![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
I came across an article about Carl Freer and Tiger Telematics about a month ago and recommended Freer for deletion. The article asserted a claim of him being a criminal but his actions are similar to thousands of others and did not seem to amount to WP:CRIME. With the exception User:BabbaQ who voted to keep (although did not really elaborate how it meets WP:GNG), the other reasons for keeping the article left by editors were not based on guidelines. After the article was kept, I edited it to more conform to BLP guidelines for neutrality, original research, and verifiability (at least in my opinion). The edits were reversed yesterday by user User:Universaladdress who asserted that the content I added and removed was already “approved” and from reliable sources. However, the information removed was WP:UNDUE and the information I added was something other editors left out when introducing negative information.
While I do not care about Tiger Telematics or Gizmundo as they are company pages, BLPs are different and need to be strictly adhered to. While Freer and Erikkson do not seem like saints, they also do not appear to rise to the level of WP:CRIME. If they did meet notability for criminals, we could double the size of Wikipedia’s database with criminals who would qualify as well. Also, after the Freer article was kept, a User:Universaladdress requested page protection which was applied to the page. Page protection should be requested for persistence vandalism, not because someone disagrees with an article being recommended for deletion. This is poor use of page protection in my opinion.
So, long story short, there seems to be some major BLP violations with Eriksson and Freer. I would request that it be looked at by those familiar with BLP guidelines in order to ensure that they are being followed with these articles. The talk pages show much contention among editors who are either trying to heavily weight the articles against these guys, as well as other editors who want to whitewash the article. Looks like something that has gone on for years and will go on for years until someone steps in. I would love to do it, but leaving it up to those who deal with issues every day is probably the best. Also appears that people are either using multiple accounts on the talk pages or people are coming to Wikipedia solely for the purpose of these pages, which makes it dangerous as they are here to put specific information into the articles that they want, not putting information in objectively.
Please take a look at the following for additional information:
1. BLP violation post on Carl Freer talk page made by me on 1-17-14 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carl_Freer#BLP_violation_and_neutral_point_of_view_
2. Edit comments on Freer that explain the edits I did to the article a few days back. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Carl_Freer&action=history
3. Edit history of Stefan Erikkson showing the edits I made a few days ago http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Stefan_Eriksson&action=history. Also notice that it appears people do not care about the Eriksson article as much as the Freer article as no edits were made since I made them to Eriksson.
4. Talk page of User: Universaladdress explaining my reason for edits to these articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Universaladdress I should have assumed more good faith and will take the heat for that as I should have developed better communications; however, the history of the talk page for these articles showed me that all editors
So, either what I read here at BLP is wrong, it is being interpreted differently that how it is written, I simply don’t understand the policy even though it is pretty clearly written, or there is a major BLP violation with these articles. If am wrong, please let me know so that I understand the policy going forward. I am also completely open to taking my lumps from more experienced editors for not assuming as good as faith as I should have. And, ultimately, I would like to see Wikipedia to be used as an encyclopedia, not a platform for airing out complaints about people they don’t like.-- JakenBox ( talk) 03:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Back again. Seems like there is a single editor who insists on adding information in violation of BLP guidelines. Unsourced information is being added as well as information that is not in the source provided. Not sure where to go to request that this be reviewed, but would like someone to help and take a look if there is an interest. Thank you again. -- JakenBox ( talk) 16:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
It seems like some people are messing up with this page. I found Adolph Hitler's picture under the Yevhen_Konoplyanka, I edited it by erasing it but after that I noticed a lot of abusive staff written in players description. I really hope someone adresses this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.250.122 ( talk) 21:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
there are no articles , interviews or sources for most of this. it reads like a personal resume of a nobody written by same said nobody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.180.107.4 ( talk) 03:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry if this is not the right place to give some reports. I came across the article about Roy Suryo and I want to give some comments about the article. This article has many irrelevant information without credible sources and probably too much boasting. He also is not an IT expert and have no proof of becoming one. He has no accomplishments in IT area even in Indonesia. He is simply a Democratic party politician.
On these accomplishments:
* Analyzing Sound Recording Telephone President Habibie & Jakgung Andi Ghalib * Analyze Recording Meeting of the Bank Bali scandal Cessie * Pioneering Method of Searching via BTS and CDRI for Investigation * Analyze and cliche Photo Wahid & Aryanti Boru Sitepu * Provide Technical Referral Tracking Phone Fugitive Tommy Suharto * Speaker of Indonesia in Expert - Meeting Palais des Nations (UN Headquarters), Geneva, Switzerland * Board of Experts - ITE Team Bill (now Act No. - ITE. 11/2008) * Expert witness in various cases involving Communication Technology & Digital Photography * Expert Witness & Broadcasting Law Judicial Commission on Constitutional Court Case etc
There are no so called "IT specialist" expertise on it. And although I doubt that these are all his accomplishments, I will not leverage more about these issues and want to discuss about the IT since I do not have any proofs.
As I do not want to be a hater of him, I really want to tell that Roy Suryo is really famous in Indonesia, not for his accomplishments, but for his controversies on several occasions (such as identifying some porn photos) as you can search his name on google search engine. So this page maybe can be categorized as a "boasting page".
Thank you very much if you can consider my opinions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randz888 ( talk • contribs) 15:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Rick Joyner ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The whole article is worshiping him for his good work and worshiping the church. There are tons of links to sites owned by them to scam google I assume. Every citation links to an website owned by either his church or himself. This article is of very poor quality and should be at least flagged or removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.255.5 ( talk) 17:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Riza Aziz ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has had multiple restorations and reedits of a controversy section that appears to violate BLP policy.
See diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Riza_Aziz&diff=592796737&oldid=592640199 and many others.
The material which is continuously being replaced is sourced poorly or not at all, is conjecture/original research, and is shaded. In addition, to the extent it is sourced, it uses non-credibly blogs, one of which is is the subject of news reports saying that attorneys for the subject have sent a demand letter for retraction. See: Deadline.com Letter to Sarawak Report
Notable is that no other sources carry these same claims. I have attempted to negotiate edits in this article, which the editor ignores, and made a RfC as well. But the continued editing is so defamatory that I believe it goes here. Thank you. Versaedit ( talk) 21:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Someone keeps REPEATEDLY inserting a birthdate of Jan. 10 1990 for this actress, which is inaccurate.
--One of the links they use as a reference ( https://twitter.com/siobhanw_/status/421523659916734465 ) is no longer valid.
And the other article they source ( http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/08/10/hell-on-wheels-season-3-premiere-anson-mount/) contains inaccurate, unverified information. This is not the actress' correct age. This birthdate in fact is contradicted in this article: ( http://www.calgarysun.com/2011/09/16/page-6---young-calgary-actress-landing-the-roles) According to this, she is 22 now.
IN CONCLUSION: as the articles all contradict one another, this actress' age is unavailable and unknown to the general public and thus should be prohibited from being uploaded onto the information page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siobhanwilliams ( talk • contribs) 04:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Since the information was inadequately sourced, I removed the dates. If an accurate source comes along, we can add it back later. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 05:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
(copied from the article's talk page)
I have removed the subject's birthday per WP:BLPPRIVACY and per WP:V and per common sense. Tiller54 claims that this dead twitter link is a reliable source as to the subject's DOB. I disagree. Furthermore he is using this article from entertainment weekly verifies the DOB, when in fact the article talks about a 23-year old actress, and this age is attributed to Anson Mount, an actor on the show. Hardly a reliable source. If this is not enough, this request on the BLP/N board, (presumably from the subject herself) complaining about the DOB being in the article. I can't verify if that is Williams, but it doesn't matter. Someone doesn't want this information in the article, and since we can't verify it from a reliable source, we keep it out of the article until a RS can be found to add it back in. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 17:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Wholesale deletion of a long-standing section 'Career' is wrong. The previous section relied on the person's own blog which was unsourced and had clear differences with other material. The revised one was sourced using primary inline sources; the only contentious part was use of a secondary source pippabartolotti.info, which could be rectified if necessary by referring to its primary sources. In any case this is preferable to relying on the person's own blog (as Ref. 1). Without any Career section - and no Early-personal-life as is common - the biography is denuded of significant content.
As the wholesale deletion is just negative, I'm asking for a discussion on how and what can be restored. Max Wallis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxwallis ( talk • contribs) 09:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
As of 2nd February, no editor is ready to defend the wholesale deletion of the "career' section of a well-referenced biography. Do I presume it was done by a Wales section editor who doesn't watch this page? comment added by Maxwallis ( talk • contribs) 11.42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Zelinski
This article is a violation of NPOV and V.
Elizabeth Zelinski wrote this article:. "...these findings translate across MY comprehensive longitudinal study of aging (the Long Beach Longitudinal Study) and a nationally representative sample of older adults." As with all autobiographical accounts, there is definitely a bias in the information reported.
Page 395 of the book, Everyday Cognition in Adulthood and Late Life, edited by Leonard W. Poon et. al, has the following chart:
Table 22.2. Some examples of metamemory questionnaires that were designed for, or have been applied to, life-span developmental issues:
Questionnaire |Documentation 1. Memory Questionnaire (MQ)| Perlmutter (1978) 2. Memory Functioning Questionnaire (MFQ) |Gilewski et al. (1983); Zelinski, Gilewski, et al. (1980) 3. Subjective Memory Questionnaire (SMQ) |Bennet-Levy & Powell (1980) 4. Short Inventory of Memory Experiences (SIME) |Chaffin & Herrmann (1983); Herrmann (1984) 5. Metamemory in Adulthood (MIA) |Dixon & Hultsch (1983a, 1983b, 1984); Hertzog et al. (1985)
It is Ms. Zelinski's own opinion that she was "the first to develop a comprehensive standardized questionnaire of self-reported memory to determine whether people's beliefs about their memory are echoed in their objective performance." The SMQ, in wide use today, was developed at the same time as the MFQ, and the MQ was developed two years before those. I also think her colleagues would disagree that she, and she alone, was the first to develop the questionnaire.
If the only thing notable about Ms. Zelinski is her part in developing the MFQ, should not the other colleagues also have their own respective pages? Or should the MFQ not have its own page? It's my opinion that neither Ms. Zelinski or her colleagues are notable enough for an encylopedia entry here. Information on the MFQ, MQ, SMQ, SIME, and MIA might need a page, or could be merged into any one of numerous articles on memory and recollection.
http://books.google.com/books?id=seKqGhnkSg0C&pg=PA395&lpg=PA395&dq=%22Memory+Functioning+Questionnaire%22+vs+%22subjective+memory+questionnaire%22&source=bl&ots=yUSgLXy7Wy&sig=UrVoi4O6vnBN9NeJuj_h2PTcnWs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VdvqUpu8F8OayQGLoYHwBA&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22Memory%20Functioning%20Questionnaire%22%20vs%20%22subjective%20memory%20questionnaire%22&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.37.71.96 ( talk) 23:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I am writing regarding a user Pokey5945 repeatedly violating Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons policy. A look at their Talk page shows this is not the first complaint they've gotten for exactly the same behavior on other pages.
In the section titled New Haven Black Panther Trial, they have cobbled together a variety of historically discredited information in a concerted effort to defame Ericka Huggins. In particular they seem determined to claim Huggins participated in the torture of a young man--which is simply not true. She was not charged with this crime, she was acquitted of the crime she was accused of, and Pokey5945's determination to imply otherwise is not a neutral point of view, is not verifiable and is extremely damaging to Huggins, a college professor.
Additionally, since they have repeatedly undone any attempts to add additional facts to it feels like this is part of a concerted campaign on their part. There have been complaints by others that Pokey5945 has manipulated other pages in a similar way as well--please review their Talk page. I would like to know at what point a user gets blocked from a page. Even aside from the damage being done to Ericka Huggins, one user should not have the right to block the development of a page, and undo additions of historically relevant material that is backed by verifiable facts, not hearsay & contrived evidence.
Please let me know what can be done about this. Thank you for your time. Politigrafica ( talk) 02:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Politigrafica
In December, the office of Kevin Ranker ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) made some requests on the talk page. These have not been actioned. Could some kind soul please pop along and have a look, and either action them or explain why not? Any decently thoughtful response will be appreciated. Thanks Guy ( Help!) 10:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Francesca Capaldi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a minor about 9 years old. Her birth date was added to her article using messages from two different verified twitter accounts of her co-workers on a TV series as references. The info added is most likely correct. Her official show bio posted on a Disney site [1] does not release that info. I removed the info from the article per my understanding of WP:BLPPRIVACY which states that this type of info requires "sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object". The twitter account, while verified, are from other people and as self-published sources are reliable for info about themselves, not others. On the other hand, the existence of those twitter postings should reasonably be known to the guardians of this minor and the fact that they are still there may lead to the inference that they do not object to releasing the birth info. This is a marginal call and I would like some input from others. Geraldo Perez ( talk) 14:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Is now being used as a coatrack about Larry Craig introducing speculation not made in the film, and weakly sourced as well. [2] It is not claimed to be related to the film proper, and is simply an example of a WP:BLP violation as being a contentious claim made about a living person here. The edit summary Frank discusses this as part of the hypocrisy) does not allow a claim of fact to be made without a strong reliable source for the claim of fact. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 23:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Steve Stockman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I've removed a lot of content from this BLP that was cited only to Stockman's press releases and that was generally non-neutral in tone. [3] These changes were reverted. I would appreciate input from experienced editors. GabrielF ( talk) 04:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
A few eyes on this one just in case - it came in through OTRS and I just fired up the chainsaw to remove a lot of synthesis and primary sources. § FreeRangeFrog croak 15:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
After a long period of relative peace, this page has been repeatedly edited by anonymous IP addresses and suspected sockpuppets, often in an effort to expand the "controversies" section with ad hominem and unsourced attacks. In the latest round, an editor has disclosed my home address in an effort to discredit my efforts to keep things encyclopedic. It's been a tedious exercise at best.
The subject of the page is controversial in local politics, and deserves due consideration against libelous and slanderous edits.
Edward Vielmetti ( talk) 20:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Please see [4]. Thx. 88.104.24.150 ( talk) 23:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Kyle Chapman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Someone who may be the subject periodically edits this in what I see as a significantly POV manner. I've already reverted them once and could be perceived as having a vested interest, so I'd like someone else to take a look. Stuartyeates ( talk) 08:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
An unusual situation here, for a man who is alleged to be both dead and living. I removed the following from this article:
"Since then
Vice has looked into the death turning up an active
PO Box in Tim Dog's name, and a phone call made to a number of his where it was assumed he answered, the following day the phone had been disconnected.
[1]"
"Turning up an active PO Box" seems misleading, as the article says: "...there is still an active PO Box in Tim Dog's name". The differences may be subtle, but I feel they're important. The former sounds like he's using this PO Box, while the latter doesn't imply as much; after all, a dead man can't cancel his PO Box. Much worse is the "phone call" issue. The Vice article says: "Somebody called his phone and he answered". Yet the source they use for this claim is a link to a You Tube video. The video is an audio-only excerpt from "Conspiracy Worldwide Radio". There is no way of knowing who the person who answered the phone is or what number was dialed. Furthermore, the voice on the video emphatically states: "We're not at all, in any way, insinuating that Tim Dog is alive". Finally, the sentence: "Somebody called his phone and he answered", is not a statement of fact by the article's author, but rather a quote from a man named "
J-Zone". Some will no doubt argue "V not T" and "if the source uses it, so can we". I would contest this; if our source is using an obviously shoddy source of its own, then we should look for another source, especially when possible
WP:BLP issues are a concern.
I would also like to ask for clarification as to whether we should presume this man to be living. It's a very odd case; his death was reported by reliable sources, but all of them were using a single obituary from a very questionable source, that has since been taken down. On the other hand, presuming him to be living would seem to presume him guilty of the alleged offense of faking his own death; a strange way to violate WP:BLP. Whatever the case, we should make a decision, as the article currently begins: "...Tim Dog was...", while listing him as 46 years old in the info box. Joefromrandb ( talk) 04:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
At Tofy Mussivand ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) a pov editor continually edits stating that the subject is Kurdish, which is unsourced. He's pov editing across a number of articles, changing names, quotations, etc and doesn't respond to talk page notices. Dougweller ( talk) 21:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
The subject seems to still lack notability after being marked in November 2013. Phrasing of the article makes it seem pretty clear that the subject is the author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.253.76 ( talk) 23:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Please consider participating at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Those_Woody_Allen_allegations.2C_again, a discussion centering on BLP issues. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 21:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Concern that this has been largely written by the subject or other COI accounts. Mostly supported by primary sources, with lengthy descriptions of subject's views, publications, etc. Further concerns that editor is self-citing in multiple articles; he may be an authority on the subject, but this sort of copious self-referencing is nearly always problematic. JNW ( talk) 15:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing defamatory in this page, however I would like the heading to be changed to reflect my proper name, which is Daniel Landin, not Dan Landin.
Please can you alter the heading for accuracy?
Many Thanks
Daniel Landin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.25.81 ( talk) 18:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Currently only a redirect, it can be regarded as highly controversial to redirect to the accused instead of to her mother. Related discussions ongoing at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Those_Woody_Allen_allegations.2C_again, Talk:Woody_Allen#The_Open_Letter_From_Dylan_Farrow.2C_as_fact.2C_was_removed, and above. Suggestions? -- Trofobi ( talk) 19:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I recently edited Joseph Hall to include a link to Murder of Jeff Hall. I'd appreciate other eyes on this change, given the sensitivity. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 23:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Irving Kirsch ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There should be an addition. Prof Kirsch also says that for mild anxiety and depression the herbal remedy St.John's Worth is proven to be a useful as any anti- depressants, with very small side-effects indeed. Obviously that is not good news for Big Pharma- who are trying to have this herbal remedy listed as a medicine- so they can exploit it better
best regards annegret odwyer
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dear Editors,
This is a complaint concerning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Bahadur_Bomjon Some time ago there was an attempt of authors/editors of this biography entry about Ram Bomjon to use it as a means of libel of my person, who am mentioned in the article as one of his victims, the Slovak woman (former versions) and now, as Marici.
Last time it was a sentence where the author cited the public justification of Bomjon (the biography entry's subject), that he had kidnapped, tortured and let raped me because of "witchcraft". So after my complaint to Wikipedia, this sentence had been taken away.
Recently but a hidden manipulative attempt appeared again, when, though a new paragraph appeared about my person under the Controversies chapter, which is much more accurate, yet the link to my website provided there was directing not to the Home Page of my website, but to a long article about the attempt of this cult to create a public opinion that I am supposed to be schizophrenic, mentally disturbed, etc.
Unwisely I myself had named that single article "Is Marici schizophrenic..?", not knowing that someone will misuse this title to manipulate with public opinion about me by adding a link to this single article on Wikipedia, avoiding the link to the more relevant Home Page, from where the readers could learn also about the more important facts : criminal acts, the other victims, names of perpetrators and witnesses, media articles,etc. Only a few people did read the whole article, where I am explaining how this cult tried to "make me crazy" in the public eye. Most people, most probably, just absorb the content of the title.
I have written to Wikipedia with a request to correct this problem, and replace the link with the more relevant link to the Home Page of my website, but finally I decided to correct it myself. To prevent similar misuse of links to my website, I took the liberty to add a short sentence mentioning my website in the other language versions, as there I am giving an overview of all known controversies connected to Bomjon, not just my case. Also a more relevant link (than an article about my alleged mental problem) would be an overview about the media articles dealing with Bomjon. People should know about the background activities of this person. But, being an officially declared "enemy" of this Guru and his cult, I don't want to advertise my own website in this article, which should remain neutral. Yet, when the authors and editors breach the neutrality of the article by using it against me, I wish to correct the biased information and manipulation with links provided by them.
But I was unable to correct this link on the References chapter, as it had been blocked for new links and also repairs. That's why I am writing here, with the request to replace the link to the single article mentioning schizophrenia, with the link to the Home Page of my website.
Also, after repeated attempts of the followers of Bomjon to use Wikipedia as a weapon of their libel-war against me, I am requesting the board of editors and anyone responsible for the standard of Wikipedia, to make sure that similar biased updates, harming individuals connected to the biography subject, do not happen anymore in the future.
Thank you, Marici Punarvasu Zs. Takacs 2/5/2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marici Punarvasu ( talk • contribs) 05:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I am the subject of this entry.
I simply wanted to offer the mention of a book published since this entry was compiled:
Out of Print: Newspapers, Journalism and the Business of News in the Digital Age by George Brock (published in 2013 by Kogan Page)
Thank you for your attention
George Brock — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.40.68.46 ( talk) 14:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
The Daily Mail was recently discussed at RSN and was roundly (but not unanimously) trashed as a reliable source. On this BLP article, another user wishes to use this article to source "He lived in Glasgow for the first eight years of his life", "Barrowman recalls his family as loving, but strict and mindful of etiquette: always polite and respectful towards others." and "Comparing the two countries where he was raised, Barrowman concludes: "Scotland gave us, as a family, closeness; America gave us the get-up-and-go." The other editor (I think) acknowledges that this is an unreliable source, but sees it as a case of WP:SELFSOURCE. My own view (I had to remove a whole lot of much worse sludge sourced to even worse publications than the Mail, and warn the user when they restored the bad sources, so I think they are kind of sore at me) is that, while these are not the worst things to say about someone, we should probably try to find better sources for them or leave them out. I believe that using SELFSOURCE as an end-run around WP:BLPSOURCES like this is a little disingenuous; if a source is unreliable for BLPs because of its reputation for poor fact-checking, then we should probably not be using it at all. Does this article need to be revised? Does WP:SELFSOURCE need to be clarified? Do we need a proper RfC on blacklisting the Mail for BLPs? Could we compromise and say something like "According to a 2008 interview published in the Daily Mail..." What do you think? -- John ( talk) 14:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
If I may, let's be clear about something: The Daily Mail is not a reliable source for sensationalist claims, medical advice, or for saying that a obscure controversy happened (there's been articles where it's taken a minor incident and inflated it up to a huge scandal; one I remember is the "Baa, baa rainbow sheep" incident, where, apparently, a teacher was trying to teach children colours using the song, and the Daily Mail reinterpreted it as "Political correctness gone mad! Can't call sheep black!"). Like most newspapers, it also uncritically republishes a lot of press releases. However, that is not at all the same thing as saying "if someone is interviewed in the Daily Mail, the interview should be ignored. Newspapers are a source that have limits. Some newspapers we'll want to put firmer limits on than others. But an uncontroversial interview? That's well within the zone of competence. "Reliable Source" is not a binary state. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 12:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Been considering where is best to draw attention to what I would call mostly a quality issue and also an issue where care needs to be taken, and that would benefit from oversight from neutral parties who television programme. He was asked about his views on homophobia, and the interviewer Brendan_O'Connor_(media_personality) pressed him to specifically name people he considered homophobic. O'Neill named John Waters (columnist) as well Breda O'Brien and conservative Catholic group The Iona Institute. This resulted in legal threats, and RTE removed the interview from their website and issued an apology.
Details of this Panti#RT.C3.89_Censorship_Controversy issue, have been added at length to the articles Panti, John Waters (columnist), and Breda O'Brien. A significant proportion of this has been added by one user Special:Contributions/Tbrambo, to all three articles. Tbrambo has a pretty clear agenda, not that particularly disagree with it but the quality could be a lot better and care and better sourcing is needed, I'd politely call it overenthusiasm. The writing is very conclusive understand how Wikipedia works and can take due care to head off any legal issues in advance. I'll try to summarize.
An Irish drag queen and businessperson Panti/Rory O'Neill was interviewed on a Saturday night for what is a fairly contentious issue, not as encyclopedic as perhaps it should be.
The biography on Panti could do with improvement* but the controversy is very relevant to that page and almost certainly belongs there [* The article has a "Trivia" section, relevant information poorly presented]. I'm editing from Ireland and I'm not sure I can be properly objective, and not get sucked into the article that needs careful monitoring. I only wanted to make a few edits to improve the quality but Tbrambo is acting like he owns the article rejecting an edit that turned a link into a properly formatted citation and named reference and then reusing it to bolster points made elsewhere in the article (and it was only restoring and fixing an earlier edit anyhow). (There was also poorly backed up hyperbole in the article, which isn't quite so glaring after adding a named reference to one the articles already referenced).
John Waters (columnist) is a newspaper columnist, it almost goes without saying that he is controversial at times, and aside from being verbose and a little presumptive it seems appropriate for the controversy to be conversed on his page. Legal types might want to monitor the page to make sure the wording is suitably careful. There appears to be substantial repetition from the Panti article, this is mostly a quality issue.
The article on Breda O'Brien also has a section on the controversy, there appears to be substantial repetition from the Panti article. The controversy is given nearly as much coverage as everything else in the article, it seems like undue emphasis, and brevity and a more cautious wording is what I'd suggest.
So maybe someone experience Wikipedia editors will look at it, maybe fix up the references with the fancy editing tools you have, and maybe keep an eye on the articles to make sure they do not overstate their case and risk legal issues. It think it is a storm in a teacup and I don't want to get sucked any further into it but there is need for improvement and oversight. -- 109.78.153.72 ( talk) 02:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
The controversy, which is the entire purpose of the article, is that individuals who promote discrimination against homosexuals in Ireland were able to exploit Irelands anti-defamation laws in order to censor Rory O'Neill and get a cash settlement from RTÉ. THAT is the controversy!!! So please DO NOT change the article to read otherwise!!!!!!!. shows precisely why WP:BLP does apply and must apply. Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs, or to show how evil a person is. This is an encyclopedia with specific policies to prevent that sort of view from being used in articles. BTW, the Iona Institute article mentions specific living persons and thus is subject to the policy in any event. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 17:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
George Foulkes, Baron Foulkes of Cumnock ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm no fan of George Foulkes but someone keeps adding in unsourced, unverified and potentially defamatory paragraphs to his page. The editor in question obviously does not want the UK to be in the EU and is taking out his frustration by adding his biased opinions to this article. The edits in question can be seen below, they are the last sentences in the Controversies and introduction sections respectively.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=George_Foulkes,_Baron_Foulkes_of_Cumnock&oldid=594050511
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=George_Foulkes,_Baron_Foulkes_of_Cumnock&oldid=594050434 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohehken ( talk • contribs) 18:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Emanuele Michetti ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Emanuele Michetti's wikipedia page was written by himself. His editing name is "userdobby." He is not a notable figure in film and as I understand it, a biography must be neutral. It is an unreliable and prohibited page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.225.146 ( talk) 19:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article "Linda Moore Forbes" is no longer correct. She now goes by just Linda Forbes (post divorce).
Source: Her professional bio, Linkedin and her bio on her place of employment, Technet.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Latetofool ( talk • contribs) 22:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Hebah Alhazza a passionit and creative inventor Kuwaiti woman born in Kuwait in 1982, the eldest daughter of Abdullah Alhazza has three sisters Haya, Hessa, Rawwa and one Brother. currently Hebah Works in the Kuwait Investment Authority while creating exiting card games that would be published soon in 2014.
Dear Author of this article "Shiv Nadar"
Kindly note that the below last 3 paragraphs are repeated twice.
Please remove them.
Thanks & Regards, Logesh E — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.178.65.195 ( talk) 18:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I just pared down the section "controversy," at Carla Howe ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but the cites still seem a little weak compared to the claims being made about third party living people. Additional eyes would be welcomed. VQuakr ( talk) 23:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Please review this AfD. This is a BLP issue because of the context. The profanity and f-bombs are particularly inappropriate and I request that they be reviewed for revision deletion. Thank you, Unscintillating ( talk) 03:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Please review Prince Charles Alexander ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and remove the maintenance tags if warranted. The gentleman in question is puzzled. Thanks. Guy ( Help!) 00:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Please review JaLynn Prince ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and remove maintenance tags if you believe they are no longer warranted. Thanks. Guy ( Help!) 00:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Justin Bieber who has had a large share of tabloid articles, now has the full tabloid treatment in his BLP, with every minor article from the past year now SYNTHed into a "Legal troubles" section making up 2/3 pf his entire "personal life" and including his mug shot, even where the incident did not directly involve anything on his part. Eyes and keyboards please examine that BLP - I durst not get too involved there as some appear to regard de-Bieberisation as their one true calling. Collect ( talk) 13:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
The "toxicology report" from his DUI arrest has now been repeatedly added to the BLP. Are such reports of encyclopedic value in a BLP? Collect ( talk) 13:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Now an editor seems to think the "petition to deport" is worth 1600 characters in the BLP ... AFAICT, the White House has not the authority to deport, making the "petition" a bit of a sideshow. Collect ( talk) 14:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Nope -- BLP discussions are properly placed on this noticeboard, and I deleted your copying of this page to the article talk page -- such "moves" are improper and can be misleading as the timestamps do not correspond to timestamps on the article talk page. Please simply use the concept that BLP discussions are properly held here. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 00:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I would just like to point out that US Lawmakers are getting involved in the petition: [7] [8] So it's notability might not be as questionable now. The petition now has just under 250,000 signatures. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 06:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Like I stated in the talk page; this argument is getting really ridiculous. As far as I can see the only reason people have to not include this event in his article is because WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Correct me if I am wrong. This petition has significant coverage (including just about every new company such as CNN, USA Today, NY Daily, Forbes, Bloomberg, Fox, Time, ABC, and countless more you can easily verify yourself). In fact the petition has gained support from Sen. Mark Warner (sarcastic or not is simply speculation).
The petition has been the subject of debate on the legality of deporting him based on his past criminal record (refs [9] [10] [11]) or whether his O-1 visa could be revoked (refs [12]). His petition has also taken a spin into the immigration debate with various news outlets suggesting bieber is a new face of immigration ( [13]). I fail to see why is there an argument in the first place. -- CyberXRef ☎ 02:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
If people here have time and the desire to re-engage in the debate over legal issues and polls at the Justin Bieber article ....pls comment at Talk:Justin Bieber#RfC: Behaviour and legal issues Thank you for your time. -- Moxy ( talk) 04:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
In my aimless and time-wasting wanderings through Wikipedia, I sometimes come across articles about professional wrestlers, and never know quite what to make of them. For example, today I arrived at the article about Dean Malenko in which the voice of Wikipedia pronounces him as "lecherous". But are we supposed to treat these professional wrestlers as characters in a drama (in which case "lecherous" might be fine), or instead as real people (in which case "lecherous" might not be so fine)? In other words, are we really supposed to care about professional wrestlers? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 02:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I want to report some incorrect and defamatory information posted about me on my page:
Would appreciate if I could have this deleted and that correct information could be posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin Griffin ( talk • contribs) 11:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
"Presently he is the vice president and minister of education; his goals have been to bring El Salvador closer to the Chavez Social left as seen by his ties to FARC, ALBA, and Chavezism" is not cited. Because these alleged ties, factual or not, are to controversial organizations, it seems biased to see these on his page without sources ahead of a presidential election in which he will take part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.54.61 ( talk) 03:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Can somebody please help explain WP:BLP to this editor? He feels that, because the uncited information is not libellous, it is fine to keep on re-adding it. He has already been warned about edit warring by another admin, but he won't listen to me seeing as I keep removing the material. Giant Snowman 09:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Blacklight Power is a pseudoscience, free-energy provider with many claims that are far outside of the mainstream. These claims are rightly treated with great skepticism. However, that doesn't exclude it's founder - Randell Mills, from the protection of WP:BLP. In particular, the article uses the term "fraud" in the lede with very thin support. The citation traces back to a 15-year-old article that appeared in the Village Voice, and is sourced to an expert physicist, but not someone in a position to accurately judge the motivations of Mr. Mills nor to interpret the field of securities fraud. The use of the term has been actively defended at the page, in my view in violation of WP:BLP. If there were more recent evidence of fraud, or if the those leveling the charge were able to show a cause of action, such as an investor, then the use of would be appropriate. However, I'd appreciate it if someone not involved in this page could take a look. Thanks. Ronnotel ( talk) 15:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Isaias Afewerki ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article needs a look. Recently Erescholar ( talk · contribs) made a large edit to the page, during which Afewerki's last name was changed to "Afwerki". I don't know enough about this person to know if this is the true spelling or not. -- Auric talk 17:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Rita Grosse-Ruyken ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
what is the exact problem with this articel and how can we solve the problem? Please be so kind to help us. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rita Grosse-Ruyken ( talk • contribs) 11:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Jasmine Campbell ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There are three birthdates and multiple Wiki entries for Jasmin Campbell of the Virgin Islands (March 26, August 11, November 8). Which one is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.58.2.173 ( talk) 20:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
My name is Jeff Nelson. I have to open a BLP complaint regarding Chrome_OS#History and its accompanying talk page as it pertains to my previous work on the earliest revisions of Chrome OS and a patent filed by my former employer, Google, in 2009. I have to strenuously object to the tabloid tone of this section, the fact it quotes several unreliable sources, imports a dispute from outside wikipedia, and self-references the dispute as if it was a source for the article.
On Feb 13, 2013, an Internet user posted various allegations in a G+ comment regarding his doubts about my work, in which he clearly states "I truly don't know". But that did not stop this Internet user from making what appear to be extraordinary efforts to spread his uninformed opinion, proceeding to post on several blogs, lookup references to my name anywhere on the Internet, talked to a journalist, and finally imported the dispute to wikipedia.
This gentelman has a large social media following, many of whom added their own snarky comments, like "I don't know who this guy is." Some of those comments are also imported into the wikipedia article. I would suggest snarky statements also do not rise to the level of being considered reliable sources.
To their credit, Google immediately stepped in and told the employees involved to stop posting, less than 24 hours later.
I have asked Google to release a history of my work and the patent to clear up the matter.
Until that happens, I would suggest what is beyond dispute is this:
Google filed a patent titled "Network Based Operating System Across Devices" in March 2009, listing the inventor as Jeff Nelson.
A patent, written by Google's legal team in 2007, filed in 2009, at great expense, and now in the public record of the US Patent and Trademark Office is the most concrete and indisputable source, certainly far more reliable than a G+ post written in 5 minutes, at no cost, by a guy who stated he didn't know what he's talking about.
I would suggest one potential fix for the BLP is to replace the entire BLP paragraph with that one sentence and replace the unreliable sources and imported dispute with a reference to the patent, until Google releases a more complete and official history of my work and the patent. I don't have to tell you that it's entirely inappropriate any of the statements were written on various blogs or imported into wikipedia. My past career is not a subject for speculation or tabloid journalism, and the events of February 13, 2013 should not have happened. Wikipedia is acting as a repository for totally unfounded, potentially harmful statements about my career and past accomplishments.
So as to prevent further damage, I am going to temporarily apply the BLP fix I have outlined above and delete the Talk discussion as it pertains to my work, as well. Provided there is some other resolution, or more information emerges from Google, the fix can be amended at a later point. Chromemagnon07 ( talk) 01:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Mufaddal Saifuddin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article on Muffadal_Saifuddin is written by biased elements. There is a severe crisis in the dawoodi bohra community regarding succession issue of the Claimant of 53rd Da'i al-Mutlaq of the Dawoodi Bohras . Muffadal is just one of the claimant to this title and there are various legal issues in court to decide the succession issue. The other claimant is Khuzaima_Qutbuddin who has furnished written proof of succession as the 53rd Da'i al-Mutlaq of the Dawoodi Bohras. The only proof which Muffadal has is a video on the supposed succession where the 52th leader was in comatose state of stroke. He was just made to sit in front of Muffadal to show the succession.
Hence the article and its infobox should reflect Muffadal as a Claimant of 53rd Da'i al-Mutlaq and not appointed one as there are legal battles going for the succession. Khuzaima_Qutbuddin also is listed as the claimant in the infobox — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.10.224.242 ( talk) 07:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I call the attention of the Wikipedia community to the article on Alice Walker. An inordinate amount of the article is devoted to accusations of antisemitism and her support of David Icke, without noting that some readers see Icke's work as satire, and that Icke includes Christians and other religious denominations as part of his conspiracy theories as well.
While much attention has been devoted to Walker's activist efforts in support of Palestinians, no attention is paid to the controversies that erupted after the release of the film The Color Purple concerning Walker's depiction of Black men, nor after the release of Possessing the Secret of Joy concerning Walker's condemnation of genital mutilation. Both of these issues are explored in the film Alice Walker: Beauty in Truth, which aired on PBS American Masters on Friday, 7 February 2014.
Although certainly Walker is an activist, more attention is devoted to her political activity than to her writing or her personal history. It is her writing that is Walker's primary achievement. I am not experienced as a Wikipedia editor, therefore do not dare to edit the article. I hope someone does. As the article stands, it is hardly neutral and not representative. It appears to be accusatory. The article on Icke himself is much more nuanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightink ( talk • contribs) 18:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Kristi Lauren wikipedia page has biased and false information that must be removed immediately. Paragraph two, which begins with "Lauren began...", has bias information written in paretheses. Please remove. Paragraph three, which begins with "From 2011-12", has false information about negative reactions and vandalism. Please remove that as well. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garnetsun ( talk • contribs) 19:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Article is too short and not enough info is there. Only one link. No last name. Must be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okjaekim ( talk • contribs) 21:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Keep an eye on this page. Questionable IP edits after an incident in a game last night. The Moose is loose! 17:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I have a problem with OTRS ticket:2014020610005258 which is going to need some sensitive handling due to the kinds of enemies the subject has made, the things for which the subject is known, and our systemic bias towards liberal values (don't ever change that). I am not looking for an off-wiki conspiracy but I need to discuss the background privately with a few people in order to be able to frame matters correctly here without violating confidentiality or attracting adverse publicity. The subject is a controversial figure but seems to me to have a genuine concern that we should address. Please email me if you are interested in helping me think this through. Guy ( Help!) 21:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Kermit Roosevelt III ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article appears to conflate Kermit Roosevelt III and Kermit Roosevelt IV. Teddy would not be pleased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tem42 ( talk • contribs) 15:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? Teddy would be delighted that his family is still causing trouble. Anyway, the talk page contains this message from the UPenn Professor named Kermit Roosevelt:
“ | Hope this doesn't make things harder for you ... probably something I should have mentioned before. We've done a very bad job keeping the numerals straight. When my great-grandfather died, my grandfather, who'd been Kermit Roosevelt Jr. started calling himself Kermit Roosevelt Sr. That made sense, I suppose, on the theory that he was now the elder living Kermit. So my father was called Kermit Roosevelt Jr. for, I think, almost his whole life. I was born while my grandfather was still alive and was called Kermit Roosevelt III. When my grandfather died, my father told me that he was dropping the Jr. and suggested that I could take it up if I wanted. I said that was the craziest thing I'd ever heard of, because I had enough trouble being confused with him already and had used Kermit Roosevelt III in all of my legal documents (passport, driver's license, bar admission, etc.). I also publish my law review articles as III, but I thought it would look wildly pretentious on a book jacket, so I left it off. | ” |
— Kermit Roosevelt Assistant Professor University of Pennsylvania Law School 3400 Chestnut Street Philadelphia PA 19104 |
And from a later email:
“ | No one but me has ever been called Kermit III, and I've never been called Kermit IV, although I am definitely the fourth Kermit. Both my father and my grandfather have been Kermit Jr., and if my father takes the Sr., then he and my grandfather (and I think my great-grandfather) will have shared that. | ” |
All completely unreliable, but still.... Anythingyouwant ( talk) 02:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
1. President Theodore Roosevelt openly outright DESPISED being called "Teddy"- referring to him as such is essentially dishonoring him.
2. Per WP:SUFFIX, "IV" is his true suffix. Calling him "III" would be a suffix misuse and would be basically like disregarding the existence if one of the previous Kermits. Discounting them would be a dishonor. 174.254.176.242 ( talk) 05:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Apologies to IP 174.254.176.242 for what TR called the "outrageous impertinence" of calling him "Teddy". At least I'm in very plentiful company. :-) Anythingyouwant ( talk) 13:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
There should be a section that covers a politicians voting record when they are in office or running for office atleast.
Also I don't see how it's defamatory to Jeff Gorell to say McGeorge is ranked #124 by U.S. News when Wikipedia has McGeorge Law School ranked #168th.
The truth and facts should matter to Wikipedia. I had the same problem when I changed Elton Gallegly's Wikipedia to the truth. Good Day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.149.172 ( talk) 06:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
The article Oliver James (psychologist) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a mess: it's peppered with primary source links to YouTube and lacks credible independent sources. It's also been a target for defamatory vandalism ( OTRS Ticket:2014021010007122. I guess the subject probably is notable, but the tone makes it look as if the opposite is true. Would someone please have a look at it for me? Thanks. Guy ( Help!) 21:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Concerns about article. relies heavily on subject's own writing, predominantly sources blog posts by subject posted on OII website he administers, edits and publishes. I have asked sole editor, Nsw2042, about possible WP:COI or WP:SELFPROMOTE by asking whether he is the subject of the BLP. Have received no reply. I would question subject's notability for a BLP as substantial as this. Note this editor has done extensive re-writes of a number of articles linked to this BLP's area of activism. My concern is that some templates placed (such as WP:OR & WP:SPS have been reverted without being addressed, and I am not interested in an edit war with sole-editor. Suggest this BLP needs eyes on it, as may do other articles connected with this editor in this area. - MishMich - Talk - 23:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Mark_Miller claims that it is prohibited to claim a Wikipedian lied and has removed [ [19]] such accusations, claiming [ [20]] that BLP demands such removal immediately and without discussion, even though I pointed out [ [21]] that BLP contains exceptions for "related to making content choices" and "to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community". Immediately and without discussion deleting any statement that someone has lied would make many discussions impossible, and would even prohibit arbcom decisions from being made public. Ken Arromdee ( talk) 09:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. [7] This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. [8]
This has to be the worst written article I have every come across, I wouldn't even know where to start editing it. It is rife with run-on, fragmented and nonsensical sentences. For example "Whereas her father, Thomas (born 1954),[51][52] is a Chicago-native[52][53] American with British-Irish origins,[2][17] the relatives of her mother Zarin (born 1961),[51][52] whose ancestry originates partly in Russia, are of Iranian[1][2][51][53] or else Persian[53] descent, for a change.[n. 1]" It's painful to read, please help. Thank you.
The Murder of Meredith Kercher article, which I have been editing, has a lede link to the article ' Amanda Knox'. The article ' Amanda Knox', which I have never edited, has as ref 13 (www.perugiamurderfile.org). It's an SPS, and a site that is dedicated to the idea that Knox is a murderer. The source is ref for text in the Amanda Knox article in Wikipedia's voice, which is insinuating that a living person has committed murder. My understanding is such material should be removed. I removed the link, which was put back in, and have made the point in talk that the Murder of Meredith Kercher article is a BLP in relation to Knox. I think the link should be removed, but I'm being told in the Murder of Meredith Kercher Talk by multiple editors (who are extremely familiar with the Amanda Knox article) that there is nothing wrong with the Amanda Knox article, and also even if there is, I have to fix the Amanda Knox article and must not alter the link to it. Is it true that I have to alter or even propose for deletion the article that is being linked to, rather than removing the link, if the link is to an article with BLP issues. See Talk here There is a lot of stuff in the Amanda Knox article which has BLP issues in my opinion, so it's not like one change would solve the problem posed by retaining a link to it. Overagainst ( talk) 19:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok, so you removed a {{ main}} template? What relevance does that have to removing the link to Knox on the Kercher murder page? The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Narayan Sai ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
"Asaram's son Narayan Sai declared absconder". Times of India. 11 November 2013. Retrieved 11 November 2013 Narayan Sai was never an absconding accused for all these days, until he was arrested. His status as absconder was changed on Thursday, when Gujarat high court quashed the non-bailable warrant issued against him by a Surat court after he was charged with rape. [23]
Please also, as part of this discussion, review the removal of this multiply reliably sourced content (IMHO) which should be included per WP:WELLKNOWN. This content has been removed multiple times by User:TheRedPenOfDoom as well as several IP editors, over the past 48 hours, and frankly I feel that the rationale presented by the registered editor, "allegations from a COI source cannot be presented in an NPOV manner" is not sound as the sources are major national media who are reporting statements made by police officials, with the prose in the article matching the sources. It is quite a stretch to call the police COI when they are merely doing their jobs, and the fact that thegovernment official made these statements is not in dispute. Roberticus ( talk) 16:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Kahlil Byrd ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello, Thank you for this work. I am the subject of this article and I am interested in addressing two issues.
1) As the former leader of Americans Elect, we took great care with how the organization was described--in both explanation of mission and in tone. Currently the description of Americans Elect reads:
"During the 2012 presidential election cycle, Americans Elect was a national organization that unsuccessfully sought to nominate and elect a third-party candidate for president[3] by attempting to put a bipartisan presidential ticket on the ballot in all 50 states.[4]"
This is factually inaccurate and has been pointed out to the those diligent and venerable editors of this page. By law, Americans Elect could not nominate a "Third Party Candidate" because the organization was not a "Third Party. As is cited, Americans Elect was 501(c)4 nominating process creating a third pathway for a bi-partisan ticket in the 2012 race. The third party label is language adopted by critics of the organization who attempt to argue the organization had an ideological agenda apart from the mission stated widely in public areas. Upon having this pointed out with sourcing an editor's response was "(People do illegal things all the time. We have a published news source specific to *this* situation (WP:RS always beats WP:SYNTH)
This is the justification used to hold to a factual inacuracy.
2) Those who have attempted to place a new professional position for the subject in this biography have been repeatedly rejected for no understandable reason. Not allowing this revision to take place gives a false impression about the current work of the subject. A personal note here, as a reformer--and specifically a professional builder of organizations throughout the political reform space--my job is not to be a permanent fixture of organizations, but to be a professional manager of organizations as they grow in size and scope. It appears that edits are being made to discredit this work because of time and tenure, yet those are not solid measure of performance and effectiveness. Further, published reports do not match the tonality that specific editors have taken with regard to this biography.
Paul Ramsay ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Content on page continuously refers to same sources; more varied citations needed.
Stevensommer ( talk) 22:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I need some help or direction with this BLP, please. Full disclosure: we are working on a website for her and are trying to correct a few errors on the biography. For starters, her date of birth. Her correct date of birth is August 29,1964. A previous representative tried to correct the errors but did not follow proper channels and wiki policies. Understandably, an editor had them banned. Please help or point me in the right direction. -- Csmgacct ( talk) 01:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
This is the biography of an academic who is almost absent from google scholar (but much of his work is in non-English languages). Much of the sourcing seems dubious to me (self-description, linkedin, etc.) and almost all of the hyperlinked references are to a local (Cairo) newspaper. There are two long sections which represent his quasi-political views, but much of his academic work seems quasi-political. Adding to the confusion, he's now retired, meaning most of his publications are pre-ubiquitous digital availability. Searching behind paywalls reveals a large body of work, including academic reviews of his books. I think what needs to happen to the article is the trimming of most of the 'A culture critic focused on intercultural studies' and 'Intervention in the Arab, Egyptian, and international debate about globalization and cultural hegemonism' sections and expansion of his list of works section to include references to book reviews of his books. Thoughts? Stuartyeates ( talk) 02:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
this article on living persons looks promotional and has no citation provided — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denzy ( talk • contribs) 10:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC) Also the article looks self written in terms of the usage of words "Just as his heroes the poet Arthur Rimbaud and the painter Paul Gauguin he went to Africa full of romantic ideas, but of course the harsh reality of the African city life is no picnic" Article covers content not relevant to the Living Person,
this requires serious review, complete re-look or deletion as the case maybe, even though I would not suggest the latter as the subject does have notability on google search results
The entire "Controversy" section of this article is written from a biased, non-neutral point of view. The author presents only one side of the controversy regarding Frank Turek's firing by Cisco. The article is, in effect, an attack on Cisco's actions and a contentious appeal in support of Frank Turek. It concludes with " A man was fired simply because of his personal political and religious beliefs—beliefs that are undoubtedly shared by thousands of your very large and diverse workforce." The author should be informed of the Wikipedia's NPOV and BLP principles and asked to delete or neutralize the "Controversy" section of the article. -- KellyArt ( Talk) 19:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I just blocked Dead Goldfish ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a disruptive single-purpose account fixated on belittling a small number of people, chief among whom is James McGibney ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I can't imagine why anybody would dislike Mr. McGibney... oh, well, perhaps I can, but that's no excuse. I would be astounded if the user did not evade the block, please ping me if this happens, and if anyone feels like wading through the mire of the article's history and beating it into some kind of shape, that'd be appreciated. Thanks. Guy ( Help!) 19:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Sam Shepard ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
wiki should include 1993 movie pelican brief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.211.98.102 ( talk) 21:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Given this WMF blog post, I've created Theodore Katsanevas. I will shortly ask one or other of our Greek colleagues to add the Greek-language references referred to in the blog post. No doubt it would be sensible for extra eyes to be watching the new article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Block evading sockpuppet Nil Einne ( talk) 15:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Wikipedia is supposed to take care with information about living people, and nephew Fabio and son Tonino are surviving relations of Ferruccio Lamborghini who died in 1993, as is his daughter Patrizia. But the following is taken from a letter to an online car group. "Wikipedia, the free on-line encyclopedia that anyone can edit, has articles about Ferrucio Lamborghini and Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A. that do these subjects justice. However there is a corner of Wikipedia called Wikipedia Reference Desk with its own "Search the archives" box that gets a surprising result. You see it if you type in "Ferraris rival" or "REALLY nice sports car" and see that in each case the first "hit" talks about a "Lamborgini" - yes, it is mispelled like that. A closer look shows the misspelling is endemic to the Desk, going back to 2008. Wikipedia is supposed to maintain reliably sourced information, and one need not look further than the badge on each of our cars to get the spelling right. It's LAMBORGHINI with an "H"! Incredibly, the rules enforced by Administrators of the Wikipedia Ref. Desk prevent the misspelling (which I feel is offensive to the Lamborghini family) being corrected or even questioned! Attempts to draw attention to the correct spelling have been abruptly deleted by them in order to leave the wrong spelling unchallenged." 84.209.89.214 ( talk) 23:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
|
WP:BLP applies everywhere, even in draft space, and Draft:Steve Clark seems to be an extreme example of why this is necessary. This article is purportedly about a man "Best known for foundering NPI Research Development Inc with more than 425 subsidiary domestic and international corporations", who supposedly owns "7,782 USA Patents in the combine fields of Mechanical, Electrical and Software Engineering" and "9,522 industrial publications in all disciplines of engineering, business and finance", and supposedly has a net worth of "(US $17.3) billion dollars"; and yet, not one of the purported sources for any of this checks out, and as far as I could find there aren't any. And then the page goes on with long sections about the subject's "Personal life" and "News Tabloid Scandals" including alleged personal financial details, child custody issues, and sexual abuse allegations, all of which (if not entirely fictional) involve other persons (including children), complete with copies of letters from lawyers.
As one can see from the edit history, this article was created in Wikipedia space in November 2013 (with very different content), then became the subject of numerous edits 11 days ago that have changed the content repeatedly. On February 7 another editor started Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sir Steven Clark PhD, primarily on the ground that the article was in the wrong edit space, but also noting that the sources don't support the content and suggesting it might be a hoax. Others have expressed similar concerns on the talk page. The article was finally moved to draft space today, but the contentious and unsupported content is still there. I placed some tags on the article to make these concerns clearer, [24] but another editor removed the tags, on the ground that the article is a "work in process". [25]
More leeway is appropriate in draft space, but there are limits. At this point, review and opinions from other editors would be helpful. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 04:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
The article Z Berg ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was at the wrong title for most of its life. It has three sources, all trivial, none independent. If anyone cares deeply about this article could they please add sources? Otherwise I will redirect it. Unsourced biographies are, as we all know, a minefield. Guy ( Help!) 10:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
If anyone has the time, Norman Carlson and Francis J. Mulhern could use a lot of work; both are listed at List of Roger W. Jones Award for Executive Leadership recipients. Thanks, – Connormah ( talk) 05:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Bartlett High School (Anchorage, Alaska) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There has been some content, highly detailed, on this article for quite a while regarding several sex scandals that occurred at the school. When I saw it, I removed it all, as I could not see a way to rewrite it. There were three teachers named by name that were discussed in detail, and only one of them ever got any time (and he was not convicted--he plead "nolo"). The other two were either not prosecuted at all or the case was dropped with no conviction. Additionally, the principal was implicated in some professional misconduct in regards to the handling of the case, again with no legal action taken against him.
Apparently, the state's statutory rape law was changed and according to the article, the new law was named after the teacher. All the references are paywalled. An IP has been reverting my removals and has not discussed it at all at the talk page. In fairness neither had I. That has been rectified. I would like someone with more BLP experience than I to take a look at it and give advice on how to proceed. If in fact the law became known by the teacher's name, use of that teacher's name may be appropriate, and some discussion of the events may be appropriate without names. I also feel the length of the section is quite WP:UNDUE, and the use of faculty names is also discouraged in school article guidelines. Not looking for sanctions for anyone, just some help. Thanks! John from Idegon ( talk) 16:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
The initial posting about the sex scandals years ago was short. Over time, it has become larger because many former students and teachers added details about the crime, the law being added, etc. The scandal actually started decades before the teachers were caught and affected far more people than the media ever reported. It doesn't violate any rule here. Two teachers are named - one had a law named after him, the other was convicted and sent to prison. It was front-page news for years. It's not a small thing to be swept under the rug, much less deleted wholesale from the entry. 97.124.238.87 ( talk) 18:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Also, the other teacher WAS convicted and went to prison for five years. The contention that the article names "other teachers who were convicted of nothing" is totally erroneous. A guilty plea is a conviction, period. 97.124.238.87 ( talk) 19:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Clearly you're not an attorney because pleading guilty is a conviction, period. If you google "Satch Carlson Law" you will find that it was the model for states nationwide which modified their own laws to reflect the protections that came out of that case. No offense, but you need to do actual research rather than make assumptions. You're in no position to decide that the size is "undue." It's disconcerting that someone is making such an effort to protect child predators by turning a blind eye to fact, case law and a well-annotated history. I'll take this up with someone with more authority. 75.166.131.134 ( talk) 22:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
This was originally reported to WP:EAR#Help, and while both NeilN and I have taken a rather quick run-through of the first article and removed some of the more egregious WP:NPOV issues, I think there are some significant BLP issues remaining that need a more careful touch to address. Specifically, in the first article, the Background section makes multiple statements, sourced mostly to prominent blogs like Salon and Huffington Post, attributing quotations to adverse parties in the lawsuits as fact (rather than allegations). I'm really not sure how to handle it at this point; I'm of a mind to just take an axe to the whole section, but I really don't think there'd be anything left, and given the coverage it's gotten, I don't think AfD is the right place for this.
As to the Bovrisse article, I've only taken a brief look at it, but it smacks of puffery on the same level as the first article. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 05:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Wanted to confirm an update is within the rules: A controversy section have been added to Stuart_Semple regarding a newspaper report of the individual not paying staff. It quotes the newspaper article. Is that ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onemorechris ( talk • contribs) 00:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
There are two more blog posts from one person on the subject. There is also a statement from him. would linking, would that be enough? If There is no controversy section, where is best to put this information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onemorechris ( talk • contribs) 16:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Substantial (rapper) is now weakly sourced was horrendously weakly sourced. I trimmed down a bit, but it still has a facebook link and no actually strong RS sources for much of anything. Is he even remotely notable? Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I was hoping someone could give some attention to a situation on this article Jack Edwards (sportscaster). There's been a slow motion edit war going back at least two months. Cliff note version, sportscaster criticized opposing player. Sportscaster was criticized for what he said. Sportscaster appologizes. One side thinks this is important to have in the article. The other thinks it's a minor incident unworthy of inclusion. Every few days it gets reverted from one version to the other. I am not neutral in this area, (Not real COI, just due to being a fan of one team). I won't add any other opinion except hopefully the article can be stabilized either in or out. thanks.-- Cube lurker ( talk) 15:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Being at work I don't really have time to look in to this, but following an ANI report (the situation got ugly with legal threats), I think it's prudent to have this noticeboard take a look at the Litchenberg article. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 16:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Newly accused/admitted murderers. Probably on the edge of WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME could use additional eyes as the story gets wider circulation. Gaijin42 ( talk) 17:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
History of creating unreferenced BLPs and adding unsourced information to articles. Multiple warnings by different editors to user's talk page, with no response from user.
I started two AFDs for unreferenced BLPs created by the user, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rory Thost and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Preis.
Would appreciate attention from editors here as well.
Thank you for your time,
— Cirt ( talk) 06:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I would like to bring to your attention a strange delate process which happened with the article of Achal Prabhala, a member of the Wikimedia Foundation advisory board: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Achal Prabhala (2nd nomination). My impression is that the discussion goes beyond the article and the notability of this person. I have met Prabhala at Wikimania and – working on African-related topics – I exchanged and discussed with him; I don't specifically like him, but I have worked on his article and from sources he seems defiantly notable. It would be healthy if someone else not linked to this person can check what has happened and if his article really does not meet the relevant requirements. thank you! -- Iopensa ( talk) 09:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Edits made over last week are biased and editor continuously undoes edits to remove bias. Also, sources to an opinion piece.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
I came across an article about Carl Freer and Tiger Telematics about a month ago and recommended Freer for deletion. The article asserted a claim of him being a criminal but his actions are similar to thousands of others and did not seem to amount to WP:CRIME. With the exception User:BabbaQ who voted to keep (although did not really elaborate how it meets WP:GNG), the other reasons for keeping the article left by editors were not based on guidelines. After the article was kept, I edited it to more conform to BLP guidelines for neutrality, original research, and verifiability (at least in my opinion). The edits were reversed yesterday by user User:Universaladdress who asserted that the content I added and removed was already “approved” and from reliable sources. However, the information removed was WP:UNDUE and the information I added was something other editors left out when introducing negative information.
While I do not care about Tiger Telematics or Gizmundo as they are company pages, BLPs are different and need to be strictly adhered to. While Freer and Erikkson do not seem like saints, they also do not appear to rise to the level of WP:CRIME. If they did meet notability for criminals, we could double the size of Wikipedia’s database with criminals who would qualify as well. Also, after the Freer article was kept, a User:Universaladdress requested page protection which was applied to the page. Page protection should be requested for persistence vandalism, not because someone disagrees with an article being recommended for deletion. This is poor use of page protection in my opinion.
So, long story short, there seems to be some major BLP violations with Eriksson and Freer. I would request that it be looked at by those familiar with BLP guidelines in order to ensure that they are being followed with these articles. The talk pages show much contention among editors who are either trying to heavily weight the articles against these guys, as well as other editors who want to whitewash the article. Looks like something that has gone on for years and will go on for years until someone steps in. I would love to do it, but leaving it up to those who deal with issues every day is probably the best. Also appears that people are either using multiple accounts on the talk pages or people are coming to Wikipedia solely for the purpose of these pages, which makes it dangerous as they are here to put specific information into the articles that they want, not putting information in objectively.
Please take a look at the following for additional information:
1. BLP violation post on Carl Freer talk page made by me on 1-17-14 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carl_Freer#BLP_violation_and_neutral_point_of_view_
2. Edit comments on Freer that explain the edits I did to the article a few days back. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Carl_Freer&action=history
3. Edit history of Stefan Erikkson showing the edits I made a few days ago http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Stefan_Eriksson&action=history. Also notice that it appears people do not care about the Eriksson article as much as the Freer article as no edits were made since I made them to Eriksson.
4. Talk page of User: Universaladdress explaining my reason for edits to these articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Universaladdress I should have assumed more good faith and will take the heat for that as I should have developed better communications; however, the history of the talk page for these articles showed me that all editors
So, either what I read here at BLP is wrong, it is being interpreted differently that how it is written, I simply don’t understand the policy even though it is pretty clearly written, or there is a major BLP violation with these articles. If am wrong, please let me know so that I understand the policy going forward. I am also completely open to taking my lumps from more experienced editors for not assuming as good as faith as I should have. And, ultimately, I would like to see Wikipedia to be used as an encyclopedia, not a platform for airing out complaints about people they don’t like.-- JakenBox ( talk) 03:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Back again. Seems like there is a single editor who insists on adding information in violation of BLP guidelines. Unsourced information is being added as well as information that is not in the source provided. Not sure where to go to request that this be reviewed, but would like someone to help and take a look if there is an interest. Thank you again. -- JakenBox ( talk) 16:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
It seems like some people are messing up with this page. I found Adolph Hitler's picture under the Yevhen_Konoplyanka, I edited it by erasing it but after that I noticed a lot of abusive staff written in players description. I really hope someone adresses this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.250.122 ( talk) 21:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
there are no articles , interviews or sources for most of this. it reads like a personal resume of a nobody written by same said nobody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.180.107.4 ( talk) 03:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry if this is not the right place to give some reports. I came across the article about Roy Suryo and I want to give some comments about the article. This article has many irrelevant information without credible sources and probably too much boasting. He also is not an IT expert and have no proof of becoming one. He has no accomplishments in IT area even in Indonesia. He is simply a Democratic party politician.
On these accomplishments:
* Analyzing Sound Recording Telephone President Habibie & Jakgung Andi Ghalib * Analyze Recording Meeting of the Bank Bali scandal Cessie * Pioneering Method of Searching via BTS and CDRI for Investigation * Analyze and cliche Photo Wahid & Aryanti Boru Sitepu * Provide Technical Referral Tracking Phone Fugitive Tommy Suharto * Speaker of Indonesia in Expert - Meeting Palais des Nations (UN Headquarters), Geneva, Switzerland * Board of Experts - ITE Team Bill (now Act No. - ITE. 11/2008) * Expert witness in various cases involving Communication Technology & Digital Photography * Expert Witness & Broadcasting Law Judicial Commission on Constitutional Court Case etc
There are no so called "IT specialist" expertise on it. And although I doubt that these are all his accomplishments, I will not leverage more about these issues and want to discuss about the IT since I do not have any proofs.
As I do not want to be a hater of him, I really want to tell that Roy Suryo is really famous in Indonesia, not for his accomplishments, but for his controversies on several occasions (such as identifying some porn photos) as you can search his name on google search engine. So this page maybe can be categorized as a "boasting page".
Thank you very much if you can consider my opinions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randz888 ( talk • contribs) 15:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Rick Joyner ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The whole article is worshiping him for his good work and worshiping the church. There are tons of links to sites owned by them to scam google I assume. Every citation links to an website owned by either his church or himself. This article is of very poor quality and should be at least flagged or removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.255.5 ( talk) 17:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Riza Aziz ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has had multiple restorations and reedits of a controversy section that appears to violate BLP policy.
See diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Riza_Aziz&diff=592796737&oldid=592640199 and many others.
The material which is continuously being replaced is sourced poorly or not at all, is conjecture/original research, and is shaded. In addition, to the extent it is sourced, it uses non-credibly blogs, one of which is is the subject of news reports saying that attorneys for the subject have sent a demand letter for retraction. See: Deadline.com Letter to Sarawak Report
Notable is that no other sources carry these same claims. I have attempted to negotiate edits in this article, which the editor ignores, and made a RfC as well. But the continued editing is so defamatory that I believe it goes here. Thank you. Versaedit ( talk) 21:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Someone keeps REPEATEDLY inserting a birthdate of Jan. 10 1990 for this actress, which is inaccurate.
--One of the links they use as a reference ( https://twitter.com/siobhanw_/status/421523659916734465 ) is no longer valid.
And the other article they source ( http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/08/10/hell-on-wheels-season-3-premiere-anson-mount/) contains inaccurate, unverified information. This is not the actress' correct age. This birthdate in fact is contradicted in this article: ( http://www.calgarysun.com/2011/09/16/page-6---young-calgary-actress-landing-the-roles) According to this, she is 22 now.
IN CONCLUSION: as the articles all contradict one another, this actress' age is unavailable and unknown to the general public and thus should be prohibited from being uploaded onto the information page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siobhanwilliams ( talk • contribs) 04:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Since the information was inadequately sourced, I removed the dates. If an accurate source comes along, we can add it back later. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 05:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
(copied from the article's talk page)
I have removed the subject's birthday per WP:BLPPRIVACY and per WP:V and per common sense. Tiller54 claims that this dead twitter link is a reliable source as to the subject's DOB. I disagree. Furthermore he is using this article from entertainment weekly verifies the DOB, when in fact the article talks about a 23-year old actress, and this age is attributed to Anson Mount, an actor on the show. Hardly a reliable source. If this is not enough, this request on the BLP/N board, (presumably from the subject herself) complaining about the DOB being in the article. I can't verify if that is Williams, but it doesn't matter. Someone doesn't want this information in the article, and since we can't verify it from a reliable source, we keep it out of the article until a RS can be found to add it back in. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 17:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Wholesale deletion of a long-standing section 'Career' is wrong. The previous section relied on the person's own blog which was unsourced and had clear differences with other material. The revised one was sourced using primary inline sources; the only contentious part was use of a secondary source pippabartolotti.info, which could be rectified if necessary by referring to its primary sources. In any case this is preferable to relying on the person's own blog (as Ref. 1). Without any Career section - and no Early-personal-life as is common - the biography is denuded of significant content.
As the wholesale deletion is just negative, I'm asking for a discussion on how and what can be restored. Max Wallis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxwallis ( talk • contribs) 09:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
As of 2nd February, no editor is ready to defend the wholesale deletion of the "career' section of a well-referenced biography. Do I presume it was done by a Wales section editor who doesn't watch this page? comment added by Maxwallis ( talk • contribs) 11.42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Zelinski
This article is a violation of NPOV and V.
Elizabeth Zelinski wrote this article:. "...these findings translate across MY comprehensive longitudinal study of aging (the Long Beach Longitudinal Study) and a nationally representative sample of older adults." As with all autobiographical accounts, there is definitely a bias in the information reported.
Page 395 of the book, Everyday Cognition in Adulthood and Late Life, edited by Leonard W. Poon et. al, has the following chart:
Table 22.2. Some examples of metamemory questionnaires that were designed for, or have been applied to, life-span developmental issues:
Questionnaire |Documentation 1. Memory Questionnaire (MQ)| Perlmutter (1978) 2. Memory Functioning Questionnaire (MFQ) |Gilewski et al. (1983); Zelinski, Gilewski, et al. (1980) 3. Subjective Memory Questionnaire (SMQ) |Bennet-Levy & Powell (1980) 4. Short Inventory of Memory Experiences (SIME) |Chaffin & Herrmann (1983); Herrmann (1984) 5. Metamemory in Adulthood (MIA) |Dixon & Hultsch (1983a, 1983b, 1984); Hertzog et al. (1985)
It is Ms. Zelinski's own opinion that she was "the first to develop a comprehensive standardized questionnaire of self-reported memory to determine whether people's beliefs about their memory are echoed in their objective performance." The SMQ, in wide use today, was developed at the same time as the MFQ, and the MQ was developed two years before those. I also think her colleagues would disagree that she, and she alone, was the first to develop the questionnaire.
If the only thing notable about Ms. Zelinski is her part in developing the MFQ, should not the other colleagues also have their own respective pages? Or should the MFQ not have its own page? It's my opinion that neither Ms. Zelinski or her colleagues are notable enough for an encylopedia entry here. Information on the MFQ, MQ, SMQ, SIME, and MIA might need a page, or could be merged into any one of numerous articles on memory and recollection.
http://books.google.com/books?id=seKqGhnkSg0C&pg=PA395&lpg=PA395&dq=%22Memory+Functioning+Questionnaire%22+vs+%22subjective+memory+questionnaire%22&source=bl&ots=yUSgLXy7Wy&sig=UrVoi4O6vnBN9NeJuj_h2PTcnWs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VdvqUpu8F8OayQGLoYHwBA&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22Memory%20Functioning%20Questionnaire%22%20vs%20%22subjective%20memory%20questionnaire%22&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.37.71.96 ( talk) 23:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I am writing regarding a user Pokey5945 repeatedly violating Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons policy. A look at their Talk page shows this is not the first complaint they've gotten for exactly the same behavior on other pages.
In the section titled New Haven Black Panther Trial, they have cobbled together a variety of historically discredited information in a concerted effort to defame Ericka Huggins. In particular they seem determined to claim Huggins participated in the torture of a young man--which is simply not true. She was not charged with this crime, she was acquitted of the crime she was accused of, and Pokey5945's determination to imply otherwise is not a neutral point of view, is not verifiable and is extremely damaging to Huggins, a college professor.
Additionally, since they have repeatedly undone any attempts to add additional facts to it feels like this is part of a concerted campaign on their part. There have been complaints by others that Pokey5945 has manipulated other pages in a similar way as well--please review their Talk page. I would like to know at what point a user gets blocked from a page. Even aside from the damage being done to Ericka Huggins, one user should not have the right to block the development of a page, and undo additions of historically relevant material that is backed by verifiable facts, not hearsay & contrived evidence.
Please let me know what can be done about this. Thank you for your time. Politigrafica ( talk) 02:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Politigrafica
In December, the office of Kevin Ranker ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) made some requests on the talk page. These have not been actioned. Could some kind soul please pop along and have a look, and either action them or explain why not? Any decently thoughtful response will be appreciated. Thanks Guy ( Help!) 10:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Francesca Capaldi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a minor about 9 years old. Her birth date was added to her article using messages from two different verified twitter accounts of her co-workers on a TV series as references. The info added is most likely correct. Her official show bio posted on a Disney site [1] does not release that info. I removed the info from the article per my understanding of WP:BLPPRIVACY which states that this type of info requires "sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object". The twitter account, while verified, are from other people and as self-published sources are reliable for info about themselves, not others. On the other hand, the existence of those twitter postings should reasonably be known to the guardians of this minor and the fact that they are still there may lead to the inference that they do not object to releasing the birth info. This is a marginal call and I would like some input from others. Geraldo Perez ( talk) 14:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Is now being used as a coatrack about Larry Craig introducing speculation not made in the film, and weakly sourced as well. [2] It is not claimed to be related to the film proper, and is simply an example of a WP:BLP violation as being a contentious claim made about a living person here. The edit summary Frank discusses this as part of the hypocrisy) does not allow a claim of fact to be made without a strong reliable source for the claim of fact. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 23:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Steve Stockman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I've removed a lot of content from this BLP that was cited only to Stockman's press releases and that was generally non-neutral in tone. [3] These changes were reverted. I would appreciate input from experienced editors. GabrielF ( talk) 04:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
A few eyes on this one just in case - it came in through OTRS and I just fired up the chainsaw to remove a lot of synthesis and primary sources. § FreeRangeFrog croak 15:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
After a long period of relative peace, this page has been repeatedly edited by anonymous IP addresses and suspected sockpuppets, often in an effort to expand the "controversies" section with ad hominem and unsourced attacks. In the latest round, an editor has disclosed my home address in an effort to discredit my efforts to keep things encyclopedic. It's been a tedious exercise at best.
The subject of the page is controversial in local politics, and deserves due consideration against libelous and slanderous edits.
Edward Vielmetti ( talk) 20:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Please see [4]. Thx. 88.104.24.150 ( talk) 23:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Kyle Chapman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Someone who may be the subject periodically edits this in what I see as a significantly POV manner. I've already reverted them once and could be perceived as having a vested interest, so I'd like someone else to take a look. Stuartyeates ( talk) 08:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
An unusual situation here, for a man who is alleged to be both dead and living. I removed the following from this article:
"Since then
Vice has looked into the death turning up an active
PO Box in Tim Dog's name, and a phone call made to a number of his where it was assumed he answered, the following day the phone had been disconnected.
[1]"
"Turning up an active PO Box" seems misleading, as the article says: "...there is still an active PO Box in Tim Dog's name". The differences may be subtle, but I feel they're important. The former sounds like he's using this PO Box, while the latter doesn't imply as much; after all, a dead man can't cancel his PO Box. Much worse is the "phone call" issue. The Vice article says: "Somebody called his phone and he answered". Yet the source they use for this claim is a link to a You Tube video. The video is an audio-only excerpt from "Conspiracy Worldwide Radio". There is no way of knowing who the person who answered the phone is or what number was dialed. Furthermore, the voice on the video emphatically states: "We're not at all, in any way, insinuating that Tim Dog is alive". Finally, the sentence: "Somebody called his phone and he answered", is not a statement of fact by the article's author, but rather a quote from a man named "
J-Zone". Some will no doubt argue "V not T" and "if the source uses it, so can we". I would contest this; if our source is using an obviously shoddy source of its own, then we should look for another source, especially when possible
WP:BLP issues are a concern.
I would also like to ask for clarification as to whether we should presume this man to be living. It's a very odd case; his death was reported by reliable sources, but all of them were using a single obituary from a very questionable source, that has since been taken down. On the other hand, presuming him to be living would seem to presume him guilty of the alleged offense of faking his own death; a strange way to violate WP:BLP. Whatever the case, we should make a decision, as the article currently begins: "...Tim Dog was...", while listing him as 46 years old in the info box. Joefromrandb ( talk) 04:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
At Tofy Mussivand ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) a pov editor continually edits stating that the subject is Kurdish, which is unsourced. He's pov editing across a number of articles, changing names, quotations, etc and doesn't respond to talk page notices. Dougweller ( talk) 21:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
The subject seems to still lack notability after being marked in November 2013. Phrasing of the article makes it seem pretty clear that the subject is the author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.253.76 ( talk) 23:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Please consider participating at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Those_Woody_Allen_allegations.2C_again, a discussion centering on BLP issues. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 21:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Concern that this has been largely written by the subject or other COI accounts. Mostly supported by primary sources, with lengthy descriptions of subject's views, publications, etc. Further concerns that editor is self-citing in multiple articles; he may be an authority on the subject, but this sort of copious self-referencing is nearly always problematic. JNW ( talk) 15:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing defamatory in this page, however I would like the heading to be changed to reflect my proper name, which is Daniel Landin, not Dan Landin.
Please can you alter the heading for accuracy?
Many Thanks
Daniel Landin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.25.81 ( talk) 18:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Currently only a redirect, it can be regarded as highly controversial to redirect to the accused instead of to her mother. Related discussions ongoing at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Those_Woody_Allen_allegations.2C_again, Talk:Woody_Allen#The_Open_Letter_From_Dylan_Farrow.2C_as_fact.2C_was_removed, and above. Suggestions? -- Trofobi ( talk) 19:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I recently edited Joseph Hall to include a link to Murder of Jeff Hall. I'd appreciate other eyes on this change, given the sensitivity. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 23:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Irving Kirsch ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There should be an addition. Prof Kirsch also says that for mild anxiety and depression the herbal remedy St.John's Worth is proven to be a useful as any anti- depressants, with very small side-effects indeed. Obviously that is not good news for Big Pharma- who are trying to have this herbal remedy listed as a medicine- so they can exploit it better
best regards annegret odwyer
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dear Editors,
This is a complaint concerning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Bahadur_Bomjon Some time ago there was an attempt of authors/editors of this biography entry about Ram Bomjon to use it as a means of libel of my person, who am mentioned in the article as one of his victims, the Slovak woman (former versions) and now, as Marici.
Last time it was a sentence where the author cited the public justification of Bomjon (the biography entry's subject), that he had kidnapped, tortured and let raped me because of "witchcraft". So after my complaint to Wikipedia, this sentence had been taken away.
Recently but a hidden manipulative attempt appeared again, when, though a new paragraph appeared about my person under the Controversies chapter, which is much more accurate, yet the link to my website provided there was directing not to the Home Page of my website, but to a long article about the attempt of this cult to create a public opinion that I am supposed to be schizophrenic, mentally disturbed, etc.
Unwisely I myself had named that single article "Is Marici schizophrenic..?", not knowing that someone will misuse this title to manipulate with public opinion about me by adding a link to this single article on Wikipedia, avoiding the link to the more relevant Home Page, from where the readers could learn also about the more important facts : criminal acts, the other victims, names of perpetrators and witnesses, media articles,etc. Only a few people did read the whole article, where I am explaining how this cult tried to "make me crazy" in the public eye. Most people, most probably, just absorb the content of the title.
I have written to Wikipedia with a request to correct this problem, and replace the link with the more relevant link to the Home Page of my website, but finally I decided to correct it myself. To prevent similar misuse of links to my website, I took the liberty to add a short sentence mentioning my website in the other language versions, as there I am giving an overview of all known controversies connected to Bomjon, not just my case. Also a more relevant link (than an article about my alleged mental problem) would be an overview about the media articles dealing with Bomjon. People should know about the background activities of this person. But, being an officially declared "enemy" of this Guru and his cult, I don't want to advertise my own website in this article, which should remain neutral. Yet, when the authors and editors breach the neutrality of the article by using it against me, I wish to correct the biased information and manipulation with links provided by them.
But I was unable to correct this link on the References chapter, as it had been blocked for new links and also repairs. That's why I am writing here, with the request to replace the link to the single article mentioning schizophrenia, with the link to the Home Page of my website.
Also, after repeated attempts of the followers of Bomjon to use Wikipedia as a weapon of their libel-war against me, I am requesting the board of editors and anyone responsible for the standard of Wikipedia, to make sure that similar biased updates, harming individuals connected to the biography subject, do not happen anymore in the future.
Thank you, Marici Punarvasu Zs. Takacs 2/5/2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marici Punarvasu ( talk • contribs) 05:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I am the subject of this entry.
I simply wanted to offer the mention of a book published since this entry was compiled:
Out of Print: Newspapers, Journalism and the Business of News in the Digital Age by George Brock (published in 2013 by Kogan Page)
Thank you for your attention
George Brock — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.40.68.46 ( talk) 14:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
The Daily Mail was recently discussed at RSN and was roundly (but not unanimously) trashed as a reliable source. On this BLP article, another user wishes to use this article to source "He lived in Glasgow for the first eight years of his life", "Barrowman recalls his family as loving, but strict and mindful of etiquette: always polite and respectful towards others." and "Comparing the two countries where he was raised, Barrowman concludes: "Scotland gave us, as a family, closeness; America gave us the get-up-and-go." The other editor (I think) acknowledges that this is an unreliable source, but sees it as a case of WP:SELFSOURCE. My own view (I had to remove a whole lot of much worse sludge sourced to even worse publications than the Mail, and warn the user when they restored the bad sources, so I think they are kind of sore at me) is that, while these are not the worst things to say about someone, we should probably try to find better sources for them or leave them out. I believe that using SELFSOURCE as an end-run around WP:BLPSOURCES like this is a little disingenuous; if a source is unreliable for BLPs because of its reputation for poor fact-checking, then we should probably not be using it at all. Does this article need to be revised? Does WP:SELFSOURCE need to be clarified? Do we need a proper RfC on blacklisting the Mail for BLPs? Could we compromise and say something like "According to a 2008 interview published in the Daily Mail..." What do you think? -- John ( talk) 14:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
If I may, let's be clear about something: The Daily Mail is not a reliable source for sensationalist claims, medical advice, or for saying that a obscure controversy happened (there's been articles where it's taken a minor incident and inflated it up to a huge scandal; one I remember is the "Baa, baa rainbow sheep" incident, where, apparently, a teacher was trying to teach children colours using the song, and the Daily Mail reinterpreted it as "Political correctness gone mad! Can't call sheep black!"). Like most newspapers, it also uncritically republishes a lot of press releases. However, that is not at all the same thing as saying "if someone is interviewed in the Daily Mail, the interview should be ignored. Newspapers are a source that have limits. Some newspapers we'll want to put firmer limits on than others. But an uncontroversial interview? That's well within the zone of competence. "Reliable Source" is not a binary state. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 12:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Been considering where is best to draw attention to what I would call mostly a quality issue and also an issue where care needs to be taken, and that would benefit from oversight from neutral parties who television programme. He was asked about his views on homophobia, and the interviewer Brendan_O'Connor_(media_personality) pressed him to specifically name people he considered homophobic. O'Neill named John Waters (columnist) as well Breda O'Brien and conservative Catholic group The Iona Institute. This resulted in legal threats, and RTE removed the interview from their website and issued an apology.
Details of this Panti#RT.C3.89_Censorship_Controversy issue, have been added at length to the articles Panti, John Waters (columnist), and Breda O'Brien. A significant proportion of this has been added by one user Special:Contributions/Tbrambo, to all three articles. Tbrambo has a pretty clear agenda, not that particularly disagree with it but the quality could be a lot better and care and better sourcing is needed, I'd politely call it overenthusiasm. The writing is very conclusive understand how Wikipedia works and can take due care to head off any legal issues in advance. I'll try to summarize.
An Irish drag queen and businessperson Panti/Rory O'Neill was interviewed on a Saturday night for what is a fairly contentious issue, not as encyclopedic as perhaps it should be.
The biography on Panti could do with improvement* but the controversy is very relevant to that page and almost certainly belongs there [* The article has a "Trivia" section, relevant information poorly presented]. I'm editing from Ireland and I'm not sure I can be properly objective, and not get sucked into the article that needs careful monitoring. I only wanted to make a few edits to improve the quality but Tbrambo is acting like he owns the article rejecting an edit that turned a link into a properly formatted citation and named reference and then reusing it to bolster points made elsewhere in the article (and it was only restoring and fixing an earlier edit anyhow). (There was also poorly backed up hyperbole in the article, which isn't quite so glaring after adding a named reference to one the articles already referenced).
John Waters (columnist) is a newspaper columnist, it almost goes without saying that he is controversial at times, and aside from being verbose and a little presumptive it seems appropriate for the controversy to be conversed on his page. Legal types might want to monitor the page to make sure the wording is suitably careful. There appears to be substantial repetition from the Panti article, this is mostly a quality issue.
The article on Breda O'Brien also has a section on the controversy, there appears to be substantial repetition from the Panti article. The controversy is given nearly as much coverage as everything else in the article, it seems like undue emphasis, and brevity and a more cautious wording is what I'd suggest.
So maybe someone experience Wikipedia editors will look at it, maybe fix up the references with the fancy editing tools you have, and maybe keep an eye on the articles to make sure they do not overstate their case and risk legal issues. It think it is a storm in a teacup and I don't want to get sucked any further into it but there is need for improvement and oversight. -- 109.78.153.72 ( talk) 02:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
The controversy, which is the entire purpose of the article, is that individuals who promote discrimination against homosexuals in Ireland were able to exploit Irelands anti-defamation laws in order to censor Rory O'Neill and get a cash settlement from RTÉ. THAT is the controversy!!! So please DO NOT change the article to read otherwise!!!!!!!. shows precisely why WP:BLP does apply and must apply. Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs, or to show how evil a person is. This is an encyclopedia with specific policies to prevent that sort of view from being used in articles. BTW, the Iona Institute article mentions specific living persons and thus is subject to the policy in any event. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 17:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
George Foulkes, Baron Foulkes of Cumnock ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm no fan of George Foulkes but someone keeps adding in unsourced, unverified and potentially defamatory paragraphs to his page. The editor in question obviously does not want the UK to be in the EU and is taking out his frustration by adding his biased opinions to this article. The edits in question can be seen below, they are the last sentences in the Controversies and introduction sections respectively.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=George_Foulkes,_Baron_Foulkes_of_Cumnock&oldid=594050511
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=George_Foulkes,_Baron_Foulkes_of_Cumnock&oldid=594050434 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohehken ( talk • contribs) 18:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Emanuele Michetti ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Emanuele Michetti's wikipedia page was written by himself. His editing name is "userdobby." He is not a notable figure in film and as I understand it, a biography must be neutral. It is an unreliable and prohibited page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.225.146 ( talk) 19:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article "Linda Moore Forbes" is no longer correct. She now goes by just Linda Forbes (post divorce).
Source: Her professional bio, Linkedin and her bio on her place of employment, Technet.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Latetofool ( talk • contribs) 22:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Hebah Alhazza a passionit and creative inventor Kuwaiti woman born in Kuwait in 1982, the eldest daughter of Abdullah Alhazza has three sisters Haya, Hessa, Rawwa and one Brother. currently Hebah Works in the Kuwait Investment Authority while creating exiting card games that would be published soon in 2014.
Dear Author of this article "Shiv Nadar"
Kindly note that the below last 3 paragraphs are repeated twice.
Please remove them.
Thanks & Regards, Logesh E — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.178.65.195 ( talk) 18:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I just pared down the section "controversy," at Carla Howe ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but the cites still seem a little weak compared to the claims being made about third party living people. Additional eyes would be welcomed. VQuakr ( talk) 23:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Please review this AfD. This is a BLP issue because of the context. The profanity and f-bombs are particularly inappropriate and I request that they be reviewed for revision deletion. Thank you, Unscintillating ( talk) 03:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Please review Prince Charles Alexander ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and remove the maintenance tags if warranted. The gentleman in question is puzzled. Thanks. Guy ( Help!) 00:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Please review JaLynn Prince ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and remove maintenance tags if you believe they are no longer warranted. Thanks. Guy ( Help!) 00:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Justin Bieber who has had a large share of tabloid articles, now has the full tabloid treatment in his BLP, with every minor article from the past year now SYNTHed into a "Legal troubles" section making up 2/3 pf his entire "personal life" and including his mug shot, even where the incident did not directly involve anything on his part. Eyes and keyboards please examine that BLP - I durst not get too involved there as some appear to regard de-Bieberisation as their one true calling. Collect ( talk) 13:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
The "toxicology report" from his DUI arrest has now been repeatedly added to the BLP. Are such reports of encyclopedic value in a BLP? Collect ( talk) 13:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Now an editor seems to think the "petition to deport" is worth 1600 characters in the BLP ... AFAICT, the White House has not the authority to deport, making the "petition" a bit of a sideshow. Collect ( talk) 14:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Nope -- BLP discussions are properly placed on this noticeboard, and I deleted your copying of this page to the article talk page -- such "moves" are improper and can be misleading as the timestamps do not correspond to timestamps on the article talk page. Please simply use the concept that BLP discussions are properly held here. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 00:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I would just like to point out that US Lawmakers are getting involved in the petition: [7] [8] So it's notability might not be as questionable now. The petition now has just under 250,000 signatures. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 06:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Like I stated in the talk page; this argument is getting really ridiculous. As far as I can see the only reason people have to not include this event in his article is because WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Correct me if I am wrong. This petition has significant coverage (including just about every new company such as CNN, USA Today, NY Daily, Forbes, Bloomberg, Fox, Time, ABC, and countless more you can easily verify yourself). In fact the petition has gained support from Sen. Mark Warner (sarcastic or not is simply speculation).
The petition has been the subject of debate on the legality of deporting him based on his past criminal record (refs [9] [10] [11]) or whether his O-1 visa could be revoked (refs [12]). His petition has also taken a spin into the immigration debate with various news outlets suggesting bieber is a new face of immigration ( [13]). I fail to see why is there an argument in the first place. -- CyberXRef ☎ 02:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
If people here have time and the desire to re-engage in the debate over legal issues and polls at the Justin Bieber article ....pls comment at Talk:Justin Bieber#RfC: Behaviour and legal issues Thank you for your time. -- Moxy ( talk) 04:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
In my aimless and time-wasting wanderings through Wikipedia, I sometimes come across articles about professional wrestlers, and never know quite what to make of them. For example, today I arrived at the article about Dean Malenko in which the voice of Wikipedia pronounces him as "lecherous". But are we supposed to treat these professional wrestlers as characters in a drama (in which case "lecherous" might be fine), or instead as real people (in which case "lecherous" might not be so fine)? In other words, are we really supposed to care about professional wrestlers? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 02:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I want to report some incorrect and defamatory information posted about me on my page:
Would appreciate if I could have this deleted and that correct information could be posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin Griffin ( talk • contribs) 11:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
"Presently he is the vice president and minister of education; his goals have been to bring El Salvador closer to the Chavez Social left as seen by his ties to FARC, ALBA, and Chavezism" is not cited. Because these alleged ties, factual or not, are to controversial organizations, it seems biased to see these on his page without sources ahead of a presidential election in which he will take part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.54.61 ( talk) 03:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Can somebody please help explain WP:BLP to this editor? He feels that, because the uncited information is not libellous, it is fine to keep on re-adding it. He has already been warned about edit warring by another admin, but he won't listen to me seeing as I keep removing the material. Giant Snowman 09:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Blacklight Power is a pseudoscience, free-energy provider with many claims that are far outside of the mainstream. These claims are rightly treated with great skepticism. However, that doesn't exclude it's founder - Randell Mills, from the protection of WP:BLP. In particular, the article uses the term "fraud" in the lede with very thin support. The citation traces back to a 15-year-old article that appeared in the Village Voice, and is sourced to an expert physicist, but not someone in a position to accurately judge the motivations of Mr. Mills nor to interpret the field of securities fraud. The use of the term has been actively defended at the page, in my view in violation of WP:BLP. If there were more recent evidence of fraud, or if the those leveling the charge were able to show a cause of action, such as an investor, then the use of would be appropriate. However, I'd appreciate it if someone not involved in this page could take a look. Thanks. Ronnotel ( talk) 15:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Isaias Afewerki ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article needs a look. Recently Erescholar ( talk · contribs) made a large edit to the page, during which Afewerki's last name was changed to "Afwerki". I don't know enough about this person to know if this is the true spelling or not. -- Auric talk 17:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Rita Grosse-Ruyken ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
what is the exact problem with this articel and how can we solve the problem? Please be so kind to help us. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rita Grosse-Ruyken ( talk • contribs) 11:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Jasmine Campbell ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There are three birthdates and multiple Wiki entries for Jasmin Campbell of the Virgin Islands (March 26, August 11, November 8). Which one is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.58.2.173 ( talk) 20:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
My name is Jeff Nelson. I have to open a BLP complaint regarding Chrome_OS#History and its accompanying talk page as it pertains to my previous work on the earliest revisions of Chrome OS and a patent filed by my former employer, Google, in 2009. I have to strenuously object to the tabloid tone of this section, the fact it quotes several unreliable sources, imports a dispute from outside wikipedia, and self-references the dispute as if it was a source for the article.
On Feb 13, 2013, an Internet user posted various allegations in a G+ comment regarding his doubts about my work, in which he clearly states "I truly don't know". But that did not stop this Internet user from making what appear to be extraordinary efforts to spread his uninformed opinion, proceeding to post on several blogs, lookup references to my name anywhere on the Internet, talked to a journalist, and finally imported the dispute to wikipedia.
This gentelman has a large social media following, many of whom added their own snarky comments, like "I don't know who this guy is." Some of those comments are also imported into the wikipedia article. I would suggest snarky statements also do not rise to the level of being considered reliable sources.
To their credit, Google immediately stepped in and told the employees involved to stop posting, less than 24 hours later.
I have asked Google to release a history of my work and the patent to clear up the matter.
Until that happens, I would suggest what is beyond dispute is this:
Google filed a patent titled "Network Based Operating System Across Devices" in March 2009, listing the inventor as Jeff Nelson.
A patent, written by Google's legal team in 2007, filed in 2009, at great expense, and now in the public record of the US Patent and Trademark Office is the most concrete and indisputable source, certainly far more reliable than a G+ post written in 5 minutes, at no cost, by a guy who stated he didn't know what he's talking about.
I would suggest one potential fix for the BLP is to replace the entire BLP paragraph with that one sentence and replace the unreliable sources and imported dispute with a reference to the patent, until Google releases a more complete and official history of my work and the patent. I don't have to tell you that it's entirely inappropriate any of the statements were written on various blogs or imported into wikipedia. My past career is not a subject for speculation or tabloid journalism, and the events of February 13, 2013 should not have happened. Wikipedia is acting as a repository for totally unfounded, potentially harmful statements about my career and past accomplishments.
So as to prevent further damage, I am going to temporarily apply the BLP fix I have outlined above and delete the Talk discussion as it pertains to my work, as well. Provided there is some other resolution, or more information emerges from Google, the fix can be amended at a later point. Chromemagnon07 ( talk) 01:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Mufaddal Saifuddin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article on Muffadal_Saifuddin is written by biased elements. There is a severe crisis in the dawoodi bohra community regarding succession issue of the Claimant of 53rd Da'i al-Mutlaq of the Dawoodi Bohras . Muffadal is just one of the claimant to this title and there are various legal issues in court to decide the succession issue. The other claimant is Khuzaima_Qutbuddin who has furnished written proof of succession as the 53rd Da'i al-Mutlaq of the Dawoodi Bohras. The only proof which Muffadal has is a video on the supposed succession where the 52th leader was in comatose state of stroke. He was just made to sit in front of Muffadal to show the succession.
Hence the article and its infobox should reflect Muffadal as a Claimant of 53rd Da'i al-Mutlaq and not appointed one as there are legal battles going for the succession. Khuzaima_Qutbuddin also is listed as the claimant in the infobox — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.10.224.242 ( talk) 07:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I call the attention of the Wikipedia community to the article on Alice Walker. An inordinate amount of the article is devoted to accusations of antisemitism and her support of David Icke, without noting that some readers see Icke's work as satire, and that Icke includes Christians and other religious denominations as part of his conspiracy theories as well.
While much attention has been devoted to Walker's activist efforts in support of Palestinians, no attention is paid to the controversies that erupted after the release of the film The Color Purple concerning Walker's depiction of Black men, nor after the release of Possessing the Secret of Joy concerning Walker's condemnation of genital mutilation. Both of these issues are explored in the film Alice Walker: Beauty in Truth, which aired on PBS American Masters on Friday, 7 February 2014.
Although certainly Walker is an activist, more attention is devoted to her political activity than to her writing or her personal history. It is her writing that is Walker's primary achievement. I am not experienced as a Wikipedia editor, therefore do not dare to edit the article. I hope someone does. As the article stands, it is hardly neutral and not representative. It appears to be accusatory. The article on Icke himself is much more nuanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightink ( talk • contribs) 18:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Kristi Lauren wikipedia page has biased and false information that must be removed immediately. Paragraph two, which begins with "Lauren began...", has bias information written in paretheses. Please remove. Paragraph three, which begins with "From 2011-12", has false information about negative reactions and vandalism. Please remove that as well. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garnetsun ( talk • contribs) 19:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Article is too short and not enough info is there. Only one link. No last name. Must be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okjaekim ( talk • contribs) 21:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Keep an eye on this page. Questionable IP edits after an incident in a game last night. The Moose is loose! 17:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I have a problem with OTRS ticket:2014020610005258 which is going to need some sensitive handling due to the kinds of enemies the subject has made, the things for which the subject is known, and our systemic bias towards liberal values (don't ever change that). I am not looking for an off-wiki conspiracy but I need to discuss the background privately with a few people in order to be able to frame matters correctly here without violating confidentiality or attracting adverse publicity. The subject is a controversial figure but seems to me to have a genuine concern that we should address. Please email me if you are interested in helping me think this through. Guy ( Help!) 21:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Kermit Roosevelt III ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article appears to conflate Kermit Roosevelt III and Kermit Roosevelt IV. Teddy would not be pleased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tem42 ( talk • contribs) 15:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? Teddy would be delighted that his family is still causing trouble. Anyway, the talk page contains this message from the UPenn Professor named Kermit Roosevelt:
“ | Hope this doesn't make things harder for you ... probably something I should have mentioned before. We've done a very bad job keeping the numerals straight. When my great-grandfather died, my grandfather, who'd been Kermit Roosevelt Jr. started calling himself Kermit Roosevelt Sr. That made sense, I suppose, on the theory that he was now the elder living Kermit. So my father was called Kermit Roosevelt Jr. for, I think, almost his whole life. I was born while my grandfather was still alive and was called Kermit Roosevelt III. When my grandfather died, my father told me that he was dropping the Jr. and suggested that I could take it up if I wanted. I said that was the craziest thing I'd ever heard of, because I had enough trouble being confused with him already and had used Kermit Roosevelt III in all of my legal documents (passport, driver's license, bar admission, etc.). I also publish my law review articles as III, but I thought it would look wildly pretentious on a book jacket, so I left it off. | ” |
— Kermit Roosevelt Assistant Professor University of Pennsylvania Law School 3400 Chestnut Street Philadelphia PA 19104 |
And from a later email:
“ | No one but me has ever been called Kermit III, and I've never been called Kermit IV, although I am definitely the fourth Kermit. Both my father and my grandfather have been Kermit Jr., and if my father takes the Sr., then he and my grandfather (and I think my great-grandfather) will have shared that. | ” |
All completely unreliable, but still.... Anythingyouwant ( talk) 02:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
1. President Theodore Roosevelt openly outright DESPISED being called "Teddy"- referring to him as such is essentially dishonoring him.
2. Per WP:SUFFIX, "IV" is his true suffix. Calling him "III" would be a suffix misuse and would be basically like disregarding the existence if one of the previous Kermits. Discounting them would be a dishonor. 174.254.176.242 ( talk) 05:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Apologies to IP 174.254.176.242 for what TR called the "outrageous impertinence" of calling him "Teddy". At least I'm in very plentiful company. :-) Anythingyouwant ( talk) 13:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
There should be a section that covers a politicians voting record when they are in office or running for office atleast.
Also I don't see how it's defamatory to Jeff Gorell to say McGeorge is ranked #124 by U.S. News when Wikipedia has McGeorge Law School ranked #168th.
The truth and facts should matter to Wikipedia. I had the same problem when I changed Elton Gallegly's Wikipedia to the truth. Good Day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.149.172 ( talk) 06:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
The article Oliver James (psychologist) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a mess: it's peppered with primary source links to YouTube and lacks credible independent sources. It's also been a target for defamatory vandalism ( OTRS Ticket:2014021010007122. I guess the subject probably is notable, but the tone makes it look as if the opposite is true. Would someone please have a look at it for me? Thanks. Guy ( Help!) 21:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Concerns about article. relies heavily on subject's own writing, predominantly sources blog posts by subject posted on OII website he administers, edits and publishes. I have asked sole editor, Nsw2042, about possible WP:COI or WP:SELFPROMOTE by asking whether he is the subject of the BLP. Have received no reply. I would question subject's notability for a BLP as substantial as this. Note this editor has done extensive re-writes of a number of articles linked to this BLP's area of activism. My concern is that some templates placed (such as WP:OR & WP:SPS have been reverted without being addressed, and I am not interested in an edit war with sole-editor. Suggest this BLP needs eyes on it, as may do other articles connected with this editor in this area. - MishMich - Talk - 23:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Mark_Miller claims that it is prohibited to claim a Wikipedian lied and has removed [ [19]] such accusations, claiming [ [20]] that BLP demands such removal immediately and without discussion, even though I pointed out [ [21]] that BLP contains exceptions for "related to making content choices" and "to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community". Immediately and without discussion deleting any statement that someone has lied would make many discussions impossible, and would even prohibit arbcom decisions from being made public. Ken Arromdee ( talk) 09:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. [7] This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. [8]
This has to be the worst written article I have every come across, I wouldn't even know where to start editing it. It is rife with run-on, fragmented and nonsensical sentences. For example "Whereas her father, Thomas (born 1954),[51][52] is a Chicago-native[52][53] American with British-Irish origins,[2][17] the relatives of her mother Zarin (born 1961),[51][52] whose ancestry originates partly in Russia, are of Iranian[1][2][51][53] or else Persian[53] descent, for a change.[n. 1]" It's painful to read, please help. Thank you.
The Murder of Meredith Kercher article, which I have been editing, has a lede link to the article ' Amanda Knox'. The article ' Amanda Knox', which I have never edited, has as ref 13 (www.perugiamurderfile.org). It's an SPS, and a site that is dedicated to the idea that Knox is a murderer. The source is ref for text in the Amanda Knox article in Wikipedia's voice, which is insinuating that a living person has committed murder. My understanding is such material should be removed. I removed the link, which was put back in, and have made the point in talk that the Murder of Meredith Kercher article is a BLP in relation to Knox. I think the link should be removed, but I'm being told in the Murder of Meredith Kercher Talk by multiple editors (who are extremely familiar with the Amanda Knox article) that there is nothing wrong with the Amanda Knox article, and also even if there is, I have to fix the Amanda Knox article and must not alter the link to it. Is it true that I have to alter or even propose for deletion the article that is being linked to, rather than removing the link, if the link is to an article with BLP issues. See Talk here There is a lot of stuff in the Amanda Knox article which has BLP issues in my opinion, so it's not like one change would solve the problem posed by retaining a link to it. Overagainst ( talk) 19:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok, so you removed a {{ main}} template? What relevance does that have to removing the link to Knox on the Kercher murder page? The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Narayan Sai ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
"Asaram's son Narayan Sai declared absconder". Times of India. 11 November 2013. Retrieved 11 November 2013 Narayan Sai was never an absconding accused for all these days, until he was arrested. His status as absconder was changed on Thursday, when Gujarat high court quashed the non-bailable warrant issued against him by a Surat court after he was charged with rape. [23]
Please also, as part of this discussion, review the removal of this multiply reliably sourced content (IMHO) which should be included per WP:WELLKNOWN. This content has been removed multiple times by User:TheRedPenOfDoom as well as several IP editors, over the past 48 hours, and frankly I feel that the rationale presented by the registered editor, "allegations from a COI source cannot be presented in an NPOV manner" is not sound as the sources are major national media who are reporting statements made by police officials, with the prose in the article matching the sources. It is quite a stretch to call the police COI when they are merely doing their jobs, and the fact that thegovernment official made these statements is not in dispute. Roberticus ( talk) 16:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Kahlil Byrd ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello, Thank you for this work. I am the subject of this article and I am interested in addressing two issues.
1) As the former leader of Americans Elect, we took great care with how the organization was described--in both explanation of mission and in tone. Currently the description of Americans Elect reads:
"During the 2012 presidential election cycle, Americans Elect was a national organization that unsuccessfully sought to nominate and elect a third-party candidate for president[3] by attempting to put a bipartisan presidential ticket on the ballot in all 50 states.[4]"
This is factually inaccurate and has been pointed out to the those diligent and venerable editors of this page. By law, Americans Elect could not nominate a "Third Party Candidate" because the organization was not a "Third Party. As is cited, Americans Elect was 501(c)4 nominating process creating a third pathway for a bi-partisan ticket in the 2012 race. The third party label is language adopted by critics of the organization who attempt to argue the organization had an ideological agenda apart from the mission stated widely in public areas. Upon having this pointed out with sourcing an editor's response was "(People do illegal things all the time. We have a published news source specific to *this* situation (WP:RS always beats WP:SYNTH)
This is the justification used to hold to a factual inacuracy.
2) Those who have attempted to place a new professional position for the subject in this biography have been repeatedly rejected for no understandable reason. Not allowing this revision to take place gives a false impression about the current work of the subject. A personal note here, as a reformer--and specifically a professional builder of organizations throughout the political reform space--my job is not to be a permanent fixture of organizations, but to be a professional manager of organizations as they grow in size and scope. It appears that edits are being made to discredit this work because of time and tenure, yet those are not solid measure of performance and effectiveness. Further, published reports do not match the tonality that specific editors have taken with regard to this biography.
Paul Ramsay ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Content on page continuously refers to same sources; more varied citations needed.
Stevensommer ( talk) 22:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I need some help or direction with this BLP, please. Full disclosure: we are working on a website for her and are trying to correct a few errors on the biography. For starters, her date of birth. Her correct date of birth is August 29,1964. A previous representative tried to correct the errors but did not follow proper channels and wiki policies. Understandably, an editor had them banned. Please help or point me in the right direction. -- Csmgacct ( talk) 01:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
This is the biography of an academic who is almost absent from google scholar (but much of his work is in non-English languages). Much of the sourcing seems dubious to me (self-description, linkedin, etc.) and almost all of the hyperlinked references are to a local (Cairo) newspaper. There are two long sections which represent his quasi-political views, but much of his academic work seems quasi-political. Adding to the confusion, he's now retired, meaning most of his publications are pre-ubiquitous digital availability. Searching behind paywalls reveals a large body of work, including academic reviews of his books. I think what needs to happen to the article is the trimming of most of the 'A culture critic focused on intercultural studies' and 'Intervention in the Arab, Egyptian, and international debate about globalization and cultural hegemonism' sections and expansion of his list of works section to include references to book reviews of his books. Thoughts? Stuartyeates ( talk) 02:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
this article on living persons looks promotional and has no citation provided — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denzy ( talk • contribs) 10:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC) Also the article looks self written in terms of the usage of words "Just as his heroes the poet Arthur Rimbaud and the painter Paul Gauguin he went to Africa full of romantic ideas, but of course the harsh reality of the African city life is no picnic" Article covers content not relevant to the Living Person,
this requires serious review, complete re-look or deletion as the case maybe, even though I would not suggest the latter as the subject does have notability on google search results
The entire "Controversy" section of this article is written from a biased, non-neutral point of view. The author presents only one side of the controversy regarding Frank Turek's firing by Cisco. The article is, in effect, an attack on Cisco's actions and a contentious appeal in support of Frank Turek. It concludes with " A man was fired simply because of his personal political and religious beliefs—beliefs that are undoubtedly shared by thousands of your very large and diverse workforce." The author should be informed of the Wikipedia's NPOV and BLP principles and asked to delete or neutralize the "Controversy" section of the article. -- KellyArt ( Talk) 19:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I just blocked Dead Goldfish ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a disruptive single-purpose account fixated on belittling a small number of people, chief among whom is James McGibney ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I can't imagine why anybody would dislike Mr. McGibney... oh, well, perhaps I can, but that's no excuse. I would be astounded if the user did not evade the block, please ping me if this happens, and if anyone feels like wading through the mire of the article's history and beating it into some kind of shape, that'd be appreciated. Thanks. Guy ( Help!) 19:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Sam Shepard ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
wiki should include 1993 movie pelican brief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.211.98.102 ( talk) 21:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Given this WMF blog post, I've created Theodore Katsanevas. I will shortly ask one or other of our Greek colleagues to add the Greek-language references referred to in the blog post. No doubt it would be sensible for extra eyes to be watching the new article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Block evading sockpuppet Nil Einne ( talk) 15:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Wikipedia is supposed to take care with information about living people, and nephew Fabio and son Tonino are surviving relations of Ferruccio Lamborghini who died in 1993, as is his daughter Patrizia. But the following is taken from a letter to an online car group. "Wikipedia, the free on-line encyclopedia that anyone can edit, has articles about Ferrucio Lamborghini and Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A. that do these subjects justice. However there is a corner of Wikipedia called Wikipedia Reference Desk with its own "Search the archives" box that gets a surprising result. You see it if you type in "Ferraris rival" or "REALLY nice sports car" and see that in each case the first "hit" talks about a "Lamborgini" - yes, it is mispelled like that. A closer look shows the misspelling is endemic to the Desk, going back to 2008. Wikipedia is supposed to maintain reliably sourced information, and one need not look further than the badge on each of our cars to get the spelling right. It's LAMBORGHINI with an "H"! Incredibly, the rules enforced by Administrators of the Wikipedia Ref. Desk prevent the misspelling (which I feel is offensive to the Lamborghini family) being corrected or even questioned! Attempts to draw attention to the correct spelling have been abruptly deleted by them in order to leave the wrong spelling unchallenged." 84.209.89.214 ( talk) 23:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
|
WP:BLP applies everywhere, even in draft space, and Draft:Steve Clark seems to be an extreme example of why this is necessary. This article is purportedly about a man "Best known for foundering NPI Research Development Inc with more than 425 subsidiary domestic and international corporations", who supposedly owns "7,782 USA Patents in the combine fields of Mechanical, Electrical and Software Engineering" and "9,522 industrial publications in all disciplines of engineering, business and finance", and supposedly has a net worth of "(US $17.3) billion dollars"; and yet, not one of the purported sources for any of this checks out, and as far as I could find there aren't any. And then the page goes on with long sections about the subject's "Personal life" and "News Tabloid Scandals" including alleged personal financial details, child custody issues, and sexual abuse allegations, all of which (if not entirely fictional) involve other persons (including children), complete with copies of letters from lawyers.
As one can see from the edit history, this article was created in Wikipedia space in November 2013 (with very different content), then became the subject of numerous edits 11 days ago that have changed the content repeatedly. On February 7 another editor started Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sir Steven Clark PhD, primarily on the ground that the article was in the wrong edit space, but also noting that the sources don't support the content and suggesting it might be a hoax. Others have expressed similar concerns on the talk page. The article was finally moved to draft space today, but the contentious and unsupported content is still there. I placed some tags on the article to make these concerns clearer, [24] but another editor removed the tags, on the ground that the article is a "work in process". [25]
More leeway is appropriate in draft space, but there are limits. At this point, review and opinions from other editors would be helpful. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 04:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
The article Z Berg ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was at the wrong title for most of its life. It has three sources, all trivial, none independent. If anyone cares deeply about this article could they please add sources? Otherwise I will redirect it. Unsourced biographies are, as we all know, a minefield. Guy ( Help!) 10:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
If anyone has the time, Norman Carlson and Francis J. Mulhern could use a lot of work; both are listed at List of Roger W. Jones Award for Executive Leadership recipients. Thanks, – Connormah ( talk) 05:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Bartlett High School (Anchorage, Alaska) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There has been some content, highly detailed, on this article for quite a while regarding several sex scandals that occurred at the school. When I saw it, I removed it all, as I could not see a way to rewrite it. There were three teachers named by name that were discussed in detail, and only one of them ever got any time (and he was not convicted--he plead "nolo"). The other two were either not prosecuted at all or the case was dropped with no conviction. Additionally, the principal was implicated in some professional misconduct in regards to the handling of the case, again with no legal action taken against him.
Apparently, the state's statutory rape law was changed and according to the article, the new law was named after the teacher. All the references are paywalled. An IP has been reverting my removals and has not discussed it at all at the talk page. In fairness neither had I. That has been rectified. I would like someone with more BLP experience than I to take a look at it and give advice on how to proceed. If in fact the law became known by the teacher's name, use of that teacher's name may be appropriate, and some discussion of the events may be appropriate without names. I also feel the length of the section is quite WP:UNDUE, and the use of faculty names is also discouraged in school article guidelines. Not looking for sanctions for anyone, just some help. Thanks! John from Idegon ( talk) 16:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
The initial posting about the sex scandals years ago was short. Over time, it has become larger because many former students and teachers added details about the crime, the law being added, etc. The scandal actually started decades before the teachers were caught and affected far more people than the media ever reported. It doesn't violate any rule here. Two teachers are named - one had a law named after him, the other was convicted and sent to prison. It was front-page news for years. It's not a small thing to be swept under the rug, much less deleted wholesale from the entry. 97.124.238.87 ( talk) 18:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Also, the other teacher WAS convicted and went to prison for five years. The contention that the article names "other teachers who were convicted of nothing" is totally erroneous. A guilty plea is a conviction, period. 97.124.238.87 ( talk) 19:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Clearly you're not an attorney because pleading guilty is a conviction, period. If you google "Satch Carlson Law" you will find that it was the model for states nationwide which modified their own laws to reflect the protections that came out of that case. No offense, but you need to do actual research rather than make assumptions. You're in no position to decide that the size is "undue." It's disconcerting that someone is making such an effort to protect child predators by turning a blind eye to fact, case law and a well-annotated history. I'll take this up with someone with more authority. 75.166.131.134 ( talk) 22:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
This was originally reported to WP:EAR#Help, and while both NeilN and I have taken a rather quick run-through of the first article and removed some of the more egregious WP:NPOV issues, I think there are some significant BLP issues remaining that need a more careful touch to address. Specifically, in the first article, the Background section makes multiple statements, sourced mostly to prominent blogs like Salon and Huffington Post, attributing quotations to adverse parties in the lawsuits as fact (rather than allegations). I'm really not sure how to handle it at this point; I'm of a mind to just take an axe to the whole section, but I really don't think there'd be anything left, and given the coverage it's gotten, I don't think AfD is the right place for this.
As to the Bovrisse article, I've only taken a brief look at it, but it smacks of puffery on the same level as the first article. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 05:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Wanted to confirm an update is within the rules: A controversy section have been added to Stuart_Semple regarding a newspaper report of the individual not paying staff. It quotes the newspaper article. Is that ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onemorechris ( talk • contribs) 00:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
There are two more blog posts from one person on the subject. There is also a statement from him. would linking, would that be enough? If There is no controversy section, where is best to put this information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onemorechris ( talk • contribs) 16:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Substantial (rapper) is now weakly sourced was horrendously weakly sourced. I trimmed down a bit, but it still has a facebook link and no actually strong RS sources for much of anything. Is he even remotely notable? Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I was hoping someone could give some attention to a situation on this article Jack Edwards (sportscaster). There's been a slow motion edit war going back at least two months. Cliff note version, sportscaster criticized opposing player. Sportscaster was criticized for what he said. Sportscaster appologizes. One side thinks this is important to have in the article. The other thinks it's a minor incident unworthy of inclusion. Every few days it gets reverted from one version to the other. I am not neutral in this area, (Not real COI, just due to being a fan of one team). I won't add any other opinion except hopefully the article can be stabilized either in or out. thanks.-- Cube lurker ( talk) 15:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Being at work I don't really have time to look in to this, but following an ANI report (the situation got ugly with legal threats), I think it's prudent to have this noticeboard take a look at the Litchenberg article. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 16:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Newly accused/admitted murderers. Probably on the edge of WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME could use additional eyes as the story gets wider circulation. Gaijin42 ( talk) 17:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
History of creating unreferenced BLPs and adding unsourced information to articles. Multiple warnings by different editors to user's talk page, with no response from user.
I started two AFDs for unreferenced BLPs created by the user, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rory Thost and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Preis.
Would appreciate attention from editors here as well.
Thank you for your time,
— Cirt ( talk) 06:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I would like to bring to your attention a strange delate process which happened with the article of Achal Prabhala, a member of the Wikimedia Foundation advisory board: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Achal Prabhala (2nd nomination). My impression is that the discussion goes beyond the article and the notability of this person. I have met Prabhala at Wikimania and – working on African-related topics – I exchanged and discussed with him; I don't specifically like him, but I have worked on his article and from sources he seems defiantly notable. It would be healthy if someone else not linked to this person can check what has happened and if his article really does not meet the relevant requirements. thank you! -- Iopensa ( talk) 09:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Edits made over last week are biased and editor continuously undoes edits to remove bias. Also, sources to an opinion piece.