This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Please note that there seems to be a strong bias against Rosemary Altea on the wikipedia search for her. Wiki should be an unbiased reporting of her at at this point it is not! I have edited the information given about her several times to then find, again, inflammatory information which is clearly biased. It's obvious that whomever is changing what I write has a problem with Altea and what she does. I have several times changed the information to specific un biased general information on this person (who happens to be my mother), (Altea is a new york times best selling author) etc and then a week or so later find that it has been replaced with controversial and clearly negative bias against her.
Please can you help me figure this out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.253.156.243 ( talk) 21:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Just created article by SPA about a Russian politician, probably fallout from the recent LGBT controversy there. Bordering on attack page, serious WP:UNDUE issues and excessive personal details. Plus sourced entirely to Russian-language sources. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Louis Tomlinson ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) "is an English pop singer for the boy band One Direction, actor and [..]" This is part is inaccurate because he is not an actor. As the definition says, an actor is a person who acts in a dramatic or comic production and works in film, television, theatre, or radio in that capacity. [ 1] He doesn't fit the definition, he loves acting but he has never had a real role in his life, I would like to keep his biography as true as possible. Thank you.
There is dispute related to new president of Iran again, I suggest some admin to check relevant discussion here: Talk:Hassan Rouhani#Son's suicide claims. I'm sure that I've provided enough explanation about libellous claims and I removed it four times today - of course I'm familiar with 3RR, but please keep in mind this article has been opened more then 500.000 times in past three months so it's very sensitive issue. -- HistorNE ( talk) 15:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Richard Worth ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [note that this is a self-report]
I'm looking for guidance about balance and sourcing issues on Richard Worth. An IP removed a whole lot of apparently well sourced material that I restored but now I'm having doubts about WP:BALANCE. I'm a significant contributor. I've made attempts to find extra coverage of Worth (for example Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand/Election 2011 taskforce#Coverage of former MPs), but I'm failing to find anything useful as he appears to have dropped out of public sight. Stuartyeates ( talk) 08:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Quvenzhané Wallis ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Quvenzhane Wallis is a actress who is born on 28th August 2003 and right now this is 28th August 2013 which means that she is 10 not 9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.154.184 ( talk) 08:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
obviously created by someone very close to the subject, likely the subject himself. "During that time, the firm invested in the economy." What? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.42.157.5 ( talk) 23:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Jason Orange ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi there: There have been repeated changes in Jason Orange's biography. There is a user account of Orangejeanne who is repeatedly added to his biography that she is his partner/wife. The website she has provided as proof is one that she created herself. Other than that, there is no proof. Would it be possible to have her stopped from making changes to his page? Jason Orange — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karleysmom ( talk • contribs) 00:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Can somebody please take a look at this article? It is full of what look to me to be dubious sources for a BLP, including some (possibly notable) blogs. It is very negative in tone, and I also question notability based on the sources I've looked at quickly. Unfortunately I don't have time to deal with this now, so am hoping somebody can. -- Slp1 ( talk) 00:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
This is in DYK: "... that one of Dougal Butler's first tasks when he became a roadie for The Who was to provide a getaway car so that Pete Townshend could [details of criminal act deleted]" The Dougal Butler article includes one reference for the claim, Butler's autobiography. The way the claim is written in our biog is subtly less strong than the way it appears on Main Page:
"According to Butler, one of his early tasks for the band was to provide a getaway car so that Pete Townshend could steal a guitar from Jim Marshall's music shop in Ealing." (my emphasis)
I'm worried about such a strong claim against a living person appearing on Main Page based on such thin referencing, exarcebated by the fact that whoever wrote the claim in our article (and presumably had the written source) didn't write it as strongly.
Finally, the source isn't really a reliable one. It's a primary source and our WP:SELFPUB policy says that we can only use such material if it "does not involve claims about third parties"
I think that unless someone can instantly find a proper RS to back up this claim, this DYK should be removed immediately and the claim should also be removed from the article.
NB I'll flag this at WP:ERRORS. -- Dweller ( talk) 08:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
RL intervening. Please whistle up an admin at AN to remove the claim anywhere protected. -- Dweller ( talk) 09:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
-- BabbaQ ( talk) 09:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
In a similar vein, Domenico Rancadore is set up to hit the main page soon in DYK, with the hook "... that Domenico Rancadore has been described as one of Italy's "most wanted criminals", and headed the Cosa Nostra mafia?". While the first part seems accurate, the "headed the Cosa Nostra Mafia" is apparently a claim on a warrant by the Italian police, while his actual conviction has been for being a member of a criminal organisation. Can someone check my reasoning and correct or pull this DYK nomination accordingly? I'll do it myself if no one is around to doublecheck this first, but I'ld like someone else to get the flak for my DYK criticisms for once :-) Fram ( talk) 10:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I have for now pulled the hook from the main page, where it was life for some 15 minutes. I'll drop a note at WT:DYK and at the nomination page. Fram ( talk) 12:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I've noted this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Hooks pulled for BLP reasons, and added two more negative BLP hooks in the current queues of DYK (i.e. about to hit the main page tomorrow). They don't seem as problematic as the Rancadore one, but still, they focus unduly on negative aspects, and one is sourced to court transcripts (blogged by the Chinese court) as posted by the BBC, which may not be sufficient to accuse people of things here. Fram ( talk) 13:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Not sure but doesnt adding Template:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch to the article on Rolf Harris, somebody charged but not convicted, appears to be a breach of BLP and possible BLPCRIME. MilborneOne ( talk) 20:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
At Keeley Hazell ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) the dispute is about including the Pornography portal and Wikiproject pornography in the main article and on the talkpage respectively. Presumably, Keeley Hazel having been a page 3 Sun girl qualifies for the Pornography portal. I would appreciate any advice. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 16:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
-- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 06:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous.
Comment We can be completely objective about this actually. If none of the publications she has appeared in are listed under our pornography categories then there is no reason for the portal to be there. If they are then her connection to the pornography industry is objectively established. I haven't gone through them myself, but portals should only reflect close associations with subjects and topic areas, not our own personal moral standards or indeed the individual interests of Wikiprojects (which are free to select what they are interested in). Betty Logan ( talk) 13:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
The general issue of whether "glamour modelling" is (softcore) pornography seems open to debate, but in this particular case, I think it would be instructive to google "Keely Hazell sex tape". Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 14:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
This is a pretty clear BLP violation. There's pretty significant disagreement about whether glamour shoots are "pornography", but regardless, if you told the average person someone had been in "pornography", their first thought is not likely to be that they were photographed wearing sexy clothing. The pornography portal link implies that the subject has something to do with pornography, which is clearly in dispute. The linked articles explain that debate in all its nuances; slapping a portal link on this person's page does not. (And why are half the posts in this colored red? It's quite distracting.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Delicious carbuncle may have a point in respect specifically to Keely Hazell because of the sex tape. In general, though, describing a Page 3 model's work as "pornography" would present a BLP issue. Porn is infamously hard to define, but material that is presented in a daily newspaper in Britain seems to clearly go outside the definition.— Kww( talk) 14:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Today, softcore nude photographs of models appear in publications such as Perfect 10, or tabloid newspapers such as Britain's The Sun's Page 3.
I didn't add any extra material or references because there was no need to. The article already contains reliable sources and no "absences". (Ref 2 is "Keeley Hazell: Angel is a centrefold". The Independent (London)., ref 13 is ""Keeley strips for hot music vid". The Sun Online (London).", ref 17 is "The Latest Cameron Mantra: Praise a Page 3 Girl. This Is London. (London Evening Standard) and "FHM, (magazine), "Keeley Hazell — All-Time Great", FHM". to name a few).
I fully agree with Collect's comments. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 19:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
20:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)Henry Harpending ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Someone occasionally inserts libel in your article about me:could you somehow lock it to prevent edits? The most recent incident was deleted by a friend, who reported it to me.
Thanks, Henry Harpending — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.196.110 ( talk) 20:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Based on what I've just googled, Professor Harpending has proposed some theories that some see as controversial. (Note the See Also link to Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence.) This might be the reason for the vandalism, and perhaps if we expanded the article to include these theories sourced to reliable sources, this might fill the void and stop vandals from being inclined to fill that void with garbage. If if it doesn't work, expanding articles is a net good anyway. Gamaliel ( talk) 04:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
There are multiple secondary sources that report Richie Sambora's departure from the band, yet the talk page disregards all of the reliable sources I provided as "feeding on rumors". If Sambora is no longer a current member, it is wrong of Wikipedia to list him as a current member. The reverts also disposed of a valid source, and were mostly performed by PanosBonJovi ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whose edit summaries and username suggest a strong COI. I told them on the talk page that BLP violations are a notable exception for the 3RR rule, but all I got in return was this "friendly threat" by Jauerback ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thoughts? Hearfourmewesique ( talk) 04:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
The article should be reverted back to an earlier state, since it's not clear what the situation is at the moment. Richie Sambora is still a member of the band until an official statement is issued. And neither Phil X nor Hugh McDonald are members of the band, it's clearly an error to be fixed. They just tour or tour and record with the band. Neither is an official member. There is no confirmed quote anywhere to say Richie Sambora has quit the band. And if he isn't, saying he was fired could potentially be a BLP violation. Iceman ( talk) 10:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
There is a content dispute-- see Talk:Cheryl B. Schrader. One user who feels strongly that the offending section should be removed PRODed. I dePRODed, and removed further content. I'm OK with removing the whole section. Of course, some editors there want to include all the gory details. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 15:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Daniel Plaza ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'd like a second opinion before reverting again. -- John of Reading ( talk) 11:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Would like other opinions if this is appropriately written and sourced. Discussion is here. Note: other editor has been reported for breaking WP:3RR. Thank you. -- NeilN talk to me 13:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think "Has engaged in racism publicly" is the best sentence to write there. It's only one article that accuses racism - the second source doesn't. It also doesn't seem like this was a big deal, so it should just be dropped from the article, in my opinion. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 14:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello. The criminal case against Asaram Bapu for ("allegedly") raping a 16 year-old girl is being suppressed on the Wikipedia. [7] Is this fair? Just because he wears a religious turban does not make him immune from legal action and questioning. Compare Luka Magnotta (Eric Clinton Kirk Newman). He too is accused of a crime but the information about him is not suppressed because he is not a powerful man. Asaram Bapu's devotees and their sympathizers wish this heinous crime (or the allegations thereof) not to be shown on the Wikipedia. I don't understand why. At this point, I must point out that Asaram Bapu has not even been questioned by the police even once, because once he was "meditating deeply", or "had other commitments" and more recently, "has a dead relative". Is the Wikipedia going to behave just like the local police in India is? The President of India, Pranab Mukherjee- among other big shot politicians- is ("allegedly") a friend if not devotee of Asaram Bapu. There is a lot of outrage over the condition of women in India and the media has been reporting every single rape in the country but in the case of Asaram, but they have invented the expression "sexual assault" solely to describe the alleged rape by Asaram Bapu. The term "sexual assault" does not exist in the Indian Penal Code and Asaram has been charged under IPC Section 376 (rape). It is not the first time that this person has been charged with a grave crime (like murder). I sincerely hope that the Wikipedia did not suppress this important criminal case because of this man's being powerful. Please remove the protection on the page or at least restore the previous version. I do not see how the following criteria for BLP are being violated: verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research. -- Crème3.14159 ( talk) 17:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I wanted to know if it is okay to add that Asaram Bapu allegedly started his life as a bootlegger since it has been published in a major English newspaper in India. [1] IPS stands for Indian Police Service.-- Crème3.14159 ( talk) 01:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
There is a criminal proceeding underway against Asaram Bapu and his son over the mysterious deaths of 2 little boys in their school on their ashram in 2008. Editors have repeatedly tried to remove it, previously asking for more references and now asking for consensus before adding this material. [8] What is wrong with adding this? -- Crème3.14159 ( talk) 11:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
References
Matthew Bryden ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm following up from my review of a request at COIN. The Matthew Bryden controversy section is written in a way that is biased with potentially harmful original research (among other postings, "involve himself and the UN in unlawful actions."). Please consider deleting the Matthew Bryden controversy section until someone can recreate it in a more neutral way.-- Jreferee ( talk) 14:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Manga artist Inio Asano apparently came out as male-to-female transsexual in an interview with BREAK MAX magazine. An anonymous IP user keeps reverting the usage of feminine pronouns that MOS:IDENTITY indicates should be used, and in an edit summary claimed that it was a "gross misunderstanding" of Asano's statements, but has refused to elaborate. Nongendered ( talk) 11:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Helmuth Nyborg is a Danish scientist whose work has rightfully, in my view, received much criticism. That said, his biography is poorly written and riddled with dead links. I removed a statement accusing him of racism, more or less, and the statement was immediately returned, with a broken link used to source the statement. I'm not asking that this biography be favorable, but that it be rigorously sourced and well written in the manner deserving of an article for a living person. - Darouet ( talk) 03:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Daniel Tammet ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This BLP article has a long history of poorly sourced and potentially libellous edits by anonymous users.
On Sep 1, user Dzgoldman/110.77.193.113 inserted a new section headed 'Criticisms by memory and math tricks experts'. User's sole reliable published source is a chapter of the book 'Moonwalking with Einstein' by freelance reporter Joshua Foer. Foer's minority perspective (unsupported by any scientist in the fields of autism/synesthesia/savantism) has long been debated on the article's talk page and previous discussions with editors including Enchanter, off2riorob, EdHubbard (who is one of the researchers who has studied the subject) reached a consensus that Foer's speculation should be incorporated into the article in a sensitive and marginal way to avoid undue weight. The book's title, author, and viewpoint are already listed in article.
BLP rules require multiple, reliable third-party published sources to confirm the notability of any specific claim. The talk page has made this clear on multiple occasions, but has been ignored. The user has advanced no other reliable third-party published sources in support of the above edits, which I have therefore removed.
The above user/s had also inserted a link to a blog by a 'mental math expert' which is critical of the subject. I have removed it as not meeting Wiki's BLP article rules.
Please could an editor review and comment here and/or on the article's talk page?
Oughtprice99 ( talk) 07:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
This rule would also seem relevant here:
"Articles must meet the neutral point of view policy. Articles on living individuals are carefully checked to ensure that no unsourced or poorly sourced negative material is included. Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided."
Oughtprice99 ( talk) 08:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
The entry notes his death 1st September 2013 but I can find no supporting evidence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.158.82 ( talk) 13:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Sourced now.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 20:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Charles Payne (journalist) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User Stanley Galt continues to remove the section Paid stock promotions despite it being of note and sourced by http://www.sec.gov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsloughter ( talk • contribs) 17:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Stanley Galt continues to replace the page with copyvio material after being warned. I've opened a discussion at ANI. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 01:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
At Victor Salva ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) an IP insists we should include the fact that the subject has been convicted of a crime in the lede, which is indeed a fact and properly referenced later in the article. The subject's legal problems are independent of his other achievements and basic claims to notability (film director). I feel this is inappropriate, but that's my personal opinion. It certainly isn't a violation of anything in WP:BLP, except perhaps undue weight. I put this to other editors to see if we can reach consensus. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
User:Anomazee ( single purpose account) appears to be a bit too excited about the article Michael Harner. He is blanking every comment he doesn't like from the talkpage. Well, actually some of the blanked comments were not related to article or they were unsubstantiated opinions about a living person, but other comments were just normal comments about the way the article is written ( example). Due the rewritings by Anomazee, at the moment the article appears to be a little biased ( hagiography-like) but nobody is allowed to remark it. Since he threatened to have me blocked for defamatory edits in that page and, moreover, since I'm not involved at all in the development of that article (my bot just fixed a link few days ago) I would like to ask you to take a look at that article and then do what you consider is appropriate. Thanks! -- Basilicofresco ( msg) 07:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
This person is searched as Monique Lamoureux-Kolls. Her legal name, and the name she goes by is Monique Lamoureux. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leroy3anderson ( talk • contribs) 04:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
A discussion about BLPs on DYK is being held at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Asking for consensus determination: are negative articles eligible for DYK? St Anselm ( talk) 08:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Tyne Stecklein ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I have never read an article that was written as poorly as this one. Wikipedia should take it down and have someone who can write redo it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.203.57 ( talk) 14:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Bill McKibben ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Should a random joke from satirical Spy magazine be included in the "Criticism" section? Gamaliel ( talk) 23:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I cropped File:Stephen Harper by Remy Steinegger.jpg over at commons because the gap at the top of the image made the subject look short. This caused a minor edit war over there that ended with File:Stephen Harper by Remy Steinegger Infobox.jpg as an alt version. It was added to Canadian federal election, 2011 as well as other articles. Which version would show the subject in the best light? I still think the full size makes him look short. Try comparing both historical versions of the article. A browser refresh is needed if any distortion is caused. Thoughts?-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 14:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 20:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I've found myself in a dispute at Amanda Bynes. Am I being overly cautious in thinking Wikipedia shouldn't include the name of the hospital where a celebrity is currently residing for psychiatric treatment? To me it seems the same as including their home address, which I'm under the impression is not permitted. Theoldsparkle ( talk) 18:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Guess what the reference for Amanda Byne's birth date is? It's sourced to ""Airport Authority Police Dept. Notice to Appear" from gossip site TMZ. I can think of at least three policies this violates. Anyone care to do some BLP clean-up on that article? I would do it myself, but I suspect I would end up with a much shorter article so perhaps someone with a gentler hand would like to take a look first... Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 03:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Donald Featherstone (wargamer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There have been repeated edits to this page, stating that Featherstone died yesterday. So far none have been properly sourced, and in consequence have been reverted. The only citation provided at all has been to a Reddit page, [9] - which I consider clearly not WP:RS. Can I ask that others keep an eye on the page? I think semi-protection may also be necessary if this continues and no RS can be found. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Per an example of WP:Tiptibism by ArbCom, I say "Ave atque vale" Collect ( talk) 12:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Jonathan Lippman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Over the past few days a conflicted editor has been adding a section accusing the subject of the article of corruption based on the editors own blog and own complaint with the Southern District of New York. I have removed it twice now, explaining on the editors talk page that it violates the no original research rule, the conflict rule, the neutral viewpoint rule, and the verifiable sources rule (and probably others) but he has ignored my comments and continues to reinsert the allegations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sneekypat ( talk • contribs) 13:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Article about a readio show which I just stubbed. It was a mess of derogatory content aimed at the hosts, and apparently someone associated with the show opted to insert {{ cn}} all over the place instead of reporting or removing it. § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I have opened an RFC on the first bullet point of MOS:IDENTITY. This is a separate issue from the ongoing discussion of pronoun usage for transgendered individuals. Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#MOS:IDENTITY RFC: Should the text "When there is no dispute..." be deleted, kept or changed? GabrielF ( talk) 02:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Deepak Chopra ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi, all! I'm coming here for a quick question.
I'm an OTRS agent, handling ticket:2013071510009944. The person who emailed is a representative of Dr. Chopra, and the doctor himself was in on the email thread. There were several changes that they requested someone make to the article, and I made a few at [10]. This change was reverted, and discussed per WP:BRD (tread at [11]).
Which brings me to my question. Because I'm an OTRS agent in direct contact with the doctor, do I have a COI? Is there a policy that allows me to make edits on behalf of the subject (following consensus of course), or should I make edit requests? I assume this isn't the first time this has happened for BLPs, that's why I'm asking here. If this is the wrong place, my apologies. ~ Matthewrbowker Make a comment! 00:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Bhabaniprosad Mazumdar , is a king of rhyme in the realm of Bengali literature. He was born in 1953, at Dakhsin Shanpur, near Dasnagar, Howrah , West Bengal, India. He is a retired teacher, and still creating Hundreds of Thousands of Rhyme in Bengali , He is popular writer at the age group of eight to Eighty.He has got numerous prizes in Bengali Literature. Some of His popular books are : Chhande gora mohan Jara, Mojar Chhora, Chhorachhori gora gori, Jachai kora Bachai Chhora,Mithe kora Abritir Chhora,Chhorar vir Abritir, Jiban Surya Bajay Turya,Sadyo Gora, Podyo Chora,Rinik jhinik khusir finik ,Uluk jhuluk, Chhorar Muluk,Tapur tupur Chhorar Nupur,Bhut Petni Jindabad,Mon kore maat Rabindranath, Chhande Gantha ae kolkata,Akash vora Graho Tara, Jader bole somaj Chole,Nao Phool Nazrul etc. He has written his books with everything in life."Chhora Chhori Goragori", the album with his rhyme, recited by Soumitra Chattapadhayya. http://www.google.co.in/imgres?imgurl=http://www.satinath.com/images/a4.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.satinath.com/discography — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.45.67 ( talk) 06:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I am the subject of this page. What do I do to correct errors or suggest further information as the current "stub" is a bit limited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulgilding ( talk • contribs) 07:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
User Antopandeth is constantly inserting unsourced claims in this BLP article even after several editors objected to it. Request some admin to look into the issue. Salih (talk) 14:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Calling for additional eyes on this article. It was semi-protected for a day due to repeated additions of gossip about the subject's son. However, it was also recently radically rewritten by an editor who has now identified himself in an edit summary as the subject himself. I had already contacted that editor on his talk page; I rewrote the article incorporating elements of his version; and I've now opened a section on the article talk page; but I would welcome the involvement of better diplomats, particularly with the topic regarding the son sitting there on the talk page just above my new section. Yngvadottir ( talk) 21:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
The above section needs a cleanup by a defter hand than mine. Blow by blow details of the very recent murder & investigation followup, replete with weighty quotes from the bereaved son. WP:NOTNEWS 78.105.23.195 ( talk) 08:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
I am the subject of this article and I see that an inaccurate birth year has been repeatedly inserted and then even more inaccurately re-inserted. I just removed it for the second or third time. I I have a fairly good idea of the source of this posting, and I believe this is done with malicious intent, and in any case, it is inaccurate. I have just removed it again and left the birth year blank. Please be on the alert for any new re-insert of a birth year from the same source. I believe it has been under username WIlliam DFG however the same user could change usernames. Thank you. Eszter Balint — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bardybardy ( talk • contribs) 13:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
If you manage to wade through
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rampage killers you will see that I am having a bit of trouble communicating with
User:Lord Gøn, a single-purpose account whose focus is "rampage killers". Note that we currently have no article on
Rampage killers although we have several sortable lists of them. One BLP issue with those lists has now been fixed (the editor was including people on the lists of "killers" who had not killed anyone because they "intended" to kill people) but one question remains problematic.
WP:BLP could not be clearer that "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law" but Lord Gøn insists on the rightness of including people who references only say have been "arrested". In some cases, the perpetrator of such a crimes may be found not responsible for the crime because of mental disease or defect, but that is not the situation we are discussing here. These are people who have been arrested for the crimes but we do not know if they have stood trial and been found guilty, are awaiting trial, have been exonerated, or have been diverted to a mental health facilty - all we know is that they were arrested.
It seems like a blatantly obvious violation of WP:BLP to include these people in lists of "rampage killers", but perhaps wider discussion is necessary. I will invite Lord Gøn to participate. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 16:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
1) The fact that we don't have a "rampage killer" article is completely irrelevant. We have articles about topics that are very similar, and if you wish, you could try to get the article renamed to one of those. This is a reason to rename the article, but not to delete it.
2) All rules, including BLP, are subject to IAR. There are several reasons why someone might be an unconvicted killer, such as being not guilty by reason of insanity, being incompetent to stand trial, having diplomatic immunity, or being in a country where such killers are tried in secret. Rampage killers generally kill in an extremely public manner leaving lots of witnesses and evidence such that there is no doubt that the person accused did the killing, even if they escaped conviction because of insanity or some other such reason. If BLP is phrased such that we can't call them killers, that's just a badly worded rule that should be ignored. Furthermore, the fact that it is possible for the law to decide "this person killed, but has not committed a crime" implies that *we* can likewise say "this person has killed" without accusing them of committing a crime, so the policy isn't even worded badly--you're just misinterpreting it. Ken Arromdee ( talk) 01:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
So, what's the difference between the many mentions of the "accused" in the 2012 Aurora shooting and a note saying that the "accused" is still accused in the list? The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Since it seems we're at a pretty good place here, unless anyone objects, I'll go ahead with Andreas' suggestion of an edit notice. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Two different IP addresses and one seldom posting user, most certainly the same person just using different accounts to not break the three revert edit war rule, keeps adding the word "allegedly" before the word "abducted", despite the police already concluding he did kidnap the girl. Discussion on the talk page has not convinced this person. Talk:Kidnapping_of_Hannah_Anderson#allegedly_abducted_is_slanderous_horrible_BLP_violation Some familiar with BLP issues, please look into this. To accuse the girl of lying, saying its only "alleged" she was kidnapped, and insinuating she was part of the murder of her family members, I believe is slanderous and a BLP violation. Please join the discussion there. Dream Focus 18:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
User Anthonyhcole has reverted my edit [16] and I'd like additional opinions because I strongly disagree. I carefully cited basically every sentence. It's one thing if he had an issue with my wording, but there's no excuse for removing valid citations and just editing the text that referenced them. ThVa ( talk) 16:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Although the title of the article has not (as yet) been changed, the narrative and headings now refer to abduction of the subject rather than kidnapping. The distinction (by my reading) is that legally, the crime of child abduction doesn't hinge on lack of willingness of the victim to accompany their abductor, whereas kidnapping generally does. This should resolve the debate here on WP about whether a crime was committed in Miss Anderson's removal to Idaho, a source of much of the BLP controversy concerning this article. Seeking consensus in Talk now about changing the page title to match. Dwpaul ( talk) 17:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
A lot of sourced, but derogatory, info has recently been added to this article. I'm concerned about WP:WEIGHT. To me, the "Personal life" subsection is starting to read like an attack piece. I've started a talk page thread on the topic. I'd appreciate some additional eyes on the article. David in DC ( talk) 10:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I've just removed some information from Melanie_Griffith#Personal_life per WP:BLPCRIME. I think the sentences about Don Johnson (source: People.com) need looking at as well. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 22:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Dunno how long that information was in the article. I suspect had this BLP been of a male actor, things would be different. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 04:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
There's an OTRS ticket that is requesting what is essentially a POV check (although not worded that way of course) on this article. Looking at it I see a lot of emphasis placed on the "allegedness" of the crime against this person, and we'd be well-served if we make sure that's indeed the case and not a bunch of POV warriors trying to diminish the incident and the effect on the subject for whatever reason. § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
@ Folken de Fanel: continues to reinsert an inaccurate comments from an unreliable source on Hideaki Anno's interview in Newtype Magazine. Another editor removed this and I agreed with its removal, Folken reinserted it anyways. I removed it countering that the book was unreliable and it was not accurate and lacked appropriate context. Folken reinserted it to an questionable editorial in Protoculture Addicts, which also was not an accurate translation and the information he inserted did not match the text he reinserted. Also, the Protoculture Addicts source is an allusion, not a direct quote and is out of context. The comments are a response to the "Anno is dead" and other death threats the director had received. I removed it again and gave a lengthy post on why it was wrong. After correcting them misinformation and cited the actual source, Folken removed it as "RV unsourced non neutral edit and reinstate perfectly reliable content" which is false. [17] The information is inaccurate and being used to advance a position that was not in the source. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 13:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Note that as far as I know, ChrisGualtieri is not a Japanese-speaking user and doesn't have the original Japanese interview. He is relying on an English fan-translation found on an unreliable fansite here, which is itself a translation of an older French fan-translation of the original Japanese interview, from an unknown fansite. I am relying upon a summary of the interview by a prominent North-American publication, Protoculture Addicts, here. That ChrisGualtieri is even trying to compare a fan-translation of a fan-translation to a professional translation and summary is just baffling. But reading the 2 versions there is no difference, and even ChrisGualtieri's fan translation starts with the comment "The 26th episode that some diehard fans rejected…sure, it’s true that some fans were frustrated by the absence of continuity with the original story. But on the Internet, among other things, we have read some very scathing criticisms", then prompting the "graffiti on a wall" comment. My edit in the article is this: "in response to excessive criticism and gratuitous attacks from anonymous fans on the internet, he made controversial comments in a Newtype interview in June 1996, in which he compared their messages to "graffiti in a public toilet", and I honestly don't see how it would be different. Folken de Fanel ( talk) 16:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
@ ChrisGualtieri What statement in the edit do you think violates BLP? This seems to be a content dispute, and the content may or may not be translated appropriately, and may or may not be appropriate for the article, and may or may not come from a reliable source, but I see no defamation, libel, attack etc that should interest this board. Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Newly spun off article from the Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin. Subject is in the news again recently in regards to a domestic dispute. soon-to-be-ex-wife made a 911 call saying he had a gun and was threatening her. wife has now recanted, saying she never saw a gun, police say no gun found. Although Zimmerman probably qualifies for WP:WELLKNOWN at this point, I believe this is a violation of WP:BLPCRIME and WP:TABLOID as at this point there is not even an allegation of a crime anymore, yet we are saying "On September 9, 2013, in Lake Mary, Florida, police responded to a 911 call by Zimmerman's estranged wife, who reported that Zimmerman had threatened her and her parents with a gun and had punched her father in the face. Zimmerman was detained and questioned by police.[28] His wife refused to press charges and recanted some of her story. No gun was found at the scene. Police were investigating a broken iPad for video to determine if they would press charges."
I don't want to get in an edit war as I have reverted some of this content twice now (removing the detail of the allegation, and just saying she called 911), but I believe this could use additional eyes. Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
Could you confirm or invalidate this and this ? Was there really a BLP violation? (I do not ask about the previous edit) Visite fortuitement prolongée ( talk) 20:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I am involved in an edit war over Mel Sembler, an American businessman and former Ambassador. Sembler was involved in a controversial drug treatment program called Straight, Inc., about which there is a long history of activist, POV editing on Wikipedia. The current conflict consists of a paragraph stating that a complaint to a UN body was filed against Sembler for "crimes against humanity" due to his role with Straight, Inc. diff The content is sourced to an article at opednews.com. Opednews does not meet WP:RS, it is a platform where activists and activist organizations can post content without editorial oversight. This particular piece was published by Janet Parker, the Executive Director of an organization called Medical Whistleblower, which, according to her opednews profile: "is an organization dedicated to advocacy and emotional support for those who have bravely stepped forward to "Tell Truth to Power" to the Medical Establish." (sic) Clearly posting allegations that an individual has committed "crimes against humanity" without a reliable secondary source is a violation of WP:BLP. GabrielF ( talk) 05:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
GabrielF has a history of deleting well sourced content(see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mel_Sembler&diff=485842728&oldid=485840722) on the Mel Sembler page with little or no explanation as to why other than "BLP issues", and when questioned on the talk page as to why he mass deleted content he referred to only a small part of the text he deleted (the penis pump section)as being BLP (it was not, it was a major news story covered by several papers, with multiple cites) and referred to only one of the many cites (from an upstate NY paper, one of at least 5 cites for the pump section) as being WP:RS.
Nuff said.
Snertking (
talk)
06:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
The content highlighting Sembler's intimate medical conditions; namely prostate cancer and erectile disfunction, simply do not belong in this BLP, in my opinion, even if mentioned once in the Washington Post. Sembler was forced into this disclosure by a long term harasser. I removed it and being accused of vandalism for doing so. Am I a vandal? Any thoughts? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
This article was previously mentioned on this noticeboard, but archived without discussion. WP:BLP policies have been a significant part of the discussion around this article, in particular related to the current use of certain sources for contentious material about a BLP. Some of the sources include:
Based on the sources I have seen, the BLP appears to be best-known for allegations of using his position with the UN to promote the independence of Somaliland over the interests of neighboring Puntland. So it's not necessarily a BLP violation that the article have a negative slant. However, the discussion around if these sources should be used, to what extent and what is a neutral way to present them, etc. could use a few more editors experienced in BLP articles and policy. CorporateM ( Talk) 23:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Most of the actually cited content in the article is related to a now-debunked series of accusations of personal misconduct for which the subject was never charged and has been thoroughly vindicated. As a result of an OTRS request, I cleaned up the page to remove details of the accusations and put more weight on emphasizing that he was cleared [21]. But there is still a slow-moving edit war over whether this section should be included at all, and I think we have to take the subject's interest in having the record purged seriously.
causa sui ( talk) 19:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Mark Latham is an ex-Australian politician who still spends quite a bit of his time talking about (and being interviewed about) politics in Australia. During the last election cycle, he made some comments either about the judgment of Tony Abbott, or about his negative perceptions of the attractiveness of another candidate (depending on how you interpret the focus of the remarks). User:OSX has added information about this interview to the article, (see Mark Latham#2103 federal election) and I've objected and attempted to remove it pending an establishment of consensus...but OSX has repeatedly reinserted it. My argument is that one particular interview that Latham made during a campaign in which he was not a candidate that got are time mainly in articles about "Gaffes of the 2013 election cycle" is not something of lasting importance that belongs in the subject's biography--that is, that it's not WP:DUE. OSX disagrees. Could we get some outside input, please? Qwyrxian ( talk) 22:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
User:68.180.101.240 has edited a large number of articles of living American politicians to identify them as "lobbyists". This is fine, even in the introduction, but this user is placing it as the first piece of identifying information (i.e. "Bob Smith (born 1942) is an American lobbyist and former President of the United States"), even before their primary reason for notability. And this user is edit warring when editors attempt to relocate this identification to later in the introduction. In the case of Howard Dean, it was added cited to a source which contradicts this identification, a source that says he works for a lobbying firm as an advisor but is not registered as a lobbyist. IANAL, but doesn't this accuse him of an illegal act, unregistered government lobbying? This whole matter strikes me as having some serious BLP implications but I'd like some more thoughts before I start mass reverts. Gamaliel ( talk) 03:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I've only checked about less than a dozen of these articles, but I've already found three major errors where people have been labeled "lobbyists" when the cited source specifically states that the person is not a lobbyist, and in one case, says they are legally forbidden from lobbying. I'm going to revert en masse. Gamaliel ( talk) 17:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
He has continued to make similar edits as User:68.180.29.133. These are a great improvement, but there was one significant error and they do require some tweaking. We should keep an eye on this. Gamaliel ( talk) 03:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
You are both out of line. Please stop now.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:27, 14 September 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. |
Please note that there seems to be a strong bias against Rosemary Altea on the wikipedia search for her. Wiki should be an unbiased reporting of her at at this point it is not! I have edited the information given about her several times to then find, again, inflammatory information which is clearly biased. It's obvious that whomever is changing what I write has a problem with Altea and what she does. I have several times changed the information to specific un biased general information on this person (who happens to be my mother), (Altea is a new york times best selling author) etc and then a week or so later find that it has been replaced with controversial and clearly negative bias against her.
Please can you help me figure this out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.253.156.243 ( talk) 21:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Just created article by SPA about a Russian politician, probably fallout from the recent LGBT controversy there. Bordering on attack page, serious WP:UNDUE issues and excessive personal details. Plus sourced entirely to Russian-language sources. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Louis Tomlinson ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) "is an English pop singer for the boy band One Direction, actor and [..]" This is part is inaccurate because he is not an actor. As the definition says, an actor is a person who acts in a dramatic or comic production and works in film, television, theatre, or radio in that capacity. [ 1] He doesn't fit the definition, he loves acting but he has never had a real role in his life, I would like to keep his biography as true as possible. Thank you.
There is dispute related to new president of Iran again, I suggest some admin to check relevant discussion here: Talk:Hassan Rouhani#Son's suicide claims. I'm sure that I've provided enough explanation about libellous claims and I removed it four times today - of course I'm familiar with 3RR, but please keep in mind this article has been opened more then 500.000 times in past three months so it's very sensitive issue. -- HistorNE ( talk) 15:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Richard Worth ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [note that this is a self-report]
I'm looking for guidance about balance and sourcing issues on Richard Worth. An IP removed a whole lot of apparently well sourced material that I restored but now I'm having doubts about WP:BALANCE. I'm a significant contributor. I've made attempts to find extra coverage of Worth (for example Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand/Election 2011 taskforce#Coverage of former MPs), but I'm failing to find anything useful as he appears to have dropped out of public sight. Stuartyeates ( talk) 08:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Quvenzhané Wallis ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Quvenzhane Wallis is a actress who is born on 28th August 2003 and right now this is 28th August 2013 which means that she is 10 not 9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.154.184 ( talk) 08:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
obviously created by someone very close to the subject, likely the subject himself. "During that time, the firm invested in the economy." What? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.42.157.5 ( talk) 23:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Jason Orange ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi there: There have been repeated changes in Jason Orange's biography. There is a user account of Orangejeanne who is repeatedly added to his biography that she is his partner/wife. The website she has provided as proof is one that she created herself. Other than that, there is no proof. Would it be possible to have her stopped from making changes to his page? Jason Orange — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karleysmom ( talk • contribs) 00:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Can somebody please take a look at this article? It is full of what look to me to be dubious sources for a BLP, including some (possibly notable) blogs. It is very negative in tone, and I also question notability based on the sources I've looked at quickly. Unfortunately I don't have time to deal with this now, so am hoping somebody can. -- Slp1 ( talk) 00:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
This is in DYK: "... that one of Dougal Butler's first tasks when he became a roadie for The Who was to provide a getaway car so that Pete Townshend could [details of criminal act deleted]" The Dougal Butler article includes one reference for the claim, Butler's autobiography. The way the claim is written in our biog is subtly less strong than the way it appears on Main Page:
"According to Butler, one of his early tasks for the band was to provide a getaway car so that Pete Townshend could steal a guitar from Jim Marshall's music shop in Ealing." (my emphasis)
I'm worried about such a strong claim against a living person appearing on Main Page based on such thin referencing, exarcebated by the fact that whoever wrote the claim in our article (and presumably had the written source) didn't write it as strongly.
Finally, the source isn't really a reliable one. It's a primary source and our WP:SELFPUB policy says that we can only use such material if it "does not involve claims about third parties"
I think that unless someone can instantly find a proper RS to back up this claim, this DYK should be removed immediately and the claim should also be removed from the article.
NB I'll flag this at WP:ERRORS. -- Dweller ( talk) 08:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
RL intervening. Please whistle up an admin at AN to remove the claim anywhere protected. -- Dweller ( talk) 09:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
-- BabbaQ ( talk) 09:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
In a similar vein, Domenico Rancadore is set up to hit the main page soon in DYK, with the hook "... that Domenico Rancadore has been described as one of Italy's "most wanted criminals", and headed the Cosa Nostra mafia?". While the first part seems accurate, the "headed the Cosa Nostra Mafia" is apparently a claim on a warrant by the Italian police, while his actual conviction has been for being a member of a criminal organisation. Can someone check my reasoning and correct or pull this DYK nomination accordingly? I'll do it myself if no one is around to doublecheck this first, but I'ld like someone else to get the flak for my DYK criticisms for once :-) Fram ( talk) 10:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I have for now pulled the hook from the main page, where it was life for some 15 minutes. I'll drop a note at WT:DYK and at the nomination page. Fram ( talk) 12:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I've noted this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Hooks pulled for BLP reasons, and added two more negative BLP hooks in the current queues of DYK (i.e. about to hit the main page tomorrow). They don't seem as problematic as the Rancadore one, but still, they focus unduly on negative aspects, and one is sourced to court transcripts (blogged by the Chinese court) as posted by the BBC, which may not be sufficient to accuse people of things here. Fram ( talk) 13:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Not sure but doesnt adding Template:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch to the article on Rolf Harris, somebody charged but not convicted, appears to be a breach of BLP and possible BLPCRIME. MilborneOne ( talk) 20:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
At Keeley Hazell ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) the dispute is about including the Pornography portal and Wikiproject pornography in the main article and on the talkpage respectively. Presumably, Keeley Hazel having been a page 3 Sun girl qualifies for the Pornography portal. I would appreciate any advice. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 16:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
-- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 06:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous.
Comment We can be completely objective about this actually. If none of the publications she has appeared in are listed under our pornography categories then there is no reason for the portal to be there. If they are then her connection to the pornography industry is objectively established. I haven't gone through them myself, but portals should only reflect close associations with subjects and topic areas, not our own personal moral standards or indeed the individual interests of Wikiprojects (which are free to select what they are interested in). Betty Logan ( talk) 13:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
The general issue of whether "glamour modelling" is (softcore) pornography seems open to debate, but in this particular case, I think it would be instructive to google "Keely Hazell sex tape". Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 14:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
This is a pretty clear BLP violation. There's pretty significant disagreement about whether glamour shoots are "pornography", but regardless, if you told the average person someone had been in "pornography", their first thought is not likely to be that they were photographed wearing sexy clothing. The pornography portal link implies that the subject has something to do with pornography, which is clearly in dispute. The linked articles explain that debate in all its nuances; slapping a portal link on this person's page does not. (And why are half the posts in this colored red? It's quite distracting.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Delicious carbuncle may have a point in respect specifically to Keely Hazell because of the sex tape. In general, though, describing a Page 3 model's work as "pornography" would present a BLP issue. Porn is infamously hard to define, but material that is presented in a daily newspaper in Britain seems to clearly go outside the definition.— Kww( talk) 14:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Today, softcore nude photographs of models appear in publications such as Perfect 10, or tabloid newspapers such as Britain's The Sun's Page 3.
I didn't add any extra material or references because there was no need to. The article already contains reliable sources and no "absences". (Ref 2 is "Keeley Hazell: Angel is a centrefold". The Independent (London)., ref 13 is ""Keeley strips for hot music vid". The Sun Online (London).", ref 17 is "The Latest Cameron Mantra: Praise a Page 3 Girl. This Is London. (London Evening Standard) and "FHM, (magazine), "Keeley Hazell — All-Time Great", FHM". to name a few).
I fully agree with Collect's comments. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 19:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
20:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)Henry Harpending ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Someone occasionally inserts libel in your article about me:could you somehow lock it to prevent edits? The most recent incident was deleted by a friend, who reported it to me.
Thanks, Henry Harpending — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.196.110 ( talk) 20:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Based on what I've just googled, Professor Harpending has proposed some theories that some see as controversial. (Note the See Also link to Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence.) This might be the reason for the vandalism, and perhaps if we expanded the article to include these theories sourced to reliable sources, this might fill the void and stop vandals from being inclined to fill that void with garbage. If if it doesn't work, expanding articles is a net good anyway. Gamaliel ( talk) 04:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
There are multiple secondary sources that report Richie Sambora's departure from the band, yet the talk page disregards all of the reliable sources I provided as "feeding on rumors". If Sambora is no longer a current member, it is wrong of Wikipedia to list him as a current member. The reverts also disposed of a valid source, and were mostly performed by PanosBonJovi ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whose edit summaries and username suggest a strong COI. I told them on the talk page that BLP violations are a notable exception for the 3RR rule, but all I got in return was this "friendly threat" by Jauerback ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thoughts? Hearfourmewesique ( talk) 04:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
The article should be reverted back to an earlier state, since it's not clear what the situation is at the moment. Richie Sambora is still a member of the band until an official statement is issued. And neither Phil X nor Hugh McDonald are members of the band, it's clearly an error to be fixed. They just tour or tour and record with the band. Neither is an official member. There is no confirmed quote anywhere to say Richie Sambora has quit the band. And if he isn't, saying he was fired could potentially be a BLP violation. Iceman ( talk) 10:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
There is a content dispute-- see Talk:Cheryl B. Schrader. One user who feels strongly that the offending section should be removed PRODed. I dePRODed, and removed further content. I'm OK with removing the whole section. Of course, some editors there want to include all the gory details. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 15:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Daniel Plaza ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'd like a second opinion before reverting again. -- John of Reading ( talk) 11:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Would like other opinions if this is appropriately written and sourced. Discussion is here. Note: other editor has been reported for breaking WP:3RR. Thank you. -- NeilN talk to me 13:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think "Has engaged in racism publicly" is the best sentence to write there. It's only one article that accuses racism - the second source doesn't. It also doesn't seem like this was a big deal, so it should just be dropped from the article, in my opinion. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 14:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello. The criminal case against Asaram Bapu for ("allegedly") raping a 16 year-old girl is being suppressed on the Wikipedia. [7] Is this fair? Just because he wears a religious turban does not make him immune from legal action and questioning. Compare Luka Magnotta (Eric Clinton Kirk Newman). He too is accused of a crime but the information about him is not suppressed because he is not a powerful man. Asaram Bapu's devotees and their sympathizers wish this heinous crime (or the allegations thereof) not to be shown on the Wikipedia. I don't understand why. At this point, I must point out that Asaram Bapu has not even been questioned by the police even once, because once he was "meditating deeply", or "had other commitments" and more recently, "has a dead relative". Is the Wikipedia going to behave just like the local police in India is? The President of India, Pranab Mukherjee- among other big shot politicians- is ("allegedly") a friend if not devotee of Asaram Bapu. There is a lot of outrage over the condition of women in India and the media has been reporting every single rape in the country but in the case of Asaram, but they have invented the expression "sexual assault" solely to describe the alleged rape by Asaram Bapu. The term "sexual assault" does not exist in the Indian Penal Code and Asaram has been charged under IPC Section 376 (rape). It is not the first time that this person has been charged with a grave crime (like murder). I sincerely hope that the Wikipedia did not suppress this important criminal case because of this man's being powerful. Please remove the protection on the page or at least restore the previous version. I do not see how the following criteria for BLP are being violated: verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research. -- Crème3.14159 ( talk) 17:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I wanted to know if it is okay to add that Asaram Bapu allegedly started his life as a bootlegger since it has been published in a major English newspaper in India. [1] IPS stands for Indian Police Service.-- Crème3.14159 ( talk) 01:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
There is a criminal proceeding underway against Asaram Bapu and his son over the mysterious deaths of 2 little boys in their school on their ashram in 2008. Editors have repeatedly tried to remove it, previously asking for more references and now asking for consensus before adding this material. [8] What is wrong with adding this? -- Crème3.14159 ( talk) 11:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
References
Matthew Bryden ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm following up from my review of a request at COIN. The Matthew Bryden controversy section is written in a way that is biased with potentially harmful original research (among other postings, "involve himself and the UN in unlawful actions."). Please consider deleting the Matthew Bryden controversy section until someone can recreate it in a more neutral way.-- Jreferee ( talk) 14:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Manga artist Inio Asano apparently came out as male-to-female transsexual in an interview with BREAK MAX magazine. An anonymous IP user keeps reverting the usage of feminine pronouns that MOS:IDENTITY indicates should be used, and in an edit summary claimed that it was a "gross misunderstanding" of Asano's statements, but has refused to elaborate. Nongendered ( talk) 11:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Helmuth Nyborg is a Danish scientist whose work has rightfully, in my view, received much criticism. That said, his biography is poorly written and riddled with dead links. I removed a statement accusing him of racism, more or less, and the statement was immediately returned, with a broken link used to source the statement. I'm not asking that this biography be favorable, but that it be rigorously sourced and well written in the manner deserving of an article for a living person. - Darouet ( talk) 03:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Daniel Tammet ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This BLP article has a long history of poorly sourced and potentially libellous edits by anonymous users.
On Sep 1, user Dzgoldman/110.77.193.113 inserted a new section headed 'Criticisms by memory and math tricks experts'. User's sole reliable published source is a chapter of the book 'Moonwalking with Einstein' by freelance reporter Joshua Foer. Foer's minority perspective (unsupported by any scientist in the fields of autism/synesthesia/savantism) has long been debated on the article's talk page and previous discussions with editors including Enchanter, off2riorob, EdHubbard (who is one of the researchers who has studied the subject) reached a consensus that Foer's speculation should be incorporated into the article in a sensitive and marginal way to avoid undue weight. The book's title, author, and viewpoint are already listed in article.
BLP rules require multiple, reliable third-party published sources to confirm the notability of any specific claim. The talk page has made this clear on multiple occasions, but has been ignored. The user has advanced no other reliable third-party published sources in support of the above edits, which I have therefore removed.
The above user/s had also inserted a link to a blog by a 'mental math expert' which is critical of the subject. I have removed it as not meeting Wiki's BLP article rules.
Please could an editor review and comment here and/or on the article's talk page?
Oughtprice99 ( talk) 07:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
This rule would also seem relevant here:
"Articles must meet the neutral point of view policy. Articles on living individuals are carefully checked to ensure that no unsourced or poorly sourced negative material is included. Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided."
Oughtprice99 ( talk) 08:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
The entry notes his death 1st September 2013 but I can find no supporting evidence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.158.82 ( talk) 13:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Sourced now.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 20:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Charles Payne (journalist) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User Stanley Galt continues to remove the section Paid stock promotions despite it being of note and sourced by http://www.sec.gov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsloughter ( talk • contribs) 17:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Stanley Galt continues to replace the page with copyvio material after being warned. I've opened a discussion at ANI. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 01:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
At Victor Salva ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) an IP insists we should include the fact that the subject has been convicted of a crime in the lede, which is indeed a fact and properly referenced later in the article. The subject's legal problems are independent of his other achievements and basic claims to notability (film director). I feel this is inappropriate, but that's my personal opinion. It certainly isn't a violation of anything in WP:BLP, except perhaps undue weight. I put this to other editors to see if we can reach consensus. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
User:Anomazee ( single purpose account) appears to be a bit too excited about the article Michael Harner. He is blanking every comment he doesn't like from the talkpage. Well, actually some of the blanked comments were not related to article or they were unsubstantiated opinions about a living person, but other comments were just normal comments about the way the article is written ( example). Due the rewritings by Anomazee, at the moment the article appears to be a little biased ( hagiography-like) but nobody is allowed to remark it. Since he threatened to have me blocked for defamatory edits in that page and, moreover, since I'm not involved at all in the development of that article (my bot just fixed a link few days ago) I would like to ask you to take a look at that article and then do what you consider is appropriate. Thanks! -- Basilicofresco ( msg) 07:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
This person is searched as Monique Lamoureux-Kolls. Her legal name, and the name she goes by is Monique Lamoureux. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leroy3anderson ( talk • contribs) 04:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
A discussion about BLPs on DYK is being held at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Asking for consensus determination: are negative articles eligible for DYK? St Anselm ( talk) 08:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Tyne Stecklein ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I have never read an article that was written as poorly as this one. Wikipedia should take it down and have someone who can write redo it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.203.57 ( talk) 14:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Bill McKibben ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Should a random joke from satirical Spy magazine be included in the "Criticism" section? Gamaliel ( talk) 23:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I cropped File:Stephen Harper by Remy Steinegger.jpg over at commons because the gap at the top of the image made the subject look short. This caused a minor edit war over there that ended with File:Stephen Harper by Remy Steinegger Infobox.jpg as an alt version. It was added to Canadian federal election, 2011 as well as other articles. Which version would show the subject in the best light? I still think the full size makes him look short. Try comparing both historical versions of the article. A browser refresh is needed if any distortion is caused. Thoughts?-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 14:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 20:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I've found myself in a dispute at Amanda Bynes. Am I being overly cautious in thinking Wikipedia shouldn't include the name of the hospital where a celebrity is currently residing for psychiatric treatment? To me it seems the same as including their home address, which I'm under the impression is not permitted. Theoldsparkle ( talk) 18:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Guess what the reference for Amanda Byne's birth date is? It's sourced to ""Airport Authority Police Dept. Notice to Appear" from gossip site TMZ. I can think of at least three policies this violates. Anyone care to do some BLP clean-up on that article? I would do it myself, but I suspect I would end up with a much shorter article so perhaps someone with a gentler hand would like to take a look first... Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 03:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Donald Featherstone (wargamer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There have been repeated edits to this page, stating that Featherstone died yesterday. So far none have been properly sourced, and in consequence have been reverted. The only citation provided at all has been to a Reddit page, [9] - which I consider clearly not WP:RS. Can I ask that others keep an eye on the page? I think semi-protection may also be necessary if this continues and no RS can be found. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Per an example of WP:Tiptibism by ArbCom, I say "Ave atque vale" Collect ( talk) 12:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Jonathan Lippman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Over the past few days a conflicted editor has been adding a section accusing the subject of the article of corruption based on the editors own blog and own complaint with the Southern District of New York. I have removed it twice now, explaining on the editors talk page that it violates the no original research rule, the conflict rule, the neutral viewpoint rule, and the verifiable sources rule (and probably others) but he has ignored my comments and continues to reinsert the allegations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sneekypat ( talk • contribs) 13:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Article about a readio show which I just stubbed. It was a mess of derogatory content aimed at the hosts, and apparently someone associated with the show opted to insert {{ cn}} all over the place instead of reporting or removing it. § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I have opened an RFC on the first bullet point of MOS:IDENTITY. This is a separate issue from the ongoing discussion of pronoun usage for transgendered individuals. Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#MOS:IDENTITY RFC: Should the text "When there is no dispute..." be deleted, kept or changed? GabrielF ( talk) 02:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Deepak Chopra ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi, all! I'm coming here for a quick question.
I'm an OTRS agent, handling ticket:2013071510009944. The person who emailed is a representative of Dr. Chopra, and the doctor himself was in on the email thread. There were several changes that they requested someone make to the article, and I made a few at [10]. This change was reverted, and discussed per WP:BRD (tread at [11]).
Which brings me to my question. Because I'm an OTRS agent in direct contact with the doctor, do I have a COI? Is there a policy that allows me to make edits on behalf of the subject (following consensus of course), or should I make edit requests? I assume this isn't the first time this has happened for BLPs, that's why I'm asking here. If this is the wrong place, my apologies. ~ Matthewrbowker Make a comment! 00:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Bhabaniprosad Mazumdar , is a king of rhyme in the realm of Bengali literature. He was born in 1953, at Dakhsin Shanpur, near Dasnagar, Howrah , West Bengal, India. He is a retired teacher, and still creating Hundreds of Thousands of Rhyme in Bengali , He is popular writer at the age group of eight to Eighty.He has got numerous prizes in Bengali Literature. Some of His popular books are : Chhande gora mohan Jara, Mojar Chhora, Chhorachhori gora gori, Jachai kora Bachai Chhora,Mithe kora Abritir Chhora,Chhorar vir Abritir, Jiban Surya Bajay Turya,Sadyo Gora, Podyo Chora,Rinik jhinik khusir finik ,Uluk jhuluk, Chhorar Muluk,Tapur tupur Chhorar Nupur,Bhut Petni Jindabad,Mon kore maat Rabindranath, Chhande Gantha ae kolkata,Akash vora Graho Tara, Jader bole somaj Chole,Nao Phool Nazrul etc. He has written his books with everything in life."Chhora Chhori Goragori", the album with his rhyme, recited by Soumitra Chattapadhayya. http://www.google.co.in/imgres?imgurl=http://www.satinath.com/images/a4.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.satinath.com/discography — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.45.67 ( talk) 06:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I am the subject of this page. What do I do to correct errors or suggest further information as the current "stub" is a bit limited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulgilding ( talk • contribs) 07:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
User Antopandeth is constantly inserting unsourced claims in this BLP article even after several editors objected to it. Request some admin to look into the issue. Salih (talk) 14:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Calling for additional eyes on this article. It was semi-protected for a day due to repeated additions of gossip about the subject's son. However, it was also recently radically rewritten by an editor who has now identified himself in an edit summary as the subject himself. I had already contacted that editor on his talk page; I rewrote the article incorporating elements of his version; and I've now opened a section on the article talk page; but I would welcome the involvement of better diplomats, particularly with the topic regarding the son sitting there on the talk page just above my new section. Yngvadottir ( talk) 21:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
The above section needs a cleanup by a defter hand than mine. Blow by blow details of the very recent murder & investigation followup, replete with weighty quotes from the bereaved son. WP:NOTNEWS 78.105.23.195 ( talk) 08:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
I am the subject of this article and I see that an inaccurate birth year has been repeatedly inserted and then even more inaccurately re-inserted. I just removed it for the second or third time. I I have a fairly good idea of the source of this posting, and I believe this is done with malicious intent, and in any case, it is inaccurate. I have just removed it again and left the birth year blank. Please be on the alert for any new re-insert of a birth year from the same source. I believe it has been under username WIlliam DFG however the same user could change usernames. Thank you. Eszter Balint — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bardybardy ( talk • contribs) 13:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
If you manage to wade through
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rampage killers you will see that I am having a bit of trouble communicating with
User:Lord Gøn, a single-purpose account whose focus is "rampage killers". Note that we currently have no article on
Rampage killers although we have several sortable lists of them. One BLP issue with those lists has now been fixed (the editor was including people on the lists of "killers" who had not killed anyone because they "intended" to kill people) but one question remains problematic.
WP:BLP could not be clearer that "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law" but Lord Gøn insists on the rightness of including people who references only say have been "arrested". In some cases, the perpetrator of such a crimes may be found not responsible for the crime because of mental disease or defect, but that is not the situation we are discussing here. These are people who have been arrested for the crimes but we do not know if they have stood trial and been found guilty, are awaiting trial, have been exonerated, or have been diverted to a mental health facilty - all we know is that they were arrested.
It seems like a blatantly obvious violation of WP:BLP to include these people in lists of "rampage killers", but perhaps wider discussion is necessary. I will invite Lord Gøn to participate. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 16:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
1) The fact that we don't have a "rampage killer" article is completely irrelevant. We have articles about topics that are very similar, and if you wish, you could try to get the article renamed to one of those. This is a reason to rename the article, but not to delete it.
2) All rules, including BLP, are subject to IAR. There are several reasons why someone might be an unconvicted killer, such as being not guilty by reason of insanity, being incompetent to stand trial, having diplomatic immunity, or being in a country where such killers are tried in secret. Rampage killers generally kill in an extremely public manner leaving lots of witnesses and evidence such that there is no doubt that the person accused did the killing, even if they escaped conviction because of insanity or some other such reason. If BLP is phrased such that we can't call them killers, that's just a badly worded rule that should be ignored. Furthermore, the fact that it is possible for the law to decide "this person killed, but has not committed a crime" implies that *we* can likewise say "this person has killed" without accusing them of committing a crime, so the policy isn't even worded badly--you're just misinterpreting it. Ken Arromdee ( talk) 01:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
So, what's the difference between the many mentions of the "accused" in the 2012 Aurora shooting and a note saying that the "accused" is still accused in the list? The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Since it seems we're at a pretty good place here, unless anyone objects, I'll go ahead with Andreas' suggestion of an edit notice. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Two different IP addresses and one seldom posting user, most certainly the same person just using different accounts to not break the three revert edit war rule, keeps adding the word "allegedly" before the word "abducted", despite the police already concluding he did kidnap the girl. Discussion on the talk page has not convinced this person. Talk:Kidnapping_of_Hannah_Anderson#allegedly_abducted_is_slanderous_horrible_BLP_violation Some familiar with BLP issues, please look into this. To accuse the girl of lying, saying its only "alleged" she was kidnapped, and insinuating she was part of the murder of her family members, I believe is slanderous and a BLP violation. Please join the discussion there. Dream Focus 18:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
User Anthonyhcole has reverted my edit [16] and I'd like additional opinions because I strongly disagree. I carefully cited basically every sentence. It's one thing if he had an issue with my wording, but there's no excuse for removing valid citations and just editing the text that referenced them. ThVa ( talk) 16:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Although the title of the article has not (as yet) been changed, the narrative and headings now refer to abduction of the subject rather than kidnapping. The distinction (by my reading) is that legally, the crime of child abduction doesn't hinge on lack of willingness of the victim to accompany their abductor, whereas kidnapping generally does. This should resolve the debate here on WP about whether a crime was committed in Miss Anderson's removal to Idaho, a source of much of the BLP controversy concerning this article. Seeking consensus in Talk now about changing the page title to match. Dwpaul ( talk) 17:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
A lot of sourced, but derogatory, info has recently been added to this article. I'm concerned about WP:WEIGHT. To me, the "Personal life" subsection is starting to read like an attack piece. I've started a talk page thread on the topic. I'd appreciate some additional eyes on the article. David in DC ( talk) 10:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I've just removed some information from Melanie_Griffith#Personal_life per WP:BLPCRIME. I think the sentences about Don Johnson (source: People.com) need looking at as well. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 22:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Dunno how long that information was in the article. I suspect had this BLP been of a male actor, things would be different. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 04:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
There's an OTRS ticket that is requesting what is essentially a POV check (although not worded that way of course) on this article. Looking at it I see a lot of emphasis placed on the "allegedness" of the crime against this person, and we'd be well-served if we make sure that's indeed the case and not a bunch of POV warriors trying to diminish the incident and the effect on the subject for whatever reason. § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
@ Folken de Fanel: continues to reinsert an inaccurate comments from an unreliable source on Hideaki Anno's interview in Newtype Magazine. Another editor removed this and I agreed with its removal, Folken reinserted it anyways. I removed it countering that the book was unreliable and it was not accurate and lacked appropriate context. Folken reinserted it to an questionable editorial in Protoculture Addicts, which also was not an accurate translation and the information he inserted did not match the text he reinserted. Also, the Protoculture Addicts source is an allusion, not a direct quote and is out of context. The comments are a response to the "Anno is dead" and other death threats the director had received. I removed it again and gave a lengthy post on why it was wrong. After correcting them misinformation and cited the actual source, Folken removed it as "RV unsourced non neutral edit and reinstate perfectly reliable content" which is false. [17] The information is inaccurate and being used to advance a position that was not in the source. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 13:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Note that as far as I know, ChrisGualtieri is not a Japanese-speaking user and doesn't have the original Japanese interview. He is relying on an English fan-translation found on an unreliable fansite here, which is itself a translation of an older French fan-translation of the original Japanese interview, from an unknown fansite. I am relying upon a summary of the interview by a prominent North-American publication, Protoculture Addicts, here. That ChrisGualtieri is even trying to compare a fan-translation of a fan-translation to a professional translation and summary is just baffling. But reading the 2 versions there is no difference, and even ChrisGualtieri's fan translation starts with the comment "The 26th episode that some diehard fans rejected…sure, it’s true that some fans were frustrated by the absence of continuity with the original story. But on the Internet, among other things, we have read some very scathing criticisms", then prompting the "graffiti on a wall" comment. My edit in the article is this: "in response to excessive criticism and gratuitous attacks from anonymous fans on the internet, he made controversial comments in a Newtype interview in June 1996, in which he compared their messages to "graffiti in a public toilet", and I honestly don't see how it would be different. Folken de Fanel ( talk) 16:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
@ ChrisGualtieri What statement in the edit do you think violates BLP? This seems to be a content dispute, and the content may or may not be translated appropriately, and may or may not be appropriate for the article, and may or may not come from a reliable source, but I see no defamation, libel, attack etc that should interest this board. Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Newly spun off article from the Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin. Subject is in the news again recently in regards to a domestic dispute. soon-to-be-ex-wife made a 911 call saying he had a gun and was threatening her. wife has now recanted, saying she never saw a gun, police say no gun found. Although Zimmerman probably qualifies for WP:WELLKNOWN at this point, I believe this is a violation of WP:BLPCRIME and WP:TABLOID as at this point there is not even an allegation of a crime anymore, yet we are saying "On September 9, 2013, in Lake Mary, Florida, police responded to a 911 call by Zimmerman's estranged wife, who reported that Zimmerman had threatened her and her parents with a gun and had punched her father in the face. Zimmerman was detained and questioned by police.[28] His wife refused to press charges and recanted some of her story. No gun was found at the scene. Police were investigating a broken iPad for video to determine if they would press charges."
I don't want to get in an edit war as I have reverted some of this content twice now (removing the detail of the allegation, and just saying she called 911), but I believe this could use additional eyes. Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
Could you confirm or invalidate this and this ? Was there really a BLP violation? (I do not ask about the previous edit) Visite fortuitement prolongée ( talk) 20:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I am involved in an edit war over Mel Sembler, an American businessman and former Ambassador. Sembler was involved in a controversial drug treatment program called Straight, Inc., about which there is a long history of activist, POV editing on Wikipedia. The current conflict consists of a paragraph stating that a complaint to a UN body was filed against Sembler for "crimes against humanity" due to his role with Straight, Inc. diff The content is sourced to an article at opednews.com. Opednews does not meet WP:RS, it is a platform where activists and activist organizations can post content without editorial oversight. This particular piece was published by Janet Parker, the Executive Director of an organization called Medical Whistleblower, which, according to her opednews profile: "is an organization dedicated to advocacy and emotional support for those who have bravely stepped forward to "Tell Truth to Power" to the Medical Establish." (sic) Clearly posting allegations that an individual has committed "crimes against humanity" without a reliable secondary source is a violation of WP:BLP. GabrielF ( talk) 05:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
GabrielF has a history of deleting well sourced content(see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mel_Sembler&diff=485842728&oldid=485840722) on the Mel Sembler page with little or no explanation as to why other than "BLP issues", and when questioned on the talk page as to why he mass deleted content he referred to only a small part of the text he deleted (the penis pump section)as being BLP (it was not, it was a major news story covered by several papers, with multiple cites) and referred to only one of the many cites (from an upstate NY paper, one of at least 5 cites for the pump section) as being WP:RS.
Nuff said.
Snertking (
talk)
06:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
The content highlighting Sembler's intimate medical conditions; namely prostate cancer and erectile disfunction, simply do not belong in this BLP, in my opinion, even if mentioned once in the Washington Post. Sembler was forced into this disclosure by a long term harasser. I removed it and being accused of vandalism for doing so. Am I a vandal? Any thoughts? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
This article was previously mentioned on this noticeboard, but archived without discussion. WP:BLP policies have been a significant part of the discussion around this article, in particular related to the current use of certain sources for contentious material about a BLP. Some of the sources include:
Based on the sources I have seen, the BLP appears to be best-known for allegations of using his position with the UN to promote the independence of Somaliland over the interests of neighboring Puntland. So it's not necessarily a BLP violation that the article have a negative slant. However, the discussion around if these sources should be used, to what extent and what is a neutral way to present them, etc. could use a few more editors experienced in BLP articles and policy. CorporateM ( Talk) 23:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Most of the actually cited content in the article is related to a now-debunked series of accusations of personal misconduct for which the subject was never charged and has been thoroughly vindicated. As a result of an OTRS request, I cleaned up the page to remove details of the accusations and put more weight on emphasizing that he was cleared [21]. But there is still a slow-moving edit war over whether this section should be included at all, and I think we have to take the subject's interest in having the record purged seriously.
causa sui ( talk) 19:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Mark Latham is an ex-Australian politician who still spends quite a bit of his time talking about (and being interviewed about) politics in Australia. During the last election cycle, he made some comments either about the judgment of Tony Abbott, or about his negative perceptions of the attractiveness of another candidate (depending on how you interpret the focus of the remarks). User:OSX has added information about this interview to the article, (see Mark Latham#2103 federal election) and I've objected and attempted to remove it pending an establishment of consensus...but OSX has repeatedly reinserted it. My argument is that one particular interview that Latham made during a campaign in which he was not a candidate that got are time mainly in articles about "Gaffes of the 2013 election cycle" is not something of lasting importance that belongs in the subject's biography--that is, that it's not WP:DUE. OSX disagrees. Could we get some outside input, please? Qwyrxian ( talk) 22:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
User:68.180.101.240 has edited a large number of articles of living American politicians to identify them as "lobbyists". This is fine, even in the introduction, but this user is placing it as the first piece of identifying information (i.e. "Bob Smith (born 1942) is an American lobbyist and former President of the United States"), even before their primary reason for notability. And this user is edit warring when editors attempt to relocate this identification to later in the introduction. In the case of Howard Dean, it was added cited to a source which contradicts this identification, a source that says he works for a lobbying firm as an advisor but is not registered as a lobbyist. IANAL, but doesn't this accuse him of an illegal act, unregistered government lobbying? This whole matter strikes me as having some serious BLP implications but I'd like some more thoughts before I start mass reverts. Gamaliel ( talk) 03:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I've only checked about less than a dozen of these articles, but I've already found three major errors where people have been labeled "lobbyists" when the cited source specifically states that the person is not a lobbyist, and in one case, says they are legally forbidden from lobbying. I'm going to revert en masse. Gamaliel ( talk) 17:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
He has continued to make similar edits as User:68.180.29.133. These are a great improvement, but there was one significant error and they do require some tweaking. We should keep an eye on this. Gamaliel ( talk) 03:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
You are both out of line. Please stop now.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)