanks for looking into this. - jc37 19:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Nominated at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_4#Category:Fictional_characters_of_Black_African_descent - jc37 20:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Several weeks ago, an article was created about Seamus, a dog owned by US Presidential candidate Mitt Romney. The dog was part of a controversial 1983 road trip, and has been in the news extensively. The article on Seamus (dog) was proposed for deletion. There was a long and contentious discussion at the Afd for Seamus. The AfD was closed with a decision to merge the Seamus article into the Mitt Romney article, which an editor did. Some of the frequent editors of the Mitt Romney article have deleted the information about Seamus, citing undue weight -- "Uh, no. Doesn't matter what they decided at AfD, we're not pulling all that into here. Would be massive WP:Undue weight" This has led to an edit war between those who want to merge the Seamus article into to Mitt Romney article as decided by AfD, and those who don't want to change the Mitt Romney article. Debbie W. 06:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Anecdotes make for bad biographies. Collect ( talk) 03:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Carwyn Williams ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The first three paragraphs on this page need to be deleted, the last three I have updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.4.0 ( talk) 15:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
The biography page of Vaiko has been written in a biased manner. There are numerous instances, where the article has not confirmed to wikipedia standards.
I have removed File:Bushduck.PNG from the following pages:
This image is particularly disparaging towards the subject and in contravention to WP:MUG. The use of the captions indicates that the intent behind the addition was to show the subject in a poor light. I have gone ahead and removed the above instances. The image is still in use on the biography article of the journalist who threw the shoes. Inviting comments on (i) the above actions and (ii) whether the image should be used on the biography article of the journalist. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Horsefeathers - using an image to disparage any person is as much a BLP violation as any other disparagement. Collect ( talk) 14:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Feel the picture could be used in the Muntadhar al-Zaidi and Shoeing articles, not the Bush article. The shoeing of George W. by Muntadhar al-Zaidi is a major highlight in that journalist's life and warrants a mention and picture in his BLP. As another editor mentions above, the shoeing of George W. brought the concept to the mass media and therefore the photo should also appear in the Shoeing article. -- BwB ( talk) 15:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
User:Darkness Shines and User:Nomoskedasticity have reinserted the image on the Shoeing article while the discussion is ongoing on WP:BLPN. ( [30], [31]) These are inappropriate reversions and should be reverted back until this discussion has concluded in a conclusive manner. There is no harm in waiting for a few more hours to invite more opinion from other users watching this page. The onus of proof is on the users who insert the material. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
As an uninvolved person maybe I can help understand the concerns being raised with a few questions. First, is it the concern of Nick and Collect that we not include any images of any living person having shoes thrown at them, or reacting to having shoes thrown at them, because that would be disparaging toward that living person? Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 18:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I really don't see this as a big deal. That someone chose to throw a shoe at George W. Bush isn't a negative statement about him: some people see it as a negative thing (because of the motivations that led the man who threw the shoe to do so), but in terms of BLP, this seems like it ought to be in the same category as politicians or other public figures who throw water on each other when debate gets heated. Like this. Or perhaps people fighting inside legislatures. The person doing it is childish, it is possibly of dubious notability (not in Bush's case, I don't think), but it sure ain't a BLP violation. — Tom Morris ( talk) 19:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Adding my additional opinion to the discussion, I think there are appropriate places for the images use, that do not violate the spirit of WP:MUG in regards to former POTUS George W. Bush. That is that the use of the image on the Shoeing article appears to be appropriate, in a limited context of describing the act. If per WP:EVENT the attempted shoeing of George W. Bush is found to be notable, then it would be useful there as well. Additionally, the use of the image in the article regarding the assailant would be appropriate as well. Other uses of the image I think should be discouraged under the spirit of MUG.
Additionally, not regarding BLP, I am of the opinion that the section U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement#December 14th, 2008 press conference incident should be abbreviated per WP:SUMMARY, as it is a small part of the overall scope of that article. Same can be said about the length which it is emphasized in the section Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration#Iraq. Both sections should include a brief mention, with a link to Muntadhar al Zaidi#Shoe incident which itself can be spun off into its own article. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 03:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
On this article the following has been attributed to Barrack Obama However such claims where later rejected by U.S. President Barack Obama who said it was more complicated and a question of Pakistan could do more [2] What Obama actually said was
The president said Mullen's statement "expressed frustration" over the insurgent safe havens in Pakistan. But Obama said "the intelligence is not as clear as we might like in terms of what exactly that relationship is." Obama added that whether Pakistan's ties with the Haqqani network are active or passive, Pakistan has to deal with it. [3] [4]
I feel this is a gross misrepresentation of the source, is it a BLP violation to attribute this to Obama as it is written? Or is it better practice to use the full quote? Darkness Shines ( talk) 16:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Latif Yahia ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Please see WP:ANI#Latif Yahia where it appears the subject himself has been blocked after a legal threat. To quote myself, "We have a 15 day old untouched OTRS ticket 2012012010008591 which is a complaint from a representative of his about his page. I can't comment to the rights or wrongs of the situation, but editor Perrynio ( talk · contribs)'s edit summaries are part of the complaint, and see this edit. We need to sort out the BLP issues (if they exist). Toodst1, the Foundation will deal with any legal action if it comes to that, but that's all. Responding to the complaint and sorting out the article if it needs sorting is up to us. And sooner than later as it would be nice to be able to respond to the OTRS ticket." He's been told to write to the Foundation, but he's already done that so that advice will just annoy him. Dougweller ( talk) 16:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Please compare the article Keith Raniere with its references and the collection of WP:RSes on its talk page, TALK:Keith Raniere. Please have the article accurately report the important information in the citations and available WP:RSes. Thank you for your kind attention to this important matter. Chrisrus ( talk) 17:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Fareed Zakaria ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is mild compared to most here, but the Fareed Zakaria article seems to be a frequent target of new editors wanting to add a singular quote or opinion attributed to Zakaria just to make him look especially good or especially bad. The latest already has me at 3 reverts, and I'm not going to edit war over it, but it has to do with an WP:UNDUE quote by Zakaria that has now been shown to be falsely attributed to him. See the discussion at Talk:Fareed_Zakaria#Fareed_Zakaria.27s_own_statements_regarding_his_candidacy_for_Secretary_of_State. It wouldn't hurt for a few others to watchlist this article, even if I'm proven wrong on this one. First Light ( talk) 01:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Sarah Miles ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The whole entry is crass. It ignores her actual acting career - the highlights of her theatre and film career are ignored - and reduces her personal life to a caricature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachelastor ( talk • contribs) 00:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if this article is well-sourced. Should unsourced statements be removed? -- George Ho ( talk) 06:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Rinat Akhmetov (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
I would appreciate third party opinion on edits done to the article by user
Львівське. This user has been constantly adding statements on the alleged ties of the person with the criminal world, using references to unreliable sources, emotive negative statements and unproven allegations and rumors presented as fact. There was a conflict between me and
Львівське, temporarily resolved by administrator
ddima, and the article contained only facts, backed by reliable sources. Recently,
Львівське reverted everything to his version and in response to my edits recoursed to a whole number of accusations and insults from being the sockpuppet to following me - he just has suggested a number of my articles for deletion. --
Orekhova (
talk)
10:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Here, some editors keep readding badly sourced and POV info about opposition activities - suggesting they are working for foreign governments - a highly provocative gesture in Russia given the amount of activists who are imprisoned/assassinated there. They link to a Youtube video with no provenance (on the Talk page user Greyhood mentions possible sources, but can't say for sure) - and the video is called Receiving instructions in the Embassy of the United States. This title suggests that these activists are working for or influenced by the US, when, as far as is known, they just went for a polite discussion with the man who had been nominated as Ambassador but wouldn't become so for another month. No information from the activists is given regarding their visit, other than what they said when accosted by a reporter in the street. That's hardly a fair chance to give their version. For these reasons, I think that the section gives a highly skewed and biased view of their actions, which harms their reputations and could lead to other problems for them. A secondary issue is that the section is Undue Weight - it is unlikely to have changed any of the protests against Putin's regime, but is a good way of tarring the reputations of the anti-Putin protesters.
The issue is getting close to an edit war, so some thoughts from other users would be appreciated. Malick78 ( talk) 18:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Laura León ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Unsourced material is continually added to the article Laura León by User:Nefty ( here, here and here, and here), containing allegations of a somewhat provocative nature. I requested that Nefty not re-add this material without referencing a verifiable source, but s/he repeatedly does so. Cleduc ( talk) 21:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
The first part of the biography is not open to editing, but there is an error, which has evidently been copied from a typing error on the Ohio DRC website. Romell Broom does not have four counts of kidnap against a male child: there is one kidnap charge and three attempted kidnap charges against female minors, all associated with the one crime against Tryna Middleton and the two girls with her. Therefore, the statement about kidnap of male children is libellous and should be removed or amended. Check with Ohio DRC directly if official confirmation is needed, but the case - and the person - are known to me personally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruthfulness ( talk • contribs) 15:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
To Whom it May Concern:
I am the subject of the article in question. The stub about me has been tampered with by someone with a wry sense of humor; it suggests that I (a violinist) play vuvuzuela and trumpet and it has as well a sentence following that one which makes no sense.
Below is a real bio of me, accurate in all respects. Thank you for your attention:
Paul Rosenthal was born in 1942 and began playing the violin at the age of three. He studied with Dorothy DeLay and Ivan Galamian at the Juilliard School and with Jascha Heifetz at the University of Southern California.
Rosenthal has made his home in Alaska since 1969 and continues to enjoy performing innumerable concerts in every corner of the vast state. In 1972, Rosenthal founded the Sitka Summer Music Festival which continues to attract musicians and audiences from many countries and is recognized as one of the outstanding chamber music festivals in the United States. He also directs the festival's affiliated Autumn Classics and Winter Classics series in Anchorage.
He continues to tour world-wide and can also be heard in recordings on the RCA, Vox, Fidelio, Arabesque, Vanguard and Biddulph labels. His recordings include collaborations from the famous "Heifetz-Piatigorsky Concerts" and premiere recordings of major works by Arensky, Taneyev, Vieuxtemps, as well as his own Variations on "Alaska's Flag."
Paul Rosenthal holds honorary degrees as Doctor of Humane Letters from the University of Alaska and Doctor of Music from Alaska Pacific University.
He performs on a violin made by Joseph Guarnerius in Cremona in 1706. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.65.181 ( talk) 17:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
-- BwB ( talk) 20:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
There is some offensive text at the top of your Andy Murray page just after the initial introductory text. Please remove this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.7.170 ( talk) 19:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Jackson Pollock ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I live on eastern Long Island, NY. Today (Sunday, Feb 5, 2012) I read the local newspaper, which included an interview and photo of Jackson Pollack on his 100th birthday in late Jan'12. Common knowledge has it that he died in a car accident in 1956. He jokes about this misperception in the story.
I created a Wiki user account, put the facts from the newspaper on the TALK section of the Jackson Pollack entry, and asked that a more experienced editor confirm and edit. A few hours later I looked, and my entry was DELETED. I think the appropriate response should have been to REFUTE rather than simply delete. The fact is that the man is alive. He has led quite a full life since 1956, which the story provides details of. He goes by the name PJ Pollack.
Dan's Papers - Volume LII, Number 44, dated February 3, 2012. The story was written by the paper's founder, Dan Rattiner. Should be easy to confirm.
Dcestaro ( talk) 01:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
For anyone who wants to read it, here's the Rattiner article.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 01:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Donald Wildmon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The beginning of the entry is "...is a piece of shit, hatemonger...."
This may be true; but is probably not appropriate. Maybe if they cited examples. Just found it unusual for Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.169.247 ( talk • contribs)
Shahina Siddiqui ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I recently stumbled upon a blatant copyvio in this BLP and removed it. Then I took another look at the rest of the article and thought it could use input from BLP regulars. The article currently focuses on two unsuccessful legal complaints by the subject. I'm not sure if any of it meets BLP standards. And though they've gained some regional coverage, I'm not convinced either event is noteworthy. Any opinions?
JFHJr (
㊟)
05:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
DJ Wrongtom ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sorry, can't deal with this, just funny, spurious nonsense about this DJ remixer that has been on-wiki since 2007. Please can some sensible heads decide if the guy meets GNG, he's recently remixed a whole
Roots Manuva album
[33].
Does he pass musicbio, or is it BLP1E and you're out? Too involved and still laughing, at least stub it to something reasonable, or has Wikipedia merged with Uncyclopaedia?
CaptainScreebo
Parley!
21:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Prem Rawat ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An editor has inserted seven links to four self published websites on the talk page that attack Prem Rawat and contain contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced. [34] I have removed it once but it was reinserted. I would appreciate an impartial editor to enforce BLP. Momento ( talk) 01:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The following need verifiable citation or must be deleted:
"Sheila handed her gold medal to her twin brother after becoming the olympics champion, and he dropped it to the floor and some parts of it are rotten." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.129.88 ( talk) 06:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, I am a Wikipedia novice, but this article ("Dregen") appears to have had a press release/promotional biography copied and pasted into its body. It reads like an advertisement and lacks citation. N.B. the section headed "Biography". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.29.148.141 ( talk) 12:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Nancy Brinker ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Some very contentious statements in this article. 132.170.89.68 ( talk) 18:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)yankhadenuf
See Talk:Callista_Gingrich#.22Third_wife.22 - please all folks with in interest in BLPs come help discuss whether she should be "third wife" or "married" to Newt in the lead. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 19:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Bill Schuette ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Was filled with biased information, and comments like gets a kick out of hurting sick people. Was edited today by myself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigjohnsteak ( talk • contribs) 00:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Ali Paya ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(The information in the last para of Ali Paya is inaccurate and appears to have been written by someone who has a grudge against Mr Paya.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.53.2 ( talk) 12:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
biblio
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).