![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Darlene Grant ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Meredith Monroe ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There are a few details incorrect on Meredith Monroe site. First the references section, the contemporary theatre, film and television is not a reliable source. After speaking to the senior editor at Gala they have used a service called baseline to research the various actors they have created the biographies for. However after several emails it has come to light that none of the dates can be verified, also if she attended Milkin University .
The biography written by Kathe Tibbs in the book They Don't Wanna Wait: the Stars of Dawson Creek goes into more depth about the actors and ECW publishers said they fact check the information to the 6 actors school records.
In here you will find her birth date is listed as 1976 rather than 1968.
Also the details in Kathe Tibbs biography relates more with the details to the book the Dawson Creek Compilation a resource Wikipedia has used to cross reference Katie Holmes information with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay99a ( talk • contribs) 10:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
User 84.253.220.75 has distorted the content of page about Pekka Himanen, a Finnish Philosopher. He has put there references to Yellow press articles and controversial, negative sources.
Is Wikipedia so vulnerable to abuse?
Yours Ari Tenhunen Helsinki Finland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.238.10.15 ( talk) 15:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
According to history there has been no activity on this page since February. Finnish Wikipedia is more recent I think Pekka Himanen. It doesn't matter if they're controversial or negative, what matters is whether they're true. John of Cromer in Philippines ( talk) mytime= Tue 00:38, wikitime= 16:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Tom Strickland ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Email from someone representing him:
I'll note to them that I've posted this here, and will suggest requests go to the talk page. BLP-experienced editors checking over the article would also be good - David Gerard ( talk) 17:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
A major part of Mick Fleetwood's personal history is missing. Sara Lynn Recor, Stevie Nick's best friend and inspiration for her song"Sara", moved in with Fleetwood in November 1978. Mick and Stevie were at the end of the affair that prompted the demise of Mick's marriage to Jenny Boyd. Although Mick and Sara's relationship was tumultuous, they married on April 24, 1988. They were subsequently separated in 1992, and the divorce was final in January of 1995.
Contributed by Sara Fleetwood details removed 19:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
This statement is true and correct It would be nice if one reference page could include these facts. My sourse is myself...please give me my props! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuskitall ( talk • contribs) 19:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I would like to point out that Wikipedia has Naomi Campbell's age as 142 years old. You should fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.117.212.39 ( talk) 02:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I reverted it. You, too, can revert vandalism. Click "View History" and then "undo" when available. Cheers. JFHJr ( ㊟) 02:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Is Campaign for "santorum" neologism properly placed in [[Category:Homophobia]] and [[Category:LGBT rights in the United States]]?
I rather think it runs afounl of the specific dictum that the Category:Homophobia specifically states
but another editor repeatedly reverts it with the comment "article is not about an individual, group, or media"
The article appears on its face to relate to an "individual", and also to relate to "media" so I am at a loss as to why this specific article would be exempt from prior Wikipedia specific decisions thereon. It also seems to fall under WP:BLP which pretty much means we have always considered it to be about an "individual" as well. Thanks. Collect ( talk) 20:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Anthony asks for scholarly sources:
I would remind Robin to not personally attack Rick Santorum in the talk page. Arzel ( talk) 14:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Shepard Smith has had discussions about whether it is proper to use allegations of homosexuality in his BLP.
[1] One editor states:
I had suggested that:
does not meet the requirements for making claims in a BLP about a person's sexuality, as there is no reliable source making more than "allegations." [2] from the Washington Blade only states that Smith does not discuss sex. [3] is from Out.com which is scarcely a "reliable source" as required, IMO, by WP:BLP.
Further input on this divergence of opinion is requested. Collect ( talk) 21:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
[4] Binksternet reinserted Smith's name in an article on the outing film saying it was "well-known" that Smith belongs in a list of living persons asserted to be gay. (edit summary: Restore list of names. No part of BLP is being violated here, all the names are WP:WELLKNOWN.) I consider this beyong the pale - will an admin actually look at the "sources"? I found a huge number of "deadlinks" and "non-existent" links outing living people. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 16:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Above I am accused of "being hot" about BLP policy. Damn right I am! It is one of the most important policies on Wikipedia and anyone who thinks it is "optional" when they do not like a person - left, right or centre, can count on me to "get hot." Collect ( talk) 16:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Why are the stories speculating about his sexual orientation "noteworthy" and "relevant" (words used in WELLKNOWN)? Does it matter whether a well-known journalist is gay or straight or bi or asexual? I mean, there are always going to be news stories on this sort of issue, but just because the press is prurient doesn't mean we have to be.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 17:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
My dictionary defines allegation as "a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof." So allegation is the wrong word to use here. A better choice might be "claim". That said, our BLP policy is quite clear "Contentious material about living persons ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." That applies to any article. The Reptilians claims of Mr. Icke are permissible because they are so preposterous that the claims reflect on him, not his subjects (and so we need reliable sources that he made those claims). -- agr ( talk) 22:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:BLP#can_a_claim_be_disallowed_in_one_article_per_WP:BLP_and_allowed_in_other_articles.3F. At this policy talk page Collect initiated a discussion about whether we can have differing contexts about Smith's being outed by Outrage, differing, that is, between the biography and the film page, with one avoiding the bit and the other not. Consensus there is that context is indeed a factor in deciding where. Binksternet ( talk) 15:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
The Weeknd ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Can someone with some time take a look at this article. The career section opens with a lot of discussion of his friendship etc. with producer Rose, and their fall out. A cursory examination suggests that this is a weird way of introducing the guys career - can some kind soul take a look and see if it needs refocusing? I don't have the time or experience in the subject :) -- Errant ( chat!) 10:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Bruce J. Sallan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Caught my eye at recent changes because this article was recently featured on this noticeboard, suffering from puffery and possible COI editing, the discussion is here. Is it permissible to use a link to the Amazon page that sells his book as a reference for the date it came out? Seems dubious to me, it's the very first ref, smack bang in the lead (for info there are two Amazon refs, one not working, his own website and Imdb). CaptainScreebo Parley! 21:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
The entire article on Allison Smith has no sources, and much of the article is written by an editor named "Allisonsmithfan" whose only contributions are about Allison Smith. There is a link to Allisonsmith.org, which does not exist, and there is no telling if it has any connection to the person about which the article is written. I also notice writing such as "Her small town was overwhelmed by her voice" and "played the role to rave reviews." While i am tempted to delete the entire article under WP:BLP I will defer to others to investigate on their own. Closedthursday ( talk) 17:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Omid Safi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Can some experienced BLPs have a look at this edit by a new editor ? It includes a claim by Robert Spencer from his Jihad Watch blog via American Thinker among other things. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at this article. I have removed some uncited material, and some which appeared to be purely personal opinion, but am still concerned about the tone of the remainder. There are several points where the article appears to be trying to make a case about Michael, and much of the material appears somewhat tangential, and only included to make that case. Skinsmoke ( talk) 05:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I am a Padres fan and over the past months I've tried to add detail to the "Jeff Moorad" article. The article seems to have been stripped of a great amount of detail. Not sure I understand the rationale behind this? Removing the entire Community Work section seems especially strange: almost as if there were a personal campaign against Mr. Moorad by some editors... Honestly, I am done editing this article. Over the past months I've tried to add detail to the article, much of it coming from an MLB.com biography and some from more recent news articles, etc. I feel cheated as a Wikipedia user that my edits have been stripped in the name of mere technicalities. There seems to be no protection from the tyrrany of Wikipedia editors. Pretty interesting that when the community tries to get involved in editing an article, there is this harsh a response from Wikipedia editors. Of course, I understand fully: Editors Bagumba and Muboshgu have found niches here on the baseball sections of Wikipedia, and someone trying to help with the articles would take some of their power. The editors used seemingly every tactic to remove my edits, including accusations of slanting sources, etc. Yet, it seems that the editors are slanted in the very opposite direction to which they accuse me of being. Practically every edit I made would be removed and I would receive a message directing me to the "Welcome Page." I will not study the welcome page as I do not plan to spend hours on end editing Wikipedia articles, and I don't think that Jimmy Wales' intention was to have every user known every technical detail, but rather to come together and share our knowledge and create a great resource for the world. I've tried to do that and found that I haven't been able to do so.
This is not what Wikipedia has been to me, and I'm sorry that it has had to be this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.80.248 ( talk) 01:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I came by a new BLP of a medical researcher by a new editor after they added a link to it from one of the pages on my watchlist; it is in generally not too bad a shape, but when I tried to tone down the language and remove a large dump of citations, they reverted. As I generally do not edit biographies, I wanted to bring it to the attention of this noticeboard so that someone with more experience on BLPs may be able to work with this new editor to improve the article. Thanks. Yobol ( talk) 13:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Campaign for "santorum" neologism (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Does the statement that "Santorum made anti-gay comments" (in Wikipedia's voice) require strong sourcing as it is presented as fact? I had suggested variants on "... Senator
Rick Santorum's comments which were considered anti-gay by Savage and some others." The language which was reverted to several times was simply "... U.S. Senator
Rick Santorum's anti-gay comments."
The questions are: Is this direct statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice subject to WP:BLP? If so, is it a "contentious claim"? If it is a "contentious claim" is it an opinion or is it a statement of objective fact? If it is an opinion, should it be ascribed as such to those holding it? I trust this is a neutral statement of the issues at hand. Collect ( talk) 21:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
The biography of Kelley by George Carpozi Jr. was recognized at the time it was published as a hatchet job. San Francisco Chronicle 7/22/91: "In 'Poison Pen,' Carpozi doesn't pretend he's out to investigate the infinite variety of Kitty's psyche -- he's out to get her, and get her he does." Los Angeles Times 9/8/91: "Any doubt that this work is revenge disappeared on Page 9." Material from this source should be used carefully. Irrelevant information from this source has been removed various times by different editors but the material is always added agains. I propose to remove some material now, but I wish to report this activity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Researchfairy ( talk • contribs) 15:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Entire 'Personal life' section is one long useless gossip fest irrelevant to the person's notability, not to mention WP:UNDUE. I can definitely see someone writing to OTRS and complaining about this. 16:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
There still is an issue of his birthplace, nationality, and ethnicity in the lede. -- Malerooster ( talk) 18:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Zack Kopplin (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
After attempting to resolve problems with the National Influence section it has been vandalized again with sourced material deleted.
128.42.159.243 (
talk)
20:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
William Earl Reid Please remove the last line of this page suggesting William Earl Reid was fined for selling a car. This is libellous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sstroppa ( talk • contribs) 16:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Ivy Queen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Can we get some help on nailing down her birthplace? It seems that her PR ethnicity, if she is American, is pretty significant, so it could go in the lede, but a rewrite of lede and infobox would be in order if she was in fact born in NYC. Thank you, -- Malerooster ( talk) 18:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I could use some advise on how to move forward on this, User:Colliric added the following to the David Miscavige page, I reverted it due to both weight, the fact that Miscavige and Cruise both deny it, and I honestly don't trust statements that start with "and potentially this caused..." within a BLP. Colliric has gone to my talk page and both defended the addition and accused me of edit warring. I'm not trying to prod a hornets nest but I think this addition violates wikipedia standards. Can I get someone else to take a look at this. I have also posted a discussion on the talk page. Coffeepusher ( talk) 16:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Here is a contemporus 2006 article I did not refer to, it also has several sources it links to. There are other references for this which can be easily found. http://www.crushable.com/2006/11/20/entertainment/tom-cruises-best-man-comes-on-honeymoon/ I'm just frankly a little lazy and didn't add more refs Like I should have.
Colliric ( talk) 09:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I have relented to this change back, I am happy this has been mentioned in the talk page as it was an obvious omission given it was widely reported. Also given Tom Cruise and David Miscavige also deny publically the Xenu doctrine(and David Miscavige also denies he was involved in the Lisa Mcpherson affair), their common denial is not really to be given weight(and isn't by most). If Katie Holmes denied it, then maybe you might have had something with that particular defense. Lawrence Wright reported in his Book that Tom Cruise auditioned his wife with the help of Miscavige(and his wife Shelly), so perhaps that has more gravitas to be in the article given it was a published New York Times Bestseller? or is that also not good enough(serious question here)? Colliric ( talk) 11:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
You did not explain that correctly when you deleted the whole thing with little explination. Now that you have finally explained it, I now understand and I agree I was too agressive in the language. I was trying to reflect the source's tone(which I admit took the addition too far). I do believe that section still needs expansion, should be a few sentences, not just one that makes it seem as if he was 100% hands-off as that is also in violation of the need for lack of bias as Lawrence Wright's book elaborated on the marriage and Miscavige's role in it(including the accusations he and his wife played "matchmaker" and auditioned candidates), and some of the accusations should be included, in similar style to the reference to Jenna Miscavige's own book that appears directly above it. I will not do it myself though as I have not yet personally read exactly what the book says about Miscavige. Should be fairly easy given that it's already Ref number 45, and the write up just needs to be done. Colliric ( talk) 14:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Some well meaning editors are citing BLP as a reason not to use the word "suspect(s)" or post FBI released photos of the suspects. Some are going to far as to suggest we need to wait for an conviction. The FBI said suspects and every media outlet is reporting it so how can WP do any damage? I welcome feedback. [13] Legacypac ( talk) 23:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi there,
Aidan Heavey is the CEO of the company that I work for (Tullow Oil). He has recently expressed some concerns around his entry on Wikipedia. All of the content relating to Reference 6 (^ a b GNN Liberia (31 January 2013). "Tullow Oil’s projections cause budgetary worries in Africa". GNN Liberia.) is factually incorrect.
We approached the journalist that wrote the article and, after hearing our concerns, he agreed to either amend or remove the article. Unfortunately he never did so.
I would like to amend the entry with some updates, and also remove all of the content related to Reference 6. However as I work for the company that Aiden is the CEO of I am wary of being accused of corporate censorship.
Could you advise me please as to the best way to go about amending and updating this page so that it is done in an unbiased, factual and transparent maner? I do have a fisked version of the article if that is of any use?
I did also start a conversation on the talk page of this article. Apologies if this is the wrong approach but I am very new to wikipedia editing and still trying to figure it all out.
Any help / advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, LindsayAtTullowOil ( talk) 10:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your help and also thank you for removing the paragraph relating to the GNN source. I don't do puffery and promotion and have agreed to help resolve this issue on the basis that I do so in a transparent, factual and non-blow-your-own-corporate-trumpet manner. So far my approach seems to have worked in my favour on Wikipedia. LindsayAtTullowOil ( talk) 13:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
This article is essentially a smear campaign. It would seem the NYT and FBI had already handled that and Wikipedia could just report the case in its article. It has been tagged as problematic for tone since 2008. - 166.137.210.23 ( talk) 15:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Manuel Rivas was born in A Coruña, Spain in 1957. His page currently says he was born in Westwood, España, and has no option to edit. ~~Source: http://www.escritores.org/biografias/240-manuel-rivas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.202.74.88 ( talk) 01:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
A user, who signed their edits in such a way as to imply that they are an immediate family member of the article topic, recently blanked Savannah Smith Boucher, replacing it instead with an assertion that the article constituted "identity theft" of information not authorized for distribution by the Boucher family. I've reverted the article back to its prior form and editprotected it for the time being, but would like to ask if somebody from BLPN could review the article and its sources to see if there is anything in it that should actually be removed. Thanks. Bearcat ( talk) 01:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
K. S. Makhan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Information on the life is KS MAKHAN especially in his "Personal Life" section is both without reference or citation to any article of truth.
It is requested the information about his marital status, his alleged infidelity and the explanation provided for his change of career direction be immediately removed until such time that factual referenced information is provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.106.57 ( talk) 06:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Quinton Hoover (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
People have been claiming the death of
Quinton Hoover all day, but no one has even tried to provide a source for this. Can anyone obtain some more information?
98.220.156.36 (
talk)
23:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL I think Mr. Lieberman just showed up at help desk wanting to create his own article. Does someone wish to create a stub so he has a talk page to make COI requests?-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 20:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Steve Yuhas ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Folks, would someone with more time than I have at the moment please take a look at this one? There is a lot of unsourced and unencyclopedic material that needs sorting, and I am sure other issues as well. Thanks.-- ukexpat ( talk) 19:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
This is way, way above my pay grade, but I sense real trouble brewing here and more experienced heads than mine will be needed. For example, there's heavy reliance (a through ax -- no kidding) on a grand jury report issued just 9 days ago, which I suspect counts as primary. And that's just ref [1]! Good luck. This tape will self-destruct in five seconds. EEng ( talk) 19:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi everyone. As some of you here may be aware, there has been a lot of activity around Ping Fu's article in recent months, following press coverage of criticisms about her memoir. On behalf of Geomagic, the company founded by Ping Fu, I've been working on a new draft for the article based on reliable sources. A few editors who have been involved on the article have been reviewing the draft and one has suggested that I reach out to editors here who are knowledgeable about BLP issues.
Here's the link to the draft: User:16912_Rhiannon/Ping_Fu, which editors are discussing on the draft's Talk page. There is also a small discussion at WikiProject Biography that you may want to take a look at. I've described there the issues with the current article and how I've tried to address these in the draft.
As I wrote at WikiProject Biography, in addition to fixing specific issues with the current article, I've looked at how to deal with details that have been disputed and have conflicting references. My feeling is that it may be best to reduce the detail regarding Ping's early life and education as the sources conflict and some facts have recently been called into question. I've kept these details to a minimum in the draft for this reason.
I should note that after feedback on the Memoir section, I've rewritten this slightly and offered the updated version on the draft's talk page for review before I drop it into the draft. It would be fantastic if editors here could review the draft and the updated Memoir section on the Talk page and offer their thoughts. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon ( Talk · COI) 23:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Actually, I follow the "bright-line" rule suggested by Jimbo Wales, so I'd rather not move the sections into the article myself. If you think they look good, would you mind making the move? If you're able to do that, I can leave an update on the Ping Fu Talk page to explain and invite editors to continue work on the sections once live. 16912 Rhiannon ( Talk · COI) 18:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello. At Talk:Shirley_Ardell_Mason#Purportedly, two individuals are engaging in what I can only describe as 'bickering' over the page subject, making several claims against each other in the process. I have hidden the text via {{ divhide}} and left a note that their conduct is not appreciated, but I'm less sure about whether it might be specifically of BLP concern. Any comments or suggestions? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 19:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Bernard C. Parks ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has more than one son, Bernard C. Parks, Jr. He also has daughters. Felicia Parks-Mena, Lori Parks (deceased), Michelle Parks, and Trudy Parks (deceased). I know this to be true because I am his grand-daughter.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drneal1990 ( talk • contribs)
The article Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev includes the names of parents, sisters and an uncle of the suspects in the Boston Marathon bombings. These people are not notable and had no involvement in the attack. Their names should not be published in accordance with WP:BLPNAME. The understanding of readers is not enhanced by knowledge of family members' names. These uninvolved people are entitled to privacy and freedom from intrusion as they get on with their lives. WWGB ( talk) 06:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Here are very public media outlets naming his wife Katherine Russell by name: New York Daily News, The Globe and Mail, ABC News werldwayd ( talk) 21:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I have removed material from Feiz Mohammad's page that attempts to link him to the Boston Marathon bombings in the flimsiest possible way. In a section labeled "Controversy," which contains a number of reports of Mohammad's actions and speeches that have been offensive, hostile and generally make him not a very nice person, a sub-section was added that reported that... one of his YouTube videos was linked in the channel of the suspected bomber.
This is right out and an incredibly thin attempt at guilt by association. It is not suggested that Mohammad had any contact with the bombers. It is not suggested that Mohammad encouraged the bombers to attack Boston. It is not suggested that Mohammad had anything to do with the attacks whatsoever - and he had absolutely no control over who might have linked his videos on YouTube. This is like suggesting that because Timothy McVeigh distributed gun-rights literature, that we should have a paragraph in every article for the gun-rights organizations he supported mentioning that they were part of McVeigh's terrorist attack.
Whatever other vile things Mohammad may have done in his life, there is absolutely no evidence that he had anything to do with the attacks and linking him to the attacks smacks of "find someone to smear." polarscribe ( talk) 07:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Please, take a look at the Vanilla DeVille article. It appears to be a BLP nightmare, almost enterely made of unreliable sources and of claims made by herself. Cavarrone ( talk) 09:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear Sir/Madam,
Please remove article "Abouzar Noghani". I've been abused, as the article has been changed by someone who added some wrong information and tried to character assassination.
Kind Regards,
Abouzar Noghani. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.208.13 ( talk) 11:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Can I ask for more eyes on this page? A user(s) keeps adding this poorly sourced material consisting mostly of original research, comparing the Spanish Prime Minister to Hitler. Valenciano ( talk) 14:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Travis Walker Crude content, libelous. Incorrect information, non-existent boxing weight classifications. Inappropriate and non-factual nickname. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.17.157 ( talk) 17:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Please delete this page. It falls into the category of 'Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose.'
The history of this page is littered with edits aimed to disparage. Although attempts have been made to offer a fairer biography, the vandalism continues. It is a selective biography set up by someone with a motive not to be informative, but intimidating. The subject is also not notable enough to warrant wikipedia entry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.216.144.186 ( talk) 18:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Frank Stitt ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Attributing a chefs work to the growth of the "local food movement" is offensive. A chef is the one profiteering off this food not the farmer. The farmer sells the food for dirt cheap because if they didn't that chef wouldn't buy it. Then the chef turns that produce into 300% profit. Maybe if we made food more expensive, cut out the restaurants, and everyone made their own food that would be a locally grown food movement. But this is just good public relations for an already wealthy man. Also referring to grape harvesting as a "menial job" is double offensive to the people growing the food in this country. I would say editing Wikipedia is a menial job in comparison. Arflat ( talk) 20:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
This article reads like a puff piece written by a public relations consultant. It is completely non-objective and adulatory to an extreme. It should be withdrawn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.30.157 ( talk) 16:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
For sure, that wasn't directly adressed at you :) CaptainScreebo Parley! 00:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
An IP editor is removing text from various articles about Melissa Farley, ostensibly because she is no longer accredited in her field (psychology). The editor put up this notice at the Fringe noticeboard:
Melissa Farley is quoted in many articles as a accredited psychologist but is no longer is no longer accredited member of APA following Ethics violations over fraudulent fabricated research and there are many editors guarding article about her pet theories that quote her. This needs sorting out before these subject become laughing stock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.208.204.151 ( talk • contribs)
I have restored some cited or otherwise valid text removed by the IP, and reverted some uncited changes. The matter could use some more eyes, certainly. Binksternet ( talk) 19:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
The article o Charlayne Hunter-Gault is a mess, with lots of conflicting information (parents' and children's names are different in different places, chronology is confused, etc.), and someone has inserted comments about this into the text of the article instead of fixing the data. I don't have the information to fix it, but I thought someone should know about it. (There's no "This article needs to be cleaned up" notice at the top of the page.) Lisapaloma ( talk) 05:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Tucker Reed ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Material is being repeatedly inserted about a sexual assault accusation. The sources are all social media websites such as personal blogs or magazine opinion blogs. Wikipedia is being used to promote external websites which detail this unfounded allegation of sexual assault. MisTemPest ( talk) 22:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Reliable sources are cited. Other contributor attempting to preclude information regarding current contentious factual situation. Biased trolls IP address needs to be noted and blocked by Admin from further revisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.155.173.245 ( talk) 05:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
MisTemPest is a biased user and is relentlessly trying to erase links to reliable websites that contain information regarding an important fact about Ms. Reed's life. To delete it would be to withhold information from wikipedia's encyclopedic community -- Ms. Magazine is credited as a source in many wikipedia pages. This information adhere's to wikipedias core content policies; it is neutral in tone, verifiably coming from a sound source, and is not an original research allegation. _______________________
FreeRangeFrog, the material you wish to delete from Reed's article (the "Challenged Material") is an extended reference to Miss Reed's body of work -- her writings. Since it merely identifies Reed's work, it certainly does not need any citation support beyond the fact of the writings themselves. It states as follows:
A self-identified sexual assault survivor, Reed authors the blog "Covered In Band-Aids," a collection of essays exploring "the assaulted woman’s life before, during and after her assault." Initially anonymous, Reed identified herself and her alleged attacker in a post on February 23, 2013.[4] This decision—and Reed's subsequent efforts to raise awareness for sexual assault victims at the University of Southern California—was profiled in a Ms. magazine article on April 10, 2013.[5]
All of this merely identifies the corpus of Reed's work. It is no less factual than identifying Reed's trilogy for young adults. You should further note that the Challenged Material makes no reference to a specific person -- does not identify a rapist -- and is not offered for this purpose. Indeed, the references to Reed's work accurately uses the phrase "alleged rapist", which fairly indicates that the man was not (yet) convicted of a crime. Instead, the Challenged Material has been offered to show how Reed is using her voice and writing skills. It is as if you are trying to delete the title of a book she wrote because the content of the book contains material objectionable to, say, a religious extremist. Your censoring of Reed's bio at the behest of this man furthers his efforts to silence Reed, and it is ill-founded and not in accordance with the standards promulgated by Wiki.
Please tell me exactly what in the Challenged Material requires citation support, when the mere fact of its existence is all that is being referenced. I believe your support of MisTemPest is ill-founded and misguided, and based on an emotional response to the content of Reed's blog, not the content of her biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.155.173.245 ( talk) 08:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
WP:BLPCRIME applies to accusations as well as to outright statements that someone has committed a crime. "For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." Just because the source uses the phrase "alleged rapist" rather than "rapist" to describe a person doesn't make it permissible. Ken Arromdee ( talk) 19:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
You are missing the point. These statements in Reed's biography identify no one and accuse no one -- they merely make clear that Reed's body of work focuses on the fact of her believing herself raped and reacting to that belief.
You are exhibiting a knee-jerk reaction that SILENCES this woman and IGNORES the writings/work that she most identifies with, by censoring out all references to her work EVEN THOUGH THESE REFERENCES DO NOT IDENTIFY OR LIBEL ANYONE.
The individual in question has the right to sue Reed for libel and in fact has (though he will have an uphill battle persuading a jury to ignore his four taped confessions to the crime). All of that is beside the point. Reed self-identifies as a feminist writer particularly focused on the topic of rape. You should not erase this central and critical facet of her work. You have no justification for doing so, and the cited language certainly does not provide such justification, since no one -- neither Reed nor anyone else -- is identified as "accused of a crime." Would you likewise edit Oprah Winfrey's biography to hide her report that she was incestuously raped as a child?
Reed's rapist is trying to rape her again, by silencing her. And you are colluding. 140.211.172.23 ( talk) 21:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
redirect
or rename
at the
deletion discussion.Could I ask those familiar with policy, particularly WP:BLPCRIME to keep an eye on the Boston Marathon bombings article, as we have at least one contributor arguing that policy (specifically "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law") does not apply if we have a reliable source that says that third parties (in this case, unnamed "U.S. officials") have witnessed a confession by the accused - see Talk:Boston Marathon bombings#Confession & Acknowledgement of Brother's Role. As uncomfortable as it may seem to some, we clearly have an obligation to refer to the alleged perpetrator as just that - or as a suspect - until a court determines otherwise. Wikipedia is not a court of law. We do not determine innocence or guilt. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 06:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
On the other hand, we have a specific criminal charge. That does fall under blpcrime. And an admission to comitting the act is not tantamount to a guilty plea. That is all discussed in greater detail at the above link that Andy provided. Epeefleche ( talk) 07:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
"A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law.... .... BLPCRIME applies to low-profile individuals and not to well-known individuals, in whose cases WP:WELLKNOWN is the appropriate policy to follow."
Epeefleche ( talk) 08:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)"In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative.... Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he actually did."
I also draw a distinction between admission of taking an criminal act and pleading guilty to a specific charge. The "suspect" has now told the carjack vic and law enforcement that they did the bombings and killed the MIT officer. His wounding and capture in the manhunt is 110% proof he was in the police shootout. He even has stated reasons for the bombing (reasons much like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal_Shahzad). If someone claims responsibility for an act and that comes from RS we no longer need to dance around words like Suspect or Alleged or Accused as they apply to the acts. We only might need these words in relation to the actual criminal charge.
There is overwhelming evidence these guys did the bombing and the live brother admits it and says why he did it. We do not need to wait for a conviction before accepting him at his word that he is the bomber and just saying that he is the bomber.
There is also the suggestion we can't rely on what the Washington Post and Boston Globe say that law enforcement told them. If we toss out every RS just because we don't like the report, and yet we can't do OR like going to the hospital and asking him ourselves, how are we supposed to write anything?
Now for the dead brother - we can and should say he is the bomber based on his admissions to the carjack guy and the other evidence. There is no way he is protected by "presumed innocent until convicted" because he is dead and will never be charged or convicted. Here are a couple high profile examples of people who did not confess, but died in the act like the older brother, and what Wikipedia says right now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Atta "was an Egyptian hijacker and one of the ringleaders of the September 11 attacks who served as the hijacker-pilot" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waleed_al-Shehri was one of five hijackers...
Legacypac ( talk) 09:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: I have raised this matter at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 10:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Saying that someone committed a bombing is, by any common sense standards, saying that they committed a crime. It is true that technically, that is not saying they committed a crime, because it is possible to commit a bombing and be not guilty of an actual crime for various reasons, but if you're going to interpret the policy that way, it would be meaningless. We wouldn't have to worry about saying that any person killed any other person, because after all, there are circumstances where killing someone isn't a crime so we're not accusing them of a crime. Ken Arromdee ( talk) 19:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please review this diff and, if appropriate "unhide" the material I've hidden. I do not know when we can rely on a twitter feed that is verified to belong to the subject. I know there IS a rule, but I don't know what it is. David in DC ( talk) 11:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
This article has been the subject of two previous referrals:
[18]
[19]
Lloyd Irvin is a reasonably well-known martial arts instructor who has a Wikipedia article.
Now, clearly this is a sensitive matter which is needs to be handled extremely carefully. However the allegations are clearly having a massive effect on Lloyd Irvin's life; students are leaving his school, people are breaking off ties, and he is being forced to defend himself in the press with regard to his earlier acquittal. My personal thought is that the way to approach it is to report the accusations against two of his students (number 1 above), which is a matter of record, and his response (number 3 above), only touching on the earlier accusations as much as is necessary to understand his response. Similarly it seems reasonable to briefly mention his recent statement ending his "affiliate" program (number 5 above), as reported in the martial arts press. I'm not confident on the sourcing for number 4 above.
Following a short discussion on the Talk page, given the previous history I was advised to bring it here. I'd appreciate people's thoughts. -- Merlinme ( talk) 17:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for another considered attempt at debate.
If the question is regarding my motives, they're very simple; I saw Lloyd Irvin in the news; as is often the case when I wish to find out more information about something, I went to Wikipedia to find out more about him; in this case I discovered that Wikipedia did not even mention what is apparently the most important event in his life right now, where his comptetition team and business are being hit by defections and he has had made a long statement to try to defend himself in the most public forum imaginable for a Brazilian jiu jitsu trainer, where the incident has been on-going for several months and has been reported in multiple sources (some of them, admittedly, better than others). When I went to the talk page to discuss if this information should be added in some form, I found it full of an ongoing debate about including the information, and I was told to come here if I felt the information should be included. And here we are. -- Merlinme ( talk) 06:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Two of Lloyd Irvin's students were charged in January 2013 with the rape of a woman they knew from Lloyd Irvin Martial Arts School in Camp Springs. [30] Lloyd Irvin issued an official statement to Graciemag, the Brazilian jiu-jitsu magazine, on January 22nd 2013, in which he made it clear that he deplored what had happened, and distanced his team from the incident, noting that the accused had only trained with his organization a few months. He also responded to online discussions regarding a 1989 incident involving himself where he was found not guilty. [31] On March 10th 2013 it was reported that Lloyd Irvin had announced on Facebook that he was terminating the Team Lloyd Irvin Affiliate Program, because of what he described as lynch mob attacks on Team Lloyd Irvin affiliate businesses. [32]
Ok, one last try. There's clearly no consensus for Lloyd Irvin references. There's some support for Team Lloyd Irvin references. How about:
In February and March 2013 it was reported that some of Irvin's best students had left his team.
[35] Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu gold medal winner
Keenan Cornelius said in a statement that he could no longer be sure that it was the right environment for him.
[36]
Does anyone object to that? -- Merlinme ( talk) 12:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Is this not relevant, or credible, or reliable? Why has no one considered this article? Last time I looked, TheVerge.com was a major news outlet. Also, I find it ironic, to say the least, that the home invasion incident is supported by a Bloody Elbow article, but Bloody Elbow's credibility is being questioned in relationship to the rape incident.
Since joining wikipedia last year,
Female bodybuilder enthusiast (
talk ·
contribs) has created quite a few articles about, female bodybuilders. For example
Johanna Dejager. Almost all of these articles have inadequate sourcing. While none of the ones I've reviewed have any defamatory content the notability seems thin in addition to the paucity of RS. I'd appreciate it if someone can examine this article (I already nominated
Shelia Bleck for deletion, but am now having 2nd thoughts. Thanks.
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer
04:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I think creations by both this user and another likely related user, Fbb fan ( talk · contribs), are rather alarming. None appear to be well-written or well-sourced. Nearly everything should go for lack of sourcing in the article and lack of coverage otherwise AFAICT. JFHJr ( ㊟) 14:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Need some additional eyes on this. A guy who almost got away with using money and power to influence the legal system, but someone(s) still think that that wasnt enough and that the wikipedia article needs to carry on the crusade for the victims. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Chris Cutrone ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
this person is not notable in any way — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.15.14.59 ( talk) 18:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I do believe there is an element of BLP in violation regarding Paul Kevin Curtis. The redirect should be deleted, and serious consideration should be given to removing his name entirely from in the 2013 ricin letters article. It is just as encyclopedic to say "a man was arrested, but the charges were dropped" as it is to name the person who is otherwise not known and entitled to privacy, in my opinion. My76Strat ( talk) 08:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
This article is an advertisement with a single reference to a commercial website belonging to the person. Article must be deleted to meet Wikipedia standards of non-commercial and neutral articles written with verifiable sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brinda_Somaya — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.51.195 ( talk) 04:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
The "hate-mongering" section, which keeps creeping in, totally violates Wikipedia's policy for biographies of living persons: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous."
In fact, the whole section itself is hate-mongering against Mr. Ibrahim, a living person,and very libelous. I never see such biased texts on Wikipedia's other biographies.
Moreover, many of these hate-filled assertions are in fact "unsourced or poorly sourced":
ONE: Ibrahim's August, 2012 report for The American Thinker that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt had publicly crucified opponents of President Morsi in front of the presidential palace prompted the Thinker's blog editor, Rick Moran, to qualify the report as "at best, an exaggeration, and at worst, a hoax." [9]
This does not take into account Ibrahim's own response, which can be read here http://www.meforum.org/3330/egypt-crucifixions and which documents that Sky News itself admits to publishing a story about the Brotherhood crucifying people, but then took it down after he translated to English and disseminated it. Moreover, lots of other sources, especially Arabic ones, still have the story on the Net.
TWO: In July, 2012, a report by Ibrahim that a Muslim cleric proscribed sodomy as permissible if done to expand the anus, allowing the insertion of a suicide bomb, was demonstrated to be a hoax. [10][11]
Again, nothing was demonstrated as being a hoax. Ibrahim fully rebutted the hoax charges here : http://frontpagemag.com/2012/raymond-ibrahim/islamic-sodomy-or-%E2%80%98islamophobic-hoax%E2%80%99/ A video of an Arabic reporter saying exactly what Ibrahim translated about Islamic sodomy exists on the Internet, and was picked up by other reputable news organizations, including MEMRI, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ik5GZap_-_A
THREE: In May of 2012, Ibrahim propagated a video of a beheading in Syria deceptively mislabeled “Graphic Video: Muslims Behead Christian Convert in ‘Moderate’ Tunisia.” [12]
Wrong. Ibrahim linked to an Arabic news commentary video where the host who aired the clip clearly states it was in Tunisia here: http://schnellmann.org/beheading-tunesianconvert-to-quran.html Conversely, the sources saying it was in Syria do not have the same level of documentation.
FOUR: In his November, 2011 essay "Why Does the Crucifix ‘Provoke’ Muslims?",[13] Ibrahim propagated a report that falsely claimed Muslim students were party to a suit filed by a George Washington University Law Professor, John Banzhaf, aimed to provide relief to alleged religious discrimination by The Catholic University of America. No students, Muslim or otherwise, were actually party to the suit.
Fox News is the one to report that Muslims were involved -- and that report, and those charges are still up! According to Fox: "Banzhaf said some Muslim students were particularly offended because they had to meditate in the school’s chapels “and at the cathedral that looms over the entire campus – the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception.” http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/muslims-want-catholic-school-to-provide-room-without-crosses.html
FIVE: To a 2007 essay accusing Ibrahim of capitalizing on "Islamophobia", he is reported to have responded: ...after this Islamist op-ed was published, I received much heat from my supervisors at the Library of Congress, partially culminating in my recent resignation from that American bibliotech — another institution that goes out of its way to appease, especially where Saudi money and princes are concerned.[14]
This goes to the hate smearing sit Loon Watch, and their link to Ibrahim's supposed comment doesn't even open!
SIX: In a March 29, 2013 essay on David Horowitz's webzine frontpagemag.com, Ibrahim's article "The Threat of Islamic Betrayal" argued that all politically outspoken Muslim Americans should be feared and suspected of planning to act on hidden bellicose agendas, writing: Indeed, the true “lesson” is best captured by the following question: If some Muslims, including women, are willing to go to such lengths to eliminate the already ostracized and downtrodden non-Muslim minorities in their midst—attending churches and becoming like “family members” to those infidels they intend to kill—how much deceit and betrayal must some of the smiling Muslim activists of America, especially those in positions of power and influence, be engaging in to subvert and eliminate the most dangerous of all infidels, the original Great Satan?[8]
Very sloppy accusation, and proof that mavigogon is on a smear campaign and violating Wikipedia's terms. Note he says that Ibrahim says "all" Muslims, when Ibrahim's quote clearly states "some." Moreover, the quote is the very last paragraph of Ibrahim's article, which has about a thousand words above it setting up the context of why he made that conclusion.
I hope Wikipedia administrators watch the Ibrahim page carefully, as it is clear there are some who are trying to distort it -- not to mention violate Wikipedia's policies for biographies of living persons, which prohibits libelous and slanderous text
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Objectivity99 ( talk • contribs) 17:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Ulf Ekberg ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
According to this article, there's a lot of possibly false information floating around the internet about this musician and his alleged but possibly non-existent neo-Nazi activities. Our article does nothing to clarify this issue and repeats some allegations as fact. Better sources and BLP-aware editors are needed. Gamaliel ( talk) 17:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
a new editor User:Drosslifter have added unsourced and defamatory content on Bob Khanna. I try to undo his edit, but he is continuing to revert my edit. So now I have given up. Kindly look into the matter. -- Vigyani ( talk) 07:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
( edit conflict)*Ok here we go, all created by Gruntfuttock115 ( talk · contribs):
So, some or all, may have the required notability, but as far as I can see this is wiki-spamming with OTT, gushing articles about the company's clients. Battleaxes ready? CaptainScreebo Parley! 17:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Darlene Grant ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Meredith Monroe ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There are a few details incorrect on Meredith Monroe site. First the references section, the contemporary theatre, film and television is not a reliable source. After speaking to the senior editor at Gala they have used a service called baseline to research the various actors they have created the biographies for. However after several emails it has come to light that none of the dates can be verified, also if she attended Milkin University .
The biography written by Kathe Tibbs in the book They Don't Wanna Wait: the Stars of Dawson Creek goes into more depth about the actors and ECW publishers said they fact check the information to the 6 actors school records.
In here you will find her birth date is listed as 1976 rather than 1968.
Also the details in Kathe Tibbs biography relates more with the details to the book the Dawson Creek Compilation a resource Wikipedia has used to cross reference Katie Holmes information with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay99a ( talk • contribs) 10:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
User 84.253.220.75 has distorted the content of page about Pekka Himanen, a Finnish Philosopher. He has put there references to Yellow press articles and controversial, negative sources.
Is Wikipedia so vulnerable to abuse?
Yours Ari Tenhunen Helsinki Finland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.238.10.15 ( talk) 15:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
According to history there has been no activity on this page since February. Finnish Wikipedia is more recent I think Pekka Himanen. It doesn't matter if they're controversial or negative, what matters is whether they're true. John of Cromer in Philippines ( talk) mytime= Tue 00:38, wikitime= 16:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Tom Strickland ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Email from someone representing him:
I'll note to them that I've posted this here, and will suggest requests go to the talk page. BLP-experienced editors checking over the article would also be good - David Gerard ( talk) 17:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
A major part of Mick Fleetwood's personal history is missing. Sara Lynn Recor, Stevie Nick's best friend and inspiration for her song"Sara", moved in with Fleetwood in November 1978. Mick and Stevie were at the end of the affair that prompted the demise of Mick's marriage to Jenny Boyd. Although Mick and Sara's relationship was tumultuous, they married on April 24, 1988. They were subsequently separated in 1992, and the divorce was final in January of 1995.
Contributed by Sara Fleetwood details removed 19:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
This statement is true and correct It would be nice if one reference page could include these facts. My sourse is myself...please give me my props! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuskitall ( talk • contribs) 19:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I would like to point out that Wikipedia has Naomi Campbell's age as 142 years old. You should fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.117.212.39 ( talk) 02:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I reverted it. You, too, can revert vandalism. Click "View History" and then "undo" when available. Cheers. JFHJr ( ㊟) 02:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Is Campaign for "santorum" neologism properly placed in [[Category:Homophobia]] and [[Category:LGBT rights in the United States]]?
I rather think it runs afounl of the specific dictum that the Category:Homophobia specifically states
but another editor repeatedly reverts it with the comment "article is not about an individual, group, or media"
The article appears on its face to relate to an "individual", and also to relate to "media" so I am at a loss as to why this specific article would be exempt from prior Wikipedia specific decisions thereon. It also seems to fall under WP:BLP which pretty much means we have always considered it to be about an "individual" as well. Thanks. Collect ( talk) 20:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Anthony asks for scholarly sources:
I would remind Robin to not personally attack Rick Santorum in the talk page. Arzel ( talk) 14:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Shepard Smith has had discussions about whether it is proper to use allegations of homosexuality in his BLP.
[1] One editor states:
I had suggested that:
does not meet the requirements for making claims in a BLP about a person's sexuality, as there is no reliable source making more than "allegations." [2] from the Washington Blade only states that Smith does not discuss sex. [3] is from Out.com which is scarcely a "reliable source" as required, IMO, by WP:BLP.
Further input on this divergence of opinion is requested. Collect ( talk) 21:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
[4] Binksternet reinserted Smith's name in an article on the outing film saying it was "well-known" that Smith belongs in a list of living persons asserted to be gay. (edit summary: Restore list of names. No part of BLP is being violated here, all the names are WP:WELLKNOWN.) I consider this beyong the pale - will an admin actually look at the "sources"? I found a huge number of "deadlinks" and "non-existent" links outing living people. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 16:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Above I am accused of "being hot" about BLP policy. Damn right I am! It is one of the most important policies on Wikipedia and anyone who thinks it is "optional" when they do not like a person - left, right or centre, can count on me to "get hot." Collect ( talk) 16:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Why are the stories speculating about his sexual orientation "noteworthy" and "relevant" (words used in WELLKNOWN)? Does it matter whether a well-known journalist is gay or straight or bi or asexual? I mean, there are always going to be news stories on this sort of issue, but just because the press is prurient doesn't mean we have to be.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 17:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
My dictionary defines allegation as "a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof." So allegation is the wrong word to use here. A better choice might be "claim". That said, our BLP policy is quite clear "Contentious material about living persons ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." That applies to any article. The Reptilians claims of Mr. Icke are permissible because they are so preposterous that the claims reflect on him, not his subjects (and so we need reliable sources that he made those claims). -- agr ( talk) 22:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:BLP#can_a_claim_be_disallowed_in_one_article_per_WP:BLP_and_allowed_in_other_articles.3F. At this policy talk page Collect initiated a discussion about whether we can have differing contexts about Smith's being outed by Outrage, differing, that is, between the biography and the film page, with one avoiding the bit and the other not. Consensus there is that context is indeed a factor in deciding where. Binksternet ( talk) 15:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
The Weeknd ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Can someone with some time take a look at this article. The career section opens with a lot of discussion of his friendship etc. with producer Rose, and their fall out. A cursory examination suggests that this is a weird way of introducing the guys career - can some kind soul take a look and see if it needs refocusing? I don't have the time or experience in the subject :) -- Errant ( chat!) 10:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Bruce J. Sallan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Caught my eye at recent changes because this article was recently featured on this noticeboard, suffering from puffery and possible COI editing, the discussion is here. Is it permissible to use a link to the Amazon page that sells his book as a reference for the date it came out? Seems dubious to me, it's the very first ref, smack bang in the lead (for info there are two Amazon refs, one not working, his own website and Imdb). CaptainScreebo Parley! 21:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
The entire article on Allison Smith has no sources, and much of the article is written by an editor named "Allisonsmithfan" whose only contributions are about Allison Smith. There is a link to Allisonsmith.org, which does not exist, and there is no telling if it has any connection to the person about which the article is written. I also notice writing such as "Her small town was overwhelmed by her voice" and "played the role to rave reviews." While i am tempted to delete the entire article under WP:BLP I will defer to others to investigate on their own. Closedthursday ( talk) 17:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Omid Safi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Can some experienced BLPs have a look at this edit by a new editor ? It includes a claim by Robert Spencer from his Jihad Watch blog via American Thinker among other things. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at this article. I have removed some uncited material, and some which appeared to be purely personal opinion, but am still concerned about the tone of the remainder. There are several points where the article appears to be trying to make a case about Michael, and much of the material appears somewhat tangential, and only included to make that case. Skinsmoke ( talk) 05:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I am a Padres fan and over the past months I've tried to add detail to the "Jeff Moorad" article. The article seems to have been stripped of a great amount of detail. Not sure I understand the rationale behind this? Removing the entire Community Work section seems especially strange: almost as if there were a personal campaign against Mr. Moorad by some editors... Honestly, I am done editing this article. Over the past months I've tried to add detail to the article, much of it coming from an MLB.com biography and some from more recent news articles, etc. I feel cheated as a Wikipedia user that my edits have been stripped in the name of mere technicalities. There seems to be no protection from the tyrrany of Wikipedia editors. Pretty interesting that when the community tries to get involved in editing an article, there is this harsh a response from Wikipedia editors. Of course, I understand fully: Editors Bagumba and Muboshgu have found niches here on the baseball sections of Wikipedia, and someone trying to help with the articles would take some of their power. The editors used seemingly every tactic to remove my edits, including accusations of slanting sources, etc. Yet, it seems that the editors are slanted in the very opposite direction to which they accuse me of being. Practically every edit I made would be removed and I would receive a message directing me to the "Welcome Page." I will not study the welcome page as I do not plan to spend hours on end editing Wikipedia articles, and I don't think that Jimmy Wales' intention was to have every user known every technical detail, but rather to come together and share our knowledge and create a great resource for the world. I've tried to do that and found that I haven't been able to do so.
This is not what Wikipedia has been to me, and I'm sorry that it has had to be this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.80.248 ( talk) 01:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I came by a new BLP of a medical researcher by a new editor after they added a link to it from one of the pages on my watchlist; it is in generally not too bad a shape, but when I tried to tone down the language and remove a large dump of citations, they reverted. As I generally do not edit biographies, I wanted to bring it to the attention of this noticeboard so that someone with more experience on BLPs may be able to work with this new editor to improve the article. Thanks. Yobol ( talk) 13:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Campaign for "santorum" neologism (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Does the statement that "Santorum made anti-gay comments" (in Wikipedia's voice) require strong sourcing as it is presented as fact? I had suggested variants on "... Senator
Rick Santorum's comments which were considered anti-gay by Savage and some others." The language which was reverted to several times was simply "... U.S. Senator
Rick Santorum's anti-gay comments."
The questions are: Is this direct statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice subject to WP:BLP? If so, is it a "contentious claim"? If it is a "contentious claim" is it an opinion or is it a statement of objective fact? If it is an opinion, should it be ascribed as such to those holding it? I trust this is a neutral statement of the issues at hand. Collect ( talk) 21:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
The biography of Kelley by George Carpozi Jr. was recognized at the time it was published as a hatchet job. San Francisco Chronicle 7/22/91: "In 'Poison Pen,' Carpozi doesn't pretend he's out to investigate the infinite variety of Kitty's psyche -- he's out to get her, and get her he does." Los Angeles Times 9/8/91: "Any doubt that this work is revenge disappeared on Page 9." Material from this source should be used carefully. Irrelevant information from this source has been removed various times by different editors but the material is always added agains. I propose to remove some material now, but I wish to report this activity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Researchfairy ( talk • contribs) 15:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Entire 'Personal life' section is one long useless gossip fest irrelevant to the person's notability, not to mention WP:UNDUE. I can definitely see someone writing to OTRS and complaining about this. 16:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
There still is an issue of his birthplace, nationality, and ethnicity in the lede. -- Malerooster ( talk) 18:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Zack Kopplin (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
After attempting to resolve problems with the National Influence section it has been vandalized again with sourced material deleted.
128.42.159.243 (
talk)
20:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
William Earl Reid Please remove the last line of this page suggesting William Earl Reid was fined for selling a car. This is libellous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sstroppa ( talk • contribs) 16:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Ivy Queen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Can we get some help on nailing down her birthplace? It seems that her PR ethnicity, if she is American, is pretty significant, so it could go in the lede, but a rewrite of lede and infobox would be in order if she was in fact born in NYC. Thank you, -- Malerooster ( talk) 18:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I could use some advise on how to move forward on this, User:Colliric added the following to the David Miscavige page, I reverted it due to both weight, the fact that Miscavige and Cruise both deny it, and I honestly don't trust statements that start with "and potentially this caused..." within a BLP. Colliric has gone to my talk page and both defended the addition and accused me of edit warring. I'm not trying to prod a hornets nest but I think this addition violates wikipedia standards. Can I get someone else to take a look at this. I have also posted a discussion on the talk page. Coffeepusher ( talk) 16:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Here is a contemporus 2006 article I did not refer to, it also has several sources it links to. There are other references for this which can be easily found. http://www.crushable.com/2006/11/20/entertainment/tom-cruises-best-man-comes-on-honeymoon/ I'm just frankly a little lazy and didn't add more refs Like I should have.
Colliric ( talk) 09:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I have relented to this change back, I am happy this has been mentioned in the talk page as it was an obvious omission given it was widely reported. Also given Tom Cruise and David Miscavige also deny publically the Xenu doctrine(and David Miscavige also denies he was involved in the Lisa Mcpherson affair), their common denial is not really to be given weight(and isn't by most). If Katie Holmes denied it, then maybe you might have had something with that particular defense. Lawrence Wright reported in his Book that Tom Cruise auditioned his wife with the help of Miscavige(and his wife Shelly), so perhaps that has more gravitas to be in the article given it was a published New York Times Bestseller? or is that also not good enough(serious question here)? Colliric ( talk) 11:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
You did not explain that correctly when you deleted the whole thing with little explination. Now that you have finally explained it, I now understand and I agree I was too agressive in the language. I was trying to reflect the source's tone(which I admit took the addition too far). I do believe that section still needs expansion, should be a few sentences, not just one that makes it seem as if he was 100% hands-off as that is also in violation of the need for lack of bias as Lawrence Wright's book elaborated on the marriage and Miscavige's role in it(including the accusations he and his wife played "matchmaker" and auditioned candidates), and some of the accusations should be included, in similar style to the reference to Jenna Miscavige's own book that appears directly above it. I will not do it myself though as I have not yet personally read exactly what the book says about Miscavige. Should be fairly easy given that it's already Ref number 45, and the write up just needs to be done. Colliric ( talk) 14:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Some well meaning editors are citing BLP as a reason not to use the word "suspect(s)" or post FBI released photos of the suspects. Some are going to far as to suggest we need to wait for an conviction. The FBI said suspects and every media outlet is reporting it so how can WP do any damage? I welcome feedback. [13] Legacypac ( talk) 23:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi there,
Aidan Heavey is the CEO of the company that I work for (Tullow Oil). He has recently expressed some concerns around his entry on Wikipedia. All of the content relating to Reference 6 (^ a b GNN Liberia (31 January 2013). "Tullow Oil’s projections cause budgetary worries in Africa". GNN Liberia.) is factually incorrect.
We approached the journalist that wrote the article and, after hearing our concerns, he agreed to either amend or remove the article. Unfortunately he never did so.
I would like to amend the entry with some updates, and also remove all of the content related to Reference 6. However as I work for the company that Aiden is the CEO of I am wary of being accused of corporate censorship.
Could you advise me please as to the best way to go about amending and updating this page so that it is done in an unbiased, factual and transparent maner? I do have a fisked version of the article if that is of any use?
I did also start a conversation on the talk page of this article. Apologies if this is the wrong approach but I am very new to wikipedia editing and still trying to figure it all out.
Any help / advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, LindsayAtTullowOil ( talk) 10:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your help and also thank you for removing the paragraph relating to the GNN source. I don't do puffery and promotion and have agreed to help resolve this issue on the basis that I do so in a transparent, factual and non-blow-your-own-corporate-trumpet manner. So far my approach seems to have worked in my favour on Wikipedia. LindsayAtTullowOil ( talk) 13:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
This article is essentially a smear campaign. It would seem the NYT and FBI had already handled that and Wikipedia could just report the case in its article. It has been tagged as problematic for tone since 2008. - 166.137.210.23 ( talk) 15:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Manuel Rivas was born in A Coruña, Spain in 1957. His page currently says he was born in Westwood, España, and has no option to edit. ~~Source: http://www.escritores.org/biografias/240-manuel-rivas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.202.74.88 ( talk) 01:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
A user, who signed their edits in such a way as to imply that they are an immediate family member of the article topic, recently blanked Savannah Smith Boucher, replacing it instead with an assertion that the article constituted "identity theft" of information not authorized for distribution by the Boucher family. I've reverted the article back to its prior form and editprotected it for the time being, but would like to ask if somebody from BLPN could review the article and its sources to see if there is anything in it that should actually be removed. Thanks. Bearcat ( talk) 01:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
K. S. Makhan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Information on the life is KS MAKHAN especially in his "Personal Life" section is both without reference or citation to any article of truth.
It is requested the information about his marital status, his alleged infidelity and the explanation provided for his change of career direction be immediately removed until such time that factual referenced information is provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.106.57 ( talk) 06:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Quinton Hoover (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
People have been claiming the death of
Quinton Hoover all day, but no one has even tried to provide a source for this. Can anyone obtain some more information?
98.220.156.36 (
talk)
23:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL I think Mr. Lieberman just showed up at help desk wanting to create his own article. Does someone wish to create a stub so he has a talk page to make COI requests?-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 20:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Steve Yuhas ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Folks, would someone with more time than I have at the moment please take a look at this one? There is a lot of unsourced and unencyclopedic material that needs sorting, and I am sure other issues as well. Thanks.-- ukexpat ( talk) 19:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
This is way, way above my pay grade, but I sense real trouble brewing here and more experienced heads than mine will be needed. For example, there's heavy reliance (a through ax -- no kidding) on a grand jury report issued just 9 days ago, which I suspect counts as primary. And that's just ref [1]! Good luck. This tape will self-destruct in five seconds. EEng ( talk) 19:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi everyone. As some of you here may be aware, there has been a lot of activity around Ping Fu's article in recent months, following press coverage of criticisms about her memoir. On behalf of Geomagic, the company founded by Ping Fu, I've been working on a new draft for the article based on reliable sources. A few editors who have been involved on the article have been reviewing the draft and one has suggested that I reach out to editors here who are knowledgeable about BLP issues.
Here's the link to the draft: User:16912_Rhiannon/Ping_Fu, which editors are discussing on the draft's Talk page. There is also a small discussion at WikiProject Biography that you may want to take a look at. I've described there the issues with the current article and how I've tried to address these in the draft.
As I wrote at WikiProject Biography, in addition to fixing specific issues with the current article, I've looked at how to deal with details that have been disputed and have conflicting references. My feeling is that it may be best to reduce the detail regarding Ping's early life and education as the sources conflict and some facts have recently been called into question. I've kept these details to a minimum in the draft for this reason.
I should note that after feedback on the Memoir section, I've rewritten this slightly and offered the updated version on the draft's talk page for review before I drop it into the draft. It would be fantastic if editors here could review the draft and the updated Memoir section on the Talk page and offer their thoughts. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon ( Talk · COI) 23:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Actually, I follow the "bright-line" rule suggested by Jimbo Wales, so I'd rather not move the sections into the article myself. If you think they look good, would you mind making the move? If you're able to do that, I can leave an update on the Ping Fu Talk page to explain and invite editors to continue work on the sections once live. 16912 Rhiannon ( Talk · COI) 18:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello. At Talk:Shirley_Ardell_Mason#Purportedly, two individuals are engaging in what I can only describe as 'bickering' over the page subject, making several claims against each other in the process. I have hidden the text via {{ divhide}} and left a note that their conduct is not appreciated, but I'm less sure about whether it might be specifically of BLP concern. Any comments or suggestions? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 19:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Bernard C. Parks ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has more than one son, Bernard C. Parks, Jr. He also has daughters. Felicia Parks-Mena, Lori Parks (deceased), Michelle Parks, and Trudy Parks (deceased). I know this to be true because I am his grand-daughter.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drneal1990 ( talk • contribs)
The article Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev includes the names of parents, sisters and an uncle of the suspects in the Boston Marathon bombings. These people are not notable and had no involvement in the attack. Their names should not be published in accordance with WP:BLPNAME. The understanding of readers is not enhanced by knowledge of family members' names. These uninvolved people are entitled to privacy and freedom from intrusion as they get on with their lives. WWGB ( talk) 06:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Here are very public media outlets naming his wife Katherine Russell by name: New York Daily News, The Globe and Mail, ABC News werldwayd ( talk) 21:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I have removed material from Feiz Mohammad's page that attempts to link him to the Boston Marathon bombings in the flimsiest possible way. In a section labeled "Controversy," which contains a number of reports of Mohammad's actions and speeches that have been offensive, hostile and generally make him not a very nice person, a sub-section was added that reported that... one of his YouTube videos was linked in the channel of the suspected bomber.
This is right out and an incredibly thin attempt at guilt by association. It is not suggested that Mohammad had any contact with the bombers. It is not suggested that Mohammad encouraged the bombers to attack Boston. It is not suggested that Mohammad had anything to do with the attacks whatsoever - and he had absolutely no control over who might have linked his videos on YouTube. This is like suggesting that because Timothy McVeigh distributed gun-rights literature, that we should have a paragraph in every article for the gun-rights organizations he supported mentioning that they were part of McVeigh's terrorist attack.
Whatever other vile things Mohammad may have done in his life, there is absolutely no evidence that he had anything to do with the attacks and linking him to the attacks smacks of "find someone to smear." polarscribe ( talk) 07:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Please, take a look at the Vanilla DeVille article. It appears to be a BLP nightmare, almost enterely made of unreliable sources and of claims made by herself. Cavarrone ( talk) 09:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Dear Sir/Madam,
Please remove article "Abouzar Noghani". I've been abused, as the article has been changed by someone who added some wrong information and tried to character assassination.
Kind Regards,
Abouzar Noghani. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.208.13 ( talk) 11:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Can I ask for more eyes on this page? A user(s) keeps adding this poorly sourced material consisting mostly of original research, comparing the Spanish Prime Minister to Hitler. Valenciano ( talk) 14:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Travis Walker Crude content, libelous. Incorrect information, non-existent boxing weight classifications. Inappropriate and non-factual nickname. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.17.157 ( talk) 17:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Please delete this page. It falls into the category of 'Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose.'
The history of this page is littered with edits aimed to disparage. Although attempts have been made to offer a fairer biography, the vandalism continues. It is a selective biography set up by someone with a motive not to be informative, but intimidating. The subject is also not notable enough to warrant wikipedia entry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.216.144.186 ( talk) 18:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Frank Stitt ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Attributing a chefs work to the growth of the "local food movement" is offensive. A chef is the one profiteering off this food not the farmer. The farmer sells the food for dirt cheap because if they didn't that chef wouldn't buy it. Then the chef turns that produce into 300% profit. Maybe if we made food more expensive, cut out the restaurants, and everyone made their own food that would be a locally grown food movement. But this is just good public relations for an already wealthy man. Also referring to grape harvesting as a "menial job" is double offensive to the people growing the food in this country. I would say editing Wikipedia is a menial job in comparison. Arflat ( talk) 20:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
This article reads like a puff piece written by a public relations consultant. It is completely non-objective and adulatory to an extreme. It should be withdrawn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.30.157 ( talk) 16:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
For sure, that wasn't directly adressed at you :) CaptainScreebo Parley! 00:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
An IP editor is removing text from various articles about Melissa Farley, ostensibly because she is no longer accredited in her field (psychology). The editor put up this notice at the Fringe noticeboard:
Melissa Farley is quoted in many articles as a accredited psychologist but is no longer is no longer accredited member of APA following Ethics violations over fraudulent fabricated research and there are many editors guarding article about her pet theories that quote her. This needs sorting out before these subject become laughing stock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.208.204.151 ( talk • contribs)
I have restored some cited or otherwise valid text removed by the IP, and reverted some uncited changes. The matter could use some more eyes, certainly. Binksternet ( talk) 19:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
The article o Charlayne Hunter-Gault is a mess, with lots of conflicting information (parents' and children's names are different in different places, chronology is confused, etc.), and someone has inserted comments about this into the text of the article instead of fixing the data. I don't have the information to fix it, but I thought someone should know about it. (There's no "This article needs to be cleaned up" notice at the top of the page.) Lisapaloma ( talk) 05:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Tucker Reed ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Material is being repeatedly inserted about a sexual assault accusation. The sources are all social media websites such as personal blogs or magazine opinion blogs. Wikipedia is being used to promote external websites which detail this unfounded allegation of sexual assault. MisTemPest ( talk) 22:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Reliable sources are cited. Other contributor attempting to preclude information regarding current contentious factual situation. Biased trolls IP address needs to be noted and blocked by Admin from further revisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.155.173.245 ( talk) 05:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
MisTemPest is a biased user and is relentlessly trying to erase links to reliable websites that contain information regarding an important fact about Ms. Reed's life. To delete it would be to withhold information from wikipedia's encyclopedic community -- Ms. Magazine is credited as a source in many wikipedia pages. This information adhere's to wikipedias core content policies; it is neutral in tone, verifiably coming from a sound source, and is not an original research allegation. _______________________
FreeRangeFrog, the material you wish to delete from Reed's article (the "Challenged Material") is an extended reference to Miss Reed's body of work -- her writings. Since it merely identifies Reed's work, it certainly does not need any citation support beyond the fact of the writings themselves. It states as follows:
A self-identified sexual assault survivor, Reed authors the blog "Covered In Band-Aids," a collection of essays exploring "the assaulted woman’s life before, during and after her assault." Initially anonymous, Reed identified herself and her alleged attacker in a post on February 23, 2013.[4] This decision—and Reed's subsequent efforts to raise awareness for sexual assault victims at the University of Southern California—was profiled in a Ms. magazine article on April 10, 2013.[5]
All of this merely identifies the corpus of Reed's work. It is no less factual than identifying Reed's trilogy for young adults. You should further note that the Challenged Material makes no reference to a specific person -- does not identify a rapist -- and is not offered for this purpose. Indeed, the references to Reed's work accurately uses the phrase "alleged rapist", which fairly indicates that the man was not (yet) convicted of a crime. Instead, the Challenged Material has been offered to show how Reed is using her voice and writing skills. It is as if you are trying to delete the title of a book she wrote because the content of the book contains material objectionable to, say, a religious extremist. Your censoring of Reed's bio at the behest of this man furthers his efforts to silence Reed, and it is ill-founded and not in accordance with the standards promulgated by Wiki.
Please tell me exactly what in the Challenged Material requires citation support, when the mere fact of its existence is all that is being referenced. I believe your support of MisTemPest is ill-founded and misguided, and based on an emotional response to the content of Reed's blog, not the content of her biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.155.173.245 ( talk) 08:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
WP:BLPCRIME applies to accusations as well as to outright statements that someone has committed a crime. "For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." Just because the source uses the phrase "alleged rapist" rather than "rapist" to describe a person doesn't make it permissible. Ken Arromdee ( talk) 19:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
You are missing the point. These statements in Reed's biography identify no one and accuse no one -- they merely make clear that Reed's body of work focuses on the fact of her believing herself raped and reacting to that belief.
You are exhibiting a knee-jerk reaction that SILENCES this woman and IGNORES the writings/work that she most identifies with, by censoring out all references to her work EVEN THOUGH THESE REFERENCES DO NOT IDENTIFY OR LIBEL ANYONE.
The individual in question has the right to sue Reed for libel and in fact has (though he will have an uphill battle persuading a jury to ignore his four taped confessions to the crime). All of that is beside the point. Reed self-identifies as a feminist writer particularly focused on the topic of rape. You should not erase this central and critical facet of her work. You have no justification for doing so, and the cited language certainly does not provide such justification, since no one -- neither Reed nor anyone else -- is identified as "accused of a crime." Would you likewise edit Oprah Winfrey's biography to hide her report that she was incestuously raped as a child?
Reed's rapist is trying to rape her again, by silencing her. And you are colluding. 140.211.172.23 ( talk) 21:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
redirect
or rename
at the
deletion discussion.Could I ask those familiar with policy, particularly WP:BLPCRIME to keep an eye on the Boston Marathon bombings article, as we have at least one contributor arguing that policy (specifically "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law") does not apply if we have a reliable source that says that third parties (in this case, unnamed "U.S. officials") have witnessed a confession by the accused - see Talk:Boston Marathon bombings#Confession & Acknowledgement of Brother's Role. As uncomfortable as it may seem to some, we clearly have an obligation to refer to the alleged perpetrator as just that - or as a suspect - until a court determines otherwise. Wikipedia is not a court of law. We do not determine innocence or guilt. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 06:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
On the other hand, we have a specific criminal charge. That does fall under blpcrime. And an admission to comitting the act is not tantamount to a guilty plea. That is all discussed in greater detail at the above link that Andy provided. Epeefleche ( talk) 07:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
"A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law.... .... BLPCRIME applies to low-profile individuals and not to well-known individuals, in whose cases WP:WELLKNOWN is the appropriate policy to follow."
Epeefleche ( talk) 08:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)"In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative.... Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he actually did."
I also draw a distinction between admission of taking an criminal act and pleading guilty to a specific charge. The "suspect" has now told the carjack vic and law enforcement that they did the bombings and killed the MIT officer. His wounding and capture in the manhunt is 110% proof he was in the police shootout. He even has stated reasons for the bombing (reasons much like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal_Shahzad). If someone claims responsibility for an act and that comes from RS we no longer need to dance around words like Suspect or Alleged or Accused as they apply to the acts. We only might need these words in relation to the actual criminal charge.
There is overwhelming evidence these guys did the bombing and the live brother admits it and says why he did it. We do not need to wait for a conviction before accepting him at his word that he is the bomber and just saying that he is the bomber.
There is also the suggestion we can't rely on what the Washington Post and Boston Globe say that law enforcement told them. If we toss out every RS just because we don't like the report, and yet we can't do OR like going to the hospital and asking him ourselves, how are we supposed to write anything?
Now for the dead brother - we can and should say he is the bomber based on his admissions to the carjack guy and the other evidence. There is no way he is protected by "presumed innocent until convicted" because he is dead and will never be charged or convicted. Here are a couple high profile examples of people who did not confess, but died in the act like the older brother, and what Wikipedia says right now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Atta "was an Egyptian hijacker and one of the ringleaders of the September 11 attacks who served as the hijacker-pilot" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waleed_al-Shehri was one of five hijackers...
Legacypac ( talk) 09:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: I have raised this matter at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 10:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Saying that someone committed a bombing is, by any common sense standards, saying that they committed a crime. It is true that technically, that is not saying they committed a crime, because it is possible to commit a bombing and be not guilty of an actual crime for various reasons, but if you're going to interpret the policy that way, it would be meaningless. We wouldn't have to worry about saying that any person killed any other person, because after all, there are circumstances where killing someone isn't a crime so we're not accusing them of a crime. Ken Arromdee ( talk) 19:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please review this diff and, if appropriate "unhide" the material I've hidden. I do not know when we can rely on a twitter feed that is verified to belong to the subject. I know there IS a rule, but I don't know what it is. David in DC ( talk) 11:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
This article has been the subject of two previous referrals:
[18]
[19]
Lloyd Irvin is a reasonably well-known martial arts instructor who has a Wikipedia article.
Now, clearly this is a sensitive matter which is needs to be handled extremely carefully. However the allegations are clearly having a massive effect on Lloyd Irvin's life; students are leaving his school, people are breaking off ties, and he is being forced to defend himself in the press with regard to his earlier acquittal. My personal thought is that the way to approach it is to report the accusations against two of his students (number 1 above), which is a matter of record, and his response (number 3 above), only touching on the earlier accusations as much as is necessary to understand his response. Similarly it seems reasonable to briefly mention his recent statement ending his "affiliate" program (number 5 above), as reported in the martial arts press. I'm not confident on the sourcing for number 4 above.
Following a short discussion on the Talk page, given the previous history I was advised to bring it here. I'd appreciate people's thoughts. -- Merlinme ( talk) 17:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for another considered attempt at debate.
If the question is regarding my motives, they're very simple; I saw Lloyd Irvin in the news; as is often the case when I wish to find out more information about something, I went to Wikipedia to find out more about him; in this case I discovered that Wikipedia did not even mention what is apparently the most important event in his life right now, where his comptetition team and business are being hit by defections and he has had made a long statement to try to defend himself in the most public forum imaginable for a Brazilian jiu jitsu trainer, where the incident has been on-going for several months and has been reported in multiple sources (some of them, admittedly, better than others). When I went to the talk page to discuss if this information should be added in some form, I found it full of an ongoing debate about including the information, and I was told to come here if I felt the information should be included. And here we are. -- Merlinme ( talk) 06:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Two of Lloyd Irvin's students were charged in January 2013 with the rape of a woman they knew from Lloyd Irvin Martial Arts School in Camp Springs. [30] Lloyd Irvin issued an official statement to Graciemag, the Brazilian jiu-jitsu magazine, on January 22nd 2013, in which he made it clear that he deplored what had happened, and distanced his team from the incident, noting that the accused had only trained with his organization a few months. He also responded to online discussions regarding a 1989 incident involving himself where he was found not guilty. [31] On March 10th 2013 it was reported that Lloyd Irvin had announced on Facebook that he was terminating the Team Lloyd Irvin Affiliate Program, because of what he described as lynch mob attacks on Team Lloyd Irvin affiliate businesses. [32]
Ok, one last try. There's clearly no consensus for Lloyd Irvin references. There's some support for Team Lloyd Irvin references. How about:
In February and March 2013 it was reported that some of Irvin's best students had left his team.
[35] Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu gold medal winner
Keenan Cornelius said in a statement that he could no longer be sure that it was the right environment for him.
[36]
Does anyone object to that? -- Merlinme ( talk) 12:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Is this not relevant, or credible, or reliable? Why has no one considered this article? Last time I looked, TheVerge.com was a major news outlet. Also, I find it ironic, to say the least, that the home invasion incident is supported by a Bloody Elbow article, but Bloody Elbow's credibility is being questioned in relationship to the rape incident.
Since joining wikipedia last year,
Female bodybuilder enthusiast (
talk ·
contribs) has created quite a few articles about, female bodybuilders. For example
Johanna Dejager. Almost all of these articles have inadequate sourcing. While none of the ones I've reviewed have any defamatory content the notability seems thin in addition to the paucity of RS. I'd appreciate it if someone can examine this article (I already nominated
Shelia Bleck for deletion, but am now having 2nd thoughts. Thanks.
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer
04:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I think creations by both this user and another likely related user, Fbb fan ( talk · contribs), are rather alarming. None appear to be well-written or well-sourced. Nearly everything should go for lack of sourcing in the article and lack of coverage otherwise AFAICT. JFHJr ( ㊟) 14:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Need some additional eyes on this. A guy who almost got away with using money and power to influence the legal system, but someone(s) still think that that wasnt enough and that the wikipedia article needs to carry on the crusade for the victims. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Chris Cutrone ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
this person is not notable in any way — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.15.14.59 ( talk) 18:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I do believe there is an element of BLP in violation regarding Paul Kevin Curtis. The redirect should be deleted, and serious consideration should be given to removing his name entirely from in the 2013 ricin letters article. It is just as encyclopedic to say "a man was arrested, but the charges were dropped" as it is to name the person who is otherwise not known and entitled to privacy, in my opinion. My76Strat ( talk) 08:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
This article is an advertisement with a single reference to a commercial website belonging to the person. Article must be deleted to meet Wikipedia standards of non-commercial and neutral articles written with verifiable sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brinda_Somaya — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.51.195 ( talk) 04:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
The "hate-mongering" section, which keeps creeping in, totally violates Wikipedia's policy for biographies of living persons: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous."
In fact, the whole section itself is hate-mongering against Mr. Ibrahim, a living person,and very libelous. I never see such biased texts on Wikipedia's other biographies.
Moreover, many of these hate-filled assertions are in fact "unsourced or poorly sourced":
ONE: Ibrahim's August, 2012 report for The American Thinker that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt had publicly crucified opponents of President Morsi in front of the presidential palace prompted the Thinker's blog editor, Rick Moran, to qualify the report as "at best, an exaggeration, and at worst, a hoax." [9]
This does not take into account Ibrahim's own response, which can be read here http://www.meforum.org/3330/egypt-crucifixions and which documents that Sky News itself admits to publishing a story about the Brotherhood crucifying people, but then took it down after he translated to English and disseminated it. Moreover, lots of other sources, especially Arabic ones, still have the story on the Net.
TWO: In July, 2012, a report by Ibrahim that a Muslim cleric proscribed sodomy as permissible if done to expand the anus, allowing the insertion of a suicide bomb, was demonstrated to be a hoax. [10][11]
Again, nothing was demonstrated as being a hoax. Ibrahim fully rebutted the hoax charges here : http://frontpagemag.com/2012/raymond-ibrahim/islamic-sodomy-or-%E2%80%98islamophobic-hoax%E2%80%99/ A video of an Arabic reporter saying exactly what Ibrahim translated about Islamic sodomy exists on the Internet, and was picked up by other reputable news organizations, including MEMRI, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ik5GZap_-_A
THREE: In May of 2012, Ibrahim propagated a video of a beheading in Syria deceptively mislabeled “Graphic Video: Muslims Behead Christian Convert in ‘Moderate’ Tunisia.” [12]
Wrong. Ibrahim linked to an Arabic news commentary video where the host who aired the clip clearly states it was in Tunisia here: http://schnellmann.org/beheading-tunesianconvert-to-quran.html Conversely, the sources saying it was in Syria do not have the same level of documentation.
FOUR: In his November, 2011 essay "Why Does the Crucifix ‘Provoke’ Muslims?",[13] Ibrahim propagated a report that falsely claimed Muslim students were party to a suit filed by a George Washington University Law Professor, John Banzhaf, aimed to provide relief to alleged religious discrimination by The Catholic University of America. No students, Muslim or otherwise, were actually party to the suit.
Fox News is the one to report that Muslims were involved -- and that report, and those charges are still up! According to Fox: "Banzhaf said some Muslim students were particularly offended because they had to meditate in the school’s chapels “and at the cathedral that looms over the entire campus – the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception.” http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/muslims-want-catholic-school-to-provide-room-without-crosses.html
FIVE: To a 2007 essay accusing Ibrahim of capitalizing on "Islamophobia", he is reported to have responded: ...after this Islamist op-ed was published, I received much heat from my supervisors at the Library of Congress, partially culminating in my recent resignation from that American bibliotech — another institution that goes out of its way to appease, especially where Saudi money and princes are concerned.[14]
This goes to the hate smearing sit Loon Watch, and their link to Ibrahim's supposed comment doesn't even open!
SIX: In a March 29, 2013 essay on David Horowitz's webzine frontpagemag.com, Ibrahim's article "The Threat of Islamic Betrayal" argued that all politically outspoken Muslim Americans should be feared and suspected of planning to act on hidden bellicose agendas, writing: Indeed, the true “lesson” is best captured by the following question: If some Muslims, including women, are willing to go to such lengths to eliminate the already ostracized and downtrodden non-Muslim minorities in their midst—attending churches and becoming like “family members” to those infidels they intend to kill—how much deceit and betrayal must some of the smiling Muslim activists of America, especially those in positions of power and influence, be engaging in to subvert and eliminate the most dangerous of all infidels, the original Great Satan?[8]
Very sloppy accusation, and proof that mavigogon is on a smear campaign and violating Wikipedia's terms. Note he says that Ibrahim says "all" Muslims, when Ibrahim's quote clearly states "some." Moreover, the quote is the very last paragraph of Ibrahim's article, which has about a thousand words above it setting up the context of why he made that conclusion.
I hope Wikipedia administrators watch the Ibrahim page carefully, as it is clear there are some who are trying to distort it -- not to mention violate Wikipedia's policies for biographies of living persons, which prohibits libelous and slanderous text
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Objectivity99 ( talk • contribs) 17:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Ulf Ekberg ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
According to this article, there's a lot of possibly false information floating around the internet about this musician and his alleged but possibly non-existent neo-Nazi activities. Our article does nothing to clarify this issue and repeats some allegations as fact. Better sources and BLP-aware editors are needed. Gamaliel ( talk) 17:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
a new editor User:Drosslifter have added unsourced and defamatory content on Bob Khanna. I try to undo his edit, but he is continuing to revert my edit. So now I have given up. Kindly look into the matter. -- Vigyani ( talk) 07:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
( edit conflict)*Ok here we go, all created by Gruntfuttock115 ( talk · contribs):
So, some or all, may have the required notability, but as far as I can see this is wiki-spamming with OTT, gushing articles about the company's clients. Battleaxes ready? CaptainScreebo Parley! 17:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)